ERROR CHECK: Minor mistakes in data analyses have added fuel to the climate debate.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/DAFT_LION_STUDIO
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Even as the Obama administration moves ahead with modest plans to tackle global warming, the public relations battle on the issue is as fierce as ever. Some recent scientific stumbles haven't helped. In fact, they have given fodder to climate change skeptics, some of whom have seized on the errors to attack the credibility of scientists and sway public opinion.
Many scientific organizations, such as the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, now put data (some near real-time) on their Web sites. The information ranges from raw numbers from weather stations to computed values of, for instance, monthly global temperature anomalies, which represent temperature deviations from a historical average. Typically researchers make corrections and adjustments as they check equipment and replicate experiments.
In today’s politically charged environment, though, these routine corrections have become ammunition in the warming war. For example, last November Internet users found that raw data erroneously replicated from Russian weather stations contributed to a suspiciously high temperature anomaly that Goddard published. Two years ago the blog Climate Audit, run by amateur scientists and self-described “science auditor” Steve McIntyre, found that an error in a computer algorithm had ranked 1998 as the warmest U.S. year, instead of the correct 1934. (The change did not significantly affect global values: 1998 was still the earth’s warmest year as ranked by satellites, although Goddard has 2005 as slightly warmer.)
But perhaps the mistake that got the most publicity for skeptics happened in February as an automated system of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) published information on the extent of Arctic sea ice. It contained a small but strange hitch indicating that enough ice to cover California was suddenly gone. Internet readers pounced, sending e-mails to the center and also to skeptical bloggers such as meteorologist Anthony Watts. His blog, Watt’s Up with That?, is read daily by about 21,000 people around the world (according to Quantcast, which compiles Web site statistics), and Watts’s post about the error mushroomed across the Web. Within hours the NSIDC withdrew the data, ultimately finding that the glitch resulted from a faulty sensor on a satellite. The NSIDC scientists admitted the mistake, corrected the problem using a different sensor and audited all past data.
But the public-relations damage was done. Skeptical bloggers and their readers called the NSIDC’s competence into question and accused it of tweaking data. The NSIDC sent out a press release pointing out that real-time data are always less reliable than thoroughly reviewed archived data.
Word of the otherwise prosaic issue spread via news reports, and the NSIDC took its lumps. “We were too naive,” admits Walt Meier, a researcher at the center. “We weren’t prepared for how closely people were watching.” The science community knows that such adjustments happen all the time, he says, but “the undermining of public confidence in our data comes from ignorance of use.” But he still believes that open-source data are “ultimately a great thing.”
Marc Morano, executive director of the dissenting site Climate Depot, says, “I think the fluctuations and errors of a few data sets are important.” But drawing attention to these errors, he argues, is not the main reason skeptics are gaining ground.
Rather he believes that “lack of warming in recent years” has helped his cause—although this decade is the hottest in recorded history, there hasn’t been a record-breaking year in 10 years. Moreover, recent papers suggest that natural climate fluctuations might continue to mask the expected warming trend for up to three decades. He also notes the “sheer number of scientists speaking out to dissent for the first time,” although a University of Illinois survey in January of some 3,000 scientists found that 97 percent of them think humans play a role in climate change.
See what we're tweeting about
75 Comments
Add Comment"Moreover, recent papers suggest that natural climate fluctuations might continue to mask the expected warming trend for up to three decades."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose darned "natural fluctuations" are always hiding perfectly good warming trends, aren't they?
Regarding the article in News Scan, Climate, titled Stumbling over Data by David Appell in the August,2009 issue, I would suggest that the author is focusing on a very minor point while ignoring a major problem in climate science. Appell quotes Walt Meier of NSIDC saying that the undermining of public confidence in our data comes from ignorance of use. But he still believes that open-source data are ultimately a great thing. The big problem in climate science has been the refusal of many of the big names to make their data and methods available to other scientists and layman to examine. When asked to make pertinent data and methods public regarding one study, Dr. Phil Jones of the Hadley Center responded:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3119)
This attitude is totally contradictory to the scientific method yet appears to be rampant within the climate science community. Dr. James Hansen took 19 years to release much of his surface temperature data; Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes only made their data regarding the Hockey Stick available under threat of a subpoena from Congress. What David Appell doesnt say is that many of minor errors that have been uncovered by Steve McIntyre and others have been accomplished using the laborious approach of reverse-engineering experiments to uncover the information denied by the original researchers. The article states that Steve McIntyre is an amateur scientist and self described science auditor . What the article does not state is that he is a first-rate mathematician and statistician, as his vindication by the Wegman investigation later revealed.
At least some of the responsibility for this lack of adherence to the scientific method lies with publications such as the Scientific American that fail to follow their own principles. The terms of funding by the National Science Foundation and the stipulations of professional publications such as yours, generally require that the data and methods of any study funded or reported within be made available to other interested parties. This is how science is supposed to operate, and while it isnt always pretty, it eventually gets to the truth.
David Appell is correct, but he is only pointing out the tip of a very dirty iceberg. It would behoove the Scientific American , other science journals and the climate science community to make Francis Bacon proud by returning to the very highest of ethical standards.
The September/ October 2008 data error at GISS was not a small mistake. It was large and inexcusable. It shows either glaring negligence, or intentional oversight. If it was not intentional, but actual error, then those handling the data are unqualified for the work they are in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe writer of the article was biased.
Skeptics are gaining ground but not just because the errors found in data sets or the errors found in alarmist scientific papers (such as the Hockey Stick paper by Michael Mann). Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit has done a wonderful job in this area and is to be commended. But the skeptical camp has gained ground in large part because of a host of skeptical peer-reviewed papers published since 2007. In fact, in all of the key areas since the IPCC published AR4, the skeptics are winning. The preponderance of scientific evidence now indicates global warming will not be catastrophic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe climate has shifted from a warming mode to a cooling mode in late 2007. This was first predicted by the Bratcher and Giese paper in 2002. A number of papers have discussed this and the fact these climate shifts indicate greater natural climate variability than previously thought. These means the climate is less sensitive to rising atmospheric CO2 than previously thought. A lower climate sensitive has been shown by the paper by Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab and by a series of papers by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab.
"Scientific American". Time to remove the "Scientific" methinks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue of accurate, correct and trustworthy data is central to science. Just as important is the documentation of adjustments and methods employed, as well as the logic that justifies the adjustment. These processes must be open to scrutiny, criticism and comment. If they are not, the process is not science, the debate not scientific, and the results indistinguishable from common fundamentalist religious, doctrinal authoritarianism. We are asked to place our faith in the statements of individuals effectively unwilling to say more than that the "truth" has been revealed to them. Essentially the discussion has become one of faith in an otherwise unsupported assertion. And again, without any doubt at all, "adjusted" data, unaccompanied by a proper documentation of the methods of adjustments and the reason for the adjustments is merely that - an utterly unsupported assertion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a clear and easily understandable contrast consider that in high school chemistry we are taught to recalculate our results adjusted standard temperature and pressure, and further to document this in our lab notebooks showing raw readings, calculations and adjusted results. This insures sound practice and provides a record that allows us to error-check, re-examine assumptions and otherwise insure our results and conclusions are reasonable. It is at the very least disturbing when the personnel of an organization such as NOAA or the Hadley Center assert that they are exempt from this "best practice." No scientific argument should begin or conclude with the words "trust me."
Mr Appell,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere to begin...
[1] The main cause of concern amongst many in the general public (i.e. anyone outside of the 'climate community') is the lack of willingness on the part of said community to be ready to share their data and methods. This is fundamental to the scientific process - has Scientific American forgotten this? We are not talking about nuclear weapons development and so on; we are talking about the global climate and I therefore fail to see why anyone involved should object to their data and methods being open for view. Sure, there may be errors in there, lets get them out and look at what the new results indicate.
[2] Climate science is in its infancy in comparison to more traditional and established disciplines; therefore it is more prone to errors, misunderstandings, mistakes and (unintentional) bias. That's why double-blind testing and other such methods have come into consistent use in other scientific areas. Questions: [a] Who tests the models? [b] Where's the predictions + tests? [c] Where's the null hypothesis? If the science is settled where's the certainty (no more "could", "might", "if", "danger", "worse" etc.)?
[3] When are we going to see a challenge from the established scientific press with regard to ludicrous statements such as "...is masking the underlying warming trend..."? Which implies something artificial - it's not - it's the real world.
[4] Your article includes phrases to the detriment of specific persons such as Mr McIntyre; that's really a low blow and does not reflect well on yourself or your publication. Mr M (amongst others) is not a climate skeptic and has always maintained a neutral stance. He is however very keen on making sure the mathematics is correct; now I'm willing to place a bet with your goodself as to who would win a stats challenge between Mr M and persons such as Hansen, Schmidt etc. A fundamental issue is that you cannot publish papers that, at their core, rely on statistical methods and mathematical models and then moan when someone far more qualified in that area comes along and says "I think your method is broken". So lay off the ad-homs and appeals-to-authorities because it makes you look small and on the back foot.
Best regards
Mark Fawcett
"Although the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change has never been stronger, the stumbles and the attacks may be influencing a U.S. public that does not fully understand how science works."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis statement demonstrates that it is the author that does not know (or has forgotten) how science works. True science does not care about public opinion, nor does it need it. What Dr. Appell is betraying here is how politicized science has become, by allowing itself to be co-opted for political purposes. Too many scientists are no longer interested in science for its own sake. Science must now be "relevant" to public needs or wants. "Relevance" determines where the research dollars comes from, and "relevance" is driven by public opinion. While scientists like Dr. Appell like to think that it is their science that is driving public opinion, and thus the flow of dollars for research agendas, it is too often the other way around. Research agendas get shaped to tap into the trough of dollars flowing from whatever is the current politically correct use of science. Scientists, especially in academia, let their research agendas be shaped by public opinion, because the only way they get the dollars to fund their laboratories and supercomputers is to write grant proposals that promise, implicitly, to produce what the results that the granting entity wants to see.
Dr. Appell's remark about "amateur scientist" Steve McIntyre is more telling that he perhaps realizes. Whether or not intended as an implicit denigration of Mr. McIntyre's scientific abilities, it begs the question of what other kind of scientist there is. The natural opposite of an "amateur scientist" is a "professional scientist," in the same way that an amateur athlete is distinguishable from a professional athlete. And we know what the difference is: one does it for money, and the other does not. Follow the money.
Truth is, there was a time when Scientific American was closely identified with amateur science, and there was nothing dishonorable or demeaning in that connection. That a writer in Scientific American would latch onto that distinction, as if to suggest that someone cannot be a true scientist unless they are a professional scientist, shows how far even Scientific American has fallen from the days when it was truly an organ of scientific endeavor.
This link will introduce Steve McIntyre to those who don't know who he is. You can decide for yourself what to think of him. You can also see if he is engaged in petty politics or not, as David Appell is implying. :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322
I believe the SciAm is correct to question the role of "amateur scientists". They have contributed little or nothing over the years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 1812 one such amateur with no formal scientific training constructed a voltaic pile using halfpenny pieces. Very amateurish. Fortunately, his name passed into obscurity as the great advances of the 19th century in electricity, magnetism and chemistry were made.
David Appell's lack of ethics became apparent to me when I found him trying to bury a comment directed at Anthony Watt's on Watt's blog Watt's Up With That? He commented on a post that was long since dormant and was hoping that no one would catch so he could make the claim that Watt's did not respond to him. When found out and confronted with actual climate science, he folded like a house of cards and ran. Very cowardly and underhanded. Supposed journalists like Appell are running scared and knocking over garbage cans as they run to keep the truth about our climate from catching up with their misrepresentations and obfuscations. He clearly has an agenda and it is shameful that Scientific American would even print an article that has very little science in it, but a truckload of alarmism. I am tired of these guys trying to frighten us into submission. I encourage people to ask the tough questions, and what you will find is that all that people like Appell are able to do is to try and silence your voice. If you look closely, you will find that these people are doing more harm to those they claim to want to save.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI refer to your mention of the University of Illinois survey in January of some 3,000 scientists, which has been used before as 'evidence' supporting 'overwhelming scientific consensus'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, the figure of 97% applied to only a subset of only 79 individuals who had published on climate change. The overall response figure was 82%.
Secondly, nine questions were asked in this survey, but only two were reported on. These two were so generalised as to have no meaningful interpretation in terms of the magnitude or future impact of the CO2 anthropogenic model. One has to ponder what the response to the 7 remaining, presumably more searching questions was, and why the results of these other questions were not reported. Were they politically inconvenient?
If these people are not scientists and not engaging in expected peer review or doing research of their own then they are not professionals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVolta had scientific training, did experiments and then published his findings. He did not sit in mom's basement picking apart the research of others. He took what Galvani had and improved it. That is science. The bloggers are anti-scientists. They don't do anything but speculate much to try to reach their forgone conclusion. They resemble the ancient philosophers who thought things fell because heaven was in the center of the earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt happens. That is why fourier transform is popular.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought mathematics was called the "Queen of the sciences". Now mathematician McIntyre is less of a scientist than the ones of whose work he uncovers errors? It's not like McIntyre is some low level clerk in say, the patent office, playing amatuer scientists while diddling away at obscure concepts that will never benefit mankind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that this article shows that SCIAM, as biased as it has been in the past wrt to its unconditional support of AGW, is finally taking some baby steps in publishing articles that even question the dogma of AGW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil the past few months, any idiotic and alarmist article found its way into print. Now, the goofy articles appear to have halted and a semblance of balanced discussion, pro and con, is starting to seep back in. Is this particular article biased? Absolutely, but at least it's not the type of mindless lapping endorsement of AGW that we used to see on SCIAM.
Keep demanding science rather than dogma; tell the editors that this publication's name is Scientific American, not Dogmatic American.
So you do not know, yourself, whether Watts or McIntyre are doing original research, or have published in peer reviewed journals? If you did, then you'd realize you've contradicted Dr. Appell's description of them as "amateur" scientists, and by your standard both are "professionals." That aside, you are still trying to denigrate the role of the outsider in advancing science, by suggesting that there is a club or clique that one has to belong to in order to do real science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific method cares not a whit for "consensus", or public opinion. Facts are facts, experimental results are what they are, theories succeed or fail based on the evidence. Aren't scientists supposed to be open to (and even welcome) new evidence that modifies or even refutes their hypotheses?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe objective of AGW skeptics is not to forward science, but to create confusion and doubt. It is the Singer/Seitz model used against the thining of the Ozone layer and the dangers of tobacco. Marc Morano is Inhofe's hatchet man. He was a logical choice for this role given his contribtuions for swift boating Kerry. finally, I always found McKittrick's, use of U.S versusu global termperature to be disingenuous at best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI meant McIntyre, not McKittrick.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiset tu SciAm? et tu?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"a University of Illinois survey in January of some 3,000 scientists found that 97 percent of them think humans play a role in climate change." Choose the question to get the required answer. Most "skeptical" scientists that I have read would agree that "humans play a role". But that is not the same as saying that our CO2 emissions are dangerously driving climate change. This is shameful and biased writing...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho is this amateur, David Appell ?? Never heard of him. He may be a journalist, but certainly not a scientist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American has just hit a new low in quality and a new high in bias. For shame!
If the sceptics hadn't pointed out the errors, the in-crowd would have accepted the flawed data, nodded their heads, and continued with the blather.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the experts' peers aren't up to the task, then there is a universe of folks out here who actually are looking at sunspots - or the lack of them.
For instance, has anyone noticed that the overwhelming incidence this year of late blight affecting the potato and tomato crop on the East Coast sue to this cold, wet growing season is remarkably similar to the events that lead to the Irish Potato Famine during the solar minimum in the early 1800's?
david writes... "Although the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change has never been stronger...", this is absolutely an unsupportable statement. atmospheric co2 levels have risen over 6% in the past 5 years and yet the earth has cooled since 2001, this is a fact, davids statement is propaganda. my early training was in geology and geologist understand better than anyone what is happening with climate. geologist have actually studied millions of years worth of climate, not just recent trends. the site on which my home sits was once covered with a mile thick sheet of ice. we are now in what is known as an interglcaial period. interglacials are identified by their relative WARMING. thank your lucky stars you were born now and not 18,000 years ago! interglacial periods last on average abot 15,000 years, this means our time may be nearly up. pray for warming. ice ages last on average 90,000 years and WILL cause widespread exticntions. enough of the sky is falling nonsense and attempts at grabbing more and more power at the expense of the average citizen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKudos once again to science. It is self-correcting. This is not true of religiously-driven whack jobs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine this scenario. Scientists go to court to prove that ID is not science. Since the ID crowd is driven solely by religion, they are immune to any form of self-correction.
Now, let's see how this played out in real life: Dover, PA. 2005. This very scenario goes to court. The science and the religion are both put to the test. The science wins. The religion loses, as it should have on this issue. What happens to the ID community? They reject all forms of self-correction. They are immune to reality.
This is precisely what's happening with respect to climate change deniers. They are immune to reality, reject it outright and already have pre-conceived 'knowledge' about why it's happening or not.
And it's all based solely and completely on RELIGION. Not a shred of evidence is required. All they need is a preacher telling them what's so.
They are extremely dangerous people. If evolution favors them, the human race will be doomed to an existence that is far darker than we can imagine out of our wildest Inquisition nightmares.
Leaderofsheep:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow...what a diatribe. Except it is the AGW True Believers who have not one shred of evidence.
If you have anything that is evidence, real evidence, not anecdotes about a lost tribe of penguins/whales/periwinkles, sophisticated wild guesses, pictures of polar bears, Al Gore's powerpoint scribbles, broken hockeysticks, non-existent hotspots, ice cores that refuse to co-operate, seas that refuse to rise on command, Hansen's increasingly disconnected and inane mutterings, computer models that don't fit reality, etc.,
If you have something, anything, real, testable, verifiable and falsifiable, please post it.
Leaderofsheep:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso your comment about "denying climate change" shows nothing but your lack of understanding of the issue at hand, much less science. The question is not whether climate change is real. It obviously is, obviously has been, and almost certainly always will be. Climate change is part of the Earths natural history and fabric and will continue to be so long after we humans have evolved into hopefully something better than we are today.
The question that you should be asking and ask it much more honestly than you are is "Are people responsible for climate change?"
Massive difference. Part of science is learning to properly phrase a question.
Wow, so much misguided posts here its tough to read. To all who questions the science of AGW. The fact remains that peer reviewed science (complain about peer review some other time) is the way actual scientists publish relevant works. If amateur scientists such as Watts and McIntyre have credible and quality work, they would submit their findings to a peer reviewed journal. But since their work is amateurish and lacks fundamental knowledge of the climate system they publish their works by someone like the Heartland institute, which is in no way a scientific institution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin wrote,
"Except it is the AGW True Believers who have not one shred of evidence. "
Read some science for once. The reality is that your statement can't be any more backwards. The onus is on those who challenge the theory of AGW caused by GHG emissions. The evidence stands for the AGW theory. If you want to challenge that theory then provide some evidence to the contrary. To just say all science supporting AGW is crap without any evidence to the contrary shows us that your opinion is solely that...an uninformed opinion.
I challenge anyone here, please provide some evidence that the foundations to the theory of AGW are false. Link to where you get your information as well. And if I hear something like...its the sun...its been cooling for the last decade, I'll respectively ignore your comment. I want ACTUAL evidence, not same regurgitated talking point any person with a computer can refute by looking at a temperature trend graph.
bleederofmen - i would assert you are a natural climate cycle denier! real scientist have placed real science under your nose and you simply deny its exixtence. talk about faith! chicken little would be proud of your ignorant disregard for the facts. i find it fascinating that i am labled as closed minded when in fact i have seriously studied BOTH SIDES of this issue. my first experiment with atmospheric co2 levels was in 1977, when was yours? of course when i started we were convinced the earth was cooling rapidly, sientists were actually endorsing the dumping of soot on polar ice in an attempt to melt it. funny how FACTS can change but that some minds never do. i have to admire your conviction, facts be damned!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisshoreliner11 - again, atmospheric co2 levels have increased by OVER 6% in the past 7 years while temperatures have fallen for the past 8 years. this disproves agw. read the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and get back to me, if you dare.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, Al Gore was taken to court for the faults in AIT. He was found guilty for over 9 fact errors in the film. The AGW crowd at RealClimate however, still defends him. If that�s not religion it don�t know what is!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust remember - Nature bats last, and does not give a rodent's posterior for the opinions of sceptics!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Just remember - Nature bats last, and does not give a rodent's posterior for the opinions of sceptics!" [DumPerignon]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGosh! That's tough.
But presumably she clasps true believers to her breast and hangs on every adorable little word they say? Is that what you mean?
Ha ha. You're clearly corked, old boy.
Yes, nothing for it — we'll have send you back.
WAITER!
BAARP! Sorry. That was me. It happens when I laugh. But I blame it on you for conjouring up the Surpised-Mirth Fairy.
Shoreliner11:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoin leaderofsheep at the back of the class for remedial science. Your comments are vacuous and also show the lack of understanding of science.
Using your level of understanding of science, Sasquatches exist because I can't have prove that they don't.
So let's take a walk down your line of logic:
True Believers propose theory (say, that Sasquatches exist). Therefore the True Believers need to produce evidence such as a body, DNA for testing, even a patch of hair to prove the theory.
Now suppose True Believers spent $30 billion tax dollars on proving the theory, but came up dry. Given this lack of evidence, the True Believers now lobby congress to suspend disbelief and act now to protect sasquatches, build sasquatch x-walks and create a $ trillion tax-payer fund for cap and trade of sasquatch credits?
It makes no sense on any level, except to those who have an undying faith in the existence of the sasquatch.
It's obvious that you do not use science in your working life; your boss would have tuned you up long ago.
Interglacial John wrote,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...atmospheric co2 levels have increased by OVER 6% in the past 7 years while temperatures have fallen for the past 8 years."
This argument is tiresome but I will link to actual sources which you have not done. Please tell how you can statistically say the earth's average global temperature has been falling for the past years, when according to gisstemp, that was 2005. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
And indeed even if temperatures where level, this does not statistically warrant you notion of decreasing. Many factors contributing to climate besides GHG including ENSO, PDO, and solar output. That fact that the PDO is in a cool phase, solar output is at a minimum, and the we've had several la ninas all contribute to "leveling off" of temperatures.
I'm very aware of the scientific method and I don't need lectures on it. I read the scientific literature and base my opinions off of that. The fact remains that deniers do not have the science on their side. Every major government institution and major scientific association has reviewed the science and came to the same conclusion, the earth is warming and humans are the cause of it. If you choose to ignore the science, thats your prerogative, but to claim the science doesn't support the conclusion is a baseless opinion, not founded in scientific literature.
Shoshin,
Again, you have not linked to any actual evidence. Don't bring sasquatch into this, he doesn't deserve it. All I want you to do is link to some peer reviewed science that questions the fundamentals of AGW. Attack my credentials all you want, but I work for NOAA, not a climatologist but a scientist nonetheless. So I would expect I've had more schooling in science than most. This schooling has led me to believe the facts that are apparent and published and not base my opinion on my preconceived notions. Unlike most, I've looked at the peer reviewed literature and based my opinion accordingly. So when you say there is no evidence I have to call you out cause you apparently don't know how to do a scientific literature search.
In closing, the scientific community is very disconnected from the mainstream public. Most are unaware that there are those that even challenge the fundamentals of global warming. This is because they have looked at the evidence and come to the same conclusion, based on the same sound science. Do you guys also refute that ocean acidification is a real and pertinent threat to ocean systems throughout the world?
Shoreliner11,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Can you point to a causative chain of empirical data" (not correlational) that shows that co2 relased by human activity causes temperaure rise?
"MMGW is speculative until it gives a ... prediction for an event that no other hypothesis predicts, that actually occurs
Shoreliner11:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou work for NOAA? And your understanding of science is that poor? And your bosses tolerate it? Well, there's an old saying in business, look at the level where the problem exists and the real problem is one level above that.
I'm going to say this again real slow....The proposer....of a theory.....must prove it... There is...no ...tie...goes....to the runner....
Shoreliner11:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to your credentials, one example of religion attempting to masquerade as sscience is the reliance on appeal to authority.
I understand that you are shocked that we don't appropriately genuflect when you play the NOAA card, but if you were a real scientist, you would sway us with your evidence not your number or color of the stripes on your academic robes.
oops!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe previous comment went through before I could locate the source of the quotes.
sorry
Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will repeat what I already have; I asked for evidence challenging the fundamentals of global warming. Your derogatory tone is not appreciated, which is why I played the "NOAA card" to show, regardless if I'm a good scientist, I do have training in science. Nothing I have said reflects at all on my understanding of science as I was asking for evidence to the contrary, and that the onus is on those challenging a theory that is well supported by science to show equally valid science that opposes it (IMO sasquatch is not quite as well founded in science as AGW, but hey too each their own). I will ask again, show evidence to the contrary. I'm not asking for PROOF, I just want you to link to any actual study that challenges the theory. You dismiss the theory of AGW offering no alternative theory. I will do what you have not, provide credible publications that support the theory of AGW.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
I linked to 2 relatively recent climate change synthesis reports. The great thing about synthesis reports such as these, is they summarize a multitude of grey and peer reviewed literature and represent the status of the science at the time of publication. They are also written in a format for policy makers, so the writing is clear and everyone with a 12th grade reading level can understand. For the IPCC 4 report, some things are out of date as climate science has advanced quite a bit in the last 2 years.
I have now linked to science that supports the theory of AGW. Now AGAIN, link to me some credible science that objects to the fundamentals explained in these documents. You can tell me I don't understand science in 3 more posts if you like, but the fact that you conveniently disregard posting any evidence for your position is very telling. Indeed I've done the literature searches to look for this data to challenge AGW and I'll be the first to tell you its hard to find. Maybe that's the hold up.
Shoshin you've got it all backwards again. Scientists do not propose theories and THEN look for evidence to support them. They look at data collected from experiments or from observations of past phenomena before ever conceiving a hypothesis. It is only after dozens more experiments are completed and analysed that the hypothesis (after many corrections and fine-tunings) is finally allowed to stand as a theory. That's assuming the findings don't completely invalidate it to begin with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that AGW even made it to the point of a theory speaks to the weight of evidence standing in its support. And no, that isn't support from people like Al Gore, it's support by raw data. If you want to show that the conclusions are false, the burden of proof is on the deniers.
Right now your comments are reminding me of the people that called for trial against the schoolteacher that tried to explain evolution to his students so that creationism could get equal weight in the classroom. Trying to create parity between what is clearly wrong and what is clearly correct is nothing more than madness. It was true for the creationists and it's true for the deniers.
Once again, for those in the cheap seats. If AGW is going to be debunked, the proof must be provided by the deniers.
Galaxy_man:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou just don't get it do you. Again using your stream of logic, and shoreliner11's, the mere proposal of a theory gives it weight of truth, and the proposed theory wins by default. That is not science, it is Monty Pythonesque witchcraft.
Firstly, you need to drop the charade that the issue is about "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" The issue is about whether man-made emissions affect the climate. To use sweeping terms such fighting "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is misleading and false and propagandist.
So what if AGW made it to the level of theory? Big deal. Theories get shot down all the time. Geosynclinal theory wrt to mountain building ruled for many many decades until plate tectonics shot it down. Using your logic, AGW get some special pass because it was there first. NO it doesn't. That is not how science works and you guys know it. And if you don't you better learn it now.
As to evidence countering Anthropgenic Global Warming, more is piling up daily, and the discrepancy between AGW predictions and the real world data is growing daily. I'm not going to bother with listing references as we all know what they are.
True Believers are doing science a grave disservice by even stating that AGW has some anointed special place and is above reproach. It doesn't, it's just another lowly theory, nothing more than an idea and it needs to fight it's way through the gauntlet of scientific inquiry.
Maybe you both do need to attend lectures on scientific method, because what I see posted by pr-AGW'ers is circular arguments, presumption of facts no in evidence and an endless litany of circumstantial evidence being passed off as it were truth.
Bring AGW out of it's Ivory Tower into the street and let it slug it out and see if it still stands. If it does, fine. But stop coddling it.
Shoshin wrote, "Bring AGW out of it's Ivory Tower into the street and let it slug it out and see if it still stands. If it does, fine."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere were you 15 years ago when this was actually happening?
The cool thing about scientific theories is that they don't ever get to declare themselves victorious. You can always pick them up and pummel the crap out of them any time you want. So, it's irrelevant how well AGW stood up to data 15 years ago. What's relevant is how it stands up today, and how valid its predictions are. The true test of a good theory is that it makes valid predictions. AGW has failed to predict the current cooling trend. That, in and of itself, demands the theory, at the very least, be revisited and revised.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGalaxy_man:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFine. Then show me one experimental verification of AGW.
This belies the difficulty that scientists face in trying to describe a real threat that few want to hear. If they describe it in layman's terms, everyone will point to a storm in 1970 that "proves" the analysis wrong. If they supply the raw data, nobody without an advanced degree in statistics will be capable of filtering out the noise. If they actually analyze the data, then they are accused of manipulating it. When a single data point out of millions is found to be flawed for some entirely understandable reason and they delete or correct it, this somehow is "proof" that the whole body of knowledge is similarly flawed. And then finally, when they do make a solid case about the science and put their reputations on the line, someone conjures up a political reason for inaction and it all has to be started all over again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bottom line is whether or not we as a species are willing to listen to the experts or not. If we leave it long enough it will indeed become a matter of survival. The worst case if we listen to reason and if the scientists are wrong (they aren't) is that we all have clean air and water for a long time. The worst case if we do nothing is, well you do the math...
"As to evidence countering Anthropgenic Global Warming, more is piling up daily, and the discrepancy between AGW predictions and the real world data is growing daily. I'm not going to bother with listing references as we all know what they are. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBalogna. I for one am NOT aware of all these "piles of evidence" and am not aware of where to find them. I suspect that might have something to do with the fact that you are blowing things way out of proportion, but whatever.
As for your call: challengers throw down first. Until you post SOMETHING, I am not bound to expose myself to more diatribes and insipidly stupid accusations by trying to defend something that stands well enough on its own.
Also, how dare you try to attack our understand of the scientific process. Just because you don't like what you're hearing (or even being forced to realize you are in fact part of a minority opinion group), you have no right to assume that you are alone in a sea of uneducated fools. You can not simply make blanket statements and assume that these will convince people that you know what you're talking about.
I have tried to explain matters as best I could, as have others. Your stubborn refusal to even consider their meaning leads me to one conclusion: that your unwillingness to accept the standing point of view as a valid and justified position attained through the accumulation of decades of observations and data, is in fact a pose. You are not interested in facts at any degree, but instead invest all of your efforts frustrating and provoking those of us who are actually interested in learning more. What's more, you have consistently refused, dodged, or otherwise glossed over all calls for you to justify your position. This is unsatisfactory.
Your persecution ends now.
To say that 97% of scientists believe humans contribute to global warming is very misleading. I believe that as well, but the question is: to what extent do they contribute? Is it 90% or is it .o1%. I rather lean to the latter figure. Ther are tides, there are swells, there are waves on top of the swells, and there are ripples on top of the waves. Which of these best describe the human influence? Maybe the ripples, maybe the swells. Hopefully we will know better with better data. Meanwhile, let's go slow on implementing far-reaching public policy! Pat
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould you provide your credentials that qualify you to make this statement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you seen the work in the video at this link? It is real science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykgg9m-7FK4
You are welcome to take the challenge of doing the math to find flaws in it and disprove it. The challenge of disproving it has been out for two years. It still has not been found wrong.
You are welcome to try to find it wrong yourself. Take up the challenge of engaging in real science.
If you cannot find it wrong then you should agree that there can be no run away global warming from co2. Your personal politics, and environmentalism, should not trump truth.
Personal opinions have no place in science.
Yes, nature is batting last :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe earth is in a cooling trend and has been for years,
winters in both the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere have been longer and harsher for 3 years now.
You are right to say nature bats last. Nature is showing that the histrionics Al Gore, the IPCC, and the mythical 'consensus' are wrong.
Does one need credentials to suggest that a majority of scientists MAY believe (as I do) that global warming IS influenced by humans but that the influence may be small? I think that the other 3% might agree with the majority if they gave it a little more thought. But to leave out what they believe the magnitude of the inluence to be makes the data misleading--in my humble opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy credentila for making this remark are that I am a human being who observes and thinks about our biosphere. I'm also chemical engineer who has among other things built seven chemical plants and have provided designs for multiple plants that currently remove carbon dioxide and from boiler and power plant flue gases. I have consulted in this field for over 25 years, and stand to make a lot of money from cap and trade. However, my engineering experience is not what I claim as my credentials for the remark.
...and stand to make a lot of money from cap and trade"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere seems to be a lot of that going around.
video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2GjCS-UAsQ
"Does one need credentials to suggest that a majority of scientists MAY believe (as I do) that global warming IS influenced by humans but that the influence may be small?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a misleading statement because "small" is a relative term. A more correct word would be "irrelevant". Manmade co2 has no power to control climate.
I don't disagree with you. I might add that the influence is certainly not just related to CO2 (if at all) and may even be negative. As to wheter it is "small" or "irrelevant," I don't know enough to say. Maybe anything we say is misleading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the first hit on Yahoo when I typed, "missing tropospheric hot spot"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/26/the-missing-hotspot/
There are plenty of others, but they all say the same thing. The main falsifiable hypothesis of AGW theory remains, as of the latest research, falsified.
I dug just a bit, and found a full fledged, peer reviewed paper on the lag between past warming and CO2 rise:
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
The ice core record was, until recently, the primary evidence for CO2 as a major driver of temperatures. At the very least, there's currently no indication that CO2 rise preceded temperature rise. The claim has since changed to arguing that CO2 magnified the temperature changes. While that may be the case, such an argument requires a non CO2 driven instigator of warmings. The ice core record offers no evidence that CO2 has ever been that instigator in the past. And of course, there's the problem that all past interglacials eventually ended. If CO2 driven warming is, in fact, self perpetuating, those interglacials must have been ended by a very powerful, and as yet unidentified, cooling mechanism. CO2 forcing at the magnitude claimed by the IPCC would utterly dwarf the Milankovitch cycles. Those cycles may be capable of triggering the theorized CO2 enhanced warming, but would be totally insufficient to end it. Alternately, if we assume the Milankovitch cycles are sufficient to both trigger and end the interglacials, the CO2 becomes a bit player, along merely for the ride.
While there are more, those are what I see as the two most convincing arguments against AGW theory. I'm a machinist, not a scientist. Nothing in my ego, or my pay check, depends on clinging to either side. As I highly value being correct, I welcome any opportunity to be led to the truth, wherever that lies. But I must point out that I deal strictly in reasoned arguments, and data. Opinion and belief are of no consequence to me, nor are degrees or titles. 2+2=4. Whether that's believed by one person, or seven billion, it's still 4. For that reason, I refuse to even address the concept of consensus. Don't bother telling me what scientist A believes. Just tell me why he believes it.
Shoreliner11,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I took you up on your challenge. Perhaps you missed it, since I didn't write it a a reply. So now I'm rectifying that problem.
If you can demonstrate that I'm wrong, you'll be doing me a favor. My desire is only to be correct, so I eagerly await any evidence I've overlooked.
Whether or not AGW is a serious problem (and I am agnostic), the fact that the scientific establishment has largely ignored the issues with the data that MacIntyre and Watts have identified is inexcusable. I started out by trusting RealClimate (and was thus a AGW "believer") until I saw how dismissive they were of very basic issues regarding data that MacIntyre and Watts were bringing up, and it was precisely because they didn't support, say, MacIntyre's request for data that I completely lost trust in RealClimate. Data transparency and data integrity are so basic to a legitimate scientific ethos that when I see partisan attacks on MacIntyre for requesting data I completely lose confidence in the attackers qua scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is also encouraging to see the legitimate support for MacIntyre here in the comments in the face of Appel's nasty ad hominem. The fact that Pielke Sr., supports both MacIntyre and Watts' concerns regarding data integrity and transparency gives me faith that at least some scientists are still committed to upholding the scientific ethos.
The only reason 1934 wasn't the warmest year as ranked by satellites, was that there were no satellites in the 1930's. So you are trying to mislead by making it appear 1998 was warming than 1934.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 1930's were warming than the 1990's.
The year 1000 was so warm much of Greenland was warm.
Grapes were grown in northern Eupope in places that it is too cold to grow grapes even today.
14,000 years ago Greenland was really warm and the oceans were 20 feet higher than today. Was that caused by man?
You wrote "he blog Climate Audit, run by amateur scientists and self-described science auditor Steve McIntyre".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis fails to note that Steve McIntyre has many articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journal, including the one that showed that the infamous Hockeystick by Mann was erroneous.
Even more common than errors in scientific work are presentations that are misleading. There have been several interesting discussions on data smoothing and in particular, the handling of the end points of smoothed curves, on blogs such as climateaudit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA simple example can be seen at http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm . Even though the last several years have been cooler, the smoothed temperature plot on the global average temperature is a perfect straight line. (It is also interesting to note that JPL NASA was somehow able to include the annual temperature for 2008 when the caption for that section reads "Last update 5.19.08").
No apparent errors in the data on the plot, but the rhetorical effect of the smoothed plot is different than the underlying source at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ .
The "smoothed" point for 2008 depends upon assumptions about what the data will be for future years.
I would contact JPL NASA and ask for a correction, but it is most likely useless, since 3 weeks have g0ne by since I notified them that the sea level graph on the same page is erroneous, doesn't correspond to the data at the source they cite, and that their website says that the sea level info was updated on July 51st.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm top graphs. 43mm rise of 16-1/2 years is NOT 3.4mm/yr.
I'm puzzled by David Appell's claim that "the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change has never been stronger" after talking about the errors and the lack of warming over the last ten years. In fact the case is steadily weakening, as shown by the opinion polls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If amateur scientists such as Watts and McIntyre have credible and quality work, they would submit their findings to a peer reviewed journal. But since their work is amateurish and lacks fundamental knowledge of the climate system they publish their works by someone like the Heartland institute, which is in no way a scientific institution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a reason that the last couple of IPCC updates have omitted the Hockey Stick. The reason is that McIntyre published papers showing the erroneous data processing led to erroneous conclusions about past temperature history. (article list at bottom)
There is a reason that the July 2009 American Meteorological Society paper by NOAA scientists Menne, Williams, and Vose on version 2 of corrections for the NOAA climatology network says "The authors wish to thank Anthony Watts for his considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of U.S. HCN stations". (This is scientese for --- Oops. Thanks for telling us about the multiple problems with station siting and conditions, but I think we can correct for all of these errors by manipulating the historical data after the fact)
It is somewhat ironic that many "climate scientists" claim that others outside their small clique have nothing of value to offer, while at the same time publishing papers with egregious errors in the math and statistics. The wegman report is a good discussion of this problem.
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
Some McIntyre papers:
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf
So who knows what temperature the earth should be - for the benefit of mankind? Darn those skeptics, always asking hard questions...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou complain that AGW skeptics create confusion and doubt but then mention Swiftboating Kerry. What does that have to do with climate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit is your side that makes wild claims that can't be backed by science.
Like Prince Charles claiming we have only 96 months left to stop AGW. Where is the proof of that claim?
It is your side that claims people should be executed if they deny AGW. Isn't this claim put out by your side just to instill fear and confusion?
Where is the proof that a warmer Earth will wipe out Polar Bears? The Earth was warmer 1000 years ago and the bears survived. it was warmer 14,000 years ago and they survived.
it was warmer millions of years ago and they survived.
There are more Polar bears now then there were in 1950.
Isn't making false claims that Polar bears will be wiped off the face of the Earth just a false claim made to cause fear and confusion?
Disclaimer : I am an engineer, NOT a scientist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy understanding of the "Scientific Method" is :
1) Make a guess, or HYPOTHESIS, about the universe.
2) Calculate what would happen if your guess is correct, taking into account existing knowledge, i.e. make PREDICTIONS.
3) Perform EXPERIMENTS, in the real world (!), and collect DATA / EVIDENCE.
4a) Compare the DATA with the PREDICTIONS. If they do NOT correspond, then the HYPOTHESIS has been proven FALSE.
4b) If lots of experiments provide DATA that do not contradict the PREDICTIONS made by your HYPOTHESIS, then it can be upgraded to a THEORY (like gravity ...).
NB : A HYPOTHESIS / THEORY can NEVER be "proven true". A single (reproducible) experiment can prove it false AT ANY TIME.
5) Use the new DATA to think again, then go to step 1.
There are various related concepts, such as "peer review", "open sharing of data and methods", "reproducibility" etc.
One of these is the "null hypothesis", which says that by default YOUR hypothesis is assumed to be FALSE. No alternative needs to be provided.
Another is that the output of computer MODELS form part of the HYPOTHESIS, NOT part of the DATA ! This is an important point that often seems to be glossed over.
The "(Catastrophic Anthropogenic) Global Warming HYPOTHESIS" appears to have become the "Climate Change THEORY" without ANY real-world DATA being discovered that confirms ANY of its PREDICTIONS.
I personally started taking the "sceptics" more seriously when a AGW "scientist" responded to a request for data (Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes, I believe) with the following :
"Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
Please can you explain to me how the above comment is "consistent with" the Scientific Method outlined above ?
If your definition of "The Scientific Method" is different from mine, please could you formulate it in a manner similar to how I outlined my understanding of it above, and highlight the differences ?
Don't mix up the questioning and criticism of data points with the criticism of the mass media scare mongering that immediately follows one of these mistakes, publishing what they beleive to be accurate conclusions or forecasts based upon accurate data when the data turns out to be wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I see from the tone of the article, that the science is settled and AGW is a scientific fact and anyone questioning the data or the conclusions is just plain wrong or amateur.
Shame on you SA for having drifted so far from the tenets of the practise of science and having subscribed so fully to the practise of insulating of the supporters of a particular hypothesis.
It boggles the mind that you would represent yourself as a scientific publication. I challenge YOU or ANYONE to expose ALL relevant temperatures, adjustments, and mathematic calculations proving the world has warmed since the 1940s. You can't because it has not. Submit your analysis to Wattsupwiththat.com for validation. ALL Scientific evidence must withstand the scrutiny of skepticism to achieve validation. This is no different than any other theory in history. AGW will be the laughing stock of the next century. Step up or go home.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt boggles the mind that you would represent yourself as a scientific publication. I challenge YOU or ANYONE to expose ALL relevant temperatures, adjustments, and mathematic calculations proving the world has warmed since the 1940s. You can't because it has not. Submit your analysis to Wattsupwiththat.com for validation. ALL Scientific evidence must withstand the scrutiny of skepticism to achieve validation. This is no different than any other theory in history. AGW will be the laughing stock of the next century. Step up or go home.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scientific" American, you are on the verge of losing one paying customer--me. This article by David Appell could not have been written by serious scientist, or even a serious layman who first seeks both sides of a story before blurting out his opinion. It could not have been published by an organization which has a serious and unbiased editorial board.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article lacks any reference to the numerous Freedom of Information actions that Mr. McIntyre has been forced to undertake to obtain government data paid for by taxpayers. The article does not mention that some of the "mistakes" are so egregious as to beg the question: Mistake or Fraud?.
In summary, Scientific American, I challenge you to read these two new posts (URLs below) at two of the blogs Mr. Appell finds so troubling, and compare the content with Mr. Appell's article. My respect for your publication's integrity will be significantly enhanced when you invite Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, or both, to author a paper on the subject of the posts in one of your forthcoming monthly publications.
One URL is:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/#more-11229
Then see: Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem at URL:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
Quote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Steve McIntyre, found that an error in a computer algorithm had ranked 1998 as the warmest U.S. year, instead of the correct 1934. (The change did not significantly affect global values: 1998 was still the earths warmest year as ranked by satellites, although Goddard has 2005 as slightly warmer.)"
The author seems to be implying that satellites show 1998 as warmer than 1934. Can the author explain how satellites were measuring temperature in 1934?
Good Lord! Clearly there are no scientists on your home planet. The AGW advocates are purporting to use science to prove their case. The onus is on them to show that their proof "stands up." When it is challenged, on a scientific or mathematical basis, especially when the underlying data is shown to have been falsely manipulated and that appropriate use of the data shows the opposite conclusion, that IS evidence to the contrary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet off your high horse. It's not the science that is wrong, it's the scientists who are wrong. It's a tragic abuse of science. You don't have to have a degree in climatology to see that. It's very likely to help if you don't.
You appear not to know a primary precept of science. You can never prove an hypothesis, you can only disprove it. It is therefore incumbent upon all to try to disprove it. If we fail, then and only then can the hypothesis be accepted as theory - unless later disporven.
But the AGW activists thwart that scientific principle at every turn. They hide, or claim to have destroyed, crucial data. No one but like-minded collegues are allowed into their inner circle. It's clear that some severe house cleaning is in order.
Shoreliner11 said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In closing, the scientific community is very disconnected from the mainstream public. Most are unaware that there are those that even challenge the fundamentals of global warming. This is because <em>they have looked at the evidence</em> and come to the same conclusion, based on the same sound science."
What kind of gobble-de-gook reasoning is that? If most are unaware of any challenges to the AGW activists (NOT the challenge to "global warming," get your terms straight!) it's simply because the main-stream media doesn't report on them. One would be a fool to look at the "evidence" and ignore those refuting that evidence.