Pharyngula

Posted by: clinteas | January 12, 2009 7:24 AM

People keep bringing this up like its some kind of serious competition.
The other contestants for win are a bit dubious to say the least,so I was thinking this might be one poll we dont actually want to crash.
Thats leaving aside the fact that its bad style to vote for yourself LOL,or have your minions vote for you..:-)

Posted by: mr-zero | January 12, 2009 7:26 AM

Well I've voted for Pharyngula but looking at the competition don't know if you really want to associate with that crowd.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 12, 2009 7:31 AM

I've been tossing a vote your way when I think about it and the poll lets me. But Watt's Up has been running at 50% more votes than Pharyngula every time I vote/look.

Posted by: Nick Johnson | January 12, 2009 7:44 AM

You're up against the Bad Astronomy blog, though. Is that really such poor competition?

Posted by: JackC | January 12, 2009 8:15 AM

There is no way WUwT has more readers than Pharyngula AND BA combined. I await the "adjustment" on their over 9500 votes for that ridiculous site. (I read their top article today concerning GW and the El Nino effect and am left with the impression that straws of the most meager substantiality are being grasped)

JC

Posted by: Carlie | January 12, 2009 8:37 AM

Thats leaving aside the fact that its bad style to vote for yourself LOL,or have your minions vote for you..:-)

But the whole point is to see who has the most minions! Or the most minions loyal enough to remember to vote every day, at least.

Posted by: AnthonyK | January 12, 2009 8:59 AM

So what's up with Watt's up with that? Is it just a climate change denialist website? Info please.

Posted by: JackC | January 12, 2009 9:09 AM

AnthonyK - I read a few of their posts - and simply cannot read more. I have to presume they are "officially" a Warming Denial site - as the two I read offered up vague explanations (oh, plenty of graphs and data to back up their explanations) of why things were going one way or the other - none of them appeared grounded in any sense of reality.

They are rather obviously playing to a crowd not necessarily in possession of the strongest faculties.

One article "Explained" GW through the El Nino effect (and left one to wonder where the driving heat from this effect arises), another noted an error in the CO2 record from Hawaii for last month - and thereby drew "doubt" to all the data. There was no mention that the anticipated low point in CO2 was still higher than any year prior - or that it just might have anything to do with any reason other than "poor recording".

As a purported science site, I am less than impressed with WUwT.

Go have a read for yourself and see what you think. It helps to have some knowledge of the background data though - since Science is about the acts of discovery, not the act of the pulling of the wool. I am not a Climate Scientist myself, but I have spent some years reviewing, peripherally, some of the data.

JC

Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 12, 2009 9:31 AM

The site isn't even loading for me.

Posted by: Julius | January 12, 2009 10:15 AM

SC, #18: That could be plausible - the current top spots for European and for Aussie/NZ best blogs are both AGW deniers. The UK one is a general right-wing nutcase; while she's an AGW denier too (as well as a creationist, that's not the main thing she's known for.

Posted by: Andrea | January 12, 2009 10:43 AM

The whole idea that anyone is cheating comes from certain groups that are losing- they don't seem to get that one might be asking others they know personally to vote for certain blogs or that some popular blogs are asking their readers to vote a certain way. In a number of categories, I wonder how the blogs were selected since they don't seem to fit into categories but then that is the nature of these awards.

Posted by: IST | January 12, 2009 11:03 AM

wow... actually took the time to read the drivel posted on the one in the lead... people actually buy that? The first AGW post talked about the loss of polar sea ice as a negative feedback loop for warming, completely ignoring the effect of albedo (or rather misrepresenting the importance of angle of incidence as opposed to the amount of incoming solar radiation in measuring albedo).

Posted by: Brian D | January 12, 2009 11:17 AM

For anyone curious, JayGeils illustrates what is perhaps Watts' other defining mark: Acting gentlemanly and then accusing anyone who contests his position of ad-hominem attacks while claiming the moral high ground (i.e. "Why is it that my opponents cannot be civil?"). He'll do this for days before he'll admit he might have been wrong, even when he does something as mind-numbingly stupid as correlating time with time and saying it's signficant.

Between that and terrible analysis (Search for "Anthony", Watts' first name, on Open Mind and despair), you've got WUWT in a nutshell.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 12, 2009 11:39 AM

The whole idea that anyone is cheating comes from certain groups that are losing- they don't seem to get that one might be asking others they know personally to vote for certain blogs or that some popular blogs are asking their readers to vote a certain way.

Gosh, Andrea - you're right. That never occurred to me.

In fact, my suspicions arise due to watching the devious antics of these industries and their slimeball think tanks for the past several years. A coordinated campaign of that nature would be completely expected (perhaps you never checked out SourceWatch...). Also, does anyone have traffic stats for this ridiculous blog? Does it have a level of regular readership that would be expected to translate to this number of votes? Is there a larger blog that's pushing it?

Too...many...stupid...JayGeils...puns...

Must...resist...

Posted by: PH | January 12, 2009 12:09 PM

Looking through the comments here, I see little discussion of science. Mainly angry words and paranoia. Do you think it is intelligent to vilify people who disagree with you?

Posted by: Tom Gray | January 12, 2009 12:45 PM

I agree with PaulM opinion in comment 30. This is a culture war blog which is very long on invective and anger but very short on science. I really do not see how it can be considered a science blog.

Posted by: JackC | January 12, 2009 12:58 PM

I will admit here that in visiting the Awards page, I have not yet voted for this site as a Science blog - since a majority of the time, it isn't.

But that does not mean WUwT is - or at least, it is a "Science Blog" in the same way AiG is a "Science Blog". The contradictions I found in a few minutes of tortured reading were just all over the map.

I have not voted for Pharynula - or BA - as a top "Science" blog site because as noted by others above, much of the time, it is far more social than Scientific. I wouldn't be here otherwise. Science is great and I have my other areas for that - but here, we storm the castle more often than not. Storming the Castle is not Science. It is way more fun.

JC

Posted by: Trent1492 | January 12, 2009 2:41 PM

@ PH,

Looking through the comments here, I see little discussion of science. Mainly angry words and paranoia. Do you think it is intelligent to vilify people who disagree with you?

So do you think James Hansen is a honest man? If so what do you find is flawed in his research publications? What I am asking for is specifics.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 12, 2009 2:52 PM

Smarmy little brats aren't they.

Posted by: Mike P | January 12, 2009 4:46 PM

Can we make him Jay Geils Banned?

Posted by: SC, OM | January 12, 2009 4:58 PM

Moreover, "Brunswick..." five posts back is about the teaching of evolution (science) in public schools.

(And the radio show that precedes that one, as it turned out, was a rerun of last week's - about the year 2008 in...science.)

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 12, 2009 5:30 PM

Holy shite! Who left the back door open?

Posted by: Steve H. | January 12, 2009 5:38 PM

Posted by: IST | January 12, 2009 11:03 AM
",,,, completely ignoring the effect of albedo (or rather misrepresenting the importance of angle of incidence as opposed to the amount of incoming solar radiation in measuring albedo)."""

No such ignoring took place at all.

Read further, or better yet comment yourself, and you'll discover there is no ignoring of anything AND anything you add will be fairly responded to.

There is no question WUWT has very good and in depth science dicussions.

AND IMO the past few months at WUWT has presented irrefutable evidence that AGW is a fatally flawed and dicredited theory.

Posted by: Paul | January 12, 2009 5:53 PM

AND IMO the past few months at WUWT has presented irrefutable evidence that AGW is a fatally flawed and dicredited theory.

So we'll be seeing a Nobel prize any time now? Until it's published in the literature and peer-reviewed, all I hear is TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.

Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true.

Posted by: Paul | January 12, 2009 5:57 PM

AND IMO the past few months at WUWT has presented irrefutable evidence that AGW is a fatally flawed and dicredited theory.

So we'll be seeing a Nobel prize any time now? Until it's published in the literature and peer-reviewed, all I hear is TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.

Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 12, 2009 6:07 PM

Are we being hacked or something? The system is acting weird.

There's definitely some net-weirdness going on.

PZ! Something's broken!

Posted by: Trent1492 | January 12, 2009 6:08 PM

@Steve H,

AND IMO the past few months at WUWT has presented irrefutable evidence that AGW is a fatally flawed and dicredited theory.

So have these findings been published yet in a peer reviewed science journal? If not when can we expect to see it?

Posted by: Kel | January 12, 2009 6:32 PM

That's funny folks. A couple of you immediately play that "peer review" canard to avoid finding out how bad the AGW case is.

Posted by: Paul | January 12, 2009 6:45 PM

@Steve H.

Look up "Burden of Proof". We're not arguing with the scientific consensus (that would be rather arrogant of me, anyway, being no climatologist). We're not the ones making the assertion. You and yours are. If there is really a case, it should have no problem passing a peer review process.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 12, 2009 6:55 PM

But you wouldn't know that unless you applied a little curiosity and studied the blog reporting

Or you can just make a single stop:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal

Posted by: Steve H. | January 12, 2009 7:09 PM

Kel & Paul,

Take off your peer review helmuts and read.

I am not preaching anything and have no burden of proof.
Hansen does and has failed miserably.

But again you wouldn't know that because you have apparently missed or avoided the entire unfolding and lengthy discussions that go into extensive details on every angle of the IPCC assertions.

There is no "peer review" rhetoric of yours that can susbstitute for those wide open, in depth presentations and conversations that have fully refuted Hansen's folly and consensus.

If you are mistakenly believing the peer review process has not been corrupted or that no skeptics have peer review published work then this is another demonsrtation of your lack of work.

And again those boiler plate canards about peer review, publications and consensus are no match for study.

Paul, what makes you think you (or anyone else) can't argue with the "consensus"? Suppose the consensus is contrived or simply wrong?

I guarantee if you go study the reports and conversations you'll have some serious concerns about that consensus.

Go and see for yourself. When an in depth thread generates 150 to 200 comments involving many with data input
the discussions are very informative.

Your desire to pretend they don't exist is a lousy excuse for not chimming in.

Why do I get the feeling my comments should not be allowed here?

Posted by: Trent1492 | January 12, 2009 7:33 PM

@Steve H,

No Hansen is not honest. Despite the you apparently missing all of them the exmaples are many.Try this one for starters.

I just read the article you linked too. Could you explain to me what homogenization is in regards to data analysis and why it is inappropriate to apply it in this case?

In the article it notes that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Why is this considered significant? The article seems to be unaware what is regarded as statistically significant, in the field. Do you know how climate is defined and why it is defined that why? I ask because the article you cited seems to be unaware of these basic definitions.

I also want to note that your article fails to substantiate your allegations of dishonesty by Hansen.

Posted by: Ian | January 12, 2009 7:46 PM

@SteveH #61:

So basically you're claiming that a bunch of armchair climatologists on the internet are smarter than the general consensus of thousands of experts? That seems unlikely.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 12, 2009 7:56 PM

Whenever I see the arguing of allegedly scientific data occurring in the public arena, my BS detector goes off big time. There is only one place for scientific data to be argued. The argument must occur in the peer reviewed literature. Otherwise, the argument is just mental masturbation, at least on the side pushing the data without getting it into the literature.

I work in a highly regulated industry. If I don't write down what I did in my lab notebook, the work never occurred. No matter how much subsequent data I might have. My notebook and other data gets summarized in reports for clients and possibly a federal agency. If the data is not available, it can't be in the report. No report, we can't get paid. Why isn't an academic trying to publish some data? Academia is publish or perish. Not having the data "in press" (accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, but not yet in print) indicates that possibly the data is faulty, especially if it is more than 6 months old. Otherwise, it would be printed or in press.

Posted by: AnthonyK | January 12, 2009 8:17 PM

Ah, welcome to our hate-filled, non-science blog, climate change conspiracists. There isn't actually anything technical here - we're just a bunch of self hating athiests led by a loony, liberal, biology professor, who meet to moan about how terrible the world is, and make stuff up. It seems you've caught us with our pants down
Oh, and did I mention that is we who invented and are propogating the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax?
Yes this is myth central!
Any questions?
Good, now fuck off.

Posted by: King of Ferrets | January 12, 2009 9:06 PM

I find it unlikely that a blog I haven't even heard of from people making fun of it for being anti-GW gets more votes than fucking Pharyngula and any other blog but the 3rd place combined.

Posted by: Ian | January 12, 2009 9:52 PM

@SteveH #72:

Somehow in all that, you forgot to answer Trent's specific questions, so I'll ask again. According to the GISTEMP documentation:

The goal of the homogeneization effort is to avoid any impact (warming or cooling) of the changing environment that some stations experienced by changing the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term monthly and annual variations.

If you think this practice is inappropriate, why? If you think the algorithm fails to meet its stated goal, why? The article you linked to does not explain either of these things; it just complains that in one particular instance the trend line changes from cooling to warming.

By the way, your post contains almost nothing but ad hominems. I thought the blog you hail from is supposed to be above that sort of thing?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 12, 2009 10:13 PM

Ewww...they're getting a might testy.

That site is moderated so tightly that they can't swear, argue, mention religion or have any fun. I find it hard to believe they have so many more readers than we do.

Posted by: Steve H. | January 12, 2009 10:43 PM

Oh get real folks.
Among many other fatal flaws, there have been many problems with reporting stations and the data reports from those still remaining and reporting.

As if the other pieces to the AGW Hoax puzzle aren't impressive enough. Take a look at this alignment of weather reporting stations shutting down and the cooincidence of so called global warming.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Stationdropout.jpg

Which is from here

http://icecap.us/

and linked to here

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

Posted by: Ian | January 12, 2009 10:49 PM

Steve, why are you changing the subject? You brought the homogenization article up. You should be ready to defend it when challenged.

Posted by: Kel | January 12, 2009 11:43 PM

"Evangelising"? Oh brother, wake up and read.

Posted by: Kel | January 12, 2009 11:46 PM

BUT KEEP IN MIND THE CLOSED DOOR AND CORRUPTED PEER REVEIW PROCESS.

Posted by: Kel | January 12, 2009 11:51 PM

Why do AGW deniers use the same arguments as creationists? "There's plenty of evidence to support creation", "the peer review process us corrupt", "the burden of proof is on the Darwinists", etc... A simple Find / Replace on certain words and you could use that caps-button rant for an ID advocate.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 13, 2009 12:04 AM

Newbies.

OK, loosening up the laces, rolling off the fishnets.

You weather people are just so lame. Try harder.

Gosh PZ, bid up to 10 cents a pound for trolls.

Posted by: Trent1492 | January 13, 2009 12:19 AM

@ SteveH,

You said in post #72:

It doesn't make any claim of particular significance that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000.

Yet the third paragraph in the article says:

Indeed this past year (2008) is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released this month by the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Great Britain. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.

Can you explain this discrepancy? You then go on to say:

Yet you claim the article seems to be unaware what is regarded as statistically significant?Your silly stunt is useless.Of course the simplistic relevence of a cooling year or years is thoroughly understood by the author.

I am sorry but you seem to have mistaken vigorous assertion for fact. Can you please point out to how I am mistaken in my reading of the article. Appropriate quotes from the article would be most helpful. I will ask again: Do you know how climate is defined and why it is defined that way?

Chime in at Wattsupwiththat and tell the group how they just don't understand how climate is defined.
That will sure fly.

Why would I? If you are an example of a regular then I think I will spare my self the trouble.

Are you going to get back to me on you objection to using homogenization on the data or not?

Posted by: Steve H. | January 13, 2009 1:08 AM

Good action here, 94 comments, sorry I didn't know this was a biology blog. This is the only thread I've visited.
We're having fun though.
I used the caps to contrast with the questions. No other feeling involved.

Trent,

Are you restricted?
Yes the 2008 cooling was obviously stated but it was not presented at some significance beyond the point of the article or how you contrived it. Which you seemingly did purposefully so as to draw your false conclusion that the author has no understanding of climate. That is of course ridiculous. But that how you folks play this game.
The author did no make any assertions that the 2008 cooling was in itself climate significant. That's your stunt. And one you made up while ignoring the greater points. This article was not making weather into climate. That's another alarmist's stunt.
Weather is not climate ect ....if you think that needs to be pointed out you best direct it to your camp who are forever attributing weather observations to AGW/climate.
You will find clear understanding of climate at WUWT , icecap.us and climateaudit.org. Treat yourself to what you are insisting I must provide you here.

Kel, brighten up fella.
Is it your preference to restrict skeptics to the heavily biased academia while the Gore evangelical machine travels the globe preaching?
What a farce play you made. .

Ian,
Your scientist tally comes from wikipedia? Gee, without even looking I'll bet the 1000s of scientists and IPCC BS is there.
And you need to read more.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSU_Satellite_Temperatures_Continue_to_Diverge_from_Global_Data_Bases.pdf
You'll find the stations and reporting are unreliable.
And Hansen has used much of the raw sloppy science without valdiating it. Such as was the September temps carried over into October and other missteps.

Brian, of course you don't know about the AGW fraud. You're avoiding it.

For all.
climate change and peer review
http://www.cejournal.net/?p=607

Really folks the stuff the AGW crowd is piling up at the feet of AGW is near comical. Everything imaginable they are already "witnessing" as resulting from warming yet to happen. And they're attributing every environmental ailment to AGW. Such as Ocean Dead Zones where OSU researchers merely supposed they could be caused by AGW so therefore they are. And they go out evangelizing it with reports to the press.
Nice science in academia there.

For more on the AGW fraud go to

icecap.us. for info
wattsupwiththat.com info and blog
climateaudit.org info and blog

Sorry to the blog host if I have violated your rules

Posted by: James Mayeau | January 13, 2009 1:28 AM

the contest was Al Gore's bought and paid for shills, Real Climate, versus reality.
And reality is doing fine.

Posted by: Kel | January 13, 2009 2:06 AM

Kel, brighten up fella. Is it your preference to restrict skeptics to the heavily biased academia while the Gore evangelical machine travels the globe preaching? What a farce play you made. .

Posted by: Ian | January 13, 2009 2:47 AM

Ian, Your scientist tally comes from wikipedia? Gee, without even looking I'll bet the 1000s of scientists and IPCC BS is there.

I'm not exactly sure what "BS" you're referring to, but since you're not interested in reading it yourself, I'll summarize it here. The page lists 46 specific "national and international science academies and professional societies" that have released statements or reports concurring with the IPCC (including the IPCC itself), two that have released noncommittal statements, and claims that:

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

It then goes on to describe some specific surveys with mixed leanings.

Yes, it's Wikipedia, and anything on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt. But it's better than making grandiose claims without providing any source whatsoever. If you have a more trustworthy source, name it.

You'll find the stations and reporting are unreliable. And Hansen has used much of the raw sloppy science without valdiating it. Such as was the September temps carried over into October and other missteps.

The link you pointed me to doesn't seem reliable itself. The station drop-off graph indicates that, as of 2000, there are approximately 1000 urban stations. Yet the "NASA Urban Adjustments" table indicates that there are more than 4000 urban stations. Well, which is it? Are there 4000, and the station drop-off graph is severely under-reporting them; or are there 1000, and 75% of the stations in the table are not actually urban? Or perhaps the number of stations has replenished since 2000 to a figure larger than the mid-60s peak, in which case the station drop-off graph would appear to be intentionally misleading.

And you still haven't answered the question.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 3:09 AM

What kind of person can be afraid of the likes of us?

Wait, we are scary because that person read Mein Kampf? Makes Facilis seems like he has a good grasp of logic.

Posted by: James Mayeau | January 13, 2009 6:29 AM

William Hershel after discovering the seventh planet was accorded the honor of naming it. He chose the name Georgium to honor the king who funded his celestial observations.

It was only after Hershel's death that a consensus of astronomers in Germany, agreed to rename the newly discovered planet as a memorial to an observatory, Uraniborg, used by a 16th century German astrologer.

Thus was born a million anus jokes.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 7:07 AM

More real science:

NASA Study Links Severe Storm Increases, Global Warming
ScienceDaily (Dec. 28, 2008) — The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth's tropics -- the type associated with severe storms and rainfall -- is increasing as a result of global warming, according to a study by scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081227214927.htm

Greenland's Glaciers Losing Ice Faster This Year Than Last Year, Which Was Record-setting Itself
ScienceDaily (Dec. 16, 2008) — Researchers watching the loss of ice flowing out from the giant island of Greenland say that the amount of ice lost this summer is nearly three times what was lost one year ago. The loss of floating ice in 2008 pouring from Greenland’s glaciers would cover an area twice the size of Manhattan Island in the U.S., they said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215091015.htm

Posted by: Johnnyb | January 13, 2009 8:52 AM

Mayhempix,

Climate change happens, always has, always will. So what should be done about it? If CO2 is the cause, why does the lunatic fringe who believes such garbage as Global Warming not come up with a realistic plan to address the problem which does not further enrich the monied elite at the expense of us common people? Where are the cries from the warmists to stop immigration, especially from low carbon per capita countries such as the 3rd world, into high carbon per capita countries like the United States?

Who is laying out a realistic plan to get all of our baseload power from Nuclear Reactors, which would be owned by the people instead of fat cat corporations? Everyone knows Wall Street hates Nuclear power, and the money people are never going to build them, but I do not hear the Global Warming people crying out in mass for more nuclear power either. Instead they pass laws forcing us to buy things like crummy florescent light bulbs, which have a large amount of mercury in them, and will eventually poison our ground, unlike nuclear waste which could be safely stored deep underground. Its all about money and politics, rich corporations like GE run a cost benefit analysis and figure that they could make more money selling ugly light bulbs and wind turbines than by building nuclear reactors.

I say, we have to get beyond these divisive politics, you believe in global warming, fine, I do not, but that does not mean that our goals have to be different. I believe that both liberals and conservatives, atheists and religious folk both want fundamentally the same things. I believe that we both want to minimize human suffering, and do our best to create a world that is pleasant to live in where every human being can live to their fullest potential. Only an evil person would want anything less for their fellow man, right?

As a Global Warming believer, you likely hate cars because they burn oil and create CO2, as I hate cars too because they require us to be dependent of foreign oil, and lead to the creation of ugly cities, as well as other reasons. See, we are not so different, huh? If we would forget about the fact that we disagree about Global Warming, then we could move on to the creation of nice, clean, beautiful and walkable cities, where people would not have to need cars or live in debt up to their eyeballs. You get what you want with less CO2, and I get what I want with better cities. We both win, and more importantly the life of the common human will be improved, whether Global Warming turns out to be a hoax or not.

There are solutions out there that we can agree on, but first we need to get beyond the political cat calls, and the BS TV pundit terminology such as comparing Global Warming skeptics to emotionally charged historic events like the Holocaust. No more right v. left, because that is what we have been doing for years and we are not better for it.

Only through mutual respect and a focus on our common goals can we begin a new era. The hate must stop because it is not productive. The political sophistry must go as well, and instead we need to focus on our big and final goals, then make practical plans for achieving those goals. Let's work together, both right and left, in identifying what is in the way of us achieving our mutually shared goals while tolerating each other's irrelevant systems of beliefs such as religion and Global Warming, after all Global warming is just one of possible reason to do what should be done anyhow, right?

Posted by: James Mayeau | January 13, 2009 9:28 AM

The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth's tropics - those would be the albedo changing, reflecting away that nasty sunshine, type clouds.
The team found a strong correlation between the frequency of these clouds and seasonal variations in the average sea surface temperature of the tropical oceans. -study from a subsidiary of Jimmy Hansen's den of hysterical climate change.

Last I checked the tropical oceans are firming up into a multi-year cold snap. La Nina is here -- get ready for another dry year

Would that correlation, could that correlation, be that the tropical ocean is colder then normal - hence there isn't any rain to speak of? - You know it is.

{Water}pouring from Greenland’s glaciers would cover an area twice the size of Manhattan Island in the U.S.
Or another way of saying it, Greenland, an area roughly equal to the Mississippi watershed, has runoff equal to 3 months waterflow of the Mississippi river. Gee wizz.
I wonder why a magazine like ScienceDaily would use nonstandard measuring units like "Manhattan Island" rather then gallons? You think they might be trying to alarm people?

But the real question I have for you Mayhempix, are you a paid shill for the climate change industry, or are you just determined to be stupid?

Posted by: James Mayeau | January 13, 2009 9:42 AM

Scientists at the GKSS Research Centre of Geesthacht and the University of Bern have investigated the frequency of warmer than average years between 1880 and 2006 for the first time. - using the surface station record -well massaged and adjusted to support most any damn thing the climate changers want it to.

But when you discount the surface record and use a more unambiguous record which extends over thousands of years, rather then a just a hundred, you get Stalagmites support cosmoclimatology (Svensmark's theory).

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 9:51 AM

This now posted at WUWT?:

"Right now our strongest competition (and gaining) is Pharyngula, which while there is some science there is also about 50% anti-religion topics that reflect the view of the owner. We strive hard here to maintain a civil and interesting exchange and make the science discussed accessible to everyone, and minimize getting off-track on religion and politics. You can check out the other blogs at the link. I’d be just as pleased if Climate Audit won."

Let's see here... because PZ Myers includes atheism and poiltics as topic on his blog that somehow negates the science? F for logical failure.

Also WUWT is a consistent forum for crank AGW Denialists in both articles posted and comments, but any scientific articles evidence confirming AGW are never posted )not mention supporting CA) and that doesn't reflect the view of the owner? A for hypocrisy.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | January 13, 2009 10:11 AM

Ever since this:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
Svante Arrhenius
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

(yes that's _1896_)

anyone with a basic understanding of physical science knows that a warming effect from the increased CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere is the _default assumption_. Predicting the exact consequences is a lot trickier, but that's a secondary question. You can see from the tone taken by the denial contingent that they think _no_ warming is the default and warming requires special proof, which is exactly the wrong way around. If I insulate my house and leave the heating on, I kind of expect my house to get warmer, and if you expect me to believe it won't, I need some pretty strong evidence. But apparently insulating the planet and leaving the sun shining is completely different.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 10:25 AM

Grammar and Typo Police

Also WUWT is a consistent forum for crank AGW Denialists in both articles posted and comments, but any scientific articles confirming evidence of AGW are never posted (not to mention supporting CA) and that doesn't reflect the view of the owner? A for hypocrisy.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 11:10 AM

Here is an example from JohnnyB on the previous thread showing how nice, courteous and civil he is:

"...why does the lunatic fringe who believes such garbage as Global Warming..."

I'll bet Jebus guides him in his quest for a better world.

Posted by: James Mayeau | January 13, 2009 11:30 AM

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 10:19 AM

@James Mayeau

No one here takes you seriously

You speak for no one? Are you no one's press agent?

Hell I believe you.

Posted by: Steve H. | January 13, 2009 11:41 AM

LotharLoo

Only you alarmist loons ignore the the other side.

Your weak glances at reality don't cut it either.

"creationists, flat earth society"

Oh how lame can you get.

And "9/11 conspiracy theorists"??? Now that's funny.
There is nearly a total alignment of AGW and 911 conspiracy believers making you and your loons beyond measure.

Your IPCC/AGW case is now so faulty that it is you clinging to the flat earth-like science.

Your camp can't even progress to recognizing the MWP was global, that the mini ice age was as well, and that the IPCC reports themselves discount connections between hurricanes and AGW.
You make up connections bewteen AGW and every day observations like silly children. Then scream with profanities when you're called on it.
It is you and your doing the ignoring of reality and science. You can't even recognize the countless sceintists rejecting AGW.
Everything is make believe with you folks.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 11:49 AM

SteveH, please cite the primary scientific literature to back up your arguments. Do not link or cite to any other source, as it will be ignored. Peer reviewed journals only.
That is how your convince us. We are here for the convincing, but the proper evidence is required.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 12:09 PM

"Only you alarmist loons ignore the the other side."
Oh, the irony!

"You can't even recognize the countless sceintists rejecting AGW."
Please show a comprehensive list of peer reviewed scientists who reject AGW.

Posted by: Trent1492 | January 13, 2009 12:42 PM

@ SteveH,

At some point I am hoping you will actually answer the questions.

1. What specifically rules out homogenization as tool for looking at data? This is the fourth time you have been asked.

2. How is climate defined and why is it defined that way?

Yes the 2008 cooling was obviously stated but it was not presented at some significance beyond the point of the article or how you contrived it.

The section of the article that I quoted refutes your assertion. The article mentions 2008 as the coolest year simply to refute the notion of a warming Earth; the act of doing so reveals a vast ignorance of what constitutes climate.

Which you seemingly did purposefully so as to draw your false conclusion that the author has no understanding of climate. That is of course ridiculous.

You can scream and shout all you want that it “aint so” but it is true that the author of your linked article is clueless. Tell me. Steve, what is the difference between weather and climate?

Weather is not climate ect ....

That is correct Steve. Now why is it that you linked to an article that seems to not know the difference?

If you think that needs to be pointed out you best direct it to your camp who are forever attributing weather observations to AGW/climate.

You just committed the logical fallacy of Tu quoque .

You will find clear understanding of climate at WUWT , icecap.us and climateaudit.org. Treat yourself to what you are insisting I must provide you here.

Why are the peer reviewed journals not enough? Oh, I forgot they are corrupted. Care to substantiate this allegation? Tell me, why is washed up T.V presenter more credible than than a geophysicists?

Posted by: Trent1492 | January 13, 2009 1:07 PM

@James Mayeau

Would that correlation, could that correlation, be that the tropical ocean is colder then normal - hence there isn't any rain to speak of? - You know it is.

Oh? What is this then? Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise

Damm! I am sorry! I forgot that you lot regard the process of peer review as corrupted. How very uncivil of me. We all know that a blog by meteorologist is a much more rigorous method of doing science. NOT

Posted by: Steve H. | January 13, 2009 1:27 PM

Trent,

What a bozo. It's only your twist that makes the leap that a cooling year=cooling climate. That way you can avoid the context and greater meanings while echoing that petty weather is not climate bromide. A bromide concern which vanishes every time a AGW loons evangelizes some new weather obeservation to be AGW caused.

Redhead,
The link is a detailed scienfitic report by two German physisists which thoroughly discredits AGW, top to bottom.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

Here it is again.

Now pretend you didn't see it, or claim the link is a web site, or condemn the authors without reading it or ignore it completely so as to preserve your confusion.

Here are abundant links to everything you folks pretend does not exist. Including peer reviewed skeptics.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=b84196ff-802a-23ad-4827-17b10ab7dfcc

But since you refuse to read icecap.us, CA and WUWT no doubt you'll use the usual excuses to continue avoiding the vast science community that rejects AGW.

Instead choosing to follow your government led farce like good little children.

Posted by: Stu | January 13, 2009 1:41 PM

the vast science community that rejects AGW.

Okay, if you're going to throw arguments from authority around, let's play. You show us your community, we'll show you ours. Deal?

Posted by: Jason | January 13, 2009 1:52 PM

You're catching up now that there's a campaign on DailyKos (see link) to prevent the climate change denier from winning... good luck?

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 1:59 PM

OK SteveH...

After reading through a bunch of the cherry picked propaganda posted on corporate shill Inhofe's site buried deep inside was this gem: A July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 showed that only 6% reject the AGW consensus outright. So much for the overwhelming numbers of scientists you claim reject AGW.

Has the CO2 falsification paper you refer to been corroborated by other scientists who went through and checked the math and validated how it was used? I find it funny that you are so convinced that they are right and yet I'll bet you understand virtually none of it. One paper against an overwhelming consensus proves nothing.

I also seem to recall that the Bush government spent the last 8 years rejecting AGW so your "follow your government led farce like good little children" has more truth than you realized when you wrote it. Ooopppsss!!!!! The irony... it hurts!

Posted by: Steve H. | January 13, 2009 2:04 PM

Redhead,
For the third time.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
Falsification Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics

Stu,
Yeah let's play. Your AGW consensus is a fraud.

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
The IPCC Can't Count
- Author and Reviewer numbers are wrong

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
Professor denies global warming theory

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=b87e3aad-802a-23ad-4fc0-8e02c7bb8284&Region_id=&Issue_id=
Politically Left Scientists Now Rejecting Climate Fears

Peer Reviewed Denialism
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=A17DEFA8-802A-23AD-4912-8AB7138A7C3F

Posted by: Stu | January 13, 2009 3:12 PM

Steve, you realize nobody's laughing WITH you, right?

Also, the correlation between fake atheists and those unable to spell the damned word seems to be an almost perfect 1.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 3:27 PM

Posted by: Steve H. | January 13, 2009 2:14 PM
"mayhempix,
I see you stumbled right past the scientists who reject AGW."

Ummm... no. I just responed with what percentage of the total they represent. But of course you missed that obvious connection.

Posted by: george h. | January 13, 2009 3:58 PM

Looks like you wack-job true-believers are going to lose this one. Your rabid, ignorant adherence to a now-clearly falsified AGW theory reminds me of another scientifically-iliterate group who despite mountains of evidence to the contrary are convinced that vaccines are reponsible for autism. But they are vocal and loud and politically correct, so the media give them plenty of airtime to confuse the public with junk science just as you all do with AGW. But eventually this whole global warming hoax/scare will be seen for what it was: as one of the most bizarre episodes in the history of science. Then you central planners will have to find some other way besides carbon to control the lives of the rest of us and fulfill your Marxist fantasies. Good Luck.

Posted by: Steve H. | January 13, 2009 4:04 PM

Kel,
The only reason you cling to your view that denialist behaviour is apprehensible is you have failed to study the issue and afford yourself the benefit of knowing and understanding the plethera of sceince that refutes AGW.

You're either lazy, or too biased, or agenda driven.

Something?

Because over the past few months the amount of data, science and expertice which has come to light debunking
AGW, on many aspects, is easily accessed and understood.

You and yours have no legitimate excuses for not knowing more.

Especially your nonsense about me subverting academia.

Spread some of your irrational hostility to this professor.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
Professor denies global warming theory

Despite your confusion, he shares a large and growing segment of academia which rejects AGW.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 4:10 PM

Stevie has a newspaper article. Yawn. Of no consquence.

Posted by: Jepe | January 13, 2009 4:28 PM

@ Steve H.

Ever tried to convert a Jehovah witness? Won't work.
Same here at Pharyngula. Don't forget you are arguing with "Anointed" scientific minds here. They know the TRUTH without need for empirical validation. Nothing can falsify their AGW hysteria.
Welcome to "post-modern" Science. (New Age science!)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Unlike Kel, I am a working scientist with 30+ years experience. I am very familiar on a day to day basis of how science works. I have also been a skeptic for almost as long. That is why I keep harping on the primary scientific literature. It is one way to separate the actual data from the pretend data, since the peer review process helps to confirm its validity.

Anybody can write a sceintific paper. But, in order to get it published, you have to present the data honestly, and the data has to back up the points and conclusions of the papers, and follow the rules of science. You also have to cite and know the prior literature. Anytime I ask somebody why don't you write up the data, and they don't get cracking on the manuscript, it sets off my BS detector. My BS detector is need of repair due to the amount of BS slung around here today.

Like Kel, I have not argued my position one way or the other. But fellows, you haven't won me over due to the lack of rigor with your arguments. So, it is time to either publish or shut up.

Posted by: Jepe | January 13, 2009 4:38 PM

Sorry, was me.

Posted by: Jepe | January 13, 2009 4:46 PM

@Kel (#159)

You wrote:
"By showing that the current mechanisms attributed to global warming are not man-made."

Nature will take care of that, and the signs are not good for AWG alarmists.

Posted by: Kel | January 13, 2009 4:50 PM

Then surely have a platform on which to fight it scientifically.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 5:00 PM

Stevie, no primary literature, no lookie. Anything less than that, which is all you have, is a waste of my time.

Posted by: Tom Gray | January 13, 2009 5:13 PM

Whats Up With That has won with a plurality of about 5% of the votes cast.

The combination of WUWT and Climate Audit have just under 50% of the vote

Posted by: Kel | January 13, 2009 5:27 PM

The contest wasn't about AGW. It was about science!

Posted by: Tom Gray | January 13, 2009 5:38 PM

Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 5:00 PM

Stevie, no primary literature, no lookie. Anything less than that, which is all you have, is a waste of my time

Nerd, please consult the book "proofs and Refutations by Imre Lakatos who is a successor to Karl Popper. Lakatos main idea that there is a distinction between formal and informal research with the latter being the more fruitful. Scientific progress does not take place in the pages of science journals but in the interactions of scientists and others in conferences, lunch rooms etc. Lakatos referred to mathematics but the extension to science is obvious.

Lakatos extended Poppers work to include the concept of progressive and degenerate research programmes. This would be of interest to the discussions here.

The Wikipedia article on this book is as follows:

Lakatos' philosophy of mathematics was inspired by both Hegel's and Marx' dialectic, Karl Popper's theory of knowledge, and the work of mathematician George Polya.

The book Proofs and Refutations is based on his doctoral thesis. It is largely taken up by a fictional dialogue set in a mathematics class. The students are attempting to prove the formula for the Euler characteristic in algebraic topology, which is a theorem about the properties of polyhedra. The dialogue is meant to represent the actual series of attempted proofs which mathematicians historically offered for the conjecture, only to be repeatedly refuted by counterexamples. Often the students 'quote' famous mathematicians such as Cauchy.

What Lakatos tried to establish was that no theorem of informal mathematics is final or perfect. This means that we should not think that a theorem is ultimately true, only that no counterexample has yet been found. Once a counterexample, i.e. an entity contradicting/not explained by the theorem is found, we adjust the theorem, possibly extending the domain of its validity. This is a continuous way our knowledge accumulates, through the logic and process of proofs and refutations. (If axioms are given for a branch of mathematics, however, Lakatos claimed that proofs from those axioms were tautological, i.e. logically true.)

Lakatos proposed an account of mathematical knowledge based on the idea of heuristics. In Proofs and Refutations the concept of 'heuristic' was not well developed, although Lakatos gave several basic rules for finding proofs and counterexamples to conjectures. He thought that mathematical 'thought experiments' are a valid way to discover mathematical conjectures and proofs, and sometimes called his philosophy 'quasi-empiricism'.

However, he also conceived of the mathematical community as carrying on a kind of dialectic to decide which mathematical proofs are valid and which are not. Therefore he fundamentally disagreed with the 'formalist' conception of proof which prevailed in Frege's and Russell's logicism, which defines proof simply in terms of formal validity.

On its publication in 1976, Proofs and Refutations became highly influential on new work in the philosophy of mathematics, although few agreed with Lakatos' strong disapproval of formal proof. Before his death he had been planning to return to the philosophy of mathematics and apply his theory of research programmes to it. One of the major problems perceived by critics is that the pattern of mathematical research depicted in Proofs and Refutations does not faithfully represent most of the actual activity of contemporary mathematicians.[citation needed]

Posted by: Tom Gray | January 13, 2009 6:03 PM

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 5:49 PM

A proven liar and bullshitter recommends reading. Guess what are the odds of my doing so.

Two questions:

a) Did you actually read my comment?

b) Have you the slightest idea who I am?

Posted by: Ray C. | January 13, 2009 6:58 PM

@97 James Mayeau: Do you have even the smallest shred of evidence that Real Climate and AAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRE!!!11!ELEVEN!1! have any connection whatsoever?

If so, then post it, and then we'll talk.

If not, then STFU and begone, foul troll.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 13, 2009 7:08 PM

I have no idea who he is. You? Maybe he's off meds.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 13, 2009 7:13 PM

I have a riddle!

What do I have in my pocket?

Posted by: John Morales | January 13, 2009 7:22 PM

Tom Gray @172, why should who you are be relevant to our evaluation of what you post? Your posts should stand on their merits, such as they are.

Posted by: Alan Wilkinson | January 13, 2009 7:45 PM

This is one of the most pointless, futile and abusive "discussions" I have seen. Like much of this blog it is about religion rather than science.

Global warming isn't something you believe in. It is something you measure. Concensus is an appeal to politics by those who cannot debate science. Science is about questioning and scepticism, not about settled belief.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 13, 2009 7:53 PM

Science is about questioning and scepticism and evidence and its correct interpretation, which experts can - and in some circumstances need to - come together to evaluate and reach conclusions, not about settled belief.

Posted by: Ian | January 13, 2009 8:10 PM

Also, the correlation between fake atheists and those unable to spell the damned word seems to be an almost perfect 1.

True story: "atheist" was the word that lost me the school spelling bee in third grade. I had never encountered the word before then.

#148 george h.:

Your rabid, ignorant adherence to a now-clearly falsified AGW theory reminds me of another scientifically-iliterate group who despite mountains of evidence to the contrary are convinced that vaccines are reponsible for autism.

Um, no. See, there's one teeny tiny little difference between the AGW crowd and the anti-vaxxer crowd. AGW is supported by the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Anti-vaccination isn't.

Steve H.:

Your complete failure to respond in any way to the simplest of inquiries about the "proofs" you bring to the thread reveals you to be a dishonest tool. Feel free to shove off now.

Posted by: Alan Wilkinson | January 13, 2009 8:17 PM

The skeptics can test it and revise it. But they don't seem to bother. They won't do the science.

Completely false. One of the two main satellite global temperature records is maintained by sceptics who have published frequently as have many others.

You are not backing science by your unquestioning belief that the science is settled. You are creating a religious cult. There is a very great deal still to be understood about the drivers of our climate, both past and present.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 8:37 PM

Alan, it ain't science until the paper is at least accepted for publication (in press). I have no idea what the other blogs you mention do, but blogs are not truly scientific unless it can cite the primary scientific literature (even with just "in press") for the data they show. The earlier posters were missing this. If you have the citations, give them. Realize we hear so and so believes in creationism, but if you look at their papers, pure science, not creationism (religion). That is why it is important to be able to judge the papers ourselves.

Posted by: Alan Wilkinson | January 13, 2009 9:02 PM

Alan, it ain't science until the paper is at least accepted for publication (in press)

Nonsense. Most science is never formally published.

Highly technical! OH NOEZ! I'm shakin' in my boots!

If you do not have advanced statistical knowledge you are not qualified to have an opinion on Steve McIntyre's work.

Posted by: James Mayeau | January 13, 2009 9:17 PM

Real scientific work can be carried out by novel means and nonprofessionals, but it then needs to be written up and peer-reviewed, meeting scientific standards.

So it can be labeled as blasphemy by the clerics and gate keepers of the religion of sustainablility.

WUWT?

Posted by: SC, OM | January 13, 2009 9:31 PM

If you do not have advanced statistical knowledge you are not qualified to have an opinion on Steve McIntyre's work.

Are you suggesting that the editors and reviewers at the journals in the relevant fields do not have such knowledge? I was chortling at your use of "highly technical" and how it reminded me of references to "distinguished and learned" theologians. Does McIntire wear a white coat, too?

So it can be labeled as blasphemy by the clerics and gate keepers of the religion of Darwinism.

Do you people realize how much you sound like creationists?

Oh, well - I'm sure ExxonMobil appreciates your antiscience efforts.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 9:38 PM

Sorry Alan, as a professional scientist with 30+ years experience, if it ain't published, it doesn't exist. Just if I don't write my experiments into my notebook, I never carried them out. If work extends the field, it will be published. Unless, of course, the work isn't scientific, and is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. So anything other than quoting the literature will get you nowhere with me.

Posted by: Alan Wilkinson | January 13, 2009 11:10 PM

Nerd, you sound like an ivory tower academic. In the real world all kinds of science gets done every day and is never published because it is done for immediately useful purposes - not for academic status and promotion. Most published science is actually pretty useless and read by few except its authors.

Wow, AGW even have their own ad hominem slagging website.

I see it doesn't get around to mentioning that Steve was an official IPCC 2007 reviewer.

Nasty-minded, slanted cherry-picking like that certainly helps their cause better than actual science, doesn't it? Actually I've yet to find an AGW site that doesn't spend most of its time censoring, banning and denigrating any scepticism. This ugly behaviour probably accounts for the declining public confidence in their assertions.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 13, 2009 11:38 PM

Wow, AGW even have their own ad hominem slagging website.

Here's the description of McIntire from SourceWatch:

Stephen McIntyre is, according to the Wall Street Journal, a "semiretired Toronto minerals consultant" who has spent "two years and about $5,000 of his own money trying to double-check the influential graphic" known as the "hockey stick" that illustrates a reconstruction of average surface temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, created by University of Virginia climatologist Michael Mann. McIntyre claims Mann and his colleagues used "flawed methods that yield meaningless results," the Journal writes.[1]

McIntyre does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment, which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.[2] McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." [3]

At the 2007 Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, McIntyre gave a joint presentation on hurricanes and climate change with Roger Pielke Jr..[4]

What part of this is slagging? Factually incorrect?

I see it doesn't get around to mentioning that Steve was an official IPCC 2007 reviewer.

This kind

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/you_too_can_be_a_leading_clima.php

or a different kind? (It's an honest question - are "official" reviewers different from "expert" reviewers?)

Nasty-minded, slanted cherry-picking like that certainly helps their cause better than actual science, doesn't it? Actually I've yet to find an AGW site that doesn't spend most of its time censoring, banning and denigrating any scepticism. This ugly behaviour probably accounts for the declining public confidence in their assertions.

Projection, ladies and gentlemen. Projection.

Posted by: Alan Wilkinson | January 14, 2009 2:07 AM

sourcewatch is a creature of CMD whose AGW slant is crystal clear from their website:

... says Sheldon Rampton, research director for the Center for Media and Democracy, a nonprofit organization that promotes media literacy. ... 'But the global-warming skeptics certainly haven't given up. And they seem willing to promote anyone who can be half-plausibly sold as an expert.'

The selection of comments and quotes about McIntyre is obviously intended and designed to discredit him along the above lines which is precisely why you quoted it.

Re the IPCC 2007 Review, I quote McIntyre:

I was a reviewer for IPCC 4AR and made many constructive suggestions on the Paleoclimate chapter both in the first draft and second draft. Most of my comments were ignored, but it's not that I didn't participate.

Also when I tried to get supporting data on two unpublished paleoclimate studies from the authors (after IPCC refused to provide it and referred me to the authors), IPCC gave me notice that I would be expelled as a reviewer if I attempted to get supporting data on unpublished studies from the authors.

Official or "expert" - I neither know nor much care. But a reviewer who wants to check the conclusions against the data is at least attempting a competent review, while an organisation that obstructs that outcome is a political farce rather than a scientific enquiry.

Posted by: stroller | January 14, 2009 5:42 AM

Where AGW theory has got it's computer model badly wrong is in the method by which it arrives at a value for co2 climate forcing.

It makes some WAG's at the strength of a few other parameters and then attributes the rest of the late C20th warming to CO2.

Problem is, it fails to take into consideration a couple of extremely important factors which as we speak are overpowering the co2 forcing and pushing global temperatures downwards. These two factors are: The oceanic oscillation cycles and the underestimated solar forcing.

It turns out that the run of strong el nino's which have forced up the global temperature in the final 3 decades of the C20th have been fed by a large subsurface body of warm water called the pacific warm pool. Because it is well below the surface, and it hasn't been measured by sea surface temperature measurements, or satellites, it's accumulated energy isn't represented in the temperature record. You can read all about it over on Watts Up With That. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/11/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-1/
Be sure to check out part 2 a couple of posts above. The work has been done by Bob Tisdale. One upshot is that the parameterisation solar forcing is underestimated because it fails to take into account the energy which has been hidden in the Pacific Warm Pool.

Judging by the current transition of the pacific decadal oscillation to it's cool phase, as eveidenced by the back to back La Nina's over the last two years, the warm pool has given us what it has got for now and we may well be in for a prolonged spell of cooler climate. Coupled with the dropoff in solar activity expected over the next 20-60 years, it's looking likely the IPCC co2 driven model will become increasingly falsified by actual events in the real world away from computer models.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 14, 2009 9:56 AM

We have many scientists changing their view on AGW and are now rejecting the theory as flawed and invalid. - Steve H.

Like who? We need qualified climate scientists, who once accepted the consensus position, and have now changed their minds. Many of them.

More generally, your #204 is a stream of accusations without a particle of evidence. How about providing some?

Posted by: Stephen Wells | January 14, 2009 10:42 AM

@207: you claim that "It turns out that the run of strong el nino's which have forced up the global temperature in the final 3 decades of the C20th have been fed by a large subsurface body of warm water called the pacific warm pool. Because it is well below the surface, and it hasn't been measured by sea surface temperature measurements, or satellites, it's accumulated energy isn't represented in the temperature record. You can read all about it over on Watts Up With That. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/11/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-1/"

Now, I could just respond with [citation needed], as you're linking to a blog post, not to climatology literature. But it's more elegant to actually look within the page you cite, which includes a nice little diagram of your Pacific Warm Pool and this description: "The Pacific Warm Pool, also known as the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, is an area in the western equatorial Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean where huge volumes of warm water collect due to a number of natural processes (normally attributed to ocean currents and trade winds). The Pacific Warm Pool is visible in SST data and in subsurface ocean temperature data; the warm pool reaches down to depths of 300 meters. Figure 10 illustrates its location. Over decadal periods of time, it expands and contracts in area and increases and decreases in volume."

So, you claim that the pool has not been measured by SST measurements. As proof, you cite a page which says the pool _is_ visible in SST data.

Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

Posted by: Steve H. | January 14, 2009 11:59 AM

Redhead,
"I've seen some of the AWG deniers literature. I am very unimpressed with the data and its lack of quality control."

Then you haven't seen enough and are deliberately avoiding it.

The data and quality control is extensive. You're review of it is not. Instead you utilize the same tired excuses to marginalize the oppostion. Reducing it to "citing web sites"
while ignoring the extensive content, science, data and experts appearing in many venues including publications and academia.
In this thread you ignored much as you keep repeating the usual mantras. Then close with shut up.

Stephen Wells & Knockgoats,
You appear to be like many other AGW loyalists. Stuck without learning and unaware of the expertice and science that refutes AGW.
You can't even grasp the most basic refutions or that any real scientists reject AGW.

Wells, apparently unable to find it, asks where is the case that global warming will not happen?
Hey Wells,,, it's no where. Never mind for you.

KnockGoats,
Same with you. Never mind. There are no scientists changing their view on AGW.
There now don't you feel better?
Are you stuck here and can't click your way around?
As for my #204 stream of accusations without a particle of evidence? In my having countless exchanges with the AGW faithful many have openly revealed their stance that it matters not whether AGW is true. They want the policies anyway. Countless other indications have demonstrated the other interests as well.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 14, 2009 12:26 PM

Stevie, this is how you separate honest men of integrity from liars and bullshitters. You set up a test, in this case the citations from the primary peer reviewed scientific literature which is a neutral third party, where honest men of integrity either will cite the literature, or acknowledge the data isn't there. Liars and bullshitters, who are men without integrity, will be evasive and try to keep their arguments going. Guess which side you fell on Stevie. I see you as a man with no integrity. So why should I believe anything you have to say? You might as well go away. Nobody will listen to you.

Posted by: Steve H. | January 14, 2009 1:39 PM

Prepare for ice age

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2009/20090114065138.aspx

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 14, 2009 3:04 PM

And Stevie proves my point yet again. He has no honor, integrity, or verified facts to back him up. Just a shadow of a sockpuppet.

Posted by: Alan Wilkinson | January 14, 2009 4:05 PM

SC_OM, your comments on McIntyre are ridiculous.

The published McIntyre and McKittrick refutation of Mann's first hockey-stick paper must be one of the most widely-cited contributions to the climate change debate and I suggest likely far outweighs in significance and citations most other published work, perhaps including yours.

Since Mann last year attempted to resurrect his broken stick you will be pleased to know that a further McIntyre response has been accepted and is imminent if not already published in the same journal that published Mann.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 14, 2009 5:27 PM

You'll have to be more specific, Alan. Are you talking about the 2005 paper in this organization's journal?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125154628.htm

Since Mann last year attempted to resurrect his broken stick you will be pleased to know that a further McIntyre response has been accepted and is imminent if not already published in the same journal that published Mann.

In PNAS? If you have a citation, provide it. If it's imminent, come back when it appears. Or by "response" do you mean a comment on Mann's paper and not a publication?

Posted by: SC, OM | January 14, 2009 5:45 PM

Wait - Alan, are you talking about one of the articles in Energy and Environment? It's not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Haven't we covered this ground already?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment

Posted by: Steve H. | January 14, 2009 8:28 PM

Nerd,

Here's my post #135 that provided plenty.
Along with the other posts which included a professor rejecting the IPCC there's plenty already here.
So let me get you.
I keep giving you the work of scientists and you keep claiming I never did?

Posted by: Steve H. | January 13, 2009 1:27 PM

Trent,

What a bozo. It's only your twist that makes the leap that a cooling year=cooling climate. That way you can avoid the context and greater meanings while echoing that petty weather is not climate bromide. A bromide concern which vanishes every time a AGW loons evangelizes some new weather obeservation to be AGW caused.

Redhead,
The link is a detailed scienfitic report by two German physisists which thoroughly discredits AGW, top to bottom.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

Here it is again.

Now pretend you didn't see it, or claim the link is a web site, or condemn the authors without reading it or ignore it completely so as to preserve your confusion.

Here are abundant links to everything you folks pretend does not exist. Including peer reviewed skeptics.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=b84196ff-802a-23ad-4827-17b10ab7dfcc

But since you refuse to read icecap.us, CA and WUWT no doubt you'll use the usual excuses to continue avoiding the vast science community that rejects AGW.

Instead choosing to follow your government led farce like good little children.

Posted by: wildlifer | January 14, 2009 8:41 PM

@227

The link is a detailed scienfitic report by two German physisists which thoroughly discredits AGW, top to bottom.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

Great ... you refer to a paper that denies the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Jeeze.

Posted by: Steve H. | January 14, 2009 8:52 PM

Nerd Ian and Wells,

Are you folks loopy?
You don't seem to be able to grasp the most simplistic thing.

No I don't care if you "believe me".

I want you to read and comprehend the reports I have provided.
Instead you're all obsessed with nonsensicle games.

There are abundant links to scientific work I have already provided you with.
Yet you read none and respond to none, then claim I never provided them.
You yammer on with "peer review rhetoric" and I give you a piece by a science professor and you ignore it. I think you didn't like the link of something?

Again, there are plenty of experts in science and academia
who reject AGW. All over the globe. I suggest there are more than those who continue to support AGW. Yes, including former IPCC scientists, which I also linked to above.

Yet you continue to claim they don't exist.

It is you who have the integrity and thics problems.

Your approach would be the same as if I claimed Hansen and the IPCC don't exist.

That's irrational.

As for the bogus hockey stick? If you were even remotely well read on AGW you would have to know Mann has been debunked and even moreso lately.

Other refutions come with the Midieval War Period being scientificly eestablished as a global event which contradicts the claim ti was regional, unsettled and insigificant.

The two hemispheres failing to warm symetriccly contradicts Hansen/IPCC projections.

Sea ice recovery, a decade long cooling trend and a wide range of inconsitencies with the IPCC AGW modeling have been widely examined and continued scrutiny is revealing more problems every day.

If you have missed out on the evolving science then you have been in a box.

You can't hide and play make believe that it hasn't and isn't happening becasue I haven't broght it all here for you.

Besides, if the prior ignoring here is any indication it wouldn't matter if I did drag all of of it here.

go to
www.icecap.us
www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climateaudit.org

Every day new material, discussed at length gets posted.
It comes from all over the place, from experts.

Plus you can drop in there and tell ALL of them they either don't exist or have no integrity.

I'm, sure they'll be as impressed as I have been.

Posted by: wildlifer | January 14, 2009 8:57 PM

You quote me for a reason there, Nerd?

It get's worse as the second link references that clown Inhofe - I interviewed him once when I worked at an Oklahoma newspaper and he's a moron - and the bogus list of (604 now) scientists. I think there may be a dozen who would have anything close to a background in climate science.

Posted by: Steve H. | January 14, 2009 9:19 PM

Sorry, I guess you can't understand it.

Here's a summary below.
And before you ask here's a comment from that location.

"It does not need to be peer reviewed. Gerlich is not presenting a theory. He is simply reviewing whether the greenhouse theories conform with the - amply peer reviwed :-) - laws of physics. Moreover, the paper is published on Arxiv, which notes "The contents of arXiv conform to Cornell University academic standards. arXiv is owned, operated and funded by Cornell University, a private not-for-profit educational institution. arXiv is also partially funded by the National Science Foundation."
kravis02 May 28, 2008 04:54 AM CST

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/blog/2007/10/21/summary_of_gerhard_gerlich_criticism_greenhouse_effect

Summary of Gerhard Gerlich Criticism Greenhouse Effect
Sunday, October 21, 2007, 02:12 PM GMT [General]

The following is a summary of the conclusions of

(Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner - "Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics")

"5 Physicist's Summary

A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical
physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:

1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms \greenhouse effect" and \greenhouse gases" are deliberate misnomers.

2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet:
a) with or without atmosphere,
b) with or without rotation,
c) with or without infrared light absorbing gases.

The frequently mentioned difference of 33 C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.

3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant flux is completely irrelevant for the determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.

4. Average temperature values cannot be identifed with the fourth root of average values of the absolute temperature's fourth power.

5. Radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their average values.

6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.

7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind [perpetual motion machine]. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the average fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.

8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects : : : 93

9. Infrared absorption does not imply "backwarming". Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.

10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere.

11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly. The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.

12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in particular theoretical physics.

13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the definition of appropriate dynamical constraints (flux control) having become a part of computer modelling is nothing but another form of data curve fitting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann once said to his young collaborators: "If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will..fly." (cf. Ref. [185].)

14. Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids with wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on grids with wide meshes.

15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear partial differential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamental differ from calculations where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the predictions - by raising the computing power - are possible. At best, these computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.

16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butter fly phenomenon as another threat to the health of the Earth. In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth"

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 14, 2009 9:36 PM

Stevie, GO HOME. You have nothing to say, but you keep saying it anyway. Bad Boy!

Posted by: John Morales | January 14, 2009 10:49 PM

16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butter fly phenomenon as another threat to the health of the Earth. In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth"

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 14, 2009 11:33 PM

Stevie, you have nothing to say, and proved it by saying it. Go away. Stay away. You are a proven liar and bullshitter with no integrity. Everything you say is considered a lie. Bye Bye.

Posted by: wildlifer | January 15, 2009 12:14 AM

Your assessment of the 650 skeptic scientists is ludicrous and foolish. Their collective scientific expertise far exceeds what's left of the IPCC holdouts. From climatologists and meteorologists to oceanographers, geologists, atmospheric studies, physicists, statisticians and hurricane experts they match any of the IPCC talent. Some are former IPCC members. To discount them all is as irrational as it gets.

Weathermen? too funny. Statisticians?? OMG!! IIRC there's a gardener or two on there as well ... lmao
List all their publications wrt their work as primary researchers in climate studies.

Posted by: Alan Wilkinson | January 15, 2009 12:42 AM

What a lot of silly academic snobbery. Let's be clear. It doesn't matter if it is a paper or a comment. What matters is if it is right. Time will tell.

And how many here have a paper with 72 academic citations on google scholar? let alone 13,000 google internet hits?

Posted by: Stephen Wells | January 15, 2009 5:11 AM

@Alan Wilkinson: if someone publishes a paper claiming that 2+2=3 and pi=7, you don't need to wait for time to tell if it's right or not.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 15, 2009 7:20 AM

What a lot of silly academic snobbery. Let's be clear. It doesn't matter if it is a paper or a comment.

Sure, it doesn't...to the profoundly ignorant and cosmically deluded.

What matters is if it is right. Time will tell.

Time has already told. And it's dishonest to keep switching, as you guys have repeatedly done on this thread, between the present and future tenses. It's also fatal to your argument - as soon as you resort to fallbacks like "time will tell," you're implicitly conceding that he hasn't made his scientific case in the present. Come back if he does.

And how many here have a paper with 72 academic citations on google scholar? let alone 13,000 google internet hits?

You lack a very basic understanding of how science works. Very, very sad. I actually believe that at some level (even if it's not quite conscious yet) you have some sense of the broad outlines, but aren't allowing yourself to accept this. If nothing else, I hope our little exchange leads you to read McIntyre's claims about himself and his work a bit more critically in the future.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 15, 2009 12:08 PM

I'm sure they feel the same way about you lifer.

Posted by: Steve H. | January 15, 2009 12:51 PM

Frederick Seitz, former president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, claimed that he had "never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the event that led to this IPCC report." Seitz went on to charge that nearly all of the editorial changes made by the report's lead author, Benjamin Santer, "worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general or global warming in particular." Others, including the independent but industry-backed Global Climate Coalition (GCC) went so far as to claim that the report had been "scientifically cleansed" in a political effort to emphasize alarm about global warming while deleting references to uncertainty.

"Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol... As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."

Posted by: Steve H. | January 15, 2009 1:51 PM

Uh that video is a long propoganda screed which avoids the extensive culmination of both scientists and sceince which makes the speaker look like a completel fool.

Regarding,,,
Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 15, 2009 12:03 AM
""Gerlich and friend Tscheuschner are jokes,
,,,Eli later provided a simple experiment that demonstrates how an intermediate layer can hinder the cooling of a hotter one radiating to a cold exterior (e.g. just as the earth radiates IR energy through the intermediate atmosphere to cold space."""""

Eli, is correct if you take "warming" as meaning a correction by greenhouse gas absorption in the wavelength range that CO2 absorbs at, which keeps the earths nocturnal cooling rate from allowing temperatures to fall precipitously low in the arctic winter, such as in the excess of -90F.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 15, 2009 2:07 PM

Uh that video is a long propoganda screed which avoids the extensive culmination of both scientists and sceince which makes the speaker look like a completel fool.

Oreskes is a historian of science who's published (peer-reviewed) on the scientific consensus on AGW. You've been circling the drain for a good long while now, Steve. Time to stop clinging to the bowl and to enter the pipes. You've got nothing.

(What is it with cranks and multiple punctuation? It's very disturbing.)

Posted by: wildlifer | January 15, 2009 5:44 PM

Eli, is correct if you take "warming" as meaning a correction by greenhouse gas absorption in the wavelength range that CO2 absorbs at, which keeps the earths nocturnal cooling rate from allowing temperatures to fall precipitously low in the arctic winter, such as in the excess of -90F.

Hogwash. GHGs (except for water vapor) keep the entire planet from having temperature extremes like that of the moon - about a 500° F swing from night to day, 225° F during the day and dropping down to –243°F at night.
About ninety-nine percent of the atmosphere does nothing to regulate global temps.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 15, 2009 10:00 PM

Stevie me boy, you seem to be particularly dumb. Why is that? All this running around telling lies and bullshitting people making you lose track of things? Or, you lie and bullshit because you don't know any better? I suspect the latter. Go away and leave your betters, people who actually know how to do science, alone. We had your number days ago.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 15, 2009 10:07 PM

(odd that you're so ashamed of your "IPCC scientist" that you won't call him by name.......)

Stevie, write that paper and quite bothering us. There might be a Nobel prize if you are eventually proven right. Can't get the prize without publishing, and he who publishes first gets the prize.

Posted by: Alan Wilkinson | January 15, 2009 11:01 PM

SC, OM, you seem to be cosmically stupid yourself as well as laughably arrogant and foolishly rude. I note this blogger is enthusiastic about rudeness so I won't be back to such a foolish place.

But since Steve McIntyre's response to Mann's latest has not yet even been published to my knowledge, your claim that the issues have already been decided is empty-headed rhetoric apparently typical of the level of commentary here.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 15, 2009 11:18 PM

blah blah evasion dodge delusion crankery we don' need no stinkin' peer review McIntyre had the highest grade on his 8th-grade algebra final I won't be back academic snobbery blog hits do too mean he's scientifical and shit you're mean so I win blah blah blah

wOOt! Farewell, credulous dupe!

Posted by: SC, OM | January 15, 2009 11:21 PM

Right back at ya, J, LB.

Posted by: Janine, Leftist Bozo | January 15, 2009 11:24 PM

Wowbagger, for your own good, sink the boot. You will feel better.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 15, 2009 11:32 PM

OMG, just discovered SC, OM is a sociologist. Talk about wasting time on the congenitally clueless. Still, I got a laugh out of finding that out.

Yeah, because even if sociology wasn't a perfectly valid field of study it would make no difference whatsoever to her having knowledge in another field. For example, you sound like you most likely work at McDonald's. Does this mean you can't also wash car windscreens at traffic lights as well?

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 15, 2009 11:56 PM

It's quite made my day!

You must lead a very dull life. Is it better than the excitement you get when you sit down and make yourself a shiny new tinfoil hat to keep the spy satellites from reading your thoughts? Or the delight you experience when you've bought yourself a fancy new bug-sweeper so you can make sure no-one's listening in on super-secret conversations you and the members of your really cool denialist club have at their meetings?

Wowbagger, you sound as though you have the same professional qualifications as SC, OM.

Wrong. That you have interpreted that from what I wrote speaks volumes about your (in)ability to read for comprehension - and says much about why you seem to believe what you claim to believe.

This is the funniest thing I've heard this year - a bunch of clueless sociologists sounding off about the science of climate change

Once again: wrong. On every count. I am neither clueless nor a sociologist. Oh, and feel free to find and cite the post number where I have commented on the science of climate change.

Posted by: Janine, Leftist Bozo | January 16, 2009 12:00 AM

Wowbagger, be honest. Do you feel better now?

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 16, 2009 12:08 AM

Wowbagger, I'm laughing so much it is hard to type.

And the relevance our being posessed of the requisite writing skill to elicit such a response in a person as otherwise drab and colourless as you is what, exactly? Perhaps you should get out more.

You are the people that complain what would a mere meterologist know about climate change! Brilliant!!

Liar. Cite the number of the post where I wrote anything even approaching this sentiment. Go on, it shouldn't be that hard - even for you.

Posted by: Steve H. | January 16, 2009 12:26 AM

The many, and increasing, scientists who reject AGW are already more than remain convinced.

I wonder when you misguided followers will catch up.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

Jan 15, 2009
Hansen’s ideology makes him ‘no longer qualified to be the keeper of the global temperature data’

By Craig James, AMS Fellow in the NYT DotEarth blog

I am a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and have just recently retired after a 40 year career as a television meteorologist. For the last two years of my career, I wrote a blog from the skeptics point of view in regards to AGW.

I came to this position largely through the writings of Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. from Colorado State, Dr. Roy Spencer from UAH and yes, Joe D’Aleo. I believe Dr. Hansen would label these people as “court jesters” as he does anyone who criticizes his work, although doesn’t science progress through critical evaluation of another’s work by such excellent scientists as those mentioned?

I agree with Joe D’Aleo that it is indeed a sad day for the AMS when the society awards a man whose work has been shown to contain errors (such as proclaiming this past October the warmest October of record when September data was used). I believe Dr. Hansen’s political ideology has taken over his science and renders him no longer qualified to be the keeper of the global temperature data.

Posted by: Steve H. | January 16, 2009 12:33 AM

BTW
Hansen has no education in any climate science.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 16, 2009 12:42 AM

I see our uninvited self appointed expert liars and bullshitters are back. Boy, their stupidity know no bounds. If it is science, publish the damn data. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 16, 2009 12:44 AM

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 16, 2009 12:56 AM

I really think the unscientific lying twits are trying to get the last word in. Fat chance.

Posted by: Alan Wilkinson | January 16, 2009 1:27 AM

Nerd, do you enjoy discussing science with a bunch of foul-mouthed sociologists and their hangers-on?

I thought you were a real scientist but you seem to have come down to a truly pathetic level. Call yourself a chemist don't you? Shame. You are really slumming here aren't you?

Posted by: SC, OM | January 16, 2009 1:40 AM

PEER-

REVIEWED

LITERATURE

So simple, and yet so difficult for cranks to grasp.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 16, 2009 1:53 AM

Will do, Nerd.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | January 16, 2009 2:08 AM

Alan Wilkinson wrote:

And the very last laugh here is that this pathetic bunch isn't any good even at their only field of expertise - insulting people!

Coming from you that's quite a claim. You appear to lack the requisite reading comprehension skills to judge the merits of anyone else's writing.

You said you were leaving, Alan. You lied. You know what that makes you?

A liar. Why, then, should we accept anything else you've claimed? You've proved to be more than a little 'flexible' with reading comprehension as well, so there's little doubt in my mind you can't be trusted to be honest about anything.

You might learn some humanity.

We respect those who deserve it. Obviously, this excludes lying pissant scumbags like you.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | January 16, 2009 2:14 AM

Hey Wowbagger, did you minor in snark?

Heck yes. Did some extra-credit courses in rants, scorn and vitriol, too...

Posted by: Alan Wilkinson | January 16, 2009 2:22 AM

I bet you failed, Wowbagger. But I really must go now ...

Posted by: SC, OM | January 16, 2009 2:43 AM

I tried to read through a comment thread at one of the denialist blogs the other day. It was weapons-grade dull. No wonder Wilk and friends have found it so hard to tear themselves away from Pharyngula, and keep trying to get us to go over there. They must be bored out of their minds.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 16, 2009 3:11 AM

SC, OM I admit it did rank as a cruel and unusual punishment to expect a sociologist to read a science blog.

I read several science blogs (including this one) daily, lackwit. It's the pseudoscience blogs I find unbearable.

Have a good night.

You too, Wilk (if you're really leaving). You've been a fun little hacky sack.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 16, 2009 3:42 AM

Wowbagger - My old manure fork has 10 tines for shit scooping, that being the most I have ever seen, and a heavy load to toss - I give you at least an eight tine score. *smirk*

That idiot Alan obviously has no clue about true shit slinging. Sarah Palin, George Bush and Rush Limbaugh are 12 tiners.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 16, 2009 4:14 AM

Alan Wilkinson,

OMG, just discovered SC, OM is a sociologist. Talk about wasting time on the congenitally clueless.

You're an idiot. You cite McKitrick, an economist, during the discussion on global warming and then laugh at someone for being sociologist?

This is the funniest thing I've heard this year - a bunch of clueless sociologists sounding off about the science of climate change

One person says she's a sociologists and you somehow conclude everyone here is? Way to show off your "advanced statistical knowledge".

And the very last laugh here is that this pathetic bunch isn't any good even at their only field of expertise - insulting people!

You and your pseudo scientific beliefs deserve only contempt and ridicule. There is no scientific debate here. We laugh at you the same why we laugh at creationists, astrologers, the anti-vaccine nuts, etc.

Posted by: clinteas | January 16, 2009 4:39 AM

Only meteorologists can competently comment on climate change?
Thats like saying only sports reporters can comment on whos going to win the championship.....

I dont have the time to read all the relevant literature,so I wont comment on the issue,because I currently could not do so competently,but I sure do have an opinion on it.
And I notice that most if not all the GW deniers that have showed up here in the last few days have been arrogant pompous little dipshits,and that is usually a sign that you are not quite so sure about your case than you are trying to make people believe.
And their comprehension and mental flexibility skills are on par with that of any other group of fundamentalists out there,if that.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 16, 2009 8:39 AM

Oh SC,

You just don't know how obsolete and inaccurate that piece is do you.

Of course not.

Guess the AMS doesn't, either:

[This statement is considered in force until February 2012 unless superseded by a new statement issued by the AMS Council before this date.]

(At times I think Steve's joking - hard to believe someone could keep setting himself up to get knocked down like this.)

Feynmaniac:

You're an idiot. You cite McKitrick, an economist, during the discussion on global warming and then laugh at someone for being sociologist?

Heh. Good one.

Q: What do you call a social scientist who's corrupt or impervious to evidence?

A: An expert climate scientist.

Posted by: wildlifer | January 16, 2009 9:09 AM

Sorry folks, the "meteorologist" derailment is my fault. Steve H alluded to them on his list of "scientists" that AGW was false.
He and AW missed my point (expected). Being a meteorologist or a statistician doesn't mean one can't become an expert in climatology, it just means their training doesn't make them one. That's why I followed up with a request for primary research done by these signers.
That was never produced.
I don't doubt they have an opinion on AGW - just as I do - but the fact they're a "scientist" doesn't make them an expert on topics outside their field, just as me being a wildlife biologist doesn't make me an expert on AGW by the fact I too am a scientist.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 16, 2009 4:24 PM

Alan, Alan, if you were a scientist you would understand the need for quality data, which peer review helps ensure. I just see you as a shill for the unscientific. You need to go and find your moral and scientific integrity if you wish to claim yourself as a scientist, Since your posts this week show you have no integity.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 16, 2009 5:05 PM

Alan's back again? Oh, Alan, Alan, Alan. Have you asked yourself why, even though you've been thoroughly trounced, you've been unable to leave? Is it because it's the most fun you've had in ages, and you just can't go back to the BECCs (Blogs of Excessively Courteous Crankery)? Face it - you can't help but enjoy our company. And you're endearing, in a scraggly-cat-we-found-scrounging-in-a-dumpster sort of way. I'd even ask you to stick around, if you could try to keep the lying and pseudoscience to a minimum.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 16, 2009 6:11 PM

Alan. Are you always such a pompous blowhard? High School film reels were more interesting than you.

*booop*

Posted by: Emmet, OM | January 16, 2009 6:29 PM

All your ranting and swearing does absolutely nothing but leave me chuckling.

And the rest of us, for that is its purpose.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 16, 2009 6:49 PM

For example, that was another good belly-laugh hearing a sociologist complaining about pseudoscience!

I'm going to attempt, once, to explain to you why, although you think you're saying something intelligent, these comments simply mark you as an ignoramus. My doing so is a compliment - I actually think you are capable of understanding what I'm going to say (perhaps not immediately, but...).

Ignorant people call sociologists and others in the social sciences (call them social studies if you wish - I often do, although it can lead to some confusion) pseudoscientists based on the mistaken notion that we are posing as scientists and that science is defined by the search for eternal laws or some such nonsense. Good sociology is scientific in the same way as good history (usually classified in the humanities) is: Both are empirical disciplines. Both answer their questions - Which scientists become cranks, and why? Which groups supported fascist movements in the 1920s and '30s, and why? Which people join the antivaccine movement, and why? Why are there more atheists in some parts of the world than others?... - by collecting and analyzing data using methods that are appropriate to the task and that are made explicit. Both define their terms clearly and justify their methods and their definitions. Both analyze their data honestly. This is good scholarship - call it what you will.

A good example in terms of the history of science (well, she's a historian but it's more of a sociological study - since I work at the intersection of the two it makes no difference to me) is Naomi Oreskes' essay in Science, "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change." If you haven't yet read it, you should google it. Another is the book by Allen Brandt that I mentioned above: The Cigarette Century.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 16, 2009 6:57 PM

Hell no. I'm way too hung over to deal with your bullshit assignment.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 16, 2009 7:03 PM

By the way, Wilk, there are currently interesting discussions going on here about science and "race," the relationship between science and philosophy, the possibility of life on Mars, and more. There are more dedicated-science posts listed on the top left of your screen, under "A Taste of Pharyngula." Or are you a narrow, single-issue science enthusiast?

Posted by: SC, OM | January 16, 2009 7:16 PM

OC, SC, cheer up. I don't really have it in for sociologists - I've known a few quite nice ones.

?

Just stay away from hard science debates and you'll be fine.

Says the guy who's been unable to come up with a substantive response to any of my posts on this thread.

It's far too early to write the history of the AGW scientific debate and anyone who tries to do it at the moment is really just engaging in politics.

So that's a 'no' on engaging with empirical research on the subject, then? You can read the piece I mentioned online - just a few clicks. See, Alan, it's remarks like this that make me lose hope for you.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 16, 2009 7:28 PM

Alan, still trying to spread your lies and bullshit. You should have been gone two days ago. What part of you having no integrity don't you understand, so I can explain it to you in words of one syllable or less for your limited mind? You came, you posted, you failed to win converts. End of story. Go home.

Posted by: Alan Wilkinson | January 16, 2009 7:40 PM

Nerd, I'm not trying to spread anything, I was just trying to explore your mind but found it empty.

Steve_C, likewise.

Posted by: John Morales | January 16, 2009 7:54 PM

Alan, you've drifted from contrarian denialism, through a half-hearted defense of your claims, to espousing your opinion of this blog and its commenters, as if we cared. Any focus you had is long gone.

You're boring. Posting for the sake of it is pathetic.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 16, 2009 8:01 PM

Anyone else getting the feeling Alan wants some intellectual conversation rather than sycophant adulation? Alan, stop posting and just lurk for a week or two. See how you like the blog, and how you would fit in. That will get you out of our short term memories, and we would be less likely to snark at the initial post. I lurked for about 4-6 weeks before I first posted.

Posted by: Steve H. | January 16, 2009 11:27 PM

Good grief, no progresss at all.

I go skiing all day and nothing gets done.

The problem is the AGw loyalists don't adequately scrutinize anything. Not even the skeptics refutations.

They buy hook line stinker the IPCC BS and then fail to consume the scrutiny by others.

Unlike the skeptic who have studied and continue to study the shifting IPCC claims sand science.

You alarmists really don't want any scrutiny of the IPCC and global warming now do you?
What kind of science process is that? No scrutiny?

No, your idea of "peer review" is not good enough. But then you haven't studied the problems with that either.
Again because you are not interested in genuine scrutiny.
The outcome scares you.
You can't imagine what it would be like to have to come to the reaqlization you've been duped. And it was not YOU who picked up on it sooner.
Well now, come along. It's better to be late than to keep watching those ships sail off the edge of the earth.

Posted by: Steve H. | January 17, 2009 12:18 AM

Nerd,
You clearly have a malfunctioning sense of judgement.

You percieve things as they are not.
For instance, I provide you with IPCC scientists and many others who reject AGW and you can't fathom that or address them. So you call "me" a liar. It is not "ME" who has provided the contradictory science which refutes AGW.
If you have an arguement, or want to simply call them liars, waltz over to one of the blogs where their work is discussed and call them liars.
Or at least pick out something like the debunked Mann hockey stick and share your wisdom on how that it is valid.

So far your approach is silly and child-like.

I urge you and others to read and/or join in at climateaudit.org or wattsupwiththat.com and icecap.us and catch up a bit.

We all buddies.