It starts at the bottom, so you have to read upwards. They are not friends of science. They are friends of misinformation. I pointed out how misleading the de Freitas paper was as it quoted the science out of context to make a point that was exactly the opposite of what the quoted material (an IPCC report) said. They simply changed the topic in response.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Kirsch 
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 3:56 PM
To: fos@telus.net
Subject: RE: you've been completely mislead by Freitas

1988: 14.3
2002: 14.55

so it happened 2 years after he predicted. big deal. 

-----Original Message-----
From: fos@telus.net [mailto:fos@telus.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 3:36 PM
To: Steve Kirsch
Subject: RE: you've been completely mislead by Freitas

In 1988 Hansen predicted a 0.3 degree C temperature rise by 2000; it was 0.1 degree C.
He predicted a sea level rise of several feet by 2000; it was less than an inch.

He did not account for the urban heat island effect on the land based temperatures that he based his predictions on.

This is not the proper practice of science; it is the practice of politics.
Please do not respond. I would have to teach you a bit about quantum physics to explain the greenhouse effect from gases, and I would have to explain thermodynamics to show you why none of this makes any sense in the physical world, and from the tone of your response and your blind faith in false conjecture I do not think that it is worth my trouble.
Norm K
Friends of Science

Quoting Steve Kirsch :

> the Freitas paper distorts what is said. He picks statements out of 
> context to support his argument. I sent you a specific example in my 
> first email where he claims the IPCC report said one thing and when 
> you read the actual report, the next 2 paragraphs say exactly the opposite.
> 
> Your analysis as far as cause and effect is flawed.
> 
> You say the temperature went down while the CO2 was rising.
> 
> But there is about a 20 year "lag time" for CO2 to heat up the earth.
> It's like heating a swimming pool. You turn up the burners but it 
> takes a while to warm up due to thermal inertia of the oceans.
> 
> since temperature measurements began in  1880, the 5 hottest years 
> have occurred since 1998.
> 
> temperatures started to rise dramatically in 1980, 20 years after CO2 
> concentrations started getting significanlty higher than in the past.
> 
> so it absolutely fits the hypothesis that once CO2 gets high enough, 
> the
> CO2 warming effects dominate natural variations.
> 
> I am curious as to YOUR computer model that explains the temperature 
> rise since 1998. Where can I find your computer model that fits the 
> data? How do you explain the dramatic and rapid temperature rise?
> 
> And I'm interested in your analysis of Hansen's papers where you can 
> point to just ONE single article in a peer-reviewed journal than 
> discredits Hansen's work. Surely, if Hansen is wrong, there must be at 
> least one paper in a peer reviewed journal discrediting it. Where is it?
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fos@telus.net [mailto:fos@telus.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:01 PM
> To: Steve Kirsch
> Subject: RE: you've been completely mislead by Freitas
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Steve,
> If we put the actual numbers from the IPCC to the following there it 
> is clear that the following quote should be changed to ...means that a 
> significant anthropogenic effect on the climate is highly unlikely!!
> 
> Here's what it says:
> "Detection and attribution
> The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 
> 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not 
> necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system 
> has been identified."
> 
> If you plot the actual CO2 emissions against the actual temperature 
> curve of the IPCC there are two drops in global temperature occurring 
> from about 1880 to
> 1912 and the well documented cooling from 1943 to 1975 (which caused a 
> global cooling panic). During both these periods of cooling, the human
> CO2 emissions were rising; the cooling was similar but the rate of CO2 
> increase was was many times higher during the cooling from 1943 to 1975.
> Not only was there cooling during times of increasing emissions (as 
> well as increases in atmospheric concentration), but the same amount 
> of cooling occurred with significantly different emissions rates.
> 
> Within this time frame there were two periods of warming separated by 
> the cooling of 1943 to 1975. Both these periods of warming exhibit the 
> same slope of about 0.02degrees C per year. The first of these warming 
> intervals from 1912 to 1943 is concurrent with very low emissions 
> rates but the current warming interval since 1975 is concurrent with 
> emissions rates that are over 6 times the emissions of the earlier 
> warming interval. Again the same amount of warming is occurring with 
> significantly different emissions rates in this case 6 times the 
> emissions.
> In fact there is a distinct difference between the emissions and the 
> atmospheric concentration increase. In 2001 emissions increased at a 
> rate over
> 4 times the previous rate and this rate of increase has continued to 
> the present time with no signs of reduction even with all the Kyoto 
> directives.
> Atmospheric concentration does not show this same rate change and in 
> fact the projected increases of concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere 
> predicted bt the IPCC are based on emissions and not on the actual 
> concentration increase.
> The predicted temperatures requiring a doubling of CO2 by 2050 would 
> be based on twice the current concentration of about 382ppmv or 764ppmv.
> The actual increase of atmospheric CO2 projected to 2050 at the 
> current rate accelerated by the current rate of acceleration will lead 
> to 483ppmv by 2050 and 598ppmv by 2100.
> Remarkably the IPCC projects atmospheric concentration to these 
> realistic numbers but bases its temperature predictions on the 
> "doubling" numbers determined by emissions. In effect the IPCC is 
> stating with its own data that the most dominant control of global 
> temperature is not emissions, but states in its later report that 
> there is a 90% certainty that emissions are the dominant driver of 
> climate change.
> 
> The scientific method requires that "If there are any observations 
> that cannot be explained by the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be 
> discarded or modified to explain the observations. The IPCC has done 
> neither, but instead has attempted to justify their position with 
> computer models that are tweaked to show the desired outcome. This is 
> what politicians do. This is not what scientists do, so one must 
> conclude that this is a political organization that uses the integrity 
> of its scientists to promote its political agenda.
> 
> If you look at the Chris de Freitas paper and examine it with the same 
> scrutiny that the IPCC reports should have been subject to you will 
> not find a single breach of science protocol in the presentation.
> Nothing that is conjecture is stated as fact. He is able to point out 
> the flaws in the IPCC position by just bringing to light all of the 
> contrary information that was purposly omitted from the IPCC report 
> because including it would have destroyed every arguement of the IPCC.
> 
> Norm K
> Friends of Science
> 
> Quoting Steve Kirsch :
> 
> > sure, that makes sense. 
> >  
> > if there is a paper debunking other papers, even if it is 
> > misleading, as a friend of science it is important to mislead the public.
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > 
> > 	From: Friends of Science [mailto:fos@telus.net] 
> > 	Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 9:16 AM
> > 	To: Steve Kirsch
> > 	Subject: Re: you've been completely mislead by Freitas
> > 	
> > 	
> > 	We are linking to it because Chris' is one of the first and best
> 
> > collection of myths and facts published at the time.  He wrote 
> > articles in various local publications and gave lectures before the 
> > geological society in Calgary that people still talk about. He was 
> > in fact our annual luncheon speaker last year and drew the biggest 
> > crowd of the event ever.
> > 	The CSPG paper was written 6 years ago, probably as a reaction
> to
> > AR3.  If he would write it today, he would have more material, not 
> > less. The hockey stick disaster was still unrecognised, nor the 
> > evidence from Solanki/Khilyuk-Chilingar/Shaviv-Veizer/Svensmark/Beck
> > and many others which have put the Kyoto House of Cards on a 
> > foundation of quicksand.
> > 	We do not apologize for Chris at all.
> > 	Albert
> > 	=======================
> > 	
> > 	On 5-May-07, at 9:59 AM, Steve Kirsch wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 		why are you linking to his paper? It's misleading.
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > 
> > 			From: Friends of Science [mailto:fos@telus.net] 
> > 			Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 8:29 AM
> > 			To: Steve Kirsch
> > 			Subject: Re: you've been completely mislead by
> Freitas
> > 			
> > 			
> > 			Hello Steve,
> > 
> > 			We did not write Chris de Freitas paper. If you
> have difficulty
> > with his arguments you should get in touch with Professor de Freitas 
> > directly.
> > 			----------------
> > 			Chris deFreitas
> > 			
> > 			work +64 9 373 7599 XT 85283
> > 			mobile +64 21 166 2960
> > 			work fax +64 9 373 7434
> > 
> > 			work c.defreitas@auckland.ac.nz
> > 			home page www.sges.auckland.ac.nz
> > 
> > 			School of Geogr.& Env. Science
> > 			City Campus
> > 			The University of Auckland
> > 			Private bag 92019, Auckland, NZ
> > 			---------------  
> > 			I don't know what your background is, Steve, but
> if you are a
> > "believer" in the unproved dogma of CO2, I don't even want to argue 
> > with you. I don't argue religion.  However, if you are a scientist I 
> > would advise you to put on your sceptical headwear (an essential 
> > requirement for scientists) and critically look at the evidence for 
> > catastrophic anthropogenic GW in the perspective of the cherished 
> > 'Scientific Method'.
> > 			An early basis, James Hansen's
> > temperature/carbon dioxide record as "proof" has just been 
> > demolished by Dr Ernst Beck (Freibourg) who reanalysed  and vetted 
> > old but well kept atmospheric chemically analysed samples to 180 
> > years back and found high
> > CO2 peaks (at  540 ppm around 1820 and around 415 in 1940!) without 
> > noticeable Temperature changes.  These had been published in the 
> > European literature, but "ignored" by the UN initiators of the cult.
> > Call it "an inconvenient truth". Then came the the UNFCCC and the 
> > skewed redefinition of Climate Change, which through the last 20 
> > years
> 
> > has put any cause but CO2 on the back burner. There is a dearth of 
> > researchers with paleoclimatology and astrophysics skills in a game 
> > that is being played on computers. You should know that computers 
> > are not designed for this in the science milieu. Simulations are 
> > used to explore possibilities and test theories against evidence, 
> > not to try
> to "prove"
> > a hypothesis by tweaking input parameters  and program feedbacks. 
> > And then there is the always elusive water vapour, 90% of the GHG.
> > 			In this category also fall weird theories about
> sulphate
> > particulate who suddenly had to appear in order to get rid of the 
> > inconvenient Global Cooling of 1940-1975.
> > 			Kyoto is a great game in power, grant money and
> commercial profit.  
> > But even the Hadley Centre does not believe that the Protocol can 
> > have
> 
> > more than a token influence on global temperature (see their graph 
> > on the "Kyoto/Climate News" page on our website).
> > 			Regards,
> > 
> > 			
> > 			Albert F. Jacobs,  M.Sc., P.Geol.
> > 			359 Scarboro Avenue SW
> > 			Calgary AB Canada T3C 2H5
> > 			Phone/Fax: (403) 244-3402
> > 			e-mail 
> > 
> > 			Friends of Science Society
> > 			P. O. Box 23167, Connaught Post Office
> > 			Calgary, AB
> > 			Canada T2S 3B1
> > 			Phone / Fax: (403) 236-4203
> > 			E-mail:    fos@telus.net
> > 			Website: 
> > 
> > 			===========================================
> > 			
> > 
> > 			On 4-May-07, at 11:12 PM, Steve Kirsch wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 				are you a friend of science? or a friend
> of misinformation?
> > 
> > 				the freitas paper you put it is
> > incredibly misleading.
> > 				
> > 				he says (p.300):
> > 				A true conclusion of "Climate Change
> 2001", possibly supported
> > 				by the majority of the scientists involved in the main
> > 				scientific report, is in Chapter 1 of
> the IPCC 2001 scientific
> > 				report itself (IPCC, 2001a, p.97). It
> reads as follows:
> > 				The fact that the global mean
> > temperature has increased since
> > 				the late 19th Century and that other
> trends have been observed
> > 				does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the
> > 				climate system has been identified.
> > Climate has always varied
> > 				on all time-scales, so the observed
> change may be natural.
> > 				
> > 				But I read that entire section rather
> than the paragraph he took
> > out of context. So when you look at the following paragraphs, they 
> > conclude that it is caused by man (i.e., an unnatural force) which 
> > is exactly the opposite to what Freitas wants you to believe!
> > 				
> > 				Here's what it says:
> > 				Detection and attribution
> > 				The fact that the global mean
> > temperature has increased since the
> > 				late 19th century and that other trends
> have been observed does
> > 				not necessarily mean that an
> > anthropogenic effect on the climate
> > 				system has been identified. Climate has
> always varied on all
> > 				time-scales, so the observed change may
> be natural. A more
> > 				detailed analysis is required to provide
> evidence of a human
> > 				impact.
> > 				Identifying human-induced climate change
> requires two
> > 				steps. First it must be demonstrated
> that an observed climate
> > 				change is unusual in a statistical
> sense. This is the detection
> > 				problem. For this to be successful one
> has to know quantitatively
> > 				how climate varies naturally. Although
> estimates have improved
> > 				since the SAR, there is still
> > considerable uncertainty in the
> > 				magnitude of this natural climate variability. The SAR concluded
> > 				nevertheless, on the basis of careful
> analyses, that "the observed
> > 				change in global mean, annually averaged
> temperature over the
> > 				last century is unlikely to be due
> entirely to natural
> > fluctuations
> > 				of the climate system".
> > 				Having detected a climatic change, the
> most likely cause of
> > 				that change has to be established. This
> is the attribution
> > problem.
> > 				Can one attribute the detected change to
> human activities, or
> > 				could it also be due to natural causes?
> > Also attribution is a statistical
> > 				process. Neither detection nor
> > attribution can ever be
> > 				"certain", but only probable in a statistical sense. The 
> > attribution
> > 				problem has been addressed by comparing
> the temporal and
> > 				spatial patterns of the observed temperature increase with model
> > 				calculations based on anthropogenic
> forcing by greenhouse gases
> > 				and aerosols, on the assumption that
> these patterns carry a
> > fingerprint
> > 				of their cause. In this way the SAR
> found that "there is
> > 				evidence of an emerging pattern of
> climate response to forcing by
> > 				greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols
> in the observed climate
> > 				record". Since the SAR new results have
> become available which
> > 				tend to support this conclusion. The
> present status of the
> > 				detection of climate change and
> > attribution of its causes is
> > 				assessed in Chapter 12. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>