Wednesday, July 30, 2014

$30,000 Challenge Submission - There Is No Average Temperature

This submission is one that I received via the USPS.

This submission is from one Robert J. Sammon. It is, all total, about nine pages long, single space, so I am not going to type it all up for you. You will have to take my word for it until such a time as Mr. Sammon wishes to submit it via the blog. If he will send his submission electronically, I will update this post with it. Until then, you will have to take my word for it that this is what he has to say.

At this point I would love to give you a synopsis of his submission. The problem is that I am not sure what his submission is all about. I mean that sincerely. As far as I can tell, his submission consists of saying climate scientists don't understand what the scientific method is and, therefore, all of their work is invalid. He states, "the Scientific Method places a rather simple burden on the refuting of a theory: find one counter example and the theory is disproved." By his contention, if he can find even a single data point that does not conform with his definition of global warming, then the entire 'hypothesis' is incorrect and must be thrown out. I really can't figure out anything else, so I am going to go with that. I will address some specific comments as well.


I will spare you the wait. Mr Sammons did not do anything to disprove man made global warming. If his methodology was correct, it would be possible to prove that Earth  is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Moon landings are fake, Marilyn Monroe is still alive and hiding in Bermuda with John Kennedy and anything else you would like to prove.

Mr. Sammons begins his submission with a diatribe about the scientific method and gets nearly everything he says wrong. He states that he learned the scientific method in seventh grade. I would contend, based on his statements, that his understanding of the method has not progressed since then. Although the submission is nine pages long, there is actually very little after you filter out the diatribe. But, let's look at some of it, just to be sure.

First, he states the scientific method is a "method 97% of scientists seem to be unfamiliar with given that as best I can tell, it has never played a role in discussion about the man-made global warming hypothesis." So, Mr. Sammons has established the point that he thinks scientists don't understand the scientific method while he is an authoritative expert. Bad start.

Then, he discusses the issue of "consensus" in regards to the scientific method. While he is technically correct in saying a consensus is not a requirement for the scientific method, he omits the fact that part of the scientific method is repeatability. Any time one scientist discovers something, other scientists must be able to replicate the results, or it isn't valid. He not only leaves that out, but then equates climate science to "the dome over the world that holds the heavens back, the infinite abyss of the end of the oceans, and the revolution of the Sun around the Earth." To be clear, the consensus comes about because the experiments are done over and over with the same results; new findings are consistent with old findings; new discoveries explain previously discovered facts that were not understood; etc. Without the scientific method and repeatability, there would be no consensus. Scientists don't just agree on something because they feel like it, they must be convinced, just like anyone else. Mr. Sammons didn't discuss any of that.  Bad start, even worse continuation.

Next, "The most consistent fact about man-made global warming that is reported is that 97% of scientists believe it is true." False in a couple of way. It is actually 97% of climate scientists (the ones that know the most about the subject), not scientists in general. Also, you don't 'believe' in science. Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe that the Sun is star? Science is the study and understanding of the natural laws of nature. You either understand them and accept them, or you don't. We already know Mr. Sammons doesn't do either.

Wow! We haven't even gotten through one-page of his nine-page, single-spaced, typed submission. This is going to be a long one.

Oh, wait. He then equates consensus to the faith religious clerics have in their beliefs. Wow! Offended all of the scientists and clerics at once. Quite an accomplishment. Maybe, if he had bothered to talk to any of those clerics, he would have learned that faith is not based on the scientific method and does not depend on any 'consensus.' That is the nature of religion. I have learned that it is also the nature of deniers, but it is most certainly not the way of scientists. Please, do SOME homework.

At the bottom of the first page, he teases me with the hope that he might present some kind of scientific submission when he starts out, "But back to your unfortunately pompous challenge that is going to cost you $10,000. If you really understood the Scientific Method you would not have made the challenge in the way that you did." But, it was only a tease. He then went into his dislike of Obama and how Isaac Newton didn't have a 97% consensus.

Finally, he says something that approaches a submission, "The Scientific Method places a very serious burden of proof on the transition from hypotheses to theory. And unfortunately for you monetary challenge, the Scientific Method places a rather simple burden on the refuting of a theory: find one counter example and the theory is disproved. I am quite certain that I will never see your $10,000 - such is the fate of unserious challenges. But to disprove man-made global warming theory scientifically, through the use of the Scientific Method, is a trivial exercise." (It is true he will never see my $10,000, but its because his submission is quite silly.)

OK. There it is. You would think, if it is such a 'trivial exercise' that he would get to it and earn his $10,000 (actually $30,000, including the pledged from The Young Turks). But, that isn't what he did. I tell you, I would really hate to go out drinking with this guy because he just loves to hear himself rant and rave. What he did at this point is to go into rant about some global warming issues he apparently takes exception to, without ever claiming they were examples of the 'counter example' that he states would be 'trivial' to present.

I will forgive him his next demonstration of ignorance, because so many deniers do this. He equated climate science to models. This is one of those issues I just have to keep addressing.

No, models are not climate science. They are mathematical tools we use to help us understand the real world, but they are not a replacement for all of the work that is done. The real world is not sitting around for some model to tell it what to do, it will do what it does according to the laws of physics. Models are tools, but so are thermometers, sonobouys, satellites, ice cores, mud cores, coral cores, tree rings, CO2 measurements, biodiversity counts, etc. There are many, many tools we use to provide us with a better understanding of what is going on in the real world. Speaking of experiments, Mr. Sammons stated, "As best I can tell, the best "climate science" can do in this regard is to write computer programs that predict future global temperatures." He demonstrates his lack of understanding on climate science with this statement. You would think that he would do at least some homework before making his submission, but I have found quite a few submissions that didn't include even the most fundamental fact checking, so he isn't all that unusual in this regard.

After nearly two pages of raving, he states that "a reasonable counter example would be to show the failure of a computer model to predict the temperature for a particular year." No, he is wrong, for the reason I already explained above. Computer models are merely mathematical tools we use. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant to the reality of man made global warming. Let's suppose AGW is real and the models get it wrong, does that mean AGW stopped being real? Let's go the other way and suppose AGW isn't real, but we make a global warming model that somehow gets the temperature right. Does that mean AGW suddenly became real when it wasn't before? The models do not change the reality and that seems to be the perception of many deniers. Models do not matter to the debate of the reality of man made global warming, although they matter a great deal as tools to help us understand it.

But, Mr. Sammons isn't done being wrong. He goes on about how he was looking for temperature data and that none of the agencies ever reported this data. He even states, "smart move, actually" about this. He states, "wouldn't you expect to be able to easily find documentation of the temperature of the Earth?" Not only would I expect it, but it is easy to find. Take a look here, Mr. Sammons - the National Climatic Data Center which is "responsible for preserving, monitoring, assessing, and providing public access to the Nation's treasure of climate and historical weather data and information." My guess is Mr. Sammons didn't look very hard. He stated that he would like me to send him the data for the last 30 years. Well, I just showed you where to find it. Of course, his misconception is that all he has to do is find a single data point that does not agree with the models and he has succeeded in proving AGW isn't real. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

Then, he tries the old tactic and trying to change the challenge. This tactic is clearly designed to change the subject and distract the audience that he can't do what he claims to do. He wants me to build a climate model that will accurately predict, without ever being upgraded or improved, the temperature for the next 25 years. If I can't do that then, according to him, I have failed the scientific method (note to Mr. Sammon - scientific method is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized) and man made global warming is not real. 

Sorry, that won't work, either. The challenge is to people going around claiming they can prove man made global warming is not real. It is my challenge and you don't get to rewrite the challenge. If you would like to make your own challenge, feel free to do so.

In conclusion, I will quote Mr. Sammons one more time: "Don't worry, I have no illusions that I proved (rather, disproved) anything..." 

We agree. Mr. Sammons, you did not prove, via the scientific method, that man made global warming is not real.

P.S. Mr. Sammons wanted some information on how temperatures are measured from space. Again, he showed that he doesn't do his homework. This information is very easy to find. Here are some examples.

Toward Improved Validation of Satellite Sea Surface Skin Temperature Measurements for Climate Research
C. J. Donlon, et al.;2

Land surface temperature measurements from the split window channels of the NOAA 7 Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
  1. John C. Price

Sea surface temperature measurements by the along-track scanning radiometer on the ERS 1 satellite: Early results
  1. C. T. Mutlow
  2. A. M. Závody
  3. I. J. Barton
  4. D. T. Llewellyn-Jones

Satellite Measurements of Sea Surface Temperature Through Clouds
  1. Dudley Chelton2

Monday, July 28, 2014

$30,000 Challenge Submission - Hummingbirds

I will award, to Christopher Keating, 30,000 dollars of my own money, if he can prove via the scientific method, that humming bird caused global climate change is not occurring. The deadline for submission of proof is July 31, 2014

To: Tilo Reber

I could do that, but you are just trying to hijack my blog and the post. Your challenge is very childish and doesn't prove any point. Not only could I prove that, but I am not going around making statements, contrary to science, that hummingbirds are responsible for climate change and that I can prove it. If deniers don't like the challenge, then either stop saying you can prove man made global warming is not real, or prove that you really can prove it, as you claim. It is just that simple.


  1. Unlike you, skeptics are smart enough to know that anything, including hummingbirds, effect the climate. The effect may be so small that it cannot be easily meausured, but there must be an effect. The wording of your bet is a show of your cowardice because such a negative with no specific magnitude specified is impossible to prove. And since my bet is stated exactly like yours, you are simply blowing hot air, since you could never prove that hummingbirds have no effect on climate.

    The real issue, which you did not include as the limiting factor of your bet is what everyone is talking about when they talk about AGW. In other words, is man producing a dangerous amount of CO2 based warming. Attacking straw man "denialists" based on the straw man argument that there is no change at all is simply you grandstanding for you sycophants.

    If climate sensitivity is 1C per CO2 doubling or less, and given that the effect is logarithmic, then there is no reason for concern about man made climate change. Because that would mean that it takes 280 extra ppm for the first 1C, 560 ppm for the second 1C, 1120 for the third 1C, 2240 for the fourth 1C, etc.

    At this point in time it has not even been proven that feedback is positive. And unless there is significant positive feedback, there is no climate danger.

    Your bet is as childish and meaningless as your ideas about climate alarmism.


    No, hummingbirds have no effect on man made global warming because they are within the energy system of the planet. They do not produce energy, they only transform it from a source that has stored solar energy. So, on that argument alone, we can say hummingbirds are not contributing to climate change. They are already part of the climate. Your claim that they must be changing the climate is a false one.

    But, let's look another way, how much energy they produce. For this exercise, let's assume that they are adding energy to the environment, not just moving it around. That, of course, is not a valid assumption because any energy they emit had to come from the environment they are in, but let's do it for the fun of it.

    There is no data on hummingbird population size, but lets assume its 100 billion hummingbirds worldwide. That is an unrealistically large number, especially considering that hummingbirds are nearly exclusive to the American continents, but it will work for the purpose of our examination. These hummingbirds merely take energy in from their food and turn it into heat via their metabolic rate. This heat is radiated into the natural environment as IR radiation. Hummingbirds cannot store enough energy to survive the night at their daytime metabolic rate, so they go into tupor state and their metabolic rate drops by a factor of 100. So, we will just round it off to zero for the night and round up on the other figures. If each hummingbird radiated 1200 calories per hour, and we assume a day of 12 hours, we get 6 x 10^15 joules (100 billion birds x 1200 calories per bird per hour x 12 hours x 4.186 joules per calorie). Let's round up to 10^16 joules per day. Now, the amount of sunlight the planet absorbs every day is about 10^25 joules. That means the hummingbird energy emission is .0000001% of the total amount of daily incoming solar energy. In other words, in order to generate even one percent of the total solar energy input, there would have to be 10 million times as many hummingbirds as our unrealistically large number - 10^18 birds, or 1 quintillion birds. That would be about 6700 hummingbirds for every square meter of land area on the entire planet. We would literally be up to our armpits in hummingbirds! I mean, I love the little darlings, but there is such a thing as too much.

    Still, this amount of contribution, even using inflated numbers, is way beyond out ability to detect.

    So, we may safely conclude that hummingbirds do not cause global warming. In the words of the deniers - Where's my check?

    I know you only made this silly bet to try and divert the challenge, but I proved the point for a reason. I wanted to show how these silly claims to try and undermine the challenge are irrelevant and are false arguments deniers make to try and get out of being held responsible for their statements.

    The challenge is to people that claim global warming is not real and they can prove it. Now, what they want to do is convince people that it is not possible to 'prove a negative.' That is just another false argument. What is 'a negative'? Everything is a negative of something. I can prove the Sun is not in my backyard. That is a negative. I can prove that if a man gets his arm cut off, it will not grow back. That is negative. 

    Ultimately, deniers want to go around making statements they can't support and don't want to be held responsible for. That is why they don't like the challenge.

    They should have thought about that before going around claiming they could prove man made global warming isn't real.

$30,000 Challenge Submission - Greenhouse Gases Are Cleaned Out

When human beings extract and burn fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and others, we cause/trigger the release of carbon Dioxide and other heat-trapping “greenhouse gasses” into the atmosphere.

To get going with my latest finding on this issue; on this “challenge”, greenhouse gases undergo three main steps. To make it simple, let’s start with step 1

Step 1:

When gases are released from industries into the air, gases rise up. This rising of gasses occurs because of the process buoyancy, in which indoor-to-outdoor air density is different. Basically, at this stage, it involves greenhouse gases to move from bodies (either from cars, industries, trains etc.) into the atmosphere.

Step 2:

It was scientifically proven that the more you rise above the earth surface, the cooler you become. And this temperature almost drops at the rate of about 6.5 ˚C per km of the increased height inside the troposphere. When these emissions get into the atmosphere at their very top altitudes, they separate themselves in layers. These layers are made because of density differences of the gases and their chemical properties. For example, carbon dioxide gas would rise up to the approximate altitude and any other carbon dioxide coming will just combine/join that group right there. And then any other different greenhouse gas like Nitrous oxide will form a different layer that is either above/below that layer of carbon dioxide.

When all this is done, gases undergo a process called gas-condensation.

This process involves when gas particles are initiated by the formation of atomic/molecular clusters of that species within its gaseous volume. These clusters are usually small and form more like a dust, but at a very high altitude. When these gases form this dust like a cloud, we currently refer it to as global warming, instead of referring to it as a “gas cloud” because it is responsible of trapping heat between the atmosphere and earth surface.

Step 3

In this step, the local portion of the atmosphere on which the gas cloud was condensing forms small particles that actually fall off from that high altitude towards the earth surface. Too bad that it does not reach the earth surface, but at a certain height, these particles actually combine/mix with the surrounding air particles and forms a normal air. The gas-cloud that was forming global warming (acting like an earth heat trapping blanket) does no longer exist, but now it’s part of the cool fresh air surrounding us here.

Steps are now completed.

To make it clear, greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere precipitates out from the atmosphere. It does not stay there for the rest of the time to continue with the warming process. To scientifically prove this, it was proven that there are greenhouse gases that are referred to as a” short-lived greenhouse gases” which are the gases with a shorter atmospheric lifetime because they precipitates fairly quickly from the atmosphere. This is because it was proven that they do not stay there for a long time. It’s only that none of the scientist these days realized about the precipitation of the greenhouse gases that are exhaled into the atmosphere by the people.

In conclusion to this, we have known that nature itself has a way of controlling the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that after a thick cloud of greenhouse gases that people release from their factories and other machines is in the atmosphere, it precipitates out. Therefore, global warming is not forever. Just for example if the day time is cloudy enough at a specific location, the temperature increases in that region because clouds have trapped in the heat. But after the rain, everything becomes normal. Same applies to the effect on global warming.


There are many issues with this submission that makes it scientifically invalid. Let's start at the beginning.

Step 1:
Gases do not move from indoors to outdoors because of differences in density. Unless the structure is hermetically sealed, the air pressure inside a structure must be equal to the air pressure outside. There are many reasons why gases move from one place to another in the atmosphere and wind currents are the number one reason. Hot exhaust gases are less dense and will rise to some extent, but the winds will mix them up given some time. The layer of air we live in is called the troposphere and extends to about 15 km above the surface. This varies depending on latitude with the height being less at the poles and greater at the equator.  A characteristic of the troposphere is how gases in this layer are nearly uniformly mixed by weather and winds. The density drops as you get higher, but the relative mixture stays pretty much the same. It is not until you get into the stratosphere and higher that gases begin to separate into layers.

Step 2:
Gas condensate occurs when there is a drop in pressure in a gas. It happens when the relative density of a mixture in the gas reaches a point where the principle gas cannot contain it (along the lines of 100% humidity). CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not subjected to this process in the atmosphere because it can take many years for them to be lifted to higher altitudes. The drop in pressure is, therefore, so slow as to be nearly constant pressure. Plus, even with rising CO2 levels, we are not anywhere near the saturation point of CO2 in the atmosphere. The best I can determine is that the condensate temperature for CO2 is in the minus-hundreds of degrees Celsius at atmospheric pressure. This warms up some as pressure drops, but is still somewhere around -100 degrees C even at a pressure of 10 mm (we are at 1000 mm for one standard air pressure).

So, there are no clouds of gas condensate. In fact, we know CO2 is well mixed within the atmosphere as a gas and we sample it on a routine basis, such as the station on Mauna Loa, Hawaii that gives us the Keeling Curve. We routinely survey the skies in various wavelengths and no CO2 clouds are detected. Obviously, these would be very easily detected in the IR wavelengths.

Global warming is caused when CO2 molecules absorb and then reemit IR radiation, slowing down the transit of that energy from Earth's surface to space. Clouds of water vapor act as an insulator in much the same way and provide positive feedback in this manner. They also provide negative feedback by reflecting incoming sunlight back into space.

Step 3:
There is no large scale precipitation of CO2 gas condensates as you claim. In fact, by your claim, as this condensate precipitated and became pressurized it would revert to a gaseous state and is mixed back into the atmosphere. So, even with your gas condensate cloud hypotheses, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would have to go up.

It is true that greenhouse gases get removed from the atmosphere, but it takes time. For CO2, we are talking centuries, possibly even several thousands of years. But, eventually, it will be removed from the atmosphere. Other gases don't last that long. They may remain in the atmosphere from a few years to a few centuries, depending on the gas. This removal occurs because the gas molecule gets washed out by the rain and absorbed somewhere, or it gets broken down by sunlight or chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

You are partly correct in your conclusion, although for the wrong reason. Nature does have a way of removing greenhouse gases and about 50% of man made emissions are removed by nature every year.

You did not prove man made global warming is not real.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

$30,000 Challenge Submission - Antarctic Ice

Jim Steele
Christopjer says "That also debunks the deniers claims of urban heat island affect."
Mr Keating you are a joke and obviously lack any scientific understanding of the dynamics of climate change. Your $30,000 is just a gimmick to satisfy some egotistical fantasy that you are the "Denier Slayer" and attract people to your website. The first clue is your bizarre claim "One of the reasons sea ice is increasing is because it is coming from the land ice that is sliding into the ocean"
No one can disprove CO2 warming any more than you or anyone else can prove it. I offered you $30,000 but you duck the challenge and every piece of scientific evidence I presented about the Antarctic. You again expose your complete lack of knowledge by offering the hilarious defense that warming on the peninsula "debunks the deniers claims of urban heat island affect". You claim to teach logic????? ROTFLMAO. I am not distracted!
Your misdirection via another sophomoric attack on "deniers" is only an attempt to obscure your total lack of knowledge and critical thinking skills. Although CO2 warming should operate 24/7, the warming on the peninsul a varies dramatically by location and season. That should be a hint to any legitimate scientists that regional dynamics are in play.
On the west side, the changing direction and intensity of the winds has inhibited sea ice advance in the spring and promoted a greater retreat in the fall, in contrast to the ever increasing sea ice elsewhere. Much of the dramatic warming on the peninsula's west side is occurs only in the winter when less ice allows more heat to ventilate. No such trend in the summer.
All those trends reverse on the eastern side, where identical latitude s experience temperatures 10 degrees colder, because sea ice is not similarly affected by those same winds. However those winds have shifted. Instead of going around the mountainous peninsula, the winds are currently flowing over the mountains causing more foehn storms, that can raise temperatures adiabatically by 20 degrees or more. Adiabatically means "no heat is added".
These are just other non-CO2 related dynamics that , in addition to the urban heat effect, have driven a rise in the global average statistic. If the global average statistic was to accurately reflect the amount of heat accumulated due to CO2, then the dramatic warming over the peninsula should be subtracted from the average, not added to skew the trend.
5:27 p.m., Sunday July 13

Jim Steele
I forgot to suggest you improve your knowledge by reading some scientific papers about the dynamics causing the peninsula's temperatures.
1. Stammerjohn, S., et a., (2008) Trends in
Antarctic annual sea ice retreat and advance and their relation to El Niño southern oscillation and southern annular mode variability. Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol. 113, C03S90.doi:10.1029/2007JC004269.
2. Stammerjohn, S., et a., (2008) Sea ice in the
western Antarctic Peninsula region: spatiotemporal variability from ecological and climate change perspectives. Deep Sea Research II 55.
3. Orr, A., et al., (2008), Characteristics of summer airflow over the Antarctic Peninsula in response to recent strengthening of westerly circumpolar winds, J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 1396–1413.
5:31 p.m., Sunday July 13

Jim Steele
Reply to
Christopher Keating says, “I keep hearing deniers
say Antarctica is cooling. This is not only false, but is irrelevant”
Mr. Keating, Your persistent denigrating use of deniers, and your graph of a warming Antarctica http://earthobservatory.nasa.g...
reveals your general lack of critical scientific analyses. I’ll give you $30,000 if you can prove CO2 is causing any of the changes in Antarctica!
It is most apropos that the NASA writes, “The image paints a different picture of temperature trends in Antarctica than scientists had previously observed.” Indeed it differs from what scientists had observed. Your map is based on a trend that
1) Cherrypicks the time frame,
2) statistically smears warming on the peninsula across the continent
3) and then erroneously assumes the warming around the
western peninsula region is due to rising CO2.
1) Cherrypicking the Trend.
Trends since 1966 shows a cooling trend. Read Chapman, W., and
Walsh, J., (2006) A Synthesis of Antarctic Temperatures. Journal of Climate,
vol. 20, p. 4096-4117. They reported “Linear temperature changes calculated using starting dates prior to 1965 are positive for land only, ocean-only, and total area. Starting dates of 1966– 82 have negative trends for the Antarctic land-only grid points with mixed results for ocean-only and total area.”
Furthermore the year before his “new warming trend,” Steig
himself co-authored a paper using ice core data to show it was warmer around 1940 as seen here
He wrote, “This record, representative of West Antarctic surface temperature, shows extreme positive anomalies in the 1936-45 decade that are significant in the context of the background 20th Century warming trend. We interpret these anomalies, previously undocumented in the high-latitude SH, as
indicative of strong teleconnections in part driven by the major 1939-42 El Nino."
However to suggest “previ ously unobserved warming” his next paper chose a starting point in the 50s after temperatures had plummeted.
Read Schneider, D., and Steig, E., (2008) Ice cores record
significant 1940s Antarctic warmth related to tropical climate variability.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 12154–12158
2) Statistically smearing the warmth
British Antarctic Survey Stations such as Dumont D’Urville show warming on the linked map when no such thing is happening as seen in the observed data
3) Finally the warmth along the peninsula has been repeatedly documented
to be caused when winds inhibited regional sea ice growth and allowed greater ventilation of subsurface heat on the western peninsula in the winter and more foehn storms causing ad iabatic heating on the eastern side in the summer.
I suggest you spend less time hurling insults and start
reading the scientific literature to get a more well rounded perspective.
12:53 p.m., Sunday July 13


So, let me see, your submission consists of making personal attacks. Not very scientific. Nor, are they very well informed, just like your misguided opinions on global warming. I don't really hurl insults, I just point out the truth about deniers. It isn't my fault that the characteristics of deniers are not complimentary. You are a perfect example. What part of science includes all of your personal attacks? Since you have no science to support your claims, you act like a jerk as if that will make you seem more credible. You really are denier. You not only deny global warming, science and the rights of other people to make up their minds without your lies, but you deny any kind of civility in a discussion on an open forum. Tell me, do you make this kind of example for your children? Do you act this way in front of your parents?  What an ass. And, your argument reflect that in you.

You make a bunch of senseless claims about the Antarctic ice without any supporting evidence. Well how about this for supporting evidence:
a, Mass anomalies observed by GRACE (January 2003–September 2012) for Greenland (red) and Antarctica (blue; arbitrarily vertically shifted for clarity). b, RACMO2 SMB, illustrating interannual variability (note the different scale for Antarctica). c, Estimated trend in the GRACE time series as function of record length since the start of the observations. For example, at x=6, trends in the six-year window for January 2003–December 2008 are shown for Greenland (red) and Antarctica (blue). d, As in c, but for accelerations; for explanation on error bars (95% range), see Supplementary Information. SMB, surface mass balance. Source: Nature GeoScience     

There are plenty more, but this is a good one. Figure a shows the mass balance for Greenland (red) and Antarctica (blue) for the period January 2003 - September 2012. You can easily see the total mass has decreased in both ice sheets during that time span. For Antarctica, there was a loss of about 1000 gigatons. that comes out to about 100 gigatons of ice loss per year. I'm not sure you can understand what that means, so I'll translate it. A gigaton is 1 billion tons. So, Antarctica is losing 100 billion tons of ice every year. In fact, a study by NASA and the ESA shows that loss rate is accelerating.

As for CO2 warming the planet, it has most certainly been proved and the only ones that don't accept that evidence are deniers that reject any science that doesn't agree with their preconceived conclusion. If you are not intelligent enough to find that proof yourself, I suggest you check out several of the challenge submissions that have to do with the composition of the atmosphere and CO2 effects. You offered no science or logical argument there, just another senseless personal attack, so I don't need to deal with that issue any further.

Let's look at these scientific papers you referenced. You threw them out there without any kind of claim about how they supported any kind of logical argument you might make. At this point in your submission, you still have not made any scientific claims, just personal attacks, so I am not sure what your point is. But, let's look at these papers and see what they have to say.

1. Stammerjohn, S., et a., (2008) Trends in
Antarctic annual sea ice retreat and advance and their relation to El Niño southern oscillation and southern annular mode variability. Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol. 113,

Here is the abstract for this paper:

 [1] Previous studies have shown strong contrasting trends in annual sea ice duration and in monthly sea ice concentration in two regions of the Southern Ocean: decreases in the western Antarctic Peninsula/southern Bellingshausen Sea (wAP/sBS) region and increases in the western Ross Sea (wRS) region. To better understand the evolution of these regional sea ice trends, we utilize the full temporal (quasi-daily) resolution of satellite-derived sea ice data to track spatially the annual ice edge advance and retreat from 1979 to 2004. These newly analyzed data reveal that sea ice is retreating 31 ± 10 days earlier and advancing 54 ± 9 days later in the wAP/sBS region (i.e., total change over 1979–2004), whereas in the wRS region, sea ice is retreating 29 ± 6 days later and advancing 31 ± 6 days earlier. Changes in the wAP/sBS and wRS regions, particularly as observed during sea ice advance, occurred in association with decadal changes in the mean state of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM; negative in the 1980s and positive in the 1990s) and the high-latitude response to El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). In general, the high-latitude ice-atmosphere response to ENSO was strongest when -SAM was coincident with El Niño and when +SAM was coincident with La Niña, particularly in the wAP/sBS region. In total, there were 7 of 11 -SAMs between 1980 and 1990 and the 7 of 10 +SAMs between 1991 and 2000 that were associated with consistent decadal sea ice changes in the wAP/sBS and wRS regions, respectively. Elsewhere, ENSO/SAM-related sea ice changes were not as consistent over time (e.g., western Weddell, Amundsen, and eastern Ross Sea region), or variability in general was high (e.g., central/eastern Weddell and along East Antarctica).

What are they saying here?

Very simply, they are saying the different parts of the Antarctic sea ice is melting and freezing at different times of the year and this change appears to be linked to El Nino - Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

What is relevant to any argument here? ENSO affects the sea ice around Antarctica. So what? This is important information and stuff we need to know, but it has no bearing on the reality of man made global warming, one way or the other. This information would not impact either scenario.

So, you submitted an irrelevant scientific journal to try and sound intelligent. It didn't work. Maybe you'll do better with the next one.

2. Stammerjohn, S., et a., (2008) Sea ice in the
western Antarctic Peninsula region: spatiotemporal variability from ecological and climate change perspectives. Deep Sea Research II 55.

Here is the abstract for this paper:

The Antarctic Peninsula region is undergoing rapid change: a warming in winter of almost 6 °C since 1950, the loss of six ice shelves, the retreat of 87% of the marine glaciers, and decreases in winter sea-ice duration. Concurrently, there is evidence of ecosystem change along the western Antarctic Peninsula (wAP). Since the life histories of most polar marine species are synchronized with the seasonal cycle of sea ice, we assess how the seasonal sea-ice cycle is changing in the wAP region. Four new metrics of seasonal sea-ice variability were extracted from spatial maps of satellite derived daily sea-ice concentration: (a) day of advance, (b) day of retreat, (c) the total number of sea-ice days (between day of advance and retreat), and (d) the percent time sea-ice was present (or sea-ice persistence). The spatio-temporal variability describes distinct on-to-offshore and alongshore differences in ice–ocean marine habitats, characterized overall by a longer sea-ice season in coastal regions (6.8–7.9 months) versus a shorter sea-ice season over the shelf (4.1–5.3 months), with on-to-offshore differences increasing south-to-north. Large perturbations in the seasonality of the marine habitat occur in association with ENSO and Southern Annular Mode (SAM) variability. The local atmospheric response to these climate modes is largely a strengthening of the meridional winds during spring-to-autumn, which in turn affect the timing of the sea-ice retreat and subsequent advance. These perturbations are embedded in overall trends towards a later sea-ice advance, earlier retreat and consequently shorter sea-ice season, the impacts of which are expected to affect ecosystem functionality in the wAP region. A suite of ocean–atmosphere–ice interactions are described that are consistent with the amplified warming in late autumn, early winter.

What are they saying?

The Antarctica Peninsula is a long peninsula that extends from the main continental body and projects towards South America. This paper says this peninsula has gotten 6 degrees C warmer since 1950 and has lost 87% of its land ice. They then discuss how they analyze this situation in the paper and give details on what they examine. 

At least you referenced a paper that was relevant this time, but it was relevant to showing AGW is real. The AP is getting warmer and is losing its ice. How can this help any argument you wish to make that AGW is not real? It certainly doesn't help make you look more intelligent or to make you more credible in your rants and personal attacks. You are not doing very well. Two scientific papers and neither one helps you.

Third times the charm? Let's see.

 3. Orr, A., et al., (2008), Characteristics of summer airflow over the Antarctic Peninsula in response to recent strengthening of westerly circumpolar winds, J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 1396–1413.

Summer near-surface temperatures over the northeast coast of the Antarctic Peninsula have increased by more than 2°C over the past 40 years, a temperature increase 3 times greater than that on the northwest coast. Recent analysis has shown a strong correlation between this striking warming trend and significant change in the summer Southern Hemisphere annular mode (SAM), which has resulted in greatly increased summer westerlies across the northern peninsula. It has been proposed that the strengthening westerlies have resulted in increased vertical deflection of relatively warm maritime air over the northern peninsula, contributing significantly to the observed warming and the recent collapse of northern sections of the Larsen Ice Shelf. In this study, laboratory and numerical modeling of airflow incident to the peninsula are employed to further understand this mechanism. It is shown that the effect of the strengthening westerlies has led to a distinct transition from a “blocked” regime to a “flow-over” regime, that is, confirmation of the proposed warming mechanism. The blocked regime is dominated by flow stagnation upstream (i.e., little vertical deflection) and consequent lateral deflection of flow along the western side of the peninsula. The flow-over regime is dominated by vertical deflection of mid/upper-level air over the peninsula, with strong downslope winds following closely to the leeward slope transporting this air (which warms adiabatically as it descends) to the near-surface of the northeast peninsula. The strong rotation typical of high latitudes considerably increases the flow over the peninsula, particularly strengthening it over the southern side (verified by aircraft measurements), suggesting that the warming trend is not solely confined to the northeast. Globally, flow regime transitions such as this may be responsible for other local climate variations.
What are they saying? 

They are saying that the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced warming of 2 degrees C over the last 40 years and that warming rate has been three times warmer than the northwest coast of the main body of the continent. They attribute this to changes in the airflow currents.

Oops! Third time wasn't a charm! 

Did you even bother reading these papers, or did you just grab the papers to make you look smart? If so, it really didn't work. Once again, you have shown that Antarctica, and the AP in particular, are warming. How does this help any argument you could make or justify your personal attacks?

Take a look the temperature change of Antarctica:
Source: Skeptical Science from O'Donnel et al. (2010)

This graph clearly show the average temperature in Antarctica has been going up. There is variation from year-to-year, but that is normal and expected. Look at the long-term trend (the dotted line) to show how the average temperature is going up.

And look at this graphic:
Source: Skeptical Science from O'Donnel et al. (2010)

The O'Donnell et al. paper refuted the Steig et al. paper and showed that warming in Antarctica is mostly concentrated in the peninsula area. There are two major things to take from this. 

First, the peninsula actually projects out beyond the circumpolar currents in the atmosphere and ocean as well as the ozone hole, so it is not in the isolated environment the rest of the continent is.The fact that the part of the continent that is not located within the isolated environment is experiencing the greatest amount of change in the southern hemisphere illustrates the point that the continent is, in fact, isolated and is a special case, not evidence what global warming is not occurring. (See the above temperature plot, anyway.)

The second major point of this paper is that it refutes a paper that the deniers hated, namely the Steig et al. paper that showed more widespread warming than previously claimed. 

So, what basically amounts to a paper supporting the denier side of the argument refutes any claim that it is not getting warmer in Antarctica. It also refutes any claim that the environment of the Antarctica Peninsula is not different than the environment of the main body of the continent.

I am still not sure what your argument is, but you state:

3) Finally the warmth along the peninsula has been repeatedly documented
to be caused when winds inhibited regional sea ice growth and allowed greater ventilation of subsurface heat on the western peninsula in the winter and more foehn storms causing ad iabatic heating on the eastern side in the summer.

All you are saying here is that wind currents have changed and that is what is causing the changing environment on the AP. But, you never address the question - what is causing the wind currents to change? Currents in the ocean and atmosphere don't just simply change. There must be a cause. You never even address that issue.

Maybe you should have. Read what the British Antarctic Survey has to say about it here.

Here's one more, just for fun.

Recent Changes in Phytoplankton Communities Associated with Rapid Regional Climate Change Along the Western Antarctic Peninsula
Martin Montes-Hugo, Scott C. Doney, Hugh W. Ducklow, William Fraser, Douglas Martinson, Sharon E. Stammerjohn, Oscar Schofield
Vol. 323 no. 5920 pp. 1470-1473
DOI: 10.1126/science.1164533 


The climate of the western shelf of the Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) is undergoing a transition from a cold-dry polar-type climate to a warm-humid sub-Antarctic–type climate. Using three decades of satellite and field data, we document that ocean biological productivity, inferred from chlorophyll a concentration (Chl a), has significantly changed along the WAP shelf. Summertime surface Chl a (summer integrated Chl a ∼63% of annually integrated Chl a) declined by 12% along the WAP over the past 30 years, with the largest decreases equatorward of 63°S and with substantial increases in Chl a occurring farther south. The latitudinal variation in Chl a trends reflects shifting patterns of ice cover, cloud formation, and windiness affecting water-column mixing. Regional changes in phytoplankton coincide with observed changes in krill (Euphausia superba) and penguin populations.

You then conclude your rant by saying:

I suggest you spend less time hurling insults and start
reading the scientific literature to get a more well rounded perspective.
So, let's recap. You never proposed any argument to prove man made global warming is not real. What you did do is provide a series of statements that were either irrelevant, wrong, or even supportive of AGW. You then mixed all of those misstatements in with a long barrage of personal attacks as if that was somehow suppose to make you sound more credible and intelligent (it didn't).

You did not provide any scientific argument, and you did not provide any scientific evidence, to support any claim that man made global warming is not real.

So, in conclusion I can easily state you did not prove man made global warming is not real. But, don't despair, you did prove you are an ass.


Friday, July 25, 2014

Water Supply In the Colorado River Basin

Many of the people objecting to my challenge say it should be about why we need to worry about global warming, or even about what to do. They clearly have not paid attention to what the challenge is all about.

But, they are correct in one thing, we need to discuss the effects of global warming more. Is global warming good for us? Bad for us? Or, does it even make a difference? I will be spending more time addressing this issue in the future once I am done with the challenge (come on July 31st!).

In that vein, here is a NASA news release about a study of water in the Colorado River Basin. It paints a pretty bleak picture about what is going on with water in the Southwestern U.S. Using data from the GRACE satellite, scientist have been able to identify the amount of mass the basin area has lost since 2004 and determined it has lost about 53 million acre-feet of water. That is almost twice the total volume of Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the U.S. What is really scary is that 41 million acre-feet of that amount came from ground water. Imagine you lost 75% of your income and you then started depleting your savings to maintain the same standard of living. Eventually, your savings are going to run out and you will be faced with a bad situation. That is where the Southwest is today in regards to water. The area has lost its water supply and has been relying on ground water to keep things going the same way instead of changing the way they do business. But, as they say in the new release, we don't know how much ground water there is, so we have no idea how long it will last. If it starts to run out, then there will be a very bad situation in the Southwest.

So, what does this have to do with global warming? Well, there is growing evidence the on-going drought is the result of global warming, and there is growing evidence that the effects of droughts are made worse by global warming. Basically, rainy areas will see more rain while dry areas will see less. Additionally, precipitation that falls as snow on the mountains melts slowly over time and provides water into the summer. As the temperature goes up, it gets too warm for snow and the precipitation falls as rain, which runs off and is no longer available when the dry months of summer come along. To make it worse, the higher temperatures mean there is more evaporation and the area loses even more water. None of these scenarios are good for the future of anyone depending on the water of the Colorado River Basin.

Read this article on the effects of global warming on the area. Richard Seager, a climate scientist who studies water issues at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in New York does not believe the drought is caused by global warming, but he goes on to point out that the Southwest has suffered drought conditions in some form for 15 years, and warmer climates have resulted in winter precipitation tending to fall as rain rather than snow. With less snow melting during the spring there is a lack of water during the hot summer months.

"It all adds up across the Southwest to an increasingly stressed water system," he said. "That’s what they might as well get ready for."

So, even someone who doesn't believe the drought is caused by global warming believes it has been made worse by global warming. He also believes this is the new normal for the area.

This is not good news. 

In regards to the debate on if global warming is good or bad for us, I think we can put a very firm check mark in the "Bad for us" column on this one.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

$30,000 Challenge Submission - Ocean Warming is Due to Volcanoes

nonymousJuly 13, 2014 at 1:08 AM
Dear Professor Keating
The widely vaunted premise is that humans discharge Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere thereby causing the earth to heat unusually.

However, conventional science teaches us that the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere can be predicted by Henry's Gas Law:

"At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid."

Henry's Gas Law effectively states that the Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is wholly dependent on the average sea temperatures.

Unless we can prove that humans were directly responsible for increasing the temperature of the oceans, there is no possibility that humans have anything to do with the slowly rising concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, whether that rise causes the earth to warm or not.

The recently experienced slight lift in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide concentration is entirely due to a very small rise in average sea temperatures, which is most probably caused by minor changes in the level of submarine volcanic and tectonic activity. My backup presentation notes on this subject are available at with a more detailed presentation at
Best regards,

Christopher KeatingJuly 6, 2014 at 10:13 PM

The oceans are heating from the top down, not the bottom up. That is enough to debunk everything you just said.

My Reply is:
Traditional science says "hot water rises", so send the cheque.


  1. Sorry, even with that premise, the water would still have to be warmest near the energy source. If it was being heated by volcanoes and hot water vents, the hottest ocean water would be found down deep. In fact, the coldest water is found deep and the hottest is found at the surface. The temperature profile is consistent with heating occurring from above. It is being heated by the Sun and the atmosphere is acting as a blanket to keep the heat from radiating away as IR radiation.

    All you have provided is some statements without any scientific proof that what you say is valid and that it affects the issue of man made global warming, one way or another. Submit scientific evidence to support your claim and I will be glad to consider this a submission, although this issue has already by discussed in other submissions.
  2. No. The hottest water is found down deep and is reported to range from 60 to 464 oC at thermal vents. Lava erupting from submarine volcanic vents emerges at temperatures ranging from 700 to 1200 oC. This effect happens spasmodically all along the Mid Atlantic Ridge. The cold water you refer to is replacing the rising hot water as it does in a pot heating water on a stove.

    As you say, the sun also heats the surface water and seasonal variations cause the sun to warm and cool sea surface waters alternately between the two hemispheres. This results in carbon dioxide migrating between the hemispheres each year, as shown on the "saw tooth" NOAA graphs. My calculation shows this migrating flux is around 1.7Gt per year as shown in the "seachange report" referred to previously. However, the underlying up trend in the NOAA graph is caused by a recent slow increase in background heat coming from some of the many possible submarine sources.

    The main flaw in your AGW argument is that the sea has to heat BEFORE there is any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, as per Henry's Law, so CO2 cannot affect the earth's surface temperature, if in fact it does, until after the sea has heated.


    The first fatal flaw in this line of reasoning is that it requires volcanic activity under the oceans to be increasing. Our data indicates it has remained about constant over the last several decades that we have been witnessing the oceans getting warmer.

    But, let's loot at this quote and plot from UC- San Diego:

    The circulation of the cold water sphere is poorly known. The water is cold because it "originated" in high latitudes, where the surface waters these in cold regions were cooled, sank, and filled up the deep ocean basins. This process is constantly happening, and without it the abyssal waters would be warm in a few thousand years from the Earth's heat flow through the ocean floor. If waters sink at high latitudes, they must rise at low latitudes. They do so at an overall rate of about 1 cm/day. Most of the abyssal bottom water of the world ocean "originates" ( i.e. sinks from the surface) around Antarctica. The other important deep water source is the northernmost North Atlantic (the Norwegian Sea and Labrador Sea). This is know from mapping the temperature and oxygen content of near-bottom water. As the water moves away from its surface source (i.e. as it "ages") it gradually warms. Also, it slowly loses oxygen because of the respiration of organisms in the deep sea. Thus, "young" water is cold and oxygen-rich, "old" water is less cold and has less oxygen. Most of the deep water in the Atlantic is young, while that of the North Pacific is old. 

    This plot (from the same source) shows the temperature profiles for high latitudes (polar regions) on the right, mid-latitudes in the middle and low latitudes (equatorial regions) on the left. Notice how the temperature is warmest at the surface (the top of each plot) and gets colder as the depth increases.

    Source: UCSD

    This should be enough to end the discussion. Are there volcanoes under the ocean? Yes, and they heat up the local water. Is there heat coming through the surface of the sea floor? Yes, and given time it will heat up the water that is in contact with it. Is this amount of heating significant? No. The temperature profiles and the discussion in the quote above both illustrate that ocean water gets cold at the poles, sinks down deep, and travels along until it is force back up to the surface. The principle source of heating is from the Sun and the oceans get hotter from the top down.

    But, we don't need to stop there. Let's look at the total amount of energy needed to heat up the oceans and compare that to the amount of heat coming from volcanoes.

    Take a look at this graph from the EPA that shows the amount of heat stored in the oceans (heat content):

    Line graph showing three different estimates of how the amount of heat in the ocean changed from 1955 to 2013.
    Source: EPA

    We can see that the ocean heat content increased from about 0 joules in 1980 (the normalized baseline) to about 12 x 10^22 joules by 2012. That is a change in heat content of 12 x 10^22 joules of energy that was in the oceans in 2012 that wasn't there in 1980.

    So, how about the energy released by volcanoes?

    The explosion of Mt St Helens in 1980 released about 7 megatons of energy. That is approximately 3 x 10^16 joules. In other words, it would take 4,000,000 Mt St Helens-sized explosions  over 32 years to put that much energy in the oceans. That comes out to about 340 Mt St Helens-sized eruptions occurring every day for 32 years.

    Sorry, but the facts and evidence do not support this claim. Here is a website at Oregon State I found that pretty much stated the same thing.

    You did not prove man made global warming is not real. 


$30,000 Challenge Submission - Petition Project

Pls consider this article as my submission:


I refer first to the project's own FAQ page:

1. Is the Petition Project fulfilling expectations?
The project has fulfilled the expectations of its organizers. In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.
Moreover, the current totals of 31,487 signers, including 9,029 PhDs, are limited only by Petition Project resources. With more funds for printing and postage, these numbers would be much higher.
Now, look at these numbers:

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.
Now, let's keep in mind that 97% of climate scientists agree that man made emissions are causing global warming. In other words, 0.3% of non-climate scientists agree with the petition while 97% of climate scientists agree AGW is real.

The number of climate scientists on the list of signers is very small, approximately 200 out of 32,000. Another issue is the people are not listed with their associations making it impossible to confirm their credentials. Additionally, critics have successfully submitted fake names, including names of characters from M*A*S*H, Star Wars, duplicate names, corporate names, names with no initials and other fictitious names, illustrating how the petition has low accountability of the names submitted.

This quote from their webpage speaks of the qualification of the signers:

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.  

We know that John Coleman signed it and he doesn't even have a science degree so he is not qualified to be a signatory. We really have to wonder: just how many of those signatures are authentic and are qualified to sign it under their stated requirements?

One last point, a degree in biology does not make someone an expert on climate science, even if that degree is a Ph.D. In fact, a Ph.D. in biology could very well have less knowledge of climate science than the average person on the street. Most researchers have little to no time to study fields of study other than their specialty.

At this point, you would think any rationale person would stop and move on.

Not enough? Well then, how about this one:

3. Who organized the Petition Project?
The Petition Project was organized by a group of physicists and physical chemists who conduct scientific research at several American scientific institutions. The petition statement and the signatures of its 31,487 signers, however, speak for themselves. The primary relevant role of the organizers is that they are among the 9,029 PhD signers of the petition.

So, they won't reveal who the organizers are and they also won't reveal their methodologies and sampling procedures. At the same time, deniers scream bloody murder anytime they think they can get away with accusing a climate scientist with lack of transparency. Hmmm. A trend is already appearing. But, it gets worse because Wikipedia identifies the head of the project as Arthur Robinson and there is a very curious statement about Robinson in the Wikipedia entry on him:

Robinson is the president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM),[3] a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization located in Cave Junction, Oregon.[15] The institute's mission statement and purpose is, "research, development, and public education on the biochemistry of molecular clocks and the degenerative diseases of aging, elementary science education, the effects of environment on health and welfare, and disaster preparedness".
What? I don't see a single item in there that qualifies him as a climate scientist. But, there is something else - he signed the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, an document that promotes Intelligent Design. So, Robinson is a creationist and has a track record of rejecting science when he doesn't like it.

A definite pattern is emerging.

Then there is this:

4. Who pays for the Petition Project?
The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals, many of whom are signers of the petition. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has never received funds or resources from energy industries, and none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.
I'm sorry, that just isn't good enough for me. I have seen many times when deniers have been caught fudging the facts and even making outright lies about their funding. Until they reveal who these scientists are and where they get their funding, I will assume they are funded by denier organizations or organizations associated with denier organizations. If they aren't, then why won't they reveal details on their funding sources? If some climate scientist tried this deniers would jump all over it.

In particular,  the petition's founder, Arthur Robinson, has run as a Republican candidate for Congress three times (including this year) on a fundamental Republican platform. I would want to see his list of donors if he is going to claim he is free of any money from the fossil fuel industry or anything associated with the fossil fuel industry. They state "none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production." Is that true? I doubt it. But, then, if they won't reveal their funding sources we can't know for sure, can we? What if they get their funding from the Heartland Institute or Donors Trust, both organizations that specialize in funneling funds from the fossil fuel industry. Would they still claim they receive no funds from the fossil fuel industry? And, how do we know that isn't the case?

But, wait. The Petition Project was initially co-published with the George C. Marshall Institute, which has received considerable amount of funding from ExxonMobil over the years. So, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine teamed up with the Marshall Institute, which receives fossil-fuel funds. This is exactly what I mean when I say deniers have been caught fudging about their funding. The funds might not have come directly to the Oregon Institute, but they knew where the Marshall Institute was getting its funds and they made use of that fossil fuel money for their cause.

Check out this video that discusses the credibility of the project:

So, a pattern has been established - one of deceit.

All right, we have firmly established they do not have any credibility, but what about the science? It gets very bad right from the beginning. Again, from their web site:

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

A review of the literature leads to the conclusion that increased CO2 levels have had no deleterious effect. This is an incredible statement. Be sure to note what they didn't say. The did not say they reviewed the literature and didn't agree with it. They said the literature leads to this conclusion. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is an outright lie. You may or may not agree with the conclusion of the literature, but you would have to be an absolute idiot to say that the scientific literature does not support the conclusion that rising CO2 levels are deleterious. Just look at the IPCC report to see that this is a true statement.

There is more bad science, but I think I have shown enough to say the Petition Project is debunked as any kind of proof that man made global warming is not real. What we have established is that they simply have no credibility to be believed on any issue whatsoever.

You did not prove man made global warming is not real.