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?

Comments

  1. #1 ALWHORE
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  2. #2 teebodo
    November 26, 2009

    Guys, this is all really simple. THEY LIED!

  3. #3 Mark Byrne
    November 26, 2009

    Tim @84,

    Please tell me that Melissa is Poe?

  4. #4 James Haughton
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  5. #5 Tom
    November 26, 2009

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

  6. #6 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  7. #7 MarkG
    November 26, 2009

    >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’?

  8. #8 KiwiInOz
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  9. #9 jim
    November 26, 2009

    ****************
    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.

  10. #10 irlandes
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  11. #11 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    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.php#comment-2105013) my question:

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

  12. #12 TrueSceptic
    November 26, 2009

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

    (Apart from ShelleyTheRepublican? )

  13. #14 Steven Miller
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  14. #15 Brian Paul Jaus
    November 26, 2009

    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. :-)

  15. #16 irlandes
    November 26, 2009

    More insults, Janet. It’s over.

  16. #17 KiwiInOz
    November 26, 2009

    #193 Bob Carter is a kiwi?! Bugger!

  17. #18 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  18. #19 James Haughton
    November 26, 2009

    Jim @189,
    You can get the raw data for New Zealand here: http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/
    I am not sure if it is free for non-New Zealanders, but they also put out monthly summaries with a breakdown down to the station level, here:
    http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/publications/all/cs

  19. #20 M. York
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  20. #21 talonsclaw
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  21. #22 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

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

  22. #23 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    Quotes please irlandes? What are you objecting to?

  23. #24 Doug Mackie
    November 26, 2009

    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 http://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.

  24. #25 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    @202 Janet Akerman,

    We share the same name!

    Where were you born?

  25. #26 William in Arizona
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  26. #27 TrueSceptic
    November 26, 2009

    197 KiwiInOz,

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

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

  27. #28 Eric
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  28. #29 George California
    November 26, 2009

    “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.

  29. #30 Edo Van Ede
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  30. #31 wrong at large
    November 26, 2009

    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-climate-leak-crisis-response#post-area

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

  31. #32 Eric
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  32. #33 George California
    November 26, 2009

    “@202 Janet Akerman,

    We share the same name!

    Where were you born?

    Posted by: Janet Akerman” <– BEYOND GULLIBLE

  33. #34 KiwiInOz
    November 26, 2009

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

  34. #35 del
    November 26, 2009

    stick the con men in jail – gore first nasty buggers

  35. #36 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    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?

  36. #37 George Bedway
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  37. #38 KiwiInOz
    November 26, 2009

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

  38. #39 raul tsan
    November 26, 2009

    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…

  39. #40 Joseph
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  40. #41 cce
    November 26, 2009

    Tim,

    After this thread runs its course, you should compile the most insane comments into a new post.

    “The Global Warming Debate.”
    http://cce.890m.com

  41. #42 Eric
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  42. #43 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    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?

  43. #44 ed357
    November 26, 2009

    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….

  44. #45 Brian Paul Jaus
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  45. #46 DrZin
    November 26, 2009

    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!

  46. #47 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    George Bedway,

    How did you do that? That sideways thing?

  47. #48 George Bedway
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  48. #49 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    ed357,

    [Shows](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2105094) the sort of think that had me switch side to join him. That and the size of what he is packing.

  49. #50 ALWHORE
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  50. #51 KiwiInOz
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  51. #52 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    George, try posting it bit by bit?

  52. #53 Terry
    November 26, 2009

    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.”

  53. #54 Brian Paul Jaus
    November 26, 2009

    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 !

  54. #55 Tom
    November 26, 2009

    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?

  55. #56 Joseph
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  56. #57 The_Capitalist
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  57. #58 James Haughton
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  58. #59 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

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

  59. #60 doug
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  60. #61 el gordo
    November 26, 2009

    This is what they meant by ‘hide the decline’.

    http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/new-the-deleted-data/

  61. #62 Brian Paul Jaus
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  62. #63 Fran Barlow
    November 26, 2009

    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

  63. #64 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    Janet @240,

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

  64. #65 ALWHORE
    November 26, 2009

    “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.

  65. #66 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

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

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

  66. #67 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

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

  67. #68 Tim Lambert
    November 26, 2009

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

  68. #69 Jim
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  69. #70 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

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

  70. #71 Donald Oats
    November 26, 2009

    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.)

  71. #72 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  72. #73 el gordo
    November 26, 2009

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

  73. #74 James Haughton
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  74. #75 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    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?

  75. #76 Terry
    November 26, 2009

    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?

  76. #77 Jim
    November 26, 2009

    IPCC reviewer requested that the Briffa decline not be truncated. His request was rejected. This is why we need to see the raw data AND the adjustments that were made. We don’t trust you guys anymore!!!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/ipcc-reviewer-dont-cover-up-the-divergence/

  77. #78 Brian Paul Jaus
    November 26, 2009

    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 ?

  78. #79 wrong at large
    November 26, 2009

    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,,,

  79. #80 William in Arizona
    November 26, 2009

    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 didn’t 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?

  80. #81 Marcusa
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  81. #82 Brian Paul Jaus
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  82. #83 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

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

  83. #84 wrong at large
    November 26, 2009

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

    hahaha,, good one,,,

  84. #85 JennieL
    November 26, 2009

    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. ;-)

  85. #86 Ezzthetic
    November 26, 2009

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

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

  86. #87 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  87. #88 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    Will all the Janet Akermans wannabes please shut up!

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

  88. #89 Calixto
    November 26, 2009

    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”

  89. #90 Tom
    November 26, 2009

    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!

  90. #91 Ezzthetic
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  91. #92 Tom
    November 26, 2009

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

  92. #93 The Dread Pirate Neck Beard
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  93. #94 James Haughton
    November 26, 2009

    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-emissions.htm

    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.

  94. #95 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    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!

  95. #96 ali baba
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  96. #97 Mutantone
    November 26, 2009

    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-graphic.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mopitt_first_year_carbon_monoxide.jpg

  97. #98 The Dread Pirate Neck Beard
    November 26, 2009

    @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.

  98. #99 JennieL
    November 26, 2009

    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.

  99. #100 Dan in MI
    November 26, 2009

    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.