Deltoid

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 NIWA’s 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. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s 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.

Posted by: P. Lewis | November 26, 2009 9:30 AM

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.

Posted by: Jeremy C | November 26, 2009 9:45 AM

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.

Posted by: MapleLeaf | November 26, 2009 11:33 AM

"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.

Posted by: Robert McClelland | November 26, 2009 12:30 PM

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

Posted by: Marco | November 26, 2009 1:21 PM

Thank you very much for this Tim. Very useful.

Posted by: Paul UK | November 26, 2009 2:01 PM

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?

Posted by: MapleLeaf | November 26, 2009 3:22 PM

"And the guy is not behind bars yet?"

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

Posted by: pointer | November 26, 2009 4:03 PM

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.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 26, 2009 4:28 PM

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.

Posted by: MapleLeaf | November 26, 2009 4:46 PM

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.

Posted by: MapleLeaf | November 26, 2009 4:59 PM

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.

Posted by: Happy Daze | November 26, 2009 5:19 PM

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.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 26, 2009 5:23 PM

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.

Posted by: CKA in USA | November 26, 2009 5:32 PM

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.

Posted by: john smith | November 26, 2009 5:43 PM

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!

Posted by: Melissa | November 26, 2009 5:44 PM

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

Posted by: Douglas Patrick | November 26, 2009 5:45 PM

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.

Posted by: Richard | November 26, 2009 5:49 PM

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.

Posted by: Paul UK | November 26, 2009 5:52 PM

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.

You’re 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 “el gordo” 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 , ”sceptics”.

There is a difference, keep your self at least in the later group and I won’t 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 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 Gavin’s response to this questions

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’ll find this in multiple websites

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 5:53 PM

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.

Posted by: Dunston Scoggins | November 26, 2009 5:55 PM

Happy Daze, re my reply above, now you needn't bother searching for "el gordo", as "Charles" above is an adequate example. In particular, notice the reckoning of freezing.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 5:58 PM

There is something very cute about Global Warming: you have to believe in it! You aren’t 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 Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. As soon as one experiment will fail Einstein’s 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!

Posted by: Greg | November 26, 2009 5:59 PM

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.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 6:01 PM

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

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.

Posted by: Mark | November 26, 2009 6:16 PM

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

Posted by: Neil | November 26, 2009 6:18 PM

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.

Posted by: MarkG | November 26, 2009 6:25 PM

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.

Posted by: ed357 | November 26, 2009 6:30 PM

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.

Posted by: Melissa | November 26, 2009 6:31 PM

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!

Posted by: LeninUSA | November 26, 2009 6:32 PM

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?

Posted by: MapleLeaf | November 26, 2009 6:33 PM

Melissa, are you GLHockey7 in drag?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 6:34 PM

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!

Posted by: LeninUSA | November 26, 2009 6:36 PM

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.

Posted by: Faxx | November 26, 2009 6:39 PM

Greg,

On what do you base this assertion:

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

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 6:40 PM

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.

Posted by: Dutra | November 26, 2009 6:42 PM

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

Posted by: Paul UK | November 26, 2009 6:49 PM

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 ‘short version’ 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 ‘überprinciple’ emerged: “Changing attitudes towards climate change is not like selling a particular brand of soap – it’s like convincing someone to use soap in the first place.” 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 ‘business as usual’. 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 ‘clean sweep’ of what doesn’t: 1. Challenging habits of climate change communication Don’t rely on concern about children’s future or human survival instincts Recent surveys show that people without children may care more about climate change than those with children. “Fight or flight” human survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes – they are of little use for a change in climate measured in years. Don’t create fear without agency Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon the threat. Use fear with great caution. Don’t 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 ‘rational man’ The evidence discredits the ‘rational man’ theory – we rarely weigh objectively the value of different decisions and then take the clear self-interested choice. 4. Information can’t 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 we’ve 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 ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t 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 – sometimes aggressively so – that ‘communications in the absence of policy’ 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 Don’t ‘build in’ 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 ‘agency’ 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 ‘home’ not ‘away’ issue Climate change is a global issue, but we will feel its impact at home – 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 doesn’t 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.

“First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win.” Mahatma Gandhi

Tha Thats ALL Folks!

Another FOIA file: Rules Of The Game Happy Thanksgiving All

Posted by: Tom | November 26, 2009 6:50 PM

@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.

Posted by: Dave | November 26, 2009 6:52 PM

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.

Posted by: Kenny181 | November 26, 2009 6:57 PM

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.

Posted by: Joseph | November 26, 2009 6:58 PM

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. ;)

Posted by: Randal | November 26, 2009 7:00 PM

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.

Posted by: Tim Osburn | November 26, 2009 7:00 PM

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

Posted by: Torontojim | November 26, 2009 7:02 PM

Happy Daze,

Thanks for your comments,

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

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 7:07 PM

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.

Posted by: Testy, testy | November 26, 2009 7:13 PM

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.

Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | November 26, 2009 7:15 PM

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.

Posted by: Chris Richardson | November 26, 2009 7:16 PM

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

Posted by: MapleLeaf | November 26, 2009 7:17 PM

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

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

Posted by: Paul UK | November 26, 2009 7:19 PM

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

Posted by: Tom | November 26, 2009 7:22 PM

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.

Posted by: Eric | November 26, 2009 7:24 PM

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

Posted by: James | November 26, 2009 7:27 PM

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.

Posted by: Ezzthetic | November 26, 2009 7:30 PM

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?

Posted by: Ben Grivno | November 26, 2009 7:31 PM

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.

Posted by: memomachine | November 26, 2009 7:33 PM

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.

Posted by: ALWHORE | November 26, 2009 7:34 PM

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

Posted by: Fran Barlow | November 26, 2009 7:37 PM

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.

Posted by: Mike | November 26, 2009 7:39 PM

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.

Posted by: Tomk | November 26, 2009 7:42 PM

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.

Posted by: Tim Osburn | November 26, 2009 7:44 PM

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.

Posted by: ALWHORE | November 26, 2009 7:45 PM

Faith before understanding.

Posted by: Tom | November 26, 2009 7:47 PM

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.

Posted by: OMG | November 26, 2009 7:48 PM

Everyman and Tomk,

On the off chance that your different to rest of the swarm, you might start reading here.

The topics you raise kick in about a third the way down.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 7:48 PM

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 wouldn’t 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?

Posted by: Allen Kelly | November 26, 2009 7:50 PM

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

Posted by: Laughing at the libs | November 26, 2009 7:51 PM

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.

Posted by: Rick | November 26, 2009 7:51 PM

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

Posted by: Tim Osburn | November 26, 2009 7:54 PM

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...

Posted by: Melissa | November 26, 2009 7:55 PM

Rick,

Sure thing, here is your answer.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 7:57 PM

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

Posted by: Dano | November 26, 2009 7:59 PM

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.

Posted by: Did he just say that? OMG | November 26, 2009 8:00 PM

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.

Posted by: Mike | November 26, 2009 8:00 PM

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?

Posted by: London2244 | November 26, 2009 8:00 PM

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 ;)

Posted by: MapleLeaf | November 26, 2009 8:02 PM

AGW THEORY IS PROPOGANDA FOR THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY!

Posted by: Neil | November 26, 2009 8:03 PM

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.

Posted by: The left shows its face | November 26, 2009 8:07 PM

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,

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...

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 8:07 PM

"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

Posted by: ALWHORE | November 26, 2009 8:08 PM

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!

Posted by: Melissa | November 26, 2009 8:10 PM

64 MapleLeaf,

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

Posted by: TrueSceptic | November 26, 2009 8:11 PM

More highlights 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

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!

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 8:14 PM

83 Janet,

FreeDumb

Genius.

(I'm so jealous of that.)

Posted by: TrueSceptic | November 26, 2009 8:18 PM

Seems like the temperatures in Greenland were higher in 1920-1930 then they are now.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html

Posted by: Terry | November 26, 2009 8:20 PM

84 Tim,

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

Posted by: TrueSceptic | November 26, 2009 8:21 PM

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.

Posted by: EconRob | November 26, 2009 8:23 PM

Guys, this is all really simple. THEY LIED!

Posted by: teebodo | November 26, 2009 8:24 PM

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

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.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 8:28 PM

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.

Posted by: KiwiInOz | November 26, 2009 8:30 PM

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.

Posted by: irlandes | November 26, 2009 8:33 PM

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

(Apart from ShelleyTheRepublican? )

Posted by: TrueSceptic | November 26, 2009 8:33 PM

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.

Posted by: Steven Miller | November 26, 2009 8:34 PM

More insults, Janet. It's over.

Posted by: irlandes | November 26, 2009 8:38 PM

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.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 8:39 PM

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.

Posted by: M. York | November 26, 2009 8:40 PM

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

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 8:41 PM

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.

Posted by: Doug Mackie | November 26, 2009 8:42 PM

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.

Posted by: William in Arizona | November 26, 2009 8:45 PM

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.

Posted by: Eric | November 26, 2009 8:46 PM

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.

Posted by: Edo Van Ede | November 26, 2009 8:48 PM

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.

Posted by: Eric | November 26, 2009 8:49 PM

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

Posted by: KiwiInOz | November 26, 2009 8:51 PM

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?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 8:51 PM

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

Posted by: KiwiInOz | November 26, 2009 8:53 PM

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.

Posted by: Joseph | November 26, 2009 8:54 PM

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.

Posted by: Eric | November 26, 2009 8:54 PM

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....

Posted by: ed357 | November 26, 2009 8:55 PM

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!

Posted by: DrZin | November 26, 2009 8:56 PM

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.

Posted by: George Bedway | November 26, 2009 8:57 PM

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.

Posted by: ALWHORE | November 26, 2009 9:00 PM

George, try posting it bit by bit?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 9:01 PM

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 !

Posted by: Brian Paul Jaus | November 26, 2009 9:03 PM

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.

Posted by: Joseph | November 26, 2009 9:07 PM

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.

Posted by: James Haughton | November 26, 2009 9:07 PM

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.

Posted by: doug | November 26, 2009 9:11 PM

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.

Posted by: Brian Paul Jaus | November 26, 2009 9:14 PM

Janet @240,

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

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 9:16 PM

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

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

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 9:20 PM

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

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 9:27 PM

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.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 9:30 PM

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 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.

Posted by: James Haughton | November 26, 2009 9:32 PM

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?

Posted by: Terry | November 26, 2009 9:33 PM

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 ?

Posted by: Brian Paul Jaus | November 26, 2009 9:39 PM

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?

Posted by: William in Arizona | November 26, 2009 9:48 PM

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.

Posted by: Brian Paul Jaus | November 26, 2009 9:54 PM

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

hahaha,, good one,,,

Posted by: wrong at large | November 26, 2009 9:57 PM

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

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

Posted by: Ezzthetic | November 26, 2009 10:04 PM

Will all the Janet Akermans wannabes please shut up!

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

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 10:11 PM

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!

Posted by: Tom | November 26, 2009 10:13 PM

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

Posted by: Tom | November 26, 2009 10:20 PM

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.

Posted by: James Haughton | November 26, 2009 10:36 PM

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.

Posted by: ali baba | November 26, 2009 10:42 PM

@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.

Posted by: The Dread Pirate Neck Beard | November 26, 2009 10:49 PM

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/globalwarmingnz_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.

Posted by: Dan in MI | November 26, 2009 11:13 PM

"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.

Posted by: George Darroch | November 26, 2009 11:17 PM

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

Begone foul Trolls, begone!

Posted by: Donald Oats | November 26, 2009 11:20 PM

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!

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 11:26 PM

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?)

Posted by: dhogaza | November 26, 2009 11:35 PM

@281 "Data", a Poe-m by Hans

Data I demand some data, no, not that data, that other data, oh, you’ve already given me that Data… well now I want this other data, OK, smartypants? oh, I can get that too huh? Dammit. How about… 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 can’t have it. It is unethical of you to deny me this data about the data I haven’t got, because if I don’t have the data on the data I don’t have, I don’t know what data I want, that I can’t 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.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 11:40 PM

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... ;-) )

Posted by: Gareth | November 26, 2009 11:43 PM

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.

Posted by: JohnU | November 26, 2009 11:49 PM

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.

Posted by: George Bedway's formatter | November 26, 2009 11:53 PM

Steve Forbes also played both sides on oil prices when he came to Australia.

Get a credible source Lyle.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 11:57 PM

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.

Posted by: JohnU | November 27, 2009 12:02 AM

Just love parody.

http://reallysillystupidclimate.blogspot.com/

Posted by: el gordo | November 27, 2009 12:03 AM

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.

Posted by: ChrisK | November 27, 2009 12:05 AM

Brian @ 286, Did you read the Ghosh 2003 paper? 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.

Posted by: James Haughton | November 27, 2009 12:10 AM

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.

Posted by: George Bedway's formatter | November 27, 2009 12:15 AM

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)

Posted by: Lyle | November 27, 2009 12:27 AM

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".

Posted by: James Haughton | November 27, 2009 12:31 AM

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.

Posted by: JohnU | November 27, 2009 12:32 AM

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.

Posted by: JohnU | November 27, 2009 12:49 AM

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/2007/2007Rahmstorfetal.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.

Posted by: James Haughton | November 27, 2009 12:57 AM

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?

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...

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 27, 2009 1:02 AM

Model runs showing the Medeival Warm Period, Little Ice Age and modern warming (w/ and w/o anthropogenic forcing). Grey shading shows range of temperature reconstructions.

http://cce.890m.com/models/images/anthro-vs-natural-long.jpg

AR4 WGI Chapter 6, figure 6.14. See also figure 6.13

Posted by: cce | November 27, 2009 1:07 AM

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 RICH–RAOBCORE 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/i1520-0442-21-18-4587.pdf

"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.pdf

Posted by: cce | November 27, 2009 1:17 AM

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.

Posted by: Ezzthetic | November 27, 2009 1:19 AM

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.

Posted by: JohnU | November 27, 2009 1:25 AM

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 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 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?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 27, 2009 1:53 AM

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.

Posted by: Robert | November 27, 2009 1:53 AM

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!

Posted by: Tom | November 27, 2009 2:20 AM

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.

Posted by: George D | November 27, 2009 2:28 AM

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.

Posted by: MarkG | November 27, 2009 2:30 AM

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 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 — 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 I’m 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.

Posted by: Robert | November 27, 2009 2:53 AM

Uh, whoops. Seems I screwed up and cut & paste the wrong URL for my realclimate link. It should be http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/comment-page-14/#comment-144845.

Posted by: Robert | November 27, 2009 3:05 AM

Here's an interesting podcast interview from New Zealand this week, Jim Salinger who has spent 30 years as a climate change scientist and was one of the NIWA scientists whose emails were stolen;

http://www.greenplanetfm.com/members/greenradio/blog/VIEW/00000001/00000036/Jim-Salinger-on-Climate-Change-Global-Warming-Denialism--email-hacking.html

Posted by: Stephen | November 27, 2009 3:43 AM

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.

Posted by: Tom | November 27, 2009 4:16 AM

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.

Posted by: Dave | November 27, 2009 4:36 AM

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.

Posted by: Arie Brand | November 27, 2009 4:51 AM

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.

Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 27, 2009 4:59 AM

Acadder writes

"Here’s the problem – CRU wouldn’t have gotten the large grants if their results pointed to ho-hum temp variations. To get the money, they had to have AGW ‘proof’. 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:

Here’s the problem – CRU wouldn’t have gotten the large grants if their results pointed to ho-hum temp variations. To get the money, they had to have AGW ‘proof’. 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.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 27, 2009 5:04 AM

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

Posted by: wrong at large | November 27, 2009 5:11 AM

355 Posted by: Dave | November 27, 2009 5:07 AM

ummmm,,, a theory is merely a theory and proof of nothing,,,

Posted by: wrong at large | November 27, 2009 5:22 AM

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 one’s 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 “tricked”.

From the Beginning, this hoax had deception flashing lights and beeping horning screaming “fraud, fraud, fraud”. Using Radical Rules the Illuminati dupes create and publish insults against people who still believe in common sense and thinking for one’s self. So, if you think for yourself and you come to a different conclusion than Al Gore and his band of “True Deceiver/Believers”, who have gone to great lengths to block, skew, and prevent a true debate and inquiry, then you are a pejorative, you are a “Climate Denier”.

Medieval Kings had their Jokers but “True Deceivers/Believers” don’t even want the Public to have their “Climate Deniers” especially when they are right. They don’t want them to speak out about their positions, they won’t 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 “Who are you going to believe – me or your eyes”? You have to applause at least scale of the Lies. What Al Gore and his band of “True Deceiver/Believers” are actually claiming is a “trace” 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) – Water Vapor, (2) – Argon, (3) Carbon Dioxide, (4) – Methane. Yeah, we got to get rid of all of that Water Vapor.


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.


Posted by: Munson Smithey | November 27, 2009 6:01 AM

@Munson Smithey

Using Radical Rules the Illuminati dupes create and publish insults against people who still believe in common sense and thinking for one’s 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 - absolute mass in the path of the EM radiation matters. Will you please educate yourself on the subject before commenting.

Posted by: Dave | November 27, 2009 6:13 AM

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?

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | November 27, 2009 6:34 AM

Wow, so this is quality of the Drudge readership.

Very enlightening.

Posted by: Michael | November 27, 2009 6:53 AM

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.

Posted by: Harald K | November 27, 2009 7:17 AM

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...

Posted by: sod | November 27, 2009 7:54 AM

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

Posted by: G.W. Denier | November 27, 2009 8:41 AM

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.

Posted by: sod | November 27, 2009 9:07 AM

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'.

Posted by: vagueofgodalming | November 27, 2009 9:17 AM

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.

Posted by: Josh | November 27, 2009 9:56 AM

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.

Posted by: Neil | November 27, 2009 9:59 AM

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 True^TM)*.

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.

Posted by: Josh | November 27, 2009 10:10 AM

Tim, thanks for that trenchant and honest "update."

Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 27, 2009 10:39 AM

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.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 27, 2009 10:41 AM

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.

Posted by: Phoenix | November 27, 2009 10:59 AM

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 | November 27, 2009 11:14 AM

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!!

Posted by: Eamon | November 27, 2009 11:22 AM

@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...

Posted by: Marco | November 27, 2009 11:27 AM

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.

Posted by: Cargocultscience | November 27, 2009 11:39 AM

@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.

Posted by: Marco | November 27, 2009 11:40 AM

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.

Posted by: JohnU | November 27, 2009 11:49 AM

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.

Posted by: Phoenix | November 27, 2009 11:54 AM

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.

Posted by: Majorajam | November 27, 2009 12:10 PM

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.

Posted by: Paul UK | November 27, 2009 12:14 PM

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!

Posted by: Phoenix | November 27, 2009 12:17 PM

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?

Posted by: Majorajam | November 27, 2009 12:20 PM

@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.

Posted by: Chris S. | November 27, 2009 12:23 PM

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 | November 27, 2009 12:24 PM

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.

Posted by: Majorajam | November 27, 2009 12:30 PM

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 | November 27, 2009 12:32 PM

@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?

Posted by: Marco | November 27, 2009 12:34 PM

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.

“Different 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.”

And 12.4.3.2 goes on to say: “In 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.”

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.

Posted by: JohnU | November 27, 2009 12:40 PM

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.

Posted by: MarkB | November 27, 2009 12:46 PM

Paul UK, I think you will soon see that being a priss is no longer in style. See ya...

Posted by: Tom | November 27, 2009 12:54 PM

"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.

Posted by: Phoenix | November 27, 2009 12:56 PM

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?

Posted by: Eamon | November 27, 2009 12:57 PM

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 True^TM.

And this is all OT, of course. It's tangential to the overall discussion.

Posted by: Josh | November 27, 2009 1:00 PM

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.

Posted by: Majorajam | November 27, 2009 1:06 PM

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.

Posted by: Brian Paul Jaus | November 27, 2009 1:08 PM

John U:

This does indeed sound alarming, until you consider that corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era – nearly 500 million years ago – 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??

Posted by: Paul UK | November 27, 2009 1:17 PM

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

Posted by: Hank Roberts | November 27, 2009 1:20 PM

@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.

Posted by: Marco | November 27, 2009 1:24 PM

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."

Posted by: Phoenix | November 27, 2009 1:32 PM

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 and search for 'quenching'.

Posted by: Eamon | November 27, 2009 1:37 PM

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.

Posted by: Majorajam | November 27, 2009 1:38 PM

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.

Posted by: Harald Korneliussen | November 27, 2009 1:46 PM

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.

Posted by: Phoenix | November 27, 2009 1:49 PM

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

Posted by: JohnU | November 27, 2009 1:55 PM

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 !!!

Posted by: Brian Paul Jaus | November 27, 2009 2:14 PM

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.

Posted by: Majorajam | November 27, 2009 2:22 PM

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.

Posted by: JohnU | November 27, 2009 2:39 PM

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?

Posted by: Majorajam | November 27, 2009 2:42 PM

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 ΔT ΔT = 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 ΔT 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.

Posted by: JohnU | November 27, 2009 2:57 PM

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?

Posted by: JohnU | November 27, 2009 3:05 PM

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.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 27, 2009 3:17 PM

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!)

Posted by: Harald Korneliussen | November 27, 2009 3:25 PM

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?

Posted by: dhogaza | November 27, 2009 3:32 PM

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?

Posted by: JohnU | November 27, 2009 3:37 PM

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.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | November 27, 2009 3:41 PM

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 ...

Posted by: dhogaza | November 27, 2009 3:46 PM

Oh, I see, JohnU has declared victory and has therefore said "goodbye".

Figures.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 27, 2009 3:58 PM

The acoustical proximity of Pheoneix to Poe could be a coincidence, but I'm not betting on it.

Posted by: Majorajam | November 27, 2009 4:00 PM

dhogaza,

here is the link http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

you apology is accepted.

Posted by: JohnU | November 27, 2009 4:21 PM

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)

Posted by: Chicken_Little | November 27, 2009 4:36 PM

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

Posted by: Tom | November 27, 2009 4:47 PM

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.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 27, 2009 5:02 PM

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?

Posted by: dhogaza | November 27, 2009 5:20 PM

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.

Posted by: Michael Ralston | November 27, 2009 5:33 PM

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 I’m wrong about you, I apologize up front.

Janet:

“Lets look at that jump again:” Here’s the problem – CRU wouldn’t have gotten the large grants if their results pointed to ho-hum temp variations. To get the money, they had to have AGW ‘proof’. 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.

1. The data CRU and PSU had was garbage. Any analysis of the programmer’s 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 can’t bring yourself to acknowledge them, or wish to obfuscate them. Just let me know and I’ll help you out on it.

2. Both CRU and PSU KNEW the data was garbage. If they didn’t, 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, it’s 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 didn’t chose that route. They (and you) can deny that all you want, but we’ll 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 ‘experts’ 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 ‘fantastic speculation’. If you cannot be specific (with detail), please don’t respond. The snarky remarks on this board are already too plentiful.

Regards

Posted by: acadder | November 27, 2009 5:59 PM

MIT’s 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)

Posted by: Chicken_Little | November 27, 2009 6:12 PM

@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)

Posted by: Chicken_Little | November 27, 2009 6:38 PM

@Michael Ralston:

You said:

"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."

I replied to you with a turn of your own words:

"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."

Perhaps the subtlety of this interchange eluded you?

;o)

Posted by: Chicken_Little | November 27, 2009 6:49 PM

Chicken_Little: No, in fact, I know exactly what you said. You tried to imply that I was criticizing NASA, when in fact I was saying that you do not understand the page you are linking.

NASA is not confusing atmospheric and global warming, in fact they are carefully distinguishing between the two. You, however, are conflating the two and thereby misrepresenting NASA's claims.

Perhaps this is too subtle for you?

Posted by: Michael Ralston | November 27, 2009 6:58 PM

498 Chicken,

"MIT’s journal Energy & Environment "

Care to tell us where you got that idea? It's hard to express just how bizarre it is.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | November 27, 2009 7:02 PM

@Michael Ralston:

Apparently MIT’s journal Energy & Environment (October 2009) seems to be confused as well:

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.

INTRODUCTION
Temperature trends provide critical evidence for evaluating claims regarding anthropogenic climate change. On the one hand, models project continued warming (e.g., Hansen et al., 2006). On the other, it has been argued that Earth’s weather should be expected to exhibit long-term persistence (LTP) at some scale (Cohn and Lins, 2005; Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Wood, 2008). LTP could at any given time give a false impression of the strength of anthropogenic effects by adding a warming trend to an existing anthropogenic signal, or it could act to counter such signal for some period of years or decades. Thus it is critical to examine climate history data at multiple scales to evaluate these effects.

Read it all here:

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230

(click the download link icon to view the document)

;o)

Posted by: Chicken_Little | November 27, 2009 7:09 PM

For Dave (re #355):

Greetings Dave.

Acadder: Every single person, be they politician or poster at a board such as this who doesn’t agree that this is mandatory is not scientific minded, but rather in advocacy. Dave: 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. .

So far, AGW advocates have called my comments “fantastic speculation” and “an absurd position”. I hope this is not what passes for substantive debate for AGWrs, or there can be no progress here. If I say that 2+2=4, then yes I’m saying that if you don’t agree with me you are de facto wrong. So, you see I have made a comment which can be demonstrated to be true here. If it hurts your feelings that you can’t be allowed to have your own opinion concerning what must be considered reasonable to any logical person, nothing more can be said to you on this. You are free to ‘strongly disagree’, but that lends not one shred of legitimacy to your disagreement. Why not say “I strongly, EMPHATICALLY disagree”? Wouldn’t that bolster your position even more? You should have thought of it first – too late.  Clearly if bogus data has found its way into a wide variety of calculations in the field, that bogus data must be removed. Once it is removed, the papers that used that data must be re-done – i.e. “thrown out”. This is too easy.

Acadder: If AGW is correct, I want to know it and I want us as a species to fix it as best we can. Dave: 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.

After reading this comment, I immediately began looking for hidden cameras in my room and office. Surely, someone with such a level of knowledge concerning what I have or have not read must be spying on me day and night. Unfortunately for me, I haven’t read them ALL, so you could have saved a lot of money and time by not spying on me. I have read (at Real Climate and other places) a vast amount of the arguments pro and con. In order to get the cons, I have to find an opposition website because the AGWrs just won’t accurately present the cons. At any rate, I acquainted myself with both sides on most arguments. Also, I have read that many of the scientists who disagreed with the IPCC report had to fight like mad to get their names OFF of the list of those who supposedly endorsed it. Many more evidently could not get theirs off. So, even though they disagreed with the report’s findings, their name appears as an endorsement. This is the type of thing that happens with heavy-handed politicians who are corrupt as the day is long. And this is the SAME type of thing CRU and PSU were doing that is obviously not above board. Now, I don’t expect you to immediately say to yourself “darn, if that’s true I better go back and find out what the real truth is”. Instead, I expect you to be conjuring up some response to obfuscate that fact or to just ignore it. If you do that, then you can be excused from those are want the truth, and introduce yourself to all of the advocates I see here – as one of them. These comments are meant to be more gentle than they appear – debate is debate, so please don’t take them to heart.

Acadder: But, I HATE being lied to and manipulated as appears to have happened. Dave: 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.

Let me be clear on this one. ANYONE who makes up data, hides data, attempts to besmirch other ideas and skepticism is to be shunned. I am not advocating for the ‘deniers’ here. If you think I am, I’m afraid I’ve not made myself clear. I don’t care about those who deny AGW so much. They can jump off a cliff for all I care. But, they are not the ones causing governments to tax me to death, or to take political power from my country and give it to a global body. That is being pushed by the AGWrs. Therefore, I want them to be above board and proven correct BEFORE such draconian actions are foisted upon me. I am just looking on at all of the arguments pro and con. If I see ad hominum or straw man or appeals to authority or any other logical fallacies, I make note of it and dismiss said arguments. It is striking to me that 99% of the AGWrs posts here fall into some logical fallacy (mostly ad hominum) or another.

Look, this is what I see. Let’s say someone comes back and says there is a huge hole growing to gigantic proportions on the edge of town, and it is going to grow to a size large enough to swallow the town. So, they start using data to show “why” this is happening. They also start purchasing all of the items in town that would increase in value under such a threat. They start making the town government take out insurance with THEIR company against the hole damage. They have the whole town up on arms. And, they are the town rangers, so they have more legitimacy in that area than others would. But, one or two of the townsfolk ask to be taken to see this hole. The hole advocates immediately obfuscate such a move. They use every tactic they can think of to stop anyone from seeing the hole. Besides, they have all of the data to prove the hole is growing. Finally, some townsfolk force their way to the hole and find that it is not growing. Same hole they always knew was there. At this point, the advocates say “the hole is growing UNDER the ground where our calculations show it to be advancing quickly.” The “deniers” look and see no sloping underground. So, the advocates say “its so far down you can’t see it – just trust us”. Etc. etc.

This is precisely where things stand right now with AGW. Most people who live in the real world day by day are not fooled by this any longer. They live in a jungle of hucksters every day, and they know what it looks like when they see it. When someone tells you something is true but then denies you access to the data and calls you names if you don’t agree, they are selling a pig in a poke. Plain and simple. That is why the general populace doesn’t buy this any more.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;)

Beautiful! Best chuckle today. Hehehe..

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?

You see, this is where you really lose out. There were RECORD cold temps this year all over the world. The summer was VERY mild. Now the CRU data might say it was a real boiler this year, but I watched the weatherman tell me a potload of times that record temps and snows and earliest winter, etc. happened. I also experienced it first hand – with my own skin. Absent all of the so-called data, there is no warming. Clearly there is COOLING. The reason I can’t be moved from my position that I don’t trust the data from CRU is because it has been shown to be garbage, and that those who promulgated it are obfuscators. In the real world, that is very damning. Up till this point in the debate, I hadn’t made up my mind who was right. The data are too complex and require too many ‘corrections’ and algorithmic methods to ‘normalize’ them. So, I was on the fence. When this scandal appeared, I moved off the fence and now I expect the AGW’rs to show where they used the bad data and to show that it was removed from all of their calculations and to show how their calculations now look with said bad data. Until they do that, they are PRESUMED to be wrong – period. Especially since it is THEY who are trying to alter the world’s economics. Such a large step should require proof beyond doubt before proceeding. But, they are saying “its just too important. We can’t wait to see if we’re right. We have to do this now!” Pig in a poke language.

I do not trust the GISS data until I look a little further into how it was obtained, and what algorithmic manipulations went into producing their numbers. They show a tidy little number for each month. Where did it come from? What normalizing did they do? I don’t know, so I will call it a draw until I can find out (which I will do, and soon).

Regards

Posted by: acadder | November 27, 2009 7:15 PM

So far, AGW advocates have called my comments “fantastic speculation” and “an absurd position”. I hope this is not what passes for substantive debate for AGWrs, or there can be no progress here.

No, the substantive debate in science takes place in the peer-reviewed literature, at conferences, between scientists in personal communications, between grad student and advisor, etc.

Of all that, the only substantive debate that matters is that which makes it to the literature.

Let me be clear on this one. ANYONE who makes up data

CRU does not make up data.

, hides data

CRU does not hide data. CRU says "we can't give you data we have no right to distribute (roughly 2% of the raw data, the other 98% being online for years) - if you want it, you'll have to go ask those who own that 2%".

, attempts to besmirch other ideas and skepticism is to be shunned.

Good bye science. Physicists besmirch perpetual motion cranks every time they're confronted with one. Biologists besmirch creationist cranks every time they're confronted with one. Geologists outright laugh at those who claim the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 27, 2009 7:28 PM

@Arie Brand:

Thanks for the input.

Perhaps you'd like to chew on this from another ill-informed crowd (NASA):

"The atmosphere is extremely complex in its behavior. Because of this, finding the correct explanation for the behavior we observe is complex as well. Virtually all scientists will agree that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should have some effect on the temperature of the Earth. But it is much less certain how or if we will recognize the effects of this increase. There are several reasons:

* 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."

http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

Interestingly, this material seems to buttress the aforementioned published findings which you and others blanketly assail; despite its age.

:o)

Posted by: Chicken_Little | November 27, 2009 7:40 PM

For Guthrie (re #497):

Greetings Guthrie.

acadder, you clearly havn't a clue.

No need to be rude/abrasive.

Firstly, do you have any evidence that wrong code affected any of the results?

Er… Yes I do. The code cannot be called “right” because it was created and manipulated to produce ‘normal’ values. When the output wasn’t right, fudge factors were introduced to bump everything to where it ‘looked right’. If you have ever written programs or handled data much, you know exactly how this works. Usually, you have to reason your way through and for your programming to produce the right answers WITHOUT cheating. Then, you have to be sure you didn’t just create a special case to match the specific data you are looking at. The process used by this programmer was to ACCEPT that the program was producing wrong answers and just use what he called “multipliers” sometimes and “factors” at other times. Some of the factor corrections he performed were not untoward in any way. That’s how you have to deal with real data sometimes. But, you don’t BLANKET correct data unless you are simply doing a conversion.

Secondly, how do you know that the data was garbage? Did a little bird tell you?

No, the programmer did – several times. Read the file. If you don’t have access to it, email me and I’ll send it over to you – or you can find it elsewhere if you look.

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.

This is not “usual”. The files he was given were not documented for the most part. He opened files and just saw a lot of numbers – nothing to tell him what they meant. I don’t blame the programmer. Seems to be level-headed enough. He just didn’t want to quit and lose his job, which is what he should have done when he discovered the data set he was to work with. And, you’re right – the billions of dollars we’ve given to the global warming conceptual study is just not enough – maybe they need trillions, no?

Fourthly, the earth is still warming...

Yes, and the earth is flat…. Regards…

Posted by: acadder | November 27, 2009 7:56 PM

acadder,

I searched and searched through your two posts (since my last), for an answer to my straight forward request, I could not find where you address basic request for evidence.

I repost my request in case you overlooked it.

It won't surprise you that I'm not impressed by mere assertions. Please do provide the evidence you rely on for your claim of fudged data.

This is what I originally asked for and your list of assertions does nothing by delay a proper response to my simple request.

A secondary request may help avoid further diversions. I request where the "fudged data" has been used. This will avert the smear problem of claiming that normal practice of creating dummy data, mean that fudged data was used in CRU published data.

Thank you in advance.

You've got the emails, so that surely should help you find the data that you allege to be fraud.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 27, 2009 7:58 PM

"The atmosphere is extremely complex in its behavior. Because of this, finding the correct explanation for the behavior we observe is complex as well. Virtually all scientists will agree that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should have some effect on the temperature of the Earth. But it is much less certain how or if we will recognize the effects of this increase.

I don't need to be able to predict the behaviour of every single wave to be able to accurately estimate the change in the tide. The atmosphere is complex but it still obeys basic physical principles, specially in this case the change in various properties as a response to bulk changes in the important radiative gases. Whether Nancy's backyard is warm or cold is basically irrelevant.

Chicken_LIttle, you refer, perhaps without knowing to Roy Spencer's satellite temperature retrievals. It may bother you to learn that these satellite derived temperatures are derived from complex mathematical models and can in no sense be considered a direct measurement. In addition satellite sensitivity to temperature change is weakest for the the lower troposphere (because it is furthest from the satellite basically).

Having said all that, your link is old and wrong. Because we now know that the satellite observations agree with the temperature record within measurement and computational uncertainty. Of course computing the lower tropospheric temperature from satellite and measuring the temperature at the surface with a thermometer are different things, you should expect some small differences. To summarize: Spencer likes to write articles casting doubt on global warming, but his own work backs it up.

[Wiki link on satellite temperature]

Posted by: MarkG | November 27, 2009 8:28 PM

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, as I already pointed out, we know that if the sun were to go out, the earth would cool, regardless of GHG content. Happens every night when the air is still and clear.

This doesn't mean that adding CO2 while the sun is still shining won't cause warming. In fact, your quote mine says nothing about GHGs + sun.

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.

Yes. So? Climate science understands that water vapor feedback is a large component of CO2-forced warming. Gosh. Tell us something climate science hasn't known for a couple of decades.

Essentially what you're proving here is that you're extraordinarily ignorant.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 27, 2009 8:33 PM

Acadder writes:

But when a persuasive article tells me it must be very hot, and I walk outside into the bitter cold, the persuasiveness is destroyed.

Will you cite the article that tells you when you walk outside (on whatever day to refer to) that it is supposed to be very hot? The science I read make different sorts of projections to the ones you set up as strawman. I.e. projections over long times, and in the order of 3-5 degrees globallly (meaning that -20 might become -10 in cold regions over a long time, or 5 degress might become 10 degress, which means that some regions will still experience cold.

Posted by: Kessler | November 27, 2009 8:40 PM

Greetings Janet. I have the programmer's history file, and I'll go through that and post some tidbits that show he had to cook the data. That will take me some time since I can't come back to it for a couple of days. Not to worry.

If you want some examples, try this (just found it, will look for more when I return):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFt07eAAQ94&feature=video_response

Just saw this too, quoting Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

"They've been doing this for years and it's clear by looking at the data files that they have been doing that," he told Fox News. "I'm sorry but these people have already been revealed as not having any honor. Now they're being revealed as not having any sense of shame. They're just trying to brazen it out."

Very descriptive of what I've seen on this board. The AGWrs are a snarky, rude and arrogant lot. That alone moves me further from AGW. Clearly when you've lost intellectually, the only thing remaining is to use invective.

At any rate, I'll get you what you've requested shortly.

Regards

Posted by: acadder | November 27, 2009 9:28 PM

Very descriptive of what I've seen on this board. The AGWrs are a snarky, rude and arrogant lot.

Your reading of this thread tells you that "AGWrs" (aka: scientists) are snarky and rude? Your selective observational powers are indeed strong. In general I guess I would prefer snark to the incoherent spittle flying rage displayed by the "anti-AGWrs" (aka: anti-scientists).

Posted by: MarkG | November 27, 2009 9:58 PM

JohnU.

In your attempt to calculate the temperature increase in response to CO₂ doubling, where is your taking into account of the masking of warming by particulates, and where is your taking into account of the thermal inertia of the atmosphere/hydrosphere?

Oops, you didn't take them into account?

Hmmm... how do you think that these alone might alter your finger counting?

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 27, 2009 10:01 PM

Bah! I see that others subsequent to JohnU's posting pointed the inertia issue out to him, although I note that his response was rather less than mathematical.

More generally, it's interesting to note that since Drudge removed the link to this thread, the sheer number of different drive-by trolls has decreased substantially. The remainder have somewhat more to say than "it's all a conspeeraysee!!1!", although Tom's confabulation of science and Christian Fundamentalist mythology shows that you can lead a Denialist to the water of rationality, but you can make him drink of it.

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 27, 2009 10:38 PM

Acadder,

That would be Myron Ebell who's taken over $2 million from Exxon ad more a quarter million from Big tobacco to run favourable propaganda campaigns for polices aligned with Exxon interest.

You have selectd an odd primary source there acadder.

And Kessler, still waiting for that citation, or alternatively perhaps a retraction and apology for a blatant straw man beatup?

Posted by: Kessler | November 27, 2009 11:13 PM

Majorajam,

I especially like acadder's tacit admission that he has no evidence as of now, but is in the process of acquiring it. That's good denialist protocol. Smear and slander, than google "climate science is a fraud" and see what 'evidence' you can turn up.

Yes, I noticed that point. It's been quite consistently the a case on this issue. Its been repeated every time I've asked people for the evidence on which they have found people guilt, they either disappear or try divergence tactics, or both.

Amazing how premature finding of guilt are brought down with such heat and passion, based on the flimsiness of cherry picked out of context emails. Emails for which everyone can project their own bias, beliefs, ideology and fantasy, and care not for the basic (and fair) evidence gathering to make sense of what the emails mean.

What does it say out all those claims of bad data, if given all the possible clues in the emails, that they still can't produce solid evidence of the fraud that they so readily charge?

Jones might resign for his brain fade (please "delete" emails), but even that has extenuating circumstances, (ie. the extreme harassment and the apparent detail that they didn't follow through on the deletions)- (did he retract the request?), who knows, lets get the evidence before we convict.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 27, 2009 11:35 PM

Chicken Little, The NASA article you link to, from 12 years ago, is wrong. Spencer and Christy f**ked up their satellite temperature measurement adjustments for the rotational drift of the satellites. In 2005, other scientists realised their mistake and published it. Spencer and Christy agreed they had made a mistake and updated their methods in May 2005 - that's 8 years after the article you link to. Since then, UAH's temperature measurements have shown a steady rise in global temperature, same as every other temperature measuring method and group on the planet. When it comes to water vapour, etc, Roy Spencer is, not to put too fine a point on it, blowing smoke. He has made so many errors on the public record in the past that he has his own special category on Deltoid (you can find the link on the upper left of the page).

Posted by: James Haughton | November 28, 2009 12:09 AM

please inform us,,, at what global population level do you feel that AGW will cease and possibly reverse??? 3 billion? 1 billion? 500 million?

Posted by: wrong at large | November 28, 2009 12:33 AM

Even in this early PR brochure you knew it was a "game". I know I am irritating but unimportant. It is just that saving the people of the world a $1,000,000,000,000 or one million millions, is important. I get it...

To: Gen. Jack Ripper Burbbullson AFB U and Your Strange-love, P O E = purity of essence

You guys just don't quit... What's the secret hand shake? Put a franklin in my fist? Keep the Faith, baby

Posted by: Tom | November 28, 2009 1:16 AM

"Global Warming Skeptics"? Oh, please, next we'll hear about the "Holocaust Skeptics". They are not skeptics, they are denialists; they only wish people would believe they are skeptics because it would give them some semblance of legitimacy.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 28, 2009 1:56 AM

please inform us,,, at what global population level do you feel that AGW will cease and possibly reverse??? 3 billion? 1 billion? 500 million?

Answer depends on how we behave, if we internalise a lot of our currently externalised costs we may be able to better self organise and become more sensitive to the feedbacks of our actions. Currently we are behaving like an organism with leprosy, our signals of harm are not making it back to the decision making neurons.

Timing also has a lot to do with it, so it becomes a many dimensioned answer.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 2:47 AM

Tom:

You guys just don't quit...

Ever looked in a mirror?

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | November 28, 2009 3:06 AM

546 please inform us,,, at what global population level do you feel that AGW will cease and possibly reverse??? 3 billion? 1 billion? 500 million?

Answer depends on how we behave, if we internalise a lot of our currently externalised costs we may be able to better self organise and become more sensitive to the feedbacks of our actions. Currently we are behaving like an organism with leprosy, our signals of harm are not making it back to the decision making neurons.

Timing also has a lot to do with it, so it becomes a many dimensioned answer. Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 2:47 AM

ummmm so you are saying that reducing humans will not slow or stop or reverse human caused global warming??? interesting,,, if 6 billion plus people are causing AGW then 3 billion should reduce it by 50%,,, all things being equal,,, 3 billion fewer needing manufactured goods, agricultural products, transportation and energy,,, the U.N. Population Fund said recently that population control wass needed to slow global warming,,, "As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth's capacity to adjust, climate change could become much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic," the report said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/aponsc/climatepopulationgrowth

Posted by: wrong at large | November 28, 2009 3:54 AM

ummmm so you are saying that reducing humans will not slow or stop or reverse human caused global warming???

Huuh?

Are You sure you really want to ignore my response and answer a strawman response that you had in your mind already?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 4:03 AM

Janet Ackerman, Please, do as I asked and review your document and answer my questions it won't take you a minute. As to never give up Chris, you are right. I have not been properly relieved, our A/O is still not secure. Until then I am going to continue to roll over your position using your own words. I don't like the communist way, I don't like the facist way, I don't like zionist way. Not a dimes worth of differance between them, for me and many more in our world. We have had first hand experiance with their utopia. Your lie. I hope you are not a vpr. Please tell me you are not a VPR

Posted by: Tom | November 28, 2009 4:21 AM

Hi Dave, Yes I think that may be it. If you go to posting #271, you will see the tongue in cheek answer. Lots of folks had asked the regulars what they were meaning when calling others POE's. This evening after reviewing when POE had been used I saw the guns, drinking, fool, military, smoking, swearing, hard ass, nut, Christian... POE the code for the strike call-back. It is pretty obvious. They are sure smart high-brow long ears(Ref. Easter Island) They are too cute by half. If I am wrong I apologize.

Posted by: Tom | November 28, 2009 4:56 AM

POE the code for the strike call-back.

I don't know what this means, but it sounds good. I'd read your novel if you write one Tom.

Can you detail it a bit more, I'm getting excited by the of military thriller suspense sort of tone.

How does the POE code work in your reckoning? I promise I'll come clean if you call it right!

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 5:01 AM

Wrong at large,

If you want to debate the voices in your mind, then carry on.

We'll still be here when you land.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 5:14 AM

560 Wrong at large,

If you want to debate the voices in your mind, then carry on.

We'll still be here when you land. Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 5:14 AM

you want the world to believe that AGW via human caused co2 is settled science and the only solution will cost trillions to lower co2,,,

and yet these same scientists that tell us how much the co2 must be reduced cannot put a number on the human population??? good one

Posted by: wrong at large | November 28, 2009 5:30 AM

John U:

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.

Erm, this has just been copied almost word for word from here (scroll down to Fig. 7):

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

A bio-chemistry software site.

Posted by: Paul UK | November 28, 2009 5:48 AM

wrong at large,

You seem quite determined ignore my answer.

I suspect you wanted a different answer, hence your strawman stackup.

If you want me to say it a different way I can try.

If we want 6 biilion people to consume at the rate of the ave. US citizen, we need more than one planets worth of current extract rates.

Yet current extraction rates are already unsustainable. So to prevent a mass die off we can opt for reducing overall extraction, being less wasteful, more efficient, and putting in feedback system to reward efficient goods and charge more for wasteful goods.

Then we need ask about the question of distribution. We can consume at sustainable levels with massive current inequality, or we can be more equitable and prove opportunities for the most vulnerable to rise out of a dire plight.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 5:58 AM

Thank you Janet, I checked it out. I disagree with you on a carbon tax. I feel that the Cap & Trade would become the reason for so-to-speak; the birth of the NWO. Encompassing all those organizations in some form over a short time. As to the science itself for me at this point, the data is corrupt. It has led a very troubled life and now the data for any real purpose is worthless. It is numbers and code that has been "tricked". A valid discription I think. At the best; you all need to start from scratch to prove your points. This window has closed for your endevour now I think. That is my hope. Now will you tell me what your code for POE is? If you have never seen the movie Dr. Strangelove or How I stopped worrying and learned to love the Bomb. A great movie.

Posted by: Tom | November 28, 2009 6:06 AM

Oh, Tom, if you hang around here and want to find out another law, try calling people Hilter when you find yourself frustrated or in a tight squeeze.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 6:44 AM

Before I forget,

A carbon tax, is different to cap-and-trade.

Cap and trade is carbon trading and Goldman Sachs love the idea of carbon trading. James Hansen (top climate scientist) don't like cap-trade, he likes cap-and-dividend which is a form of straight tax. CnD can be revenue neutral, that is government get no more revenue, it just collects carbon tax and gives it all back as a divident to offset the price rise. If you cut your energy bill you can end up in front.

If the super rich want to burn more fuel, they they pay more which gets shared by all in their dividend. It creates ways of rewarding business that do the right thing, and does a bit to protect ethical businesses from being undercut by people externalising cost and foisting them on the rest of us.

So I'm steering clear of Goldman and going with Hansen.

Unfortunately CnT is a potential rort. CnD will be cheaper and simpler.

A Carbon tax (like CnD) will be no more NWO than a sales tax, called a consumption tax elsewhere. Totally regular government business.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 7:03 AM

566 Then we need ask about the question of distribution. We can consume at sustainable levels with massive current inequality, or we can be more equitable and prove opportunities for the most vulnerable to rise out of a dire plight. Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 5:58 AM

I see,,, so AGW is not about human activity causing global warming as much as it is about social engineering,,,

so if we were to develope a way that reduced 66% of the atmospheric co2 for a mere $100 million,,, the AGW scientists would not be interested,,,

A German research ship carrying 20 tons of iron sulfate is currently motoring towards the South Atlantic, and the crew plans to dump its mineral cargo into the ocean in a controversial science experiment. The researchers will be testing a technique called ocean fertilization, in which iron is dumped into nutrient-poor waters to induce a huge blooms of phytoplankton. After the photosynthesizing plankton grows and absorbs carbon dioxide, researchers hope it will die and sink down to the seafloor still bearing that greenhouse gas in a natural form of carbon sequestration. Ocean iron fertilization is considered one of the more promising options for global-scale geoengineering, which aims to slow or reverse the effects of climate change caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/experiment-trying-to-create-algae-bloom-goes-ahead-despite-enviro-fears/

Posted by: wrong at large | November 28, 2009 7:17 AM

In the future we will build 'Camps' fot the Deniers, and when the waters start rising they will all drown.

Posted by: Jim | November 28, 2009 10:28 AM

Wrong at large,

Have you ever heard the phrase 'intellectual dishonesty'.

What you have been posting recently fits that bill. You either ingore my responses or take one small portion and distort it beyond its meaning to create create strawmen. Then you so skillfully knock down all the strawmen.

The problem is unlike where you might usually practice your trade, I can call you on your dishonest, and you just look silly.

A13: Houston we, have a problem.

WAL: I see Appllo 13, so your telling me we need to kill half the world's population

A13: NO Houston listen, we have a really big problem, our carbon scrubbers have failed.

WAL: What you are telling me is that you are more interesting in "socail engineering" and not the carbon scrubers.

A13: Houston?, Who am I speaking to?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 3:33 PM

Let me improve my anallogy:

Let me improve my analogy: A13: Houston we, have a problem. WAL:

I see Appllo 13, "please inform us,,, at what [crew] population level do you feel that problem will cease and possibly reverse??? 3? 1? a half?

A13: What?...NO Houston listen, we have a really big problem, our carbon scrubbers have failed. I think we can fix it but we need to switch power source, and conserve energy.

WAL: I see,,, so your problem is not about the carbon filtration system as much as it is about social engineering,,,

A13: Houston?

WAL: so if we were to develope a way that significantly reduced of the problem you describe for a mere $100 million,,, you are telling me you would not be interested,,,

A13: Houston?, Who am I speaking to?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 3:58 PM

Indeed Kristjan - it's like I've skipped merrily through the looking glass.

@575 SteveS, how about you read the blog post you're commenting on and follow the link provided for the explanation you so desperately seek.

Posted by: Dave | November 28, 2009 5:02 PM

Tom, (Tom with questions from the pink form from last night),

Its now morning is Oz, and I realise that you made a few points that I wish to address.

As to the science itself for me at this point, the data is corrupt. It has led a very troubled life and now the data for any real purpose is worthless. It is numbers and code that has been "tricked". To have a proper discussion on this claim you make, we need to talk specifics. Rather than making broad sweeping claims we should go to the specifics and test evidence for each claim of wrong doing. The one specific you mention is the word “trick”.

On that word "trick" I submit this context :

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).

Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

From a lay persons perspective I understand that the proxies for temperature (coral growth rings, ice cores, tree growth rings, sediments etc.. have excellent correlation with the thermometer record up to about 1960. From that time there is a divergence (the decline). I have read speculation that this divergence is due to massive change in the biosphere (CO2 rise, aerosols causing global dimming etc) that are in addition to temperature, resulting a messy response from the previously temperature correlated proxies.

People from all over the place have brought similar claims about the alleged fraud shown the CRU emails, they come full of surety and certain of the guilt that has been uncovered. Having so many alleged clues to the alleged crimes, yet they haven’t taken the manifold steps required of going past speculation of what the authors mean. They’ve pronounced fraud and guilt; and done so without assessing how well the documented evidence fits with the crimes they speculate that the emails show.

If there really were fraud, their failure to produce corroborating evidence now in light of the emails (as thier guide) would be the equivalent of being awarded a free kick right in front of the goals, and then walking away.

An odd thing happens when one asks for the specifics. Take a look at the response from these commentators after each of the question asked as follows: To Robert here To William Wallace here. To acadder here.

Who is pushing the idea of climate fraud? It is front groups like these who are really misrepresenting the facts and tricking people.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 6:28 PM

i always find it interesting that psychotic people acuse others of what it is they are doing,,,

"Intellectual dishonesty' includes calling people names when they call you on your dishonest rhetorical tactics.

Posted by: MarkG | November 28, 2009 8:39 PM

586 i always find it interesting that psychotic people acuse others of what it is they are doing,,,

"Intellectual dishonesty' includes calling people names when they call you on your dishonest rhetorical tactics.

Posted by: MarkG | November 28, 2009 8:39 PM

587 wrong at large:

i always find it interesting that psychotic people I love it when psychopaths call other people psychotic.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | November 28, 2009 8:48 PM

you must be referring to janet akerman et al then,,,

talk about intellectual dishonesty,,,

Posted by: wrong at large | November 28, 2009 9:20 PM

Wrong At Large,

Did you just employ the "I know you are, but what am I?" playground defence?

Posted by: ajax | November 28, 2009 9:26 PM

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 9:23 PM

don't be afraid,,, stand by the behaviour you have displayed in all your previous posts,,, not just to me,,,

Posted by: ajax | November 28, 2009 9:26 PM

calling them as i see them,,,

Posted by: AmandaS | November 28, 2009 9:28 PM

interesting how it takes so little to annoy you,,,

Posted by: wrong at large | November 28, 2009 9:51 PM

The NZCSC refutes the story from NIWA that they have explained the adjustments.

The Coalition says Dr Wratt's release mentioned specifically that NIWA climate scientists had previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections are made. Mr Dunleavy comments: “We disagree. We have no record of receiving an explanation. NIWA has in fact refused numerous requests over the years to disclose the corrections. The most recent one was a written request to Dr James Renwick - over a month ago - still unanswered. So we would be grateful to hear what Dr Wratt is referring to, when the information was sent and to whom.

Posted by: mediatart | November 28, 2009 10:20 PM

Tom,

There are strong forces at play including the direct interest of the most profitable corporations in history, and PR campaigns could make even the best of us look like terrible sinners. Let he who is willing to handover all their private correspondence cast the first stone.

Essentially like I said, you've got to get to the specifics to see what is spin and what is real. And we've seen what comes to light when you get into the details.

Tom have you ever come across the phrase "doubt is our product"?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 10:31 PM

I can't wait you hear your guys conspiracy theory. You all know how us POE's love a good conspiracy! Who is out to get you in your world?... I am all ringing ears:o)

Posted by: Tom | November 28, 2009 10:39 PM

598 I can't wait you hear your guys conspiracy theory. You all know how us POE's love a good conspiracy! Who is out to get you in your world?... I am all ringing ears:o)

Posted by: Tom | November 28, 2009 10:39 PM

exactly,,, you never see real scientists (newton, einstein, etc) worry about "most profitable corporations",,,

real scientists worry about the science,,, and let their findings stand up to open scrutiny,,,

but not the proselytizers of AGWism,,,

Posted by: wrong at large | November 28, 2009 11:03 PM

Oh, wrong at large, I know it is. I doubt that you would even know what shame is. But some of us are willing to feel it for you.

It's okay, the English language is hard. You do it on purpose. We know ;)

A

PS If you want the real conspiracy theory (the one that explains the melting ice and the heatwaves and the water drying up and the warming nights - you know; all that pesky physical data) you need to think climate scientists and hairdryers. They go out at night, you know, with hairdryers (when NO-ONE is looking) and they run them all night and heat up the world. They need the money from the ETS to pay for the electricity. You know it's true; don't follow the money - follow the hairdryers.

Posted by: AmandaS | November 28, 2009 11:27 PM

maybe they will give us a peek at their AGMist manifesto,,, their posts give us clues to it,,,

There's a name for the manifesto in this case. It's called "Physics of Radiative Transfer". Feel free to look it up.

ps: commas; they don't mean what you think they mean.

Posted by: MarkG | November 29, 2009 12:09 AM

Tom,

The conspiracy is not about individuals but a corrupt system of self-serving, an open secret, its a the self-licking-icecream I pointed you to earlier (re Nanny) here.

Would be hard to miss if not for all the bread and circus distractions.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 29, 2009 12:46 AM

Yo Dhog, Waz up; Hey man... like I said "after all that cake; got milk?"...;) Don't worry, everything I'm hearing is nobody in the USA wants to waste the feathers and we have decided we can't do the ride the rail trip because that would just be putting our problems onto someone else. Anyway your in OZ or whateva... No sweat i am sure. By the way Dr. dhogaza: the Earth is only 25 Heavenly miles in circumference, roughly. If you are 72" tall, you are really only .0072 Heavenly inches tall. Ratchet down the pride a bit. Where is the 97% of the mass of Mighty Univ? According to the Word it has been hidden from man by God. Presto you aren't going to find the God partical. I will bet you the cost of the LHC. No tricks. If you doubt my obsevations check II Peter, 1Day in Heaven=1000 years on Earth. You do the math Bright Boy.

Posted by: Tom | November 29, 2009 2:05 AM

wrong at large:

i always find it interesting that psychotic people

I love it when psychopaths call other people psychotic. Posted by: Chris O'Neill | November 28, 2009 8:48 PM

you must be referring to janet akerman et al then,,,

No, just the person who said "psychotic people".

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | November 29, 2009 2:59 AM

Tom:

At the best; you all need to start from scratch.

Yes, we need to go back before Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius. Sure, if you say so Tom.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | November 29, 2009 3:16 AM

MarkG:

ps: commas; they don't mean what you think they mean.

Yeah, what is with the 3 commas (",,,") at end of every sentence? Does this person think it signifies something?

Posted by: Michael | November 29, 2009 3:24 AM

The sad thing about this, Tim, is that you claim to be a mathematician.

If you move a temperature site, the effect is to add or subtract a constant amount from the temperature record, creating a discontinuity at that point in the graph. The size of the discontinuity is the difference in temperature due to the movement divided by the number of stations in the average. The temperature curve may have a different shape in the two locations, but as you are looking for an average to find a trend this doesn't matter.

If there are multiple movements the result is to add a step function to the basic curve, with the size of the steps being the temperature difference divided by the number of stations and the direction on whether the new site is hotter or colder than the old. Unless you have some basis for claiming otherwise, the step function would as likely go down as up.

Examination of the two graphs shows that the difference is not the addition of such a step function, but rather a straight line, starting in about 1920 and rising at a slope of about 20 degrees. A straight line is not a step function.

The explanation offered by the NIWS may sound good to the layman, but to a mathematician it is nonsense. Either the NIWS, or the person they went to for this explanation, is lying. That someone like you who claims to be a mathematician would help cover this up is a disgrace.

Posted by: James Smith | November 29, 2009 7:33 AM

Surely the whole point of science is to apply maths appropriately with knowledge of the REAL world??

I don't see how a slope would represent a real world interpretation of what has happened. Maybe James Smith can elaborate.

Posted by: Paul UK | November 29, 2009 8:33 AM

Marco, I got the impression that James Smith was implying that a step function wasn't appropriate, but a slope was. I might be wrong though.

But why apply a slope??

When the station was moved did the temperature decide magically decide to gradually increase to ease the station in after a long drive from the old location?? :-)

Posted by: Paul UK | November 29, 2009 8:58 AM

I think James needs to clarify whether the slope thing is an accusation of what has been done to the graphs (which as Marco says, it clearly hasn't), or a suggestion by James of what should have been done, which is just ridiculous.

Posted by: Paul UK | November 29, 2009 10:03 AM

creationist AGW apocalypse

Creationist AGW apocalypse? What?

The people who are concerned with creationism are mostly geologists, biologists, paleontologists, and physicists. Few of them overlap with climate scientists in their areas of expertise and interest. These are two very different fronts in the fight against anti-thought. Lumping them together as you did there makes little sense, especially if you did so to imply that the scientific community has somehow lost credibility in the battle against creationism (it hasn't), or that creationists have any credibility at all (they don't).

Posted by: Josh | November 29, 2009 12:04 PM

Chris, when I said start from scratch, it just means start from the beginning. Are the works of Fourier, Tyndal as well as Arrhenius still in the origional form. Useable. If you all say you need it for your foundation use it. Then you have to build.

Don't need to build on it, that gets you the foundation for increasing CO2 causing global warming ... after that, the only question is "how much?".

That's how unphysical the denialist argument is.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 29, 2009 1:30 PM

I think when Tom says "you gotta start from scratch", he means Genesis ...

Posted by: dhogaza | November 29, 2009 1:57 PM

I was right ...

Posted by: dhogaza | November 29, 2009 2:31 PM

I nominate Tom for "Turing Test Failure of the Week".

I'm quite serious - at this point your posts are indistinguishable from the random gibberish generated by spambots.

Posted by: Dave | November 29, 2009 3:03 PM

Ref. post #631. People of the World, I have to apologize to everyone. My model is correct; it is the time line that I used that was wrong. Please read your Bibles to get the accurate information. I am not a scientist.( Tom

Posted by: Tom | November 29, 2009 3:12 PM

Dave, TTFW~:)#632! I hardly know you folks. What is the gift package anyway if I had been turned to a, you know; one of you guys. A trip to Venice! As I mentioned earlier in my posts I am envious of the way you all traveled and got to see the whole world over lo' these many years. Wow, almost makes me want to join you but as an old stockbroker I think you and yours just topped out. If you can figur out what I mean. What VPR's... Oh,Except for Janet Akerman, who may be leaning to the POE's but still in the closet:)

Posted by: Tom | November 29, 2009 3:39 PM

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

Posted by: Tom | November 26, 2009 8:27 PM

To those of you familiar with talk.origins this is a well qualified "Chez Watt". It almost characterizes this entire thread. Brilliant.

This example of right wing USA USA frothing bewilderment is coming from people who are full of fear. Some if it is justified because 300,000 or more of them per month are being foreclosed, many of them will become homeless. Another 400,000 or so will lose their jobs, and then their homes. Another half million per year will be bankrupted by medical expenses they thought they were insured against. Millions have lost their life savings in one year.

They know they have been conned. But they cannot admit it to themselves because they fell for it. They are proud to standup and scream accusations and slander at climate scientists because they are told that will "prevent" them from being conned out of "their money"!

They have been conned already out of their dignity, their courage, their native intelligence, their confidence in themselves. They know it, but they cannot admit it.

The few who showed up here to act out their fear and irrationality are not necessarily representative of even the groups they self-identify with. But they are representative of the extent to which PR and message control, and the corruption of money can be manipulative of a significant fraction of a population.

That I think, is a more intractable problem by far than AGW and a much greater threat. If anything good at all can come from this type of thing (this nontroversy over AGW) it is perhaps that the otherwise apathetic and inattentive but large majority still capable of a moment's reason will recognize their peril. But I am not optimistic.

Cheers,

Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | November 29, 2009 4:07 PM

rimshot!

Posted by: a lurker | November 29, 2009 4:37 PM

Hello Mr. Krubozumo Nyankoye, I feel that Chez Watt was probably right. It is creation after all... I think that if you go to the beginning of this thread you will be able to see two distinct camps. One that has already declared the "rational man" dead. They are wrong. I have lived a very interesting life, lots of it spent doing what my superiors told me they wanted done. Now at this stage of my life I can see how many people have at times controlled my knowingness. No more. The word of God is real weather the AGW people like it or not. They make a joke I think Ref:FOAI files;Job 37:14-24; it reflects on their problems with code. Funny! I know what I believe and who I trust. As to this thread and my give and take with all these nice people who have taken part, thank you again. Those that read this will be able to see for themselves if I was open, honest, truthful as best as I could be. Let the people judge for themselves of what has been written. PS Dr. Dhogaza, You have not been following along with us... I have it on good authority that Janet Akerman, is now a full-on-POE, amazing since...:)

Posted by: Tom | November 29, 2009 5:19 PM

"I think that if you go to the beginning of this thread you will be able to see two distinct camps. One that has already declared the "rational man" dead. They are wrong."

Interesting to contrast this againt the statement (in the same paragraph) that the "word of God is real weather the AGW people like it or not".

There is no God postion from "AGW people" as we a diverse bunch. There is room for all sorts.

But what do you mean when you say that one group:

"has already declared the "rational man" dead. They are wrong."

Which rational man are your refering to, and what declarations have been made, and why are they wrong? Following 500 posts I need a recap.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 29, 2009 7:25 PM

Posted by: Tom | November 29, 2009 8:07 PM

626 Don't need to build on it, that gets you the foundation for increasing CO2 causing global warming ... after that, the only question is "how much?".

That's how unphysical the denialist argument is.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 29, 2009 1:30 PM

shouldn't the question be,,, how many fewer people there needs to be in the world??? please inform us how many fewer people there needs to be to slow, stop or reverse AGW,,,

Posted by: wrong at large | November 29, 2009 9:28 PM

Tom:

Chris, when I said start from scratch, it just means start from the beginning. Are the works of Fourier, Tyndal as well as Arrhenius still in the origional form.

Ah yes, I remember now. In the beginning, there was Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius. No-one knows why they exist. They just always existed.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | November 29, 2009 10:28 PM

Hiding in comments starting in 561 are a couple of questions, starting with how much does one care about the future versus the present? How much do we care what happens after we are dead? Let me put it this way, assume all the predictions and science are true. Then do we care? A lot of the predictions will only come to pass after we are dead. How much do we care about our childrens future? The far other end of the discussion is that it is to late to do anything, which leads to the same policy result as I don't care, but perhaps a better interim as we all start eating drinking and being merry. (Perhaps the hidden source of the obesity epidemic, most know we are doomed and are doing the eat drink and be merry thing)(However I contend that the chances of global catastrophe have lessened since the the 1980s as the chances of global nuclear war have lessened). This is a subject on which science can not say anything since it is one mostly about morals and relative weightings of actions, or perhaps more metaphysical. Opposing taking action on climate change is the moral equivalent of voting against school taxes because your children are grown, or you have no children.

Posted by: Lyle | November 29, 2009 10:49 PM

Tom pulls this from his arse:

I did not know you were gay Bernard. I appologize.

Strangely, you're not the first troll to label me thus, although it escapes me for the moment who the previous homophobe was. What is it about the fundamentalist AGW denying trolls here that they feel so moved to use one's perceived sexuality as a slur? Is it that they are subliminally self-projecting: another aspect of the cognitive dissonance that comes with their literalist acceptance of the Gordian knot of internally-contradicted Christian mythology?

It's this type of Fundie Christian mind-burping hypocrisy, in the face of precepts that are, to any thinking person, clearly dissonant in terms of logic and/or of moral/scientific defensibility, that initialy turned me from my own Fundie upbringing. Congratulations Tom for reminding me once again why your brand of "Christianity" is one that any sane person, and surely Jesus himself were he alive today, would eschew with great vigour.

I suspect that you might actually be a poe in the original sense that it was used when someone initially engaged you. Whether you are one or not, I consider your contributions to be completely without substance, and as far as I am concerned, unless you have something far more sensible to say than what you have uttered to date, I'm done wasting time on you.

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 29, 2009 11:04 PM

wrong at large (abridged): Instead of giving direct answers to direct questions, I'll just imply you're all in favour of a mass extermination campaign.

FYI Dave Andrews tried this tack before. Read the rest of the thread if you're interested in finding out how specious this "argument" is...

Posted by: Steve Chamberlain | November 29, 2009 11:07 PM

In post #653 WAL's formatting might lead people to wonder if WAL is citing a prior post of mine. WAL formatting made me wonder what he was on about.

To be clear WAL has just posted more of his/her own words to assert more rubbish.

At the risk of perpetuating more intellectually dishonset argument from WAL I ask: how do my manifold solutions to AGW kill people?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 29, 2009 11:27 PM

WAL @659,

Interesting examples, but do you care to address my question?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 29, 2009 11:54 PM

Oops got dyslexic on numbers it is post #574, responding to a post not yet made would be a good trick.

Posted by: Lyle | November 30, 2009 8:45 AM

649 Chris,

Or POE from Poe (unless that's part of the Poe itself).

Posted by: TrueSceptic | November 30, 2009 1:32 PM

663 Ric,

This appeared after I posted 665. Can I assume you'll be the first in, to show everyone how safe it is?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | November 30, 2009 1:51 PM

Re: 622

To explain. The obvious difference between the two graphs is that one shows a warming trend and the other doesn't. This is due to the addition to the first of a sloping line. The explanation offered is that site movements have produced a downward slope in the data which exactly counters this line, removal of that downward slope revealing the line. Two seconds of mathematical analysis shows that the sort of change created by station movements is a step function, not a sloping line. So the explanation offered is nonsense. They may have corrected for site movements, but they have also add a second correction that has produced the slope and that has nothing to do with site movements. What is the reason for it? On the face of it, to make the data show global show global warming when it doesn't.

Re: 619

The site movement may have produced a drop of .79 of a degree in one curve, but as the curves are averaged you have to divide that by the number of sites to see the effect on the graph, which would be to cause the whole graph to shift downwards from that point on by .4, .27, .2 or even .16 of a degree depending on how many sites were being averaged at that point.

Posted by: James Smith | November 30, 2009 2:40 PM

James Smith writes:

They may have corrected for site movements, but they have also add a second correction that has produced the slope and that has nothing to do with site movements.

You could support this assertion with some evidence.

Here are two choices:

1) the NZ climate authorities (and presumably other authorities around the world) are cooking the books by adding a second secret correction slope for no good reason;

Or

2) When proper calibration for site changes are included the data itself shows a warming trend (trend line slope).

Which are you claiming James?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 30, 2009 5:27 PM

and then some,,,

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Posted by: wrong at large | November 30, 2009 9:20 PM

the UEA threw away the raw temperature data that they got from others, that still exists in those others' archives, and that could be reconstructed from their published data anyway.

oh my god a smoking gun.

Posted by: Michael Ralston | November 30, 2009 11:28 PM

Janet Akerman write:

You could support this assertion with some evidence.

I explained the maths. If you are too ignorant to understand it, then I don't see how I can do anything else for you. These people are preying on the ignorance of the masses, and I'm afraid you are one of them.

Posted by: James Smith | December 1, 2009 1:41 AM

@James Smith: I'm going to add more insult to the injury provided to your ego by Janet Akerman, and state that you need glasses. There is absolutely NO introduction of a slope in the graph.

Let's prove that by looking at four points on the green graph: 1928 12.8 degrees in both graphs (before and after) 1930 11.4 degrees in both graphs 1992 11.7 degrees in both graphs 1999 13.8 degrees in both graphs (might also be 1998)

Quite a feat to introduce a slope that does not show up in the individual points!

Posted by: Marco | December 1, 2009 3:11 AM

WAL,

Is that what you learned at Drudge, immerse yourself in the spam and suspend critical thinking?

Step out of the Matrix WAL.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | December 1, 2009 4:33 AM

Can we just be clear what graphs we are talking about? Is it these? If not, please say as I've seen no links posted since James Smith appeared.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | December 1, 2009 8:31 AM

Good morning all, it is a beautiful day here, crisp and bright. Just a little house cleaning here... It seems that the game for post 666 was silly. Still tricking data I see. I know that God wanted me to have the number for Post 555, a wonderful and ironic touch. "The wing can not be called back..." Isaiah 10:14 etc., etc. wow. People please see the video clip, you can't make this stuff up... As to the meaning of what's, what. In Arie's posting #350 he gives a link that has three words from the address end; "propaganda". I don't really know what kind of dictionary scientists use but in mine it does not read well. May the Truth of God, be know by all. Enjoy you day. Love to all, Tom

Posted by: Tom | December 1, 2009 12:21 PM

Post #350: Arie, I was at the Sweetness & Light site looking at futerra's propaganda piece and then went to the futerra site... The head of futerra let's us know she sits on the board of Tomorrows Company, and is that "Al Gore", in the picture?... I have not read further but I will say that; this just gets curiousor and curiousor.

Posted by: Tom | December 1, 2009 3:56 PM

Climate scientist at center of e-mail controversy to step down Phil Jones, director of the university's Climatic Research Unit

Posted by: wrong at large | December 2, 2009 7:52 AM

Hello folks

You may be interested to know that NIWA has published a response to the NZCSC claims on its WWW site

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-clear

Posted by: Mark | December 2, 2009 5:04 PM

Glad our resident genius, wrong at large, knows the credible scientists to cite:

'Global' is a place where nobody lives http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-is-a-place-where-nobody-lives.html

"Lead author of the study, paleoclimate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, who discusses the research in this Science podcast, sees "important implications" for future climate change. "For example," he said, "if the tropical Pacific thermostat response suggested by our analyses of past changes applies to anthropogenic climate change, this holds profound implications for regional climate change effects such as future drought patterns."

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | December 2, 2009 8:07 PM

wrong:

Professor Ian Plimer condemned ...

Thanks wrong. We already know Plimer is off with the fairies.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | December 3, 2009 3:23 AM

well: Chris O'Neill | December 3, 2009 3:23 AM

please inform us again on how scientists feel about name calling,,,

Sensenbrenner chastised Holdren for his 2003 e-mail, when he was at Harvard, that dealt with skeptics by "calling them names."

Posted by: wrong at large | December 3, 2009 4:14 AM

Apparently WAL still thinks he can turn fantasy into reality by speculating his favourite meaning from out of context emails. WAL all I ask for some evidence to take your speculation beyond the world of fantasy.

And could you cite the evidence on which base your claims about the scale of the MWP? The best evidence I am aware of shows that the MWP was not even as high has current anomalies, let alone another 2-5 degrees C.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | December 3, 2009 5:03 AM

Hmmm...

More foaming gibberish from the peanut gallery. Is it possible that he might ever construct a coherent and focussed argument?

Still, it just goes to show the calibre of the intellect (and I use the word generously) amongst the Denialists.

Posted by: Bernard J. | December 3, 2009 10:16 AM

wrong:

please inform us again on how scientists feel about name calling

Please tell me where I called Plimer a name. Why don't you read Jones' interview with Plimer to see how he is suffering from dementia.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | December 3, 2009 10:30 PM

scare tactics are not science,,, let the science or lack therre of stand on its own,,,

scientists know this,,, the AGWists do not seem to,,, including gore,,,

Posted by: wrong at large | December 4, 2009 2:23 AM

well: Bernard J. | December 4, 2009 4:32 AM

please inform us again on how scientists feel about name calling,,,

Sensenbrenner chastised Holdren for his 2003 e-mail, when he was at Harvard, that dealt with skeptics by "calling them names."

Posted by: wrong at large | December 4, 2009 10:28 AM

Bernard,

Drudge provides the links, WAL puts them out. Its not is job to critique or think critically about the propaganda machine. The coordinated message comes from above.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | December 4, 2009 11:01 PM

I've just trawled through every post here [numerous {selected} hyperlinks included], and had my first trollgasm.

AWESOME.

Posted by: Duncan | December 5, 2009 12:21 PM

Tom, I really want to know, what do you think a POE is?

Posted by: A. Lurker | December 5, 2009 12:55 PM

Thank you. That definitely clears it all up. But just to let you know, when people around here use the word 'Poe' they are generally referring to Poe's law regarding religious fundamentalism, which states that a straightforward parody of a fundamentalist is indistinguishable from the real thing.

Posted by: A Lurker. | December 5, 2009 1:56 PM

713 Tom,

Hats off to you. That's a truly great Poe. "1 day or 1000 years." Genius.

But how about 2012? Got something about that?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | December 5, 2009 7:42 PM

do as i say not as i do,,, right,,,

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

Posted by: wrong at large | December 6, 2009 11:09 PM

please inform us again on how scientists feel about name calling,,,

Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia in eastern England, "What an asshole," Watson said. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/05/blogs/coopscorner/entry5905404.shtml