“Science has already played its role” in the climate debate, explains Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC. After all, IPCC authors had to achieve consensus with more than 190 countries as well as publicly respond to each comment on the draft documents. “Unfortunately, the [climate] negotiations are becoming solely political,” Pachauri laments. So the theft could become a factor. “Do I think it will have a significant effect on the judgment of lawmakers or public opinion? No, I don’t,” remarks atmospheric scientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University. “But you never know with these things.”
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
278 Comments
Add CommentShame on SA for publishing such a blatantly biased apology for what appear to have been long lasting and willful manipulations on an issue of the greatest importance to us all. Casual dismissal of Climategate as "a record of how Science is actually done" is deeply offensive to me. No this is not the way Science is actually done! Climategate has brought to public light all kinds of behaviors anathema to Science: Groupthink, restricted and/or proprietary access to data, significant use of poorly documented yet "highly complex" data processing techniques, primary reliance on extrapolations or "proxies", and most damningly, offhand dismissal of skeptics as crackpots, quickly come to my mind. As a scientifically trained person, I am genuinely embarrassed that the Wall Street Journal, as opposed to SA, has understood the great concerns raised by Climategate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Thierry Copie
Ph.D Physics 1988, Cornell U.
The real "trick" in using real temperatures instead of the tree-ring proxies for the current era means that we do not know how well the "proxy" compares to the real temperature -- maybe it a proxy for moisture, or CO2, or something else that would make it a poor proxy. And since the context of the Climategate letters makes it clear that the tree-ring proxy showed current temperatures decreasing, either the tree-rings are a poor proxy (and tell us nothing about early times), or the current method of averaging a global temperature is flawed. From the recent evidence ( http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html and http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf) showing that the US NOAA (not East Anglia!) has reduced the number of weather stations in its average from over 7000 in the 70's to less than 1500 today (with only 1 station above latitude 65N, and that in a city), I now suspect that there may be flaws in both methods. The climate community has no credibility with me at the moment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther, while any undergraduate may show that CO2 traps heat, I doubt he can show that temperatures will increase. Since all reports (including Biello's) appeal to authority rather than presenting data, I cannot tell if CO2 has already trapped all the heat or not -- if 380 ppm only represents one mean free path (mfp) of absorber to infrared radiation, more CO2 could trap more heat, if it represents 10 mfp's, all the heat is already trapped, and more CO2 won't make any difference.
I would not be raising any of these issues if those prominent figures in the global warming field had not acted so unprofessionally, as shown by the Climategate emails.
There is a cohort of people, instututions and companies that continue to use misconstrued information to dismiss multiple converging lines of data and scientific explanation. They compain and deny with no regard for evidence or offering any kind of alternative explanation. That calls into question who really benefits from the confusion caused by spreading such misinformation. This is no different than groups who deny the holocaust took place or that 9/11 was a hoax or that evolution isn’t real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe stakes are far higher for the petrochemical industry to spread misinformation than for ten thousand independent and competitive scientists to collude on warning about a global catastrophe. The "Climategate" emails do more to illustrate that even hot tempered scientists aren’t able to get their fellow colleagues to go along with their revenge fantasies since none of their expressed plans or intentions ever made it into the peer reviewed literature or reports. It’s mostly vitriolic emails exchanged between colleagues about how frustrating the global warming opponents irrational arguments and outright contempt for science is.
I can't believe SA would publish an imitation Scientific Article like this. When you see the words "In fact, nothing in the stolen materials undermines the Scientific Consensus..." Are you kidding me, Scientific Consensus?? Consensus has no place in Science. Either it's provable or it's not. There has been Scientific consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth, that the earth was six thousand years old, that the sound barrier was unbreakable, fortunately most scientists know to questions everything, we want to see the evidence, the proof. It's no wonder that as Americans we are losing the edge we've had in Science and Engineering. You publish your work, make the raw data available and actively debate with dissenters, you hide nothing. Consensus has no place in Science, its all about PROOF!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't believe SA would publish an imitation Scientific Article like this. When you see the words "In fact, nothing in the stolen materials undermines the Scientific Consensus..." Are you kidding me, Scientific Consensus?? Consensus has no place in Science. Either it's provable or it's not. There has been Scientific consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth, that the earth was six thousand years old, that the sound barrier was unbreakable, fortunately most scientists know to questions everything, we want to see the evidence, the proof. It's no wonder that as Americans we are losing the edge we've had in Science and Engineering. You publish your work, make the raw data available and actively debate with dissenters, you hide nothing. Consensus has no place in Science, it’s all about PROOF!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCome on, SA, in every discription of "Greenhouse Gases" I can find Water Vapor is included as one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Water Vapor is truely a "Greenhouse Gas" (and I know you won't deny it) then all CO2 is only about 31/2 % of all greenhouse gases. Man-generated CO2 is even smaller than that. If we cut Man-generated CO2 in half we don't even make a dent in the total greenhouse gases in volume.
I know, I've seen figures on the "effective percentage" of CO2, trying to get the figure up to the 14-20% range but those are hard to reconcile with other statements that show that Methane and Water Vapor are the most "effective" greenhouse gases, meaning they "absorb" more heat than CO2.
The ONLY way you can show that by reducing CO2 will affect global warming is to ignore Water Vapor!!
I wonder why I saw a show on TV that discussed the possibility of seeding clouds in such a way as to increase their reflectivity. If water vapor doesn't absorb heat or isn't a signifcant greenhouse gas why go to all that trouble? You guys speak out of both sides of your mouth,
Here's what the man-made global warming argument boils down to: " The global temperature has risen recently. Man's spewing of CO2 has risen at the same rate (I've seen the charts). Therefore, man is causing global warming. "
All the data is then manipulated to prove that conclusion. Thus the tendency to not mention Water Vapor. Include Water Vapor in ALL the discussions about greenhouse gases and you CANNOT prove that. Man's contribution to the TOTAL GREENHOUSE GASES is MINIMAL!!
I, also, don't give a crap about "concensus". You guys get your grants from the government to do your research and if you don't espouse the "politically correct" results your funding will be cut.
Keep your jobs but don't insult my intelligence!!
I guess lying, prevention of the publication of opposing points of view, destroyong data, and manipulating data to get the result you want is simply a "sociological" issue, at least according to Goddard. Now that we know that NOAA and NASA have also adulterated temperature data, perhaps we should have all of these scientists visited by a team of sociologists or psychologists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the average temperature of the planet is increasing beyond the one degree per century increase that has been going on for several centuries, one would expect that Mann et al. could produce, for independent verification and analysis, all of the raw observational atmospheric temperature data, the data collection methodology, and the algorithms used to arrive at the conclusion that average global temperature is increasing at an abnormal rate. After all, this is the fundamental justification for Copenhagen conferences, all of the hysteria, all of the public money being spent on research, and all of the vast sums of money it will cost many countries to implement "climate change" restrictions. Doesn't the public, who will pay the bill for much of this, have a right to at least this very basic request?
Anthony J. Marra
Shelton, CT
"Further, while any undergraduate may show that CO2 traps heat, I doubt he can show that temperatures will increase."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice self contradiction here. Do you have any others?
When one side of an issue needs to steal and commit crimes to "prove" its point their point is self-undermined.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease define temperature for me, oh and while your at it specific heat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe come back and apologize to everyone for claiming to know physics.
The data would not have to be "leaked" if the CRU had responded to FOI and provided the data for real peer review. Instead they deleted the data and now we can never prove it. Which is worse?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW has anyone in this rag seen the source code. Get it. compile it and run random numbers thru it. You will get the same result. Hockey stick. Mann made
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Either it's provable or it's not"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn what real world scenario are you living in? Science is not always so black and white. Imagine the people saying that to the first Atom theorists.
Even the Bush Admin approved the findings of the IPCC in regards to human man climate change. Surprising, but true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate gate has set back climate science back at least 20-25 years. None of the current scientists/activists have any credibility left and the public is now aware of their antics. I once believed that man was responsible for global warming, now I have my doubts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBush, Obama, Brown, Rudd - it does not matter who they are, they are all looking at the same cooked books. Contrary to what this puff piece says, the leaked (or hacked) emails of east anglia are being analyzed to this day and new insights gained even as we write here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsensus is fine in politics, but has no place in science. Indeed, some of the "Consensus" scientists are already calling for not only further investigation, but a review of all data. A review that cannot occur in East Anglia since "the dog ate their homework". That in itself shows their results are faulty - they cannot reproduce them, and that is a critical error in science.
just because a bunch of lemmings jump off a cliff, does not mean it is the next best vacation spot. I would worry less about what politicians think, and more about what real - unadulterated - scientists think.
Okay, PROFESSOR.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTemperature : a measure of the average kinetic energy within a defined system. Intensive quantity.
Specific heat: the amount of energy that must be absorbed by a substance to raise its temperature by one degree Celsius / one Kelvin. Intensive quantity.
Come back and apologize when you've learned to stop being an ass.
Oh and if you want to get nit picky in an attempt to save face, that's energy absorbed to raise the temperature of ONE MOL of a substance by 1 degree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen one side feels the needs to hide and destroy evidence of their active suppression of opposing views their point is self-undermined.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame. “Heat-trapping properties can be verified by any undergraduate in any lab,” notes climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University. “The detection of climate change, and its attribution to human causes, rests on numerous lines of evidence.” They include melting ice sheets, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels and earlier onset of spring, not to mention higher average global temperatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-----------------------------------
Typical bunch of rabid DENIALISTS still pushing their conservative ideology and politics, in place of science.
The physical evidence of a warming planet as carbon dioxide levels steadily increase and oxygen levels decrease, proves beyond a shadow of any doubt, our huge emissions are not benefitting the health of our planet and the future will only bring us a much more hostile environment.
When the other side of the issue hides and destroys evidence of their active repression of opposing views and evidence that contradicts their hypothesis, perhaps the 'crime' is justified.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgalaxy_man, there is no contradiction. Just like in saying that pouring bucket of water in the ocean adds water, but would would rise its level. Because CO2 is responsible for a very minor part of greenhouse effect, and human contribution makes up only 0.28% of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no Dr Thierry Copie Ph.D PhysicsCornell now or in 1988 - Just a troller!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot stolen. Leaked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's put this into human context:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2, by itself, has a warming effect: 1.5C at the high end. This effect is slightly less than moving from Boston to New York City, and about half of moving to Washington, D.C.
Tales about Catastrophe are based upon feedback scenarios. There are multiple scenarios, since there is no consensus about what the feedbacks are. No scenario agrees with observations.
@galaxy_man -> cloverm's statement (in 2nd post) is not a "self contradiction" since heat and temperature are not the same thing. They are related by heat capacity, which depends on the different properties of the materials in the system. I'm not outright agreeing with cloverm's points, but they are valid concerns in any case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse: "In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a start, read the material at these links, prepare your scientific refutation, and then get back to us:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf
http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html
and see these blogs for hundreds of other scientific refutations of the "science" of anthropogenic global warming:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://climateaudit.org/
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/
AAAAA+
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother Asinine Alarmist Apolgist Article by the mad scrambling editors at SCAM.
Careful, your IPCC is showing.
<blockquote>"Dr Thierry Copie
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPh.D Physics 1988, Cornell U.<blockquote>
I'm trying to think of a moniker for the opposite of <i>Chicken Little</i> 'cept running around talking crazy denial stuff when the sky really IS falling.[?]
While ridin' some major 'credentialing'.
Guess this might be a bit <i>ad hominem</i> so go look at his nice post..the first one.
Funny - or tricky, if you want. Most comments (perhaps all of them) come from skepticals, mostly amateur scientists or not even that. True scientists don't waste time discussing what is obvious. Thanks SA for your continuous and inspiring work. Enrique P. Coelho, Lisbon (Portugal)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@lakota2012 -> I don't consider myself "one of the faithful" or a "DENIALIST". And I'm certainly not conservative, but I have outstanding questions that are not addressed by my cursory research or the scientific "consensus". And the passage you quote from the article does not help; because, although the effects are true (melting ice sheets, etc.), a causal link between our behavior and this effect remains illusive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm concerned about our well-being and our impact on our home as I'm sure we all are, but I'm similarly concerned that a byzantine CO2 cap and trade policy might obfuscate real progress. I think it would be better to focus our efforts on efficient renewable policies, which will increase innovation, productivity, national security AND reduce CO2; whether CO2 is the cause of warming or not. Corporations are built to navigate policy hurdles and not in the way we might hope. With a call to efficiency for all the reasons listed above, we can appeal to both political parties AND make it much more likely that real progress is made. This is because progress would not rest on whether a company has the right amount of paperwork, but that they are running at the designated efficiency with real technologies that can pervade society at every level.
In the meantime, we find ourselves in a political quagmire that serves no one now, and has increasingly less chance as the politics becomes more important than the science. We have the technology now to improve how we function as a society. I'd like to side-step this whole debate and move straight to efficiency, efficiency, efficiency.
Comments on this comment would be appreciated?
Cheers.
I should be more precise than "a causal link between our behavior and this effect remains illusive." It's illusive because the models are varied and the statistical significance of the causal link is low compared those generally expected in science. I've heard second hand (please feel free to suggest better data/references) that the confidence in their models is between 80% and 95%. Most scientists won't state that they have determined a causal relation unless they have >95% confidence, statistically speaking. Certainly, 80% is better than chance, but these models are complex. I'm not refuting them by any means, but I think any scientist would agree that reasoned skepticism is a positive trait, not negative. Especially, when so many significant policy decisions are weighed in the balance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, please post any references that might refine my perspective above.
Thanks.
I guess having PHD's or 20-30 years of experience or being known nationally or internationally in their field doesn't count as a "real scientist" to you. It may be "obvious" to you, but there are a lot of true experts that do not agree with you. To most "scientists" it was obvious that the Earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the Earth at one time. That held up very well over time. /sarc
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWITH THE LATEST CLIMATE CHANGE TRUMPED UP DATA RELATIVE TO GLACIER STATUS COMING OUT OF INDIA, HOW CAN ANY LEGITMATE PUBLICATION PUBLISH SUCH A POLITICALLY BIAS ARTICLE. CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT MAN MADE. iT'S ALL ABOUT SEASONAL CHANGES THAT ARE NATURL , SUN ENERGY CYCLES AND THE FACT THAT WE ARE ENJOYING MILD TEMPRATURES IN THE MIDDLE OF A PAST AND FUTURE ICE AGE CYCLE!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPETER PARSONS
MISSION VIEJO, CA
I still cannot believe that SA is being an apologist for the disgraceful actions of the CRU, Mann and their cabal. If this is an insight into how ‘science’ is done then I am very disappointed. What has happened to scientific integrity and the pursuit of the truth? Feynman was right this is truly an un-scientific age, with climatology being a prime example of a “cargo cult”. I for one will no longer waste my time with any content SA produces, as it is clear to me that science takes a backseat to propaganda at SA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way I have no axe to grind, I am just a average bloke believing that we still know very little about the climate system. I was willing to be convinced either way on AGW , but will now likely dismiss claims of the proponents of AGW out of hand. I guess that makes me a flat earther.
i CAN'T BELIEVE THAT A PUBLICATION LIKE SA CAN CONTINUE TO SUPPORT ANY LEGITMATE ARGUEMENT FOR MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING WITH THE LATEST TRUMPED UP DATA COMING FROM INDIA RELATIVE TO GLACIERS. ANY CLIMATE CHANGE IS BEING CREATED BY NATURAL FORCES INCLUDING NORMAL ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS, SUN ENERGY CYCLES AND WHAT WE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCALL "SEASONS"! THANK GOODNESS WE ARE ENJOYING A MILD PERIOD BETWEEN TWO ICE AGES! TIME TO GET OFF OF THE "CHICKEN LITTLE" ROLLER COASTER!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Commenter -
Dr Thierry Copie
Ph.D Physics 1988, Cornell U.
You are just the sort of hero I admire so much in this massive scandal of science and truth, where science has been corrupted by corporate and government money and activism.
You're so right about the groupthink aspect of this. I write about that a lot. I've actually never seen so many indoctrinating (history aside) by an ideology. You should know, Al Gore is now working with universities and churches to push this false climate science as a religion. I know, it already seems like one - but I mean, complete with prayers. It's pure indoctrination. He's targeting they young: school kids, college students and whomever is gullible enough - which, sadly, seems to be many.
If you get a moment, I would love for you to peruse the extraordinary amount of documented information I've been writing about on my website:
http://aprilbaby.typepad.com/a_california_life/
My everyday readers are people who search for things other than science; they are the ones I want to appeal to, as the media (and articles like this one above) are merely parroting information given to them by the very people who've got the most to gain and lose.
As a journalist myself, I would like to think Scientific American would have ethics and curiosity enough to do some real investigating.
The above "article" is just a press release. All of this is rehashed and ancient propaganda from the corrupt scientists.
Is that what you call critical thinking? So what?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a 30-year subscriber to Scientific American, I was disappointed that the editors would publish the obviously biased article, Negating "Climategate" by David Biello, without at least a small sidebar providing a different view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe subhead uses "stolen", and the the term appears several other times in the text. Why not use a neutral term like "revealed?"
The assertion that nothing in the "stolen" material undermines the scientific consensus seems dead wrong, considering the raft of other "contrarian" views. It would behoove Sciam to move away from the bunker mentality of the Climate Scientists, and provide a measured dialogue, with pro's and con's from both sides.
My "so What" comment was directed at someone who pointed out the Republicans pushed cap and trade. I don't care who's pushing it - I don't want it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut it surely doesn't make any good point regarding this PR for CRU (or is this supposed to be journalism?).
The inconvienant truth is that Man Made Global Climate Change is a lie for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of people like Al Gore and giving the governments involved more reason to remove liberties, exact taxes, and otherwise control populations. I remain adamant that we must push "green technologies" for the sole purpose of removing the US dependace on foreign oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDont forget the latest - Amazongate and the destruction of the rainforests. A complete fabrication that not even the non-peer reviewed supporting documentation referenced by AR4 supports!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are just making up stuff at the IPCC now.
This is MediaGate, not ClimateGate! Are you angry about this obvious RICO Act fraud and the national media's complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue and the related carbon derivatives market Obamas Administration is spinning up? Why pay for propaganda? Take responsibility and take action. STOP all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. STOP donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The World Wildlife Fund. DEMAND they take you off their donors mailing list. They have violated the public trust. KEEP donations local, close to home. MAKE donations to Oklahomas Senator Inhofe, the only politician to stand firmly against this obvious government/media coordinated information operation (propaganda) targeted at its own people. Senator Inhofe, the only politician to refuse the GREEN KOOL AID. Senator Inhofe, the only senator to stand between us and the collective insanity of the ruling class of elitist hucksters led by Al Gore. WRITE your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. WRITE your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. Carbon is the stuff of life. He (Obama) who controls carbon, especially CO2, controls the world. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwells 1984 . The mendacity of UKs John Beddington, Robert Watson and Ed Miliband prove the point. The US governments sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Unions relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGates burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administrations National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near the truth?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdneX1djD
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
One point might be that climategate doesn't tell us anything about the science of climate but merely that scientists are human beings who use email rather casually. Who doesn't?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to really begin to understand the science behind climate (and clearly a lot of folks posting comments here don't know too much yet) then one could begin by reading Jim Hansen's book, "Storms of my Grandchildren." Our CO2 circumstance has the potential to dismantle everything humanity has accomplished. Is that fear-mongering or is there truly something to be afraid of? Read Hansen to find out.
Science is not about "proof". With a statement like that, you demonstrate you know nothing about science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSA has been
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSA has been a shill for the AGW crowd since at least 2002 when it put together a deeply biased group of so-called scientists to flagellate Bjorn Lomborg on the subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wrote to John Rennie at the time, and it remains true to this day: I'd been an avid reader of SA since at least 1975; until and unless they start publishing actual science, the magazine will get not one dime from me.
It is unbelievable, we have heard, talked, discussed, read and thought about global warming as a major issue for years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen you think the media is getting the idea that their audience is looking for something legitimate and well founded, especially from SA, we get this dribble. Oh the poor scientists, or the poor advocates of cap and trade or the poor environmentalist.... your article has no facts just dribble and advocacy. Be a science magazine not the whipping boy for Al Gore.
The science is not settled on the cause of global warming and with the questionable data in assessing our "global temperature", we have lots of real scientific research to do, not research on how to get the answer you needed to justify regulating and trading CO, not dribble. Give us some scientific analysis... is that too much to ask?
I'm not going to bother to dispute the arguments of global warming skeptics. It's obvious that you're interested not in having an honest discussion, but in looking for whatever shreds of evidence you can magnify and distort to support your points of view, then repeating it over and over until at least some people are convinced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems like just another manifestation of the Republican "noise machine" that Bush/Cheney/Rove and their goons are so famous for.
I'll give skeptics credit for this--they're smart enough to utilize the comment sections of various websites as free advertising for their opinions. Is it me or are every website's comment sections filled with conservative ranting?
Maybe you're all so nonchalant about the potential for trashing our planet, because even if you or your children die an early death due to the earth becoming uninhabitable, your self-righteous ass will just go home to Jesus, where you can drive your Hummer for all eternity.
Wow, that is so cool, all in one short moment, you became exactly what you are criticizing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou got on the phase "global warming skeptics", threw in Bush - yuck... and of course the surprising attack on jesus... shock and awe!
the pot calling the kettle black. excellent.
Then what I loved was you threw in "our kids", clearly we don't love our kids OR the planet... now that was good. What makes you think that regulating carbon emissions will do anything to saving our planet from being trashed and our kid's lives? There is something so much scarier than carbon emissions, it is when we don't have easy cheap access to that "black gold, Texas tea -".... I would rather we focus on that and to be sure it will happen before Nevada has ocean front property.
Finally, I think what you are seeing is the public - not all ranting crazy republicans - I take exception to that label - demanding from the media balanced reporting. I should think that you would want that too, or maybe you like being told what you believe, it can be very validating. When scientific american publishing such non-factual dribble as this article, they deserve a good kick.
Well, there you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe pulled back the curtain--and found NO WIZARD. Just some lying Lizard.
Why do they have to hide data from 1700 Canadian weather stations and Cherry Pick one or two?
And, why is it so damn cold out tonight? Winter, maybe.
AGW my ass. These got caught spinnin' their lies to get more government funding and control over our lives.
James Hanson is liar.
Bizarre. A lot of commenters here really seem to think that global warming is all about funding going to climate scientists. Hmmm. Does that mean all cancer researchers are in it just for the money? How about astrophysicists -- are they really not curious about the universe and just chasing the bucks?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll scientists need grants to do their research. That's just the way this system works. There are a lot of folks in this thread who apparently are unaware of the process.
Climate scientists have done an extraordinary job of figuring out how past climate works and they have an increasingly good handle on where we are headed if we continue down the fossil fuel path. Their predictions are not perfect. But they appear damn good since so many have now come to pass --- earlier Spring, later Fall, species on the move, Inuit hunting on the ice has been reduced from 9 months to 5, the vanishing sea ice in the Arctic is actually way ahead of schedule. And so on.
Read the science -- for everyone's sake. Especially the feedback mechanisms operant during the ice ages which get initiated by subtle changes in our orbit. Diminishing CO2 and other greenhouse gases, plus increased reflectivity (snow and ice), then magnify that small effect into 9,000 feet of glacial ice over Toronto.
The climate is more malleable than many realize and it doesn't take much for the feedbacks to kick in. Once they do, if they do, heaven help us.
Yes SA, this is article is a shame. But everyone his view. But what really offended me was my (no longer) favourite column Anti-Gravity. (Skeptic has to be my new favourite, maybe a Climate topic, Why people believe weird things?’) The senator who strongly opposes the Climate Change story was mocked and ridiculed for his character, not for his opinion. There was no respect for his cause. That the man is a religious nutcake, flat earth, 6000 years old etc. has nothing to do with the reality of Climategate. As Micheal Crichton noted is his book 'State of Fear' SA has a history of fighting dirty when scientist have a different view. Science is about the facts not about the characters. Please keep it clean or sadly I will be forced to drop my subscription.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the temperatures from 1000 a.d. when the Vikings claimed GREENland were not higher than they are now. Just come up with evidence. If temperatures rising on Mars is simply just a computer error. Proof it! If you cant, than please keep al the evidence in view and don’t publish others as idiots just for not sharing your point of view. SA at this point looks to me like the religious nutcakes who make funny Darwin cartoons. Shame on you SA!
K. Dansen
Lisse, The Netherlands
It is most unfortunate and unscientific for Scientific American to publish an apology for a discredited unscientific enty such as CRU. It perpetrated a fraud upon the scientific community, international governments, and the public. CRU staff and leadership consicously misrepresented the evidence thay gathered on a consistent basis. They destroyed years of data which raises credibility questions immediately and makes disbelief in their conclusions appropriate. The "other sources" attributed to the validity of global warming are similaraly in doubt because of their reliance on the skewed data . Sufficient evidence does not exist to draw a rational conclusion that "global warming" or even "climate change" is man made. We simply do not know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI couldn't agree more with your comments. The skeptics only want to see more evidence but the CRU folks tell us it's all in. Shameful indeed. Thanks for your comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe evidence indicates that the release of the e-mails and other documents was the action of a whistleblower, not a hacker. Someone on the inside may have been disgusted with the behaviour of the senior staff in breaking the UK law by not complying with the Freedom of Information Act. So many unethical acts were revealed that we will probably never know exactly what motivated the whistleblower.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen a "scientific "entity denies access to vital information that will affect the whole world it is not a theft to get the information. These "scientists" were lying and misrepresenting their own data. They too were skeptical but kept on claiming that which they could not support. Exposuree of such a fraud is in the public interest and can not rightly be denounced. Now you know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor SA to say that Climategate does not undermine AGW is admitting that SA is a "denier". A denier of; doubt within the scientific community; the public; and even the folks at CRU, which they clearly admitted in the emails. There is doubt all over the place yet SA denies it. Whew! Perhaps you should change the name of the magazine to: Consensus American or Conventional Wisdom American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a real shame and disgrace that formerly admired scientific institutions like Nature and Scientific American are sacrificing their credibility and stature on this issue. There is so much distortion, and wriggling in this article that I hardly need add to the insights of the other honest commenters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone has an opinion on the weather, and some parts of it is easy to understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, climate research most of the time is intricate and difficult to follow.
It requires fairly much dedication to grasp all the details and all the intricate logic.
I've seen many smart people falsly associating the one with the other.
Since they manage quite well in life they then build a psychological model of themselves
as being able to deal with anything that comes their way.
Admitting to not understand climate research is not an option.
Therefore it is understandable that people who don't understand the logic will
come to the wrong conclusions, and then rather claim that all the scientists
are wrong than admitting defeat.
I hope everyone who passionately argues one way or the other really
would take a moment to consider whether or not they really have put in
the effort needed to understand this vast topic.
Like the staff of the New Scientist magazine in the UK, the editors of the Scientific American has been misled by their ideological enthusiasms. This article is a display of the corruption of methodology and attitude that has resulted from that enthusiasm. It has blinded them to the genuine, perceptive, and penetrating criticisms of CO2 alarmism. Criticisms from far more scientists than the handful who were at the core of the shameful debacle of the IPCC - which has been a triumph only for PR and blatant manipulation of their own publication process and that of others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't see the comments when I click "see comments!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt one point I held Scientific American in high regard. This article, as well as the pathetic hit-piece on 9/11, shows that you're now just another corporate rag spewing the same old "nothing to see here, move along" agenda. Climategate was much more than bickering over the meaning of the word "trick". It was nothing less than exposure of scientific fraud.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour trying to justify it shows your true colors.
How stable do those Himalayan glaciers look now? Are you embarrassed about your role in this hoax?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is very hard for a disinterested person to avoid the conclusion that there is a lot of groupthink going on among climate scientists who are concerned with warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do want to point out that it is their own professional and financial interests seem to be strongly aligned with validating their own conclusions about global warming.
But for the rest of us, dramatic efforts to curtail glabal warming would sharply curtail economic growth leading to deaths, illness, poverty, and social strife from declnes in medical care, education, social stability, and wealth generally.
It is very hard for a disinterested person to avoid the conclusion that there is a lot of groupthink going on among climate scientists who are concerned with warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do want to point out that it is their own professional and financial interests seem to be strongly aligned with validating their own conclusions about global warming.
But for the rest of us, dramatic efforts to curtail glabal warming would sharply curtail economic growth leading to deaths, illness, poverty, and social strife from declnes in medical care, education, social stability, and wealth generally.
You would be hard pressed to find many competent engineers or physicists who buy into the global warming models. This has been true from the start but the press has ignored such inconvenient truths. Climatology is about as scientific as psychology or sociology. They all purport to use scientific methods but the systems they are studying are complex enough that we know almost nothing of significance. We certainly don't know enough to make any predictions and re-order our society on some sort of antediluvian, neo-luddite basis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdd to that the fact that we have since learned that data has been manipulated at the CRU and NASA, and that the IPCC report was larded with unverified claims intended to enrich the authors and we are left to conclude that Scientific American is not a serious publication. Indeed, given the motivations of the IPCC and "climatologists" in general we can conclude that Scientific American is neither American nor scientific. It would not have taken a serious publication without a transparent political agenda any substantial effort at all to have debunked some of the claims about mountain glaciers etc...
On the bright side, Osama Bin Laden just came out in support of the IPCC claims so at least all of our cave dwelling and would-be cave dwelling enemies are properly aligned now! You just can't make these sorts of things up.
There is no such thing as athropogenic global warming, and you know it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, I get it. When the used said they used a "trick" to conceal unfavorable data from their results, they really meant they used an accepted statistical technique to conceal unfavorable data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is acceptable science? Since when?
The fact that CO2 traps heat in a lab means nothing in a chaotic complex global system of positive and negative feedbacks. It is like saying we have proved in a lab that foxes eat mice, therefore we know the mouse population will decline in any and all environments containing foxes.
Scientists study falsifiable hypotheses, publish their data (not just their conclusions), publish their methods, and debate ideas rather making ad hominen attacks. Scientists do not regard appeals to authority as evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMuch of the work supporting AGW theory has been published by people who have violated all of these basic scientific rules. They have refused to publish their data, they have discarded their data, they have published data only after it has been manipulated using methods they refuse to disclose, they have acted together to put pressure on journals to block publication of studies that don't support their position, they have put pressure on the same journals to fire editors or members of editorial boards who they view as unsympathetic to their position. These facts are beyond dispute. Are these the actions of scientists?
I agree with (engineering genius) Burt Rutan in <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527451.000-burt-rutan-the-maverick-of-mojave.html?full=true">this</a> interview:<blockquote>I whip out my list of questions, but before I get to the first, Rutan blindsides me. "Which magazine are you from again?" I tell him. "OK, well, I won't talk to Scientific American," he says, "They improperly covered man-made global warming. They drink Kool-Aid instead of doing research. They parrot stuff from the IPCC and Al Gore." I'm taken aback but curiosity gets the better of me so I ask him what he means. For the next 30 minutes he launches into an impassioned diatribe. He believes claims of catastrophic global warming are nothing but scare-mongering and are a product of "the greatest scientific fraud ever". At first I think this is some sort of joke but he's totally serious and at times gets quite angry.</blockquote>I subscribed to SciAm for 25 years. It was the last magazine that I subscribed to as I shifted to the Internet. I loved you guys! But then you dumped Dr. Carlson, and became a liberal propaganda organ with stories like this, and I unsubscribed. Such a loss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUh, I would rather read a reputable scientist like Lindzen or Pielke. Clearly Hansen is an extremist (endorsing eco terrorism of keith Farnish). I doubt he has anything object to add to the discussion, just justification for his own prejudices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs one of the people here who has previously referred to others commenting on AGW as "AGW Zealots"......I caution all those jumping on the fact that people hid of falsified data regarding data supporting AGW, and now saying that there is no basis to believe that the world is getting warmer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere really is evidence that the world is getting warmer. The real issue(s) are
1. What is the true root cause(s) of the changes to climate
2. What if anything can humans do about it
3. What is the impact on humanity
I would suggest we calm down the hype on all sides and simply continue to study the data. Over the next several years we will be better informed to make rational decisions.
I stopped reading after the first sentence. The emails clearly show that science is not behind the warming claims the CRU was making (i.e. knowing about the temperature declines and deliberately trying to obscure that data). The leaked climate modeling code also shows how much effort went in to manipulating the data to show what the scientists wanted it to show. The CRU has now been found in violation of the UK FOIA because of their efforts to hide their "data" (and I use that term loosely here) from scientific review by others. The IPCC has been revealed to be a political machine without regard to true science with its publication of alarmist scenarios based on nothing but speculation. This has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the greatest scientific scandal of our time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's amazing how the "reality-based community" persists in its zealous denial of the emerging inconvenient truths about AGW. It's especially sad the SA is promoting and participating in this willful blindness.
I find it interesting that Biello fails to note that he questioned the methodology of the IPCC study when it was first published:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy excluding statements that provoked disagreement and adhering strictly to data published in peer-reviewed journals, the IPCC has generated a conservative document that may underestimate the changes that will result from a warming world, much as its 2001 report did.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=conservative-climate
Biello might wish to clarify the incongruity between his statements and recent published reports.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ipcc-chief-blames-lack-of-knowledge-2010-01
As noted in the Times article linked to by the article above, there is no evidence that the article below would qualify as "peer-reviewed."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221893.000-flooded-out.html
The Himalayan glaciers' problems are due to deforestation of the Rain Forests below which "recyle" the water as frozen precip back up to the glaciers again to deposit as snow and ice. It does not prove global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.... per Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, head of Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics at Stockhom University in Sweden, 35 years experience studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas, past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. He still contends that global warming and sea level rising is a "Total Fraud".
He gives great examples of falsification of data and "correction factors" in computer models to get desire "politically correct" results so people can keep getting their funding....
Information from reliable sources is there if you want to find it. You have to look for it, though. People like Dr. Morner are suppressed because he's "not in line"!!
That's how science is really working today.....follow the money!
"The detection of climate change, and its attribution to human causes, rests on numerous lines of evidence. They include melting ice sheets, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels and earlier onset of spring, not to mention higher average global temperatures."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll these things support climate change, but not "its attribution to human causes". Proof of warming is not the same thing as proof of anthropogenic warming. No wonder some claim the science is settled if that's all the proof they think they need.
"Some of the kerfuffle rests on a misreading of the e-mails wording. For example, trick in one message actually describes a decision to use observed temperatures rather than stand-in data inferred from tree rings. Instead of implying deception, the word itself in science often refers to a strategy to solve a problem."
You didn't mention the "problem". That was when the tree ring proxies didn't behave the way they wanted them to. At that point, it was assumed the tree rings were wrong and measured temps were substituted. You'll note there was no questioning the accuracy of the tree rings when they showed what the scientists in question WANTED them to show. (i.e. diminishing the Medieval Warm Period) This selective skepticism of the tree rings is what raises suspicions.
"Even those scientific papers specifically challenged by the e-mailsone message vowed to keep them out of a report by the United Nationss Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is nonetheless made it into the most recent IPCC report."
Well that certainly makes us feel better that that particular paper managed to overcome efforts to suppress it. So that means there isn't a problem, right?
"The stolen e-mails may ultimately provide a sociological window into the climate science community. This is a record of how science is actually done, notes Goddards Gavin A. Schmidt. Historians will see that scientists are human and how science progresses despite human failings. Theyll see why science as an enterprise works despite the fact that scientists arent perfect.
And yet skeptics are told to be silent and completely trust imperfect individuals who are telling them they have to dramatically alter the way they live their lives.
"Science has already played its role in the climate debate, explains Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC. After all, IPCC authors had to achieve consensus with more than 190 countries as well as publicly respond to each comment on the draft documents. Unfortunately, the [climate] negotiations are becoming solely political, Pachauri laments."
Ok...Pachauri claims the role of science is done, then complains the issue is becoming solely political. Did he leave out the fact that he heads a political body which just happens to be in charge of this issue?
Oh...he meant he didn't want politics that he doesn't agree with! That certainly sounds like something a politician would say.
"When one side of an issue needs to steal and commit crimes to "prove" its point their point is self-undermined."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- - - - - -
Well, not ALL of the grant monies conferred on CRU were fraudulently applied for.
(When people work together to take the public's tax money through false pretenses and then go to great, and highly skilled, lengths to hide their fraud, it is venal to claim that they cannot be found out except through some "sporting rules" of evidence. I'll gladly apologize to them for their loss of privacy if I can also be the one throwing away the key to their cell.)
"Some of the kerfuffle rests on a misreading of the e-mails wording. For example, trick in one message actually describes a decision to use observed temperatures rather than stand-in data inferred from tree rings. Instead of implying deception, the word itself in science often refers to a strategy to solve a problem."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dishonesty in those words is just shocking. The word "trick" is indeed often used to refer to a strategy to solve a problem. And in this case it is extremely clear what the problem was. The problem was that the graph went down instead of up. So a "trick" was used to hide the decline.
I am genuinely shocked that a magazine of your stature would stoop to misrepresenting this issue.
"The stolen e-mails may ultimately provide a sociological window into the climate science community. This is a record of how science is actually done, notes Goddards Gavin A. Schmidt. Historians will see that scientists are human and how science progresses despite human failings. Theyll see why science as an enterprise works despite the fact that scientists arent perfect. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe that's how climate science is done, but not Economics, my field. We are expected to share our data unless we have a very good reason not to. We are expected to reveal our methodology and computer code. We would be shocked if someone tried to get an editor fired for publishing critical articles. Please don't think we're like climatologists, who maybe are really like that--- I haven't heard the condemnations of the East Anglia people by other climatologists that would indicate their behavior is considered improper. We're real scholars in economics. I hope physics, chemistry, etc. are like us too, though I can't say from personal experience that they are.
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respect, study what data? Clearly we cannot study the East Anglia data (the dog ate it), nor the NASA data (there are problems with the recording stations they refuse to acknowledge or deal with). The only data that appears to be untampered with so far is the Satellite data, and we have but 30 years of that (so hardly enough to draw any intelligent conclusions from).
I tend to agree with you that there is a warming trend, but then I have no valid data to base that feeling on. Nor do we now have any reliable reference to show that it is normal or abnormal, and if anything should indeed be done about it.
if it is normal, why are we spending (we being the people through government handouts) billions of dollars on a problem that does not exist? We should first determine if there is a problem, and we cannot do that until we get some integrity restored in the groups that are collecting the data.
It all comes down to getting rid of the cancer cells (Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Briffa, Amman, Wahl, Pachauri, et. al.) to cure the patient (science) and finding out what we have, so we can then make intelligent decisions about what to do.
fourth-horse:It's just you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI prefer the term "liberated".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot leaked. Liberated!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease stop referring to them as "stolen" emails.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the volume of material, the apparent care with which it was selected and the wide range of dates covered - over ten years - there is every indication that an internal whistle blower released them.
Have you actually read any of the emails? I cannot believe it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey can easily be found on the Internet.
Anyone who reads some of the emails, the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file and the comments in the Fortran programs cannot but admit, in their heart of hearts, that a very ugly picture is revealed of falsification of results, conspiracy to flout Freedom of Information laws, destroy the careers of editors who published papers they did not agree with, corruption of the journal review process and loss of valuable raw data through incompetence.
The more I read SA the more Piltdown Man keeps popping into my head.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American Fails
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother non-science article from Scientific American on AGW.
(Probably hoping that, like New Scientist, it will be cited in the next IPCC report - that is the only sensible explanation)
Krohleder made the following unsubstantiated claim: There is no Dr Thierry Copie Ph.D PhysicsCornell now or in 1988 - Just a troller! With just a couple minutes of research I found the High-Energy Physics Literature Database (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/hep/) which list a paper, Charmed Baryon Production From Electron - Positron Annihilations In The Upsilon (4s) Energy Region. by Thierry Bruno Copie of Cornell U. (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?a=Copie,+Thierry+Bruno+and+aff+Cornell+U.,+LNS)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Ray Eston Smith Jr
To bengnfun:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho do you think you are?
I can´t anser that, Idon´t even have a desire to do so.
Mayby yuou can answer your attitude to peoeple you dont like? Or "groups" as you wrote. Do you know any ot these peoeple you are talkning about? I guess not.
lakota2012, please answer me: what is a denialist?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only person that cames to my mind - is Galileo Galilei!
Are you the Pope telling us the only thing we may believe in, is
the sacred AGW? Don´t insult peoples intelligence, it may hit back. And you want us to embrace a certain ideology too, which one do you have in your mind? My science is about proof, is your about beliefs and doubts? Have you ever EVER thought about the fact that CO2 is a vital gas for ALL LIFE?
So you know what true scientist are doing or not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead this: I am writing to SA just the way you did.
Which of us is not scientist (I am).
Talking about "true" scirntists:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlbert Einstein spent decades proofing that quantum physics could not be true.
The time, the numeral und so weiter has nothing to do with science, only proof has. In lack of proof, IPCC presents us a numeral - the number of the beast - sorry, of course I mean the number of scientists who belives. Not convincing.
I also think publishing the contrarian view when SA wrote about East Englia would have been a proper thing to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet´s assume SA supports AGW - must we then assume that
SA also supports only AGW arguments in fields that are not science also? Souds strange - odd - to me.
Someone wrote "read the science" and I red it, one complete
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIPCC report, a lot of pages. But now I can tell.
It is a "hypotehical theory" that is, there is no evidence.
A plain "theory" is one that is proofed and has been accepted
by most scientist in the field (consensus). AGW is not proofed but is accepted anyway. Like the theory of Big Bang.
Or like the theory that earth is the centre of Universe.
The scenarios are not new, I hav seen them since the 70´ies
in diffent fields. They are thought developement lacking
any kind other than educational (examples) value.
That´s that. Before you comment on this, I hope you have
red the same "Bible" as I have.
One thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think the email affair at University of East Anglia
was not really an event - how come that when I read about it
in SA I already know what it is all about? You, reding this
are probably US resident, the mailmess was in UK and I,
who are writing this reside in Sweden. Of no importance???
It was an international scandal, don´t deny that too.
(definition of denialist: a religious person who does not
accept AS A PRINCIPLE all the dogmas of his religon as divine truths).
What's really misleading is calling the emails "stolen" in the first place. They were and are public property, legally. Work emails belong to the employer; that's just settled law in the UK and the US. In this case, we are the employer and the emails are ours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo pretend otherwise is to make "victims" out of the haughty criminals who have foot-dragged themselves past the statute of limitations on the FOIA. Do people at work sometimes slip into communication they intend to be private? They sure do, but alas once Send has been clicked there's no going back...
SA has been shameless in its pursuing its crusades-du-jour for 30 or more years. Why should anyone expect change now?
The study that is linked below supports a need to reevaluate all the climate change models. In light of this I think Al Gore and all those who have doubted the so called people who question or doubt the man caused global warning disaster should get an apology. I am sure this will happen when hell freezes. Although it has snowed in Las Vegas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmplification of global warming by carbon-cycle feedback significantly less than thought, study suggests
http://www.scienced aily.com/ releases/ 2010/01/10012713 4721.htm
A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium. The result, which is based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons, implies that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than recent work has suggested.
Shame, shame, shame on SA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf anyone wants a forensic analysis of the climategate emails in full context, and what they signify (it's a thunderingly good read written by two lukewarmers), get hold of "Climategate: The Crutape letters" available on Amazon or in PDF format from Lulu.com.
I live in the UK, which is around 95,000 square miles. How many thermometers, I wonder, hopefully placed in rural areas so there were no UHI effect, would be needed to measure temperatures here?
Then I think ruefully of Bolivia, over four times the area of the UK, which for purposes of the GISS database, has NO thermometers. There is plenty of data that COULD be used, but none actually is. The temperature anomaly of Bolivia (which isn't far off twice the size of Texas), is calculated by extrapolation from neighbouring countries.
Likewise, other areas of South America and even larger areas in Africa are hardly covered. And what thermometers are used are, by some extraordinary coincidence, heavily contaminated by being placed in urban locations. It seems that climate "scientists" prefer to fudge calculations of temperature anomalies by reliance on "adjusting" UHI hotspots.
Why on earth not use exclusively rural thermometer data? Well, for a start, they don't actually know which temperature stations are rural. A lot they presume are rural in fact currently sit in the middle of airport runways and are subject to UHI effects. Google "Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?" for a very readable, free 111 -page PDF file that explains what an abortion the surface temperature data sets represent, and how they are diverging from satellite temperature data sets.
Is it any wonder that sceptics who wanted to get their hands on the raw data, adjustment methods and code for years were stonewalled? Even in the face of FOI requests? Isn't it plain that there's something very fishy going on?
For God's sake, just investigate the matter. You don't have to be a climatologist or even a scientist to see flaws in the data. All you need is an open mind and a modicum of commonsense.
That's why I call shame on SA. It isn't even showing commonsense, let alone a genuine scientific approach. The surface temperature data sets are severely compromised and there's nothing for it but to throw the lot out and start again from scratch.
I don't buy SA regularly, but for sure, I will never buy it in future, because it's sold its soul to a postmodern religious orthodoxy masquerading as science. Intelligent Design, God help us, has more credence than AGW science.
Shame, shame, shame on SA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf anyone wants a forensic analysis of the climategate emails in full context, and what they signify (it's a thunderingly good read written by two lukewarmers), get hold of "Climategate: The Crutape letters" available on Amazon or in PDF format from Lulu.com.
I live in the UK, which is around 95,000 square miles. How many thermometers, I wonder, hopefully placed in rural areas so there were no UHI effect, would be needed to measure temperatures here?
Then I think ruefully of Bolivia, over four times the area of the UK, which for purposes of the GISS database, has NO thermometers. There is plenty of data that COULD be used, but none actually is. The temperature anomaly of Bolivia (which isn't far off twice the size of Texas), is calculated by extrapolation from neighbouring countries.
Likewise, other areas of South America and even larger areas in Africa are hardly covered. And what thermometers are used are, by some extraordinary coincidence, heavily contaminated by being placed in urban locations. It seems that climate "scientists" prefer to fudge calculations of temperature anomalies by reliance on "adjusting" UHI hotspots.
Why on earth not use exclusively rural thermometer data? Well, for a start, they don't actually know which temperature stations are rural. A lot they presume are rural in fact currently sit in the middle of airport runways and are subject to UHI effects. Google "Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?" for a free, very readable, 111 -page PDF file that explains what an abortion the surface temperature data sets represent, and how they are diverging from satellite temperature data sets.
Is it any wonder that sceptics who wanted to get their hands on the raw data, adjustment methods and code for years were stonewalled? Even in the face of FOI requests? Isn't it plain that there's something very fishy going on?
For God's sake, just investigate the matter. You don't have to be a climatologist or even a scientist to see flaws in the data. All you need is an open mind and a modicum of commonsense.
That's why I call shame on SA. It isn't even showing commonsense, let alone a genuine scientific approach. The surface temperature data sets are severely compromised and there's nothing for it but to throw the lot out and start again from scratch.
I don't buy SA regularly, but for sure, I will never buy it in future, because it's sold its soul to a postmodern religious orthodoxy masquerading as science. Intelligent Design, God help us, has more credence than AGW science.
Total BS. Lies, fraud, grants, money, shysters. SA is complicit for tacit support of the duplicity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan Penn State be required to return all of the MONEY for the fraud committed by M. Mann and others in the Penn State money hoax???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo read Jim Hanson's book to understand climate science would be the equivalent to
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore you call someone a troll perhaps you should take the 30-45 seconds it took me to Google "Thierry Copie" and come up with the abstract for Dr. Copie's 1988 PhD thesis (Cornell University).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988PhDT........78C
The SA editorial comment is a huge dissapointment to me. I doubt I will ever buy another edition. I value scientific integrity, and the e-mails show anything but.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the fellow who stumbled on the "traps heat" comment, I think he means you can demonstrate it in a lab, but the real world may operate is such a manner as to disperse that heat without significantly raising temperature.(eg, say 0.3 C, and how do you measure that tiny change amoungst all the temperature noise?)
First of all, repeating that "climate science has achieved consensus" is a propaganda trick.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, the Earth has been cooling since 1998. This is supported by ground temperature measurements, sondes (weather balloon measurements), satellite measurements, sun spot observations, and oceanic temperature measurements.
It is the data in the above that was manipulated by those associated with East Anglia and the ClimateGate emails. That Scientific American would dismiss the above and resort to the propaganda ploy of repeating a lie about "consensus" goes to show the enormous level of peer pressure that is being placed upon the scientific community by those who have a non-scientific agenda of using "climate change" for their own purposes.
Third, ice-core temperature data is repeatable. More ice-cores can be drilled and taken. Thus, the data of Dr. John Christy can, and has, been confirmed time and time again, all of which shows *natural* variations over time in the Earth's climate, including Ice Ages and Warming Periods that predate Man (thus ruling out Man as a cause for either).
In contrast, the scientists who have as an agenda to push a "global warming consensus" can not allow their raw temperature measurement data to be made public. To do so would either reveal their fraudulent data manipulation, or else to reveal that the Earth's climate is not being significantly changed by Man.
A more courageous Scientific American would be attacking claims of a climate "consensus" as well as pushing for the public release of all raw temperature measurement data.
You have chosen the dishonorable way forward, instead, and will therefor be forever remembered as hacks.
I am aware of SciAm's opinion on this issue, but am deeply disappointed that they would publish such a biased essay. For a (once) respectable magazine to print such an article shows how far they have fallen and for Mr. Biello to claim that "trick" is a scientific method that " refers to a strategy to solve a problem" is mind boggling. Does Mr. Biello believe his readers are morons? Or is he just a disingenuous liar? Scientific American has lost it last shreds of credibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt matters not one whit who funds research, the science either stands on its merits or it doesn't. By not making their data available and by attempting to mislead, CRU's and Michael Mann's work is invalidated.
I have been a subscriber to SciAm for 20 years (as an engineer with an interest in science). Due to SciAm's recent descent into the political realm, I will not be renewing my subscription when it expires. I guess that just means I will have to filter out outrageous claims from many sides instead of just one :-).
"Dr Thierry Copie"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this------------------
Worse than all the other rabid DENIALISTS here, is somebody trying to be somebody there are not, much like the OISM petition of anti-science hacks! This person only exists here at SciAm for the express purpose of ad hominem attacks and spewing of fervent dogma, and on rightwing blogs like freerepublic -- and only after the 1/23 posting here attacking this magazine. This is disgusting!
Ray Eston Smith Jr
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this------------------
A simple Google search of thierry copie and Cornell Univ. comes up blank, and only blogs like aprilbabys (from here)and freerepublic show that AKA anonymous name. This is just the usual M.O. from the rabid DENIALIST crew, as usual trying to give their anti-science fervent dogma some credibility! You're just dragging on a very bad story.
wolfkiss:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I think it would be better to focus our efforts on efficient renewable policies, which will increase innovation, productivity, national security AND reduce CO2; whether CO2 is the cause of warming or not."
"In the meantime, we find ourselves in a political quagmire that serves no one now, and has increasingly less chance as the politics becomes more important than the science. We have the technology now to improve how we function as a society."
---------------------------------
While I'm not a proponent of "cap and trade" either, the physical evidence of global warming continues unabated, so I agree with you that we need to move past the politics and "focus our efforts on efficient renewable policies" in the next few decades that will be more favorable to our environment, than the deplorable practices we have allowed in the past. We have not been kind to our planet Earth by destroying carbon sinks and endlessly spewing pollutants and emissions into our atmosphere, which has maintained a delicate balance over millions of years.
krohleder:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is no Dr Thierry Copie Ph.D PhysicsCornell now or in 1988 - Just a troller!"
---------------------
Exactly, and it seems as if this thread has brought out more than the usual number of rabid DENIALISTS spewing their fervent dogma from their usual anti-science sources. They just enjoy a free outlet to spew their propaganda and the usual attacks on SciAm and anyone that is not as blind as they are, and can see the mounting physical evidence of global warming.
wolfkiss:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'm not refuting them by any means, but I think any scientist would agree that reasoned skepticism is a positive trait, not negative. "
---------------------
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.
I agree also that we should focus on developing and using clean, efficient and renewable energy sources for a variety of reasons. But what is this "delicate balance" that our climate has maintained? Geology is full of events far more violent and catastrophic than any man can come up with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd even if what the church of AGW says is true and we act on all they want us to do - it seems that what would result would be an even worse disaster - Global Cooling (aka an ice age).
The only thing that seems obvious is that we don't really understand enough about our climate to make any sort of solid, reliable predictions. We aren't anywhere near having the computing capacity to accurately model the climate. So I should believe we should spend trillions of dollars, give up our freedoms and condemn our descendents to a lower standard of living based on various predictions of imminent disaster? I don't think so...
The only good thing about this whole controversy is that it eventually comes down to the science. I have full confidence that eventually the true science (whatever that may by) will be discovered. And then you can all jump in and say "I told you so".
murrayz:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I agree also that we should focus on developing and using clean, efficient and renewable energy sources for a variety of reasons. But what is this "delicate balance" that our climate has maintained? Geology is full of events far more violent and catastrophic than any man can come up with."
--------------------------
I was referring to the delicate balance of atmospheric CO2, since for at least the past 800,000 years and more than likely even millions of years, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 to 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 to 300 ppm during warmer interglacials. It hasn't been at the current 387 ppm for probably more than millions of years, although I do admit that hundreds of millions or even billions of years ago it was a completely different story as the Earth was much more violent when forming, or as continents moved apart.
"So I should believe we should spend trillions of dollars, give up our freedoms and condemn our descendents to a lower standard of living......church of AGW...."
---------
Thanks for proving my point about religious denialists, since it is impossible to read one comment that doesn't include "church of AGW," "religious AGW," "zealots," or "alarmists," .......all the while FEARmongering about "global cooling (aka ice age)", economic catastrophe by "spending trillions of dollars," or the best one of all -- "give up your freedoms and condemn our descendents to a lower standard of living."
Seems as if your fervent dogma spoken like a true zealot is much more ALARMISM than somebody like myself , suggesting moving away from finite fossil fuels and towards renewable energy at a steady and even pace. I live on renewable energy, and I have more freedoms than you because I'm not tied to a power company, and I certainly don't have a lower standard of living -- probably higher -- so please stop with the fervent dogma I hear from every zealot!
Even if the CRU data “were dismissed as tainted, it would not matter,” argues IPCC contributor Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University. “CRU is but one source of analysis whose conclusions have been validated by other researchers around the world.” Other sources include NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center, and even the IPCC, all of which provide access to raw data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this------------------------------------
murrayz:
"By not making their data available and by attempting to mislead, CRU's and Michael Mann's work is invalidated."
-------------------------
So in other words, some stolen e-mails from one source like the CRU invalidates other independent sources as well as all the physical evidence of a warming planet. Sounds to me like your case is more political and full of holes!
CNunneley:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Second, the Earth has been cooling since 1998."
-----------------------
Thanks for more fervent dogma from the religious denialist section, and parroting every bit of the same, old, tired propaganda with such a political twist. Is that you inhoffe?
"A simple Google search of thierry copie and Cornell Univ. comes up blank, and only blogs like aprilbabys (from here)and freerepublic show that AKA anonymous name. This is just the usual M.O. from the rabid DENIALIST crew, as usual trying to give their anti-science fervent dogma some credibility! You're just dragging on a very bad story. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently, there is a PhD thesis (Cornell, 1988) authored by Thierry Bruno Copie:
"Charmed Baryon Production From Electron - Positron Annihilations In The Upsilon (4s) Energy Region."
Thierry Bruno Copie (Cornell U., LNS) . UMI-88-21140, May 1988. 220pp. Ph.D. Thesis.
See the following two links:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988PhDT........78C
http://usparc.ihep.su/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Copie,+Thierry+Bruno
Lakota, you are taking issue with every commenter who points out a flaw in global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith me, you took issue with my point that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. I cited Dr. John Christy's temperature measurements; he's the foremost climate scientologist on the planet.
Yet in taking issue with the fact that I posted above, you cite no conflicting source.
That leaves you sounding like an clanging gong; noisy and annoying, yet meaningless.
Go back and try again. With sources.
Learn what the Earth's temperature has been doing since 1998 (the hottest year on record).
Take note of the reduced sunspots (the largest heat input on our planet), too.
Your readers are smarter than your writer. I am regaining faith in human intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUN's IPCC busted with bogus rainforest/climate-change claim: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, SciAm isn't leading the charge against such junk science, and in fact, seems to be encouraging it.
You are clearly not a scientist. Nothing is ever "provable" in science. It is a matter of determining which hypothesis is least likely to be wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSA has devolved into a comic / tragic facsimile of what it once was. The best way to stop this is to vote. Vote with your pocketbook and let others know what has happened to this once great magazine. Do the following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Cancel your subscription.
2. Post comments about this magazines political and non-scientific bias everywhere. I suggest start with Amazon.com comments page at this link:
http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-American/product-reviews/B00008DP07/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Any other sites that sell this rag and have comment sections are also good places to let the world know what the current editorial board of SA has turned into.
Stop paying these idiots and they will go away!
Jarmo,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would have guessed Germany. Your english is good, but it is apparent you are not a native speaker. Good to hear from you.
I think Lakota is a SA plant. Every time one of these threads turns against AGW and SA, he pops in to spew his vitriol and hate, along with a good dose of torquemada.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile (to quote Mel Brooks) "No one expects the spanish inquisition!", everyone should expect Lakota's brand at SA.
"Consensus is fine in politics, but has no place in science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpoken by someone who aparently is ignorant of the "actor-network" aspect of Science.
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I would suggest we calm down the hype on all sides and simply continue to study the data."
I hope your suggestion is adopted!
dhwj,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Can Penn State be required to return all of the MONEY for the fraud committed by M. Mann and others in the Penn State money hoax???"
Don't you think it might be better to determine if there was fraud committed before requiring the return of the money?
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Learn what the Earth's temperature has been doing since 1998 (the hottest year on record)."
You are aware that climate trend lines are measured over periods of 25 - 30 years, aren't you?
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I think Lakota is a SA plant. Every time one of these threads ..."
It is good to know that the conspiracy theorists remain on the job.
Do you think it is possible that he is like you, and calls it like he sees it?
Many years ago I read an article about how we would likely be destroyed by an asteroid. The real cause of the catastrophe wasn’t what one would suspect, and certainly not what Hollywood has imagined. In the scenario we weren’t surprised by an unknown object approaching us from a blind spot; in fact we knew well in advance that there was a danger. And the problem wasn’t caused by a lack of technology, because in the scenario the technology needed to divert the asteroid already existed. The issue arose from simple physics; given the velocity and mass of an asteroid large enough to cause a global crisis we would need to act well in advance, possibly decades, of the collision. Unfortunately, with this amount of lead time the science supporting the collision hypothesis would not be 100%. Furthermore, the cost of taking the action would be astronomical resulting in wartime like changes to our economies. So the governments of the day would be faced with this choice, act now and spend generations worth of money to hopefully prevent an event that is not certain to occur with the benefits not being realized until several administrations later. Or, act later, waiting until there was better evidence, technology or public support. Meanwhile conservatives and those who distrust science and government would use every chink in the collision theory’s armour to pursued an ignorant public that the only threat was from big government and grant hungry, god hating scientists. In this scenario we all die because; nature moves slowly but with great momentum, the general population is ignorant about even the simplest scientific concepts, people’s greed is greater than their wisdom and science is unable to talk in certainties whereas villains do so easily.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, the deniers have proven that the above scenario is not just true of asteroids but of any natural threat to humanity. The one flaw with democracies is that everyone has equal say even though not everyone has equal knowledge. The deniers will one day kill us all.
robert schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The deniers will one day kill us all. "
Nah. They're a real pain, but I prefer to believe that they will never be fatal.
lakota- while your generalization may be true of some skeptics, it is certainly not true in all cases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am skeptical regarding:
1. whether a warmer planet is significantly negative or positive to humanity in the long term
2. The degree to which human actions/ vs. other conditions are effecting earth's climate
3. That purposed changes to to how energy is produced is a benefit to humanity
Personally, I have not read information regarding points #1 & #2 that would lead me to want to implement a cap and trade economic policy. Truely, almost all of the predicitions of the future have come from various models that are based on available assumptions. Some of these assumptions have been correct, some not, and some of the data put into the models has been inaccurate. Bottom line......models of climate are extremely inaccurate at this stage and economic policy should be based upon better information.
What specifically would you propose a US administration implement in our economic policy over the next 5 years to positively effect the environment???
OMG! are you guys that pissed off at Big Al because he is better at THE GAME than you NEOCON FREE ENTERPRISE heros? He created a need and filled it, with a big profit! GET OVER IT!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think philjourdan is a freerepublic.com neocon plant, jumping into every thread that mentions global warming, with the usual zealot dogma and anti-science rhetoric.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCNunneley:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"With me, you took issue with my point that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. I cited Dr. John Christy's temperature measurements; he's the foremost climate scientologist on the planet."
-------------------------
While john christy now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.
Sisko:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Personally, I have not read information regarding points #1 & #2 that would lead me to want to implement a cap and trade economic policy."
"What specifically would you propose a US administration implement in our economic policy over the next 5 years to positively effect the environment?"
------------------------------------
Hey, finally some common ground for once, since I've never been a proponent of "cap and trade," but would like to see the renewable energy gains over the past few years continued.
As far as policy goes, I'd like to see all coal-fired energy plants retro-fitted with nuclear integral fast reactors, which also would use the radioactive waste material from our current crop of old reactors. This would serve to move us forward in the 21st century, by ending coal-burning emissions and the 4th generation reactors would be a means to efficiently use waste material that has been stockpiled.
Other than that, I'd like to see more Cape Wind projects up and down both coasts like Germany's Alpha Ventus, more solar installations that have been sprouting everywhere, and more funding to the idaho National Laboratory to build more 4th generation IFR and LFTR nuclear plants.
The fossil fuel industry will continue to fight all of this like they have with their manufactured doubt campaign!
Lakota...or anyone else:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that when we get down to the practical details, many people would be in a greater degree of agreement than disagreement. As an example, I believe we should be investing heavily in a more efficient energy grid. It would employ the same types of people as does military spending, but with the added benefit of something positive being produced that society can use.
I agree with the increased use of modern nuclear power for electricity production. I would think new plants should be built using this technology, but would not rush out to retrofit existing coal fired plants since it would cut energy production during the transition. (I would agree that additional data a few years from now may alter the degree of urgency I feel on this one). I do like the idea of various forms of production.
Sadly, it seems the deniers are those who accept AGW without question. They are not relying on science, but on deception, lies, fraud and suprression of data. The evidence is there for all to see now, yet the deniers continue to think that those people are only altruistic, and that none of the billions of dollars pumped into AGW have gone to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe latest scam? The IPCC using a shoe book that does not even reference AGW!
The really sad part? This whole scare was started by a guy who almost flunked a class, could not remember what was taught, but figured out how to make billions off of his ignorance.
A shame really. But it does go to prove Lincoln's and Barnums cliches. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and there is one born every minute.
Sq26bob - "He created a need and filled it"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep! He sure did! I dont think anyone here is saying differently. They are just all agreeing in their own way.
(see previous post).
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... the deniers are those who accept AGW without question. They are not relying on science, but on deception, lies, fraud and suprression of data."
You can, of course, substantiate your claims?
You can learn, but only if you are willing, about what is behind those who claim to be "skeptics".
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you can set aside an hour, watch "The American Denial of Global Warming" lecture by Dr. Oreskes, which documents how the "skeptical" movement has been constructed.
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459
lakota2012,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a very engaging lecture given by Dr. Alley, “The biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
I recommend it to anybody who wants to understand why scientists are confident that CO2 is such a big driver of our climate. It is probably the most understandable science lecture on the subject you are likely to watch. It is about an hour long.
For those who would like to learn what scientists are saying about the IPCC ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nature.com/news/2010/100202/full/463596a.html
Chryses--I did look at the link you posted and disagree with the concept a "skeptical movement being constructed". A "reasonable evaluation" of the situation would suggest that models have been created that point to carbon in the atomsphere as being a cause of a warming planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is significant disagreement by a large number of independent thinking people who do not agree about:
1. the degree to which atomspheric carbon is causing a warmer planet vs. other causes, and
2. what the impact of the changes to the environment will be to the humanity in the long run.
I believe most now agree that AGW is not an issue that will lead to some planet wide disaster in the next 10 to 15 years. Time will help resolve most of the confusion regarding the rate of climate change and the true root causes.
What we can probably all agree on are things that we should be doing now. We may/will not agree on all of the things that should be done, but there are certainly things that those on both sides of the debate do agree upon now. I believe we would be better off if we were working to implement those concepts rather than arguing, waiting and doing nothing positive.
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I did look at the link you posted and disagree with the concept a 'skeptical movement being constructed'. "
Wow! You must have started watching the hour-long lecture immediately after I posted the link for you to have finished it and have posted your response 90 minutes later.
I thought that Dr. Oreskes presented a clear association between the way that the corroboration between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer was called into question, the way that questionably of SDI was itself questioned, and how the relationship between the evidence linking GHGs to the current warming trend has been called into question. Not only are the similar techniques documented, but also the involvement of the same institutions in generating the ambiguity.
It is very interesting how people who have watched the entire lecture can come to such different conclusions.
I do think that a reasonable theory in light of the data suggests that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as being a cause of a warming planet.
Do you plan to watch the lecture by Dr. Alley? I'd be interested to learn what you think about what he has to say.
Chryses' links and the argument he/she/it is trying to advance is the same tiresome ad hominem strategy that kept AGW shielded for so long. Rather than challenge the science presented by skeptics, AGW believers like Chrysees and their high priests who have been found massaging data and attack motives and level hysterical allegations and conspiracy theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ironic thing is that thanks to their machinations (from manipulating data, to hiding it and even falsifying it), Mann, Hansen, Jones, Pachauri etc. are the ones playing the roles of the tobacco industry scientists in this drama.
Oreskes argument, in other words, after staking her reputation on her propagandistic "study" of peer reviewed articles on climate change (not knowing that Jones and Co. were busy threatening editors who would dare publish skeptic papers) is basically this;
"So what if you have a PhD in meteorology and 20 years experience ... your fifth cousin, thrice removed works as a gas pumper in a filling station! This means you're a stooge of the energy industry!"
Ad hominem all the way. Which is funny since in comment 130 Chryses is seen wagging his finger at PhilJourdan for not considering that lakota's wholesale devotion to AGW is "calling it like he sees it." Perhaps Chryses and his/her friend Oreskes might consider that AGW skeptics and the numerous highly credentialed scientists that have called the science of AGW into question, especially given the various discovered falsehoods of Mann, Jones, Hansen, etc. , are also calling it like they see it?
Chryses-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe video reviewed a number of ideas that basically come down to 1 key point: comparing an increase in atmospheric carbon to the increase in atmospheric temperatures during the same period. One of the potential flaws in this analysis is the failure to consider potential other causes for the rise in temperatures during the study period. If there were alternate causes of the temperature rise during the study period, then the study inappropriately attributed the rising temperatures solely to carbon increases in the atmosphere.
The video also seems to indicate that scientists "all agree" about the degree to which carbon is effecting the earth's temperature. That is simply an untrue statement. There are a wide number of highly accredited scientists who disagree as to the degree carbon in the atmosphere has and will continue to effect temperatures vs. other factors affecting climate. The speaker frequently references the IPPC as an independent unbiased scientific group studying the science. Since this talk was given in 2007, I believe any reasonable person would have to agree that the IPPC did have a goal of attributing a warmer planet to be predominately caused by increased atmospheric carbon. I find the references to SDI meaningless to the discussion.
There are certain key points: Is a warmer planet really bad, or simply an inevitable transition to which humanity will need to adjust. Long term data (500 million years worth) shows that the world's oceans have historically been at much higher levels than today.
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The video also seems to indicate that scientists 'all agree' about the degree to which carbon is effecting the earth's temperature. That is simply an untrue statement."
Oh yes?
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-framed-naomi-oreskes
Martin Knight,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt appears that you are trying out "the best defense is a good offense" approach.
"Chryses' links and the argument he/she/it is trying to advance is the same tiresome ad hominem strategy that kept AGW shielded for so long."
It is amusing to note that while nothing in my post was an ad hominem argument, most of yours is.
For example, "Rather than challenge the science presented by skeptics, AGW believers like Chrysees and their high priests who have been found massaging data and attack motives and level hysterical allegations and conspiracy theories."
Use of the expression "high priests" implies a religious conviction which are absent from my posts. Its use was intended to attack me by casting me into a false role. You have no evidence for your claim. Further, you can not identify any hysterical allegations I have made.
Your unsubstantiated accusations are an ad hominem argument against me.
As and when science is presented which suggests plausible alternatives to the theory of AGW as contributors to the rate of increase in temperatures recorded since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, that science has either been added as one of the acknowledged climate change drivers (when verified), or discarded (when unverified). Examples of the former are Milankovitch cycles and fluctuations in solar luminosity. What has yet to be presented is evidence to substantiate the claim that the actions of humans inserting tens of millions of tons of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) into the atmosphere each year for more than 200 years has had no effect.
The claim that scientific challenges have been unaddressed is false.
Another example is referring to Dr. Oreskes paper in Science as propagandistic is an ad hominem argument, as it presupposes that the author's intent was to misrepresent data.
Here is a link to the article. As can be seen by those who read it, it is not propaganda. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
The claim is false.
You accused, without substantiation, Dr. Oreskes of adopting the position that "So what if you have a PhD in meteorology and 20 years experience ... your fifth cousin, thrice removed works as a gas pumper in a filling station! This means you're a stooge of the energy industry!"
That claim is false.
"Ad hominem all the way."
Yes. That is an apt description of your unfounded, false attacks on Dr. Oreskes and me.
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"One of the potential flaws in this analysis is the failure to consider potential other causes for the rise in temperatures during the study period. If there were alternate causes of the temperature rise during the study period, then the study inappropriately attributed the rising temperatures solely to carbon increases in the atmosphere."
That's fair enough, but what are the potential other causes for the rise in temperatures you are referring to? As other climate drivers have been identified, they have, at least to the extent that I am aware, been incorporated into the overall climate change driver set. Milankovitch cycles and fluctuations in solar luminosity are recognized components, as are El Niño & La Niña. Volcanic aerosols are thought to cool, and are incorporated.
My understanding is that the anthropogenic component is considered to be only one of the climate change drivers, not the only one.
The saddest part of the "stolen e-mails" is that some still can't tell the difference between a scientist and a politician...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpiff
Spiff,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlas, too true!
Increasing world population couldprovide a plausible explanation for a number of catastrophic effects on climate. In the first place it is the explanation for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere through increased need of energy (mainly made from fossil fuels) due to the increased population. A number of problems linked to drought, e.g. in Kenya, can to a large extend be attributed to population increase. Are devastating inundations in Bengladesh not due to the spreading of the increased population into areas formerly unoccupyed, because prone to inundation ? Since increases in CO2 and rising world population levels are strongly linked, how can you differentiate between one and the other cause if it comes to finding a plausible explanation for the supposed climate change ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh c'mon Chryses ... Oreskes' argument is that AGW skeptics are manufactured and motivated by money from Big Energy corporate interests i.e. "'The American Denial of Global Warming' lecture by Dr. Oreskes, which documents how the 'skeptical' movement has been *constructed.*"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a text book definition of an ad hominem argument - rather than attacking their work, she's attacking them personally by blanket accusing them of being false and questioning their motives i.e. "constructed". All this while citing the IPCC that we all now know is chock-full of charlatans and false info.
And by helping her advance it, you're also engaging in it.
By the way, her paper in Science is propagandistic. Especially now that we know that Jones, Mann, etc. have been twisting the peer review process to deny skeptics access to publications and threatening editors if they stepped out of line.
PS: Your belief in AGW is obviously religious in nature, since there is absolutely nothing that can falsify it for you. Mann, Jones, Hansen, et al have all been found to have massaged/deleted inconvenient ice-core and tree-ring proxy data, weather station data, rainforest and glacier data. None of their models work at post-diction much less prediction.
In other words, your comments are all appeals to authorities that have increasingly been found wanting and attacks on the motives of the people who are on the other side of the issue (i.e. ad hominem).
Which is why I'm forced to conclude that AGW is a matter of faith for you, not science.
Jpady,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the fact that coastal areas are now more heavily populated makes them even more sensitive to rising sea levels.
This magnifies the impact of global warming, and thus makes all the more valuable whatever humans can do to reduce the AGW part, which is after all, the only part of Global Warming we can influence.
Martin Knight,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That's a text book definition of an ad hominem argument - rather than attacking their work, she's attacking them personally by blanket accusing them of being false and questioning their motives i.e. "constructed". All this while citing the IPCC that we all now know is chock-full of charlatans and false info."
Pure nonsense.
The fact that their behavior is documented means that the argument is NOT ad hominem, it is based ob facts.
Your argument is unfounded.
The fact that this is documented history means that my reference to it is NOT ad hominem, merely a referral to previously established facts.
Nice try.
Martin Knight,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... your belief in AGW is obviously religious in nature, since there is absolutely nothing that can falsify it for you. ..."
Document your claim, or acknowledge that it is false. Unfounded claims will not do.
" ... your comments are all appeals to authorities that have increasingly been found wanting ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdocument your claims please, or acknowledge that they are false
Very good points Martin! Especially about the money. While many in the AGW religious camp try to point to the paltry $23 million Exxon mobile has given to the research as "tainting" they conveniently ignore the over $79 BILLION that the Phil Jones' of the world have quietly pocketed. http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and dont forget the sheer gaul and hypocrasy of the loudest protestors! http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/pitman-paid-190000-a-year-to-throw-baseless-insults/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I agree with the increased use of modern nuclear power for electricity production. I would think new plants should be built using this technology, but would not rush out to retrofit existing coal fired plants since it would cut energy production during the transition. (I would agree that additional data a few years from now may alter the degree of urgency I feel on this one). I do like the idea of various forms of production."
----------------------------
Maybe a valid point of reduced energy production while retro-fitting the coal-fired energy plant, but I just like using the existing infrastructure of the fossil fuel plant, and only replacing the heating element to 4th generation nuclear. So.....a slight modification could be building a 4th generation nuclear IFR/LFTR power plant next to an existing coal-fired plant, and then retro-fitting the old plant in order to shut it down permanently.
We definitely need various forms of energy production, since putting all of our eggs into one basket is senseless, and a varied industry including renewable energy and 4th generation nuclear would create more permanent jobs that cannot be offshored. It just seems to be counter-productive for those so vociferously opposing and form of 21st century energy production that would replace finite fossil fuels.
"In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this------------------------------
Penn St. proceeding with scientist e-mail scrutiny
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. – Associated Press - A Penn State University internal inquiry dismissed three allegations of research improprieties against a leading climate scientist but recommended further investigation into one allegation regarding leaked e-mails about global warming.
Meteorology professor Michael Mann said he was pleased the inquiry results "found no evidence to support" four allegations against him.
Mann, long a target of criticism by skeptics of man-made global warming theories, said he welcomed the investigation, in hopes of removing lingering doubts.
A three-member committee has been looking into e-mails pertaining to Mann or his work since late November, when computer hackers obtained messages between U.S. and British scientists from a British research center.
The committee "could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities," the report said.
The report said three other allegations contained "no substance" and did not warrant further scrutiny, including whether Mann took part in suppressing or falsifying data; deleting or concealing e-mails, information or other data; or misusing privileged or confidential information available though his capacity as an academic scholar.
"Three of the four allegations have been dismissed completely," Mann said in a statement he issued Wednesday. "Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the university administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures."
"This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong," Mann said.
"Especially now that we know that Jones, Mann, etc. have been twisting the peer review process..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------------------
Not according to the first Associated Press investigation of all those stolen e-mails, and now by Penn State vindicating Dr. Mann of any wrong doing.
Pennsylvania State University's review of the work of Michael Mann, as a result of the inquiry, the investigatory committee determined there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed email, information and/or data related to AR4, or misused privileged or confidential information.
-------
Climategate: Science Not Faked, But Not Pretty
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/12/12/climategate-science-not-faked-but-not-pretty_print.htm
-------
You're obviously just spewing more propagandist rhetoric in the same methodolgy you seem to despise with statements like "your belief in AGW is obviously religious in nature," since denialists also prove their fervent dogma as religious in nature too!
Iakota2012:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what? The antics (or not) of the AGW proponents is a side issue, more related to ego than the truth of the hypothesis. But you ought to understand how little weight a supposed consensus carries with people truely interested in whether the theory has merit.
Why don't the AGW believers deal with the "two Canadians' " and other statistical and scientific criticisms, as scientists? The ad hominem attacks against the critics has only invited the same in return. Meanwhile, in some circles(like the SA editors) the science gets short shrift.
Richard O. Wright:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So what?...... The ad hominem attacks against the critics has only invited the same in return."
------------------------
My point exactly....... so what?
The ad hominem attacks from both sides today appear to only be getting much worse, especially since the so-called "climategate" stolen e-mails have been used by the denialists as a "smoking gun". This "proof" of suppressed or falsified data, destroyed email, information and/or data related to AR4, or misused privileged or confidential information, has been laid to rest and means nothing, except to those still clinging to their fervent dogma of religious denialism.
I suppose you also believe that 1998 was the warmest on record and the Earth has been cooling ever since. I don't, and neither does NOAA or NASA.
CNunneley:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"With me, you took issue with my point that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. I cited Dr. John Christy's temperature measurements"
--------------------------
I've seen john christy's graphs that stopped in 2008 after a couple of cooler years due to la Nina, but I'll be very interested to see his graphs in a few years with the 2009-2010 el Nino, as well as the sun wakening up for Solar Cycle 24. By all accounts 2009 was a very warm year and we've been at the solar LOW for much longer than normal in recent history. It looks as if the 2010 Winter Olympics might be having problems due to the el Nino effect, and sunspots have returned after a few years of a much cooler sun.
State of the Climate, Global Analysis, Annual 2009
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
Global Highlights
Global land and ocean annual surface temperatures through December tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest on record, at 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average.
The 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record, with an average global surface temperature of 0.54°C (0.96°F) above the 20th century average. This shattered the 1990s value of 0.36°C (0.65°F).
Ocean surface temperatures (through December) tied with 2002 and 2004 as the fourth warmest on record, at 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average.
Land surface temperatures through December tied with 2003 as the seventh warmest on record, at 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report
Martin Knight:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Your belief in AGW is obviously religious in nature..."
---------------------
Nah....mine is almost entirely from physical evidence, which you religious denialists completely discount. During this winter, we had an extreme negative Arctic oscillation, making the Arctic much warmer than average and the middle latitudes much colder.
Scant Arctic ice could mean summer 'double whammy'
WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Scant ice over the Arctic Sea this winter could mean a "double whammy" of powerful ice-melt next summer, a top U.S. climate scientist said on Thursday.
"It's not that the ice keeps melting, it's just not growing very fast," said Mark Serreze, director of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.
In January, Arctic sea ice grew by about 13,000 square miles (34,000 sq km) a day, which is a bit more than one-third the pace of ice growth during the 1980s, and less than the average for the first decade of the 21st century.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scant-arctic-ice-could-me
Slow freeze-up keeps ice extent low
Analysis of data from the last three decades shows that the summer Arctic sea ice melt season now lasts nearly a month longer than it did in the 1980s.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
What is really interesting is that when people actually begin to discuss:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"so what do you think we should do in the next 5 years" there is FAR more agreement than disagreement even between those who disagree on the issue of AGW. At the end of the day isn't what we are going to do in the future all that really matters?
Lakota and I have disagreed extensively regarding the degree of climate change caused by humans, and on whether it is really important to the survival of the humanity, but when we exchanged thoughts on what we should be doing to produce energy...........we were largely in agreement.
Doesn't everyone reading these posts agree that humanity will continue to require significantly more energy production? Can we all agree that we are disappointed that more was not done in the last 25 years to make the US more energy self sufficient? (that includes republican and democratic administrations....including the current one and the last one)
I suggest discussion the details of what to do. It is more productive.
But as is typical....I will close with a comment to Lakota-
You wrote
"In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame."
Using the word "blame" is at least somewhat misleading. Humans are undoubtly having an impact on world climate.....the degree of that impact is still in question, as is the ultimate impact on people. BUT WHAT WE DO NEXT IS IMPORTANT REGARDLESS
Sisko: You wrote
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame."
Using the word "blame" is at least somewhat misleading. Humans are undoubtly having an impact on world climate.....the degree of that impact is still in question, as is the ultimate impact on people. BUT WHAT WE DO NEXT IS IMPORTANT REGARDLESS
---------------------------
Actually, that quote came from the above article.
Yes, I agree with your statement: "Humans are undoubtly having an impact on world climate.....the degree of that impact is still in question."
I guess what bothers me the most about the whole debate, is when somebody states that mankind is too small in the whole realm of things on our planet, and the current 6.75 billion people cannot possibly be causing any changes to our Earth. I do blame all those in Washington over the past 30 years, that have given us the same, old, tired energy policy of continued foreign oil dependence as well as other fossil fuels like coal, and taken us in the completely wrong direction from energy independence.
I certainly believe that everyone should be able to support less carbon emissions through less burning of fossil fuels around the world, as we have seen during this global recession, where the U.S. emissions have fallen 9%, largely due to Americans using 2 million barrels less oil each day. We have actually been living a de facto climate policy due to economic reality, and need to continue in this direction even as our economy improves.
Martin Knight,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"By the way, her paper in Science is propagandistic."
Interesting. If we look up the word propaganda, what do we find?
prop⋅a⋅gan⋅da – noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
(Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010. )
So, do you have any evidence to support your claim that the article published was propaganda?
Here is a link to the article. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Now show in what way that article is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc."
You made the accusation. Now prove it.
This should be entertaining.
Martin Knight,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In other words, your comments are all appeals to authorities that have increasingly been found wanting and attacks on the motives of the people who are on the other side of the issue (i.e. ad hominem). "
You are wrong.
Again.
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
What you MEANT was an appeal to authority.
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim.
Naomi Oreskes is Professor of History and Science Studies at the UCSD. She is an expert on the history of this science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes
You don't even know what you're talking about.
PhilJourdan at 10:53 AM on 02/04/10
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Very good points Martin! Especially about the money. While many in the AGW religious camp try to point to the paltry $23 million Exxon mobile has given to the research as 'tainting' they conveniently ignore the over $79 BILLION that the Phil Jones' of the world have quietly pocketed. http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/ "
This is typical of the types of lies and truth twisting in which the denialists delight.
For example “While many in the AGW religious camp” is an attempt to smear the opponent by attaching a false label. This is outright lying.
Another example “they conveniently ignore the over $79 BILLION that the Phil Jones' of the world have quietly pocketed.” This is twisting the truth.
PhilJourdan conveniently neglects to mention that this money was, and I quote from his reference “The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.”
Note that this is all the money that the US government has provided over the last 20 years, and he is trying to make it sound as if the Phil Jones' of the world have quietly pocketed ALL of it. Further, that money was spread over 20 years, so that is just less than $4 billion a year on climate research.
Talk about twisting the truth! May I interest anyone in a 7 dimensional pretzel?!?!?
$4 billion a year on climate research. Not exactly chicken feed, but...
As to who makes money from energy policy decisions, in 2008, Exxon Mobil reported $45.2 billion profit, Shell reported $27 billion profit, BP reported $25.6 billion profit, and Chevron reported $23.9 billion profit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/30/exxon-mobil-reports-recor_n_162468.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/28/royaldutchshell.oil
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/business/news/article_1457322.php/BP_in_2008_profit_jump_despite_sharp_4Q_fall_Roundup
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-31/business/17199177_1_chevron-s-profit-annual-profit-oil-prices
And that $121.7 billion my friends, was IN ONE YEAR.
As I recall, Martin Knight at 11:49 AM on 02/03/10 referred to something I did not say as "hysterical allegations." Well, as I did not make any hysterical allegations, his claim is false. But I do think that "hysterical allegations" is an apt term to use to describe PhilJourdan's comment "Especially about the money".
lakota2012,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you have a url for the Mann vindication story?
Simply shrieking "false" at me (and everyone else) does not an argument make, neither does it negate anything I say or the simple fact that a lot of the information the so-called experts at the IPCC, CRU, GISS, etc. are all based on falsehoods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPS: An oil company's profits is not evidence that AGW is true anymore than Oreskes claiming that all AGW skeptics are being funded by the oil industry.
And considering the steady ongoing revelations of perfidy and false science by the disciples of your religion, it's quite obvious Oreskes is no expert since she could not do the basic back-checking that would have revealed what your high priests have been doing.
PS: Your co-religionists regularly accuse people of being bought and paid-for stooges (e.g. McKittrick and McIntyre) without ever having to "prove it". Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Martin Knight,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, at least you are consistent.
You have yet to substantiate any of you claims.
Which, in a way, makes sense.
Because you can't.
Can you?
Martin Knight,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... disciples of your religion ..."
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Are you one of those who don't think they need to?
Or is it because you can not do so?
Martin Knight,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... An oil company's profits is not evidence that AGW is true anymore than Oreskes claiming that all AGW skeptics are being funded by the oil industry."
As everyone can read, I did not argue that that an oil company's profits is evidence that AGW is true.
The theory of AGW stands or falls on its own science.
PhilJourdan introduced the money issue with his entertaining piece of disinformation. I merely showed how empty his false claim was.
Just follow the money, and remember that 4 < 121.
Nice try at a redirect.
It fell flat.
But nice try.
Martin Knight at 07:05 AM on 02/05/10
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... Your co-religionists regularly accuse people of being bought and paid-for stooges (e.g. McKittrick and McIntyre) without ever having to "prove it". Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. "
There you have it folks.
He "refuses" to provide evidence to substantiate his claims.
I'm betting that he is hiding his inability to do so.
What do you think?
Martin Knight,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Simply shrieking 'false' at me (and everyone else) does not an argument make ..."
I did not shriek at you. I merely documented that both you and PhilJourdan make false statements in lieu of good arguments.
For example, you didn't even know the difference between an 'ad hominem' and an 'argument from authority' fallacy.
I documented it.
I have also documented that you made a number of totally unwarranted claims. I just point out your false, misleading, and unwarranted statements.
No shrieking involved.
No need to.
Lots if luck gidaeon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately I fear you are wasting your time with galaxy-man, who is obviously a true believer.
I've posed the same question to countless "believers" and have yet to meet one who had the slightest notion of the difference between "heat" and "temperature".
This includes a relative with a science degree (IT).
Don't even get me started on believers' "understanding" of the laws of thermodynamics, or the most basic of the gas laws.
Richard O. Wright,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" But you ought to understand how little weight a supposed consensus carries with people truely interested in whether the theory has merit."
Yes.
"The Nobel Committee for Physics
The Nobel Committee at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is responsible for the selection of candidates from the names submitted for consideration by qualified nominators, who have been invited through formal letters. Committee members are elected for a period of 3 years from among the members of the Academy. In assessing the qualifications of the candidates, the Committee is assisted by specially appointed expert advisers."
http://nobelprize.virtual.museum/prize_awarders/physics/committee.html
That is why the consensus of the The Nobel Committee for Physics is an absolute requirement for an individual to to have a chance to be awarded The Nobel Prize in Physics.
That is exactly how little weight a consensus carries with people truly interested in whether a scientific theory has merit.
More errors found in the UN's IPCC report, including using non-scientific sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I inquiry in what way this is relevant to science of climate change?
Are you suggesting the the IPCC document is all that there is to the theory of AGW?
If not, why is that and other attacks on some climate change scientists, all that you post?
Chryses:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Do you have a url for the Mann vindication story?"
---------------------------
Meteorology professor Michael Mann said he was pleased the inquiry results "found no evidence to support" four allegations against him.
The report said three other allegations contained "no substance" and did not warrant further scrutiny, including whether Mann took part in: suppressing or falsifying data; deleting or concealing e-mails, information or other data; or misusing privileged or confidential information available though his capacity as an academic scholar.
"Three of the four allegations have been dismissed completely," Mann said in a statement he issued Wednesday. "Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the university administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures."
"This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong," Mann said.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9DKVR1G0.htm
tcopie:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As a scientifically trained person, I am genuinely embarrassed that the Wall Street Journal......"
-----------------------
.................................................had the need to delete replies by qualified scientists expressing real science, when it went against their firm religion of denialism.
I certainly expect the WSJ to stick with financial stories and stock picks in the future, instead of playing partisan politics for its owner rupert murdoch, owner of news corp and fox!
CNunneley:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"With me, you took issue with my point that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. I cited Dr. John Christy's temperature measurements"
--------------------------
Maybe you are unaware of john christy's partner in skepticism, dr, roy spencer, and his latest global temperature additions, that show a marked increase (about where the 1998 el Nino global temps were on his own graph) in Jan. 2010 global temperatures, thus showing the global "cooling" cohorts to be completely delusional. It shows a 0.72 degrees C anomaly for last month, and by smoothing his own data from 1979 to the present, there is a steady INCREASE in global temperatures, much to the dismay of the religious denialists spewing the global "cooling" nonsense!
Here, by all means, check it out and get back to us:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
CNunneley:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"With me, you took issue with my point that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. I cited Dr. John Christy's temperature measurements"
--------------------------
Again, from lead denialist (and john christy's partner) dr. roy spencer's own webpage:
NASA Aqua Sea Surface Temperatures Support a Very Warm January, 2010
February 4th, 2010
When I saw the “record” warmth of our UAH global-average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) product (warmest January in the 32-year satellite record), I figured I was in for a flurry of e-mails.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
GEEZ.....kinda takes all the wind out those religious denialist sails, don't it, especially those spewing the global "cooling"?
CNunneley:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"With me, you took issue with my point that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. I cited Dr. John Christy's temperature measurements"
--------------------------
As dr. roy spencer continues:
"But, I will admit I was surprised. So, I decided to look at the AMSR-E sea surface temperatures (SSTs) that Remote Sensing Systems has been producing from NASA’s Aqua satellite since June of 2002. Even though the SST data record is short, and an average for the global ice-free oceans is not the same as global, the two do tend to vary together on monthly or longer time scales."
The following graph shows that January, 2010, was indeed warm in the sea surface temperature data:
January 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.72 Deg. C
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.
The tropics and Northern and Southern Hemispheres were all well above normal, especially the tropics where El Nino conditions persist. Note the global-average warmth is approaching the warmth reached during the 1997-98 El Nino, which peaked in February April of 1998.
After last month’s accusations that I’ve been ‘hiding the incline’ in temperatures, I’ve gone back to also plotting the running 13-month averages, rather than 25-month averages, to smooth out some of the month-to-month variability.
We don’t hide the data or use tricks, folks…it is what it is.
------------------------------
Aaaaaah...."it is what it is," and both christy and spencer can now see how wrong they were to convince themselves and other denialists that our planet was "cooling!"
Martin Knight:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"..the simple fact that a lot of the information the so-called experts at the IPCC, CRU, GISS, etc. are all based on falsehoods."
-------------------------
It is not a fact at all that their information was based on falsehoods, since it was based on sound science, and only the predictions of future events by a very few, happening much sooner than they probably will, was wrong.
The physical evidence still proves beyond any shadow of a doubt, that worldwide glaciers are melting at an unprecedented speed for recent history, since the largest amount of melting of the glacial sheets happened soon after the last glacial maximum 22,000 years ago, and the majority of the melting and sea level rise occured between 18,000 to 6,000 YBP.
Any future predictions have quite a number of variables, but from 800,000 years of ice cores, it certainly appears that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 to 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 to 300 ppm during warmer interglacials. The one variable we haven't seen during the Quaternary glaciation period or the Pleistocene during the last few million years, is atmospheric carbon dioxide levels approaching 400 ppm.
But, during the Holocene epoch of this current inter-glacial period, remnants of the last glaciers, now occupying about 10% of the world's land surface, still exist in Greenland and Antarctica, and it is global warming that has exacerbated the retreat of these glaciers. This is just the plain physical evidence that denialists fail to acknowledge, since they have a need to attack scientists and the science in order to support the manufactured doubt industry!
lakota2012,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTY!
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9DKVR1G0.htm
:)
For more information on government conspiracies like ClimateGate go to infowars.com The Carbon Tax is a scam by the Global Elite to usher in a New World Order. Monsanto = Evil. Educate yourselves . . . there's no excuse in this day and age for anyone to be unawake to the tyranny of our current government . . . puppets of the Global Elite and of offshore banks . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbreezyvibe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAha! The Illuminati are at it again!
I call down a Pox on them!
And a new one just today - Africagate. Using fokelore in the AR4. They are batting a perfect 0 so far.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey! Great! This report, for once, is not disinformation like your "$79 BILLION" shenanigans.
I'd suggest that you apply for a position with Dr. Mann, but he was vindicated, so it wouldn't be a good match.
LOL!
Chryses:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you really believe Mann has been vindicated? The context of his E-mails etc. make it glaringly clear that he and the other "climategate" participants purposefully jimmied the curve so as to make dramatic what they believed to be an alarming warming trend. In particular, it hid a decline which didn't fit rather than explain it away, which could still be done, perhaps. It also de-emphasized the medieval warming. Oh sure the data was otherwise available for others to look at, but Mann's stuff was going to the IPCC and was meant to underlay your consensus.
If you believe that Mann's friends at Penn have absolved him of this dishonesty, you will believe anything that supports your "cause".
Richard Wright, you are correct. Indeed, PSU does not even try to exhonerate Mann since they use the weasely words of "Since his tenure" and since his tenure at PSU, they are probably technically correct. But by using the weasely words, they imply that his behaviour has not always been honest, which is a left handed slam against him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs it should be. PSU is protecting their money. But not Mann's reputation.
Richard O. Wright,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Do you really believe Mann has been vindicated? "
I take it that you neglected to read the post from lakota2012 at 12:22 PM on 02/07/10.
Permit me to quote from it:
"Meteorology professor Michael Mann said he was pleased the inquiry results 'found no evidence to support' four allegations against him.
The report said three other allegations contained 'no substance' and did not warrant further scrutiny, including whether Mann took part in: suppressing or falsifying data; deleting or concealing e-mails, information or other data; or misusing privileged or confidential information available though his capacity as an academic scholar.
'Three of the four allegations have been dismissed completely,' Mann said in a statement he issued Wednesday. 'Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the university administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures.'
'This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong,' Mann said.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9DKVR1G0.htm "
Perhaps you have adopted an innovative interpretation to read "found no evidence to support," "three other allegations contained 'no substance' and did not warrant further scrutiny" as being a new, and heretofore unknown form of condemnation. However, for those of use who use English to communicate, rather than to obfuscate, the above terminology is customarily used to disassociate the subject and the object of the accusations.
Further, you have yet again let your prejudices show.
Note please that you had already decided on Dr. Mann's guilt. For evidence, I present the following quote "If you believe that Mann's friends at Penn have absolved him of this dishonesty, you will believe anything that supports your 'cause'." Note that you decided Dr. Mann's fate before those who have access to the facts determined that the accusations were without merit. Further, you decided that those whose decision was not as you wanted were his "friends," although you have presented no evidence for this assumption. Additionally, PhilJourdan attempted to smear Penn State by posting "PSU is protecting their money," as that posits an ulterior motive.
Judging an individual guilty before the facts are known is customarily referred to as being prejudiced.
Your behavior is shameful.
I wonder though, will you ever focus on the science?
Probably not.
Richard O. Wright,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... Oh sure the data was otherwise available for others to look at, but Mann's stuff was going to the IPCC and was meant to underlay your consensus. ..."
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't one of the criticisms brought by the "AGW skeptics" against the "AGW proponents" that they failed to satisfy FOI requests? How then is one supposed to read the above? If the data was available for others to look at, then the "denial of FOI requests" is without merit. If, on the other hand the denial of FOI requests was valid, then how could the data have been available for others to look at?
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
"... was meant to underlay your consensus. ..."
MY consensus? Are seriously suggesting that I am to be included in your proposed consensus amongst scientists? While I am flattered, I am not entitled to be a member of that group.
It is nevertheless encouraging to note that you recognize the significance of consensus, or general recognition by one's peers, in scientific practice. Now if you could get that reality communicated to those members of your persuasion who are slower in their uptake of new ideas, you and yours would be treated a bit more seriously.
Chryses: Focusing on the science is what I would encourage you to do, rather than selling a consensus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read the Penn State report, not Mann's press release.
If you don't think that the report was authored by his friends, you are gullible indeed and know nothing about the circle the wagons tendencies of academia.
Richard O. Wright,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you don't think that the report was authored by his friends, you are gullible indeed and know nothing about the circle the wagons tendencies of academia."
Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claims, or have you also decided that since you are right, evidence is a mere formality?
Are you limited to criticizing people and saying THAT is science?
Oh, puh-leeze!
The effects of AGW are already showing up in our food. What more do you want?
Formal Peer Review of UN's IPCC Climate Report By NASA's Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found" in it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/hansen-colleague-rejected-ipcc-ar4-es-as-having-no-scientific-merit-but-what-does-ipcc-do/
Richard O. Wright,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too read the report, and I note that you neglected to provide a link to the source. Unfortunately for you, I provide it here.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24330327/Findings_Mann_Inquiry
It remains a blanket dismissal of three out of the four accusations.
Allegation 1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?
Finding 1. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data.
Allegation 2. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?
Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones
Allegation 3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?
Finding 3. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to him in his capacity as an academic scholar.
Have you been able to find any evidence that these decisions were made by his "friends," or are you willing to settle for smearing the reputations of Dr. Pell (Senior Vice President for Research), Ms. Candice Yekel (Director of the Office for Research Protections) and Dr. Scaroni (Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research), Dr. William Brune (Head of the Department of Meteorology), Dr. Henry C. Foley (Dean of the College of Information Sciences and Technology) as well as that of Dr. Mann's?
Is there no limit to how low you will go to buttress your preconceived notions?
Is the only decision that you would find "just" be one which satisfied your prejudices?
Chryses: You're the one saying Mann has been vindicated. Aside from the wagon circle committee, just how does he become exonerated by a report that doesn't even touch on the tricks? It's the make the facts fit the program attitude that the real earnest scientists and statisticians have pointed to. Penn State has no opinion on that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard O. Wright,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You're the one saying Mann has been vindicated. ..."
Ah, so the blanket dismissal of three out of the four accusations does not constitute vindication. Yes, you do seem to have adopted an interpretation to read "there exists no credible evidence" (1), "there exists no credible evidence" (2), and "there exists no credible evidence" (3) as being a form of condemnation. However, as I pointed out before, for those of us who use English to communicate, rather than to obfuscate, the above terminology is customarily used to disassociate the subject from the object of the accusations.
"... Aside from the wagon circle committee, ..."
So you DO feel entitled to smear the reputations of Drs. Pell, Scaroni, Brune, Foley, and Ms. Yekel, simply because they had the facts before them and they failed to give arrive at the judgment you had without the facts. Your class really shows through.
"... just how does he become exonerated by a report that doesn't even touch on the tricks? It's the make the facts fit the program attitude that the real earnest scientists and statisticians have pointed to. Penn State has no opinion on that."
Are you capable, at least in principle (even if not in this specific instance), of accepting that people can have a reasoned opinion which is not the same as yours?
If you want a scientific "trick" that is essential to the discipline, permit me to refer you to Quantum Renormalization.
Richard O. Wright,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and do I notice that the goalposts are being moved now that suppression or to falsifying data, or deletion, concealment or otherwise destruction of emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, or misuse of privileged or confidential information have been removed from the "hit list"?
Now that those have been removed from the table, suddenly "It's the make the facts fit the program attitude that the real earnest scientists and statisticians have pointed to. "
You have suggested, without evidence, that there is a conspiracy (egged on by PhilJourdan, of course) among Drs. Pell, Scaroni, Brune, Foley, and Ms. Yekel to unjustly exonerate Dr. Mann.
Have you ever read about Denialism?
Mark Hoofnagle has described denialism as "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." and is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics in order to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy:
Here, read up on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
UN's IPCC caught in yet another climate scandal:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Almost daily, we learn about new problems with the formerly respected UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): In their 2001 report, they claimed that the 20th century was "unusual" and blamed it on human-released greenhouse gases. Their infamous temperature graph shown there, shaped like a hockey stick, did away with the well-established Medieval Warm Period (around 1000AD, when Vikings were able to settle in Southern Greenland and grow crops there) and the following Little Ice Age (around 1400 to 1800AD). Two Canadians exposed the bad data used by the IPCC and the statistical errors in their analysis."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_end_of_the_ipcc.html
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the same article ...
"By themselves, they do not invalidate the basic IPCC conclusion -- that a warming in the latter half of the 20th century was human-caused, presumably by the rise of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide."
Funny how you forgot that.
For those who are unfamiliar with Dr. Singer, the author of the article, he is a scientific counterpoint to Dr. Hansen in the global warming debate. That is why he, in contrast to some who very carefully select what they quote from others, added the above qualification.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"UN's IPCC caught in yet another climate scandal:"
Oh yes, I forgot to mention that was an opinion piece, not a scandal. Go reread the article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_end_of_the_ipcc.html
Easterling 2009 proves there is no sign of global cooling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOCKWOOD 2008 proves sun has been cooling past decades yet still warming.
Sceptics are yet to have any hard factual scientific articles which are not blog related.
BLOGS ARE NOT SCIENCE AND ARE MOSTLY MISINTERPRETED...
Furthermore, E&E is not a scientific journal...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe end.
Sun Cooling? Hmm, I would let the Martians, Plutonians, and Neptunians know about that. Seems they missed the bulletin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisor has AGW affected those planets as well?
We have previously placed the solar contribution to recent global warming in context using
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisobservations and without recourse to climate models. It was shown that all solar forcings of
climate have declined since 1987. The present paper extends that analysis to include the
effects of the various time constants with which the Earth’s climate system might react to
solar forcing. The solar input waveform over the past 100 years is defined using observed
and inferred galactic cosmic ray fluxes, valid for either a direct effect of cosmic rays on
climate or an effect via their known correlation with total solar irradiance (TSI), or for a
combination of the two. The implications, and the relative merits, of the various TSI
composite data series are discussed and independent tests reveal that the PMOD
composite used in our previous paper is the most realistic. Use of the ACRIM composite,
which shows a rise in TSI over recent decades, is shown to be inconsistent with most
published evidence for solar influences on pre-industrial climate. The conclusions of our
previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air
temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time
constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings.
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood effort! A post without attacking someone!
Is it safe to expect that you will rebut the post by Nimbus2506 at 12:17 PM on 02/10/10 on the basis of the science?
Formal Peer Review of UN's IPCC Climate Report By NASA's Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found" in it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/hansen-colleague-rejected-ipcc-ar4-es-as-having-no-scientific-merit-but-what-does-ipcc-do/
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy have you started spamming the forum? This is a duplicate of you post at 03:31 PM on 02/09/10
Is it because you have nothing else to say?
Chryses, it's only spam to those who are threatened by real Science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes that men you will present some?
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, that should read "Does that mean you will present some?"
How much more Science can one post than the Formal Peer Review of the UN's IPCC Climate Report By NASA's Dr. Andrew Lacis?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDisagree with it, if you must, but don't deny that it's Science.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How much more Science can one post than the Formal Peer Review of the UN's IPCC Climate Report By NASA's Dr. Andrew Lacis?"
You don't know what Peer Review is, do you?
Do everyone a favor and learn a bit about what you are talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How much more Science can one post than the Formal Peer Review of the UN's IPCC Climate Report By NASA's Dr. Andrew Lacis?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
The fourth paragraph is particularly pertinent.
Chryses: The quantum renomalization trick is reaaly quite diffwerent than Mann's. They use it to avoid infinities and nonsensical results which otherwise occur, always(at least in the popular literature)apolagetically because they don't like to do it. They do it openly to see if they can arrive at a result that seems real and then invite others to tear it apart. Well, of course they did come up with some things that seem real, when combined with the mostly aestetic value, symmetry and supersymmetry, the standard model and all kinds of particles. Real stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot what Mann did. He starts with his preconceived result, an alarming AGW, fair enough, but then says "hey look, the data prove me right, look at the curves". The tricks are not employed in the manner of if we can do this we have consistency but as proof that we have consistency. Then while Mann is probably not personally responsible for this, the self annointed consensus tells us all to shut up, this is beyond debate.
Poor Biffra was unhappy with Mann's manipulation, it appears from the E-mails where he questions whether making his data curve consistent represented the truth.
You know I am not a "denier." Mann and the IPCC have done a great disservice to the policy makers who need to deal with an AGW if it exists to any extent. They have destroyed their credibility and your consensus is disassembling.
For any interested in a more mature and intellectual debate on these subjects than that afforded in this forum, I suggest going to Steve McIntyre's site: climateaudit.
Chryses, I also dipped into some juvenile arguments of late. Sorry.
Chryses:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe disservice is this:
Some right wingers and libertarians dont believe in AGW because they don't want to. Human nature and their dislike for energetic government action underlay this. Mann and the IPCC have provided all the rope. Not only do they discredit their own work and position, they have probably made it difficult for others to continue to investigate AGW, or at least to get fair hearing for their results.
Richard O. Wright,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will acknowledge most of your points in this post, some grudgingly. I think though, that within the domain of practicing climatologists, AGW remains the operating paradigm.
"You don't know what Peer Review is, do you?" Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChryses, you aren't aiding your cause by being smug, derisive, and/or dismissive. Pause for a moment. Relax. Inhale. Exhale.
OK. Now, what would be more illuminating than you above comment would be a response along the lines of:
#1: that you are claiming that the UN's IPCC report was *not* independently peer-reviewed by scientists outside of the writing group, or
#2: that you are claiming that Dr. Lacis was not part of the formal peer-review process.
Either option above would convey information and *advance* the debate, something that your original quaoted response above failed to achieve.
Please try again. Please stay focused on the topic. Thank you.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you posted at 11:11 AM on 02/11/10 was "How much more Science can one post than the Formal Peer Review of the UN's IPCC Climate Report By NASA's Dr. Andrew Lacis?
Disagree with it, if you must, but don't deny that it's Science."
You have mistaken or confused the activity of performing peer review with the activity of practicing science.
You have yet to post any scientific hypothesis ot theory as an preferable alternative to the theory of AGW to describe and/or explain the warming trend recorded since the Industrial Revolution. It need not consist of mathematical notation. Something as straightforward as "the effect of solar cosmic rays on terrestrial cloud cover accounts for the observed temperature records batter than AGW does", or "CFCs are more likely than CO2 to trap heat", or, well, you get the idea.
Either proposition, when suitably supported by evidence and coherent argument, is much, much more Science than "the Formal Peer Review of the UN's IPCC Climate Report By NASA's Dr. Andrew Lacis".
Peer Review <> Science.
Sorry.
Peer Review Process To Be Reformed Due To ClimateGate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climate-emails-pr-disaster-peer-review
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Peer Review Process To Be Reformed Due To ClimateGate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climate-emails-pr-disaster-peer-review"
I take it that the above is a mute admission that Peer Review is not science.
Good. That's progress. Modest progress to be sure, but progress nonetheless.
Now please advance an alternative to AGW as a plausible explanation for the warming trend recorded since the Industrial Revolution, or acknowledge that you have none, so that the forward momentum can be maintained.
I would also suggest Bishop Hill and Roger Piekle, Jr.'s sites as well. All well written and researched.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard, almost forgot Harmonic Oscillator - http://harmonicoscillator.wordpress.com. A new web site from Prof. Paul Dennis. Only a couple of entries there, but given his position, I look forward to more contributions from him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Now please advance an alternative to AGW as a plausible explanation for the warming trend recorded since the Industrial Revolution"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWarming and Cooling periods (e.g. Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming Period) are due primarily to changes in Solar output (e.g. sunspot count) that predate Man's activities, but if your goal is to attack such a claim, or to otherwise divert the conversation away from ClimatGate, then I'd suggest that you take up that independent issue in another location, as it is ClimateGate that is on trial here.
I answered your demand only as a courtesy. Please stay on topic.
"I take it that the above is a mute admission that Peer Review is not science." Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find your claim to be bizarre. I know not if you are using semantics or grand fantasies to somehow wildly rationalize your position, and frankly, I don't care.
Color me disinterested in whatever non-scientific path that you are taking. No doubt you will continue on it, anyway, though. Perhaps even with dismissive or derisive *personal* comments along the way, as an added bonus.
The national medias continued silence on ClimateGate and increasing revelations of outright fraud and wrongdoing at all levels of government, academia and the media itself, tells the truth of the tail. That truth is there's a lot more to this ClimateGate story than what little is being reported. The small (2 to 3 dozen) international cabal of climate scientists could not have possibly gotten to this point without extraordinary funding, political support at virtually all levels of government, especially at the national level and unparalleled cooperation from the national and world media. This wide-spread networked support continues even as we-the-people puzzle over what this is all about. I ask you, "What are you seeing and hearing from our national media on the subject?" Anything? What are you seeing and hearing from all levels of our government, local and regional newspapers and media outlets? Anything of substance? At all of these levels the chatter has remained remarkably quite on the subject, wouldn't you say? Why? What points and positions are you beginning to hear on the radio and see on the television? This cabal of scientists has an unprecedented level of support given the revelations contained in the emails, documented in the computer software code and elaborated in the associated programmer remarks (REM) within the code. And ---- this has gone on for years, AND continues even in the presence of the most damning evidence one could imagine, or even hope for. Watergate pales in comparison, given the trillions of dollars in carbon offset taxes, cap & trade fees hanging in the balance and the unimaginable political control over peoples lives this all implies. The mainstream media's conspiracy of silence proves the point. Their continued cover-up is as much a part of this crime as the actual scientific fraud. ABC, CBS and NBC are simply co-conspirators exercising their 5th Amendment rights.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is amusing that you would take this post, where I put you on the spot for being unable or unwilling to support your position to take issue with the thread focus.
In way way were doing so when you did not criticise Richard O. Wright at 02:24 PM on 02/09/10 for this, "Focusing on the science is what I would encourage you to do, rather than selling a consensus" - or is THAT different? You silence was deafening when I posted the details of Dr. Mann's vindication at 04:01 PM on 02/09/10, whic was exactly on topic. How about "The Carbon Tax is a scam by the Global Elite to usher in a New World Order. Monsanto = Evil", posted by breezyvibe at 05:25 PM on 02/07/10? In what way is THAT rant on topic? Yet you did not speak up the, did you? Nor did you criticize Richard O. Wright and I when we dwelt upon the relevance of consensus in Science (at 02:56 PM on 02/04/10, and 11:02 AM on 02/06/10 respectively). How about this from Sisko at 06:42 PM on 02/04/10, "Doesn't everyone reading these posts agree that humanity will continue to require significantly more energy production? Can we all agree that we are disappointed that more was not done in the last 25 years to make the US more energy self sufficient? (that includes republican and democratic administrations....including the current one and the last one)"? Why did you not complain about the lack of focus there?
"Please stay on topic." Yeah, right. What a convenient criticism.
"Warming and Cooling periods (e.g. Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming Period) are due primarily to changes in Solar output (e.g. sunspot count) that predate Man's activities, but if your goal is to attack such a claim, or to otherwise divert the conversation away from ClimatGate, then I'd suggest that you take up that independent issue in another location, as it is ClimateGate that is on trial here."
I take that unsubstantiated claim about the warming trend recorded since the Industrial Revolution as a reaffirmation that you are unable or unwilling to do so.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I find your claim to be bizarre. I know not if you are using semantics or grand fantasies to somehow wildly rationalize your position, and frankly, I don't care."
Nice try at a redirect. If you do claim that practicing Peer Review is the same as practicing Science, please explain why anyone should believe you.
Peer Review = Science? Pure nonsense.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... it is ClimateGate that is on trial here."
For the purpose of the reply, I shall assume you are sincere.
Now that Dr. Mann's involvement has been investigated, and the investigation has returned a blanket dismissal of three out of the four accusations, how will you now relate to him?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24330327/Findings_Mann_Inquiry
Will you:
#1 Say that because the 4th accusation has not been resolved "nothing can be said"? If this is so, then why?
#2 Ignore the current vindication and level some new accusation(s) at Dr. Mann?
#3 Accuse the members of the committee which investigated Dr. Mann of participating in a "whitewash"?
#4 Acknowledge that Dr. Mann has, to date, been characterized by a selected collection of emails, and that those who had access to more information than you, I and almost everyone else, reported that "there exists no credible evidence" (1), "there exists no credible evidence" (2), and "there exists no credible evidence" (3).
You will note that while I have put you on the spot again, there are exactly zero "derisive *personal* comments." Given your outspoken opinions on the forum topic, to the degree that you felt comfortable criticizing me (although it should be noted, as I have, that you criticized ONLY me) for failing to remain focused, each of the four points above are possible responses one might reasonably expect from you.
Let the rest of us read now how sincere you are in the face of the facts that are available.
Chryses, my issue with Dr. Mann's hockeystick is that I'm unclear how he shapes it after taking into account the Little Ice Ace and Medieval Warming period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it fair to say that as I have put you on the spot by accepting your challenge that 'ClimateGate' is on trial here, you have shifted your focus back to the science?
Interesting. How many more times will you be moving the goalposts?
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you come to terms yet with the fact that Peer Review is not science?
As you have stopped the 'Climategate is on trial' complaint for the moment, and shifted to Dr. Mann's hockeystick, I figure that you are back in the science debate, no?
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... it is ClimateGate that is on trial here."
For the purpose of the reply, I shall assume you are sincere.
Now that Dr. Mann's involvement has been investigated, and the investigation has returned a blanket dismissal of three out of the four accusations, how will you now relate to him?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24330327/Findings_Mann_Inquiry
Will you:
#1 Say that because the 4th accusation has not been resolved "nothing can be said"? If this is so, then why?
#2 Ignore the current vindication and level some new accusation(s) at Dr. Mann?
#3 Accuse the members of the committee which investigated Dr. Mann of participating in a "whitewash"?
#4 Acknowledge that Dr. Mann has, to date, been characterized by a selected collection of emails, and that those who had access to more information than you, I and almost everyone else, reported that "there exists no credible evidence" (1), "there exists no credible evidence" (2), and "there exists no credible evidence" (3).
You will note that while I have put you on the spot again, there are exactly zero "derisive *personal* comments." Given your outspoken opinions on the forum topic, to the degree that you felt comfortable criticizing me (although it should be noted, as I have, that you criticized ONLY me) for failing to remain focused, each of the four points above are possible responses one might reasonably expect from you.
Let the rest of us read now how sincere you are in the face of the facts that are available.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Chryses, my issue with Dr. Mann's hockeystick is that I'm unclear how he shapes it after taking into account the Little Ice Ace and Medieval Warming period."
The hockey stick controversy was a dispute started in 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy)
You suggested at 12:34 AM on 02/13/10 "... it is ClimateGate that is on trial here."
The ClimateGate controversy began in November 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident)
As you suggested at 09:41 PM on 02/11/10 "Please stay focused on the topic."
Are you willing to do what you ask others to do?
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you come to terms yet with the fact that Peer Review is not science?
As you have stopped the 'Climategate is on trial' complaint for the moment, and shifted to Dr. Mann's hockeystick, I figure that you are back in the science debate, no?
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it fair to say that as I have put you on the spot by accepting your challenge that 'ClimateGate' is on trial here, you have shifted your focus back to the science?
Interesting. How many more times will you be moving the goalposts?
"There are many casualties in this sad story of greed and hubris. The big victim is the scientific method. This was pointed out in great detail by John P Costella of the Virginia-based Science and Public Policy Institute. Science is based on three fundamental pillars. The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be—indeed, must be—corrected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientific in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that contradicted climate change claims out of reports."
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world
The Hockey-Stick Fraud
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Mike's Nature Trick"
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
"In the emails, leading climate researchers dismiss him as a capitalist hireling or a hapless “bozo,” and argue about the relative merits of ignoring him versus counterattacking him, even as others acknowledge that his criticisms have merit and imitate his use of the Web as a venue for hyper-detailed scientific discussion. At one point in 2005, CRU director Phil Jones, now under suspension, ponders the possibility that McIntyre might use U.K. freedom-of-information laws to obtain raw weather-station data compiled by the CRU. He grumbles: “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” The overall impression is that of 100 elephants stampeding in confusion and panic around a mouse."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you come to terms yet with the fact that Peer Review is not science?
As you have stopped the 'Climategate is on trial' complaint for the moment, and shifted to Dr. Mann's hockeystick, I figure that you are back in the science debate, no?
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it fair to say that as I have put you on the spot by accepting your challenge that 'ClimateGate' is on trial here, you have shifted your focus back to the science?
Interesting. How many more times will you be moving the goalposts?
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... it is ClimateGate that is on trial here."
For the purpose of the reply, I shall assume you are sincere.
Now that Dr. Mann's involvement has been investigated, and the investigation has returned a blanket dismissal of three out of the four accusations, how will you now relate to him?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24330327/Findings_Mann_Inquiry
Will you:
#1 Say that because the 4th accusation has not been resolved "nothing can be said"? If this is so, then why?
#2 Ignore the current vindication and level some new accusation(s) at Dr. Mann?
#3 Accuse the members of the committee which investigated Dr. Mann of participating in a "whitewash"?
#4 Acknowledge that Dr. Mann has, to date, been characterized by a selected collection of emails, and that those who had access to more information than you, I and almost everyone else, reported that "there exists no credible evidence" (1), "there exists no credible evidence" (2), and "there exists no credible evidence" (3).
You will note that while I have put you on the spot again, there are exactly zero "derisive *personal* comments." Given your outspoken opinions on the forum topic, to the degree that you felt comfortable criticizing me (although it should be noted, as I have, that you criticized ONLY me) for failing to remain focused, each of the four points above are possible responses one might reasonably expect from you.
Let the rest of us read now how sincere you are in the face of the facts that are available.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Chryses, my issue with Dr. Mann's hockeystick is that I'm unclear how he shapes it after taking into account the Little Ice Ace and Medieval Warming period."
The hockey stick controversy was a dispute started in 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy)
You suggested at 12:34 AM on 02/13/10 "... it is ClimateGate that is on trial here."
The ClimateGate controversy began in November 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident)
As you suggested at 09:41 PM on 02/11/10 "Please stay focused on the topic."
Are you willing to do what you ask others to do?
"More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/
"IPCC´s temperature graph for the area does not reflect the actual Scandinavian temperature graphs."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/scandinavian-temperatures-ipccacutes--scandinavia-gate--123.php
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" 'IPCC´s temperature graph for the area does not reflect the actual Scandinavian temperature graphs.'
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/scandinavian-temperatures-ipccacutes--scandinavia-gate--123.php"
In what way is this relevant to "Negating "Climategate": Copenhagen Talks and Climate Science Survive Stolen E-Mail Controversy"? That has nothing to do with the forum topic, does it?
I trust you will not take exception if I quote you: "Please stay focused on the topic."
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... it is ClimateGate that is on trial here."
For the purpose of the reply, I shall assume you are sincere.
Now that Dr. Mann's involvement has been investigated, and the investigation has returned a blanket dismissal of three out of the four accusations, how will you now relate to him?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24330327/Findings_Mann_Inquiry
Will you:
#1 Say that because the 4th accusation has not been resolved "nothing can be said"? If this is so, then why?
#2 Ignore the current vindication and level some new accusation(s) at Dr. Mann?
#3 Accuse the members of the committee which investigated Dr. Mann of participating in a "whitewash"?
#4 Acknowledge that Dr. Mann has, to date, been characterized by a selected collection of emails, and that those who had access to more information than you, I and almost everyone else, reported that "there exists no credible evidence" (1), "there exists no credible evidence" (2), and "there exists no credible evidence" (3).
You will note that while I have put you on the spot again, there are exactly zero "derisive *personal* comments." Given your outspoken opinions on the forum topic, to the degree that you felt comfortable criticizing me (although it should be noted, as I have, that you criticized ONLY me) for failing to remain focused, each of the four points above are possible responses one might reasonably expect from you.
Let the rest of us read now how sincere you are in the face of the facts that are available.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... it is ClimateGate that is on trial here."
For the purpose of the reply, I shall assume you are sincere.
Now that Dr. Mann's involvement has been investigated, and the investigation has returned a blanket dismissal of three out of the four accusations, how will you now relate to him?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24330327/Findings_Mann_Inquiry
Will you:
#1 Say that because the 4th accusation has not been resolved "nothing can be said"? If this is so, then why?
#2 Ignore the current vindication and level some new accusation(s) at Dr. Mann?
#3 Accuse the members of the committee which investigated Dr. Mann of participating in a "whitewash"?
#4 Acknowledge that Dr. Mann has, to date, been characterized by a selected collection of emails, and that those who had access to more information than you, I and almost everyone else, reported that "there exists no credible evidence" (1), "there exists no credible evidence" (2), and "there exists no credible evidence" (3).
You will note that while I have put you on the spot again, there are exactly zero "derisive *personal* comments." Given your outspoken opinions on the forum topic, to the degree that you felt comfortable criticizing me (although it should be noted, as I have, that you criticized ONLY me) for failing to remain focused, each of the four points above are possible responses one might reasonably expect from you.
Let the rest of us read now how sincere you are in the face of the facts that are available.
"The IPCC has also cited a study by British climatologist Nigel Arnell claiming that global warming could deplete water resources for as many as 4.5 billion people by the year 2085. But as our Anne Jolis reported in our European edition, the IPCC neglected to include Mr. Arnell's corollary finding, which is that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as six billion people."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html?mod=googlenews_wsj"
In what way is this relevant to "Negating "Climategate": Copenhagen Talks and Climate Science Survive Stolen E-Mail Controversy"? That has nothing to do with the forum topic, does it?
I trust you will not take exception if I quote you: "Please stay focused on the topic."
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Chryses, my issue with Dr. Mann's hockeystick is that I'm unclear how he shapes it after taking into account the Little Ice Ace and Medieval Warming period."
The hockey stick controversy was a dispute started in 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy)
You suggested at 12:34 AM on 02/13/10 "... it is ClimateGate that is on trial here."
The ClimateGate controversy began in November 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident)
As you suggested at 09:41 PM on 02/11/10 "Please stay focused on the topic."
Are you willing to do what you ask others to do?
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... it is ClimateGate that is on trial here."
For the purpose of the reply, I shall assume you are sincere.
Now that Dr. Mann's involvement has been investigated, and the investigation has returned a blanket dismissal of three out of the four accusations, how will you now relate to him?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24330327/Findings_Mann_Inquiry
Will you:
#1 Say that because the 4th accusation has not been resolved "nothing can be said"? If this is so, then why?
#2 Ignore the current vindication and level some new accusation(s) at Dr. Mann?
#3 Accuse the members of the committee which investigated Dr. Mann of participating in a "whitewash"?
#4 Acknowledge that Dr. Mann has, to date, been characterized by a selected collection of emails, and that those who had access to more information than you, I and almost everyone else, reported that "there exists no credible evidence" (1), "there exists no credible evidence" (2), and "there exists no credible evidence" (3).
You will note that while I have put you on the spot again, there are exactly zero "derisive *personal* comments." Given your outspoken opinions on the forum topic, to the degree that you felt comfortable criticizing me (although it should be noted, as I have, that you criticized ONLY me) for failing to remain focused, each of the four points above are possible responses one might reasonably expect from you.
Let the rest of us read now how sincere you are in the face of the facts that are available.
"Murari Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the section of the IPCC report that contained the Himalayan error, admitted he and his colleagues knew the dramatic glacier prediction was not based on any peer-reviewed science. Nonetheless, he explained, "we thought that if we can highlight it, it will [influence] policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ipcc-scaremongering-is-destroying-its-credibility/story-e6frg6xf-1225831116193
"Now that Dr. Mann's involvement has been investigated, and the investigation has returned a blanket dismissal of three out of the four accusations, how will you now relate to him?" Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy issue is not with Dr. Mann's alledged (ClimateGate emails) conspiracy, per se (he was investigated and cleared, after all), but more specifically, and as I told you once already, that I am unclear on how he is able to create his Hockeystick graph when one takes into account the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age (neither of which appear to be present in his famous chart).
You've managed to fail to add any information that would help clarify that graph's shape, by the way, even though you've made a substantial number of posts here after *you* first asked me about Mann.
"nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree. There are certainly good reasons to be scientifically skeptical, as any good scientist would be, for instance, this quote from Professor Phil Jones from University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. His research is the basis for government global warming policies all over the world. This is the guy advising the U.N.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html
"there is little difference between global warming rates in the Nineties and in two previous periods since 1860 and accepting that from 1995 to now there has been no statistically significant warming."
Again,
"from 1995 to now there has been no statistically significant warming."
15 years of non-warming by my math. What happened to Mr. Gore's hockey stick? How dependable can the science be if the head guy keeps changing his mind?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/16/climategater-jones-stunning-global-warming-revelations-ignored
"he also said that he might be missing some of the data that is responsible for his climate models."
So much for peer review. It's hard for other scientists to validate your findings if you lose your data. The leaked emails and his sloppy record keeping have resulted in Professor Jones's removal from his post as Director of the CRU.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/01/climate-change-scientist-steps-down
"nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree. There are certainly good reasons to be scientifically skeptical, as any good scientist would be, for instance, this quote from Professor Phil Jones from University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. His research is the basis for government global warming policies all over the world. This is the guy advising the U.N.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html
"there is little difference between global warming rates in the Nineties and in two previous periods since 1860 and accepting that from 1995 to now there has been no statistically significant warming."
Again,
"from 1995 to now there has been no statistically significant warming."
15 years of non-warming by my math. What happened to Mr. Gore's hockey stick? How dependable can the science be if the head guy keeps changing his mind?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/16/climategater-jones-stunning-global-warming-revelations-ignored
"he also said that he might be missing some of the data that is responsible for his climate models."
So much for peer review. It's hard for other scientists to validate your findings if you lose your data. The leaked emails and his sloppy record keeping have resulted in Professor Jones's removal from his post as Director of the CRU.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/01/climate-change-scientist-steps-down
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Murari Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the section of the IPCC report that contained the Himalayan error ... encourage them to take some concrete action."
There you go! Real stuff! The only input I have is to suggest that you post this to the "How to Reform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" forum, as it is relevant there.
"nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course! I should have seen that one before! The author is correct, since the sentence itself is an oxymoron. Scientific and Concensus are mutually exclusive so nothing, no amount of proof or negation is going to disprove an oxymoron!
However, there is much in the letters that provide evidence of non-scientific behavior on the part of key climatologists.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"My issue is not with Dr. Mann's alledged (ClimateGate emails) conspiracy, per se (he was investigated and cleared, after all), but more specifically, and as I told you once already, that I am unclear on how he is able to create his Hockeystick graph when one takes into account the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age (neither of which appear to be present in his famous chart)."
If that were true, then you wouldn't have posted at 12:34 AM on 02/13/10 (before I raised the issues with Dr. Mann) "... it is ClimateGate that is on trial here."
You're just here to complain.
Go for it!
"If that were true, then you wouldn't have posted at 12:34 AM on 02/13/10 (before I raised the issues with Dr. Mann) "... it is ClimateGate that is on trial here." You're just here to complain." Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's unscientific and untrue, as well as uncompelling. Perhaps you should just post that you are going to have the last word no matter how silly and offbase you stray from ClimateGate and the non-science revealed by the actors therein.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That's unscientific and untrue, as well as uncompelling. Perhaps you should just post that you are going to have the last word no matter how silly and offbase you stray from ClimateGate and the non-science revealed by the actors therein."
Well, I don't know about 'unscientific and untrue', but it is accurate.
The IPCC has dug their own grave. You have your excuse to complain.
Enjoy! Go for it!
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPosting complaints about the IPCC in this forum just shows that what you want to do is to complain. Focusing on the topic is at the bottom of your agenda. What positive suggestions, or for that matter, what suggestions at all have you advanced in the forum "How to Reform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"?
Ah, another "complaint" for Chryses to bemoan:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a past contributor to an IPCC report, says that the role of clouds and water vapor—the main greenhouse agents in the atmosphere—is one of the least understood factors in climate science. It's a limitation that the IPCC acknowledges."
"Prof. Lindzen says the key issue is "climate sensitivity"—how much will temperatures rise when carbon-dioxide levels double. He asserts that current climate models include a "positive feedback" effect whereby clouds and water vapor act to amplify CO2's greenhouse effect. In response to a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels, the IPCC has found climate sensitivity to be between 1.5 degrees and five degrees Fahrenheit. Prof. Lindzen says those figures, derived from models, overstate the case."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069723794293584.html
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Ah, another 'complaint' for Chryses to bemoan:"
Wrong again.
Your post illustrates the continuing improvment of the AGW theory.
You seem to have not noticed it, but Prof. Lindzen's input, affiirmed or refuted, reduces the error bars on the predictions from the AGW theory. What he is doing contributes to, and enhances the AGW theory.
I must admit that I am a bit surprized that you have elected to post a positive scientific contribution to the AGW theory, but perhaps there is hope for you yet. I guess that this goes to reaffirm J.S. Haldane's observation that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.
CNunnelly - even better. They figured out how to test AGW. And the test disproves the hypothesis. Scientifically: http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/540020/page-1.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I am sure the body religious will continue to spread the mantra of their religion even though there is no basis in science for it.
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"CNunnelly - even better. They figured out how to test AGW. And the test disproves the hypothesis. Scientifically: http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/540020/page-1.html"
Pure nonsense.
Your 'source' has fed you more misinformation which you mindlessly regurgitated. This from the conclusions of the actual scientific publications, with the links:
"Although these strongly affect the OLR the atmospheric temperature and humidity response cannot be unequivocally determined owing to the snapshot nature of the observations."
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/24874.pdf
"Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
"Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra. The methane signal is deeper for the observed difference spectrum than the modelled difference spectrum, but this is likely due to incorrect methane concentrations or temperature profiles from 1970."
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
Do you ever actually read the references that are linked in the non-scientific articles you post?
This was just another cheap shot falsehood like your "$85 BILLION" nonsenseical blather you posted earlier.
"But I am sure the body religious will continue to spread the mantra of their religion even though there is no basis in science for it."
You have confused my Science with your Religion.
Again.
"Professor Jones admitted to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee yesterday that he had “written some very awful e-mails”, including one in which he rejected a request for information on the ground that the person receiving it might criticise his work."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7046036.ece
Read my balloon inside balloon and theory of gravitoethertons published in ASTRONOMY.NET in year
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for this article, I don't think many people realize the severity of air quality. My only regret is that sadly this is a problem that trust orange all cannot clean up. http://sprayitorange.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the genuine concern of messing with carbon, until recently buried, the atmosphere of our planet, and fear, also genuine, and especially of those who already have more than enough until his death, to dismantle the infrastructure of the current economy; arise the discovery in Panama of the "OCEANOGENIC POWER" which Third World rulers of Panama, and therefore of the world, fail to recognize, in obedience to the popes of pseudo religious groups, as ever but with different names, full of envy and jealousy, which determines the extent of progress of the countries, and as well controlled as a result of bad past experiences in first world countries, by contrast, in the third world seeking to experience orgasms in their stupid theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis project wich, it seems, it is intended like business booking for after another world war, on the contrary, if we build it already, additional to give us enough clean energy, we definitely would test whether global warming is caused by humans.
But for apocalyptic fans: ¡hurray the blah blah blah! What kind of serious scientists, and worse, rational animal, if our jealousy exceed our love for the Beauty of Truth?
http://independent.academia.edu/OsmandCharpentier/Papers/1104173/OCEANOGENIC_POWER