I’d be a handy reference tool.

What would be extra extra doubleplusgood is a chart showing the number of record highs, lows etc for each month from way back. A large job but there must be someone who knows where to get the info and the wherewithal to compile the data? Perhaps a Java applet so the viewer can sort by month, day, year, de-cade etc…

Would be interesting to compare just how “record happy” October 2009 is VS previous Octobers.

Maybe he has seen temperature records such as this one? Looks like Copenhagen will result in a failure to agree a comprehensive CO2 reduction treaty. It would appear to me that countries such as China and India are not convinced that CO2 is the only or even main driver of global warming when it actually takes place in amongst periods of cooling and, therefore, will not agree to mandatory CO2 reductions for their countries. President Obama seems to have got that message. Instead he is going to Oslo 10 Dec. to deliver one of his hallmark speeches.

This is political. As the US president presents a capitulating and weak front, more and more sovereign nations will assert themselves. To wit, both china and India are playing the political stage, and are announcing that the US (and EU, but the EU is a complete ineffectual mass of blowhards) has no power to do anything. In essence, China and India are saying ‘eff you’.

This is a bizarre notion: that somehow if *all* countries can get together and do something, then it will be done. Why cannot individual nations take these steps? What is preventing the UK, for example, or any other European country from reducing their ‘carbon pollution’? Why do such agreements require everyone to sign? Quite simply, this a political and economic package and has nothing to do with ‘climate’. That is, how can money be transferred from one nation to another, and – more importantly – how many entities can be placed in the flow to filter funds to personal political projects. If certain nations don’t play ball, then of course it’s ‘doomed to failure’.

Mann used a very small set of tree ring samples and then did not use statistics properly. Later larger sample sizes did not reproduce his results.

Briffa essentially did the same thing. But he went a step further and threw out most of his data and just used JUST those samples which would prove his hypothesis. This is what he published. He refused to share his raw data for ten years until a journal Editor compelled him to release his data.

What I would like to know is:

1. Who provided funding for this “work?”
2. Is the funding entity able to seek a refund of their monies? Or sue for fraud?
3. Can the funding agency sue Briffa and Mann to enjoin them from doing future work?

“Richard M (06:37:09):

Re: Eggs n’ milk cause cancer. Oh come on, where did they really say that? I’d like to see that.

Or use a different field and time period’”

Although this article does not go into all the specifics it discusses the general scientific process that led to all kinds of cancer claims for various foods and chemicals.

http://www.ecoworld.com/government/chemophobia.html

It is the same flawed scientific approach being applied today with climate.

Look, a troll in the snow,

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3260/3168935253_07b39ecb27.jpg

Neither Briffa nor Mann have been ‘refuted’.

Wow, what weird parallel do you live in??

There is usually snow on Mt. Diablo every year in the winter. But this is early in the year. It’s not unprecedented just early. So where is global warming? That is the point.

I saw snow on it in the first week of April this year. I’ve been in California since 1992. This year was the first time I ever saw snow on it in April.

you are correct they have been destroyed beyond any repair

Neither Briffa nor Mann have been ‘refuted’.

The IPCC has no credibility anymore with Briffa and Mann refuted.

Re: Eggs n’ milk cause cancer. Oh come on, where did they really say that? I’d like to see that.

Or use a different field and time period.

bushy (03:28:58) :

I would agree with you about those!
******

I’m near those spots, and I believe it. Yes, most of the past 2 wks were unusually (record) cold, but a few days were briefly very warm & pleasant, other than the swarms of ladybugs clustering on the house trying to get in — many thousands of ‘em.

Icarus, please explain with solid evidence:
Point 1 and Point 2

Human activities contribute a net radiative forcing of around 1.6W/m² -

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig2-4.jpg

This is consistent with the observed warming of the last half century, which natural factors alone cannot account for -

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig2-5.jpg

The attribution of this warming largely to anthropogenic greenhouse gases is also supported by the observation of tropospheric warming with stratospheric cooling -

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/1460.jpg

Increasing greenhouse gases from human sources are reducing atmospheric IR transmissivity, thereby warming the surface and troposphere, and cooling the stratosphere.

“Weather is propaganda (sic) on both sides. The scientists know this. Climate is at least 30 years. Stick to climate, please.”

I suspect climate is really much longer than 30 years. However, in terms of human experience that number is useful. It’s a period of time that one group of folks hope will be long enough to get their agenda accepted.

Today’s climate scientists are similar to the medical researchers of the 60s that claimed eating eggs or drinking milk would cause cancer. They know just enough to be dangerous.