Weather or not - it happens!

___________________________________________________________

From: max@maxtyler.us
To: ronibell@msn.com
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:08:47 -0500
Subject: RE: Max, more great information: Global Temperature Anomaly continues to plunge
Too bad you missed Monday. Every scientist there had a number of peer reviewed published papers in the field of climate science. Dr. Hayden has none. Perhaps you can send me sources who have standing within the community. Though I respect chiropractors, I wouldn't want one doing heart surgery on me. Different training you know.
Representative Max Tyler
303/ 915-8475
____________________________________________________________
Hi Max,
Yes. I too am sorry I missed Monday.
How many attended? How may I get a transcript?
Will forward to Dr. Hayden and other "sources who have standing within the community"
That will give you all opportunity to direct communicate.
In looking forward to your hosting of " scientists whose findings reveal nature makes climate change, I remain
appreciative of your opening up the debate.
Thank you,
Roni
_______________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: RoniBell@msn.com [mailto:RoniBell@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 10:57 AM
To: Max Tyler
Subject: Science & Consequences

Hello Rep. Tyler,
Is this Jan 10th event open to the public?
Have you lined up any scientists whose findings show the Sun makes the climate change?
Or do you only have AGW believers?
Thank you,
Roni
Volunteer Editor www.LandAndWaterUSA.com
______________________________________________________________________________________
To: RoniBell@msn.com
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 14:22:24 -0500
Subject: RE: Science & Consequences
The seminar is open to the public. And we have only degreed scientists with significant peer-reviewed published research from accredited Colorado research institutions like the Colorado School of Mines, NOAA and CU.
And one of them will speak directly to the myth of sun variability as a cause of climate change.
Representative Max Tyler
303/ 915-8475
From: Roni Bell Sylvester [mailto:ronibell@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 8:46 AM
To: max@maxtyler.us
Subject: Rep. Tyler - Science & Consequences meeting at Colorado Capital

Good Morning Representative Tyler,

In reviewing your response, I solicited input from a couple scientists (As an un-paid/un-tainted by big money volunteer, I work with many world-wide.).
They offered the following:
______________________________
"If the sun causing weather and climate changes is a myth ... then can we please turn off the sun and let the cow gases
and co2 do the job??
This solar myth thing was invented by Schneider and the likes for years and years ,,, (and used even by the great solar expert
by the name of Al aka Gore from time to time ...)
My fix is to use that cartoon analogy on King-kong vs the great Max Tyler trying to push refrigerator Perry ...
They are so dishonest that they are willing to shut down debate using such boring and anti-science arguments ...
If the sun causing climate change is a myth, then why solar power or wind power to generate electricity ... shhhh" DS

___________________________________________________________________________________
"Colorado is still trying to justify their recent 30% renewables standard. Good luck with those electricity bills Roni." JR

_________________________________________________________________________
Unfortunately Max, you've either been duped (by entities seeking or having power/control/money), or you too have joined the AGW religion.
A great way to remedy this matter, is to have debate.
I've tried for years, to generate debate between (for examples) Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Willie Soon vs.. Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen.
Lindzen and Soon (as is par most of their colleagues) are willing to debate with zero compensation. Gore and company refuse.
This - should be very telling to any dispassionate observer.
Ask any of the individuals you've lined up if they're willing to debate such as Lindzen and Soon. I guarantee they'll say no.
Max, if government stopped subsidizing AGW/wind/solar/ethanol/supporters, all would become as silent as the wind turbine skeletons

that now pockmark once lovely landscapes world-wide.
As Dr. Steve Fettig noted: "When costs aren't talked about - it is easy to be resolutely one type of ideologue or another."
While I applaud your efforts to hold a public forum, I regret your noticeable absence of locals including Dr. Gray, Dr. Keen and Dr. Hayden.
It is my observation that using public property (i.e. capital) for an AGW believers meeting, is no different than if any religion used
it to hold their church service.
Thank you,
Roni
____________________________________________________________

From: max@maxtyler.us
To: ronibell@msn.com
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 12:14:40 -0500
Subject: RE: Rep. Tyler - Science & Consequences meeting at Colorado Capital

Interesting that you left them all anonymous.
Some identified resources from identified scientific organizations:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
Note in particular the highlighted text in the Meteorological society report regarding natural variability.
Note also the position of the Department of Defense.
Personal attacks on me by unnamed sources certainly do less than nothing to make your case.
Representative Max Tyler
303/ 915-8475
____________________________________________________
Good Morning Max,
I agree with your "unnamed sources..." statement.
It was out of my personal courtesy to them, that I omitted their names.
Am CC'ing this to them so they can direct communicate with you.
Thank you, Roni
_____________________________________________________
Roni, Max:
The huge thing missing from the pro-warming case is a connection between CO2 and warming.
When a drug company approaches the FDA to license a new drug, they present a lot of data, but the most important part of the data is the dose-response curves, graphs showing dose (cause) on the horizontal axis and response (effect) on the vertical axis. The responses may be beneficial effects (% of cases cured, % of cases with significant improvement …) or bad side effects (% of cases developing rashes, % of cases with increases blood pressure …)
If a drug company approached the FDA to license a drug for which they did NOT present dose-response curves, they would be laughed out of the hearing chambers.
For the relationship between CO2 and warming, the cause is called "forcing" and the effect is temperature rise. (There is "forcing" due to CO2, and there are other "forcings" as well, about which the IPCC pretends to know details.
With that much as background, let it be said here and now, and screamed to the high heavens. THE IPCC HAS NEVER --- REPEAT NEVER --- PRODUCED A CAUSE-EFFECT GRAPH TO SHOW A LINK BETWEEN CO2 AND WARMING.
Don't believe it? Go to the IPCC website (http://ipcc.ch/ ) and open any document you like. You will find no cause-effect graph. Challenge any speaker who claims that CO2 is heating the earth to show such a graph. They will not do it.
Now why, pray, are you not laughing those turkeys out of the forum?
In case you're wondering what those IPCC folks do, have a look at the attached PDF to see a collection of IPCC graphs. Show them to AGW claimants and ask which model settled the science so that we can quit throwing billions of research dollars at the rest.
Cheers, Cork
____________
Howard (Cork) Hayden
Prof. Emeritus of Physics, UConn
Perhaps you should subscribe to The Energy Advocate,
....................a monthly newsletter (on real paper) about energy.
Read: A Primer on Renewable Energy
______________________________________________________________
From: Max Tyler [mailto:max@maxtyler.us]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 10:42 AM
To: corkhayden@comcast.net
Subject: FW: Rep. Tyler - Science & Consequences meeting at Colorado Capital
I don't know if this information was forwarded to you.
I would be interested in any peer-reviewed publications of yours in the area of climate science.
Myself and Al Gore are not the issue here.
Representative Max Tyler
303/ 915-8475
_______________________________________________________________
See attached paper to be submitted.
I am well acquainted with the AAAS and AMS statements. They can be summarized thus:
I CAME
I SAW
I CONCURRED
Read those statements carefully. See if you can find anything that a scientist would recognize as science.
Under no circumstances is science an authoritarian subject. I don't care a hoot about who says what. I care only what they can prove, and in the case of a link between CO2 and warming, they're downright retarded. Their failure to link cause and effect with a cause
effect graph is scientific ineptitude of the highest order.
In the attached paper you will notice that I have linked cause and effect. It's more complicated than most people imagine, and I include the IPCC so-called scientists.
Cheers,
Cork
From: Roni Bell Sylvester [mailto:ronibell@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:41 PM
To: Max Tyler; gordonfulks
Subject: Max, more great information: Global Temperature Anomaly continues to plunge

Good Afternoon Representative Tyler,
I read your exchange with Dr. Howard Hayden, and thought you'd appreciate some more excellent information.
This time from Dr. Gordon Fulks - another Contributing Educator to www.LandAndWaterUSA.com (LAW USA).
Hope your AGW believers seminar at Colorado's capital is well attended, for that will pave the way for your
hosting another with scientists whose findings reveal nature makes climate change.
That would be a fair and balanced way to handle this matter; and bring you kudos from all arenas.
LAW USA and Good Neighbor Law (GNL) will be honored to provide the scientists.
Thank you,
Roni Bell Sylvester
Volunteer Editor
cc: GNL board
___________________________________________________
Hello Everyone,

The Global Temperature Anomaly resumed its steep plunge in December after only a small decline in November (see attachment). This is because the NH anomaly finally showed a steep drop in December after stubbornly staying 'warmer' than the tropics or SH:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
It is worth pointing out that all of the "anomalies" reported here are departures from what we would expect in a completely "normal" year. "Normal" is now defined as a 30 year average of what has been observed during the satellite era. Anomalies remove any seasonal signals.
With the present global anomaly now standing at +0.18 C, that means that we are warmer than the average by about two tenths of a degree. The tropics are below normal and still heading down slightly. The Global Sea Surface Temperature anomaly (attached) seems to be following a typical La Nina pattern and should bottom out below normal soon.
Dr. Spencer confirms what many of us have been saying for sometime: The El Nino in 2010 was very similar to the one in 1998, such that the "warmest ever" public relations claims for 2010 were bogus. The anomaly in 2010 was slightly lower than in 1998 and the peak considerably lower. But the most accurate thing to say is that the two El Ninos were similar. They are big net cooling events which lead to reduced global temperatures for a few years.
What about the future? The cooling in this La Nina cycle still has a ways to go, and we will likely soon see a negative temperature anomaly globally as we already see in the tropics. Once we hit bottom for this cycle, expect a bounce back to near normal or a little above normal over a period of about two years. The expected cooling from a negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and a quiet Sun should become apparent this decade, but don't expect anything spectacular. Our oceans are a huge temperature buffer. If we experience a large volcanic eruption, the temperature slide could be a little more dramatic. All of these predictions are based on what we have seen before during the satellite era, where high quality data have been available. Of course, this data set does not cover any previous periods where we have transitioned from a positive to negative PDO and from a very active sun to a very quiet one. Some surprises probably await us. That's what makes science especially interesting.
What do our meteorologists think?
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD Physics
Corbett, Oregon USA

________________________________________________

Roni:
You didn't ask for my advice, but I'll offer it anyway, as I believe that we are on the same side here.

The whole AGW issue has to be handled very carefully.
In my view, proposing an alternative theory (e.g. the sun) is a major faux pax. You have then switched the burden of proof to yourself — not a good idea.
The fact is that in science, the burden of proof is always on the proponents. Stick to that fact in dealing with AGW proponents. You do not have to disprove anything, or provide any alternative theory!
Science is a process, not a collection of theories or theorems. The core process of science is the Scientific Method.
When anyone proposes a scientific hypothesis the only way it can be legitimately proved is to subject it to the Scientific Method.
In essence, the Scientific Method requires that a hypothesis have an assessment that is:
1) comprehensive,
2) independent,
3) objective,
4) transparent, and
5) empirical.
The situation with the AGW hypothesis is that NONE of this has been done.
That is their Achilles heel and the sole issue that should be focused on.
regards,
john droz, jr.
physicist & environmental advocate