New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends

Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn't made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand. If you want to know what the science really says, please read the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

The latest story exciting the denialosphere is being put about by Anthony Watts and is based on a "news alert" from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. (Note: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition contains no actual climate scientists.)

The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ...

Gareth Renowden explains how the NZCSC concocted their result -- they made the NZ warming trend go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site. Now that might be simple incompetence, but they also claim that NIWA won't explain how they adjust the data for site changes, and as Renowden says:

Nothing in the station histories? It's all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least two years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about "adjusted data". In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth.

I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?

More like this

Denialists, remember - gullible is a life-style choice.

The ignorati denialists are ineducable. How many times do they need to be told about the importance of station metadata and the need for data normalisation?

I see on the CRU thread there are calls for "raw" data too. I presume some of them might want to do the same with that data as the NZCSC have done with the NIWA data.

BTW, there is an update link to NIWA at Hot Topic, in which they say:

Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.

* Combining Temperature Data from Multiple Sites in Wellington

NIWAâs analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.

NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWAâs Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says heâs very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

NIWA scientists are committed to providing robust information to help all New Zealanders make good decisions.

Not only have the NZ CSC been aware of it, but I'm sure DimWatt is also aware of it. As a class, they are beneath contempt. That, or they have the memory spans of a brain-cell-deficient goldfish.

My hope is that from this whole cruddy affair no one will ever, ever take for granted that the science will explain itself and be accepted and, as well, underestimate the deniers.

In the long run this may turn out to be a good thing for taking the steps needed to deal with global warming. Up till now if anyone was in doubt as to the danger from the fanaticsm of the deniers. Climate scientists not affected by this will see what can happen to them, they can either pull up the ramparts or take a much more active role in getting the science out to the community even if it means as individuals they get less time for research. For policy makers, once the dust has settled, they may come out of this less likely to listen to the denialists having had it laid out globally what the denialists will do. And for us self-selecting lot on these blogs we may redouble our efforts to thwart the denialist message in the community i.e. not blogging.

Lets face it, the denialists are not going to sit back havign accomplished this congratulating each other on a job well done. Their worldview will mean they will keep going and going and going......

Sorry guys, my above post was based on the CRU hack with the NZ affair as evidence of how the denialsits just don't stop.

Wow, those in denial will stop at nothing. The hypocrisy-- accusing others of massaging data (which they have not), and yet they (those in denial) distort, misrepresent and lie about the science daily.

We have the same problem with the "Friends" of Science in Canada (an astroturf group funded by big oil). The name is a complete misnomer by the way. Go to their web site and spot the half truths, deception and misinformation.

How they heck do we counter (or stop) this relentless onslaught of misinformation from those in denial?? Ideas anyone.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

If, as the CRU debacle seems to indicate, the standard denial cry has gone from "no warming since 1998" to "all of the data is a fraud !!!1!!" then they will have effectively marginalized themselves. If all the data is fraudulent, there's nothing to bicker about.

But they'll find something, I'm sure.

"How they heck do we counter (or stop) this relentless onslaught of misinformation from those in denial?? Ideas anyone."

Keep pointing at the melting ice. People will believe something if they can see it happening with their own eyes and even the dumbest person on the planet understands that ice melts when the temperature warms.

Robert, thanks. Yes, the melting ice does resonate with people. That said, the Arctic sea ice is recovering don't you know (read sarcasm)? At least that is what Canada's Lorne Gunter claims.

There has to be a better way. Ads showing the graphs of Arctic ice, SATs, seal-level rise?
Scientists getting slots on major talk shows?
Full page ads in newspapers?

Ugh, I give up.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

@MapleLeaf:
"Friends of Science" = "German Democratic Republic"

Marco re #10. Could you please elaborate? My coffee is still kicking in. Thanks.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Thank you very much for this Tim.
Very useful.

East-Germany was officially called "German Democratic Republic". "Democratic" as in "communist one-party system in which the population did not have any vote".

Friends of Science is just as 'aptly' named.

Marco, thanks. Yes, FOS is a misnomer. They are a joke, but have a lot of funding. Just paid for a C$250K ad campaign of misinformation in Canada, as well as for a "lecture" tour by Monckton. Seems that FOS are funneling big oil money through a neocon think tank now, this after they were caught using the University of Calgary for money laundering.

Chris de Freitas has ties with both FOS and with the NZ climate "science" coalition. Not to mention his role in the Climate Research fiasco. And the guy is not behind bars yet?

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Tim,

Your report is biased. You focuse entirely this section of the press release:

>*The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.*

But then ignore the second part:

>The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ...

People here show their bias when they ignore the FACTS in the second paragraph.

Let me list the manifold facts you coverup:

1) The press release established that corruption of climate science occurs in CRU. The corruption is so well established that I need not labour the point.

2) There is world wide concern about this corruption.

Tim Lambert of UNSW, is covering up the corruption by ignoring the facts and instead cherry picking some minor error in the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition press release

;)

"And the guy is not behind bars yet?"

Lol, Marco is clearly kidding. Because otherwise that remark would be, uh, dumb.

Is it not ironic that denidiots are jumping up and down calling Mann, Jones, etc., "criminals", when

Fred Singer

Willie Soon

Sallie Baliunas

Chris de Freitas

Bob Carter

Marc Morano

Ian Plimer

(just for starters)

are free to continue their dishonest and defamatory nonsense?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

People here show their bias when they ignore the FACTS in the second paragraph.

Not a single fact there. I'm biased towards the truth.

Quite right, 'Dhogie', it's the facts that count, just the facts:

'Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people's denial. Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.'

Er, no, no, not my words but little Georgie Moonbat's, oops, sorry, George Monbiot in The Guardian.

Oh dear . . .

Re #15: "The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ..."

Yet more unsubstantiated innuendo. Be afraid Tim, there is indeed a worldwide conspiracy. Seriously, do you guys live on rhetoric and unsubstantiated allegations? It is a wonder you leave the house.

And Pointer. My comment in #14 had northing to do with what Marco said. Just wondering how de Freitas has avoided disciplinary action. And yes, I would consider the funneling of big oil money to FOS through a university account as criminal, and de Freitas has very close ties to FOS. There was an official investigation. Need I join the dots for you? And you guys have the gall to claim moral authority. Beyond belief.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Er, no, no, not my words but little Georgie Moonbat's, oops, sorry, George Monbiot in The Guardian.

Yes, he's fallen for the same bullshit you've fallen for. I've never been a fan, this won't turn me into a fan.

Meanwhile, really the *only* thing of substance in the e-mail is Jones calling for folks to delete e-mail rather than see them coughed up to McI due to a FOI request (which, as it turns out, was denied anyway). Later Jones says that the FOI officer said "don't delete stuff", and there's no evidence anything was deleted.

Still, that reflects poorly on Jones.

And has absolutely nothing to do with the science underlying AGW.

Come back when you can disprove the physics.

Oh great the juvenile geriatric is back, Duffy. I do agree that the stolen emails are damaging. Just be fortunate that none has, yet, hacked into your Divine leaders' email accounts. That said, Monbiot makes some good points.

That said, this fiasco is no reason to delay action on AGW-- the planet continues to warm blissfully ignorant of all this nonsense. What I find sad is how people like Duffy here are taking immense delight in someone else's misfortune. Could they be any more malicious and vindictive if they tried? Probably not, but those in denial are infamous for that.

This is best left to the police and lawyers now.

Anyhow, Duffy you are trolling again. Any thoughts on those deniers in NZ fiddling the data? Or are you going to ignore that inconvenient truth? FOS have done the same, as has Lindzen.......OK, he did not fiddle the data, just **knowingly used** the wrong satellite data b/c the erroneous data showed what he wanted to see. Then there is Monckton who has been shown to fiddle IPCC graphs. The list goes on and on.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Anthony Watts was supposedly a TV weatherman right? I've seen TV weather reports where they were distinguishing between different recording stations in the same city. Surely he's familiar with such things?

Well, lets see. You could:

Stop calling people who disagree with you "deniers". That is all too close to "heretic". This is not supposed to be a matter of faith.

Publish your code. Invite open source style inspection and correction. Hire some software professionals to clean up and maintain the code. What's been released does not inspire confidence.

Publish the verification tests you use to demonstrate that the code does what its supposed to do.

Publish ALL the data.

Publish all the corrections made, with explanations.

Engage your best opponents as a "black hat" team with the charter to find any errors in the code and analysis procedures. Fix any problems they find, and thank them publicly for that.

Articulate and publish the best counter-arguments available, in a manner that their proponents will deem fair. Explain why you find the counter-arguments unpersuasive.

You are asking people to spend trillions of dollars based on this stuff. The "we won't show you the data, or the code" is unprofessional - just not acceptable. This needs to be above reproach.

By Happy Daze (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Here, here, for David Duff,

I think this thread should be talking about the CRU not egregious errors from "skeptics".

I vote we turn this into another thread to discuss CRU. What do you say chaps?

Duff, answer some [valid questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/competitive_enterprise_institu…) please, and don't run away trying to hijack threads without substantiating your prior related claims.

Take it were the issue is discussed, otherwise you're exposing yourself as an empty vessel of unsubstantiated propaganda.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Stop calling people who disagree with you "deniers".

That's not why we call anti-science denialists "deniers". We call them "deniers" because they're anti-science denialists.

Engage your best opponents as a "black hat" team with the charter to find any errors in the code and analysis procedures. Fix any problems they find, and thank them publicly for that.

GISStemp and GISS Model E have been out for some years, now. No denialist has done anything to improve the code or to show that the code's erroneous.

Call the denialists what they are; propagandists. What they do is beyond marketing and beyond spin. It is propaganda pure and simple. Lies, more lies a little bit of truth and more lies.

They do not care that there lines of argument are entirely contradictory. Scream when data is not adjusted for site changes, scream when data is adjusted for site changes. CO2 does not have a greenhouse effect, we need more CO2 to stave off another mini ice age. Scientists agree means collusion, don't agree (on minor points) proof that it is all wrong.
Have you noticed how they accuse others of their own dirty little tricks.

For those calling deniers those who may be skeptical about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, but especially now: Take a deep diaphragmatic breath, exhale slowly, then learn that there is a difference between denial and skepticism.

And apparently there is a difference between scientists and engineers who have the audacity to be honest and allow their findings, along with data, to be examined and critiqued--and those CAGW advocates, especially the prima donnas, who appear to be suppressionists.

By CKA in USA (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

'Happy Daze' suggests, very intelligently, sunny days, that is, all the scientists on both sides should open up their padlocked vaults and let the sun shine in.

And 'Dhogie', you disappoint me. The reason they are called 'deniers' is because it chimes with 'holocaust deniers'. Well, I mean, a bit of tar and a brush is so cheap and so effective!

Jane, calm down, dear, all I did was let you know what one of your (erstwhile) most enthusiastic of supporters was saying. Don't blame the messenger.

Drum 'em out of the Scientific community. And don't let them back in. period. Liars in the service to givernment, not man is a pot of manure.

By john smith (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Sorry guys, ClimateGate proves its game over for your global warming alarmists. ......back to the drawing board on how to achieve global control......

By Melvin Dauchburg (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Maybe if all of you "warmists" would get over yourselves you might wake up and realize that the "planet" doesn't want or "need" your kind of help!

Screw off you commie bastards!

Jake:>
People here show their bias when they ignore the FACTS in the second paragraph.

I thought the second paragraph was irrelevant because the group of deniers in question had previously raised the issue about the graph/temp readings ("NZ CSC were told about this information at least two years ago") and then they raised it again now to capitalise on a separate issue in the UK.

eg. There was no merit at all in their query other than to make political capital.

It seems that you are the one that is biased!

Folks, this climate deal is very easy. Show us the raw data over time from the same sites over many years using equipment that does not require adjustments of any kind. Simple. We do not trust people or equipment that needs judgments of opinion when it comes to altering our lifestyles significantly and costing us Trillions of Dollars, not to mention the anxiety added.

Remember, before Einstein and his General Theory of Relativity the entire world was based on Newtonian Physics, which was not up to the task of advancing human knowledge in the 20th Century. Now, the Warmists have apparently lied to us, likely out of a misguided attempt to save the world, not to mention earning a dollar or two. It is time for the truth and an open and complete debate about this Warmist truth.

With great respect and Common Sense.

Douglas

By Douglas Patrick (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Sounds like a bunch of you morons are a little upset that the biggest scam in the history of the world is out of the bag and into the light where it will die the death it deserves. Can't wait to see Al Gore in jail oh happy happy day.

By globalwarmer (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I really think the AGW supporters have run most of their course.. it's time to bring in the accountants and see where and what and when we got some science for all the billions that have been paid out to prove AGW.. and change the world to a Green machine.. if theres something scientific there we'll find it, act right and go on in poverty for the good of future humans, if not(as I suspect) we'll hang the culprits, teach our kids how wrong it is to make up things and call it science, and go back to trying to balance the economy.

Hey all you intelligent scientific types (so-called)...we are not saying there is no climate change. Duh.

We are saying that there has ALWAYS been cyclical climate change and that you have an agenda in putting forth hypotheses simply to create mass hysteria.

WE are not going to die off...or become crispy critters. in fact, if anything we will all turn into frozen treats.

You are ONLY trying to qualify your funding and help your buddies 1) Make a lot of money on foolish science inventions to stop a climatic event that is unstoppable by human beings, or 2) trying to destroy capitalist societies to form your own supposed socialist utopia ignoring 80 years of history of failed socialism.

LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE. WE PREFER TO GET A SUN TAN...AND IF THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, WE WILL WEAR COATS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

Get a life.

>Show us the raw data over time from the same sites over many years using equipment that does not require adjustments of any kind. Simple.

And what planet (sorry, I meant universe) does this equipment exist on?

One without friction maybe?

Actually lets turn that around. You go and do it and surprise us all with your miracle. I'm sure the science and engineering will mean we can go to the stars with zero effort once you find out how to do it.

Behead Al Gore!

By Sam Deakins (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Happy Daze (I like the tag) says:

>*Stop calling people who disagree with you "deniers". That is all too close to "heretic". This is not supposed to be a matter of faith.*

Youâre correct it should not be about faith, but some deniers make some pretty wild claims without supporting evidence. They simply take a faith based position. Search this site for a poster tagged âel gordoâ as just one example that comes to mind.

I, and many other call people deniers who deny the science, and make intellectually dishonest and egregious false claims like the NZCSC. I call sceptics who make honest points , âscepticsâ.

There is a difference, keep your self at least in the later group and I wonât call you a denier.

Happy Daze continues:
>*Publish your code. Invite open source style inspection and correction. Hire some software professionals to clean up and maintain the code. What's been released does not inspire confidence.*
>*Publish the verification tests you use to demonstrate that the code does what its supposed to do.*
>*Publish ALL the data.*
>*Publish all the corrections made, with explanations.*

Many here have discussed the problems to which you suggest the above solutions. Unfortunately it is not as simple as many would wish.
Firstly much of the data has been published and is freely available, read the links in this thread for such an example. I believe the same is true for GISS (NASA) data. However contractual agreements prevent some third parties (e.g. CRU) from releasing data. The data is owned by others parties and current Intellectual Property rights allow for the funding of the work of these other parties.

To look at this situation in a holistic way would require massive funding changes and addressing IP rights and consideration of the problems of establishing a[ two tiered]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#…) level of transparency.

Similarly, I understand it that GISS (NASA) have already provided their code to the public. Others may wish to comment on this.

Happy continues:
>*Engage your best opponents as a "black hat" team with the charter to find any errors in the code and analysis procedures. Fix any problems they find, and thank them publicly for that.*

When scientist have answered the campaing of FOI requests they may have time for some science, then perhaps extend engagement of their opponents. But as Bernard J pointed out take a look at Gavinâs response to [ this questions](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comm…)

>*Articulate and publish the best counter-arguments available, in a manner that their proponents will deem fair. Explain why you find the counter-arguments unpersuasive.*

Youâll find this in multiple websites

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Global Warming melted the Dinosaurs!

By Sam Deakins (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

The arena of global warming debate is only the most egregious case demonstrating that those who know the least about mathematics and science place the most faith in its exactitude. Output and conclusions are tenuous without a thorough understanding of any algorithm's underlying assumptions. Take a deep breath, warmers, and just relax about this...the vast majority of you are functionally unequipped to do other than parrot the conclusions of others. The technically literate will sort through the efforts at answers - good, bad, and otherwise - and like all sound science, this will take time and continuous revision. Find a new hobby, you parrots. Cheers from the States - DS.

By Dunston Scoggins (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Charlie boy:
>"We are saying that there has ALWAYS been cyclical climate change.."

Funny that, because the mainstream scientists say the same.
Maybe if you understood the issues you might actually know that.

Denialists, Deniers, etc.. You Eco-Fascists have a solid response to opposing views on a very inexact science -- Attack the eco-apostates! How dare someone disagree with you!!

FYI to Eco-Nuts, 99% of the "deniers" are not against conserving energy or developing clean energy. We are however 100% against your eco-fascist solution: world taxation on everything one does. How the Left loves to mandate, control and mandate some more.

The same chicken-little "the sky is falling" brain trust 30 years ago was positive the Earth would be deep in a new Ice Age by now.

Brand me a proud Denier

By George California (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

There is something very cute about Global Warming: you have to believe in it! You arenât allowed to question it because, as Mr. Al Gore & Co. tells us, "science has already spoken". At the very moment that you subscribe to this view, "Human Induced Global Warming" theory loses any remote affiliation with Science and becomes a Metaphysical Concept, namely a Religious one.

You see, Science must always have a dissenting opinion in order to move forward. The Scientific Method requires an experimental proof for any Theory to be accepted, and repeatedly so. If even one experiment negates any generally accepted Theory, then that Theory is either destined to the garbage bin, or it must be incorporated into a new "bigger" theory that will include it as a special case. For example, the Newtonian Theory of Gravitation - [your 9.8 m/c^2 reference, Mr. Kent comes to mind] had been proven wrong in cosmological settings, and was fully incorporated in the 20th century as a special case in Einsteinâs Theory of Relativity. As soon as one experiment will fail Einsteinâs vision, then a new theory will be developed that will either be completely different or will incorporate the Theory of Relativity as a special case.

When thinking of the "Human Induced Global Warming Theory", I have to admit that physical laws governing such supposed phenomena may even exist, but there is nothing we can do to uncover them. In other words: WE CANNOT design a set of repeatable experiments that PROVE the existence of such laws.

I challenge any climatologist to design the experiment that proves Human Made Global Warming or it absence. Please do this once and for all!

But if you can not think even about ONE experiment this is what is wrong with the supposed Scientific Theory. That is precisely why this "Theory" realm is well beyond the scope of Scientific Method and it has become a matter of Faith, and in our pitiful world - a new religion.

EU, UN, Greenpeace, Obama, and other marvelous entities declared that Human Induced Global Warming is the "Final truth". That declaration immediately transforms Mr. Al Gore, and more familiar to us Canadians Dr. David Suzuki, into Prophets of the new "Church of Global Warming" to the disgust of few, and to the delight and awe of multitude of disciples. Those who cannot be frightened anymore by Hollywood horror movies are keeping themselves busy awaiting the coming Global Warming Apocalypses and scaring their friends and families into Human Induced Global Paranoia.

Of course a small dirty secret exists, that for 10 years the global cooling is happening, and the Human Made GW Theory is dead, according to even meager scientific standards, but who cares, when media, politicians, celebrities [all of whom must be climatologists, besides we do now know that the most prominent warmist-climatologists are cooking books] are full of filthy hot air, and the new Great Cause for unwashed masses - after the fall of communism - is almost upon us!

Erm, Tim.
Looks like you have an all out spam/troll attack going on here.

David Duff,

I have made no comment on the messenger, I'd be willing to address Monbiot and his message elsewere. I am addressing both your high-jacking, and your smear-and-run tactics.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Tim,

Looks like this topic is one that the faith based want to distract people from. Their ehmm "rebuttal" provide a fine example, for those like Happy Daze who might be looking for a way forward, or are waiting to make judgement about the merits of "argument".

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

bunch of pinko commie rag. the truth is out, deal with it, and become productive members of society. global warming is BS.
blame the sun, or God, though im sure most of you believe in the existence of either.

WTF. Where did all the contrarians and conspiracy theorists come from all of a sudden? Site is swarming with them, kinda like mozzies. Did Watts and McIntyre send you all here? Come on now confess.

Feeling a little concerned that more of your ilk have been exposed for fudging data? Not a inference or something taken out of context. Actual evidence. Care to defend their actions?

Now stop trying to detract from the "dishonest and egregious false claims" of the NZCSC and FOS with your vitriol and invective.

Either speak to the topic at hand or go and troll somewhere else please.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Douglas: "Folks, this climate deal is very easy. Show us the raw data over time from the same sites over many years using equipment that does not require adjustments of any kind."

It doesn't exist, not until the last couple of decades. The data that are being used to estimate climate change over most of the 20th century were collected to support meteorology and oceanography at the time, not to estimate longer term trends. So there are inhomogeneities, biases, station changes that must be corrected for. People who want to use this data have to deal with them.

Or ignore the old data and pretend we know nothing about what happened before 1990. Guess what, the Earth's been getting warmer since then.

For now, I think someone needs to begin creating a list of the deniers. We should include where they live and work. Eventually they will need to be reeducated. We can not allow their stupidity to ruin our planet. The ones that continue to ignore the truth can be silenced later.

By GLHockey7 (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Bloody hell. It's all gone a bit pitchforks-and-flaming-torches hasn't it?

>Where did all the contrarians and conspiracy theorists come from all of a sudden?

NZCSC?

I love Chuck!

>bunch of pinko commie rag. the truth is out, deal with it, and become productive members of society. global warming is BS. blame the sun, or God, though im sure most of you believe in the existence of either.

I'm overwhelmed with the case he presents.

Yeah shall know them by their fruits?

(Sorry bout that last line, I'm still in verse from addressing Dirty Dave).

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

>When thinking of the "Human Induced Global Warming Theory", I have to admit that physical laws governing such supposed phenomena may even exist, but there is nothing we can do to uncover them. In other words: WE CANNOT design a set of repeatable experiments that PROVE the existence of such laws.

Your ignorance of physics is not a disproof of physics.

Put some CO2 in a container. Point an interferometer at it. Measure the spectra from, say .4µm to 14µm. Repeat with CH4. The rest is 3rd year physics/maths. You should know that this has already been done, many times. In fact most of it was done before you were born.

GLHockey7, are you Charles in drag?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

You have to be stuck on STUPID if you still believe in MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING after the "Disciples of Gore" have been caught in their lies.

This post made it to some social news sites like reddit. Hence the influx of smear-and-run anti-science groupthink.

Gee GLHockey7 maybe you should reconsider your words when it comes to those who disagree with you.

You said:

"For now, I think someone needs to begin creating a list of the deniers. We should include where they live and work. Eventually they will need to be reeducated. We can not allow their stupidity to ruin our planet. The ones that continue to ignore the truth can be silenced later."

These words sound convincingly like 1939 Berlin to me..

I didn't realize that "disagreement" was a CRIME in New Zealand.

Wow, that's a hell of a troll attack! I was wondering how this thread got so many comments so quick.

GLHockey7 (#53 above) apparently thinks climate "sceptics" will see his post above and conclude that climate change activists believe in Nazi style methods to silence dissent. You don't do much justice to the intelligence of your denialist buddies, do you Hockey?

Also, the attacks on jake man (#15) are unwarranted. I'm pretty sure his post was intended as satire.

These "scientists" are a bunch of fake phony frauds if you ask me. Cooking the numbers to help their warming theory sucks. I for one don't want a carbon tax or crap and tax or what ever you call it. STAY OUT OF MY LIFE!

Didn't know this was an insiders-only blog. Sorry, mate. Just a bit more discussion on the subject of controversy as of late. You are right - I'm normally studying elsewhere. Always looking for new pastures - preferably sensible ones - to link past and present. I agree - don't much appreciate the all-caps style and invective, regardless of viewpoint. Seems a bit frivolous, much of the above, though the initial post was rather sober, even if clearly with a POV. Perhaps just a rant-site, then. The hubbub in recent years is unseemly and only growing, so it seems. For my part, I'd say it's all too soon to tell, and I'm sceptical of the declarations of certitude. The meaning of the fairly-well recorded past is not nailed down in black and white and so I'm leery of this new urgency, not just in this arena, but the hyperbole is especially ripe on warming. Would rather stay with Augustine and St. Bernard in the research realm anyway but it is, I'd thought, worthwhile to consider the past in terms of current affairs. Back to the stacks, then, boyos. Cheers - DS.

By Dunston Scoggins (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Janet, re #55, the NZCSC is the "New Zealand Climate 'Science' coalition". Yet another astroturf front group for the denial machine. We have "Friends" of Science and others here in Canada. Anyhow NZCSC are the ones who have been shown to be fudging the data to removed the warming trend. And now it seems they are in damage control mode. Which means, it seems, hurling abuse left right and centre. They and their ilk are lousy at science, but rather good at rhetoric and vitriol (and fudging data too it seems). Wonder if they kiss loved ones with those potty mouths?

Here is an idea: We should start a list of documents fudged by Monckton, Watts, McIntyre, Tim Ball, de Freitas et al. and dedicate a whole web page to said fudged graphics, fudged statements and statistics. What do you think Tim Lambert?

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Re my last post @#61, and judging by Melissa (#60) it seems like GLHockey wasn't overestimating the stupidity and gullibility of some readers after all.

Melissa, he's one of you trying to be clever. It's really really not hard to figure out.

Melissa, are you GLHockey7 in drag?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I think the news has just reached the Florida everglades, obviously the dispatch rider just made it having avoided the alligators.

I hope Al Gore gives back his Nobel prize. Oh yea that hypocrite is too busy flying around on his private jet to care about anything but MONEY!

Stupidity knows no bounds.

LOL at all the liberals on here trying to do damage control. I think some of you are paid by big climategate.

you got caught lying, now face our wrath for it.

keep your cap and trade, and carbon taxes, keep your green bullcrap to yourselves.

I am going to turn on my air and open my windows just to shove a middle finger in your general direction.

Warming Farce Solution:
1. Cripple Western Economies
2. Redistribute Western Wealth to the Poor (Usually identified by dictatorship form of gov)
3. Ignore #1 polluter (China)
4. Ignore India
5. Criminalize and Tax (of course) select human activities
6. Attempt to marginalize the Deniers of the grand plan
7. Ignore the big heater a.k.a. The Sun

By George California (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Greg,

On what do you base this assertion:

*"a small dirty secret exists, that for 10 years the global cooling is happening"*

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Thank God and his only begotten son, Jesus Christ that your religion of lies has met its match!

Enough of your lies atheists!

Read this excerpt, from a heretofore internal CRU email. Please rationalize the circumstances that support the denial of data to competing positions and the selective application of data in support of one's own position. Then tell me if true science is suffering from this politicized approach to research.

The email thread follows:

Mr McIntyre's analysis of the data - which he had been asking for since 2003 - suggests that scientists at the
Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom's Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. [1]

Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics behind the 'hockey stick'. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre, in particular Dr Briffa, have
continuously republished claiming the upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of the methodology used - as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently they were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they
published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it enforces.

This week's claims by Steve McInyre that scientists associated with the UK Meteorology Bureau have been less than diligent are serious and suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the
methodology is laid bare.

This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is archived at the UK Meteorological Bureau with in complete data sets that spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while complete data sets
are kept hidden from the public - including from
scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.

It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.

GLHockey7- Your plan is par for the course for the Liberal/Socialist mindset. I am happy to meet you anytime and anywhere for you to begin the "re-education" program. I do doubt you would live through that process. Your Hoax is out and the game is over. Leave my freedom alone.

By BrokenHockeyStick34 (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

If you are wondering where all the crazy denialists come from, Drudge linked to this post, presumably because he thought the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was some sort of official organization, rather than a bunch of denialists.

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

The funny thing is, I don't even like commies!
But I don't like capitalists much either.

"atheists"?

Mmmm,

Melisa, you were GLHockey7?

Or perhaps do you two have this double team shtick where ever you go?

el gordo, come back!!!!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

the
rules
of the
game

Evidence base for the Climate Change
Communications Strategy
The game is communicating climate change;
the rules will help us win it.

futerra

the principles of
climate change
communication

Why were the principles
created?

The game is communicating
climate change; the rules will
help us win it.

These principles were created as
part of the UK Climate Change
Communications Strategy, an
evidence-based strategy aiming
to change public attitudes
towards climate change in the
UK. This is a âshort versionâ
of a far longer document of
evidence that can be found at
www.defra.gov.uk.

There is plenty of evidence
relating to attitudes towards and
behaviour on climate change,
general environmental behaviour
change and the whole issue
of sustainable development
communication. As we reviewed
the research for these principles,
one âüberprincipleâ emerged:
âChanging attitudes
towards climate change is
not like selling a particular
brand of soap â itâs like
convincing someone to
use soap in the first place.â
At first glance, some of the
principles may seem counterintuitive
to those who have
been working on sustainable
development or climate change
communications for many years.
Some confront dearly cherished
beliefs about what works; a few
even seem to attack the values
or principles of sustainable
development itself.
However, these principles are a
first step to using sophisticated
behaviour change modelling and
comprehensive evidence from
around the world to change
attitudes towards climate change.
We need to think radically, and
the Rules of the Game are a sign
that future campaigns will not be
âbusiness as usualâ. This is a truly
exciting moment.
For the full evidence for these rules, and the climate change
communications strategy itself, please visit: www.defra.gov.uk
For the new UK sustainable development strategy please visit:
www.sustainable-development.gov.uk

1 blowing away
myths

Many of the oft-repeated communications methods and messages
of sustainable development have been dismissed by mainstream
communicators, behaviour change experts and psychologists.
Before we go into what works, our principles make a âclean sweepâ
of what doesnât:
1. Challenging habits of climate change communication
Donât rely on concern about childrenâs future or human
survival instincts
Recent surveys show that people without children may care more
about climate change than those with children. âFight or flightâ human
survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes â they are of
little use for a change in climate measured in years.
Donât create fear without agency
Fear can create apathy if individuals have no âagencyâ to act upon
the threat. Use fear with great caution.
Donât attack or criticise home or family
It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.
2. Forget the climate change detractors
Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but
unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate
change, but how we should deal with climate change.
3. There is no ârational manâ
The evidence discredits the ârational manâ theory â we rarely weigh
objectively the value of different decisions and then take the clear
self-interested choice.
4. Information canât work alone
Providing information is not wrong; relying on information alone to
change attitudes is wrong. Remember also that messages about
saving money are important, but not that important.

2 a new way of
thinking

Once weâve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new
ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging
from behaviour change modelling for sustainable development:
5. Climate change must be âfront of mindâ before
persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is
as successful as selling tampons to men. People donât realise
(or remember) that climate change relates to them.
6. Use both peripheral and central processing
Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but
peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot
of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to
public transport.
7. Link climate change mitigation to positive
desires/aspirations
Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of
their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home
improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are
all worth investigating.
8. Use transmitters and social learning
People learn through social interaction, and some people are
better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these
people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are
transmitted more effectively.
9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance
Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and
their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions.

3 linking policy and
communications

These principles clearly deserve a separate section. All the evidence
is clear â sometimes aggressively so â that âcommunications in the
absence of policyâ will precipitate the failure of any climate change
communications campaign right from the start:
10. Everyone must use a clear and consistent
explanation of climate change
The public knows that climate change is important, but is less clear
on exactly what it is and how it works.
11. Government policy and communications on climate
change must be consistent
Donât âbuild inâ inconsistency and failure from the start.

4 audience
principles

In contrast to the myths, this section suggests some principles that
do work. These principles are likely to lead directly to a set of general
messages, although each poses a significant implementation challenge:
12. Create âagencyâ for combating climate change
Agency is created when people know what to do, decide for
themselves to do it, have access to the infrastructure in which to act,
and understand that their contribution is important.
13. Make climate change a âhomeâ not âawayâ issue
Climate change is a global issue, but we will feel its impact at home â
and we can act on it at home.
14. Raise the status of climate change mitigation
behaviours
Research shows that energy efficiency behaviours can make you
seem poor and unattractive. We must work to overcome these
emotional assumptions.
15. Target specific groups
A classic marketing rule, and one not always followed by climate
change communications from government and other sources.

5 style
principles

These principles lend some guidance on the evidence of stylistic
themes that have a high chance of success:
16. Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on
climate change
We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can
call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the
UK public.
17. Use emotions and visuals
Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by
disseminating information doesnât always work, but emotions
and visuals usually do.

6 effective
management

These principles are drawn primarily from the experience of others,
both in their successes and in the problems they faced:
18. The context affects everything
The prioritisation of these principles must be subject to ongoing
assessments of the UK climate change situation.
19. The communications must be sustained over time
All the most successful public awareness campaigns have been
sustained consistently over many years.
20. Partnered delivery of messages will be more
successful
Experience shows that partnered delivery is often a key component
for projects that are large, complex and have many stakeholders.

âFirst they ignore you; then they laugh
at you; then they fight you; then you win.â
Mahatma Gandhi

Tha Thats ALL Folks!

Another FOIA file: Rules Of The Game
Happy Thanksgiving All

Maple Leaf I am laughing at you do you also think the world is flat? Of course you have to manipulate the data? I am sorry but you do protest to much. If it quacks like duck and looks like a duck it is a duck. When is it necessary to massage data? When it goes against your cause. The sky is falling!! Global warmist you are the ones in total denial.

By Tim Osburn (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

@ed357, CKA in USA, john smith, Melvin Dauchburg, Melissa,
Douglas Patrick, globalwarmer, Richard, CHARLES, Dunston Scoggins, George California, Greg, chuck and any other cretin that's flown by here in the last day or so

You are credulous fools, incapable of thinking for yourselves, believing obvious lies and denigrating honest scientists - and having the brazen audacity to accuse others of precisely the delusion you yourself suffer from, calling yourselves skeptical while unquestioningly accepting nonsense that is spoonfed to you through sources your prejudices align with. Pretending evidence does not exist is childish - arrogance and stupidity is a heady mix, and you have clearly drunk deep.

You bring nothing here but repetitions of third-hand lies. You are a complete and utter waste of time.

Its all about Freedumb, forget the science! Science is determined by what our masters tell us is Freedumb!!

I wonder what Gavin was talking about when he said McCarthyism?

You crazies are fun!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Also, some of the denialists are parodies by regular commenters.

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Damn that Poe's Law! It really is impossible to tell.

The funny and frustrating thing about all of this is that if or when the Global Warming theory is proven false proponents of the theory won't celebrate the good news. They will either feel defeated or, stubornly hold their previous position because they don't want to be wrong. These people can't be happy.

So let me get this straight for a moment. The site author of the blog "Watts up with that?" is supposedly very concerned about changes in the sites of weather stations, because those changes might influence the climate records. But this same author does not want NIWA to correct for the fact that certain weather stations in New Zealand had moved?

Color me surprised.

The corruption is so well established that I need not labour the point.

Nice argument by assertion. BTW, I've seen the best the deniers got, and it's not much.

The FOS have also recently been intimidating and harassing members of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. They even planted a mole to access confidential information, and said mole then passed on the information to FOS. FOS then started emailing everyone on the executive and council and harassing them.

If I were in NZ, I would be concerned that NZCSC would try something similar.

Wonder how many of the crazies here realise that Mandela is a communist? It really is like watching a traffic accident with all these trolls flying around. Tim sure is going to be busy cleaning up their mess.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

The truth does not fear and hide from scrutiny and skepticism.
Global warming has been a Leftist lie all along. The debate is now over. The liars need to go find something else to $tudy and lie about. Make it something more believable and less expensive this time, eh boys. ;)

Thanks for the reasonable replies from a couple of posters.

I have a graduate technical degree, but frankly don't have the technical chops to really form an independent opinion on this, nor the years to dig through a million lines of Fortran + all the underlying physics.

But I do have a few years managing development of models for reasonably complex geo-mechanical events, where its not possible to directly measure predicted vs. actual results. I have some feel for the physical modelers vs. software engineers issues. I have some feel for defect density in code, how hard it is to get the defects out, and what it takes to keep from putting the defects in.

So I'll just say that the the CRU material sets off all kinds of alarm bells for me. There is some suggestion (from the CRU material) of technical problems in the code and data, organized suppression of opposition technical opinion, and etc. And its just not possible for many people in the field to claim dispassionate scientific interest (sorry, but that's just the way it is, and you should recognize that).

If you were modeling, say stellar evolution, frankly I wouldn't care.

But because this work is being used to justify huge economic and political decisions (I can't think of anything of comparable magnitude), I think you just have a much, much higher benchmark to meet.

Figure out a way to get past the IP issues. Buy them out, or get a release, or whatever it takes. I'm sure there are real issues there, but it comes across like a BS excuse. Figure out a way to get it off the table.

That's not to say any of this is easy or cheap or fast. I know modelers hate to spend money and time on software engineering rather than physics - but you need to spend some. I can imagine FOI is a huge pain in the butt. I know there are some entirely non-technical folks you will never convince (but to be fair there are some of these on both sides).

I guess I'm what you would call a skeptic. The CRU material hurt your case in my eyes, for the reasons I noted above, but I'm a little skeptical of that too :) I'd like more transparency and smaller error bars all around.

I guess overall I'd like to give you guys another 20 years to work on the models, collect more/better data, and get some faster computers so you can run better models on finer grids, and see how well the next 20 years match the current predictions.

In the meantime, I think there are some things we could do that would be win-wins, AGW or not. For instance, I'd like to see a really big X-prize for a really, really good battery.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment.

By Happy Daze (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Science is not fascism. If 999,999 people say one thing and 1 can proof it otherwise with real absoulute data not smoke and mirrors and data manipulation then the 1 person is correct and it becomes a scientific fact. Not because a person with media and hollywood behind them says it is so.
I have said that global warmist alarmist constant badgering was not science. How many sceintist since the beginning of time went against the esthablishments/ religous beliefs to be killed/imprisoned/chastied. Wow the world is flat. Center of universe is earth. ETC,, Bring your data and have a real debate not some clown Al Gore with a slick video Fear mongering at its best.

By Tim Osburn (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

If anyone was wondering Tom is pasting from this [PR communications document](http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf).
Nice colour, btw. I'm sure Charles can see straight through it.

Tom, can you also locate for us the PR game plan for the otherside? The one the helped sell the pup and turn people into the crazies who've just show us their colours here.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Mapleleaf: If you can document lies made by Monckton, then by all means do it. However Mr. Mann and his cronies have been caught in a tangle of lies. phoney science, destruction of evidence and attempts to discredit scientific discussion. If the science and data was clear and unequivocal, why would they need to "hide the decline" (gee Mr. Mann I wonder what the scientific basis for that is?) and discredit opponents? Gotcha

By Torontojim (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Job 37:14-24

Happy Daze,

Thanks for your comments,

If you ever want to discuss the CRU detail and context, I'd be happy to engage.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

We spent $1 trillion to attack Iraq on the OUTSIDE chance that Iraq was a threat. Climate change is an even greater potential threat than Iraq ever was. It is prudent to preempt the problem regardless of what a few skeptics think.

Testy, testy. Is this computer scientist on the AGW dole, modeling grants say, or just a true believer? Because what kind of scientist hears "ADJUSTMENTS" and their BS detectors do not flutter. Enjoy your carbon trading scam, Zealanders.

By Testy, testy (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Absolutely fantastic - I didn't realise that there is a competition going on for the most crazed denialist satire post. What's the prize? When do we get to vote?

Personally I think George California (#71) is marginally shading it (calling the sun "the big heater" is inspired). Come on chaps, keep going, there must be some even more hilarious attempts out there.

By GWB's nemesis (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

A right lot of dingbats.

Are they taking the decade off from UFO cover-up/fake moon-landing outrage?

I recently started a technical course - the instructor is a complete dingbat - so far he has informed us that:
- transistors were reverse-engineered from captured UFOs at Area 51 ("I'm not telling you what to think - I'm just saying there's different ways of looking at things".)
- global cooling is occurring.
- he "remembers" the great Global Cooling scare of the 1970s.

I think these people were the retards at school who've grown up into adults who are profoudly jealous of the vast numbers of people whose intelligence exceeds theirs by a considerable margin. They hold contrarian views as a form of revenge against the intelligence which eluded them.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Torontojim, re #94. Here are some examples about Monckton fiddling the data/graphs:

http://www.desmogblog.com/pompous-prat-alert-viscount-monckton-tour
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/climate-change-looney-tunes-from-lord-mon…

The list goes on....and on :)

Re: "hide the decline". That phrase has been explained so many times, but I doubt you are interested in the truth eh? Go to realclimate.org or desmogblog.com and read all about what they were really saying.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

So basically there are "scientists" on one side that are lying, censoring and stating half truths and on the other side "scientists" that are misrepresenting raw data.

That being the case....where do we get any sense of consensus, an actual scientific conclusion or any resemblance of a desire to have a government act upon this HORRIBLE "science"?

I'm so sick of the uneducated deniers that constantly deny that the planet is not meant to be a static temperature, denies that the ice has been melting for thousands of years and denying that we are in the midst of an overwhelming cooling period.

The entire religion of Global Warming is now a wash.

By Chris Richardson (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

>If you can document lies made by Monckton, then by all means do it.

Classic!
I think he is self documenting.

Douglas Watts and Douglas Patrick is either one of you perhaps Douglas Leahey? Just wonderin, just wonderin...

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

There is no "world-wide conspiracy". There is, however, a smaller scale conspiracy by so called "scientists" who put political pressure and tapping into a huge cash cow of research funding that is provided by political groups over real, unbiased science. Wouldn't want to loose out on all that free money, now would we?

This trolling might actually be more impressive and damaging if it weren't so obvious :-)

But intelligence isn't their strong point, it seems.

Oh no, You've been hacked by Drudge!!! ...lol... Reduce CO2 ... don't breath for, say, just one hour each day. Think of the great good you would be doing to save the earth.

A great delusion! Perhaps the time of Jacob's trouble... I just report what I read. Love ya.

Happy Daze elaborates on my less complete comments in #42. I left CFD aero-surfaces modeling a few years ago to come to the States and study history of science and surf a bit in California. Sure, the techniques used today, or capable of being used, are often formidable and impressive. Yet, there's always an assumption, some necessary decision on rounding and precision in the models. The subjectivity just lies at a higher fidelity. I'm sceptical because I've been through the process - admittedly not the same process - but have dealt with atmospheric environmentals quite a bit. We've seen this before in the past, great energy and even public and legal policies hinging on what are now rightly considered pseudo-science, even if that was the "science" of the day. The expressions of certainty should offer pause to all with a sense of historical perspective and an understanding of complexity and attempts to model it. Browbeating the less- or uninformed with pedantic scientific-scribalism (e.g. #56) also does not establish the merits of one's argument. Much of the above sounds just like two of my flatmates, fine boys without a numerical bone in their bodies, poor bastards. I'm sorry but you warming believers should welcome valid (yes, a great caveat, definition of that) scrutiny - your hypotheses and conclusions require the exercise. Cheers, DS.

By Dunston Scoggins (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Global warming results from BOTH natural causes AND manmade causes. We can't do anything about the natural causes, but we can preempt the manmade causes. I fully support all actions that preempt the manmade causes. This fake 'outrage' I see against cap and trade, which worked perfectly to mitigate sulfur dioxide pollution, really demonstrates how sick and twisted the far right fringe extremist has become. The coal industry lobbyists spreading this garbage are going too far and I can guarantee people see right through it.

I am still waiting for the ice age that was predicted in the 70's by the same science that are pushing this global warming lie. It is a fraud. If it is not, then open your books and show everyone your science. You can't and you won't. You will not even have an open debate. Al Gore will not even take questions. The global warming cult is a cult and they are trying to turn it in to a religion. The scientific data is derived from limited information. The earth's volcanoes are capable of putting more polution in one hour than man could do in 1000 years. Plants need Co2 to grow. Plant more tress if you want to help. But even that is a drop in the bucket. It is a fruad designed to make money. Period, that's all that is about.

By BEHONESTL (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Just one thought...If global warming,(now called climate change)was so scientifically certain, why would it be necessary to secretly manipulate the data?

Tom (#95): good try, but quoting 2000 year texts of dubious provenance is never going to win you the big prize. I grade you at c- for failing to use up to date references.

By GWB's nemesis (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

If you are wondering where all the crazy denialists come from ...

I thought they might have been refugees from Bolt's site, since he stopped allowing comments.

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

#87 Tom is a different Tom from the one copy pasting the PR-document. I (not copy-paste Tom) will sign with Tomk in the future.

@Happy Daze: I don't understand your line of thinking here when you say: "There is some suggestion (from the CRU material) of technical problems in the code and data, organized suppression of opposition technical opinion, and etc." what do you mean exactly. I've seen e-mails of a guy complaining about the databases, because he is fixing them. What should they have done? Throw up their hands and say "this is too hard, let's give up?" Similar for the "organized suppression of opposition...". What I see is a magazine publishing such bad papers that it's own editors (including those holding an opposing position like van Storch) resign. What should they have done, pretend all is just hunky dory?

How does that apply to me as a health researcher. In one of the projects I did, I had a very bad database from a previous researcher. I spend half a year making sure it was okay and usable. Should I not have done that? And if a medical journal is consistently publishing crack homeopath horseshit papers, what should I do, pretend that journal is just a-okay?

I'm currently using databases from other institutions to do my own research. Yes, I could make an agreement where parts of those databases will be available to the public (some parts never because of privacy issues) but then the cost of my research will probably quadruple. And for what? So that it is at best ignored and at worst the Watts of this world (who as I noted in #87 are completely incapable of holding a coherent position) can twist it? I don't see any benefit from that, not for moving the research forward and not for the public.

I'm not climate scientist, it's just that I look at the fields I do know (health research and the assorted quackery surrounding it) and transplanting my experiences there to the e-mails and the denialists behavior and I cannot see how anyone would take the denialists seriously.

Could you explain to me how similar e-mails from a single institution on cancer research would invalidate the whole field?
Could you explain to me how similar e-mails from a frustrated datamanager would invalidate the research on the dangers of smoking?
Because I really have no idea who these e-mails are supposed to mean anything to the field of climate science as a whole.

The attitude of Tim Lambert and the True Believers in Anthropomorphic Global Warming commenting on this site is quite remarkable. If AGW doesn't exist in the form you claim it does it would be the biggest embarrassment of your allegedly scientific careers, no? What really goes on behind the scenes of your respective climate research organizations/institutions? How many data sets have you massaged to make AGW look better to further your careers? Why do hard questions make you so upset?
It's fascinating that you insist the rest of the world ignore the fact that scientists are human and are therefore subject to the same social and financial pressures as the rest of us. Who's really in denial?

By Ben Grivno (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I'd like to say a big thank you to all the new visitors for pushing Deltoid's Google page ranking way, way up.
Wake me up when one of them manages to form a grammatically correct paragraph, without spelling errors, that expresses some kind of coherent point.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Hmmmmm.

1. Here's a clue: You have no credibility.

2. No open access to data? No science.

3. No open access to programs? No science.

4. Data and programs produced using government funds by government employees? They do not belong to you.

5. You think this is going to blow over because you assholes call skeptics names? Keep blowing yourselves. It's the only good time you're going to have.

Fact is that you dog-fuckers have shown yourselves as completely untrustworthy. Monbiot is trying to get ahead of the curve but there's no chance of that. Anybody who uses the term "deniers" as freely as he does doesn't have much credibility to start with.

And failing to comply with FOIA requests? Conspiracy? That falls under the USA's RICO anti-racketeering law.

Hello jail time.

So far you assholes have predicted all sorts of crap that hasn't happened and won't. More hurricanes? *laugh* hardly any this year. And let's not forget those snippets of FORTRAN code that explicitly modifies the temperature data upward.

Next on the list is Hansen. When he is forced to admit that he has been fucking up the temp data for years his ass is gone. And frankly most of GISS is going to follow him into oblivion.

Hey DAVE,
You really have a command of adjectives for us "Deniers," Bravo! I notice you take your global warming seriously and very personally. But guess what? 2009 was a very cool year here in the U.S. If fact, the past several years have been cool, cool, cool. Predicted global warming induced Hurricanes? Didn't happen. I also notice you global warming enthusiasts rarely talk about things contrary to your hell bent OPINIONS about the earth soon broiling.

The problem with you Emotional Dave, is you want to levy a perpetual tax on me and everyone else based on your OPINIONS and feelings. Why your Grand Kleagle Al Gore won't even debate the issue in public yet we're required to believe people like him and you? Fat CO2 emitting chance!

By George California (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Global warming is a SCAM by which communists/anticapitalists steal money from the populace by greenmailing psudoscientists to create fake studies having a predetermined outcome.

Carbon dioxide being a man made gas of consequence? Only an idiot or a grant hack would believe that crap.

And what is this religious DENIERS statement? If you want religion go to church FREAKS. The only thing more pitiful than a religious christian is the religious faggit who prays to a fake grant based science outcome.

Re #111. That would be yet another myth. Read this Ben:

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Volume 89, Issue 9 (September 2008) pp. 1325â1337

You have more of the classic myths in there. But I can't address them all. Besides, you are off topic!

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

senator.coonan
senator.fierravanti-wells
senator.Heffernan
senator.payne
senator.boyce
senator.brandis
senator.ian.macdonald
senator.mason
senator.trood
senator.Humphries
senator.birmingham
senator.fisher
senator.barnett
senator.bushby
senator.kroger
senator.ronaldson
senator.ryan
senator.troeth
senator.adams
senator.cash
senator.corman
senator.eggleston
senator.back

The above senators may well move the gag to get the CPRS through or otherwise vote for it. Anyone who would like to stop the CPRS, should use the above user names followed by "@" followed by "aph.gov.au". I suggest we find as many people as possible to contact them to ensure that the bill is defeated.

Enjoy

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Alwhore, has got it all worked out!

I'm switching sides.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Until the AGW alarmists like Hanson and Mann agree to make all their data and methodology available to all I see no reason whatsoever to believe one word they publish. They aren't practicing science. They are practicing politics.

If all of you believe that global warming is a real threat to this planet, why then are people like the CRU hiding so much information. Lay out all of the facts for us. The secrecy and tone of the CRU data is very damning if you ask me.

Honestly I will not even entertain the idea of agreeing on climate change until there is real transparency and a real discussion of the facts. Hammering us with absolutes while talking about suppressing dissenting voices and deleting information when they are being requested under a FOIA sends a really clear message to me, that there is something to hide.

Memomachine #118:
" 1. Here's a clue: You have no credibility.
2. No open access to data? No science.
3. No open access to programs? No science.
4. Data and programs produced using government funds by government employees? They do not belong to you.
5. You think this is going to blow over because you assholes call skeptics names? Keep blowing yourselves. It's the only good time you're going to have."

Well, I guess that effectively rules out most of medicine, physics, chemistry, astronomy, archeology or any field of science as science. Well done. Are you a creationist by any chance? They have this same tendency to deny all of science with sweeping statements.

Fran, wouldn't we be better to self organise and take start a sustained campaign of non-cooperation with the system of injustice?

I'd feel that was a better use of our effort. I don't think the opposition need any more help towards self destruction. There still so much to do (and so little time) in terms of playing a straight bat.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Mapel leaf be happy that Global warming isn't happening. We are ok don't worry about us. Oh that doesn't fit your agenda. By the way Science shouldn't have an agenda because if the facts don't fit the agenda then you have to make the statistics fit the agenda.

By Tim Osburn (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Judging by these posts, the AGW crowd is in a panic and in full scale damage control. If there is no 'AGW', these so called 'scientists' are unemployed. No more government funding or research grants will really put a damper on the AGW crowd's ability to scare the shit out of people. Keep trying to cook the books. No one is buying your bullshit anymore. Once the requested FOI documents are obtained from NASA and other climate research entities, the entire world will see what a farce 'AGW' has been from day one. At that point, all of these so called 'scientists' should be executed for their role in what will become known as the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind.

Al Gore, q low grade moron has made over 100 million dollars off promoting his global warming scam. Gore has taken 500 million more from the US taxpayers in preparation for the Cap and Trade SCAM. I REST MY CASE. SCAM. SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.

Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years â which makes it possible to say that areas of Greenland may have been much warmer during the medieval period than they are now and that the ice sheet contracted significantly.[8]

Imagine that: Greenland was green 500 years ago for half a millenia and now we are concerned about a .75 celsius degree warming in the last 100 years which is a result of the sun and other natural phenomea.

Faith before understanding.

Wow.

I expected the rantings of the AGW deniers to get more and more crazed over time, as the evidence of AGW continued to mount, but this selection takes the cake.

How many of these denier posts are real and how many are parodies? I have to admit that I can't tell.

By Andrew Brown (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

ROFLMAO, I can't believe the idiots on this forum that still back the "MAN MADE" hoax of global warming. I realize it is one of the tenants of your socialist/communist libtard religion, but you are just going to have to let this one go. The majority of the world's population had stopped believing in your hoax long before the emails came out. The emails just put the icing on the cake. Now, go back to your environmentalist shacks, continue to deny the holocaust, and think up some other way to destroy humanity, because this hoax of yours has come to an end.

It's not science, it's the religion of the left...

Science has never had one thing to do with it.

It is simply about destroying the very concept of God and replacing it with MASSIVE government!

All hail his royal FUCKTARD COWARD, Barack Obama!

In any scientifc method, doubt is part of it. There is no learning, knowledge without doubt.
Calling name to those who doubts in the name of science, is pretty lame, far away from science.
Inquisition was based on that, Galieleo was a clear "denier" by the same approach some "believers" want to apply in the name of science.
Truth would never be afraid of doubt.
Only lie is.

Having read several dozen of the emails in question. I am more concerned how their writings depicts a group still massaging input data, quizzing each other over equations and the meaning of the output results. Basically every phase of their simulations from input to interpretation of the output are still uncongealed, incomplete, unconvincing (even to themselves). Yet they represent it as conclusive.

Were the input simulations on circuits I design for aerospace electronics so full of holes from top to bottom it would be frowned upon by my colleagues that I would even begin a circuit board layout yet alone put the thing into a critical operating point in a jet plane.

No, It is NOT ALRIGHT for a cottage industry of, secretive, quasi-aristocratic, pipe-smoking, know-it alls to fudge their data (even a little) or even interpret it without review to impose indentured servitude upon citizens which, in the name of protecting planet earth only really line the pockets of despotic elites.

God and my industry knows we wouldnât let a plane fly under these circumstances, why should we consider altering the disposition of trillions of dollars and billions of humans based on such crumbly hokum?

By Allen Kelly (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Wow the paid trolls at the beginning of the thread are quite impressive. And quite obvious. The English Channel was above water 15,000 years ago. You could walk from England to France. The sea levels rose and flooded it. What causes that... all the cars the cave men were driving around at the time ?? The Climate is ALWAYS changing so how do you fight Climate Change ? Freeze the planet solid so nothing change. Does anyone remember them saying the sea levels could be 13 feet higher with Mega-hurricanes every year by 2010 ? Uhhhhh... the sea levels havent even risen a tenth of an inch !! The earths environment moves in cycles.. period !!

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Imagine that: Greenland was green 500 years ago for half a millenia and now we are concerned about a .75 celsius degree warming in the last 100 years which is a result of the sun and other natural phenomea.

That is why they called it "Green"land

By Laughing at the libs (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I added an update to my post:

Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn't made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand. If you want to know what the science really says, please read the [Copenhagen Diagnosis](http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/).

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Could one of you look at this graph, which shows that the 2008 temps are statistically indistinguishable from 1980, and tell me why you cling to the illusion that the planet is warming?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

You AGW propagandists remind me of meteorologists who study charts and graphs and data, but who never bother to look out the window. If you did, you would see what the rest of us see - your emperor has no clothes.

In defence of the USA, I believe Bush and Reagan were voted in by less than a third of the voting age population.

Not that those two Presidents offered substantially different choices, It just that these Drudge addicts would be counted among that minority.

This swarm would be the equivalent of the hardcore crazies that the Liberal Party is considering pandering to, rather than the centre, where they might win an election some time.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Andrew,

What evidence? No true peer review no data exchange no debate just a big shovel of manipulated data by AGW supporters. If AGW I would be the first one to admit it just show me real data not cooked books. I don't know which is more arrogant we can change the temperature of the globe or we are causing a change of temperature of the globe.

Tim

By Tim Osburn (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Wow the paid trolls at the beginning of the thread are quite impressive. And quite obvious.

Yup. Have to rally round the religion, don't you know. But, as you and I know, it matters not, as this hoax has run its course and all "climate" legislation will soon come to an end. Meanwhile, Barak the Magic Negro hasn't gotten the memo, and still plans on going to Copenhagen.

By Greenies are psychos (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I'll keep my religion and guns, you can keep your "change"!

Let's see who does better in the end the God fearing and well armed citizen or the atheist worshipers of men...

Since climate science may drastically effect us all, whether climate change is because of humans or not, (cap & trade, etc.)many scientists and engineers have begun to look at what the climate scientists are doing. Many of us have experience in industries that require more rigorous oversight and quality assurance. Examples are in medical device and pharmecutical development, nuclear industry, etc. It appears to me the climate science so far has been strictly amatur hour. They have no clue what true rigorous and structured oversight is. They clearly do not involve the statistics community in the review of their work. They have no configuration management or rigorous quality assurance programs. Try that with the Food and Drug Administration in the US, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Climate science is in its infancy yet they expect us to implement drastic changes based on "trust us, we know what we're doing". Sorry, that's not the way its going to be.

Is this a record here?

(I was going to say x posts in y hours.)

So many posts that were meant for Denial Depot. C'mon guys. I love satire and parody but let's not take it too far. It's just *so* obvious.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Shorter Greenies are Psychos & Melissa and all the others geniuses here for the first time:

I'm too stupid to reproduce, so I'll drag everyone down to my level.

This is all they have folks. Nothing else. Best they can do. And they reproduce.

Best,

D

OK, so where do I go to get the raw data and documents showing how the raw data were adjusted? I want to see the procedures for myself. Why don't you? This isn't rocket science, you know. (Or do you know?)

Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.

ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.

By Did he just sa… (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Its always so funny to see people trying to do damage control when the lights get flicked on and they are caught. they always talk loud, get defensive, attack, demonize the questioners (as Deniers). Scramble like roaches little ones !! You have been caught. Btw, if a large mantle avalanche occured or maybe the yellowstone caldera gives a start since it is overdue (none of which are caused by man) everything they think they can control will blow up in their face and it will have been for not. Climate Change is a new kind of medeval sorcery. Those who wield it are mysterious are powerful and even kings listen to them, the only prove their art under their own conditions, and if you question them in front of the populous or the kings they will attack you and discredit you to save themselves. Just like medveal sorcery.

By Climate Lies (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Quote from the Brothers Bloom: "In the perfect con, everyone gets what they want." Usually, the con-artists gets the money from the sap being played. The best con involves several different artists cooperating. In the global warming con, the politicians will get more control. The UN gets to distribute money to "poor countries". The eco-socialists-nazis get to say they have saved the world from the evil capitalists. The "scientists" get grant funding and power in their community. It seems to be to me that there are several people with vested interest in the outcome of the global warming hoax.

It is funny that all the chicken little psudoscientists discuss "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE" with a greater religious furvor than a televangalist on meth or worse Jehova's witnesses. Their insane shouts of DENIERS/BLASPHEME at any questioning of thier massaged data and "computer models" make me want to believe in Scientology, which is at least more open and less defensive.

NUTBAGS

Why won't Al Gore have a debate on APW? If it is such a vital subject, one would think he would debate all comers! Also, why does Al Gore live a lifestyle that leave such a huge carbon footprint? The "carbon offsets" is a bunch of crap. Why doesn't he lead by example?

By London2244 (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I just love the kool-aid drinkers here. They say that the 'deniers' must prove that AGW doesn't exist. How do you prove a negative. I have yet to see any real proof of AGW. The only proof of anything offered was that temps have gone up through 1998. No proof beyond scientifc doubt that the cause was AGW related. In fact every relationship graph has shown that there is no direct correlation, let alone causation, for AGW and the climate. So please give us a break and you prove the physics between AGW and climate. BTW that means back testing it to show the results of AGW in a historical relationship which has NEVER been shown.

Tim #128: "By the way Science shouldn't have an agenda because if the facts don't fit the agenda then you have to make the statistics fit the agenda."

Yes, science does not have an agenda and it is not a popularity contest. And yes, fiddling the data is wrong. That is why what the NZCSC has done is so reprehensible. That is also why Monckton et al. fiddling the data is wrong.

Tim, you keep really, really nice company by the way ;)

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Oopps, Sorry Rick, I take that back, Tim Osborne has just pointed out that any evidence of AGW is "*just a big shovel of manipulated data by AGW supporters*", and since this evidences supports AGW, then by definition it must be wrong.

Sorry I couldn't help.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

AGW THEORY IS PROPOGANDA FOR THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY!

Tim L - Please seek mental help. AGW is hoax and you continue to push this hoax on a public that is aware of it. You and your colleagues look like idiots. Please STOP. Give it 5 or 10 years and a new great cause will come along.

By TheScienceGuy (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Shorter Greenies are Psychos & Melissa and all the others geniuses here for the first time:

I'm too stupid to reproduce, so I'll drag everyone down to my level.
This is all they have folks. Nothing else. Best they can do. And they reproduce.

WE HAVE NOTHING? Your whole hoax has been exposed and you say "they have nothing". You pompous asses on the left are witnessing the destruction of your religion. Therefore, I expect the types of reactions I am getting.

But I will tell you, you better change your worldview, or you will soon find yourself delegated to the dung heap of communism and totalitarianism. Yes, that's right, we all know what you idiots are all about.

So tell me, Mr. Pompous Ass, what do you have now? Who is going to believe you? Will you go to your death-bed screaming "global warming is real" while the snow piles up to record levels around your home? Stop being an idiot, and wake up.

By The left shows… (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

You speak absolute truth Mike!

Nothing can change the "science" like a few BILLION dollars!

It's all graft and global "warming" or the latest con dujour "climate change" is complete nonsense!

If these retarded "warmists" wanted the "truth" then POST THE FUCKING DATA ONLINE!!!

Again,

Thank You Mike

Alwhore,

>*t is funny that all the chicken little psudoscientists discuss "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE" with a greater religious furvor than a televangalist on meth or worse Jehova's witnesses. Their insane shouts of DENIERS/BLASPHEME at any questioning of thier massaged data and "computer models" make me want to believe in Scientology, which is at least more open and less defensive.
NUTBAGS*

Meet [Melisa](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…),

>*I'll keep my religion and guns, you can keep your "change"!
Let's see who does better in the end the God fearing and well armed citizen or the atheist worshipers of men...*

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

AWG is bullshit ... is that a scientific enough term for you true believers? The nut job climate scientists, those pushing the AGW agenda and pocketing gobs and gobs of research dollars, have nothing invested in this, do they? Like the high priests of old, they hide in their towers, conceal their secret methods, scowl at the common ignorant peasants, and tell the kings what they want to hear.

So much outrage from the high priests! How dare we get a look behind the curtain, only to see them throwing beads and bones in the dirt in order to arrive at their sage, wise declarations. Truth is, many of these agenda-driven climate scientists are confused and disorganized ... and now, thoroughly embarrassed.

By William in Arizona (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

"Why won't Al Gore have a debate on APW? If it is such a vital subject, one would think he would debate all comers! Also, why does Al Gore live a lifestyle that leave such a huge carbon footprint? The "carbon offsets" is a bunch of crap. Why doesn't he lead by example?"

HE is leading by example. Actions speak louder than words. If ALGORE actually believed the crap he was scamming the RUBES on he would have a house more eco friendly than the UNIBOMBER instead of trying to one up TRUMP

The guy who wrote the article has now changed it and is now commenting as well to try to manipulate the readers. This is not even news !! Haha, hwo funny. Well sir you are right I am being lied to. I have read stories on the AP that unless we do something quick the seas are going to BOIL !!! Are you kidding me ?? Seriously you are kidding me right. Do you have the slighest knowledge of thermodynamics. You guys are out there telling the populous the SEAS ARE GOING TO BOIL ?? What a gigantic joke. Next thing you know polar bears will be dropping from the sky. Oh wait, you guys already made a commerical about that. Sorry my friend, no one is trying to convince me global warming is NOT happening. The only ones trying to do the convincing are people like you. A student of climate history knows the earth goes through cycles and is ALWAYS ALWAYS changing. Mother natures rule #1 - Stay on your toes humans cause I change quick !!

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

C'mon, "warmists" admit it you just want to FUCK every knot of every tree that you see!

The planet is fine...

GET OVER YOURSELVES!

So let's see... "faggit" (!??), "dog-f**kers", "assholes", "fraud", "fruad", "conspiracy", "stop breathing for an hour", "lying", "fascism", "ecofascists".

With that standard of argument and evidence, I predict Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Pitman, Mann and co. will admit defeat and throw in the towel, polar ice caps will dramatically increase in extent and thickness, the rise in global mean temperatures will halt, and we will all live in peace and harmony under the New Really Really Nice World Government led by his Benevolence Tony "People Skills" Abbott.

If the above is representative of the comments that sites like RealClimate receive but refuse to publish, then clearly they are guilty of "hiding data" and "manipulating the science". Frankly, the posts above have opened my eyes to The Truth, and I realise that up to now I have been a forlorn stumbler in the darkness of unreason.

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

64 MapleLeaf,

How much space you got? It needs more space than the CRU emails (10 MB IIRC).

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Mr. Lambert,

I am a Drudge Reader. One of those you say is being manipulated. I am an average person. I have no college degree. i have no formal education. I regular working joe and a single parent of two teens. Very close to an average American.

I publicly challenge you to a debate on this subject. I advance the statement that you are wrong and the global warming is not caused to a large degree by humans. I am not afraid to have my ideas questioned and if you can not convine someone like me then you can not convince America.

Do you accept my challenge to a public debate on this subject ?

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

More [highlights](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) from Melisa

>*It's not science, it's the religion of the left...
Science has never had one thing to do with it.
It is simply about destroying the very concept of God and replacing it with MASSIVE government!
All hail his royal FUCKTARD COWARD, Barack Obama!*

Did you notice he is Black as well?

And [more](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…)

>*Thank God and his only begotten son, Jesus Christ that your religion of lies has met its match!
Enough of your lies atheists!*

Melissa girlfriend,

After you've acquainted yourself with Alwhore, you need to get your self a Priest!

Cos girlfriend, you need an Exorcism!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Wake up email deniers! These leading scientists are troubled that they can't make all the data work for them. There is evidence of collusion and systematic coverup here, and one needs only to follow the money to understand why. AGW as settled science may not be completely dead, but it isn't breathing on its own.

83 Janet,

FreeDumb

Genius.

(I'm *so* jealous of that.)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I don't give a rats fucking ass what color SATAN is!

A coward is still a COWARD!

I'm calling him out tonight as a TRAITOR as well!

After his conviction he should meet his end as the COWARD that he is!

Hey Drudge readers,

What other source of media to you gain information from? What informs you of the happening in the world?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

84 Tim,

Oh, dear. Poe's Law. :) And I post at DD too.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I'm a self labeled skeptic. Which does not mean I deny AGW, I just think it isn't firmly proven yet. It's still fairly early for the field, scientist are still discovering fundamental issues with their theories and models which disprove them. Which does NOT mean the science is wrong, this is how it's supposed to work. Theory, test, refine theory based on results. I won't claim AGW must be wrong just because we're still in the test/refine theory phase. I just think the proper course of action is to wait until scientists have more refined theories better able to stand up to testing than we do now before all of humanity makes a massive lifestyle altering and expensive program.

Which is why the comments in this thread as well as the leaked emails disappoint me. It isn't that anything is there that disproved AGW, it's the attitude. The leaked emails are full of arrogance by trying to blackball denialists, attempts to re-define what a peer reviewed journal is because they don't like one paper that appeared in it, and quite active attempts to deny FOI requests and hide their data. The very first comment I see here is 'Denialists, remember - gullible is a life-style choice.' Further comments call me full of bullshit and anti-science.

This is why there is such a backlash against AGW. Proponents of AGW are arrogant, elitist, and flat out insulting to anyone who dares think differently than they do. As the emails prove, AGW proponents actively seek to blackball anyone who dares disagree. They actively seek to restrict science and hide their data, something which should be counter to the very ideas of the scientific community. Instead, you guys are fine with that. It's those people who dare asked to see data proving your claims that are, as comments in this thread have claimed, criminals. In the meantime, there isn't a single prediction in the IPCC which showed there would be a 10 year stabilization in global temps. I can accept the arguments that there are other factors currently hiding AGW, but that doesn't change the fact you were wrong. Flat out 100% wrong. Real data has proven the models IPCC relied on to be false. As in not true. Yet I'm the one full of bullshit, a criminal, and anti-science because I think there needs to be a model good enough to make accurate predictions on before we take action? Perhaps AGW proponents just need to quit being such stuck up snobbish bastards instead.

Besides bad science and closed research, the number one problem for the AGW people is calling skeptics names. It is stupid and a looser approach.

Janet Akerman thinks she is a genious because she is a true believer. Trust me you are not a genious no matter what mommy told you.

Assuming arguendo that you are "educated" most PhD's or PhD wannabees are jokes who think that sucking up to a professor for a couple of years makes them smarter than the average person. However with the CRAP that comes out of WORLDWIDE higher educational systems in the last 20-30 years means that you are just a politically correct suck up that cant make it in the real world. TADA. Along comes psuedopolyscience instead of real research to make the paycheck.

BRAVO. I would suggest looking into the mirror and some introspection into what a sadsack that you truely are beleiving in this hoax.

Guys, this is all really simple. THEY LIED!

Tim @84,

Please tell me that Melissa is Poe?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Brian Paul Jaus @ 171,

A "public debate" would be difficult since Tim Lambert, and most of the regulars on this blog, are Australian.

But if you're prepared to support your case without resorting to profanity or the wild accusations that a lot of the rest of Drudge's readership are currently gifting the blog with (e.g. "Melissa"), and if you're prepared to accept a few ground rules, such as that: peer-reviewed papers are, generally speaking, more reliable than non peer reviewed papers; and that they become more reliable still when other, independent research arrives at the same conclusions; then I'm sure that some of the regulars here will do our best to wade through the blizzard of random comments and address your arguments.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Janet, It is just this simple. People don't like getting played for fools. No matter how Smart they/you all are. Get it?

Alwhore, its like I said, you've sold me, I'm on your side now. Anything from a any PhD should be considered suspect until proven conservative.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

>Besides bad science and closed research, the number one problem for the AGW people is calling skeptics names. It is stupid and a looser approach.

>All hail his royal FUCKTARD COWARD, Barack Obama!

Uhuh. Yes I see.

No actually I don't. I assume 'EconRob' you'll be writing to 'Mellisa'?

Damn. So much Stupid and so little time.

Hey Melissa. There is no God and you are its prophet! Oh, and your non-existent God doesn't like you saying FUCK. It makes baby Jesus cry.

Nah. I've got better things to do than taunt the insane.

****************
Brian Paul Jaus @ 171,

A "public debate" would be difficult since Tim Lambert, and most of the regulars on this blog, are Australian.

But if you're prepared to support your case without resorting to profanity or the wild accusations that a lot of the rest of Drudge's readership are currently gifting the blog with (e.g. "Melissa"), and if you're prepared to accept a few ground rules, such as that: peer-reviewed papers are, generally speaking, more reliable than non peer reviewed papers; and that they become more reliable still when other, independent research arrives at the same conclusions; then I'm sure that some of the regulars here will do our best to wade through the blizzard of random comments and address your arguments.

Posted by: James Haughton | November 26, 2009 8:27 PM
*********************
How about just get us the raw data and adjustments for the New Zealand warming chart. I figure that would shut up a lot of people.

It's over, warmists. Over, done. I graduated from high school in 1960, the next winter was very cold and snowy. Morons like you announced we were entering an ice age. A few years later, we had a hot year, and morons like you announced we were going to burn up. I have seen two complete cycles since 1960.

By the way, if you dig through old National Geographic magazines, in the late 1890's, the glaciers all started melting off. After a sunspot minimum, they came back.

Unlike others, I do not urge you to stop the lying. Please keep on, double your insults and name-calling and lies. Dig yourself in well above your nose so this is never again done to us.

Tom,

>*Janet, It is just this simple. People don't like getting played for fools. No matter how Smart they/you all are. Get it?*

I think the swarm here are getting played for fools. And I don't think they should like it. But they don't realise it.

[Here's](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) my question:

>Hey Drudge readers,
What other source of media to you gain information from? What informs you of the happening in the world?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Is this the best test of Poe's Law yet?

(Apart from ShelleyTheRepublican? )

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I agree with many of the other posts here. Instead of engaging in name calling and personal attacks, parties on both sides of this issue should be demanding public debates. When leaders on any side of any issue have been caught boldly trying to suppress data, manipulate data and deny those who disagree with them the chance to present their point of view... even children can recognize that something very wrong has been going on.

By Steven Miller (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Jim @ 189,

Consider me the sane voice of the Drudgereport then. I am an avid reader and read 10 - 20 times a day. I do accept the ground rules as far as conducting myself with professionalism. You will see no such behavior from me and I am eager to find the truth. That being said I am not so interested in the papers yet. See you are trying to convince the world the climate is changing. Yet it is always changing. So that is the crux of the issue. As simple Drudge folk are educated enough to know this at least. So if it is always changing then why are we freaking out about it changing ? I would like to start there first please. I am a simple man and dont want to jump in too deep too quickly. :-)

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

More insults, Janet. It's over.

#193 Bob Carter is a kiwi?! Bugger!

Steven Miller,

Even better than debates where you can lie and others can't prove it until afterwards, when everyone's gone home!

We should have the debate in writing! An on going dialogue, written down. And it should happen for all science exactly the same, no two-tier transparency in science.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Update:

Global climate change has been happening since the Earth had an Atmosphere. If you Kiwis want to take credit for it, you are more than welcome to it. Whatever you are doing, keep it up, because the earth has been Steadily cooling since 1996, and before long, these nutjobs will turn their attention to the Mayan Doomsday in 2012. You are more than welcome to try to avert that, however the the Mayans would have handled it.

Well, lets see. You could:

Stop calling people who disagree with you "deniers". That is all too close to "heretic". This is not supposed to be a matter of faith.

Publish your code. Invite open source style inspection and correction. Hire some software professionals to clean up and maintain the code. What's been released does not inspire confidence.

Publish the verification tests you use to demonstrate that the code does what its supposed to do.

Publish ALL the data.

Publish all the corrections made, with explanations.

Engage your best opponents as a "black hat" team with the charter to find any errors in the code and analysis procedures. Fix any problems they find, and thank them publicly for that.

Articulate and publish the best counter-arguments available, in a manner that their proponents will deem fair. Explain why you find the counter-arguments unpersuasive.

You are asking people to spend trillions of dollars based on this stuff. The "we won't show you the data, or the code" is unprofessional - just not acceptable. This needs to be above reproach.
===================================
This is quite impossible as that would require actual science and statistics, and would therefore reveal inconvenient truths. Don't you understand, we are not trying to educate people here, we are trying to indoctrinate. Such foolishness.

By talonsclaw (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Does anyone have any lithium I can borrow? I am all out. Ignore the spittle. Mommy says it is smart foam.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Quotes please irlandes? What are you objecting to?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

64 MapleLeaf:
I gotta stack of de Freitas press releases.

They were up at the NZC"S"C website a couple of years ago. Then I wrote to him pointing out a couple of ummm, shall we call them, "oversights" in matters of science? (*)

Next day the files were all gone.
But I had already saved 'em.

You can also search for at www.scoop.co.nz, a news site, where several of the releases still lurk. (The "brainwashed" one http://scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0606/S00006.htm was one I raised with him).

(*) Obviously, it would be vulgar to share the emails but publicly released press releases are fair game.

By Doug Mackie (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

@202 Janet Akerman,

We share the same name!

Where were you born?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

James Haughton, even your generous offer of a debate based, mainly, upon peer reviewed papers is tainted -- and you know it. Nearly all of the climate papers and data entering the publishing grist mill has been scrubbed of dissenting opinion. Despite thousands of AGW sceptics within the sphere of related sciences, we've been told that this issue is 'settled' -- apparently not. Guys like you can continue to attempt a feint and misdirection, but this recent release absolutely nails you where you live, and there's no avoiding it.

It pisses people off to have been lied to. It really pisses them off once they reflect upon the consequences of being lied to. This isn't about the scientists and their integrity any longer -- that was suspect long before last week -- this is about punitive global energy policies based upon bad science and junk data. That's a really scarey consideration once you know just how tenuous and frail the real positions of the 'true believers' and their data really is.

And don't continue to disparage the poeple visiting from Drudge Tim -- there are quite a few people coming down that pipeline much smarter than you and your posse. Lies indeed -- you better check a little closer to home.

By William in Arizona (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

197 KiwiInOz,

And? That's the *worst* thing about him?

OK. Ausies & Kiwis. Something going on there. ;)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

The justification for attacking Iraq was that there was a non-zero chance that Iraq was a danger to us. We spent $1 TRILLION on that endeavor. There is also a non-zero chance that the human contribution to climate change is large enough that it has a measurable effect on the environment. Therefore it is necessary and prudent to preempt that threat also. Just as Iraq detonating one nuclear bomb would be devastating to civilization, so would the fact that drastic climate change would cause havoc on life as we know it. We have a responsibility as the only intelligent species on the planet to make sure we take care of it. The bottom line, regardless of what either side throws at each other, is now is the time to preempt this problem. It's not hard to do, and we need to do it.

"Hey Drudge readers,

What other source of media to you gain information from? What informs you of the happening in the world?"

Posted by: Janet Akerman
-----
I'll handle this one

Dear Janet Akerman,
We DrudgeReport readers only read DrudgeReport. Excepting of course: Dr Seus, Oprah Magazine and USA Today. The truth is Janet, everyone except you and your close associates are complete dumb azzes. We really have no clue about nothin'.

There, does that make you feel better and smarter now? I hope so because I wanted to fit your stereotype opinion of anyone who may chance disagreeing with someone like you with a self perceived mega-brain.

The real truth is we (the majority) don't believe you or Al Gore. We see more sinister motives and a lack of disclosure. If it was just researchers talking that is one thing. But the fanatical goal is to fundamentally change world society and grab freedoms. We don't think you're that smart, that all knowing or even honest with factual data to make such demands.

btw - If the Believers were really, really concerned about Global Warming destroying the Planet, why isn't there total outrage being directed at China? They are #1 Emitter after all.

By George California (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Climate does nothing but change.

Greenland was once far more habitable.

Ice Ages came and went.

Hysteria and panic make bad science.

Caution, reason, and open-ness in field research studies and rigorous cross-checking of all prognosticating computer models makes more sense than rushing into destructive "fixes" that may cause Unintended Consequences far worse than any supposed theoretical "catastrophes to come".

A flushing of all ad hominem nonsense is needed, as well.

Competing theories, not crushing of dissent, is better Science than this embarassing, CYA mess.

By Edo Van Ede (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

unscientific,,, and then some,,,

There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.

Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away
Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot…

put a fork in it already,,, the turkeys done,,, hahaha

By wrong at large (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Brian Paul Jaus said, "I advance the statement that you are wrong and the global warming is not caused to a large degree by humans." It doesn't matter what your statement is, because you will certainly agree that you could be wrong. Once you establish that you could be wrong, then you must then establish that if you're wrong man made global warming would have adverse consequences for the earth. We must preempt the situation even if we are less than 100% certain. The risks of not doing so are suicidal.

"@202 Janet Akerman,

We share the same name!

Where were you born?

Posted by: Janet Akerman" <-- BEYOND GULLIBLE

By George California (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

@ 207 TrueSceptic. LOL, but no. It's the best thing about him. :-)

stick the con men in jail - gore first nasty buggers

William of Arizona

>Nearly all of the climate papers and data entering the publishing grist mill has been scrubbed of dissenting opinion.

That's cos it the process of requiring supportable evidence means that BS gets scrubbed out.

Come on William, you've got the emails now you should be able to produce one sigle example of a paper that was credible and should have got through but was "kept out".

Please just one credible paper?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I am not a scientist but as a former investigator and analyst (Federal) I know when I am being lied to. Both sides, the "warmers" and the "deniers" give me little factual data comprehensible to one who only asks, like Pilate, "What is truth?" We don't know. All I can do is resist any attempted incursion into my wallet by either side. I will vote against and campaign against any politician who seeks to raise my taxes to combat a peril which has not been established. The earth through the millenia has gone through numerous cold/hot periods, many long before the industrial revolution. The earth has cooled, not warmed over the last decade. I stand with P.T. Barnum; I will not be one of those fools born every moment with every new fad. Stay the hell out of my wallet.

By George Bedway (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

@ 213 George, I think you need to recalibrate your irony meter.

Those of us who are scientifically literate but politically conservative come down this way, in case this hasn't been spelled out. We know climate change research takes place on an immense political backdrop, with quasi-religious overtones. It is latest holy-roller church for utopian socialists on a long-running bummer since the death of the soviet empire and other burst bubbles. For this reason WE DO NOT TRUST YOUR SCIENCE. And you can blather on as long as you like.... But you are being tuned out.... And you will lose.... again...hate to be ya...

By raul tsan (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Could one of you look at this graph, which shows that the 2008 temps are statistically indistinguishable from 1980, and tell me why you cling to the illusion that the planet is warming?

2008 was a relatively cold year. It's not a surprise it would be a favorite for denier cherry-picking. The 2008 temperature anomaly was 0.54C, whereas it was 0.28C in 1980. You must be thinking 1981, when it was 0.4C.

There can be fairly big fluctuations from one year to the next, sure. 2009's temperature is probably going to be around 0.7C, which is entirely consistent with what it should be according to the models.

William in Arizona -- You weren't LIED to, you fool. You are reading private correspondence between scientists that are up against highly paid coal lobbyist organizations. Some of these private emails certainly showed the frustration these scientists feel, but they are dealing with combatting constant misinformation. The earth is warming up. Just because it's cold in Arizona for a few months doesn't mean the earth isn't warming, William. I am sure you are smart enough to understand that. It's "global" warming, not "Arizona" warming. There is understandably a lot of resistance to change from the coal industries because of the financial consequences. But the cap and trade approach has proven itself to work well in managing sulfur dioxide emissions. Acid rain is essentially a thing of the past now, in 20 short years since cap and trade came onto stage for that. Cap and trade will work to cut carbon emissions, and it has proven to be a fair, free market approach.

George California, so were do you get your information?

I'm asking because the swarm of crazy talk here sound like a mob who just escaped an echo-chamber.

So seriously, were do you get your information?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

MTV has South Park on.....

The episode is.....

"Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow".....

Even South Park mocks the Man-Made Global Warming IDIOTS....

Jim @ 189,

Being energentic and not wanting to wait I would like to ask you personally, your own personal opinion...

if we did nothing except kept living the way we are right now...

What approximate metrics would you personally predict (dont be shy, an approximation is fine) by the year 2050 ?

1. Average sea level height increase.
2. Average global temperature increase.
3. % of loss of North Pole ice pack.
4. % of loss of South Pole ice.
5. % of loss of Greenland ice.

And also, just to qualify and for my own posterity...

1. Do you beleieve the seas are going to boil if we dont take action.
2. Do you beleive cow farts cause global warming or can become a major factor in it ?

These are some wilder ideas I have seen from credible sources so I want to see how vigorous your belief is in some of these things. And in case they take this blog down please email me personally at brianpauljaus@hotmail.com. Really and genuinely want to debate and learn.

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

AGW fans should start by making sure that even if their computer models can't predict the future, that they can at least predict the past.

Also, as far a Drudge is concerned, I seem to remember a GIANT headline on his site last year touting the dire AGWist prediction that there would be OPEN WATER AT THE NORTH POLE! FIRST TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY! I knew then that that was bulls*** and sure enough, that summer? RECORD F***ING ICE!

George Bedway,

How did you do that? That sideways thing?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I am not a scientist but as a former investigator and analyst (Federal) I know when I am being lied to. Both sides, the "warmers" and the "deniers" give me little factual data comprehensible to one who only asks, like Pilate, "What is truth?" We don't know. All I can do is resist any attempted incursion into my wallet by either side. I will vote against and campaign against any politician who seeks to raise my taxes to combat a peril which has not been established. The earth through the millenia has gone through numerous cold/hot periods, many long before the industrial revolution. The earth has cooled, not warmed over the last decade. I stand with P.T. Barnum; I will not be one of those fools born every moment with every new fad. Stay the hell out of my wallet.

By George Bedway (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Here is a question for the climate change geniouses. This is in addition to the thousands of others. The BELEIVERS make tests and then manipulate the data to fit without proving that their beliefs are even provable (just like the fake tree ring study)

Ice core samples. Which I remember allegedly show all this evil CO2 (present now, but absent previously 10K years ago)

Why would it be an accurate reading of past CO2? Has any testing been performed with ice layers formed under controlled conditions? Each of the layers were sitting exposed to the sun and had the chance to outgas any excess CO2 before being buried. According to the BELEIVERES they admit that that there is a carbon cycle that is effected by plant growth changing the cycle. Why not outgas excess CO2 at the low cycle.

Furthermore. CO2 does not make up a significant enough portion of the atmosphere to be an effective greenhouse gas.

It just conveniently is a byproduct of oil, gas and coal use and a good means to tax and control a dim witted populace.

There are so many holes and just fear associated with questioning the psuedoscience that is a thin veil for communism and dictatorial control of the masses by a self appointed elite.

Brian @ 225

I have no idea, is my answer to your first five questions. My answers to the last two are: 1) No. But they will get warmer on average (and more acidic) and, as a consequence of warming, expand; 2) No. It is cow burps (eructation) that is the issue - methane.

George, try posting it bit by bit?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

It seems like the Earth has always been either getting colder or warmer. It has been much colder than now, esp. in the last Ice Age and has been warming since then. It has also, if science is to be believed, been much warmer than today.

Generally, warmer is better for humans. Extended global cooling would be accompanied by famine, wars over resources, etc.

In any case, there is not much we can do about it... I'm told that water vapor is a much more significant "green house" gas than CO2, and it exists in the atmosphere at levels of 20 - 60 percent, while CO2 is less than 1 percent, naturally occurring, and has only been slightly impacted by human activity in terms of overall percentage.

And then there is the law of unintended consequences... do we really understand the climate system enough that tinkering with it might won't provoke an even more dire situation?

I think there are bigger threats that we could prepare to counter. Every month previously unknown asteroids are discovered in near earth orbit, usually after they have narrowing missed us and are going away. Unlike with global warming, it is within our technological ability to prepare for and avert this threat. Let's dedicate the resources there...

I wonder what a Poe is? Perhaps a pejorative nickname for "deniers."

Eric @ 212,

There is a non-zero chance that the Yellow Stone Caldera could blow up killing almost everyone in the US. There is a non-zero chance that a mantle avalanche could drop a continent by a couple of feet and flood it no matter how much you worry about the atmosphere. And by the way, if you are a student of quantum mechanics, then you will know that there is a non-zero chance of almost anything including the Army of Darkness flying out of your butt ! Should we start preparing for that ? Although your logic is broken, your fanatical devotion to it regardless is the stuff guys like Adolph Hitler dream of. Good luck with your non-zero-chance=must-be-prepared theory as you spin endless configurations of future possibilities and then drastically alter society ad nasuem to get ready for them. Look out, the sky is falling... we better build some sky hooks and sky braces... and there is a non-zero chance those things can actually be built !

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Janet. I go to Drudge for easy surfing but DTel.,Arutz Sheva, FT, NYT, WT, WSJ, for some idea of what the long ears are pushing that day. To understand how they are framing the questions, what their new talking points are going to be. Then Kitco, Market Watch, to follow the markets. Not to forget Thru the Bible, K-House.org for my daily washing of the Word. How about you?

And you will lose.... again...hate to be ya...

It won't work out that way, I'm afraid. The most you will achieve is a temporary hindrance of the scientific process, and any related political decision-making. The only way the current scientific consensus will lose out is if reality falsifies it.

I've analyzed enough raw data to see there's a real issue. In the early 2020s, the temperature anomaly will be roughly 1C. Denials will get harder and harder.

What I've seen can't be explained by fudging of data, unless the efforts to fudge data are ridiculously organized. For example, sea ice extent can't be fudged. It would be impossible to explain SSTs vs. major storm counts. It would impossible to explain the detrended cross-correlation between CO2 ice core data vs. global temps. It just can't be done IMO.

In history, the CRU stolen emails will be nothing but a blip, an unfortunate one at that.

Climate change advocates are completely missing our point, about why we're skeptical of climate change. It's about freedom and liberty guys. Why does every solution you come up with end up impeding our freedom? We have to drive less, stop eating meat, allow you into our homes to make them "compliant", curb/tax our use of energy. Our success and higher standard of living is demonized at every turn. I personally don't deny that we should pay attention to the environment, or consider the possibility of climate change... but I don't believe the climate change movement really cares about the environment at all. The solutions they put forth just indicate that the old Reds have become the new Greens. This isn't about choosing to help the environment, it's about forcing us to live and act the way you want us to... and THAT's what we reject out of hand.

By The_Capitalist (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Brian @ 195,
I hope I'm pitching at your level; if you think I'm being too simplistic, or conversely, going too fast, feel free to ask me to clarify.

You are correct that the climate is always changing. But this does not mean that it is always changing without cause or reason. Due to the conservation of energy, if the temperature goes up, it must be because more energy is being added to the atmosphere. Similarly, if the temperature goes down, it must be because energy is being removed from the atmosphere.

In the past (historical and geological) these changes in energy have been produced by a wide variety of factors. These include changes in the sun's output, changing of the earth's position relative to the sun (which happens in a cycle many hundreds of thousands of years long, usually called Milankovitch cycles), the earth's surface becoming more or less reflective (usually called albedo -For example, icecaps are very reflective and reflect a lot of solar energy back into space, which is one reason why, when ice ages hit, they last a long time), and changes in the atmosphere: for example, massive volcanic eruptions or meteor strikes can kick huge amounts of dust into the air which blocks sunlight from reaching the surface. They also include changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere; some gases have the property of "blocking" heat from leaving the atmosphere (we can go into the physics and chemistry of this if you wish) and these are called greenhouse gases (this is a misnomer, because real greenhouses actually work in a different way, but this wasn't known when all this was discovered in the mid 19th century and the name has stuck). Often these chemical changes are initially caused by some of the other changes. For example, moving closer to the sun can cause icecaps to melt. Ice melt and increased water can cause increased swamps, as sea level rises for example and floods forests, in which vegetation rots. Rotting vegetation produces methane (aka "swamp gas") which is a very potent greenhouse gas. This can then warm the atmosphere further, causing more ice to melt. This is what's usually called a positive feedback loop. Starting a positive feedback loop going is sometimes referred to as a "tipping point".

The reason for concern about the current change in climate is that it is happening much faster than any other change we can deduce from the historical or geological record, which means that people and the environment will find it that much more difficult to adapt. Think of going from midwinter to midsummer within a day. Would you have time to pack away all your winter stuff and get prepared for summer? Without getting heatstroke because your body couldn't stand the shift in temperature?

Another major reason for concern is that this extremely rapid upward trend is happening at a time when, as far as we can tell, the sun is quiet and the earth is not particularly close to it. In fact, some scientists have said that according to the geological record, we are overdue for an ice age. As far as we can tell, the only reason for the increase in temperature is the changing chemical composition of the atmosphere. The major changes have been in levels of carbon dioxide and methane.

Carbon dioxide and methane are both produced in significant amounts by human industry and activity. Carbon dioxide is produced by the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal, and by the chopping down and burning of forests (both directly from burning them and indirectly from them being unable to "breathe in" the CO2 in future). Methane is produced chiefly by cattle as part of their digestion, and also in rice paddies, swamps, and rotting vegetation (which is often rotting because it has been cut down to make way for cattle and rice paddies).

We can tell that the increase in Carbon Dioxide is produced by fossil fuel burning and not, say, by some other natural process because carbon which has been buried for millions of years has a subtly different atomic configuration due to radioactive decay while it was down there. Since we have started measuring it, the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere which has this different configuration has steadily increased. We can compare this to air from many thousands of years ago by looking at air bubbles trapped in ice and snow in places which are undisturbed by human activity, like antarctica.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

All you deniers are scum. We know what is good for you.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Its obvious that so many of you greenies have staked your whole reputation/fortunes on this global warming crap. It exposes you all for the frauds you are. You and Al Gore should go back to outer space.

KiwiInOz @ 232,

Really ? Cow burps ?? Ok if you want to go there then I will. And I will do it sanely and calmly and prove us Drudgers have more going on upstairs than you think.

Here are my questions to you sir.

1. What is the average gas volume of a cow burp ?
2. What percentage of that is Methane ?
3. How many cows are there in the world ?
4. What is the gas volume of the earths atmosphere ?
5. What percentage of that is methane ?

Now that you have this, multiply the number of cows on the earth, by the volume of methane in each of their burps. This is the total possible output of cow-burp-methane is every single cow in the planet burped at once. Now muptiply this by (3,153,600,000) which is essentially the number of second in 100 years.

This should give you the total output of methane possible if every cow on earth burped every single second for 100 years straight. Next question,

1. What % of the total methane volume in the atmposhere would this equal, ie by what percentage would it change this total volume.
2. Does the cow burp emit other gases which are consumed in quanitity (such as oxygen and CO2) which if reduced would have harmful effects.
3. Is methane scrubbed fromt the atmosphere by any process, does it dissipate into space, or change in any other way which would natually reduce methance levels ?

After you answer all these I think you will see that those burps dont make a difference... but hey what do i know I am no scientist. Just a lowly Drudge reader.

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Mark@127 asked:

Fran, wouldn't we be better to self organise and take start a sustained campaign of non-cooperation with the system of injustice?

Tactics and strategy are not the same thing Mark. What you're suggesting is part of startegy. But today, tomorrow and as long as this hideous proposal is in prospect almost any means are legitimate. That what I propose is a kind of assisted suicide for the conservative culture warriors and filth merchants is simply a lovely bonus.

Here below is an email list in ready to clip format:

senator.coonan@aph.gov.au; senator.fierravanti-wells@aph.gov.au; senator.Heffernan@aph.gov.au; senator.payne@aph.gov.au; senator.boyce@aph.gov.au; senator.brandis@aph.gov.au; senator.ian.macdonald@aph.gov.au; senator.mason@aph.gov.au; senator.trood@aph.gov.au; senator.Humphries@aph.gov.au; senator.birmingham@aph.gov.au; senator.fisher@aph.gov.au; senator.barnett@aph.gov.au; senator.bushby@aph.gov.au; senator.kroger@aph.gov.au; senator.ronaldson@aph.gov.au; senator.ryan@aph.gov.au; senator.troeth@aph.gov.au; senator.adams@aph.gov.au; senator.cash@aph.gov.au; senator.corman@aph.gov.au; senator.eggleston@aph.gov.au; senator.back@aph.gov.au

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Janet @240,

Are you the same as Janet@202 or are there now three of us?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

"We can tell that the increase in Carbon Dioxide is produced by fossil fuel burning and not, say, by some other natural process because carbon which has been buried for millions of years has a subtly different atomic configuration due to radioactive decay while it was down there. Since we have started measuring it, the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere which has this different configuration has steadily increased. We can compare this to air from many thousands of years ago by looking at air bubbles trapped in ice and snow in places which are undisturbed by human activity, like antarctica."

Here is the WHOPPER of LIES. Come up with a fake test and then let the LIES roll. ICE CORE TESTS ARE BOGUS.

CO2 is not an appreciable contributor to global warming.

CO2 is naturally outgassed by the planet and is in HIGH concentrations during volcanic activity.

There are several lakes around the world that are so filled with naturally released CO2 that every couple of years the lakes erupt spewing out the CO2 killing the locals. NOVA had a special on it just a few years ago.

OK team, your know the rules, anyone hurts us, and....

Time to shut this bitch down, everyone start posting as Janet Akerman.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Only the real Janet Akerman would know that I wear a size 80 Moo Moo

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Drudge realized he'd linked to something accurate and removed the link.

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I would also like to see how the adjustments were done. Certainly this information isn't a threat to the security of New Zealand. Don't the climate scientists there want their work verified and affirmed by others? Also, we in the US have a lot riding on all this climate change science. We should be given the data and any other information we want for free.

And that I have a Hitler mustache. Call me Frauline Janet. I look just like Ricky Lake, but with a weight problem.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I'm a lurker who has just decided to make his first post: I am not a denier, just a good ol' skeptic with multiple degrees in philosophy, classical instruments, and social geography. Pluse I have studied in my own time climate science for the last month or two. As well, I have bort with my own money several good books on climate science.

I just want to clear up a couple of simple questions - hope yu don't meind:

1) In H&E (I got it from Amazon, on account of all of the great reviews.): On pg 106 it says "He later suggested over the past 545Ma, the has been no relationship between CO2 and atmosphere433."
Is that true? Did he (Jan Veizer) really suggest something? I am not clear on that.

2) In H&E (a ripper read: did you know that there is a Sun in our solar system? Plimer has a whole chapter on it!) on pg 106 it says "In fact, over the last 545Ma, the atmospheric CO2 content has been up to 25 times as high as now." Plimer seems to be referring to reference 433 which is Veizer et al, 2000, "Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during Phanerozoic eon.", Nature 408:698--701. Am I right there? He doesn't have the funny superscripts at the end of this sentence (and i see he missed them on a couple of other sentences; but that is okay because he has so many references already), so I am not sure. I'm not good with context so I don't know whether it's the previous sentence or the next sentence in the same paragraph that clears it up or not.

3) Sorry, last one. On pg 107 of H&E, it states "The early Cretaceous was mild, probably due to a high atmospheric CO2 content437, and a quick crossing of the Scutum-Crux arm.". Before I ask my question(s), the reference 437 is: Royer et al, 2004, "CO2 as a primary driver of the Phanerozoic climate.", GSA Today,14:4--10. So, my question is: what does crossing of someone's arm have to do with CO2 concentrations - I don't get it? I know that the someone is important because of the hyphenated surname, but honestly, is Plimer pulling our legs here?

Er, there is one last thing, not at all as important as the above questions tho'. How come one page apart on the same topic Plimer first uses reference 433 (ie Veizer et al, (2000), above) on pg 106 to say Phanerozoic climate and CO2 have nothing to do with each other, but on pg 107 he uses reference 437 (ie Royer et al, (2004), above) to say that CO2 is a primary driver of climate? Or does paleozoic CO2 behave differently to modern CO2? It's all a bit confusing, really. In the classics at uni we had a much hi-er level of communications skills. In fact, just reading the other comments here makes it pretty clear that AGW doesn't exist! Ever!!

Regards,

Dr P.S. Slake, BMus, BA, Dip Ed (Soc Geog)

(Damn! Hit the "Post" button before editing my real name out.)

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Timmy little boy (#249)- You are only accurate in your little closed "peer reviewed" world. The real people know you are a fool and the jig is up. Time for you to find a new cause to push on the great unwashed.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Akerman, this is not the time to give up your medication.

Brian @ 225,
I am not a climate scientist, so if I wanted to give accurate answers to those questions, I would look up the recent literature written for a non-climate scientist audience. I would suggest the [Copenhagen Diagnosis report](www.copenhagendiagnosis.org)
But since I don't have time to reread it right now and you have asked for my personal guesses, and that's all they are:
1) somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 metres.
2) 2 degrees or so.
3) totally gone @ midsummer. Annual Freezing and melting.
4) maybe 10%? Antarctica will be less affected than the rest of the planet for a while.
5) maybe 25%?

And the bonuses:
1) I have never heard this suggested and it sounds impossible. There is a worst-case, extreme scenario of methane which is currently frozen on the sea floor thawing out and bubbling up.
2) It's cow's breath not cows farts :) it does have an effect, though not as big an effect as carbon dioxide increase.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I must confess that because I ate too much beans that I am sinning against the environment and destroying that planet as I type. That felt good with a hint of wood and rotting vegatation. MMM Anyone have a match?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

James, where has it been shown that the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the actual cause of global warming? Perhaps the increased amount is caused by the warming instead of the other way around. Haven't there been times in history where the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere been much higher than today?

Mr. Haughton,

You are not speaking over me, this is perfect. What you say is clear and your point of view understandable. And except for the end of the email you speak like someone who to me sounds like a scientist. Please observe these examples.

(a) it is happening much faster than any other change we can deduce from the historical or geological record
(b) is happening at a time when, as far as we can tell, the sun is quiet and the earth is not particularly close to it

This is what I like to hear. This is still theory with only an observation and hypothesis phase to date. Its not like we can experiment with the earth changing various control factors to see fi we are right now is it ?

Btw, the way which you can tell the new carbon is in the air from fossile fuels, are you saying becuase of a particular concenrtation of an carbon isotope ? if so what is the isotope so I can look at up and educate myself.

I see some great information you are onto here, very scientific stuff. However it is a long way from drawing any hard conclusions, conclusions politicians have all but accepted and are now demonizing "deniers" who dont fall in line. Science aside... doesnt that sound odd to you ?

But in the meantime, lets continue. You have shown me you have some good data and it sounds like there is still lots of work to be done. After just a simple cursory review by gut is that there is a LOT more work and study that has to been done to draw ANY hard conclusions yet.. again especially on how to fix it. So you say we should cut emissions.. cool we do that every year. So we should try to use less carbon based fuels... cool most people I know dont have any problem with that. Seems like its going that way.

But I see nothing here so concrete that we should adopt some of the insane measures that are being dicussed. Carbon credits traded on an open market ? Rich strong countries having to pay poor developed ones because they are weak. Why does the fix seem to always involve adoptions of the planks of Socialism us strict government controls on all aspects of like and redistribution of wealth. Is it possible at all that polticians are taking this data which is still data and needs a lot lot more research and using it to try to implement their own agendas ? And if so... what does that do to the information you as a scientist present ?

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

what came first???

global warming??? or an increase in co2???

ding ding ding thanks for playing,,,

global warming increases the level of co2,,,

there is not enough co2 to cause global warming,,,

this is the same cycle that has happened repeatedly with every ice age and warming,,,

for those that want humans to be causing this,,,

you should be calling for huge reductions in populations of chinese 1.3 billion in china alone(not counting the rest of the world) muslims (claiming 1.3 billion) indians over 1 billion in india alone(not counting the rest of the world) and the rest of the large family groups,,, catholics/latins jews, blacks,,, thes are not populations,,, they are infestations,,,

in·fest (n-fst)
tr.v. in·fest·ed, in·fest·ing, in·fests
To inhabit or overrun in numbers or quantities large enough to be harmful, threatening, or obnoxious
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infestation

so go get them,,, tax them,,, put a zero child policy on them or at least an enforced one child policy,,,

do it,,, do it now,,,

By wrong at large (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Eric, you're part of the problem, and yeah, I am a smart guy. Attempting to patronize me just makes you come off as ignorant and disingenuous. Just because I live in Arizona, you feel it necessary to point out the weather in my state as an example of your position? What a clod. By the way Eric, CO2 and particulates are apples and oranges, obviously a fact lost on you some time ago. You are welcome to continue in your fashion as you wish, but you've already lost the argument - global warming is about the sun ... people, not so much.

Janet, Eric, you've been drinking the Kool Aide for so long now that you've forgotten how to think for yourself and evaluate issues on their merits. Despite the idiocy of the ruling, the EPA believed the crap data and has classified CO2 as a pollutant -- that's one of the biggest jokes I've had the pleasure to live through. Janet, since you didnât get it the first time, I'll repeat myself for your benefit - the peer review process was corrupted by some of the very people responsible for warehousing, correlating, analyzing, and modeling the data. Since dissenting opinions and competing theories didn't fit these 'real' scientist's agendas, they applied pressure to keep those inconvenient theories from finding their way into peer reviews and publications. Understand the problem now?

By William in Arizona (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

How amusing it is to see the horse manure removed and the so-called experts wriggling like maggots to try and cover their exposed duplicitous buttocks. The extent that you, scientists that claim to be the arbeiters of integrity have now been shorn of any shred of integrity not by the opposition, but by your own words and actions.

You have piously claimed to be working for the good of all mankind and now you have been found to be ordinary liars and thieves scurriously working to not only change government policy to suit your own agendas but needlessly endangering the people of the world with those lies.

You are the same kind of scientists that Adolf Hitler used to to prove that jews were lower life forms than aryans, providing the data to "prove" that killing six million jews was "justified" by your science. What's even worse is that you collaborated to silence those that opposed your lies, you knowingly altered your data, manipulated data the didn't agree or simply ignored it and now that you have been found out you are trying to use that same platform you used to pronounce your falsehoods to the masses as justification for you not getting banned from the scientific community for the rest of your lives. The world has heated and cooled for an unknown period of time and yet though it all, mankind has reacted by simply moving and adapting to the climate. You have assumed that man purportedly can heat or cool the earth through his activities as though he were God, when in reality you know full well that there is nothing man can do to stop or start anything the earth does, but you have learned that you can line your pockets with silver and become famous in your field...as long as your fellow conspirators kept a lock on the treasure chest. Who ever hacked that computer should be given a Nobel Prize just for debunking you assclowns. Now try and get your funding back. I can't wait too see the mea culpas and finger pointed as you grub for $$ and your reputations. E=MC2, not BS=URANUS.

249
Drudge realized he'd linked to something accurate and removed the link.

Posted by: Tim Lambert

____________________________________________________________
Mr. Lambert you make me sick. The article reads like a medeval attack on flat-world-deniers. Mr. Drudge removed the link becuase there is nothing scientific about this and it is not news. Mr. Haughton is a scientist, you are a poltico-journalist.. a new breed of partisan warriors on a crusade for your cause and in the disguise of a journalist. This is not news. but at least I met mr. haughton who is approaching someone who sees differntly than him maturely and rationally.

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Eric @ 261,
It is kool-aid not Kool Aide. Get a grip.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

262 Posted by: Marcusa | November 26, 2009 9:50 PM

hahaha,, good one,,,

By wrong at large (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Wow. Rabid howler monkey infestation.
I have excellent poe-dar for creationist trolls, but I have to say I'm having trouble sorting out the parodies from the real thing here. [*]
This means that either the denialist-poes are much more skillful than creationist-poes, or that genuine denialists are even more batshit insane than genuine creationists.

I think there are a lot of very clever regulars on this blog, but I'm afraid, based on the data contained in this very fine comment thread, I'm gonna have to go with the latter.

[*] Except for Terry @234:

I wonder what a Poe is? Perhaps a pejorative nickname for "deniers."

DEFINITELY A POE. ;-)

Drudge realized he'd linked to something accurate and removed the link.

He's a Drudge, but he's not a Harmless Drudge.

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Janet Akerman, um, I mean me @247:

Time to shut this bitch down, everyone start posting as Janet Akerman.

What an excellent idea! (of mine).
I must say that I have greatly enjoyed Janet's (that is, my wonderful contributions to this thread.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Will all the Janet Akermans wannabes please shut up!

I'm the real Janet Akerman and I'm smarter than everyone on this post.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Drudge's readers!, what is that? he does not write anything. Usually when people cannot deal with the message, they atack the messenger. That is an obscure attribute of "intelligence". Happy Thanksgiving! "smart scientists"

It is my prayer that when this has been settled and we get all of the NWO money... There is enough left after paying off our national debt, that the 5,000,000,000 of us get to fly around the world for our ten years. See you all; At The Beach!

I wonder what a Poe is?

FYI, Poe's Law was enacted in the southern states in 1885.

It made it a crime for last remaining scions of decadent families with over-sensitive hearing to bury their sisters alive.

It only met with mixed success.

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I have to say it... After all that cake NWO...; got milk?

I downloaded the bloated Copenhagen Diagnosis pdf that has been variously linked here as answering concerns about data fudging, & it took about 15 seconds to find the first cite of Michael Mann, a demonstrated fraud and hoaxer. Ergo, your Copenhagen Diagnosis is exceptionally tainted and should be treated as spurious.

The simple problem is that every piece of evidence "proving" AGW you can point to has been tainted by liars, frauds, and criminals; yet skeptics are continually assaulted with ugly language and threats of violence. The happy result is that the uglier you treat us, the clearer it will become to everyone your perfidy and pusillanimity.

Jim @ 250: Isn't calling for government to provide everything to you for free without you lifting a finger socialism? Especially when you didn't pay any taxes in New Zealand. You can find the answer to your question about adjustment on the website. Look around.

Terry @ 257; Yes, previous temperature cycles have often (not always) had the temperature increase before the CO2 increase. This is what is known as a positive feedback loop: temperature increase causes CO2 increase (e.g. through increased outgassing of the oceans (home experiment: try heating some lemonade, all the CO2 bubbles out really quickly)and through an increase in fires; (remember, until we came up with agriculture about 10,000 years ago, the entire land surface of the planet that wasn't covered in ice, mountains or desert was covered in forests, and there weren't any fire brigades) which causes temperature increase and so on. You can read more about this process in this article here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Worry about triggering a positive feedback loop like this is what causes many climate scientists and environmental campaigners to call for what sound like extreme cuts quickly.

In any case, arguing that because temperature led CO2 in the past, therefore CO2 can't lead temperature now, is, if you think carefully, not very logical. It's like saying that because I crashed my car into a tree in the past, it's impossible for me to crash my car into anything other than trees.

Those geological (not historical) times when CO2 was much higher were also much hotter. They would have been very unpleasant to live in (quite apart from the rampaging dinosaurs, etc).

Brian @ 259:
I hope you realise that what I have done my best to present is a very quick summary which just touches on some of the key issues, and there is a lot more evidence out there that I haven't even touched.

With respect to the fact that we can't "experiment" with the earth: absolutely correct. This is one reason that people concerned about global warming say that it's important to act now, even if we are only, say, 80 or 90% certain; we can't "run the experiment" except by living it, and by then, it's too late.

However, there is another way we try to test these predictions: using computer models based upon the laws of physics in question. These have gotten a lot of bad press, most of it unjustified. Arguments about computer models (apart from people who say "you can't trust computers to do anything" while they post on the internet...) usually centre on the difficulty of getting precise answers to complex phenomena like weather, fluid dynamics etc. But there are ways to deal with these problems. For example, you can run the model many many times, changing the starting conditions, assumptions or methods slightly each time. If it still gives you much the same answer, then you can know that those complex aspects don't have a huge influence. Another way to get around this problem is to take the average of all these different runs and this irons out the complexities (for example, we can't know whether next week will be colder than this week, but we can know that on average, winter will be colder than summer). Another way is to test the model by giving it the data up to a certain date in the past and then seeing if it can predict the path to the present correctly (this is known as "backcasting", by analogy to forecasting). Another way is for different teams of researchers to all build their own models and compare the results. You may be suprised to learn that all this has been done and the models are considered very accurate on a global scale and moderately accurate on a regional/continental scale.

You may also be interested to know that US national security rests upon the accuracy of computer modelling techniques. Computer models are used to simulate nuclear bomb explosions without letting them off, and to simulate the flow of water around submarines before they are built. If computer models were typically inaccurate, the US would be defended by submarines which are easily located, carrying missiles that wouldn't explode. The problems are in some ways similar because they all concern the flow of fluids (in the bomb case, the "fluid" is the surrounding air) around sources of movement and energy.

The carbon isotope in question is Carbon 13: fossil fuels have less of it as over time it decays to carbon 12. There is a good discussion, with some links to relevant scientific papers, here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emission…

On the politics of it: well, show me a politician from any side of politics who never demonises their opponents, and I'll show you the most endangered species on the planet. Politics can be a bit of a methane-producing swamp itself, but it can't ultimately can't change the scientific data.

The carbon credit trade system is a lot less restrictive and requires a lot less government monitoring and intrusion than a carbon tax. A similar system was used in the US to stop acid rain, by creating a market for sulphur emissions from power plants. I don't think many people in the US regard ending acid rain as an intrusion on their freedom.

A lot of this is just the way you spin the language. For example, the transfer payments: we are paying poorer countries to provide a service for us, by not emitting carbon dioxide, rather than trying to compel them by force. They can compete with each other in an international free market to see who can most efficiently emit the least carbon dioxide and so offer us the best price for the carbon credits we need for our industry in the short term. Paying for service, open markets and free competition to produce the best price sound pretty anti-socialist to me.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Ergo, your Copenhagen Diagnosis is exceptionally tainted

Goodness gracious. Exceptionally tainted, you say?

The happy result is that the uglier you treat us, the clearer it will become to everyone your perfidy and pusillanimity.

Oh my! We perfidious and pusillanimous folk are powerless against the power of big words, even when used in grammatically incorrect sentences! Global warming must be a scam!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

It's about freedom and liberty guys. Why does every solution you come up with end up impeding our freedom?

Problems impede, solutions liberate, denialism kills.

Anyway, grow up.

And still the political groups are going to Copenhagen, to make every one return to the 1900 levels of carbon emissions the truth is out there but they have ignored these truths and are planning to go ahead with the reduction of carbon emissions by up to 80% with notable exceptions being excluded from the required reductions' like China with emissions over 6,000 million metric tons. Mexico produced more than 430m tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2006, making it the 13th largest emitter in the world. The use of the per capita CO2 emissions as a rule of measure is sort of lop sided when you consider that the population density of the populace regions makes the statistical reference unacceptable, it is like dividing a pie into shares the more people the smaller the share, thus the per capita CO2 for five million is less than that for one million, and thus statically the million will have a burden a lot higher than the five million all be it that the five million will produce more CO2.
Something very wrong is going on here, and it amounts to treasonable behavior on many of those involved. And Still the lie is believed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/11/26/us/politics/26climate-grap…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissi…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mopitt_first_year_carbon_monoxide.jpg

By Mutantone (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

@276 Alright, since it uses Mann et al as a primary source, perhaps exceptionally tainted is a bit misleading. How's "lie" sound to you? Fair? Good.

And I'll use try to avoid anything above a 4th grade reading level for you again: your hypothesis is a farce, your foundational documents are fraudulent, your leaders are liars, & your answers are specious. And you know it.

277:

It's about freedom and liberty guys. Why does every solution you come up with end up impeding our freedom?

Problems impede, solutions liberate, denialism kills.

Anyway, grow up.

No, no, it is about freedom and liberty.
I like to exercise my freedom and liberty by wandering round sticking pins into people. Now the state is all, like, hey man, people are getting hurt, so in order to solve this problem, we're going to take away all your pins.

I say, if they're so keen to solve the problem of rampant pin-stick injuries, they should work out a way to do it without impeding my freedom to walk around sticking pins into people.

I gotta give him credit for being well prepared in case he ever got called on the manipulation, ah eh adjustments. Based on the review of the various sites Wellington does look like a plausible answer. He could not use Dunedin, since that is the lone example of one in which the adjustment does not exagerate the warming trend, but actually reduces it. That would make everyone demand to see the others. The problem is there are adjustments being done to the others for which there is no explaination. Some adjustments appear to be to compensate for station moves like Wellington (we do not know that however), but if this is the case it does not explain the increase forced on the data in the 1940 timeframe. Since he is unwilling to release the data i can only assume there is a reason why he refuses to release all data except Wellington. If he wanted to squelch debate he could easily release it all, unless there is some other reason why this would in fact not squelch the debate, but rather amplify it.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/global_warming_nz_pdf.pdf

Looks to me like they did a reasonable job of analyzing the data based on the data provided. I know there are some in here that say data was provided, but as has been established it was data on 1 of 6 questionable stations (omitting the 7th Dunedin, the lone station adjusting down temperature increase) and he still refuses to provide data on those. So to put forward the notion that there is transparence is certainly a sham, or maybe it should be characterized as a sub-sham - time will tell.

Either way it is time for these scientists to release all of their data. If the base data supports their modeling, fine, if it does not some heads should roll. It would be the most massive deliberate fraud ever perpetrated in history.

By Dan in MI (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

William, I'm just back from attending to other matters and Iâm not sure if I'm the real Janet Akerman, only Steve Chamberlain can tell, so lets see what this Janet comes up with in reply:
>*Janet, since you didnât get it the first time, I'll repeat myself for your benefit - the peer review process was corrupted by some of the very people responsible for warehousing, correlating, analysing, and modelling the data. Since dissenting opinions and competing theories didn't fit these 'real' scientist's agendas, they applied pressure to keep those inconvenient theories from finding their way into peer reviews and publications. Understand the problem now?*

I understand what you are saying, I simply am asking for the one example to back your case.
I think you are confusing the political agenda of those who are self professed to be out to maximise profits, with the truth seeking agendas of people who follow a path of curiosity.

Know doubt both groups play professional politics, but their life choices indicate they are not driven to the same degree by exactly the same motives. When I hear self serving corporatist, their elites, their lobbyist all saying that rational pursuit of self interest maximises the good for all, I tend to think this ideology starts to sink in and affect their choices.

And when I seek scientist taking a different path accepting lower wages than corporate elites, I tend to believe they are not as deeply in debt to the same ideology as which disproportionately corrupts via the profit motive.

Sure I hear the argument that everyone needs to win a grant. But the scientist at least don't preach the 'what ever it takes doctrine', so that ideology will be likely less dominant. And hence their practice less influenced. Besides their would be no shortage of money available if someone said they would demonstrate AGW was false. Just ask Exxon.

So in short, the ideologues who are disproportionately (higher proportion than whole population) driven by greed provide examples of a problem, and are using their own poor behaviour and projecting it onto the motives of scientists. [Scientist who are: at a rate higher than the whole population; truth seeking and following curiosity, and knowledge gaining].

So I ask you for one simple example, just one paper that is supportable (credible) and that has some how be suppressed (miraculously suppressed despite the transmission possible on the internet).

And I reiterate you now are in possession of the scientists emails, so you surely should be able to find the papers that the cabal/clique were scared of. All you need to do is determine the credibility of such a paper, or present it here and we can discuss that.

One example, just one.
is

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

"You are the same kind of scientists that Adolf Hitler used to to prove that jews were lower life forms than aryans, providing the data to "prove" that killing six million jews was "justified" by your science."

I can't be bothered replying. I'm too busy eating children.

By George Darroch (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

stop global warming,,,

exterminate all the people,,,

no more human caused co2 greenhouse gases,,,

should work right,,,

yahhhh righttttt,,,

By wrong at large (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I feel like I'm in a bag of mixed nuts.

Begone foul Trolls, begone!

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Mr. Haughton,

I visited the link you gave me. This is the type of laughable science which I deplore. In fact there is no science. Btw, quick point of fact... C-13 is stable and does not decay into C-12. This would make it radioactive as is the case with C-14. The article does not state this. It only talks about the C13/C12 relationship in fossil fuels and the atmosphere. No science, no nothing. There are other factors which could cause the results, the two linears are not necessairly dependent and need more data points.

I know about the modeling you speak of. But it is done in phases with mathematical modeling, phsycail modeling (wind/water tunnel) and then proto-types. No matter how hard we try we still find errors when we build the real thing, though of course we could not have done it without the first steps of mathematical modeling. So you and your kind keep doing what you are doing. Lets progress to some physical experiments, lets take it father.

The Acid Rain Cap And Trade Program ?? Laughable. It did two things...

1. Brought disgusting granular involvement of the government into emmisions and

2. Caused factories to cap their stacks with scrubbers.

It was #2 that caused the drop and not #1. And now the government of the US gets to decide how much a pound of emission is worth and that thing can be traded as a fungible asset like money.. and you think it will lead to less pollution in the long run.. when emmisions are a form of currency ? If they just made the people use the stacks or gave them a tax reduction it would have done the same thing. Btw, FYI... we did the same thing with energy here in California. Buy end sell energy on an "open market" with energy credits capped by the government. The result ? Rolling blackouts. We never had them before and never again. Somehow there was enough power... but when they created this market then somehow there wasnt enough power and in order to deal with this "power shortage" we had rolling blackouts from section to section all across So Cal during hot summer days. People freaked out. Then the Exchange failed and when it did... the blackouts went away. I am sure someone modeled it somewhere but the real implementation which involved the personalities of real people it didnt work out. Exactly why I oppose all of this.

Apparently you trust the operation of your government so much that you will allow it to define the value of energy and emmisions and then allow them to be traded based on their regulation. Here we dont. We already know what happens.

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Of all the other Janets, this is the one I wish I could claim:

[...] I look just like Ricky Lake, but with a weight problem.
Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 9:27 PM

Quality like that don't come easy from a Drudge swarm!

I'm betting it was one our funnies! biji, dhogaza, perhaps?

Hat tip!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

258 links to Watts, quoting McIntyre, referring to a "reviewer" (McIntyre himself) requesting that the AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 editors not truncate the Briffa 2001 series. It was rejected, therefore a scandal is inferred.

As the review editor said in response to the comment, it would be addressed in the text, which says:

"Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well-established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; DâArrigo, 2006). This âdivergenceâ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there. In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the âdivergenceâ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a). Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (DâArrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from in this chapter were acquired."

AR4 WGI Chapter 6, pages 472-473

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf

Now, if "skeptics" hold transparancy and accuracy to such a high regard, why is this explanatory text not quoted in the Watts post, or the CA post? For something that is supposed to be "hidden", the evil climate scientists spend a lot of time talking about it.

biji, dhogaza, perhaps?

Not me, I respect you.

Is it sexist for me to say that? :)

(joking, you rock keep posting, even if you have a weight problem, why would I care?)

Either way it is time for these scientists to release all of their data. If the base data supports their modeling, fine, if it does not some heads should roll. It would be the most massive deliberate fraud ever perpetrated in history.

Yeah, like the fact that 2% of the worldwide met records aren't in the public domain is going to overturn conclusions based on the 98% that is.

Do you have any idea as to how fucking stupid this sounds?

@281 "Data", a Poe-m by [Hans](http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2019#comment-144118)

Data
I demand some data,
no, not that data,
that other data,
oh, youâve already given me that Dataâ¦
well now I want this other data, OK, smartypants?
oh, I can get that too huh?
Dammit.
How aboutâ¦
Could you give me some data about some other data that you have not given me and then I can want that data?
I could really use that data.
OK?
Please?
Come on, be reasonable!
Data is really not much good to me unless I canât have it.
It is unethical of you to deny me this data about the data I havenât got,
because if I donât have the data on the data I donât have,
I donât know what data I want, that I canât have, that you are denying me.
Stop denying me.
You are denying me data.
Release the data on the data.
I demand some data,
Data.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

links to Watts, quoting McIntyre, referring to a "reviewer" (McIntyre himself) requesting that the AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 editors not truncate the Briffa 2001 series. It was rejected, therefore a scandal is inferred.

You're saying that McIntyre was insisting that the diverging (from well-established thermometer and satellite temp reconstructions) tree ring data should've been included as some how being a valid test of the hockey stick, or something like that?

McI is the scandal ...

I think Janet deserves a medal, or perhaps several, one for each of her marvellous selves.

(Glad that Tim was acting as a Drudge filter. I think only one got through to my place... ;-) )

James in Post 275 you wrote:
"the entire land surface of the planet that wasn't covered in ice, mountains or desert was covered in forests"

Are you saying there were no plains? In fact the amount of forests were limited.

You also wrote:
"In any case, arguing that because temperature led CO2 in the past, therefore CO2 can't lead temperature now, is, if you think carefully, not very logical."

Yet we must believe that this time around CO2 MUST be leading temerature increases. In fact this proves the weak statistical correlation between CO2 and global temeratures. There have been increaes in CO2 without warming, and decreaes with high CO2. With such a weak correlation how can you unequvically state that this time CO2 is the causation? Causation without correlation? How is that possible?

Finally, can you explain the rapid climate changes of the Medival Warm period, it's change into the Little Ica Age and the rapid change back? These all happened within a decade or so.

As a scientist you should be the first person to know that what is so called proven sciense turns out to be inaccurate. Here are some of the larger ones over our hisotry. Flat-Earth, Earth center of universe, Milky Way Galaxy was the complete universe. The universe was static.

Many other scientist have gone to their graves believing their theory was right (and AGW is at most a theory) only to be proven completely wrong.

As Steve Forbes observed the argument on climate change has taken on a religious fervor on both sides. Religious type arguments tend to quick degenerated into 2 monologues since basic premises for discussion are not agreed on. Then you get accusations of bias for one reason or another so that many just tune the other side out for bias. Climate change folks need to be careful of the eschatological side of their message, that the world will come to an end. This message repeated enough leads to problems illustrated by the childhood story of the boy who cried wolf. Also one may get reports like the one from a physicist that say humanities goose is cooked on Climate Change i.e. its to late, so lets eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.
It is clear from the geologic record that there is a correlation between co2 levels and temp, but beyond that it gets tougher to get common ground for discussion.
Somehow both sides need to stop the fear mongering to have a serious discussion, both sides today are fear mongering to the public. One of the points of disagreement is the level of proof required of climate change, to use a us legal system analogy, is it a criminal case where it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or a civil case where a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. The opponents of Climate change demand of science proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which can't be obtained. It is clear that a preponderance of the evidence says it is happening.

What Bedway was trying to say was:

I am not a scientist but as a former investigator and analyst (Federal) I know when I am being lied to. Both sides, the "warmers" and the "deniers" give me little factual data comprehensible to one who only asks, like Pilate, "What is truth?" We don't know. All I can do is resist any attempted incursion into my wallet by either side. I will vote against and campaign against any politician who seeks to raise my taxes to combat a peril which has not been established. The earth through the millenia has gone through numerous cold/hot periods, many long before the industrial revolution. The earth has cooled, not warmed over the last decade. I stand with P.T. Barnum; I will not be one of those fools born every moment with every new fad. Stay the hell out of my wallet.

Of course, as with 90% of the foaming froth and bubble screed that blew in here from Drudge, George's rant is essentially fact-free conspiracy theory.

I have yet to read a single Denialist rant here that supplies anything remotely resembling evidence, or science.

By George Bedway'… (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

James,

I forgoat to include one comment on this point that you wrote:
"You may also be interested to know that US national security rests upon the accuracy of computer modelling techniques. Computer models are used to simulate nuclear bomb explosions without letting them off, and to simulate the flow of water around submarines before they are built."

The little itty bitty fact you left outt is that the military condusts actual tests to VALIDATE their computer models. At present all AGW and climate models are not field tested and have not been shown to be accurate predictors of anything. If I am wrong about this then please provide a link that shows how the climate models have been back tested to accurattly show historical temps and global climate.

At present I can take the SIMS and use that as a model but only a fool would trust in its results.

Yeah, like the fact that 2% of the worldwide met records aren't in the public domain is going to overturn conclusions based on the 98% that is.

That's because the data in that 2% is about 1000% incorrect! How else would that 2% be enough to change anything substantive.

By Janet Ackerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I have yet to read a single Denialist rant here that supplies anything remotely resembling evidence, or science.

Posted by: George Bedway's formatter

And you sir have yet to provide a single piece of scientific evidence that AGW is anything more then a computer model. As I stated why should I have to disprove AGW? You are the ones who say that this so called theory is correct so as per standard science you must show that your theroy is correct by supplying evidence that your predictions are in fact based in reality. Not only has this not been done the models can't even create historical climate unless they change and modify hundreds of paramters in their programs.

climate change,,,

adapt or die,,,

like the dinosaurs,,,

when man can cap all volcanoes,,, then maybe you can reduce climate change,,, icelandic volcanoes alone have caused climate change in the past,,,

By wrong at large (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

A good Janet would be more polite to Lyle, But Forbes isn't a credible source to comment on climate. What is Steve's evidence; that when one group get smeared they get snarky?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Yikes!

Obama is Satan, Scientists are Communists and/or Nazis and evil warmist maggots should stop their insults and name-calling.

The wave of crazy that has washed over this blog from Drudge is truly breathtaking. If only this stupid could be harnessed as a power source we could eliminate CO2 emissions overnight.

I actually feel sorry for those who are genuinely sceptical, as they are being drowned out by the more strident voices with broken Caps Lock keys. As for the concern trolls, however, I'll take you seriously if you start calling the 'sceptics' for their insults.

>>*Yeah, like the fact that 2% of the worldwide met records aren't in the public domain is going to overturn conclusions based on the 98% that is.*

>That's because the data in that 2% is about 1000% incorrect! How else would that 2% be enough to change anything substantive.

Quality math satire award! Awarded two Akermans!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Brian @ 286,
Did you read the [Ghosh 2003 paper](http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf)? It is linked to on the skeptical science site.

You're right about the radioactive decay issue - I got confused. The imbalance is due to the fact that fossil fuels are CO2-13 depleted because they are the product of buried plants which "disliked" CO2-13 when they were alive. My mistake. However it doesn't alter the fact that the changing isotopes in the atmosphere demonstrate fossil fuel burning.

I emphasise again that modelling is one of many methods by which these predictions are tested. The heat blocking behaviour of CO2 in the atmosphere has been well known as the result of a long series of scientific discoveries and experiments stretching back to the 1850s. There is a good history and summary of this work at the American Institute of Physics website, here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Other relevant science includes measurement of the CO2 levels in the air (Mauna Loa), measurement of the earth's albedo (which is done IIRC by looking at the reflection of earth-light off the moon), measurement of ocean temperature by bouys, measurement of the amount of IR escaping the earth's atmosphere by satellite (though the last is not highly precise, because of the lack of the DSCOVR satellite), etcetera.

As well as the temperature records directly, we also know that global temperatures are going up in an unusual way because of glacial melting and the rapid migration of temperature dependent animals and plants, to give a couple of examples.

I'm really not particularly interested in debating the politics or economics of the issues, nor do I know a lot about them, particularly in the US - this is a long way from your original request for an explanation/debate about the science! However, my understanding is that the sulphur dioxide trading was what gave the companies the economic incentive to install scrubbers, and that this was considered (by all parties, government and industy) to be less onerous and expensive than requiring them to be installed by law. Similarly, my understanding of california's blackouts is that they occurred because operation of the energy market was privatised out to Exxon. Nuf said. But I really don't care if we cut greenhouse gas emissions by cap-and-trade, tax, outlawing coal fired power generation, or whatever.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Melissa, your way more articulate now, have you been preying?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Did I say "...90% of the foaming froth and bubble screed..."?

I should have said "...90% of the posts here that are the foaming froth and bubble screed...".

100% of the foaming froth and bubble screed that blew in here from Drudge is essentially fact-free, and/or conspiracy theory.

By George Bedway'… (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Hey George... Your so smart, who killed JFK? Do you need another commission of fools to help us get to the bottom of that old riddle? I want all those files now-not another f__king fifty years... We can handle it!

I was only citing Steve Forbes observation about what the discussion was turning into. Not his point of view. When discussion becomes monologues passing in the night, which it seems to have become then its religious in nature, and also like religious discussions will never reach a consensus. Also its clear to me that those who don't hold with climate change demand beyond a reasonable doubt, but since the sides do not share the same postulates, will never be achieved. The case for climate change is past the preponderance of the evidence stage and is approaching if it has not already reached the next level clear and convincing. (I rely more on geological climate studies, than current models here, look at the Early Tertiary or the Cretaceous, higher co2 and warmer temps. In fact go back to the pre-cambrian and the case is even clearer, even with the cooler sun at that time. In a multiple billion year time frame global warming is sure to happen because the sun will get hot enough to boil the oceans (5 billion years or so, so not a serious concern for us)

It feels like I'm dreaming. The text floats and bubbles. I can't make any sense of it. I could be having an OBE, the messages pass by one by one and none of them make any sense. It's so surreal.

By Tyler DiPietro (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Melissa is a Poe, right? Please tell me she's a Poe.

JohnU @ 298: In fact all climate models used for prediction are regularly back tested. For example, here is a page about the use of climate models to "predict" the temperature since 1850 or so (when instrumental records began). It contains many links to the technical literature about this.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

In any case, as Brian pointed out, we can't experiment with different earths to see what happens. My point was generally directed against a certain kind of ignorance that asserts that computer models can be ignored because they are "only simulations".

By James Haughton (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

This has been great fun.

Any chance we can get Glenn Reynolds to link here tomorrow?

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

My background in the the area of physics. However, an excellant example of accepted science, theory and what is known today should be taken into consideration by the AGW proponets.

For decades Fred Hoyle believed in the steady state theory to the universe. Even Albert Einstein, contray to his own theory, believed in it. For decades Mr. Hoyle ridiculed people like Georges Lemaitre who believed in what was coined by Mr Hoyle as the Big Bang theory. He even went so far as to try and limit peer reviewed papers from being published as he claimed that they could not disprove his theory. All of this of course changed in the late 60's with further discoveries. But Mr. Hoyle would never really accept this and even in 1993 tried to come up with a Quasi-Steady state theory.

So what does this have to do with AGW? Everything when it comes to how real science works. The Big Bang theory is still just labled a theory. Even as mor eevidence has been found to support it it will probably always just be a well accepted theroy. AGW on the other hand is being pushed not as a theory but as a scientifc fact.

All theroies have to be subjected to observation and physical testing. It seems to me that AGW believers want to bypass these requirements and go straight toestablishing it as fact. I'm sorry but for many of us to accept AGW there must be predictions made and then observations that support those predictions. This has not been done.

There are many predictions about sea level changes, global temps, ice cover but as of yet not one single prediction has been shown to be accurate. Of course those who support AGW will say that their prodictions are so dire that we can't wait the 20 to 100 years for the proof. I then ask to show the programming of the models and back date them to account for global climate in the past.

From everything I have seen or read this has not been done without massive 'accomodations' made in the programs to various parameters. This alone should cause concern that if the models can accuratly depict past historical results how can we rely on them to predict future results.

There are hundreds and in some modles thousands of parameters used. Each of these need to be tested one by one to prove that the correlation arrived at in the models accuratly reflect what happens in the physical world. Every climate modeler admits that they have not done this. Some of the parameters have but many have not. A change as small as .0001 in a critical parameter can cause a full 1C change in predictive results.

These are my problems with the AGW models that have not been addressed or even made available to the scientifc community for review.

All theories have to be subjected to observation and physical testing. It seems to me that AGW believers want to bypass these requirements and go straight to establishing it as fact. I'm sorry but for many of us to accept AGW there must be predictions made and then observations that support those predictions. This has not been done.

I wonder if it might be possible to find some way to measure temperature. If we did this at various times, we could compare the results.

Maybe we could set up some sort of research facility especially to study temperature.

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

James,

You wrote:
"JohnU @ 298: In fact all climate models used for prediction are regularly back tested. For example, here is a page about the use of climate models to "predict" the temperature since 1850"

There are two major issues that his does not address. First off all of these 'hindcasts' were done with changes in the parameters for various time periods. this meant that the wieghts given to various factors were changed during differnet time periods. What is unknown is why? Was this done to fit the historical data or were there other changes to processes that required these modifications. Even the IPCC has admited that there were modifications for hindcasting purposes so this is not a denied fact.

The second major issue is that it only goes back to 1850. Even you have admitted that in the past climate of Earth there were warming without CO2, warmings where CO2 lagged and warming where CO2 led. There was also cooling with high CO2 levels. No model has been backtested to show the results of the Medvial Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. In fact the models completely fail to account or explain that these events even happened.

If we are to place our trust in the models they need to be proven accurate for more then just the positive feedback loops that they rely upon.

BTW, just this summer there was an admisssion by some AGW modelers that they did not place enough weights to PDO. If they were off here they can easily be off in any of the other hundreds of parameters that they use.

The great thing about the internet is that it gives all people the ability to speak their mind. The horrible thing about the internet is that it gives all people the ability to speak their mind.

To deniers: Most of your arguments are crap. There is no polite way to phrase it. They're just crap. So what if the climate has changed previously? That doesn't address the issue of AGW. Look at it this way, imagine your house is on fire. When you call up the fire dept would you be happy if they said, "Fires have happened long before mankind was around, so we don't need to do anything about *THIS* fire..." or would you prefer they try putting the fire out? AGW is the same thing, the theory states that THIS TIME it is caused by humans, will have bad effects, and we can stop it; so we should stop it. If you're going to argue against AGW, at least argue against what AGW is really about instead of whatever moronic strawman arguments talk radio spews out.

Also, even if Obama really is a communist and Gore really is a blow hard moron milking global warming to make himself rich, that doesn't mean that AGW is wrong. Politicians don't do science research. I doubt most of them even understand science research. So shut up about Obama, Gore, or whatever other frontman you see on the news. It has jack shit to do with the science or the debate over AGW.

To AGW proponents: Quit being pricks. The way science works is you make a claim, you gotta prove it. So you can stop with calling deniers morons, full of bullshit, criminals, or whatever else you claim. I don't care if every single denier in the world is on the payroll of Exxon (although I personally haven't seen a check), you made a claim so the burden of proof is on you. That's how science is supposed to work. Ad hominem is easy to do, but it's still a logical fallacy.

Also, have you guys really become so blinded by your beliefs that you don't realize that science is SUPPOSED to be open? There should not have to be FOI requests to get data for the simple reason that the data should not be hidden away to begin with. To deny the FOI request, try hiding behind loopholes in it, or actively encouraged people to delete data related to those request is just plain unethical. Those leaked emails aren't damning because they prove AGW wrong, they're damning because they clearly show that scientist doing AGW research see nothing wrong with hiding data, blackballing people who question them, and even trying to change the definition of 'peer review' is to defend their theories. Proponents seem to be perfectly fine with that, which is exactly why proponents are coming off looking so bad in this. You guys are playing this moronic game of if claiming it's not technically illegal or disproves AGW. That's not the point, the point is ethics and the very core of what scientific thought should be were violated. As supporters of science, you should be pissed off about that instead of defending it.

And an actual issue about AGW which I mentioned earlier but kinda got lost in the spam storm of idiocy, over the last ten years or so global temperatures have mostly been flat. That is a long enough period that we're talking climatology instead of meteorology (another common pinheaded mistake I'm seeing from the deniers). Even the best case scenario prediction in the IPCC reports did not predict that, it said there would be warming but at a less rate than other predictions. Over the same period, actual CO2 being released tracks pretty close to the worst case scenario the IPCC presented. Given that what limited predictions we are able to check have been proven to be flat out wrong, why exactly should I believe the rest of the predictions; much less support spending trillions of dollars on those predictions?

JohnU,
I don't know what your sources are for claiming that models have been rigged. They don't seem very reliable. But we could test this, if only someone would write a paper called something like "Recent Climate Observations Compared To Predictions" which explicitly stated that "Climate models are physics-based models developed over many years that are not "tuned" (ie. weighted) to reproduce the most recent temperatures," and which tested earlier models against current predictions. Hey, you can read that paper here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf

Second, it's silly to hindcast models for periods when we don't have an accurate instrumental temperature record to check them against. It would prove nothing.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

I wonder if it might be possible to find some way to measure temperature. If we did this at various times, we could compare the results.

Maybe we could set up some sort of research facility especially to study temperature.

Posted by: Ezzthetic

This is one of the major flaws surronding AGW. Many of the temperature mointoring stations supply flawed data. Numerous articles have been posted on their flaws.

One of the predictions of the various computer models is that the troposphere should warm faster then the surface. Observations do not show this. So the modelers changed the programs and the AGW scientiest came up with 'explanations' saying that it would have but for sea heat sinks or other reasons.

My point is that if the models predicted something to happen and we can not verify that through observation that means the models have something worng in them. For argument sake let's say that the troposphere would have heated up faster then the surface except that the sea absorbed the heat. That in itself proves the models are inaccurate in how the planet handles heat and any predictions on heat exchange or release has to be questioned.

My simple answer is that the surface temperatures are being influenced by larger heat islands as the number of monitoring stations has decreased and urbanization increased. It's just a theory but so far both explanations have the same level of scientifc proff supporting them. In other words next to none.

JohnU bellowed:

The little itty bitty fact you left outt [sic] is that the military condusts [sic] actual tests to VALIDATE their computer models. At present all AGW and climate models are not field tested and have not been shown to be accurate predictors of anything.

He might be somewhat taken aback to know that the US military takes global warming very seriously indeed, and is doing quite a lot of work to plan for the strategic implications of impending warming. They seem to have no qualms at all accepting the models of their scientists and of the civilian climatologists.

JohnU then sputters:

And you sir have yet to provide a single piece of scientific evidence that AGW is anything more then a computer model.

Try reading the scientific literature for once in your life. If you don't want 'models', how about the [physical evidence](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html)?

Of course, if you follow the IPCC bibliographies, you could spend the next several years reading scientific literature that documents the physical basis of GHG action, the fact that warming is occurring, and the thousands of papers, in addition to the Nature article in the previous link, that describe the consequences of the current human-induced warming event.

As I stated why should I have to disprove AGW?

You obviously have no acquaintance with how the scientific method actually operates.

Scientific hypotheses are either supported or refuted (=disproved) by evidence and by experimental replication (which is not the same thing as 'duplication'). One can never actually prove an hypothesis or a theory, although some scientific theories (which are different from the non-scientific idea of the term 'theories') are so robust that they are essentially proved: evolution is a case in point.

You are the ones who say that this so called theory is correct so as per standard science you must show that your theory [sic] is correct by supplying evidence that your predictions are in fact based in reality. Not only has this not been done the models can't even create historical climate unless they change and modify hundreds of paramters [sic] in their programs.

Evidence supplied, and directed to, above. Use your brain, if you can find it under all the dust, and see for yourself.

For pity's sake man, you must have worn a bib at least until you moved out of home, the way that your require so much spoon-feeding.

My background in [sic]the the [sic] area of physics. However, an excellant [sic] example of accepted science, theory and what is known today should be taken into consideration by the AGW proponents [sic].

Excuse me for being sceptical, but if your background is in physics, then it is way in the background. Somewhat like the fact that you might have once walked past the Physics department at high school is in your 'background'.

You don't seem to have even a loose grasp of the background and the operation of science. Your skill seems more to be to parrot Denialist impressions of what science might be, and to murder spelling and grammar in the process.

Or you are actually a clever Poe. It's so hard to discern the difference on this thread...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Any chance we can get Glenn Reynolds to link here tomorrow?

I'd like Watts, but I'd settle for Bolt.

I love these trolls, I've been entertained all afternoon!

By Janet Ackerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

over the last ten years or so global temperatures have mostly been flat.

No they have not. That's an idiotic claim, unsupported by evidence. Like you say, if you're going to say something, make sure you've got evidence to back it up.

Likewise


Even the best case scenario prediction in the IPCC reports did not predict that

Also needs evidence. This might give you some idea. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/01.33.jpg

Sounds like you're just trolling, Robert.

Papers finding enhanced tropical tropospheric warming in observations:

"In the tropical upper troposphere, where the predicted amplification of surface trends is largest, there is no significant discrepancy between trends from RICHâRAOBCORE version 1.4 and the range of temperature trends from climate models. This result directly contradicts the conclusions of a recent paper by Douglass et al. (2007)."

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/21/18/pdf/i1520-0442-21-18-…

"Insofar as the vertical distributions shown in Fig. 3 are very close to moist adiabatic, as for example predicted by GCMs (Fig. 6), this suggests a systematic bias in at least one MSU channel that has not been fully removed by either group [RSS & UAH]."

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/sondeanal.pdf

"The observations at the surface and in the troposphere are consistent with climate model simulations. At middle and high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, the zonally averaged temperature at the surface increased faster than in the troposphere while at low latitudes of both hemispheres the temperature increased more slowly at the surface than in the troposphere."

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/ngeo208.html
http://cce.890m.com/models/images/allen-sherwood.jpg

"We find that tropospheric temperature trends in the tropics are greater than the surface warming and increase with height."

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2005.pdf

"At middle and high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, the zonally averaged temperature at the surface increased faster than in the troposphere while at low latitudes of both hemispheres the temperature increased more slowly at the surface than in the troposphere."

http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~kostya/Pdf/VinnikovEtAlTempTrends2005JD006392…

The link http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007Rahmstorfetal.pdf is a 404 so it doesn't exist anymore.

However, here is a quote from a paper about the sea-level predictions cited in this report:

"IV Conclusion
Scientific uncertainty, as represented by
ranges of values and error terms, does not
immediately translate into measures of
confidence or validity. The AR4 projections
of sea-level rise do not represent the true
range of possible futures due to fundamental
gaps in underlying knowledge."

In fact the predictions of sea level changes reange from:
"It also estimates future sea-level rise
of between 0.18 and 0.59 m for the twentyfirst
century (Meehl et al., 2007), derived
from models driven by a series of âEmission
Scenariosâ (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000)."

The bottom line is that the underlying knowledge is limited and unproven. This alone supports that AGW is at best a theory. It is one thing to study this theory and continue observations. it is another to formulate policy on it.

I'd like Watts, but I'd settle for Bolt.

I want my Instalanche!

And I want him to add "Hey" or "Indeed" after the link.

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink
I wonder if it might be possible to find some way to measure temperature. If we did this at various times, we could compare the results.

Maybe we could set up some sort of research facility especially to study temperature.

Posted by: Ezzthetic

This is one of the major flaws surronding AGW. Many of the temperature mointoring stations supply flawed data. Numerous articles have been posted on their flaws.

Characteristics that distinguish the genuine denialists from the poes: (a) sense of humour, and (b) sophisticated grasp of literary techniques such as sarcasm and irony.

A qucik review of the so called model predictions to observations show a number of scientits that disagree. Here are some:

Comment on "A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise"
Simon Holgate,1* Svetlana Jevrejeva,1 Philip Woodworth,1 Simon Brewer2

Rahmstorf (Reports, 19 January 2007, p. 368) presented an approach for predicting sea-level rise based on a proposed linear relationship between global mean surface temperature and the rate of global mean sea-level change. We find no such linear relationship. Although we agree that there is considerable uncertainty in the prediction of future sea-level rise, this approach does not meaningfully contribute to quantifying that uncertainty.

1 Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, 6 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L3 5DA, UK.
2 Cemagref, CS 40061, 13182 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 5, France.

And here is one more:
Comment on "A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise"
Torben Schmith,1* Søren Johansen,2 Peter Thejll3

Rahmstorf (Reports, 19 January 2007, p. 368) used the observed relation between rates of change of global surface temperature and sea level to predict future sea-level rise. We revisit the application of the statistical methods used and show that estimation of the regression coefficient is not robust. Methods commonly used within econometrics may be more appropriate for the problem of projected sea-level rise.

1 Centre for Ocean and Ice, Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark.
2 Institute of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
3 Danish Climate Centre, Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Once again I provide this not to disprove AGW but to point out that it has not been proven as of yet.

Four more post-AR4 SLR studies consistent with 1m by 2100.

Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5894/1340

0.8 m "'most likely' starting point." 2.0 m max by 2100.

Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100AD

http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/Announcements/gslprojection

0.9 to 1.3 m by 2100

High rates of sea-level rise during the last interglacial period

http://www.umces.edu/President/STWG/Rohlingetal2007.pdf

Average 1.6 m per century under sustained temperatures 2+ degrees above present.

Rapid early Holocene deglaciation of the Laurentide ice sheet

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Carlson_etal.pdf

Current projections should be considered "minimum" even without ice sheet dynamics.

Robert states:

>*To AGW proponents: Quit being pricks. The way science works is you make a claim, you gotta prove it. [...], you made a claim so the burden of proof is on you. That's how science is supposed to work. Ad hominem is easy to do, but it's still a logical fallacy.*

Fair call Robert, lets apply it to your claims:

>*Also, have you guys really become so blinded by your beliefs that you don't realize that science is SUPPOSED to be open? There should not have to be FOI requests to get data for the simple reason that the data should not be hidden away to begin with.*

Robert before your shoot from the hip, please read my comments on [this thread even](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) on this very issue (and the links I provided).

>*To deny the FOI request, try hiding behind loopholes in it, or actively encouraged people to delete data related to those request is just plain unethical.*

Robert, you seem to know a lot without understanding the context. You are also at odds with the law in the UK and many countries around world Denying FOI requests is valid when they are vexatious and [57 in 5 days](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#…) is just that!

Deleting email subject to an FOIR is unethical, but saying you will is just poor form. Jones requests was as off the cuff as I'm understand your snipes here to be, and he was under attack that few of us experience. Yet it was bluster and vent. As far as I know I believe not such deletions occured.

>*Those leaked emails aren't damning because they prove AGW wrong, they're damning because they clearly show that scientist doing AGW research see nothing wrong with hiding data, blackballing people who question them, and even trying to change the definition of 'peer review' is to defend their theories. Proponents seem to be perfectly fine with that, which is exactly why proponents are coming off looking so bad in this. You guys are playing this moronic game of if claiming it's not technically illegal or disproves AGW. That's not the point, the point is ethics and the very core of what scientific thought should be were violated. As supporters of science, you should be pissed off about that instead of defending it.*

This is the point you deserve a real bollocking.

I'm delayed for the time being, but if someone hasn't asked to to back up everyone (every single one) of the claim you make in the parragraph above, then expect me to do so when I return.
I'm going to be asking your for citation, specifics, and the object of discussion. I'm not going to put up with the smear you have just served.

You might want to do some background
reading in the mean time. Remember you opening rant, that was a fair call. How about you deliver?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

So what have I learnt today from our esteamed gusts visiting from the University of Trollmatters? Well...

1) they apparently live in a dimension where the laws of thermodynamics do not apply.

2) they've never heard of the planet Venus.

3) it's all a hoax and any scientist with the remotest connection to climate research is tainted by their association with the International Paternity of Closed Communication (aka IPCC), the Great Oligarch and Ruling Emperor (GORE) and his Underhanded Not Fair Cabal of Communo-Collectivists (UNFCCC) thing. From this we can deduce that Svente Arrhenius and that arch jackbooted schweinhund Herr Stefan Boltzmann are still working on a Cunning Plan (announcements of their death are obviously propagandist lies), and even as we speak they are working at that steaming foul pit whence all megalomaniacal plots are hatched, the so-called Climate Research Unit. Coincidentally, comrades, CRU also stands for "Control, Regulation and Usurpation". That their names are not listed at the UEA or CRU websites is unassailable proof that they are, and consequently it is transparent that CRU is "hiding" the facts. Further proof (if it were needed) of the unstoppable intent of these maniacs to destroy Life as We Know It and install themselves as Global Emperors is that Herr Stefan Boltzmann even has a Law named after him!

Truly I have seen the Light. Global Warmalarmists - recant!! Repent!!!

(PS will the real Janet Akerman please stand up. Thank you)

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

George D:

Perhaps you should take a look at this: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ or more specifically, this subpage on their site: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Note, that is not some random yahoos website. That is the UK Climatic Research Unit, otherwise known as the people who are currently being crucified for leaked emails. Definitely not a group to be written off as just some shrill for oil companies or other deniers. Yet if you look at their charts, recently warming has stopped. Now I am away of the effect of outliers, especially all the BS claims based on 1998. I'm also aware that even at stablized temps we're still hotter than we have been for a century. Even so, the trend has lasted multiple years so the outlier effect is minimized and my point wasn't that we aren't hotter now, but rather that, contrary to predictions, we aren't currently warming.

Thank you for the link to IPCC predictions, every one of which show a steady increase in average global temperatures with no period of stabilization like the CRU data shows we have actually had. Which pretty much was my entire point. I appreciate you providing the IPCC predictions that back up my argument.

As for your troll comment, I'll repeat what you obviously ignored in my original message: Ad hominem is easy to do, but it's still a logical fallacy.

Has anyone seen the real Janet Akerman? We need her out on the floor to defend the Gaia faith against an infestation of Denialati.

Otherwise my girl, I'll see you at the barricades.

It is my prayer that when this has been settled and we get all of the NWO money... There is enough left after paying off our national debt, that the 5,000,000,000 of us get to fly around the world for our ten years. See you all; At The Beach!

Robert,

I think you should now follow through on your idea of:

>*you gotta prove it. [...], you made a claim so the burden of proof is on you. That's how science is supposed to work. Ad hominem is easy to do, but it's still a logical fallacy.*

In regards to what made Janet Angry? You know, the bit where you said:

>*they clearly show that scientist doing AGW research see nothing wrong with hiding data, blackballing people who question them, and even trying to change the definition of 'peer review' is to defend their theories. *

That would of course require the specific that Janet mentioned. ie the papers under discussion, the practices referred in slag. The interpretation of what was said from both sides and your analysis of who seems more accurate.

I'm sure you gathered all this and made the proper assessment before you said:

>*they clearly show that scientist doing AGW research see nothing wrong with hiding data, blackballing people who question them, and even trying to change the definition of 'peer review' is to defend their theories. *

So ASAP should be fine, shouldn't it?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Yet if you look at their charts, recently warming has stopped.

I look at their charts and see that warming has continued unabated. Not consistently, 2008 was a cooler than average recent year, consistent with a strong La Niña and the lowest solar activity in a century, but it was still among the hottest on record.


Thank you for the link to IPCC predictions, every one of which show a steady increase in average global temperatures with no period of stabilization like the CRU data shows we have actually had

That IPCC graph shows predictions that are entirely consistent with the recorded warming in the last ten years. See that grey band? That's the uncertainty band for those models. And this decade fits well within those predictions.

Er, the cap and trade schemes on emissions use carbon credits, of which there are fewer than the CO2e quantity of annual emissions by industry and consumers. The effect is increase the price of the carbon credits through the trading of them in an open market. The government does not set the the price of carbon - the price is a consequence of the market settlements based on supply of carbon credits.
Government tightens Cap
=> reduced number of C-credits
=> initially higher price for "right to pollute CO2e"
=> initially higher prices for affected goods and services
=> reduction in consumer demand of those G+S AND increased
demand for alternative G+S that cost less BECAUSE they
don't use as much CO2e
=> temporary increase in price for alternative G+S to
reflect the higher demand
=> more expensive polluting G+S die off, getting replaced
by the less expensive alternatives, AND the less
expensive alternatives increase in supply to meet
the new demand, dropping in price as increased scale
of production takes effect
=> economy absorbs reduced CO2e emissions and non-adaptive
G+S are replaced by lower emission equivalents.
=> government lowers cap for next round

Make sense? An economist could put this to the appropriate equations, but a qualitative argument should be sufficient.

On the other hand, a carbon tax directly puts a price on CO2e, but has no control over the production of CO2e except indirectly through economy-wide responses to the tax. Easier initially but difficult to pick the best tax level(s) to do the job.

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

>Thank you for the link to IPCC predictions, every one of which show a steady increase in average global temperatures with no period of stabilization like the CRU data shows we have actually had. Which pretty much was my entire point. I appreciate you providing the IPCC predictions that back up my argument.

They do no such thing. You should not conclude from that IPCC figure that the community or the science predicts monotonically smoothly increasing year over year change in global temperature. The grey zones in the plots indicate the potential predicted variability around the mean. Sources of significant decadal uncertainty in global temperature rise due to are pretty well established.

The figure you are misinterpreting merely is meant to indicate the long term change we can expect, based on several specifically different model assumptions . Each of those model products have significant uncertainty, and those uncertainties are clearly labeled on the figures. No part of that figure is intended to be a year by year prediction for future global temperature or sea level change. All of this is clearly stated in the accompanying documentation, if you care enough to actually read it.

This sudden invasion of trolls, some of whom are barely literate, made me think of the film Viridiana by the Spanish director Luis Bunuel that I saw almost half a century ago.

Viridiana has established a collection of village paupers at her estate,to feed them and give them a moral education. One day, in her absence, they break into the house just to look around, but irritated by a splendour beyond their comp-rehension they finally have a riotous, drunken orgy and totally besmirch the place.

The open doors of a blog lead to the risks that that Spanish young lady took.

By Arie Brand (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Janet Akerman:

Alright, I'll back off some on the science should be open remarks. After reading up a bit further on exactly what restrictions CRU has to live by I can understand. For others who are following this, [this comment at realclimate](a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-cont…) provides some badly needed context about the FOI issue. I still believe science SHOULD be open and that it's an outrage when it isn't, but it's not something that should be blamed on CRU.

None of which excuses my other complaints. I freely acknowledge there's no proof emails were deleted, if there were I'd be calling it criminal instead of unethical. And yes, he was under attack. Yes, many deniers engage in blatant harassment. Yes, a lot of the deniers claims are bullshit they keep harping on even though their argument was disproven long ago. Yes, I can understand why he'd be frustrated.

Even so, the two points I mentioned crossed the line in my opinion. Asking for emails under a FOI request to be deleted was wrong. Requesting people do something wrong is still unethical even if that wrong wasn't done. There were also talks of hiding behind loopholes in the FOI to prevent data from being released. Not being able to release data due to outside constants is understandable. To actively use those constraints to intentionally hide data is different though. Like I said, in my mind the line between harmless venting and unethical behavior was crossed. Being attacked by people who are just as unethical is an explanation for the behavior, not an excuse of it.

As for my claim about the rest, I'll stand by those. First off, please note I'm intentionally ignoring some of the email quotes. The 'trick' and 'can't account for the lack of warming' are harmless if understood in context. The 'crap criticisms from the idiots' comment is entirely understandable as venting, and most likely fairly accurate anyway. The threat to beat up a denier or celebrating someones death was obviously a joke. In poor taste maybe, but not worth getting upset about. Besides, I'm fully aware the deniers are guilty of comments just as bad, if not worse. The following are the ones that lead me to make the comments I did:

>I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC >report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow â even if >we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

An active attempt to blackball opposing views regardless of the extremes required to so. Also the source of my comments about redefining 'peer-review'. I understand they don't have the power to actually redefine it, but I am speaking about the attempt rather than if they actually could or not.

>I will be emailing the journal to tell them Iâm having >nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of >this troublesome editor.

Another clear active attempt to blackball opposing views.

>Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re >AR4? Keith will do likewise.

The unethical request to delete data under an FOI request I went on at length about above.

As for thinking that AGW proponents are, mostly, defending and/or ignoring the attitudes expressed in those emails, just read the rest of the comments on this thread. In between the moronic drudge flood comments there are many comments from rational people, none of which seem to contain AGW proponents saying more than the emails were 'bad form' to quote you.

Just a note on parody trolls in this thread. Plastic shit is a real world novelty item often purchased by those whose sense of humor tends that way. But when a large pack of miniature poodles deposit pellets all over a lawn, what is the point in mixing plastic imitations in with the already copious quantities of the real thing?

Greetings all. I have read every single post on this board/list â Iâm tired, agitated and rather scandalized by what Iâve seen here. We are discussing something here that is not just a game. It has the potential to either wipe out the planet (AGWârs) or cause great hardship and likely the lifestyle degradation or deaths of many people (economics are a matter of life and death for some). I am just trying to figure out the truth here, and look what I have to work with!

First, all of the posts with name calling and such are just flames â they can be ignored by those who chose to focus on the technical. I will note, however, that the very first line of this entire list is âDenialists, remember - gullible is a life-style choice.â and the second is âThe ignorati denialists are ineducableâ¦â I believe this occurred since those posters assumed this was a semi-private board, and werenât expecting to have many with opposite views show up here. Sort of âspeaking to the friendsâ kind of thing. Understandable. But, it is also understandable that there would be backlash from the other side.

All of you who participated in the flaming were somewhat enjoyable to read, but mostly not helpful â although some made some good points within their diatribes. At any rate, it appears to me that most of the people on this board either donât take kindly to being called idiots or have a long history is debating this subject â hence have had more than one flame war in the past. What surprised me is how many posters couldnât sniff out the obvious âdragâ posters who were just yanking chains or âposersâ (obvious what they do).

I noticed some real attempts to be cordial and in which some excellent points were made. What surprised me was that so many people were either outright called ignorant of physics/science or such was insinuated. I have seen nothing on this board that shows me the relative merits of any of the posters. I could call a nuclear physicist âignorantâ in this forum if I want. I donât have to publish my own bona fides here, so what the hey? What truly disinterested and objective person is such a comment supposed to appeal to? Oh, itâs just a fight with another poster, thatâs all.

I have read all of the emails of interest in the CRU scandal (and a bunch that arenât), and Iâve read the programmerâs log (all of it â âHARRY_READ_ME.txtâ). I downloaded all of the files, and have sifted them to make up my own mind. When detectives try to understand what happened after the fact, especially when dealing with humans, they always look for motive. Since that is what drives people to do what they actually do, that seems logical. Once a personâs motive for acting is known, all of the ensuing actions make sense, and any unclear items are clarified by motive.

All that said, it is clear to me from reading the âHARRY_READ_ME.txtâ file that the raw data was not very tidy. What is worse, the programmer had relatively no documentation to explain what he was looking at. His only recourse (as I would do in the same circumstance) was to try to make the outputs âreasonableâ. I would do this if I needed to show whoever paid me that I had accomplished the objectives set for me. Of course, I would document it clearly to show posterity that I had both hands and one foot tied behind my back to start with, so it is shown later that the data output is garbage, I could point the finger elsewhere. One post asked âwhat is he supposed to do, give up?â if he couldnât make things work out properly. The answer is YES. Inform the lead that the data is too garbled. Start from scratch if necessary.

Clearly the people at CRU didnât have several more years to get this story out. They had to have it NOW. So, the garbage data and manipulation methods were accepted and the results published. But, no one ever intended to show anyone âunder the hoodâ of the number crunching machine. That was to be kept secret. This is very clear from the documentation that is available. There should immediately be a systematic culling of every single report, graph and other such which used any of this data â in the entire field â everywhere. Just find them and throw them out.

I have no reason to believe anything but what I can convince myself is true. I have no ulterior motive here other than finding the truth. If I was dealing with a professional who wanted to advidse me how to handle my finances, and they wouldnât let me see any of their historical data â only the final pretty numbers. And, they wouldnât let anyone else see that data. And, they tried to get the liscences rescinded for anyone I sent out to try to find that information. And, they tried to blacklist anyone I sent out to publish information I already obtained from elsewhere, Iâd be so highly suspicious of their claims that I would NEVER even speak to them again, much less use any of their produced information. Neither would anyone posting on this board who believes in AGW.

So, what motivated the guys at CRU and PSU to act this way? There are only a few models of human behaviour which remotely explain this behavior. The most obvious and compelling is that they have something at stake to lose, and they think theyâll lose it if too much scrutiny is applied to their work. Iâve seen this same psychology in the workaday world quite a few times, as Iâm sure most of you have. So, do they have anything to lose? Well, yes â their reputations (which is more important to that type than life and death), a lot of money, and maybe their tenured positions. Not to mention being made to look like a fool by the opponents youâve come to detest, and in front of the very highest paygrade politicians in the world. Thatâs quite a lot of motivation.

Any scientist with this much at stake would make every effort to check their work and make sure a hundred different ways that it was correct before releasing it. In fact, a physicist lost sole ownership of a nobel prize for discovery of a subatomic particle because he wouldnât publish without quadruple checking â to protect his reputation. Hereâs the problem â CRU wouldnât have gotten the large grants if their results pointed to ho-hum temp variations. To get the money, they had to have AGW âproofâ. It was a clear choice: (a) Protect your reputation and the integrity of the results or (b) Take the money and the prestige.

Clearly, they opted for (b). Once they did, they were in with both feet. Now, the whole idea was to use the money angle to ensnare as many other compatriots as possible, and then browbeat and instill fear in anyone who dared oppose you. They then mobilized many powerful people and groups to get that done. This seems to make sense out of the fact that the ones who are challenging the CRU results are outside the field. Those inside the field who want to keep their jobs and careers were effectively quieted. So, I ask myself âwhy did it take a businessman to find and force corrections in reports provided by Mr. Mann â why didnât another climatologist who should be more able in this area do itâ? The only answer that makes any sense to me is that they wouldnât open their mouths for fear. Or, maybe they are all aware of the gravy train boon (money) this whole idea is causing to perch on their career domain, and just decided not to look too hard. Either way, it fits the model.

The reasonable doubt on this issue no longer rests with AGW proponents. If one single piece of software or bit of data is withheld from the public from this point forward, I will assume they are hiding it for the reason that it counters their own viewpoint on the subject. Every single person, be they politician or poster at a board such as this who doesnât agree that this is mandatory is not scientific minded, but rather in advocacy. If AGW is correct, I want to know it and I want us as a species to fix it as best we can. But, I HATE being lied to and manipulated as appears to have happened.

Phil Jones and Mr. Mann have affected my life in reality by their deceitful actions. What did I ever do to them that they should take it upon themselves to harm me in this way? Either they have delegitimized AGWâs standing when it is true, which is very bad, or they have caused (or attempted to cause) economic hardship on myself and my family and everyone else by pushing it when it wasnât true. ALL I WANT IS THE TRUTH, since I need it to make valid/good decisions in a dangerous world.

Regards to all.

I was lurking on another forum today, watching the talk on the stolen emails, and there was a guy there who said he was a fence-sitter on AGW (he was a creationist!). However, when someone pointed out that Dr Tim Ball said that only some of his financial support had come from the oil and coal industry, the fence-sitter promptly began an attack on the denialist trolls at this site, who outnumbered the climate science people by about three to one. There's a tactic. Blow the whistle on the secret financing. Where's George Negus?

Arie, you grace us all with you very presents. Please go back to my initial post #80. What's up with you all and the unwashed masses... I know street people that would eat you alive. Smart people. They just never got your breaks or had your background. I fought with folks like this long ago and far away. Get real.

global warming is way better than the alternative,,,

ice age snd those pesky 2 mile thick glaciers over most of the planet,,,

eat, drink and be merry,,,
and by all means,,, keep producing co2 please,,,

By wrong at large (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Seriously, what can science do in the face of people who shout and lie like this? What can science do when ever greater numbers of people are convinced by the shouting and lying? For decades the scientific case has only ever strengthened, and the number of actual scientists that have been convinced by the mountain of evidence has only ever increased.

Is it any wonder that 95% of scientists of all disciplines (and >99% of climate scientists) accept the reality of AGW, while around 50% of the public do not? Shouting utter utter nonsense, no matter how many thousands of times it is painstakingly shown to be wrong - what answer can there be if more and more people simply don't *want* to listen to rational responses? That refuse to believe that they've been sold a pack of lies? That gleefully insist that the pack of lies they've been sold is gospel truth, and mountains of blatant, obvious, undeniable evidence are the product of a worldwide criminal conspiracy dating back a century and a half?

I am *ashamed* that so many people are clearly credulous buffoons, willing to viciously attack honest and diligent individuals with outrageous lies. I only hope you all one day have the self-awareness to be embarrassed by this behaviour.

Robert, thank your for this initial reply, however, you'll note that I didn't ask for what emails look bad when taken out of context. I specifically asked for the papers referred to, what each side said about the langugae and what the context to the discussions where.

If if you were also going to be fair to the parties you accuse, you could at least cite their explanation before your dismiss it. Anything else seems premature indictment. And in the circumstanced of the extraordinary scrutiny faced by the people, I think these human beings do not deserve such unfair treatment.

So lets take it step by step, what are the papers refered to to in the emails you cite?

What is the background to the papers? What do those you accuse say in explanation of their words? What do their detractors say. Compare and contrast.

Next who is the editor refered to in the email, what is the context of their discussion, what do the parties and their detractors say about the context and explanation? Compare and assess.

You seem so willing to pronounce "clear" guilt, yet you have only presented out of context snap shots. Please provide a proper analysis?

>Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.

As I discussed earlier, this shows poor form, but the fact that the request appears to not have been carried out creates a lot of questions? Was it a brain-fade that was retracted? Is poor form under extreme harassment still poor form? Yes, but if it is a retracted brain fade, is anyone not guilty of one of those at least once every 10 years? Not that many will face the same situation as Jones.(Was it 10 years worth of emails they cherry picked?)

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

Tom, what do you know about my 'breaks' and 'background'? And why do you assume that I was talking about 'street people'. I was talking about mental paupers, barely literate people, who come here to utter some raucous cries in lieu of an argument. Such people can be found right throughout the population.

And it is not clear to me with whom you 'fought ... long ago and far away'. With those smart street people or with folk like me, the man with all the 'breaks' and 'background'.

You referred me to your no.80. I don't know why because your outburst is hardly in accordance with the principles laid out there. But then, though there are no quotation marks and there is no source mentioned, you didn't write that yourself, did you? The whole post can be found here:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/how-to-propagandize-climate-change under the heading "Futerra - Recommendations to the Climate Change Communications Working Group".

Perhaps in copying and pasting it you forgot to read it.

By Arie Brand (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

acaddar, No offence, but I have got to say... Berney Madoff's model sucked; Barney Franks model sucks; Mr. Jones's model sucks, Geitner's model sucks, Berneke's model sucks, Lewis's model sucks, Lightning the Shinning One A Proud Man's plan sucks. How many more studies? We want OUR money now. Can't you see. Is is really that hard for you to undertand? We get it... God speed.

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.

Emails are not scientific data. They discuss scientific data. Just like an email describing the meal you ate today is not the meal you ate today.

[Acadder writes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…)

>*"Hereâs the problem â CRU wouldnât have gotten the large grants if their results pointed to ho-hum temp variations. To get the money, they had to have AGW âproofâ. It was a clear choice: (a) Protect your reputation and the integrity of the results or (b) Take the money and the prestige.
Clearly, they opted for (b). Once they did, they were in with both feet. Now, the whole idea was to use the money angle to ensnare as many other compatriots as possible, and then browbeat and instill fear in anyone who dared oppose you. They then mobilized many powerful people and groups to get that done. This seems to make sense out of the fact that the ones who are challenging the CRU results are outside the field."*

Lets look at that jump again:

>*Hereâs the problem â CRU wouldnât have gotten the large grants if their results pointed to ho-hum temp variations. To get the money, they had to have AGW âproofâ. It was a clear choice: (a) Protect your reputation and the integrity of the results or (b) Take the money and the prestige.
Clearly, they opted for (b).*

What are you talking about? What do you mean "*Clearly they opted for (b)*? What is your evidence for anything in this paragraph, it reads like pure fantastic speculation.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

@acadder

> Every single person, be they politician or poster at a board such as this who doesnât agree that this is mandatory is not scientific minded, but rather in advocacy.

An absurd position - if you don't agree with me, you are de facto wrong? I disgree strongly with this statement, and I don't think this is in any way reasonable conduct.

> If AGW is correct, I want to know it and I want us as a species to fix it as best we can.

Then read the IPCC reports in detail - the work of thousands of scientists in a diverse range of disciplines that lays out the best understanding we have of the science. These reports document the *conservative* scientific position on this subject.

> But, I HATE being lied to and manipulated as appears to have happened.

This is true, but not by the people you are accusing. The blog post you are commenting on lays out one such instance of egregious lies to attack the AGW case, in *far* stronger terms than the emails purport to. Similarly, the CRU emails detail at least one instance of clearly fraudulent behaviour in a scientific paper in an attempt to attack AGW - and how the scientists in question chose to respond by quietly and professionally proving the paper in question to be false, rather than conducting a media hate campaign.

> ALL I WANT IS THE TRUTH, since I need it to make valid/good decisions in a dangerous world.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;) Seriously, look at the evidence. I don't see any point in engaging with you on the emails, because you've reached your conclusions in the face of evidence that I believe strongly contradicts your position - I can't see any movement on that one from either side. However, lets undertake a thought exercise - imagine a world in which there was no HadCRU temperature data, and no hockey stick graph. Would there still be sufficient evidence for action?

The answer is an obvious yes - because of course there is eg. the GISS temperature data, and the fact that basic physics has been predicting the present situation for 150 years or so. The *physics* remains completely unchallenged and our understanding has only ever been refined and improved since it was first postulated. Even with *no temperature data at all*, we have enough indirect observation to conclude that there is a warming trend, and a sound physical reason for looking for such a trend in the first place.

It would be like removing the homonid fossil record - there are still a huge number of fossils left, and in any case in the absence of any fossil record at all evolutionary theory would still be completely sound.

348 Seriously, what can science do in the face of people who shout and lie like this? What can science do when ever greater numbers of people are convinced by the shouting and lying? For decades the scientific case has only ever strengthened, and the number of actual scientists that have been convinced by the mountain of evidence has only ever increased.
Posted by: Dave | November 27, 2009 4:36 AM

ummmmm you are describing what the real actual scientists face when trying to publish their anti AGW mountain of evidence,,, and the climategate scandal exposes exactly that,,,

dave??? dave??? dave's not here,,,
http://www.lyricsdownload.com/cheech-and-chong-dave-lyrics.html

By wrong at large (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

accadder, how about you show us the evidence for fudged data?

I'm peculiar that way, I like to see the evidence to help me construct my fantasies of speculative motive.

How's this for a motive, CRU workers gather temperature data and get snarkey when assulted with a vexatious coordinated campaign of FOI requests. Then they get snarkey when similar campaigners game the peer review system and sneak unsupportable papers through subverting proper peer review. And these unsupportable papers just happen to smear their field. And the workers get snarkey in their emails when they are exposed to disproportionated attack compared to scientist as a whole and even compared to climate scientist.

That sounds a bit more Ockhams razor and bit less fantastic conjecture.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

355 Posted by: Dave | November 27, 2009 5:07 AM

ummmm,,, a theory is merely a theory and proof of nothing,,,

By wrong at large (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

wrong at large (I feel like I'm unfairly slighting you just by writing your tag) writes

>ummmmm you are describing what the real actual scientists face when trying to publish their anti AGW mountain of evidence,,, and the climategate scandal exposes exactly that.

wrong at large,

perhaps you'd like to accept [the challenge](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) that William left hanging in the wind?

>So I ask you for one simple example, just one paper that is supportable (credible) and that has some how be suppressed (miraculously suppressed despite the transmission possible on the internet).

>And I reiterate you now are in possession of the scientists emails, so you surely should be able to find the papers that the cabal/clique were scared of. All you need to do is determine the credibility of such a paper, or present it here and we can discuss that.

>One example, just one.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 26 Nov 2009 #permalink

As Stevie Wonder said in his song "Supertistion" = "When you believe in things that you don't understand, and you suffer..."

Prejudice and Ideology, because of Pride in oneâs indoctrination, I mean education, believing that the Political people that you have choosen to listen to are smart, honest, and informed, anyone can be tricked into believing anything. The operative word is âtrickedâ.

From the Beginning, this hoax had deception flashing lights and beeping horning screaming âfraud, fraud, fraudâ.
Using Radical Rules the Illuminati dupes create and publish insults against people who still believe in common sense and thinking for oneâs self. So, if you think for yourself and you come to a different conclusion than Al Gore and his band of âTrue Deceiver/Believersâ, who have gone to great lengths to block, skew, and prevent a true debate and inquiry, then you are a pejorative, you are a âClimate Denierâ.

Medieval Kings had their Jokers but âTrue Deceivers/Believersâ donât even want the Public to have their âClimate Deniersâ especially when they are right. They donât want them to speak out about their positions, they wonât let them in on any Political or Scientific forums to have their position. They refuse to sit down and debate the observable world and the applible science.

W.C. Fields asked âWho are you going to believe â me or your eyesâ? You have to applause at least scale of the Lies. What Al Gore and his band of âTrue Deceiver/Believersâ are actually claiming is a âtraceâ gas, Carbon Dioxide, CO2, which makes 0.03 percent of the atmosphere, is going to overheat the planet. Notice that all discussions about the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is always, always stated in Tons. Well, since when do we talk about trace gases in tons? There are four (4) so-called greenhouse gases: (1) â Water Vapor, (2) â Argon, (3) Carbon Dioxide, (4) â Methane. Yeah, we got to get rid of all of that Water Vapor.

â¨Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide absorbs 270 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. Often, estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are presented in units of millions of metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE), which weights each gas by its GWP value, or Global Warming Potential.â¨

By Munson Smithey (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Tim,

there is no science called climate science - it is actually the interpretation of weather statistics. You can't actually test statistics empirically.

Oh, sorry, you might in your delusional world.

By Louis Hissink (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

@Munson Smithey

> Using Radical Rules the Illuminati dupes create and publish insults against people who still believe in common sense and thinking for oneâs self.

You should get together with that guy who believed that it was all a massive hoax brought about by a coalition of Reptilians and Greys, and decide which conspiracy is the real conspiracy...

> CO2, which makes 0.03 percent of the atmosphere, is going to overheat the planet. Notice that all discussions about the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is always, always stated in Tons.

Once again, sheer arrogant ignorance. For the umpteenth time on this blog, [volume fraction doesn't matter](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=beer%27s+law) - absolute mass in the path of the EM radiation matters. Will you please educate yourself on the subject before commenting.

Louis Hissink [thinks](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…):

You can't actually test statistics empirically.

Oh, really?

Really, really, really?

Seriously, Hissink, do you actually believe this? And if so, upon what basis?

I, and I am sure many other scientists and statisticians here (even if we are currently snowed in by the paranoid, the delusional, the ignorant, the ideological, and with sundry other nutters), await an answer with curiosity piqued, and with extreme anticipation...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

acadder:

I have read every single post on this board/list. I am just trying to figure out the truth here, and look what I have to work with!

You are wasting your time here until you've spent plenty of time reading through the realclimate index checking up on technical detail. Its topics are listed under the following headings:

Aerosols;
Arctic and Antarctic climate;
Atmospheric Science;
Climate modelling;
Climate sensitivity;
Extreme events;
Global warming;
Greenhouse gases;
Mitigation of Climate Change;
Oceans;
Paleo-climate;
Present-day observations;
Projections of future climate;
Responses to common contrarian arguments;
Scientific Practice;
Solar forcing;
Climate in the Media;
Meeting Reports;
Miscellaneous.

You look like you've got plenty of time to do this so why don't you do it?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

James, where has it been shown that the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the actual cause of global warming? Perhaps the increased amount is caused by the warming instead of the other way around. Haven't there been times in history where the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere been much higher than today?

Actually, the CO2 concentration can respond to temperature increases, but not in, say, 10 years. It takes a lot longer. The current increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is caused by CO2 emissions and this is statistically provable.

In the last 400,000 years the highest concentration of CO2 has probably been about 300 ppmv. The current concentration is 387 ppmv.

Wow, so this is quality of the Drudge readership.

Very enlightening.

So, what motivated the guys at CRU and PSU to act this way? There are only a few models of human behaviour which remotely explain this behavior. The most obvious and compelling is that they have something at stake to lose, and they think theyâll lose it if too much scrutiny is applied to their work.

Let me offer a more parsimonious explanation. Open sourcing all of your work is very difficult logistically, and it might not even be doable, because there might be proprietary information or software you cannot open source.

When your code is not open source, it's not surprising that it will be messy. You're not expecting the world as a whole to see it, and you're not expecting that others will need to use it. I've worked at enough software companies to know that proprietary code can be a mess under the hood. (But then, open source software can also be a mess.)

That said, I do think that in an ideal world, every data set would come with an explanation as to how exactly it was produced, and if there's software involved, the software is open-sourced.

Maybe this is what needs happen for things to get done politically at the moment.

I think this Drudge site must be a troll parody, a so-called "Poe". It's clearly a portmanteau of the words "dredge" and "sludge". Or maybe "dread" and "grudge". Anyway, no way such a troll storm could originate from a serious site.

50
'bunch of pinko commie rag. the truth is out, deal with it, and become productive members of society. global warming is BS. blame the sun, or God, though im sure most of you believe in the existence of either.

Posted by: chuck | November 26, 2009 6:11 PM'

Has Norris found his way here as the standard of expression resonates with this at Grist:

quote:

'In this conference, theyâre going to try to take our money and send it to third-world countries because of, since we spend so much oil and these other countries have suffered, then weâre going to give our money to these third-world countries.'

from

[Chuck Norris on Copenhagen](http://www.grist.org/article/chuck-norris-on-copenhagen)

this is a split issue. multiple surveys have shown this in the past. the less you know about this subject, the more likely you will end up in the denialist camp.

one team in this fight, is made up from the extremely uneducated.

their advantage is in numbers. quantity, instead of quality...

there is no science called climate science - it is actually the interpretation of weather statistics. You can't actually test statistics empirically.

Louis is special, even for a denialist.

according to him, it is impossible to empirically test, whether there is more rain in Britain, or in the Sahara. we will never really know, if the Arctic is really colder than Spain, or not.

Dear Tim,

It's amazing how you're telling Drudge visitors they're being lied to when they're just coming to your articl--and other news articles--via a simple link on Drudge's site.

Dishonesty is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps you need to ask yourself if YOU'RE BEING LIED TO and whether scientists LIKE US are corruptible. Clearly, we are...humans with sometimes base motivations. Global warming IS NOT real. There are many scientists--ostracized ones--who agree that it's not real. Obviously, this entire ClimateGate scandal demonstrates why their voices aren't being heard.

G.W. Denier

This thread is, hands down, one of the most astonishing things I've read in quite a while.

>Global warming IS NOT real.

Wow, that convinced me, as ALL CAPS win every argument (for those keeping score: ALL CAPS >> Physics). Good work.

It's amazing how you're telling Drudge visitors they're being lied to when they're just coming to your articl--and other news articles--via a simple link on Drudge's site.

it is amazing, that Tim, in this very topic, is giving an example of the way that you are being lied to.

New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is lying to you. this is a fact.

please report back, when you have similar evidence about all those pro-AGW scientists. see you next century.

I see Hitler didn't get a mention until comment 253 - people just don't respect his memory any more.

On the other hand, we did get 'Barak (sic) the Magic Negro' at 145 so perhaps there's a new internet law in the making: the probability that someone mentions that Obama is Black tends to 1 with increasing thread length.

But the big question for Deltoid has to be: if Hockey gains the leadership of a denialist Liberal Party, will Tim have to start debunking the Hockey schtick? Jus' askin'.

There used to be such a thing as scientific integrity. A theory could not become a fact unless the results were reproducable and verifiable in any lab. We now have research whose sole objective is to produce a pre-determined result that can be used to support an idiological political objective. This is not science. It is propaganda.

BTW. It snowed in Boston this year in October. It is snowing in western Maryland today. Where I live, temperatures remained in the normal range this year. No high temperature records broken. Last winter was colder and chillier than normal. These objective observations in my own back yard fail to support global warming. Science is based on objective observation. If it fails the back yard test it fails.

By Nancy Centofante MD (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

A theory could not become a fact unless the results were reproducable and verifiable in any lab.

Hey, Nancy...you do realize that scientific theories do not become facts, right? In science, theories are devised to explain facts (observations). They do not themselves become facts. Your statement is sort of like saying that scientific theories become laws through repeated testing (ala the foolish "just a theory" complaints regarding evolution); that, of course, isn't accurate either.

It would be interesting for each side to specify the level of proof required to decide that AGW(ACC) is real. Recall that evolution is still not proven after 150 years (and wont ever be because it is based upon a no supernatural interventions in the world paradigm, which many disagree with). I think one needs to persuade people that doing something even if its wrong is the better of two possibly bad choices.
In other words compare the results of doing nothing and AGW is real with the results of doing the changes and its not real. Then you have an economic arguement. One will of course have to put a value on human life, but engineers do so every day. One has to how much money to spend to avoid a additional death. This is because AGW unmitigated will cause excess deaths. Today you have economic estimates that use different discount rates so that an effect in 2100 can vary from less than 1% of the cost of an equivalent event today, to 20%. I guess what I am saying is that one has to do a cost benefit analysis, because thats the only way to get costs and benefits of an action. This is the policy problem, one can take the science but then you need to turn that into the Net Present Value(cost) of AGW today.
To make the problem more clear, assume that it is 100% certain that a 100 km asteriod will crash into the earth in 2110, likely the loss would be total. But how much would you spend today to prevent it, given that there is so much time and leaving it to the grandchildren may work all be it at a higher cost then?
Please excuse the intrustion of economics into a science discussion, but moving from science to policy brings the pseudo science economics into the situation just like in business a great idea needs to make a business case (cost benefit analysis).

There's a dead pigeon in my back yard. This objective observation supports the theory that pigeons are, as a species, extinct. It passes the back yard test.

[Vagueofgodalming](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…).

Oh, that's good. Very good.

I'm peeved - I wish that I had thought of that!

Joe Hockey would be wise not to put his hand up at this point though, because even if he leads the party in a 'delay until after Copenhagen' strategy, thereafter he will have to lead the Coalition with a 'climate change' policy, and with the fervour of the Denialists amongst his colleagues, they'll likely want one that is to the right of the starboard gunwale.

Waving that sort of schtick is not really Hockey's thing. Nah... better for Joe that he leaves the mess for Abbott to wallow in, and when the Libs/Nats have well and truly eviscerated themselves, he can come along and attempt to stuff what's left into a small bag and try to rebuild.

He'd be a fool to wrest the helm and captain the sinking ship that foundered on the reef of Denialism. More heroic would be to build the raft that sails the Coalition's survivors back to political civilisation.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Recall that evolution is still not proven after 150 years (and wont ever be because it is based upon a no supernatural interventions in the world paradigm, which many disagree with in science, we don't prove theories to be TrueTM)*.

There. I fixed that sentence for you.

*But, of course, by all means, don't let facts prevent you from spouting drivel about what science is and does.

Nancy Centofante:

A theory could not become a fact unless the results were reproducable and verifiable in any lab.

Like saying Relativity could only be tested by lab experiments while astronomical observations like the precession of Mercury were absolutely worthless. I'm sorry Nancy, labs are not the only places where observations are made.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Steve Miller
>When leaders on any side of any issue have been caught boldly trying to suppress data, manipulate data and deny those who disagree with them the chance to present their point of view... even children can recognize that something very wrong has been going on.

Don't know if this has been responded to.
But the problem is, the alleged manipulation of data is a myth.
Or rather, is there any science where manipulation of data doesn't take place?

The issue is mainly whether the manipulation is justified. In the case of many denial web sites where you will find graphs, the manipulation is not justified scientifically. Just because a blogger has a lot of amateur followers that say that their graph manipulations are good or correct, doesn't mean the manipulation is justified.

Popular support doesn't count as peer review.

BTW. It snowed in Boston this year in October. It is snowing in western Maryland today. Where I live, temperatures remained in the normal range this year. No high temperature records broken. Last winter was colder and chillier than normal. These objective observations in my own back yard fail to support global warming. Science is based on objective observation. If it fails the back yard test it fails.

Meanwhile, backyards in Oz are breaking summer high temp records - in late spring. So, using Nancy-logic, global warming is much worst that scientists tell us.

Even the lumbering football player understand that when they get ejected for unsportsman-like-conduct; they have to leave the field of play. You scientists seem to see yourself as above the rules. I think at this point in time there are bigger fish to fry. Why don't you smart folks tell us again, you have the numbers around the house somewhere, how much was Cap & Trade going to cost us? Have you seen the markets this morning? A whole bunch of smart speculators are finding "It is wrong to be long". Looks to me like plans have changed. Once we get around to the now accepted use of waterboarding(the NWo dogs made us use this, now WE have a group to employ it on). If I had enslaved you and your family would you give a shit about science? You are going to all find out there are bigger things to lose than data sets.

Don't we all wish...

...that somebody had broken into servers...

...and released information...

...on the also-flawed Iraqi Intelligence Reports...

...prior to that invasion?

Now why should we simply trust Government again?

And many of you call yourselves scientists. Really? In my view, a real scientist would be absolutely livid that...

...your peers have brought your entire industry under ill-repute...

...your peers have, much like the Roman Catholic Church did to Galileo, systematically denied contrary evidence...

...your peers have conspired to hide contrary scientific evidence...

...your peers have belittled AGW skeptics, even destroying careers, in full knowledge of contrary scientific evidence...

...your peers have systematically cherry-picked data to substantiate forgone conclusions.

How can you still call your scientists and defend this?

Unless, of course, you too are on the take.

Nancy, coming from an MD your post is just bizarre! Most medical interventions are not verified in the lab but through observation - i.e. does the patient get better / live longer / etc? Do you not know that?

My only conclusion is that I am very, very glad that I am not one of Nancy's patients...

By GWB's nemesis (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Wow.

Time, light, matter, everything, disappeared in to a small region of space situated in the center of my screen as soon as I clicked on the thread link.

Our esteemed guests have only gone and created a supermassive black hole of concentrated stupid, right here in this very thread.

They broked the internets.

Wow.

Time, light, matter, everything, disappeared in to a small region of space situated in the center of my screen as soon as I clicked on the thread link.

Our esteemed guests have only gone and created a supermassive black hole of concentrated stupid, right here in this very thread.

They broked the internets.

Posted by: Damian

Maybe the stupid hole here is so supermassive...

...that is sucked any and all meaning from your post?

Phoenix@388

How can you still call your scientists and defend this?

Unless, of course, you too are on the take.

Ah... you must be channeling McCarthy.

Begone foul spirit!!

I love how they think these are all trolls from Drudge. The funny thing is as always, they have picked their enemy without knowing or understanding them. Typical of their kind. Demonize rather than try to understand your opposition. Sorry folks, no troll attacks here. The Drudgereport gets over 23 million hits per day ! And they write no content themselves. Thats right, Drudge does not write ANY news. Just headlines that point to other articles. This article being a case in point. So what you saw was regular people out of the 23 million that read his site yesterday coming on and expressing their honest feelings.

AGW/ACC people, just a quick tip of advice. Dont call people deniers when they dont fully agree with your theory. That is politics, not science in case you have lost the ability the distinguish between the two.

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

@GWB's nemesis: in the medical world, the lab is often the *wrong* place to test a hypothesis. In the lab, you will not find a placebo effect. In the real world, it is often very large (e.g., doing fake operations actually positively affects some diseases like angina). In the lab, anti-oxidants have very clear positive effects in various disease states. In the real world, the effect is at best very small, and perhaps even negative(!).

Of course, her reference to the local weather situation in the US tells us enough about her ability to judge observations in general. I can show her many individual clinical trials which showed no significant effect of a treatment (local observations). Pool the results, and suddenly we're talking about a significant 25% reduction in mortality (global observations). Nancy would have scrapped the treatment, an MD with a better cognitive ability would recommend the treatment. Guess which of the two saved most human beings...

I did get here from Drudge.

And thankfully so...

...I just love it when I find a closeted little group of group-thinkers...

...you poke them a little...

...then you get to watch as the predictable (no models needed) name calling begins.

I have a little question for all you anti-carbon folks...

...what will you do when you finally realize that...

...your AGW Puppet Masters have no intention of killing off oil?

What you say?

Why would they when oil is now their golden spigot, pumping out $ trillions from tax revenues and carbon trading schemes?

hmmmmmm...

Why just read this little gem, "Said Ms. Browner: âThe explosive growth in environmental commodities trading will result in a greater need for market oversight. APXâs cutting-edge technology provides integrity and transparency, which are essential to the efficient and effective operations of these markets. APX is a world-class environmental infrastructure company with a long history of public private partnership, and I look forward to helping them capitalize on the full potential of these markets.â

Now I wonder just who Carol Browner is?

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/01/surprise-obamas-climate-cz…

Gad... you sound like a bunch of bitchy teenage girls.

How do you know when AGW is more faith than science? When the proponents tell you they won't release the temperature data, won't release the computer models, won't submit work that can be replicated but tell you to trust them anyway.

That is not science.

By Cargocultscience (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Maybe the stupid hole here is so supermassive...

...that is [sic] sucked any and all meaning from your post?

Only if you have read through this entire thread â and it is clear from your post at 388 that you haven't even bothered to do that â and have understood almost nothing.

As it has been said on numerous occasions in this very thread, the sheer arrogant ignorance of some people is truly frightening. And with respect, you appear to be no different.

Ever single "point" that you made in your post at 388 has already been addressed, not simply in this thread, but elsewhere. And yet, have you bothered to even attempt to find out whether you are parroting nonsense? Of course not! Who needs to bother with things like facts, or context, when you can simply accuse people of being "on the take".

I don't say this very often. In fact, I don't recall ever saying it before. But you can forget any further explanation from me concerning your "questions", because in your sheer arrogant ignorance, it is clear that you prefer to accuse people of misconduct, rather than educate yourself.

@phoenix:
It actually was the scientists who already noted that the Iraqi intelligence was wrong...

Add to that that peers have NOT brought our 'industry' in disrepute, unless we count the deniosphere as consisting of "peers".

Contrary evidence was NOT ignored by peers, several are outright referenced in the literature, including the IPCC reports, and often clear rebuttals of these articles has been published. Rather than ignored, they have been tested and found to be unimportant. (P.S., you may want to read up on Galileo's trial, it had actually very little to do with his alternative view of the universe, and much more with his method of presenting that view).

No contrary evidence was ever "hidden". There have been discussions that, when taken extremely literal, that some studies would (or rather: should) not be referred to in the IPCC report. they are, however, in the scientific literature already.

Skeptics were belittled? Some indeed were, those that performed bad science and those that rigged the peer-review process to get bad science published. Apparently, rigging the peer-review process is only bad when AGW scientists can be accused of that (without evidence)...right, phoenix?

In the e-mails there is no evidence of any cherry-picking. In contrast, as shown by this blog, cherry-picking and subsequent faulty data analysis is the realm of the NZCSC. But that's OK, thinks phoenix. After all, that serves the greater goal of not having to think about climate change...until it actually really hits home. Ostrich behavior.

So what you saw was regular people out of the 23 million that read his site yesterday coming on and expressing their honest feelings.

And then given the fact that we have about 390 posts here that means that at most (ignoring multiple posts and ACC-supportive postings) 0.002% of the Drudge readership felt moved to follow-up the post and comment. Taking the factors I mentioned into account I reckon would reduce that to 0.0005%.

That's worth saying again 0.0005% of Drudge readers were moved to comment. A groundswell against climate science...?

After reviewing the links provided for some of my posts I have come up with an interesting issue that I think is not being addressed.

Let us assume for arguments sake that AGW (not climate change or global warming) does show a strong correlation between global temperaturte and CO2 emmissions. Let us also assume for arguments sake that CO2 does indeed cause temeprature increases.

The third and perhaps most important issue is if a higher global temperature is more or less benefical to humans as a whole. Looking at history we see that the human race excells during warmer periods and has famine, plagues and a reduction in population during colder climates.

Even common sense says that the human race would suffer from an ice age. So what is the issue if AGW is real? Warmer Earth climate is beneficial to humans as a whole. Yes some parts of the globe are worse off but on average the whole is better off. Fossil records clearly show this.

So I believe the AGW proponets not only must show the causation of CO2 to global temeratures but they must also show that as a whole the Earth would be worse off having a warmer climate.

And the the grreat thinker that stated scientists don't PROVE theroies to be true, I wonder what pseudo science they believe in. The basis of science is to finding supporting facts and observations to validate their theroies or to disprove them. Otherwise the theroy that the Earth is flat should still be valid today. To claim that theroies don't need to be validate is just simplistic.

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center provides Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations, complete with increased radiative forcing. Going by the July 2009 update Earth is already experiencing three-fourths of the increased forcing estimated from 2xCO2 (2.99 W/m2) from greenhouse gas changes alone.

Now, observations tell us that Earth responds quite rapidly to forcing changes, for example the range from 12 °C-15.8 °C and back each year as the greater land mass of the northern hemisphere receives more and less solar forcing with the changing seasons:

According to the IPCC's AR4 assessment for policymakers, "The total temperature increase from 1850 â 1899 to 2001 â 2005 is 0.76 [0.57 to 0.95] °C", so three-fourths of the expected forcing has delivered three-fourths of a degree warming...

Given that black carbon has been "blamed" for a percentage of estimated warming, as has solar activity and lets not forget land use change with only about one-third of estimated warming due to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the chances of 2xCO2 delivering even 1 degree warming would appear, um... limited, much less the rather imaginative 3 °C proposed above.

Marco...try using the exact same scientific standards...

...the next time you file taxes with the New Zealand government (or wherever).

...then, alert them to your process by producing emails eluding to how you "hid" data from them. And were glad when the taxman, who was snooping around, died.

I wonder if they will simply trust you too.

How could people so smart also be so gullible? Unless of course, you too are on the take.

That's worth saying again 0.0005% of Drudge readers were moved to comment. A groundswell against climate science...?

Posted by: Eamon

Wrong.

You guys really don't get it, do you?

The climategate groundswell is for climate science - real science that is.

Just the facts without anyone trying to hide the inconvenient truths.

Pheonix,

I know, I know! Season 6, episode 10 right?

Bart: OK, it's not _painfully_ clear the adults are _definitely_ paving the way for an invasion by the saucer people.

Milhouse: You fool! Can't you see it's a massive government conspiracy? Or have they gotten to you too?!!

[he and Bart start wrestling]

Lisa: Hey! Hey, hey, stop it! Stop it! Why are you guys jumping to such ridiculous conclusions? Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor? "The simplest explanation is probably the correct one."

Bart: [condescending] So what's the simplest explanation?

Lisa: I don't know. Maybe they're all reverse vampires and they have to get home before dark.

Everyone: Aah! Reverse vampires! Reverse vampires!

[Lisa sighs]

We're through the looking glass here people.

By Majorajam (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Joseph writes:
"In the last 400,000 years the highest concentration of CO2 has probably been about 300 ppmv. The current concentration is 387 ppmv."

Yet in the last 400,000 years there have been warmer and cooler times on Earth. Doesn't this alone contradict the correlation of CO2 to global mean temperatures? Not to mention that it clearly supports that higher mean temperatures can come from other sources besides CO2.

Now that you yourself admit that there are other causes of warming besides CO2 we can focus on the question if high CO2 levels in themselves must cause a higher global temperature.

>The climategate groundswell is for climate science - real science that is. Just the facts without anyone trying to hide the inconvenient truths.

Oh, well.
I suppose if you are here, at least it keeps you off the streets.

Phoenix@403

The climategate groundswell is for climate science - real science that is.

Just the facts without anyone trying to hide the inconvenient truths.

So, you've got an amazing groundswell of 0.0005% for your climate science. The statistics books in your climate science must be...special.

We're through the looking glass here people.

Posted by: Majorajam

Predictable as it is pathetic.

Eight years of advanced schooling for this?

Did they even spend a minute of that time on the scientific method?

And I thought I'd find some real debate here!

Let me see...if we just remove these data points from the normal distribution...our curve fits!

But wait...can we?...those data points aren't even outliers?...sure we can...nobody will notice or bother to question us...

...were scientists!

John U:
>Now that you yourself admit that there are other causes of warming besides CO2 we can focus on the question if high CO2 levels in themselves must cause a higher global temperature.

Has any scientist ever said that there weren't other causes?

Brian Paul Jaus, question for you, to understand better the source of your 'skepticism'. Do you believe that such a thing as the greenhouse effect exists, as elaborated by scientists of the 19th century, wherein trace gasses in the atmosphere that do not reflect incoming solar radiation radiate heat energy back to earth that would've otherwise gone out into space?

By Majorajam (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Phoenix:
>Predictable as it is pathetic.

If you and others didn't just repeat the well known mantra about taxes, 'follow the money' etc.
And instead engaged in a discussion without being agressive, you might actually get some useful responses.

@JohnU:

A small excercise for you.

First google: Bluetongue Sweden

Second google: Aedes albopictus Europe

Third google: Chikungunya Europe

Fourth google: Ocean acidification.

Fifth, return here & revisit your statements in 400 for us.

hoenix@403

The climategate groundswell is for climate science - real science that is.

Just the facts without anyone trying to hide the inconvenient truths.

So, you've got an amazing groundswell of 0.0005% for your climate science. The statistics books in your climate science must be...special.

Posted by: Eamon

Like I said before...

...a closeted group of group-thinkers.

You might want to try poking your head out your door. You might even be able to hear the pitch-forked bearing masses coming for you...

...led by dudes in $1,000 suits (remember them from the other side of campus?).

That is, if you've been on the take too...

Bad analogy, phoenix. No data was hidden, it was explicitely discussed in the literature. And I would not be glad if the taxman died, but I would be glad that the guy who constantly claimed I was evading taxes, amongst others by cooking data, died.

Bad analogy, phoenix. No data was hidden, it was explicitely discussed in the literature. And I would not be glad if the taxman died, but I would be glad that the guy who constantly claimed I was evading taxes, amongst others by cooking data, died.

Posted by: Marco

Perhaps.

Time to let the courts decide.

Meanwhile, any and all data, reports, and conclusions on "climate change" is suspect by definition.

Sad fact I know...but a political and practical reality nonetheless.

...so tell me why again that you apparently aren't angry with the folks who brought this on you?

Unless, of course, you are them.

Help me out here Pheonix- are the dudes in $1000 suits the reverse vampires or saucer people? Because whether I come clean here is going to depend somewhat on the threat assessment.

By Majorajam (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

One thing I do know for sure. The answer to if the AGW models are reliable should be resolved within the next 100 years or so. All we have to do is wait.

Phoenix@413

Like I said before...

...a closeted group of group-thinkers.

And as ever, avoiding commenting on the fact that your stats skills are abysmal.

411

Phoenix:

Predictable as it is pathetic.

If you and others didn't just repeat the well known mantra about taxes, 'follow the money' etc. And instead engaged in a discussion without being agressive, you might actually get some useful responses.

Posted by: Paul UK

Point on. You are absolutely correct on this. Thank you.

@JohnU 400:

Care to tell us when the plague was going around the world and killed off at least 75 million people?

Or do we suddenly have to flip part of the temperature reconstructions and make the 13th and 14th century one of the coldest in history?

And what about famines? Perhaps the Great Famine of 1315-1317 never happened in Europe? Or the famine in China from 1333-1337, which killed 6 million.

Of course, JohnU can also tell us how we are going to put 10 billion people on an earth that has LESS solid ground than there is today, unless we start mass movement of people to other areas. I guess JohnU would not mind if hundreds of million of people start wandering into other countries. We've never had wars before when this happened, right?

Phoenix@413

Like I said before...

...a closeted group of group-thinkers.

And as ever, avoiding commenting on the fact that your stats skills are abysmal.

Posted by: Eamon

Wow. You really aren't a scientist are you?

My stat skills? lol...wrong profession.

I'm one of those guys from the other side of campus.

And I'm coming for your freedom (and money) in a court of law.

Be forewarned, anyone involved in this fraud is going to pay...

...quite dearly.

Has any scientist ever said that there weren't other causes?

Posted by: Paul UK

That is the whole point. According to the IPCC TAR 12.2.3 etl. the arrived at reason for AGW and CO2 is because they can't find another explanation for the warming through 1998.

âDifferent models may give quite different patterns of response for the same forcing, but an individual model may give a surprisingly similar response for different forcings. The first point means that attribution studies may give different results when using signals generated from different models. The second point means that it may be more difficult to distinguish between the response to different factors than one might expect, given the differences in radiative forcing.â

And 12.4.3.2 goes on to say:
âIn summary, the fixed pattern studies indicate that the recent warming is unlikely (bordering on very unlikely) to be due to internal climate variability. A substantial response to anthropogenic greenhouse gases appears to be necessary to account for recent temperature trends but the majority of studies indicate that greenhouse gases alone do not appear to be able to provide a full explanation. Inclusion of the response to the direct effect of sulphate aerosols usually leads to a more satisfactory explanation of the observed changes, although the amplitude of the sulphate signal depends on the model used. These studies also provide some evidence that solar variations may have contributed to the early century warming.â

Yet even you agree that in the past there were other causes of warming. So the entire argument comes down to what is the cause of warming now. AGW believes it's almost 100% due to CO2 levels while others say sunsp[ots, cosmic radiation, ocean currents, etc. In reality the answer will probably be a combination of all of these. So the argument shifts to is it cost benefical to modify CO2 emmissions to impact X% (unknown by anyone at this time) in global temperatures.

That is the whole point. According to the IPCC TAR 12.2.3 etl. the arrived at reason for AGW and CO2 is because they can't find another explanation for the warming through 1998.

That's bullshit. The fact that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would raise global temps was a prediction of physics.

To all the WUWT believers: Don't you get tired of your leader, and the various fringe contrarians he quotes, lying to you? Tim's example here is so painfully clear to anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills.

John U:
>One thing I do know for sure. The answer to if the AGW models are reliable should be resolved within the next 100 years or so. All we have to do is wait.

That's the problem we face isn't it.
I'm not a scientist. I have an engineering background.
Personally I am fascinated and excited by some 'green' engineering developments today.
I actually think there is great potential in many of them, a few years ago, I would never have thought engineers would have produced some of the technology I am seeing now.
The UK in particular has made a lot of progress with marine energy.

Is AGW the only problem with increasing CO2?
I think there is also the problem of changing PH levels of the seas. I know many fish depend on specific ph level ranges and get irritated if the levels are outside those levels. Then of course there is the problem of species that depend on an exoskeleton.

I think it is possible to build a better future by using a combination of new technology and just being more careful with the way we develop.

Paul UK, I think you will soon see that being a priss is no longer in style. See ya...

John U:
>That is the whole point. According to the IPCC TAR 12.2.3 etl. the arrived at reason for AGW and CO2 is because they can't find another explanation for the warming through 1998.

Actually the point I was making is that scientists have always accepted solar forcing, volcanoes, particulates etc were and are a part of the mix.

I have never seen any scientist that has claimed CO2 was the only issue. It may be the one that is always discussed (for obvious reasons) but the actual science doesn't ignore other factors.

"No data was hidden..."

Posted by: Marco

For the record, will you feel differently if proven otherwise?

In fact, will any of you AGW scientists rebuke the bad science when, and if, its proven?

Please state it here for the record.

A small excercise for you.
First google: Bluetongue Sweden
Second google: Aedes albopictus Europe
Third google: Chikungunya Europe
Fourth google: Ocean acidification.
Fifth, return here & revisit your statements in 400 for us.
Posted by: Chris S.

Bluetongue is a virus that impact farm animals and not humans. there are immunizations available so what is your point? Where is the link that warmer temperatures caused the virus. At best you can propose a theory that the potential area of infection increases as more area is open to farming and grazing of livestock.

Aedes albopictus Europe- is the spread of the tiger mosquito. Big deal. Here is an except from it:
Occurs in:
agricultural areas, coastland, estuarine habitats, lakes, marine habitats, natural forests, planted forests, range/grasslands, ruderal/disturbed, scrub/shrublands, urban areas, water courses, wetlands
I say we start up a massive spraying of DDT and end the problem.

Chikungunya Europe - This is linked to the tiger mosquito above. DDT is the answer.

As for point 4 This sounds very alarming, so being diligent researchers we should of course check the facts. The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia âBetween 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.â At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid. One also has to wonder how they measured the pH of the ocean to 4 decimal places in 1751, since the idea of pH wasnât introduced until 1909.
The BBC article then asserts: The researchers warn that ocean acidification, which they refer to as âthe other CO2 problemâ, could make most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase.

This does indeed sound alarming, until you consider that corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era â nearly 500 million years ago â when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today. (One might also note in the graph below that there was an ice age during the late Ordovician and early Silurian with CO2 levels 10X higher than current levels, and the correlation between CO2 and temperature is essentially nil throughout the Phanerozoic.)

Now that I did your silly experiment you can do one for me. Please go through the historical records and fossil records and show me one time, just one time in all of history, when a colder climate like an ice age was more benefical to humans or other life then a warmer climate.

For every mosquito, virus or other impact I can list dozens where colder temperatures adversly impacted human life on this planet. More famines, plagues, wars and death resulted from colder climates then during warmer time periods.

Phoneix@421

Wow. You really aren't a scientist are you?

Ah - schoolyard humour. Natsukashi!

My stat skills? lol...wrong profession.

Are you implying that your profession actively discourages stat skills? That's harsh! It's very useful to know some stats in this modern world - as I demonstrated it can be as easy as dividing two numbers and multiplying by 100 to get the percentage figure.

And I'm coming for your freedom (and money) in a court of law.

Kowaii! I hope you can speak Japanese then!

Be forewarned, anyone involved in this fraud is going to pay...

...quite dearly.

Is it true that you affect a dramatic style of punctuation...

...because you think it will cover-up the glaring holes in your logic?

John U:
>AGW believes it's almost 100% due to CO2 levels while...

Wrong, they say it's about 60% (GHGs) from what I remember, 10% to 20% Solar?

Maybe some of the regular posters can correct me if i'm wrong.

And the the grreat thinker that stated scientists don't PROVE theroies to be true, I wonder what pseudo science they believe in.

Nice insult, there. That adds a great deal to the conversation. Thanks. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to mock my intellectual capabilities when you cannot even appear to spell correctly?

I'm sorry if my comment bothered you, but the fact is, we don't prove theories to be True in science. We simply do not. It's not my fault if you're ignorant of how science really works.

The basis of science is to finding supporting facts and observations to validate their theroies or to disprove them.

This statement is broadly accurate, but validation isn't the same as proving something True. "True" presumes that our explanation is flawless and complete--that we completely understand the phenomenon that is explained by the theory. This is not the case for any scientific theory. We might understand the phenomenon in question really really really really well, to the point where the probability of completely overturning the theory is pathetically small (as with evolution), but that isn't the same as saying that our explanation is flawless and complete. Rather, in science, truth is always provisional. Just because we have confirmed a given theory for dozens, or even hundreds of years--this is not a guarantee that we will never make a discovery that the theory cannot explain. There is simply no mechanism in science for such a guarantee, because we can never be absolutely certain that we have collected 100% of the data regarding any given phenomenon and completely understand those data. While science is predictive, it isn't clairvoyant. There always remains the possibility that we will make an observation that will require the theory to be adjusted (and indeed, in the early years of some theories, this sometimes happens fairly routinely). That isn't to say that the theory isn't extremely well-supported. It probably is. But "well-supported" doesn't equal "proven True." Science is asymptotic with respect to Truth with a capital T.

Otherwise the theroy that the Earth is flat should still be valid today.

I don't know how this follows at all. I never made any suggestion that we don't disprove theories. Nor would I. Our job as scientists is to falsify. Science advances when we disprove prior understanding in favor of new. That's how the whole thing works.

To claim that theroies don't need to be validate is just simplistic.

This is a strawman. I suggested no such thing. I never said theories don't need validation. As I wrote above, however, support for a theory is very different than proving that the theory is TrueTM.

And this is all OT, of course. It's tangential to the overall discussion.

I have never seen any scientist that has claimed CO2 was the only issue. It may be the one that is always discussed (for obvious reasons) but the actual science doesn't ignore other factors.

Posted by: Paul UK

Well it is kind of hard to levy taxes on volcanoes and sea life.

Shorter JohnU- my handwaving generates more lift than a kite in a hurricane, so i am impervious to the google as goretex is impervious to water.

By Majorajam (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Of course, JohnU can also tell us how we are going to put 10 billion people on an earth that has LESS solid ground than there is today, unless we start mass movement of people to other areas. I guess JohnU would not mind if hundreds of million of people start wandering into other countries. We've never had wars before when this happened, right?

Posted by: Marco

Gee Marco are you saying that we should kill off a few billion people? The question is who goes first? Are you stepping up to the front of the line?

Majorajam@410

Yes I understand the concepts. Better yet I understand the atmosphere is an extremely complex dynamic system composed of sub-systems and their interactions. The effect you speak of is one of those relationships. However this is still a very theoretical phase theory even 100 years in the making (like most) and the real life models are still not completely understood. The origins of the theory are great, but the lifecycle of these gases is not totally understood and new theories on sinks and other forms of end-of-life-cycle dynamics for these gases is still in the infancy stage. Just like in any dynamic mathematical system, a new form of input or external stimulus will change the system and can affect everything within it. So you have observed changes in the system and nothing more. You can not take simple observation of the observed changes and fight amongst each other until you come to a finite conclusion as to both the cause and effect and even the solution. You still dont even know all the parameters of the system and their relationships, only some of them. And still what is your message ? Cut emmisions ? Recycle ? Use greener products ? We are doing that already so what are you guys up in arms over ? The problem is simply a trail of money, as always. This area of science is built like any other.. on funding. These peoples conclusions have been rewarded with money like a rat at a feeder bar. What would happen to all these people and their R & D and grant money if there were no crisis... or if change was needed and already happening on its own by responsible people ? The answer is that billions upon billions of dollars would dry up.

Here is the bottom line. When you can accurately model the entire dynamic system we call the atmosphere and understand every parameter of it so you can show your ability to even PREDICT THE BASIC WEATHER A FEW DAYS IN ADVANCE... then you can use this base of accurate prediction to show us other pedictions are true. Until that time this is not a developed science though quite interesting.

And I can tell you one thing, I do not need a scientist to tell me that making pollution and emmisions a fungible asset like money and then trading it on an open market will NOT lead to less of it. You may be a climate expert but I doubt your are an economic scientist as well. No market will allow a contraction without a fight therefore how do you reduce polluttion when you make a market to trade it ? This is an age old concept called Science and Rationalization which is a clearly differently animal than Science. Science is unforgiving in its scrutiny and ever insecure in its conclusions with dissenters always tolerated even if seen as a bit eccentirc. Science And Rationalization uses some scientific data, then rationalizes a particular view-point. When the path of Science & Rationalization is being used it is usually very obvious as those supporting it only want data which supports the conclusions they have rationalized. Science & Rationalization always involves a social goal, where as science does not nor does it care for social goals. Thus AGW/ACC as it stands appears to us "common folk" as a pseudo-relgion who depicts us by a deamining moniker if we are skeptical.

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

That's bullshit. The fact that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would raise global temps was a prediction of physics.

Posted by: dhogaza

Please read and study a little more. Physics also says that there is an upper limit an CO2 absorption. That said, the issue is what is causing the warming through 1998. The IPCC clearly stated their opionion as I showed. How much of the temp increase was due to CO2? I've seen studies that range from .0005% up to almost 98%.

John U:
>This does indeed sound alarming, until you consider that corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era â nearly 500 million years ago â when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today.

Assuming you are correct. Is that relevant, considering that there is such a thing as evolution??

Wrong, they say it's about 60% (GHGs) from what I remember, 10% to 20% Solar?
Maybe some of the regular posters can correct me if i'm wrong.
Posted by: Paul UK

Paul, thats the whole issue. Other studies put CO2 at the 10 to 20% level. So it becomes a big cost benefit issue. If we reduce CO2 levels by 40% at a cost of X dollars the resulting reduction in temps will be Y. The lower the impact of CO2 to the equation the lower the justification to spend trillions of dollars on it. The fear mongers push the CO2 impact close to 98% as this is the only way to justify the costs involved.

So once again I say we wait the 100 years and see what happens. If in the meantime there are 'green' inventions so much the better. But let's not do a wealth transfer till we really know the truth.

> These objective observations in my own back yard fail
> to support global warming. Science is based on objective
> observation. If it fails the back yard test it fails.

A doctor who uses this kind of thinking as a guide SHOULD NOT be relied upon as a substitute for sound professional medical advice, evaluation or care.

"... even a modest bias can lead to emphasizing certain pieces of evidence over others, leading to conclusions which seem scientific but are unreliable. Also, proponents can easily begin with a desired conclusion, and then back fill the evidence to suit their needs (rather than allowing the evidence to lead them to a conclusion)."
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2741

@Phoenix: it will all depend on the data. If somebody 'hides' data that adds nothing special, I would be displeased, but certainly not dismiss a hypothesis just based on that. If somebody 'hides' data that is extensively discussed in the literature as an anomaly, I'd get pissed with the people who claim it is all a big conspiracy (that'll be the likes of you). If somebody 'hides' data that contradicts the hypothesis, and does not provide a solid explanation for this 'hiding', I would question the hypothesis.

@JohnU: nice seeing you attack a strawman. Try explaining the Black Death again in your own hypothesis. And try to realise that adding EXTRA factors that would pressure societies is not a good thing.

It would help if "skeptics" actually knew the first thing about what they speak. We've already seen huge reductions in SOx and NOx directly as a result of Cap and Trade, which turned out to be dramatically easier and cheaper than the industry claimed.

The idea that you have to predict the weather before you can calculate the influence of CO2 is one of most naive of all arguments. Predicting the weather next week is like predicting the position of a specific leaf after it falls off of a tree. That doesn't mean we don't know if the leaves are going to fall off or what conditions are required that lead to their falling off.

One last question to ponder before I have to return to preparing briefs...

I'm guessing that most, if not all, AGW scientists are working, at least in part, under the notion of trying to move the world away from carbon-based fuels...

...right?

So, would it concern any of you to learn the complete opposite is true?

Think of it. What do carbon taxes and carbon trading schemes have in common?

When the carbon goes away, where will the one world government people you apparently support...

...get their money from?

Oil ain't going anywhere, anytime soon.

It's become far too valuable for that now, hasn't it?

And this will be the sign, when you know you've been had...

Al Gore, 2017, "we have always known that oil would need to remain around for the foreseeable future. It will continue to play an important role in the world economy. Of course."

John U:
>Paul, thats the whole issue. Other studies put CO2 at the 10 to 20% level.

What studies?

John U:
>If in the meantime there are 'green' inventions so much the better.

The developments of green tech are driven by a need to change or are at least greatly boosted by a need. It speeds things up. eg. the prospect of computers based on particle spin (an extreme example), or robust biodegradable plastics such as Ecogen.
There is a significant engineering shift that is happening and much of it is driven by concerns about the environment.

JohnU@437

Physics also says that there is an upper limit an CO2 absorption.

In a pure CO2 atmosphere, yes. However, in our atmosphere the CO2 molecules can lose the energy gained by absorbing IR radiation through collisions with other molecules - therefore never reaching that 'pure CO2' limit.

For a much more scientific discussion of this you've gotta see the [Rabett](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/08/getting-rudys-back-next-latest-issue…) and search for 'quenching'.

Actually, Brian Paul Jaus, my message is simple. You're talking in barely comprehensible generalities that resemble bromides, but haven't answered my first question- a yes or no question mind you. This is not the way to engage in constructive debate.

Notwithstanding your own trepidation over the subject, science is at this point *not* patiently awaiting evidence of the so-called greenhouse effect. It is, for all intents and purposes, established well beyond even a smidgeon of a doubt, much less its greater reasonable variety, both principally in laboratory tests, and as inferred through mountains of empirical observation. However, you don't seem persuaded on the topic, referring to perhaps other potential future unnamed unknown 'forms of input or external stimulus'. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining what you mean to the rest of us in terms we might have some chance of comprehending.

You can start by answering this question: if not the so-called greenhouse effect, what accounts for the fact that lunar temperatures vary from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius) at night to 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day, while the diurnal temperature spread on both our own planet and on Venus are infinitesimal by comparison?

Take your time. I'd really like to understand better the source of ambiguity on what would seem to us non-Drudge readers as an open and shut proposition.

By Majorajam (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Josh Post 432,

So I had a fat finger and hit a key twice. Isn't this the same type of insult as you accuse me of?

But getting back to the real issues here. I am not one to say there is no climate change. I am also not one to say we are either cooling or warming. After all that depends on the starting point and trendlines you pick. AGW (or man casued warming) was a theroy presented in response to a warming trend showed higher global temperatures circa 1998.

Now some parts of the theroy are valid in that CO2 can and does cause some warming. The big issue here is how much of the warming was caused by mad made contributions to CO2 levels and how much is due to other factors.

There are models that predict sea level rises of 7 to 20 meters and temp increases of 3 to 10 degrees over the next 100 years. Other models offer different predictions. But one thing is certain. All of these predictions are based on complex calculations that rely on hundreds if not thousands of differnt parameters. many of these have not even been validated by observations and some can never be.

All scientists should continue to challenge these models and not state that the science is 'settled'. You said that you never claimed the theroy was proven. That is true but, if not proven by definition it can not be settled. In physics the Big Bang theroy is generally accepted but they constantly challenge it and continue more experiments to further substantite it. In fact there are experiments to constanly disprove it. Why should it be differnet for AGW?

I am not against anyone conducting science to validate or disprove a theroy like AGW. I take offense when this process stops and some claim the science is settled. Even your example about evolution shows that the science is always evolving and research is being conducted to challenge it. So parts of AGW might indeed be validated but the extent of the warming caused by CO2 emmissions has not been validated. To state otherwise is to close off the pursuit of scientific discovery and that is no better then the flat Earth society.

JohnU: Please read and study a little more yourself. CO2 absorption is far away from saturation. Realclimate covered it extensively in the somewhat snarkily named post "A saturated gassy argument", it is a very interesting story (basically, greenhouse warming from CO2 emissions were ignored because "everyone" thought it was saturated, until military funded research in the 1940s on the upper levels of the atmosphere where infrared radiation eventually escapes into space.

Really. Can't you just go read that, it's a fascinating, clear and understandable story. Although sadly, it did very little to convince people who in ignorance (like you) had advanced the saturation argument - they preferred to be up in arms about the title, and making ad homs, and switching attacks, rather than admit they were wrong. Not a single coherent criticism of the physical explanation of why CO2 isn't saturated - of course. There can hardly be any.

By Harald Korneliussen (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

20. Partnered delivery of messages will be more
successful
Experience shows that partnered delivery is often a key component
for projects that are large, complex and have many stakeholders.

This is a point from my prior posting #80. If Janet Ackerman, or someone else who is familiar with this document please inform us who these "stakeholders" would be. Who has "invested" in this well thought out; large and complex emotional journey for the unwashed masses? Help us, please...

You can start by answering this question: if not the so-called greenhouse effect, what accounts for the fact that lunar temperatures vary from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius) at night to 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day, while the diurnal temperature spread on both our own planet and on Venus are infinitesimal by comparison?

Take your time. I'd really like to understand better the source of ambiguity on what would seem to us non-Drudge readers as an open and shut proposition.

Posted by: Majorajam

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Red Herring. He knows the Earth's atmosphere exists.

Please ask a real question.

cce@443

Cap and Trade For Acid Rain ?? Ok lets see it did 2 things...

1. Turned pollution into a fungible asset like money and created a trade market for it, with the government holding the key and

2. Incentivized business to put scrubbers on their stacks.

I am no scientist but I am pretty sure that #2 is what actually made the air cleaner. #1 created a big old mess. You turned pollution into money and showed businessmen a chance to make money. My 10 year old could have predicted what would happen.

But lets see, if you simply offered a tax break to businessess (the real way to do it) for installing them... wouldnt they still put them on (if they tax break was great enough) for the same monetary gain.

And also your attack is flawed. I did not say that you have to be able to predict the weather based on mathematical systems. This actually occurs no where. We cant tell you where wether will start or where it will go without pictures.. up to the minute pictures. And even with up to the minute pictures we are still wrong quite often even with all of our knowledge.

Thus current weath forecasts are not prediction but just observation. So no I did not say that. My statement is you can not predict the influence of CO2 emmision on an entire system unless you understand the entire system. The gasses you speak of and their relationships are but a small subset of interrelated systems many of which are still not understood. Those systems invariably have effects on these systems and change the rules of the game in ways you can not see if you only look at one of the sub-systems. I am not ignorant nor naive.

the point stands and is well made... the complex system which is the atmopshere and ALL of its subsystems and their relationships are still poorly understood. Taking some data from one of the relationships and then using this data to vehemently support a truly social position is not science. Notice how the scientists are suddenly activists too ? The message from what should be pure scientists is not "We think this may be going on".. it is "You have to change your social structure (a different area of science) because this material fact is all but true". Sorry those are not the words of scientists those are the words of activists. :-) We simple folk can still tell the difference.

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Marco,

My point was a simple one. Humans have benefited to a greater extent during warm climates then cold climates. This is the hypothesis that I am stating. Can you show evidence that this is not the case?

I am not the person to decide what the world's population should or should not be and I don't think anyone here is capable to be that person either.

And there is disagreement on when the little ice age started. For this reason, any of several dates ranging over 400 years may indicate the beginning of the Little Ice Age:

1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow
1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe
1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315-1317
1550 for theorized beginning of worldwide glacial expansion
1650 for the first climatic minimum

> Red Herring. He knows the Earth's atmosphere exists.

Well, duh. So, specifically, in what way and to what degree does the Earth's atmosphere affect its surface temperature?

> Please ask a real question.

Please provide a real answer.

Majorajam@448

I must have got under your skin. hahaha ! Your tone is decidely "brisk" and the words are getting big. Remember we simple Drudge people are but simple folk with limited vocabularies. But armed with a online dictonary I shall fight my way through it.

Actually you did nothing to discredit nor did you address my post. And then as it would seems that you are now chastizing me (as was the point of most of us Drudgers) and trying to (in a very fancy way) say "Well why does the moon get hotter and colder than Earth and Venus, dont you know how an Atmosphere works dummy ??". But you are doing it in a fancy way to make it look as though it has some intelligence. Well it doesnt but apparently I am smart enough to see it. Malice is a better word for it. So as I stated before I do not deny any relationships what so ever, I am stating that you do not understand all the parameters of the system and can not make predicitions because of it. Like when the Al Gore propaganda machine infected my schools and the brought home literature saying the sea levels could be 13 feet higher by 2010 ? Hurricanes hitting New Orleans would DOUBLE in size and frequency by 2010. Yep... Nope. Predicitons based on this science havent panned out. The ones that do are common sense... SOX/NOX levels down in rain because we now put on SOX/NOX scrubbers. Simple ! After to talking to you and seeing how you guys are I have seen enough to make my POLITICAL decisions as a citizen.

I am going to vote for candidates who understand the humans have an effect on the planet. I am going to vote for candidates who promote real scientific advancement, and can water it down in ways that make sense to the common man (been done all throughout the last 100 years but suddenly not when it comes to this). I am going to vote for candidates who vote for responsible well thought out change supported by ALL the branches of science involved. And after seeing this blog I will vote to make sure people like you DO NOT receive any government funding and that you get NO public support. I will also pitch AGW as a sham. Throwing out the baby with the bath water ? Nope because then I will tell them there are real environmental problems facing the world and those are common sense ones including emissions which we have all voted to fix many times over in the US and California and still do. You can stand in front of a industrial plant and look at the junk spewing out and know it is not good ! So change is happening but AGW/ACC is a fricking religion and I have seen it first hand. Too bad you hurt the data and the observations by polticizing the science, your predeccors are turning over in their graves.

And by the way, do you know how many factories and indusrtialized operations it takes to support the single lifestyle of Al Gore ? You want to talk about a carbon foot print ? Whoa !! but wait under your system he can be that way because he is rich !! Now I get it !! The rich can do whatever they want and the poor cant. You simultaneously did not reduce pollution and you brought society and democracy back about 5000 years !! Hahaha !!!

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

I have not read what RealClimate says about CO2 saturation but I do think that many people seem to be confused about the "saturation" argument. It's easy to calculate, using the known extinction coefficients, that 99% of the radiation in the CO2 absorption bands is absorbed within only a few tens to hundreds of meters of the source. These coefficients are derived from measurements in modern, high-resolution spectrometers. But strong absorption is also found even with older, lower-resolution instruments. So what does this mean? Is the global warming theory false? Or should older measurements not be trusted? Here is what I think it means:

The "saturation" argument does not mean that global warming doesn't occur. What saturation tells us is that exponentially higher levels of CO2 would be needed to produce a linear increase in absorption, and hence temperature. This is basic physics. Beer's law has not been repealed.

Some people have gotten the idea that water vapor, which is mainly present at lower altitudes, is somehow necessary for the CO2 to absorb infrared radiation, and that therefore at higher altitudes, CO2 is not anywhere near saturation. This is not true. The presence or absence of water vapor has no bearing on whether radiation is absorbed by CO2. Maybe this causes the energy inbalance that many models seem to have. That is because, for all practical purposes, the absorption bands of H2O and CO2 important for warming are different. (If they weren't, CO2 absorption would be so insignificant compared to water vapor that it wouldn't be a potential problem, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.)

CO2 is very nearly homogeneous throughout the atmosphere, so its concentration (as a percentage of the total) is about the same at all altitudes. Although the pressure is lower at high altitudes, there is also a much greater volume. That is why the ozone layer, which is around 30-90 km in altitude, is still able to absorb almost all of the shortwave UV, even though its concentration is only 8-12 ppm. So the importance of low concentrations of gases should not be underestimated. But water vapor is a red herring: it has essentially no effect on what CO2 does. Where water vapor becomes important is in the earth's response to CO2.

Some people also think that line broadening of the CO2 absorption lines by pressure, water vapor, or temperature provides an escape from the saturation dilemma. But in line broadening, the absorbance is peak is only smeared out; the total amount of energy absorbed is not affected. For the same reason, measurements with lower-resolution spectrometers, which slightly smear out the absorption lines, are still valid.
Saturation does not tell us whether CO2 can raise the atmospheric temperature, but it gives us a powerful clue about the shape of the curve of temperature vs. concentration.

JohnU, the word you keep using, 'settled', I do not think it means what you think it means. Certainly in the familiar sense, settled would refer to 'done and dusted, let's close the book on that'. If however you were familiar with the epistemological literature, you would realize that this term was only used by academics (e.g. Orsekes) to describe the fact that there is no debate in the scientific community on the existence of AGW at the moment (as measured by peer reviewed publications of scientific work which is how science has chosen to organize itself in practice for some time).

In that context, 'settled' does not preclude the current scientific understanding becoming 'unsettled' tomorrow given some truly stunning discovery that challenged everything, which hundreds and thousands of highly intelligent and qualified people spending their lives work in inquiry and experimentation have heretofore somehow missed. As with winning the lottery on the day you're struck by lightening and witness to a solar eclipse, this is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility, however there is very little precedent for such a thing, as crises of scientific paradigm typically originate at the boundaries of normal science and not its foundations.

In any case, point being this word 'settled' and the emotive connotations it summons is nothing more than a red herring- a word whose ambiguity was picked up and played upon by folks like those about whom this post was written, who wish to dupe people into believing bad things about the people whose studies have inconvenient implications for public policy. When you argue it, you are arguing with a strawman set up by deceivers, not with those who support the science.

By Majorajam (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

@JohnU

> My point was a simple one. Humans have benefited to a greater extent during warm climates then cold climates. This is the hypothesis that I am stating. Can you show evidence that this is not the case?

Aside from the fact your hypothesis is imprecisely defined and not well-supported at all (seriously, was eg. the industrial revolution a major benefit to humanity, and was it warm or cold when that kicked off?), it's also an irrelevant hypothesis.

Unless you understand and accept the physical principals, you will refuse to countenance the predicted rise in temperature which will *unquestionably* by faster and higher than *anything* humanity has ever experienced. The massive loss of biodiversity and crippling damage to ecosystems this will likely bring about is well covered in literature. You asserting that natural variations may or may not have been beneficial to human development at periods when we were less numerous, with lower energy demands and with less direct impact on our environment is neither here nor there.

> 1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow 1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe 1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315-1317 1550 for theorized beginning of worldwide glacial expansion 1650 for the first climatic minimum

You repeat lots of dates you've seen elsewhere as evidence for... something. You're very selective about which science you believe unquestioningly.

Who is it that's studied all this and come up with these dates, or has trying to pin down previous cold and warm periods in history? Could it be *the very same scientists that helped draft IPCC AR4 and currently overwhelmingly accept AGW*?

Majorajam,
I use the term as it's being implemented in newspapers and in articles all over the net. that there can be no further discussion about AGW. The propoentes of AGW use the word 'settled' as in "I don't have to listen to your arguements against AGW".

The only thing that I believe is settled is that CO2 does impact global temperatuers to some degree. What is clearly not settled in my opinion is the percentage of warming that is due to CO2 emissions, how much of these emissions are due to man made sources (AGW basis) and the impact that global warming will actually have on the planet.

Even the discussion here shows disagreement between various AGW proponets. Paul in UK believes that 60% of the warming is due to CO2. Some models have it pegged at much higher levels and others from Max Planck Institute believe it is closer to 30%. The fringes have 98% on the high side and 4 to 8% on the low side.

The feedback loops are also unsettled science. While common sense dictates that there should be some type of positive feedback loop the degree is not known. And common sense has been shown to be inaccurate in past scientifc results. Sometimes the bizare is the real explanation (aka quantum mechanics, M-theory, etc.).

So the bottom line question is how high of an impact does AGW have on global temperatures and will it be consistent with further increases in CO2 emissions? The higher the impact the greater the justification for doing something, however the smaller the impact then the less justification. And of course this leaves out the argument on if higher global temperatures are better or worse for humans.

So settled? Far from it. We need to continue the research, continue the discussion and hold off any far reaching decisions till the real impact is known.

âChanging attitudes
towards climate change is
not like selling a particular
brand of soap â itâs like
convincing someone to
use soap in the first place.â

blowing away
myths

Many of the oft-repeated communications methods and messages
of sustainable development have been dismissed by mainstream
communicators, behaviour change experts and psychologists.
Before we go into what works, our principles make a âclean sweepâ
of what doesnât:
1. Challenging habits of climate change communication
Donât rely on concern about childrenâs future or human
survival instincts
Recent surveys show that people without children may care more
about climate change than those with children. âFight or flightâ human
survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes â they are of
little use for a change in climate measured in years.
Donât create fear without agency
Fear can create apathy if individuals have no âagencyâ to act upon
the threat. Use fear with great caution.
Donât attack or criticise home or family
It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.
2. Forget the climate change detractors
Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but
unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate
change, but how we should deal with climate change.
3. There is no ârational manâ
The evidence discredits the ârational manâ theory â we rarely weigh
objectively the value of different decisions and then take the clear
self-interested choice.
4. Information canât work alone
Providing information is not wrong; relying on information alone to
change attitudes is wrong. Remember also that messages about
saving money are important, but not that important.

What a village you all had planned for us. But you all, being you, and the rest of us just irritating people who are going to be taught how to use soap. Why do people care? These are real scientists working on saving the world from people. How do you all discribe "People"? What kind of soap should we buy when we all go to Venice on NWO $$$$$. Please mister, help us... for more on this; please see post #80. Thank you, MGT

Brian Paul Jaus, my question was somewhat more specific and less pointed than 'don't you know how an atmosphere works dummy'. So far as I can tell, it hasn't been answered after two tries, unless by this, "So as I stated before I do not deny any relationships what so ever, I am stating that you do not understand all the parameters of the system and can not make predicitions because of it." you mean that you do not deny the existence of a so-called greenhouse effect, as per my original question, and that this greenhouse effect is largely responsible for the vast differences in diurnal temperature spread between, for example venus and the moon.

Perhaps you can clarify if this is so, and that the source of your skepticism relates not to those established physics, but instead to 'our lack of understanding of all the parameters of the system'. If it is indeed the latter than we move onto the next questions, but I want to make sure we have the first one established. Without it, there's no point in having any discussion.

PS As an aside, I am prepared to stipulate that Al Gore is a fat, profiteering carbon addicted sex worker or whatever selection of colorful modifiers you might prefer, if you are prepared to stipulate that there is little evidence that his relative obesity, integrity or corruption has any bearing on atmospheric physics. If so agreed, could you perchance stop obsessing about him ad nauseum?

By Majorajam (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

@JohnU

> exponentially higher levels of CO2 would be needed to produce a linear increase in absorption

As stated in clearly in the literature, and repeated ad infinitum in threads such as this. What's your point?

Why do you think temperature increase is given in terms of response to a doubling of CO2?

Dave,

If you want some hard physics and math then let me try this to account for Co2 emissions on global temperatures.

Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption mention in one of my other posts), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect.

Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by IPCC and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO2 and the observed temperature increase:

ln(365/295) = k * 0.57
k = 0.3735
ln(2) = 0.693 = k ÎT
ÎT = 1.85 degrees

This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer.

If we want to include other greenhouse gases, such as methane, in the calculation, we need to use the "effective" CO2 concentrations instead. These effective CO2 numbers are less solid than the CO2-only numbers, but the best estimates are that effective CO2 increased from 305 to about 450 ppm during the 20th century. Using these numbers, k becomes 0.6823 and the predicted ÎT becomes 1.02 degrees.

These estimates assume that the correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide is causal in nature. This remains to be proved. Therefore, the 1.02 and 1.85 degree estimates should also be regarded as upper limits.

JohnU: "I have not read what RealClimate says about CO2 saturation"

Then I suggest you do. It's a history lesson - the author, Spencer Weart, is a historian of science who is not a regular contributor to RealClimate, so even if you take that hopeless "the well is poisoned!" attitude, it shouldn't be an excuse to read it.

(Yes, the _marginal_ warming from increase in CO2 does decrease, and will continue to decrease, as concentrations increase. However, I have never seen anyone denying it, and certainly no climate scientist. Projections are made taking it into account.

So, we do know the "shape of the curve", it _would_ flatten eventually. Unfortunately for us, the slope is still very steep. We're talking thousands of times pre-industrial levels before adding more CO2 would not heat the planet any more - and by that time, Earth would be Venus 2.)

By Harald Korneliussen (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Dave,

If for some reason you find fault with my math (and I bet you will) then what equation do you base CO2 and temperature levels on? How will that equation fit into Beer's Law?

I don't think you fully understand this important concept. To put it more simply, shortwave radiation (such as light and short-wavelength infrared) is not absorbed by CO2 and therefore reaches the earth's surface. At the surface, it is absorbed and then re-radiated at longer wavelengths (as "heat"). Some of this heat radiation is in the carbon dioxide absorption bands. This portion does not make it back to space, but is absorbed by water vapor, CO2 and other gases on its way up. More CO2 or water vapor will cause it to be absorbed at a slightly lower altitude than before. This energy will be absorbed and re-emitted by the carbon dioxide molecules.

Even though the total amount of absorption is still nearly 100%, the whole process is dynamic. This means it takes a certain amount of time, while other things, such as transitions from night to day, are also happening. Therefore, it is theoretically possible for increases in CO2 to cause increases in surface temperature. The question is, is the amount of warming enough to be significant?

And for those who believe that only climate scientists should comment then I offer just one example. Albert Einstein. After all he was just some clerk when he came up with his Special Theory on Relativity. Should we ignore it cause he was just a clerk?

Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption mention in one of my other posts), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect.
Between 1900 and 2000

The sensitivity per doubling is an equilibrium number, which takes decades to reach. The system is still "catching up" ...

I second the notion that you go read what scientists working in the field have learned, rather than taking the stupid position that "since I know a little physics, I know more than they do".

And for those who believe that only climate scientists should comment then I offer just one example. Albert Einstein. After all he was just some clerk when he came up with his Special Theory on Relativity. Should we ignore it cause he was just a clerk?

He had a diploma in mathematics and physics, both relevant to his studies in physics. He didn't work as a clerk. He worked as a patent examiner evaluating patents for electromagnetic devices - again, physics.

And, of course, Einstein was right ... while your statements are demonstrably wrong.

Harold @ 465,

I will read it perhaps this evening. But I think the disagreement is on when the curve flattens. You believe it is very steep but from Beer's Law and other sources that I have read it has already flattened out.

I do not pretend that I know all there is to know about climate science. But having a physics background I am not your average person either. I have done tons of programming in the past and am aware how they can be manipulated to achieve the desired results.

The bottom line is that from my perspective much more research and study needs to be done befpore we take drastic steps on CO2 emissions.

As for now I must say goodbye to this discussion. I enjoyed it but other duties call. May you all have a great future.

Ah, you wrote some more while I was writing, sorry. While your intuition that the marginal warming from CO2 decreases was correct, the sensitivity estimates you come up with now are way off. For one thing, we don't know that we have reached equilibrium (in fact, we can be confident we haven't), and your "reasonable assumption" isn't reasonable.

In wikipedia's climate sensitivity article, they give a nice example of how to do the kind of calculation you're trying to do. In fact, it gives a wealth of different estimates and how they were arrived at. I think you will find it interesting (and I'm not being sarcastic!)

By Harald Korneliussen (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

ed Herring. He knows the Earth's atmosphere exists.

Well, duh. So, specifically, in what way and to what degree does the Earth's atmosphere affect its surface temperature?

Please ask a real question.

Please provide a real answer.

Posted by: Dave

Finally!

A point of agreement...

Specifically, in what way and to what degree does the Earth's atmosphere affect its surface temperature,...

...is one of the questions your skeptics have been asking...

...and asking...

...and asking...and asking...

...but never answered by AGW scientists because...

...the science is settled and there is no need to answer them.

I have done tons of programming in the past and am aware how they can be manipulated to achieve the desired results.

GISS Model E source and documentation is online. Perhaps, with your superior physics and programming background you can quickly point us to the portion of the model which is manipulated to achieve the desired results?

JohnU, as parting gift, I thought I'd point out to you that the uncertainty of which you speak regarding feedbacks, etc. is captured in uncertainty about climate sensitivity within mainstream science. Moreover, this uncertainty makes argument for mitigation infinitely stronger- not weaker- as by definition, it works both ways.

In other words, the fact that we can't say for sure that climate sensitivity is more than, e.g. 1 degree C, means that we also can't rule out very high values (in reality, both sets of numbers are very unlikely, but have non-trivial probability- power log vs exponential probability tails). A Harvard economist by the name of Martin Weitzman has demonstrated the implications of said uncertainty are that optimal policy is not a Kyoto style gradual fossil fuel rationing policy ramp, but a far more aggressive mitigation policy. Have a google.

By Majorajam (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

dhogaza
The sensitivity per doubling is an equilibrium number, which takes decades to reach.

I just reread that and had to respond one more time. It seems you are arguing that it will take decades for CO2 levels to double and I agree. Therefore, if the impact on doubling CO2 levels is at most 1.85 degrees C then it takes a decades to even reach this 1.85 degree increase. Once agian the majority of the AGW incrteases has to rely on unproven feedback loops.

And I was being generous with the 1.85 degree increase. According to the US Department of Energy, only about 14.8% of the increase in CO2 from 1900 (288 PPM baseline), or 11.88 ppm, is man-made. The remaining 68.5 ppm is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires. From this, other researchers have estimated that, when water vapor is taken into account, anthropogenic CO2 contributions cause about 0.117% of the Earth's total greenhouse effect. Too small to make drastic changes in policy on for my taste.

BTW should we also ignore Mr. Gore and also Mr. Hansen since they don't have degrees in climate science?

Majorajam,

Lets move forward with,

1.) I see the science behind greenhouse gases, though I also do beleive external forces shaped our atmopshere and venus as much as our planet and its atmosphere did itself. Sorry to be so vague but it is ok to have different views on things.

2.) the professed leader of the movement in full swing today is in fact one of the most eggregious polluters himself, his lifestyle being the antithesis of what he is preaching AND he will profit TREMDOUSLY should Cap and Trade laws he has helped to bring about go through and

3.) for the bonus, will you give me this... the Cap and Trade agreement reduces pollution to tradeable units with an economic value. Thus those who are poor will be able to afford less of them and those that are rich (like Al Gore) will STILL be able to afford the same lifestyle due to their great wealth (being able to afford more credits).

By Brian Paul Jaus (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

I have done tons of programming in the past and am aware how they can be manipulated to achieve the desired results.

Then you could perhaps provide us with an example of a program which manipulated data to achieve a desired result, while claiming to do something else.

Any example would do.

Because, that's actually a pretty hard thing to do - especially since you can't be sure what future data you will get as input.

Great, JohnU leaves. Just when he came with the "I hypothesize, now prove me wrong"-argument.

There are fairies, JohnU, prove me wrong.

I just reread that and had to respond one more time. It seems you are arguing that it will take decades for CO2 levels to double and I agree.

Someone conversant in physics should've had no problem understanding my original statement ...

And I was being generous with the 1.85 degree increase. According to the US Department of Energy, only about 14.8% of the increase in CO2 from 1900 (288 PPM baseline), or 11.88 ppm, is man-made. The remaining 68.5 ppm is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires

This is flat-out wrong. I don't know what document you're referring to, but even the most die-hard among the skeptics who *claim* to be doing science don't disagree with the fact that nearly all of the CO2 increase that's been measured is anthropogenic, due to the burning of fossil fuel.

Reference, please, along with an apology when you're shown wrong ...

Oh, I see, JohnU has declared victory and has therefore said "goodbye".

Figures.

I just read on wwwwww.nwo.com that Soros is taking The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, with him to Scotland to see if he had missed a chapter. I think it was probably the "All fool proof systems can be overcome by any fool". All the scientists want to talk, is science. Not answer questions from the "people"?... Folks it's not about the science any more.

The acoustical proximity of Pheoneix to Poe could be a coincidence, but I'm not betting on it.

By Majorajam (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Harold @ 470,

I just read the article that you linked to in Wiki. If I use Stefan's Constant to derive greenhouse in Wm-2 as in the following:
G = Ï(Ts4 - Te4) = ÏTs4 - OLR = 390.11 - 239.76 = 150.35 Wm-2 where G is the global average greenhouse effect, Ï is the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant, Ts = 288 K, Te = 255 K and OLR signifies Outgoing Longwave Radiation, I come to a figure of 150.35 Wm-2 and net warming of 33 °C, thus as a linear relationship a ÎF of 1 Wm-2 â 0.22 °C. Implied then is an increase of 0.81 °C from ÎF 3.7 Wm-2, the value estimated for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Alternatively, working back from the calculated 390.1 Wm-2 above (from net temperature) + ÎF 3.7 Wm-2 (the value estimated for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide per the article), I get (393.8/Ï)1/4, yielding 288.68 K for a net warming of 0.68 °C, so ÎF of 1 Wm-2 â 0.18 °C.

Both of my figures derived so far are much smaller than frequently cited estimates for warming from a doubling of pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide.

I need to spend more time with the equations to figure out why. Or perhaps others can point to where I made the mistake in my math analysis.

My wife is now screaming at me to get going. For most of you I enjoyed this. For others that just wanted to insult me I hope you had fun.

So I had a fat finger and hit a key twice. Isn't this the same type of insult as you accuse me of?

Yes, it is. Incidentally, I was reacting to:

And the the grreat thinker that...

All scientists should continue to challenge these models and not state that the science is 'settled'.

I would agree, depending on how you're using settled (see comment 458). But then I don't personally think that science at the theory level is ever "settled" in the sense that I think you're using it.

You said that you never claimed the theroy was proven. That is true but, if not proven by definition it can not be settled.

And this supports my interpretation of how you're probably using "settled." Again, see comment 458.

In physics the Big Bang theroy is generally accepted...

Generally accepted? As opposed to what? Steady state? The Big Bang is like evolution; there really isn't another competing scientific theory anymore.

...but they constantly challenge it...

As they should.

...and continue more experiments to further substantite it. In fact there are experiments to constanly disprove it.

Wait, what? Do you realize that your final sentence there is contradicted by the clause that immediately precedes it? And what do you mean? What papers have falsified the Big Bang? Please provide citations.

I don't disagree with your last paragraph except to say that I don't know of anyone in the scientific community who is actually advocating this.

Children, Children, start looking up. The answer's just overhead:

http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

Here are some quotes for ya:

* First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.
* Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.
* Third, the ways in which clouds and water vapor feed back and ultimately influence the temperature of the Earth are, at best, poorly understood.
* Fourth, while the whole Earth is indeed in a state that scientists describe as "radiative equilibrium," where the incoming sunlight equals the outgoing infrared radiation to provide a roughly constant overall temperature, the surface is far from this radiative balance condition. Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor. So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere - poorly represented in computer models of global warming - that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper troposphere, not radiation balance.

The page is a bit dated, but it must be good enough for NASA to have left it unchanged for so long ;o)

By Chicken_Little (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

JohnU, you aren't a Poe are you, because I can't see anything on that link that supports what you seem to be claiming. Quite the opposite - a look at their faq section finds this:

"Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2."

Joshua. If you are of the tribe of Judah...? What is invalid with Genesis 1:1? I have faith in my heart and mind that there is a God and he created everything. The living word is alive; not because I write it but rather I Know it. Sorry, I would love to teach you but You have to go before God in "Faith". Beginning=time; Heavens=space; Earth=matter. Sure seems like at the least Moses made a real good, right out of the box, no research grants guess. Wow! Love, Tom

JohnU has presented a link and lied about what it says. Typical behavior for a denalist, of course.

JohnU: That link doesn't even contain the numbers 11.88 or 14.8. I have also read the entire page and see nothing about sources of CO2, except inasmuch as it is presumed that CO2 levels in 1750 and before were non-anthropogenic, and thus by implication all additional CO2 is presumeably anthropogenic.

Perhaps you can be more specific, or would you like to continue digging?

By Michael Ralston (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Oh, gosh, JohnU has a reading comprehension problem, stating that:

According to the US Department of Energy, only about 14.8% of the increase ...

When of course, as posted above, it's 14.8% of the *total* CO2.

Apparently JohnU thinks there was 0ppm CO2 in the atmosphere before the industrial age ...

Yeah, JohnU, you're really schooling us. Damn right.

From #486 (above):

http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

Here are some quotes for ya:

* First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.
* Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.

...

By Chicken_Little (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.

Yes, if the sun went out, the earth would cool, despite CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere.

However, we don't expect the sun to go out any time soon.

How is this little factoid relevant?

@dhogaza:

Ask NASA. Just follow the link ;o)

By Chicken_Little (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

Chicken_Little seems to be confusing atmospheric temperature with global temperature, and confusing the effects of self-limiting confounders with the effects of non-limited forcings.

By Michael Ralston (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

@Michael Ralston:

NASA seems to be confusing atmospheric temperature with global temperature, and confusing the effects of self-limiting confounders with the effects of non-limited forcings.

By Chicken_Little (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

For Janet Ackerman (re: #354):

Greetings Janet. I have read most (if not all) of your posts here. From them I get a sense of your idea of debate, so my response to you is in keeping with my perceptions. If Iâm wrong about you, I apologize up front.

Janet:

âLets look at that jump again:â Hereâs the problem â CRU wouldnât have gotten the large grants if their results pointed to ho-hum temp variations. To get the money, they had to have AGW âproofâ. It was a clear choice: (a) Protect your reputation and the integrity of the results or (b) Take the money and the prestige. Clearly, they opted for (b). --- What are you talking about? What do you mean "Clearly they opted for (b)? What is your evidence for anything in this paragraph, it reads like pure fantastic speculation.

Acadder:
Iâm sorry Janet, but I know youâve made yourself aware of what has happened here. It would only be pure fantastic speculation for someone who hasnât read any of the evidence. Therefore, what am I to make of your comment? Denial? Advocacy? At any rate, I will provide my evidence.

1.The data CRU and PSU had was garbage. Any analysis of the programmerâs comments and methods makes that clear. If you need for me to show you the individual items that show this, I will. I presume you already know them, and just canât bring yourself to acknowledge them, or wish to obfuscate them. Just let me know and Iâll help you out on it.

2.Both CRU and PSU KNEW the data was garbage. If they didnât, then they are the most slipshod, uninformed people I know of in ANY workplace, much less a professional one. No, they knew. And they published anyway.

3.I have already described the motivation for item 2 in the original post. I do not know how much money in grants they stood to lose, and I would be interested if that information is available. As likely as not, itâs a state secret like everything else they do over there.

4.Clearly their individual reputations are shot. Choice (a) above was to KEEP their reputation, and clearly they didnât chose that route. They (and you) can deny that all you want, but weâll just see if they get any more grants, or whether they can even keep their positions.

5.They had prestige within their own circles as a result of being the defacto âexpertsâ for IPCC and Al Gore, among others. They acquired grant money (and evidently lots of it) for their work.

I have shown that all of the conditions for (a) and (b) were as I said they were, and that they chose (b). If you still contend with my contention, please be SPECIFIC. I cannot debate someone who simply says my comments are âfantastic speculationâ. If you cannot be specific (with detail), please donât respond. The snarky remarks on this board are already too plentiful.

Regards

acadder, you clearly havn't a clue. Firstly, do you have any evidence that wrong code affected any of the results? Secondly, how do you know that the data was garbage? Did a little bird tell you? Thirdly, the coding was as is usual in these situations made up as they went along. Some poor guy had to spend a year or two tidying it up, and it seems his notes for it were amongst the stuff leaked. Perhaps if we paid for proper coding we'd get stuff more to the liking of the likes of yourself.
Fourthly, the earth is still warming...

MITâs journal Energy & Environment (October 2009) seems to have already put some "fresh air" into the mix:

"ABSTRACT
Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979
through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while
the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12 to 13 years show
cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not
exclude a negative trend until 16 years. It is shown that several published studies
have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated
from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data,
with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades.

"

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230

(click the download link icon to view the document)

;o)

By Chicken_Little (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink

RE Chicken_Little

MITâs journal Energy & Environment (October 2009)...

That's funny right there. Craig Loehle. That's even better.

@Deech56:

Keep laughing, NASA's in on it, too:

http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

Here are some quotes for ya:

* First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.
* Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.
* Third, the ways in which clouds and water vapor feed back and ultimately influence the temperature of the Earth are, at best, poorly understood.
* Fourth, while the whole Earth is indeed in a state that scientists describe as "radiative equilibrium," where the incoming sunlight equals the outgoing infrared radiation to provide a roughly constant overall temperature, the surface is far from this radiative balance condition. Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor. So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere - poorly represented in computer models of global warming - that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper troposphere, not radiation balance.

The page is a bit dated, but it must be good enough for NASA to have left it unchanged for so long ;o)

By Chicken_Little (not verified) on 27 Nov 2009 #permalink