Spencer: Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate

From Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog (with WUWT apologies to Roy and  Wayne and Garth)

My Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Well, maybe not my top 10…but the first ten that I thought of.

Waynes World...Waynes World....climate change...excellent!

1. The term “climate change” itself. Thirty years ago, the term “climate change” would have meant natural climate change, which is what climate scientists mostly studied before that time. Today, it has come to mean human-caused climate change. The public, and especially the media, now think that “climate change” implies WE are responsible for it. Mother Nature, not Al Gore, invented real climate change.

2. “Climate change denier”. A first cousin to the first annoyance. Again, thirty years ago, “climate change denier” would have meant someone who denied that the Medieval Warm Period ever happened. Or that the Little Ice Age ever happened. What a kook fringe thing to believe that would have been! And now, those of us who still believe in natural climate change are called “climate change deniers”?? ARGHH.

3. The appeal to peer-reviewed and published research. I could go on about this for pages. Yes, it is important to have scientific research peer-reviewed and published. But as the Climategate e-mails have now exposed (and what many scientists already knew), we skeptics of human-caused climate change have “peers” out there who have taken it upon themselves to block our research from being published whenever possible. We know there are editors of scientific journals who assist in this by sending our papers to these gatekeepers for the purpose of killing the paper. We try not to complain too much when it happens because it is difficult to prove motivation. I believe the day is approaching when it will be time to make public the evidence of biased peer review.

4. Appeal to authority. This is the last refuge of IPCC scientists. Even when we skeptics get research published, it is claimed that our research is contradicted by other research the IPCC has encouraged, helped to get funded, and cherry-picked to support its case. This is dangerous for the progress of science. If the majority opinion of scientists was always assumed to be correct, then most major scientific advances would not have occurred. The appeal to authority is also a standard propaganda technique.

5. Unwillingness to debate. I have lectured to many groups where the organizers could not find anyone from the IPCC side who would present the IPCC’s side of the story. I would be happy to debate any of the IPCC experts on the central issues of human-caused versus natural climate change, and feedbacks in the climate system. They know where to find me. (For the most common tactic used by the IPCC in a debate, see annoyance #4.)

6. A lack of common sense. Common sense can be misleading, of course. But when there is considerable uncertainty, sometimes it is helpful to go ahead and use a little anyway. Example: It is well known that the net effect of clouds is to cool the Earth in response to radiant heating by the sun. But when it comes to global warming, all climate models do just the opposite…change clouds in ways that amplify radiative warming. While this is theoretically possible, it is critical to future projections of global warming that the reasons why models do this be thoroughly understood. Don’t believe it just because group think within the climate modeling community has decided it should be so.

7. Use of climate models as truth. Because there are not sufficient high-quality, globally-distributed, and long term observations of climate fluctuations to study and better understand the climate system with, computerized climate models are now regarded as truth. The modelers’ belief that climate models represent truth is evident from the language they use: climate models are not “tested” with real data, but instead “validated”. The implication is clear: if the data do not agree with the models, it must be the data’s fault.

8. Claims that climate models have been tested. A hallmark of a good theory is that it should predict something which, upon further investigation, turns out to be correct. To my knowledge, climate models have not yet forecasted anything of significance. And even if they did, models are ultimately being relied upon to forecast global warming (aka ‘climate change’). As far as I can tell, there is no good way to test them in this regard. And please don’t tell me they can now replicate the seasons quite well. Even the public could predict the seasons before there were climate models. Predicting future warming (or cooling) is slightly more difficult, but not by much: a flip a coin will be correct 50% of the time.

9. The claim that the IPCC is unbiased. The IPCC was formed for the explicit purpose of building the case for global warming being our fault, not for investigating the possibility that it is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system. Their accomplices in government have bought off the scientific community for the purpose of achieving specific policy goals.

10. The claim that reducing CO2 emissions is the right thing to do anyway. Oh, really? What if life on Earth (which requires CO2 for its existence) is actually benefiting from more CO2? Nature is always changing anyway…why must we always assume that every single change that humans cause is necessarily a bad thing? Even though virtually all Earth scientists believe this, too, it is not science, but religion. I’m all for religion…but not when it masquerades as science.

About these ads

127 thoughts on “Spencer: Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate

  1. Predicting future warming (or cooling) is slightly more difficult, but not by much: a flip a coin will be correct 50% of the time.

    That’s deep.

  2. If you’re Michael Mann – top are 10:
    1. “cooling trend”
    2. “sceptic climate scientist”
    3. “FOIA”
    4. “openness”
    5. “debate”
    6. “unrevised history”
    7. “ice cores are the truth”
    8. “clouds and svensmark”
    9. “IPCC is biased”
    10. “let’s check to be sure”

  3. Common sense is far too complicated a thing to be defined by an equation or incorporate in a computer program indeed it cannot be pier reviewed so it is ignored.

  4. I am writing to PM Harper, Min. Prentice and my MP daily.

    I forward articles to friends. I answer with the truth in newspaper articles.

    Please make a list of things , that we can do.

  5. Sorry, but nothing wrong with their testing language – “validation” is entirely the right word to use regarding testing models. You attempt to validate a model by seeing whether its predictions agree with the experimental data from the real world.

    If its predictions do not pan out IT HAS FAILED VALIDATION and thus needs to be reworked. It’s not the language which is the problem – it’s ignoring the failures.

    The problem as I see it with climate models is that they can only be validated over periods of a decade or more. By which time new predictions will long since have been issued and any flaws with the original prediction (if anyone remembers it when said decade or more is up) can be dismissed either by saying the assumptions have changed, that the period obviously wasn’t short enough, or else just that “Ah, but we have better models now”.

  6. #11 Taking two or three aspects of climate science and glossing over the rest to try and make a point on a very complicated subject

  7. “Remember the Children!”

    And another questions for you all in the blog-o-sphere, why is it that the people who DON’T think the world is going to end tomorrow are now the crazy ones?

  8. That “I’m saving the Earth!” attitude of the AGW-ers, and the implied “You’re evil for trying to stand in the way!” would be a good candidate for such a list.

    Then there’s the ad hominem arguments. “You’re working for the oil companies”, or even “You’re just an anti-science Creationist.”

    Such things don’t really belong in a scientific debate, of course, but that’s partly what makes it so annoying!

  9. Let me add some of my own:
    1. “if you care about our children and our grandchildren”
    2. “It’ll create millions of green jobs”
    3. “unprecedented”
    4. “The science is settled”
    5. “The whole world is looking to us”
    6. “They’re shills of the oil industry”
    7. “They’re not real scientists”
    8. “The sceptics are a very small fringe group” (LOL!)
    0. “Climate catastrophe”
    10. “We can curb climate change”
    11. “Climate killing greenhouse gases”
    12. “We’re destroying the planet”
    13. “We can limit GW to 2°C” (Angela Merkel)

    In fact every time a warmist opens his/her mouth, I get annoyed.
    Everything they say is annoying!

  10. And by the way, my personal favorite is number 4. I have debated global warming online many times and almost inevitably the warmists hide behind relentless appeals to authority. Except of course when they can simply silence me.

  11. Lory Herchen
    Send these links to your MP.
    Demand an investigation: Tell him this is an outrage.

    20 November

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=2

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/20/possible-conspiracy-misreport-temperatures-found-media-mum

    21 November

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093_pf.html

    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d21-Evidence-of-a-desperate-push-to-pump-global-warming-up-and-up?#comments

    22 November

    http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article5294872/Die-Tricks-der-Forscher-beim-Klimawandel.html#xmsg_comment

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/11/milli-vanilli-of-science-hacked-emails.html

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Good+climate+news+alarmists/2252439/story.html

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186_pf.html

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climate_fraud_continues_unrave.html

    23 November

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6634282/Lord-Lawson-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-UEA-global-warming-data-manipulation.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230122/How-climate-change-scientists-dodged-sceptics.html

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

    http://diepresse.com/home/techscience/internet/sicherheit/523483/index.do?_vl_bac%5B..] informiert:

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

    http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/in-climate-hack.html

    24 November

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_monbiot_says_the_science_now_needs_reanalyising/

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html#%20articleTabs=article

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/hot-and-bothered/story-e6frg6z6-1225802504484

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513436

    25 November

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018034/climategate-%20%20e-mails-sweep-america-may-scuttle-barack-obamas-cap-and-trade-laws/

    26 November

    http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/der-%e2%80%9eklimagate%e2%80%9c-skandal-in-den-medien-teil2/

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558070997168360.html

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018056/climategate-this-is-our-berlin-wall-moment/

    27 November

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17294

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/25/AR2009112503608.html

    http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/peer-221438-reviewed-climate.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6672875/Whos-to-blame-for-Climategate.html

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/357/

    And, Be sure he reads Willis Eschenbachs FOI Request at CA!
    Hope this helps you.
    Cheers,
    P Gosselin

  12. Hey,

    I was momentarily confused by this ad which is visible (to me at least) on this post:


    Ads by Google
    Help Stop Global Warming
    Join thousand of people who want to send a message to global leaders
    http://www.edspledge.com

    Do they still pay you even if nobdy clicks through?

  13. Phil A, you missed the verification bit. As I learnt testing, it’s one thing to know you’ve built the right thing, but something completely different to know whether you built it right. Subtle but important difference. Did we get the right results because we did it right, or because we did it wrong, or got lucky, or got our assumptions wrong/right (Gosh, I’ll stop now, my daughter complains about her philosophy course hurting her head…).

    The other big thing about testing is reproducability. If a test department or customer reports a bug to my team, our first question is always “how can we reproduce it?”. Basic scientific method employed everyday by millions of engineers the world over. Scientists could learn a thing or two.

  14. “Predicting future warming (or cooling) is slightly more difficult, but not by much: a flip a coin will be correct 50% of the time.”

    Try telling the Met Office that. Look at this little peach released today:

    LONDON (Reuters) – The Met Office forecast on Friday there was a 50 percent chance of a warmer winter than average this year for northern Europe, including Britain.

    Just Brilliant. You couldn’t make it up if you tried.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6672631/British-winter-to-be-milder-says-Met.html

  15. Not forgetting “Eco” this and “Eco” that – for example “Eco-friendly” and “Carbon footprint” – what a meaningless phrase. And “green” anything now makes me cringe (unless it’s green beans…)

  16. J.R. Brownowski once observed (in his book, the Ascent of man), that the lumberjack is a scientist, splitting open wood and observing. A potter develops something of beauty, but in the end it is only the shape of his hand.

  17. OT but I was looking back to see that the CRU e-mails outed our friend Tamino as ‘Grant Foster’

    Can we really be sure that this his his real name and not his job description!

    I think we should be told.

  18. P. Gosselin

    Thank you for your big effort.. It quite a list. Of course I have been using some of these links for a long time, but at this time it needs aggressive , concentrated action.
    Your post will encourage others too.

  19. 5. Unwillingness to debate. I have lectured to many groups where the organizers could not find anyone from the IPCC side who would present the IPCC’s side of the story.

    Sometimes with hilarious results. I remember the debate in NYC between Richard Lindzen, and representing the Union of Concerned Scientists, Bill Nye the Science Guy (whose credentials consist of a BS in mechanical engineering). Lindzen made a complete idiot of Nye.

  20. –If its predictions do not pan out IT HAS FAILED VALIDATION and thus needs to be reworked. It’s not the language which is the problem – it’s ignoring the failures.–

    Well it’s even worse than that. If a GCM “fails” they frequently blame the data, even though we know they are already massaging the data in the direction they choose. So the GCMs fail AND the data they are tested against is cooked, so they can’t even validate them by hook or by crook.
    I think the effect of climategate on the GCMs, which are the primary remaining underpinning of the IPCC is being underestimated.

  21. 11.) False Authority.
    by rejecting contrarian publications and monopolizing the peer-review process, the IPCC and its supporting subsidiaries make the claim that their views are the unchallenged and concensus authority on the subject.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.
    They got their Authority on the subject by playing King of the Hill, and we know this from the ClimateGate emails.

  22. I know this is off-topic, but I would like if someone could help me with some questions I have. I’ve been following the climate change debate for some time and I get overwhelmed with the scientific information, ’cause I’m not a scientist. If you could give me simple answers to these questions, and maybe a link for each one, so I can read a little more, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

    1. Is the global temperature actually going down since 1998?

    2. Is the arctic ice melting? If it’s so, what is causing it?

    3. Does human activities only represents 5% of all the CO2 produced? Who produced the rest? Is the CO2 increasing because of the sun?

    4. Is water vapor the most important greenhouse gas and not the CO2? What is causing its increase?

    5. How much does the Ozone hole affect our climate?

    6. Is the ocean level going up? If it so, how much, and what is causing it?

    7. Is the CO2 changing the chemical balance of our oceans? Is this good or bad?

    8. How much money have been put in these AWG studies? How much does the leader scientists get paid?

    9. I read in the Real Climate website, that the raw data has been always available for everyone, but since Climategate, I´ve been told it is not. Who’s telling the truth?

    10. What is actually going to happen with the climate, and if there is something we should do?

  23. These all annoy me as well, and I’m not even a Climate Scientist. I think Dr. Spencer should have included “Denying the hard evidence of the satellite data.” The lower atmosphere oxygen thermal microwave emission data should have killed this hoax years ago.

  24. That great Dr. Spencer !

    Add this observation – the most popular activity in today’s climate institutes…

    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes

    “Professor, the FBI is on the phone”
    “Tell them I’m busy right now”

    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes
    Delete files Y/N ? Yes

  25. Copenhagen vs. Climategate in the MSM

    Google hit counts (as of Saturday 11/28) in perspective:

    Copenhagen Climate Conference 6,920,000
    Copenhagen Climate Summit 6,130,000
    Copenhagen Treaty 2,810,000
    Copenhagen Total 15,860,000
    Number of MSM stories on Copenhagen > 1000

    Climategate 10,900,000
    Climate Gate 6,200,000
    Global Warming Scandal 3,050,000
    Climategate Total 20,150,000
    Number of MSM stories on Climategate < 10

  26. Paul Coppin: and 11b: “It may be already too late!”

    That is what I would call an “AlGoreism”

    Ah that was stupid. Sorry for that.

  27. 1) The constant need to present results in a way that is much more dramatic than the data.

    Here is a great post from, as it happens, one of the smartest people I’ve ever met (I had no idea he was an expert in climate science too). I think he sums up the main problem with all this pretty well here — continually presenting your data in a skewed way erodes your credibility..

    http://nierenbergclimate.blogspot.com/2009/11/copenhagen-diagnosis-is-dissapointing.html

  28. This data is not consistent with the models
    Press
    A.) to delete station data
    B.) to edit station data
    C.) to replace station data (create new station)

  29. Constant use of “the planet”. Originally, we used to talk about the Earth or the World. “Planet” as synonym for the Earth seems to have arisen pretty much at the same time as the AGW concept.

  30. Predicting future warming (or cooling) is slightly more difficult, but not by much: a flip of a coin will be correct 50% of the time.

    If you wait for the right amount of time you will be correct 100% of the time.

  31. Chris Schoneveld (13:10:04) :

    “Climate Refugees”

    Totally agree Chris. They cover up their own crimes and accuse us of causing all these “Climate Refugees” with our carbon footprints. That one always gets me… Mad as hell.

  32. I wonder if A Revkin is beginning to change his mind about the whole thing..

    “Gavin A. Schmidt, a NASA climatologist involved in many of the e-mail exchanges, said that voluntarily disclosing more data would never satisfy the “very hard-bitten, distraught core” of climate skeptics. “The number of attacks on our integrity will actually increase since there will be more ways to twist what it is we do to support some conspiracy theory or other,” he said.”

    This man is an authoritarian NOT a scientist

  33. #12:”Big Oil Shill” . Makes my eye twitch. Don’t attack the science, attack the man. Marginalize those who disagree. Pathetic tactics. The thin veneer of AGW science has been peeled back for those who care to look. Finally.

  34. “Do it for the children”. My children seem to do better if they have a warm place to sleep and food to eat. Go figure. A sod hut on the prairies in winter seems somewhat less appealing somehow, ….

  35. There is one point Spencer made which made me wonder:” I’m all for religion…but not when it masquerades as science.”

    I’m all for religion … but not when it fails rigorous scientific scrutiny.

  36. “Conspiracy Theorist”. Turns out there is (was) a conspiracy to eliminate those who question and to reject them from the peer-review process. Made it easy for those who believe to say ” but is it peer-reviewed. Just so I am clear, the earth is NOT flat, JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald ALONE, and we (the U.S.A., actually) landed on the moon on several occasions.

  37. Chris,

    I’m not religious, and I don’t believe in morality in physics. So that means the AGW religious zealots are doing exactly the right thing for them. It sure seems to be working for them.

  38. You really have to ask yourself .. what was left for these folks if Copenhagen had resulted in the treaty envisioned at the beginning of the year ? Surely, once the treaties were ratified by the various countries, they would be disposable or worse .. a liability.

  39. @bil (12:06:08) :

    Basic scientific method employed everyday by millions of engineers the world over. Scientists could learn a thing or two.

    Many of these climate guys are not scientists – they only think they are. Mann for example has no scientific experience to speak of – all he ever did was data fudging. This is why they have such a hard time with the whole concept of falsification of theory by data, which they re-cast as “the divergence problem” instead.

    I have been involved in bench research for 20 years, and I have not met a single experienced bench researcher with this kind of pathetic attitude, ever.

  40. Nice to see someone has given the Met Office a new Digital Decision Generator as an early Christmas present! I might almost be prepared to take a punt at even money in a two-horse race.

    I have a very (very, very) small bit of sympathy for Schmidt when he says that “voluntarily disclosing more data would never satisfy the “very hard-bitten, distraught core” of climate skeptics.”, but he only has himself to blame. With the number of missing stations and the interpolations that the experts have made, not to mention the rather cavalier approach that we have seen towards data adjustment in NZ in the last couple of days, there is no way that the original results could be replicated without hard and fast information on the technique used to get these results and that would almost certainly mean going back to the researchers and asking them.

    Incidentally I wonder where the long-term data has come from since UEA didn’t exist before 1963. I’ve also discovered that the university’s motto is ‘Do Different’. Some people seem to have taken that a bit too literally.

  41. “if it could save the life of one small child….”

    If the Greens really cared about small children, apart for telling everyone to have less, then surely they’d be protesting the blanket ban on DDT to save a million or more of them a year.

    I had a young lady call at my door a few weeks ago asking me to sign a petition for my city to provide funding for abortion assistance for underprivelidged fellow citizens. I told her that i disagreed with her stance and wouldn’t sign. As she was representing an environmental group the connversation turned the AGW. She went on to tell me that to reduce her own personal carbon footprint she had decided not to produce a child as it would be a burden on the planet.

    She was young so unless she does something drastic she has time to reconsider that. But whatever I took her at her word and wished her well with her decision. I also hoped that she graduated with a good degree, got a grteat job abd stellar career and that she found a partner of like mind to her. I equally wished upon her the benefit of good taste and the income to indulge it.

    She looked a bit taken aback at my pleasantry and asked me why I was wishing her so much good fortune ?

    I replied that it was purely mercenary as it would mean that my descendants could load up on really good stuff for pennies on the dollar at her or her partners estate sale.

  42. rbateman (12:27:41) :

    They got their Authority on the subject by playing King of the Hill

    nice picture!

  43. more on #4: Al Gore’s line is that the IPCC reports were produced by 3000 of the world’s best scientists and they agree unanimously. That ties to #5 — there is no debate because IPCC is the answer to every question.

  44. Denier can be flipped though for reality denial. The proxies the warm-ongers rely on for ‘proof’ of AGW show plenty of natural climate change. Worst thing in climate PR to me are the appeals to emotion and authority. 9 out of 10 climatologists say their cats and graphs prefer Domestos. We are not climatologists, our views have no merit because we have not run the peer review gauntlet. Or I guess it’s the need to belong to a particular ‘camp’. Curry’s comments highlighted this with the continuation of the sceptic/denier meme. It’s convenient to lable the camps, but overlooks many of us just want the truth, not manipulated powerpoint presentations sponsored by Gore Inc.

  45. NR (12:28:01) :

    You could find answers to almost every one of those questions by scrolling through WattsUpWithThat posts going back to its beginning. It will take some time but, “seek and you will find”.

  46. ‘That is what I would call an “AlGoreism”’

    You have just coined the perfect word for these F90 and IDL programs!

  47. mkurbo (12:30:07) :

    “Professor, the FBI is on the phone”
    “Tell them I’m busy right now”

    Is he busy changing out the harddrives?

  48. NR (12:28:01)
    _________________
    WUWT has the answers for a couple of your questions in it’s right-hand margin. The climate widget has temperature data that cover more than the period from 1998 to the present. A linear trend through the data from January 1998 to the present has a slope that is barely negative, indicating insignificant cooling.

    There is an ice-area link farther down in the margin. The change in global ice volume has been insignificant.

    Ice-core records suggest that present temperature should be associated with a natural CO2 level of about 265 ppm. The climate widget shows the present level is about 390 ppm. Thus, we might assume that humans are responsible for about 50 % of the CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from burning coal, oil and natural gas.

    In the ice-core records, changes in CO2 follow corresponding changes in temperature, indicating that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas. I haven’t looked at ozone for a long time, but I don’t think there was ever a concern regarding temperature, just that an increasing amount of UV radiation might cause more skin cancer, etc.

    Sea level tends to go up with global temperature, because water expands when it gets warmer. Sea-level data are updated irregularly at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.txt. The data show a 4 cm (2 inch) increase between 1993 and 2006, with the rate of increase slowing down since 2006.

    More CO2 in the atmosphere puts more CO2 into the surficial ocean, which makes it a little more acidic. Bear in mind that about 60 million years ago, CO2 level was about 10-times what it is right now, and sea life flourished.

    Lots of money has been paid by governments for AGW studies.

    Lots of data have been available, but some important data have been hidden, along with the methods of analyzing the data for reaching the AGW conclusions.

    We don’t know what is going to happen over the next few hundred years, because we don’t know how strong the sun will be. Cycles in the earth’s orbit suggest it will be colder several thousand years from now. The effect of fossil fuels on climate seems to be insignificant, so there is no reason to make any change for the sake of climate.

  49. Ah yes, a 50% chance of a mild winter also means a 50% chance of a COLD winter. Would it not have been easier for the met office to say “we don’t know ?.

  50. NR (12:28:01)
    _________________

    The truth is out there.

    You need to invest several hours in internet research (this site is an excellent place to start).

    Switch off the TV. Leave it switched off. That’s my humble advice.

  51. “8. Claims that climate models have been tested. A hallmark of a good theory is that it should predict something which, upon further investigation, turns out to be correct. To my knowledge, climate models have not yet forecasted anything of significance.”

    I thought they predicted a tropical tropospheric hot spot that hasn’t been found.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/

    I thought they predicted a downtrend in outgoing radiation during warming but Lindzen found the opposite in the relevant satellite data.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    I thought they predicted temperature growth during the last 10 years which hasn’t happened. As Prof Trenberth says ” The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

    Do you mean they have not forecast anything that has actually been observed.

    It looks to me that they’ve been tested and found very wanting.

  52. Gene Nemetz (14:16:01) :

    Well, he’d probable have some of those highly educated tech students make sure the hard drives are history, but doesn’t that make them co-conspirators ? We don’t want more of the young and innocent involved…

    On a serious note – don’t you think that all over the world this weekend there are some very serious efforts to destroy all sorts of evidence ? This is not just a science project gone awry –

    – they have cost people, economies and businesses billions, maybe trillions. Not to mention brainwashing a whole generation of kids and young adults with a story based on fabricated data and faulty science. This is without a doubt the greatest scientific scandal of the modern era – spinning the natural warming/cooling cycles of the earth into a fairy tale of catastrophe climate alarmism to support their far left agenda.

    People will go to jail…

  53. Comment on #3: Anyone who has contemplated publishing an idea contrary to the Gospel according to Al knows this. As a part time researcher in the field, I had what I thought were some very good ideas & bounced them off of some important names in the field. I got lots of good feedback on my ideas, but an overwhelming amount of feedback indicating it would be nearly impossible to get published due to how political the current peer review process was. This was 2 years ago. The feedback was discouraging enough that I choose to not waste my time trying – given the very low chance of success. I wonder how much other research in the field has been effective squashed as a result of #3. It is truly a scientific tragedy.

  54. The ‘precautionary principle’ is my pet hate along with the ‘c’ word – no not carbon, but ‘could’.

    ‘Global temperatures could rise 6 degrees in the next 10 years.’

    This type of statement provides no meaningful information, but is often used by the MSM and climate scientists.

  55. #11 Green jobs ( or green anything, green backgrounds in various corporate ads, green economy, green energy etc).

    This stuff makes me want to go out and burn a huge pile of discarded tires in protest…

    Think of what could have actually been done with the countless BILLIONS of dollars spent by our government on promoting AGW hysteria toward real environmental concerns. You know, the non-headline grabbing stuff like clean air, clean water and clean energy (nuclear).

  56. Bravo, hit the nail on the head with these annoyances. Look man does transform his environment, Man does effect the area around him ( look at cities for crying out loud ) We pollute areas and make things icky at times, but please please please stop talking about us changing the temperature through CO2 emissions with the limited proof that you have. IT MAY BE WHAT IS HAPPENING but we still don’t know. Talking down to us who actually take time to read through the literature and try to understand what the scientists are talking about and yet cannot agree with the conclusions because, well to be honest we can do math. Hate to say it but the increase in temperature does not make sense to the degrees that they have stated via mathematics.

    Anyway enough of my rant… Good post thanks.

  57. R Taylor (14:23:29)

    Thanks R Taylor for your time and the answers.

    Gene Nemetz (14:07:56)
    Kitefreak (14:38:38)

    Thanks to you too. I’ll gonna check more of this site. It’s a lot of info, but like everything in life, I’m gonna just take one step at a time to learn more.

  58. I think Neo (13:45:11) is on to something. If all the climate legislation is enacted there would no longer be much need for climate scientists. So, the obvious conclusion is James Hansen is actually “the hacker”! Now he can continue climate research for years to come. ;-)

  59. in denial (15:53:23) :

    #11 Green jobs ( or green anything, green backgrounds in various corporate ads, green economy, green energy etc).

    This stuff makes me want to go out and burn a huge pile of discarded tires in protest…

    That was so funny – I just cracked up laughing !!! Thanks in denial…

  60. Kitefreak (15:51:18) :

    I just had some leftover turkey. Are you trying to ruin my whole post turkey eating L-tryptophan sleepy period with your “suggestion” of
    “People will not go to jail; they are currently on the BBC website:”

    I will be mad as hell if that happens…

  61. NR (16:37:04)
    __________________
    You’re welcome, but I should correct an error. If humans have increased CO2 to 390 ppm from a “natural” level of 265 ppm, humans would be responsible for about 1/3 of the CO2, not 1/2.

  62. Anyone mention the magic and always fearsome “Tipping Points”?

    Which reminds me of the claim that GW will be worse on women than men, and right smack in the face of the fact that women tend to float better.

  63. And the treaty, or some kind of agreement to ‘do something’ will be signed in Copenhagen next month.

    They will agree to do something. What they won’t get round to is actually doing very much.

    Pretty much every country is going to fudge their emissions, so that global CO2 isn’t going to fall very much at all. I’m betting it will continue to rise.

    That, in turn, will encourage others to increasingly slip out of their agreements.

    No-one wants to be seen to publicly break ranks and cook the planet, but there is sufficient residual scepticism about the whole thing that few politicians will actually risk their careers by breaking their country’s economy.

    So we will see the West all line up to sign, but they will have their fingers crossed, so it won’t count! :-)

  64. Why do people say you can’t verify/validate the climate models? We used to do this all the time in aeospace, models had to be matematically verified before we could code to them – they take this sort of thing seriously when it involves lives.
    Its expensive, granted, but normally quite possible

  65. Here’s my pick for Annoyance #11:
    Dr Spencer is sued by Gore’s good buddy David Letterman, who thinks that he holds a valid copyright on the expression “Top 10 List”.

  66. “tipping point”, “it may already be too late” and “unprecedented” really get on my last nerve.

  67. My question is how does Obama think he can go to Copenhagen and offerup the US’s pledge to cut emissions by 17%? He does not have a deal in the US. How can he do that?

  68. Here’s one that makes me go “ugh!”

    Carbon (and they mean CO2).

    I have to agree with putting “Climate Change” at #1.

  69. vjones (11:32:16) : I can’t believe you left off “The science is settled” and “consensus”. Still I suppose were so many to choose from. Arghh!

    Yep. “Consensus” and “The science is settled, the debate is over” are the ones I was looking for on the top 10.

  70. NR (12:28:01) :

    For what it is worth, Gavin at RC has instituted a “Data Sources” page.
    Please see here

    A mini-step in the right direction but it remains to be seen if Hansen will henceforth let everyone in on his data and how it is massaged?

    Quote from RC:

    “… Therefore, we have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc. We have made a start on this on a new Data Sources page, but if anyone has other links that we’ve missed, note them in the comments and we’ll update accordingly. …”

  71. Message to NR (12:28:01)

    I am going to assume that you are earnestly seeking answers, and are not some AGW shill looking to start some kind of debate. If so, my recommendation (to go along with some of the other recommendations posted here) is a wonderful, short paperback, which you can likely find, either at your local library, or (and I praise the Good Lord for this almost every day!!) see if your local library is affiliated with Interlibrary Loan (ILL for short). This way, you can read the book, and decide if you would like to buy it.

    This can be read in one sitting, and is chock full of non-technical information:

    Hayden, Howard C. (2008) A Primer on CO2 and Climate

    and specify in your ILL request that you would like to read the SECOND edition, which added a great deal of new information.

    See if that helps, and in the mean time, I can try to answer specific questions for you, if you would like to contact me at my e-mail address.

    NOTE TO MODERATOR: I am supplying this address to the individual who posted on this thread, voluntarily. Please allow the address to show:

    maxheadache@yahoo.com

    Feel free to contact me at any time. I cannot promise a timely response, just that there will be one.

    May Blessings be upon you and yours, as you search for answers.

    Mark Hladik

  72. in denial said

    #11 Green jobs ( or green anything, green backgrounds in various corporate ads, green economy, green energy etc).

    This stuff makes me want to go out and burn a huge pile of discarded tires in protest…

    Think of what could have actually been done with the countless BILLIONS of dollars spent by our government on promoting AGW hysteria toward real environmental concerns. You know, the non-headline grabbing stuff like clean air, clean water and clean energy (nuclear).

    I found at least a billion/year? earmarked for climate research in the USA at http://www.drda.umich.edu/news/research_reporter/2009/01jan/washupdate.html

    In 1981 the cost to build a nuclear power plant escalated from $400 million to $4 billion, simply because of the schedule stretch-out and high interest rates thanks to nuclear protesters. (the Boston Globe had want ads $10/hr for protesters) So if we could build the plants without interference we could have paid for one a year with the funds earmarked for climate research. However the US is no longer capable of fabricating nuclear power plants. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html

    Can we sue all those protest organizations like Greenpeace for the destruction of the environment caused by needlessly burning coal for energy instead of using nice clean Nuclear???

    And yes I am also getting very very tired of the word “green” especially since I have several acres of standing firewood but I do not want to waste money putting in a wood furnace until I find out what the heck is going to happen with CO2 laws.

  73. If the Global Takeover succeeds, Mann, Jones, Hansen, et.al. will become unwanted witnesses. To find out what happens to unwanted witnesses, try Simon Sebag Montefiore’s ‘The Court of the Red Czar’. It has lines like: ‘The emissaries were shot.”

  74. I’ve changed my home page from Google.com search home page to Bing.com search as my home page.
    Thanks for the info WUWT.

  75. 2. “It’ll create millions of green jobs”

    The official Party Line is it’ll create millions of *high-paying* green jobs.

    After all, Windmill Installation Technicians make almost $19 per hour.

    When they’re actually installing windmills, anyway…

  76. Yes I have gone for Bing.com too.

    Cleaner, neater…….

    The # 1 annoyance for me is ‘CO2 is a poison and pollutant’

    The trees in my wood shake with laughter when I tell them that………

    They may be wooden headed but they know the truth…..

  77. Mike (13:46:01) :

    You’re of course right, apologies to all the real scientists I might have tarnished. My statement did the whole of Science a disservice.

    I’ll rephrase:

    Climate pseudo-scientists could learn a thing or two.

    or, to be even more correct:

    Climate quacks could learn a thing or two.

  78. Another example of bending the data to fit the desired target.

    The UK Met Office has released its Winter forecast – 50% chance of being milder that usual.

    Within that is an explanation.

    What do we mean by drier, near average and wetter

    The UK average for December to February for the period 1971–2000 is 332 mm. A wetter winter in the UK is defined by precipitation totals greater than 336 mm, near average by precipitation totals between 294 mm and 336 mm and drier by precipitation totals below 294 mm.

    If the UK average is 332mm, how can the average band be 294 to 336mm?

    If the average is 332mm, then their average band should be 311 to 353mm. Suggesting that their prediction is that the winter is 50% likely to be of average wetness. ie their 30/35/35% bry/average/wet predictions would become 25/50/25% ish

    This was obviously not a politically cvorrect prediction to make just before Copenhagen!!

  79. “10. The claim that reducing CO2 emissions is the right thing to do anyway.
    Oh, really? What if life on Earth (which requires CO2 for its existence) is actually benefiting from more CO2? ”

    Roy, shouldn’t this be “What life on Earth ….is actually benefiting from LESS CO2?”

    Regards

  80. Roy. Excellent

    11. The atmosphere is thickening with c02 blanket (Ed Milliband).

    If the fraction of Anthroc02 is constant (and mathematical constants are still constant, no matter how they are thrashed to make them appear inconstant) then it must be natural c02 which is thickening the atmosphere. However, the atmosphere’s mass is 15 quintillion kg, and all c02 is 700GT, even all c02 can’t justify that claim, unless it were increased by 100,000% upwards – not merely a doubling, with a factor of 3.67 equivalent

  81. Another annoyance: Those whom we dare not name.

    “the popular Real Climate blog […] Shortly afterwards, the documents appeared at a site frequented by climate skeptics”

    http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/uk-hack-puts-climate-scientists-personal-e-mails-on-display.ars

    Honestly, when people make themselves subservient to authority, and when authorities continue to have a holier-than-thou attitude, they should remember what usually happens to authorities in the end: we discover they are flawed and not deserving of unquestioned trust. Church priests abusing children, spiritual gurus abusing women, police with institutionalised racism, governments going to war based on secret intelligence, manufacturers who hide harmful ingredients—basically anyone in a position of power has the potential to exploit that power.

    I am sure there are many who believe that science is the only route to true knowledge. And generally speaking, as a method, as a recipe, that is true. But there seems to be a confusion of the method of science, with the image of scientists. Just like people confused spiritual service as a method, with an image of purity of the guru. People believe in spirituality so they fall into believing the priest or the guru.

    There have been airline crashes because the crew didn’t feel it was their place to question the Captain. Well it only takes a few accidents and then the culture of subservience has to change. I hear that on military submarines, the culture is that anyone can check and question the Captain’s orders—it is a complex dangerous environment and people have to check everything at every level.

    So this relatively young science of climatology, is facing a transition from a hierarchical culture to a more open and non-hierarchical system, where trust is not implicit, but where we trust that which we can check and monitor.

    In the broader picture, this doesn’t harm the greater project of cleaning up the environment. Climate change is global, but so is mercury poisoning, and any other chemical that we dump into the environment. For certain, we need global systems to deal with these problems that transcend national borders. But these will be based on openness and flexibility, and not on a new level of secret authoritarian power.

  82. “Phil A, you missed the verification bit. As I learnt testing, it’s one thing to know you’ve built the right thing, but something completely different to know whether you built it right. Subtle but important difference.” – bil

    Yes, Verification is whether the program successfully executes its design. Validation is whether the design actually works.

    If the design spec says you add two numbers by multiplying them and 3 + 3 gives 6 then it has passed verification but will fail validation. If 3 + 3 gives 9 then it passes validation but fails verification.

    Having seen Harry’s comments, I rather suspect their models would fail both!

  83. Doh! *smacks head on desk*

    After all that I got it the wrong way around!

    If 3 + 3 gives 6 then that’s passing validation and failing verification (for the case where the spec says you add by multiplying)

    And vice versa for 3 + 3 giving 9.

    Doh!

  84. The medical profession has discovered that a poison contained in a United Nations variant of fudge was the cause of a debilitating brain disease among scientists.

    The disease is known to have steadily spread among the scientific community for over two decades and taken a terrible grip over the reasoning powers of many. Victims can readily be identified by a green complexion. Other side effects include an irrational hatred of mankind and a Tourette syndrome-like verbal abuse of anyone who uses fossil fuels. Threats of violence may occur. But as leaked over the Internet on November 20th 2009, a break through treatment to the affliction has been found at the UK’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). A vast community of Internet surfers soon sought to memorialise this profound happening by naming it, ‘Climategate.’

    From leaked documents we understand that the catalyst for this epoch change in scientific understanding occurred when a climatologist and self-taught computer programmer known as ‘Harry’ was sat at his laboratory computer chewing on some fudge. It was then, after three years mulling over the problem and in a Fleming-like eureka moment, it dawned on him. In Harry’s hands was the cause of brain fog mystery.

    “F**k! It’s the fudge! It’s serial!” he cried.

    Inadvertently, Harry has become the hero the public associate with the solving one of the great mysteries of modern science. Since those findings have appeared on the Internet the world has quickly accepted that it was foul fudge that caused scientists to suffer that dreadful disease.

    Pyschologists have been quick to identify the hallucinagenic properties of the offending fudge and unravel this whole mystery. The fudge has been found to contain a psychotropic substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in changes in perception, mood, consciousness and behavior leading patients to feel delusions of grandeur and a sense of spiritual purpose in their lives.

    It appears lone-wolf Harry, after a debilitating three years wasted in the CRU laboratory had inadvertently and subliminally faced the truth and by a process of ‘cognitive dissonance,’ shocked himself out of the effects of the psychotropic intoxicant that in some causes the hallucinogenic appearance of a mythical beast known as, ‘Man-Bear-Pig’. Apparently, most recovering ‘addicts’(for the fudge-eating was clearly an addiction) soon notice a change in the physical appearance of their eyes which begin to lose their tainted green colouration once they come off the fudge.

    Climate scientists, who have been identified as the worst fudge sufferers are reporting the same side effects as Harry. Patients routinely exhibit anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states until the disease clears the system. The recovery process, say psychologists, is always accompanied by a thought pattern change they term, ‘cognitive dissonance.’ A new name has been coined to describe the fudge-induced malady and “Climate War Syndrome” is fast following “Climategate” into common usage as the world gets a new handle on what was one of the great mysteries of our time.

    Of course, like any serious disease, there will always be cases that won’t respond well to treatment. Those worst cases permeated with the deepest shade of green are alleged to be James Hansen, Michael Mann and Phil Jones whom may all need to be quarantined in isolation for several years.

  85. EnviroMENTALism is not logical. You cannot use logic and facts to change the minds of some one whose beliefs are not based on logic and facts.

  86. I have watched the unfolding Climategate saga for the last week hoping that the release of how despicable some of the most influential climate scientist have behaved and thinking that this was the key to revealing the truth, but given the now apparent [almost] total lack of interest by the MSM it would seem that we have been debating from the wrong perspective. This thing is not about science. It’s never been about science. It is about environmentalism and politics. Science was merely a means to an end, the tool to convey the message and out there there are millions of willing believers. As I see it the victory I thought we had is a pyrrhic one. As long as the temperature goes up, regardless of why, they are in the driving seat and a new mediaevalism is all that is in prospect.

  87. this just in from the drained swamp queen, Nancy Pelosi…Pelosi, ” I’m trying to save the planet”

  88. Mark Hladik (20:11:06):

    Got your email. I’ll try to search for the book with my local library. I think it would be a little difficult since I live in Panama, but I’ll try or buy it through amazon.

    I’m not a shill. I just one those who is tired of people lying so they can take advantage of others, and AWG is an example of that. The IPCC crew were in my country a couple of weeks ago, to “show” the local government and environmental experts how the things are going with AWG. I gonna find out if my taxes paid for their trip.

    Thanks.

  89. Gail Combs (21:08:05) :

    In 1981 the cost to build a nuclear power plant escalated from $400 million to $4 billion, simply because of the schedule stretch-out and high interest rates thanks to nuclear protesters. (the Boston Globe had want ads $10/hr for protesters) So if we could build the plants without interference we could have paid for one a year with the funds earmarked for climate research. However the US is no longer capable of fabricating nuclear power plants. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html

    Just think how much better it would have been to use bailout money to create infrastructure (e. g. manufacturing capability) and jobs instead of bailing out financial institutions that make predatory loans.

  90. This isn’t an exact quote….I wish I had saved a link to the article about sea level changes:

    The sea level was 2 meters higher than today. We don’t know what caused it in the past, but we know it isn’t the same thing driving the change now.

    if you don’t know, then why can’t it be the same as today?!?!?

Comments are closed.