John Nielsen-Gammon: Skeptics Are Not Deniers

Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon
Texas A&M Regents Professor and Texas State Climatologist

From his Climate Abyss blog at the Houston Chronicle, Texas State Climatologist Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon takes an extended interest in Dr. Robert Brown’s comment-turned-essay on WUWT.

Skeptics Are Not Deniers: A Conversation (part 1)

Robert Brown, a Lecturer of Physics at Duke University, had an essay up on Watts Up With That?.  It was originally a comment, but Anthony Watts made it a full post, noting “as commenter REP put it in the update: ‘it is eloquent, insightful and worthy of consideration.’”

The comment came in response to the controversy over the use of the term “denier” in a Nature paper by Bain et al. as the category name for people who either “believed climate change was occurring, but that humans were not contributing substantially to it, or did not believe the climate was changing”.

Bain, in attempting to explain himself, digs a deeper hole.  First he notes that those he would call skeptics and those he would call deniers are two distinct sets of people: “So in my mind we were ultimately challenging such “denier” stereotypes. But because we were focused on our target audience, it is true that I naively didn’t pay enough attention to the effect the label would have on other audiences, notably skeptics.”  But then, he proceeds to refer to skeptics as those who believe AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is not occurring, which is precisely fits the definition of “denier” given in his Nature study!

Brown’s comment offers a different characterization of most skeptics, at least those who frequent WUWT, including himself: “they do not ‘deny’ AGW…What they challenge is the catastrophic label and the alleged magnitude of the projected warming on a doubling of CO2.”  This seems to be cleanly outside Bain’s “denier” definition, but since Bain equated deniers with skeptics, Bain is tarring them both with a broad brush.

I must note here that Brown’s definition of “skeptic” also arguably fits most surveyed members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, of whom 57% regard global climate change as at most moderately dangerous.

The rest of Brown’s essay is a defense of (his own) skepticism, as he has defined it.  It actually is very high-quality, as such things go, so it’s worth discussing.

So as to have an actual discussion, rather than merely a critique, I sent him my immediate responses, and he responded to them, and I responded to his responses, etc.  Our conversation remained interesting (at least to me) even as it grew longer and longer.  So I’m posting it in six parts, to be released in six consecutive days.

Here’s Part 1.  The numbered points are summarized by me from his WUWT post.  Note that none of the issues really get argued through to resolution, but you get a good sense of where we’re coming from.

See the full post at:

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/07/skeptics-are-not-deniers-a-conversation-part-1/

About these ads

131 thoughts on “John Nielsen-Gammon: Skeptics Are Not Deniers

  1. N-G is hiding behind an ice free Antarctica…from 30 Mya ! ! !

    I’m embarassed for the Lone Star state….we can’t guess albedo to +/- 0.5 but we detect a signal from +/- 0.000001 change in CO2….what happened to the concept of “significant digits” ? ? ?

  2. All genuine scientists are skeptics. There is, however, such a thing as a denier, as much as I hate to use the word, and they may occupy any side of any issue. They can be identified by their refusal to admit even the possibility that they may be wrong.

  3. This should get very interesting. From the first few interactions it appears John N-G hasn’t had to deal with anyone with the knowledge that Dr. Robert Brown possesses. John makes a couple of illogical statements that Robert quickly points out.

    The biggest problem in climate science is it really is built on a broad base of junk. Yes, junk. Nothing but guesses at things no one really understands to any substantial degree. Those who try to defend it can be easily made to look silly when the lack of certainty is made apparent. Most do what John just did. They make general claims about models, etc. that can’t be directly refuted but contain no information at all.

    Junk science built on junk data from people who won’t call it what it is … junk.

  4. I must note here that Brown’s definition of “skeptic” also arguably fits most surveyed members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, of whom 57% regard global climate change as at most moderately dangerous.

    That’s a fair bit of spin on that study! The actual numbers ( http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ) are that “Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.” So only 13% see it as posing “relatively little danger”. “Moderately dangerous” does not seem like a skeptic to me. Presumably, most people would not believe that we should take no mitigating action to address something that is moderately dangerous!

    And, to say it “will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years” is a very dramatic statement. If they had surveyed me, I probably would have debated quite a bit between saying something that strong and certain or just going with moderately dangerous. After all, “very great danger to the earth” seems to imply that the Earth itself is in peril. And, I think that the Earth will survive just fine (especially over the geologic time scale) even if we manage to kill off most of ourselves and a large fraction of other species; after all, such cataclysmic events have happened before. Still, that doesn’t mean it is something I don’t want to put any effort into avoiding!!!!

  5. Always willing to think the best of people, I admit to accepting his response/explanation as an apologetic overture and was magnanimous in my comments. I am exceedingly critical of someone’s science, and never critical enough of their motives or their personal explanations.

    Live and learn

    Thanks

  6. “And, I think that the Earth will survive just fine (especially over the geologic time scale) even if we manage to kill off most of ourselves and a large fraction of other species; after all, such cataclysmic events have happened before. Still, that doesn’t mean it is something I don’t want to put any effort into avoiding!!!!”

    Ha! Well said. It’s that old ‘perspective thing”.

    It’s time to mow the lawn.

  7. “The rest of Brown’s essay is a defense of (his own) skepticism, as he has defined it. It actually is very high-quality, as such things go, so it’s worth discussing.”

    “…as such things go”
    lol
    Is that damning-with-faint-praise, or praising-with-faint-damns?
    I don’t think I need to read parts 2,3,4,5, and 6, Sir.

  8. The American Physical Society among others has stated the evidence is incontrovertible. Lets look at the definition of incontrovertible:

    http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/incontrovertible

    incontrovertible
    adjective that is true and cannot be disagreed with or denied

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incontrovertible

    Adj. 1. incontrovertible – impossible to deny or disprove

    In both cases, “incontrovertible” means impossible to deny. To deny something that is impossible to deny is impossible. Therefore, there cannot be any deniers.

    That is the beauty of truth. It has no contradiction. A lie on the other hand always has an end, because it leads to a logical contradiction.

  9. This is interesting. I was just settling in for a good long read when Part 1 ended. Can’t wait for Part 2.

  10. Is it N-G’s position that we are in fact deniers? Not sure I understand the point of this exchange. N-G is model-oriented and I’ve not seen any models with enough skill to outwit a room full of monkeys. RGB nails that point well and the uncertainty challenge is unanswered with models.

    What happened 30MYA is not relevant and there is no evidence conditions from that time are recurring. It is quite likely the current land mass arrangement disallows many things that happened then while allowing other things previously denied.

    Which brings me to my favorite point: Climate is the frame work within which weather happens. It forms the bounds for what we witness and can witness. It is always changing. Not in a fickle way but in a slow ponderous way. Most importantly it is not global. There are enough variables in the system to allow climate excursions regionally which is why we see Antarctic ice increase as Arctic ice is blown into the north Atlantic.

    Climate change is entirely normal and not to be feared but to be understood. It will make no adjustments to appease our comforts – that is our job. The lull in the current glaciation cycle is just that. The ice will return and there is not stopping it. Unlike what happened 30MYA, the ice is recurring and receded only recently in geologic time. Our state of Washington bears the scars of it like it happened yesterday (learn more at Scablands).

  11. If you think about it, there’s a lot of “marketing” going on with AGW. Don’t like what someone says, just throw out a label, “Denier”, problem solved. No need to think of consider another point of view, just throw our a marketing label and turn off the brain.

    Someone published research the contradicts AGW, just call it, “junk science” or “research bought by the oil companies”, problem solved. No need to even consider any contradiction.

  12. Absolute applause for Dr N-G. This is what a frank and honest discussion of climate science looks like. This is what a discussion with Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth and the rest of “the team” does NOT look like. I’ll not say a single ill word about his position vs Dr Brown’s. This is not about who won the argument. This is about showing the world what a civil argument based on facts and logic looks like. Kudos to both Dr N-G and to Dr Brown.

  13. Chicken Little climatologists
    How they label us is not important. What is important is for us to label them.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  14. John Nielsen-Gammon: Skeptics Are Not Deniers
    ================================================

    @all so called “skeptics”. Just forget the whole climate hoax (debate, controversy, fiction, whatever) for a minute and focus on the phrase “Skeptics Are Not Deniers”. Isn’t it ridiculous? Yes, it is in multiple ways.

    First, this is “sceptics against scientists” implication, bad for “Sceptics”.

    Second, “skeptic” implies a weak or even unreasonable position per definition: “someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs” (WordWeb dictionary).

    To the term “denier”. It has a bad connotation, but it’s original meaning is “One who denies” (WordWeb dictionary). So if a “skeptic” does not agree with catastrophic AGW, then from the standpoint of those who believe that it is a fact they can logically call “skeptics” “deniers”. The problem is only that there is a bad connotation there because of the term “Holocaust denier”.

    The most ridiculous thing is when “skeptics” argue that they do not deny AGW. No, it is irrelevant, that there is something you do not deny, because they do not call you denier for that. They call you “denier” for what you deny, like the catastrophic consequences. You do deny the catastrophic consequences, don’t you, so what is the problem?

    Now, if you want them stop calling you denier, if it is so important to you, then… right, then agree with them on everything. This would be at least logical. Or stop whining, lose your humiliating term “skeptic” and start questioning everything about the AGW concept.

  15. I am a scientist. I have studied possible causes for climate change for the past 33 years, focusing upon biogenic methane releases from agriculture. I have published in the peer reviewed literature and am considered an expert in my field.

    I am also a skeptic of wild, exaggerated claims by hyperventilating types (Hansen esp.) who have clear political agendas and those with overt economic motivations (Pachauri, Gore et.al). Most of the data they defend is trash, as exposed by the elegant analysis of Stephe McIntyre and others.

    The global system is far too complex to define in the precise and concrete terms that they use. I don’t deny that there might be a relationship between man’s activities and climate, but I have yet to see this proven. Prof. Lindzen’s opinions on the subject are very much like my own. If they want to call me a “denier,” my feelings aren’t hurt. They are asses.

  16. joeldshore says:
    July 9, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    ===================

    Your link is from an article dated April 24, 2008. That was at a time when most of us believed in the integrity of scientists.

    The cat is now out of the bag and it has been revealed that the the so-called ‘climate scientists’ have no integrity or code of ethics. This comment of yours and others from the past show you fit right in with their scheme of things.

    I will do my best to not call you a troll, but it taxes my general disposition. I will just try consider that you are a fire and brimstone type of believer. To consider that also taxes my disposition.

    Well … just let me ask. Are you a troll?

  17. “N-G: Wrong. For eons, until about 30 million years ago, the Antarctic was ice-free. The climate state associated with the ice-free Antarctic was warmer by several degrees…”

    Yeah, because the Antarctic continent was not yet at the southern pole! Being north of the southern pole gave it a better shot at being warm!

    The Wikipedia has the South Atlantic beginning to open after the Cretaceous, circa 145 to 65 MA. . .
    Over time, Gondwana gradually broke apart and Antarctica as we know it today was formed around 25 million years ago. Antarctica was not always cold, dry and covered in ice sheets. . .
    About 65 MA, Antarctica (then connected to Australia) still had a tropical to subtropical climate, complete with a marsupial fauna. About 40 MA Australia-New Guinea separated from Antarctica, so that latitudinal currents could isolate Antarctica from Australia, and the first ice began to appear. . . Around 23 MA. . . ice began to spread, replacing the forests that then covered the continent. Since about 15 MA, the continent has been mostly covered with ice, with the Antarctic ice cap reaching its present extension around 6 Ma.

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

    So, N-G is saying that continental drift had nothing to do with the change in climate faced by Antarctica?
    Buy me another drink!

  18. There are two peices of actual evidence that there is no recent third stable warm state. There are trapped bubbles of air in deep, as in 200,000 years deep, antarctic ice, that show the following:
    1) Twice the carbon dioxide (at twice the atmospheric pressure to boot) as now.
    2) Trapped in ICE.
    This means that if we arrive at twice the amount of carbon dioxide as now, we will have ice in antarctica.

    This is hard physical data. It shows that the models are flat out wrong.
    X2 CO2 and ice, any questions?

  19. michael hart says:
    July 9, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    “The rest of Brown’s essay is a defense of (his own) skepticism, as he has defined it. It actually is very high-quality, as such things go, so it’s worth discussing.”

    “…as such things go”
    lol
    Is that damning-with-faint-praise, or praising-with-faint-damns?
    I don’t think I need to read parts 2,3,4,5, and 6, Sir.

    And you will be a poorer man for it, because this is a remarkably good discussion. To pick at a nit, and throw away the opportunity to read an engaging and frank debate where a warmist honestly engages a skeptic because of that nit, is your loss.

    Thank you John Nielsen-Gammon for your frank engagement with the indomitable Robert Brown.

  20. Skeptics are normal people who expect others to do their jobs. Not enrich themselves by satisfying left wing academics and politicians with obvious nonsense.

  21. I said I would say no ill of Dr N-G because I think he does both sides a noble service by making his conversation with Dr B public in this fashion. No matter what your own belief is, this discussion in this format has enormous value and I for one intend to read every word of each installment.

    Now having said that, I never said that I wouldn’t keep score. I have scored the first round as being rather decisive, with one of the protagonists well ahead on points. I believe there was one foul incurred due to an “out of bounds” argument, but otherewise a clean bout so far.

    I believe I shall need more popcorn, and perhaps a hot dog and pop.

  22. “Sceptic” is a term that still retains an objective meaning. “Denier”, thanks to its chronic overuse by Holocaustians (not a real word), has acquired pejorative overtones that make it more a term of abuse than a word fit for polite discourse. Other words have copped similar treatment: you need to be careful who you describe as “gay” these days.
    To appreciate the true quality of “denier”, just use “(crude equivalent of “rectal sphincter”)” instead to see the level of debate aimed for.
    When science is reduced to what is, effectively, petty name-calling, it is not science.

  23. Greg House says:
    July 9, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    “Or stop whining, lose your humiliating term “skeptic” and start questioning everything about the AGW concept.”

    Greg, you are the one who is whining now. Scepticism is at the very heart of the practice of real science. It is necessary to every step, and it is nearly completely absent from every step used in the practice of “mainstream Climate Science” – except when they deign to publish their “materials and methods” so that their studies can be truly “peer reviewed”. Therefore, quite to the contrary, it is “mainstream Climate Science which needs to “start questioning everything about the AGW concept”. The sceptics have been doing it all along!

  24. Copied from: http://anotherviewonclimate.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/a-very-good-point-about-skeptics/

    A Very Good Point About Skeptics

    As Dr. Lindzen points out in the video, below, the term “skeptic” implies being skeptical about a plausible thesis. People in doubt (most of us) about the faked moon landing or the flat Earth are not referred to as skeptics. Since catastrophic warming (CW) is not a plausible theory then the word “skeptic” really should be dropped. Perhaps realist or rational thinker would be a better term.

    What would be catastrophic would be for this planet to fall back into another ice age, a far more likely occurrence, though that’s likely to be way out in the future.

  25. [I have made two replies, now posted at Chron.com under my a.k.a. Joseph A Olson, PE. My third comment may not have posted, so will address that here]

    This is the same monotribe Warmist-Luke debate as the April 2010 faux debate in “Discover” [choke] magazine between Curry-Mann which prompted my article “Non Science Nonsense” and the first use of the term “Luke Warmer”. N-G responded to my analysis at the chron.com of the previously unknow origin Antarctic C-14 anomolies with a flippant, and unfunny comment….if he wants humor, he should visit the “Satire” tab at my website. Now for a simple quiz on the three subjects i covered in my Dennis Miller interview in Mar 2011….

    THERMAL MASS….How can 28 gigatons of a benign, natural three atom gas control the temperature of 359 trillion cubic miles of mostly molten rock at ~2500F….AND….310 million cubic miles of ocean at ~4F….AND….the 99.9% of the atmoshpere that is NOT CO2….and the 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere that is NOT of human origin ?

    RADIATION TRANSMISSION….Outgoing photons travel at the speed of light, some can strike a CO2 molecule causing a billionth of a second vibration [absorption-emission] with the emitted photon now of lower energy and longer wavelength that is invisible to additional CO2 absorption. How can this momentary energy be directed from the cooler atmosphere back to the still warmer Earth ?

    CO2 TOXICITY….Every living human inhales 400 PPM CO2 and exhales 40,000 PPM, yet 5 out of 9 science illiterate windbags on the Supreme Court have affirmed the EPA, that “your mother’s warm breath on your baby face is a toxin”…..WHY ?

    The comments by NewtLove & Legatos above are also valid, thanks Anthony for hosting the ONLY true science debate forum on the planet.

  26. Irrespective of a scientist being labelled with anything, there is a large group of participants in the discussion about the state of the Earth whose driving interest is that bad science be called out and that good science be recognised.
    Unfortunately, to recognise good science, you need to have lived it. When you do, the signs of bad science light up. I had a fortunate life, being surrounded by very good scientists, very good being applicable because they were accountable, they delivered the goods, they apologised for mistakes and they directed their efforts to work likely to produce a product of value. They were also teachers of the upcoming.
    Labels mean nothing. Concentrate on the production of valuable ideas and material goods.

  27. If you’re not a skeptic, you’re not a scientist. A skeptic is someone who wants to see evidence, and who values it above all other things. So is a scientist.

    In science, there is no higher law than evidence. All things give way before it. Models and speculation, no matter how elegant (or how deeply believed-in) cannot substitute for observed data. Why else did humanity spend untold billions to build the LHC? Why did we orbit the Hubble Telescope? Why are there robots on Mars? Why is Voyager leaving the Heliosheath…if not in order to obtain evidence? Why bother, if our guesses are good enough?

    “Denier” is an ad hominem term. So is “warmist”. They are debating techniques, and base ones at that. They have no place in science. All that matters is where one stands on the evidence. At present, there simply is no statistically significant observational evidence demonstrating a causal linkage between CO2 (let alone human-produced CO2) and global climate. Temperatures are not responding to increased CO2 concentrations as the models say they should. Nor are predicted phenomena being observed. Sea level rise is not accelerating. Ice is not disappearing, much less “death-spiralling”. Predicted tropospheric hot spots are absent. There is no increase in storm frequency or severity. Ecosystems are not perishing. Entire species are not disappearing. None of the model predictions, no matter how modest or how lurid, are being borne out.

    On the other hand, lobster is getting cheaper. Okay – who predicted THAT?

    Meanwhile, as to the notion that “every reputable scientist agrees that the earth is warming”…well, what does the EVIDENCE say? Anthony has spent the better part of the last several years demonstrating that we cannot trust the US land-based temperature record because the instruments are poorly sited and maintained. Steve Goddard has shown that we cannot trust it because of illogical manual alterations to that record by GISS. The UHI has not been adequately quantified or understood. The UEA admits that their original temperature data no longer exist. Four-fifths of the measuring stations disappeared over the past couple of decades. I don’t disagree that we assume/think the Earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age (fancy that!) – but from a point of view of the data that we do have, there are sound scientific reasons to be skeptical about the EVIDENCE that it has warmed. For crying out loud, this very site just published yet another peer-reviewed study showing that the Earth has actually cooled since the Roman Warm Period!

    Stop and think about the stakes for just a moment. We just spent decades and tens of billions of dollars trying to figure out if our models were right or wrong about the Higgs Boson. But if the models were wrong, all that would have happened is that a bunch of physicists will spend the next few years being very happy and very busy. The lives of average people will not be affected one jot or tittle. But if we’re wrong about the AGW thesis and the models based upon its assumptions, then we are going to drastically alter the trajectory of human technology at enormous (probably unbearable) expense for no logical purpose, deepening the catastrophic financial straits in which the developed states find themselves, and preventing developing states from using cheap energy to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The human cost of making the wrong move will be incalculable.

    That’s the sort of step you don’t really want to take until you’re confident in your evidence, wouldn’t you say?

  28. While Gammon appears to be follow the usual route of try to define ‘skeptic’ in way to suit his own stance rather an honest approach .

    “did not believe the climate was changing” I have wonder if Gammon could actual name someone that claims that climate does not change , if he can’t they this group basically does not exist . Its use really is to try a label AGW skeptics as ‘deniers’ of all science as we see with claims their creationists to, this is part of the attempt to negatively label people with different views which got Gammon the well deserved flak in the first place .

  29. Geoff Sherrington says:
    July 10, 2012 at 12:35 am

    Labels mean nothing. Concentrate on the production of valuable ideas and material goods.

    Ideally, you’re right. In practice (emotively), you’re wrong. Do not discount the power of an emotional “label”; it can direct, draw, push, and pull thinking in subtle and overt ways, especially in generating and accreting “arguments” that prop it up and facilitate its vigourous application wherever and whenever possible.

  30. The Earth’s climate is changing and man has little or no control over it. To me that is an undeniable fact. Another undeniable fact is that “climate science” as practiced by the majority of “climate scientists” is not a real science. In what category am I?
    Jay Davis

  31. This part of the J N-G series appears to be a paleoclimatological discussion, so I’ll hold my comments until (if) they start discussing how well/poorly climate models work during the recent (post-1976) warming period.

  32. This posting epitomizes something of the best of WUWT, and attitudes generally that help science progress by informed and courteous debate.

    But it has me thinking. What has been missing from Science for so long, is a “scientific” handling of the human dimension, the experimenter, his co-workers, and his popularizers the media. Climate Science has showed the human dimension returning to hit with a vengeance, as fullblown serial corruption, as all suppressed matters will do, as any good psychologist knows.

    WUWT works so well precisely because of its balance of interest between science and its human / social / political effects. This works to keep most discussions here flowing with “popcorn” interest.

    But there have been exceptions. Always, in my perception, the handling of actual frontier science has been the area fraught with difficulties over discussion and courtesy. Sometimes it’s been managed, with a huge and I think well-earned sense of achievement; but sometimes it’s lost out.

    I fear that without awareness of the times the debate here has lost out, and attempts to try again to open courteous discussion, the debate here will tend to stultify over time. I commiserate with Anthony here probably more than he realizes; I know what a psychic drain it is, for reasons I don’t yet really understand myself, to handle the NEW frontiers of science.

    Yet this task is absolutely vital to Science, and to its recovery of integrity.

    *******************************************

    Little Mouse asking: Please sir, can you put Tallbloke’s Talkshop in a less demeaning category again? I don’t think he deserves to be bracketed with Climate Progress.

    *******************************************

    Having asked, this, I have also been glad to hide out in that less-frequented blog recently. I have been running a series at the Talkshop, which discuss a very sensitive frontier issue (latest post here). I simply could not have coped with the huge volume of traffic of WUWT, in responses, at that point. Yet this issue is not just important, it is vital, and it is vital to the very roots and foundations of Climate Science. And it has been underpinned by a lot of high-quality experimental work, albeit by one lone individual so far. Interest has been shown by a few capable academics, but no replication, which is essential, and which I am proposing (with a small team of supporters). What, noooooooob me? well, this work is really important IMHO and not just for Climate Science but for Physics and Astrophysics, and nobody else seems to be involved in the essential job of replication.

    What I’ve found, indeed, is that frontiers of science do indeed attract “transcendental ranters” who will not talk about the subject on hand and look at the actual science, but use it as a springboard for their own “sciency” rants which generally are “appeals to authority” which may be the “authority of consensus” or the “authority of ego” or the “authority of counter-consensus” – anything but “nullius in verba”.

    (If you are interested in joining a team involved in replication, please contact me.)

    And thank you again, Anthony, for this pioneer work of yours which gives so many of us important opportunities.

  33. Dr. N-G is a believer but he has not lost his reasoning ability. He gets credit for pointing out that the IPCC was lying about the Himalayan glaciers, for instance. He is at least willing to act civilly, and for this he gets credit.

  34. It’s still one of my favourite quotes – I can’t remember who came up with it:

    “You can’t serve cod and gammon.”

  35. @ Darrell:

    “All genuine scientists are skeptics. There is, however, such a thing as a denier, as much as I hate to use the word, and they may occupy any side of any issue. They can be identified by their refusal to admit even the possibility that they may be wrong.” Uhu

  36. Donald A. Neill says
    “Denier” is an ad hominem term. So is “warmist”.

    “Denier” has the connotation of being “in denial” or a “denialist.” The latter implies, according to Wikipedia, ““an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth”.
    “Warmist carries no such negative connotation. Even “alarmist,” which does carry a negative connotation, is mild compared to “denier.”

  37. It seems to me that the most significant denial that’s occurring is on the part of the warmists who deny the existence of the Medieval Warm Period.

  38. joeldshore says:
    July 9, 2012 at 7:51 pm
    That’s a fair bit of spin on that study! The actual numbers are that “Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.” So only 13% see it as posing “relatively little danger”. “Moderately dangerous” does not seem like a skeptic to me. Presumably, most people would not believe that we should take no mitigating action to address something that is moderately dangerous!

    *ahem*

    From that same study: Former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” rates better than any traditional news source, with 26% finding it “very reliable” and 38% as somewhat reliable.

    The egregious errors and bunk science in Gore’s slide show were well-publicized by the time that survey was made, yet 64% if those polled found it — pardon my chuckles — “reliable.”

    The survey bias is obvious.

  39. Unfortunately you are the one tarring with a broad brush, most posters here do know that temp is increasing, but avoid the laughable extreme of the warmers and are most infuriated by the science-less approach of the warmers. To fake or spin the data is unacceptable in science and the politicization of the science on both sides should scare us all.

  40. Skeptics are arguing that the contribution humanity makes to the interglacial warming, the numerous natural cycles (like the PDO) and the activity of the sun has not been quantified, has not been found to be significant and has not been identified as either harmful or beneficial and thus any output from climate research is not to be used to shape public policy.

  41. Being more than a little familiar with Probability Theory, and specifically Bayes, I tend to be a little suspicious when someone invokes Bayes Theorem. While it is a valuable tool, it is not always appropriate to the problem as is also the case with other probabilistic methodology. I’d want to examine the details of it before blindly accepting the statement made in the dialogue at the link. I’ll refer you to E.T. Jaynes work; “Probability, The Logic of Science”, for more on this.

  42. @ Scarface
    Dr Lindzens succint commentary on the use of the word skeptic is formidable. The term Denier is used by verbal bullies who are incapable of winning an argument with rational people. Hence I prefer the term rationalist.

    As for Bains psychobabble that should be temporarily lodged in a cylindrical container for onward transmission to a suitable recycling plant.

  43. Legatus says:

    There are trapped bubbles of air in deep, as in 200,000 years deep, antarctic ice, that show the following:
    1) Twice the carbon dioxide (at twice the atmospheric pressure to boot) as now.
    2) Trapped in ICE.
    This means that if we arrive at twice the amount of carbon dioxide as now, we will have ice in antarctica.

    (1) No. The ice cores show that carbon dioxide has never exceeded ~300ppm over the last ~750,000 years (see, e.g., http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/paleoclimatology_evidence_2.php or http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg ).

    (2) Even if most of the Antarctic ice sheet can survive twice the amount of carbon dioxide that we have now, that would be of little solice. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have enough water to raise sea levels ~70 meters! The worst scenarios regarding sea level rise imagine that parts of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets melt; they don’t imagine the East Antarctica ice sheet melts. If it did, we’d be toast.

  44. a bright Marine Scientist at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Cairns Australia by the name of Janice Lough, from James Cook University, obviously believes the Great Barrier Reef has never experienced “climate change” prior to CAGW!

    10 July: ABC Australia: Climate change could make Barrier Reef ‘boring’

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-10/reef-risks-becoming-27boring27-scientist/4121970

    give it up. either this usage of the phrase “climate change” is dropped, or we can give up on science right now.

  45. eyesonu says:

    Your link is from an article dated April 24, 2008. That was at a time when most of us believed in the integrity of scientists.

    The cat is now out of the bag and it has been revealed that the the so-called ‘climate scientists’ have no integrity or code of ethics.

    It was Nielson-Gammon who quoted this study first, not I. I just gave the full context for his out-of-context claim.

    I also have to admit that I am confused by your logic here. Because someone with no integrity or code of ethics stole private e-mails between climate scientists and published them on the web where a few out-of-context quotes have shown us that these scientists who are being harassed by other people sometimes say some impertinent things in their private e-mails, we can now disregard everything that scientists have to say?

  46. Donald A. Neill, I am going to bookmark your comment as I feel it summarises the situation brilliantly.

    John Neilsen-Gammon, you deserve much kudos for engaging in a civilized dialogue with climate skeptics. May I encourage you to continue and to urge others to do the same.

    Evidently, though, we might disagree with you over what constitutes evidence. The existence or otherwise of a consensus is not evidence. Opinions are not evidence regardless of the eminence of the people holding those opinions. Assumptions are not evidence. The output of computer models is not real data and is not evidence of anything other than the assumptions and parameters built into the models. ONLY measurements and observations are evidence. Note also that evidence of an effect is not evidence of its cause.

  47. …….they do not ‘deny’ AGW…What they challenge……

    Henry says

    Come on you guys. There is no AGW. There never was, at least not measureable…
    There is only GW and GC and it occurs natural.
    My findings are clear and repeatable:

    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

    The above results show that it has been cooling since 1995.

    The nature of past global warming- and current global cooling rates is that of a parabolic curve, suggesting a natural process. Obviously the actual “global” cooling is still so little as to go largely unnoticed: it is only about 0.2 degees K since 2000, which probably falls within the error of normal thermometers.

    However, I do predict that more cold is on its way. Earth’s energy store is big, but soon it will tell everyone that there is not much left. The only AGW I foresee in the future is the massive removal of snow in the winters to come. (Removal of snow is not a natural activity and it might stop – fortunately – some more deflection of sunlight that in the past often led to an ice age).

  48. Legatus says:
    July 9, 2012 at 10:32 pm
    1) Twice the carbon dioxide (at twice the atmospheric pressure to boot) as now
    =========
    Source link? If there is evidence of higher CO2 200kya that would be significant.

  49. The problem with living in a model universe is that the Earth is NOT a model universe and all simple mathematical approximations are in gross error of even the simplist direct observations. Take for instance the IR receptive, reflective or energy storage capacity of clouds, as mentioned in this WUWT post….

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/07/new-paper-shows-negative-cloud-feed-associated-with-sam/

    As a resident of the Gulf Coast i have seen 18″ of rainfall in a 24 hr period. Rain that weights 64 lb/cu ft on the ground and is ALWAYS cooler than the Earth. Raindrops have excellent aerodynamics and travel at 200 mph. The ONLY way that this heavier than air droplet can stay in the air is for there to be a net upward velocity of 200 mph….OR….the capacity to evaporate raindrops at the cloud base and send the warm vapor to the cloud top. This causes the vertical shear winds within clouds, something you cannot appreciate in a 120,000 lb passenger jet at 400 mph, but is VERY apparent in a 1600 lb Cessna 150 at 100 mph.

    As a student pilot i got caught out at 7500 ft by broken, but rapidly bunching cumulus clouds and made a decent only by penetrating a dozen of these one mile wide monsters for 5000 ft to the cloud bottom. Read “Science Goes Over-Under, Inside-Out” for a description of what is really going on within clouds when witnessed from a minimumal survivable observation point. It is time to end this expensive “model science” and return to open, emperical based obseration and measurements.

  50. Chris Hedges does a wonderful job explaining militant ideological extremism on both ends of the spectrum. The global warming religion, and its castigation of scepticism (heresy) is no exception.

  51. This statement from Joel Shore

    ” Because someone with no integrity or code of ethics stole private e-mails between climate scientists and published them on the web where a few out-of-context quotes have shown us that these scientists who are being harassed by other people sometimes say some impertinent things in their private e-mails, we can now disregard everything that scientists have to say?”

    Shows that he completely lacks any honesty or integrity and cannot be trusted about anything he says. What he has stated is a laughable falsehood, with no basis.

  52. OVERSIMPLIFICATION
    The physical sciences often have great success in simplifying things to law-like principals and quantifiable notions like energy, momentum, charge, etc . Dealing out categories of “the skeptical” versus “the deniers” to say nothing of “the gullible” or “the pretentious” is best left to the sociologists who understand simplification is not a realistic end; sociology, like climatology, is a cloudy subject.

  53. ferdberple, slightly off at a tangent but, since you asked about the ice core CO2 history, I have come to regard this as the second hockey stick and no more reliable than Mann’s temperature reconstruction. I find the paper below very convincing :-

    http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf

    The main points are :-
    1. CO2 concentrations above current levels were frequently reported in studies published before the establishment of the global warming industry.
    2. The air released from bubbles trapped in the ice is not the same composition as when the ice was laid down. Changes preferentially affect some gases more than others. Gases released by the crushing of ice at below zero temperatures show lower concentrations of CO2 than samples obtained by allowing the ice to melt.
    3. The stability of CO2 readings from ice cores before the Industrial Revolution is spurious.

    I am also suspicious of any CO2 reconstruction showing concentrations at certain times to be at or below 180 ppm because this would have resulted in serious global loss/degradation of plant life. This is something which is not observed in paleobotany.

  54. Joeldshore,
    Your characterization of the e-mails is deceptive.
    These e-mails are in context, are not private, and do show collusion and deception to support the e-mailer’s positions, as well as to punish those who dare to disagree with them.
    Why are you relying on deception to make your case?

  55. One of the most dangerous aspects of Bain’s most recent response is he wants to limit who may engage in a discussion of AGW to the “properly credentialed.”

    Since the same people who are pushing AGW regardless of the facts are generally affiliated with the groups that have a monopoly on who gets credentialed and why, this ends up being a form of censorship limiting access to facts. And then it also acts as a corruption mechanism. Push this and here are your credentials to climb aboard the grant/sinecure gravy train.

  56. I don’t even consider myself a skeptic, let alone a denier. I’m a realist. The ones who are skeptical are the CAGW worshippers who disbelieve the reality that there is no global warming (oh, wait — i mean climate change, err… disruption).

  57. joeldshore says:
    July 10, 2012 at 5:42 am
    I also have to admit that I am confused by your logic here. Because someone with no integrity or code of ethics stole private e-mails between climate scientists and published them on the web where a few out-of-context quotes have shown us that these scientists who are being harassed by other people sometimes say some impertinent things in their private e-mails, we can now disregard everything that scientists have to say?

    I am confused as to why you believe repeating the long-since-revealed-as-baseless canards makes you think you have rebutted something.

    Oh. Joel Shore — okay, not confused about that anymore.

  58. Robin says:
    July 10, 2012 at 7:24 am
    One of the most dangerous aspects of Bain’s most recent response is he wants to limit who may engage in a discussion of AGW to the “properly credentialed.”
    Since the same people who are pushing AGW regardless of the facts are generally affiliated with the groups that have a monopoly on who gets credentialed and why, this ends up being a form of censorship limiting access to facts. And then it also acts as a corruption mechanism. Push this and here are your credentials to climb aboard the grant/sinecure gravy train.

    I’m sure they’ll consider members of that august body, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Union of Concerned Scientists, as “properly credentialed.”

    “…and now, Kenji Watts will present the peer-review minority report.”

  59. “with no integrity or code of ethics stole private e-mails”

    Sounds like Peter Gleick is at it, again.

  60. dcfl51 says:
    July 10, 2012 at 6:55 am

    I find the paper below very convincing :-

    http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf

    Completely outdated. Since the first measurements were made on ice cores, the drilling and analytical methods changed dramatically. The late Jaworoski’s knowledge of ice cores ended in 1992. Most of his objections were already refuted in 1996 by the work of Etheridge e.a. on three Law Dome ice cores. Three different drilling techniques were used and CO2 was measured top down in firn until bubble closing depth and in ice at closing depth and deeper. At closing depth CO2 measured in still open pores of the firn and aready closed bubbles in the ice were similar. See further:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

    The main points are :-
    1. CO2 concentrations above current levels were frequently reported in studies published before the establishment of the global warming industry

    Most “high” levels were found where cracks allowed the intrusion of drilling fluid. At the same depth, different tests show a huge range of CO2 levels, from in the same range as the samples up and down the ice core to much higher. Thus the “high” levels were caused by contamination and don’t reflect reality,

    2. The air released from bubbles trapped in the ice is not the same composition as when the ice was laid down.

    Besides that the bubbles contain a mixture of CO2 levels from several years (8 years for the high accumulation Law Dome to 600 years for the Vostok ice core), there is very little migration in coastal ice cores and virtually none in the much colder inland ice cores. Thus the composition still is the same after 800,000 years…

    Gases released by the crushing of ice at below zero temperatures show lower concentrations of CO2 than samples obtained by allowing the ice to melt.

    It is the opposite, therefore ice melt measurements for CO2 are abandoned en mostly the ice crushing method is used. That gives the same results as the more accurate method of total sublimation and mass spectrometric analyses, which are used for isotope measurements.
    See e.g. http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/GHG.pdf and

    http://www.awi.de/de/forschung/fachbereiche/geowissenschaften/glaziologie/techniques/high_precision_d13c_and_co2_analysis/

    3. The stability of CO2 readings from ice cores before the Industrial Revolution is spurious.

    Where is that based on? Many ice cores with quite different average temperature and precipitation rates show the same (within +/- 5 ppmv) CO2 levels for the same average air age. See:

    I am also suspicious of any CO2 reconstruction showing concentrations at certain times to be at or below 180 ppm because this would have resulted in serious global loss/degradation of plant life.

    Land plants have the advantage of living on land: near ground CO2 levels over land are average some 40 ppmv higher than in the bulk of the atmosphere (as what is measured in ice cores), with night levels even hundreds of ppmv higher. Thus al least a few hours in daylight there is sufficient CO2 to cause some growth…

  61. HenryP says:
    July 10, 2012 at 6:34 am

    ferdberple says
    Source link? If there is evidence of higher CO2 200kya that would be significant.

    Henry says
    here it is

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

    The graphs only shows CO2 levels of maximum 300 ppmv. We are near 400 ppmv today…
    Further the temperature-CO2 ratio is about 8 ppmv/°C in the Vostok (and Dome C) ice core, over 420 (and 800) kyr. At the current temperature, that means that the CO2 levels should be at ~290 ppmv, but we are already 100+ ppmv higher.

    Of course, the ice cores do average the CO2 levels over a long period of 600 (and 560) years, but even 10 years at +100 ppmv or 100 years at +10 ppmv would be measurable in the ice cores. The current increase of 100 ppmv over 160 years anyway would have been visible in the record.

  62. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

    “…near ground CO2 levels over land are average some 40 ppmv higher than in the bulk of the atmosphere (as what is measured in ice cores), with night levels even hundreds of ppmv higher.”

    There has been an ongoing discussion about whether CO2 is, or is not, well mixed in the atmosphere. If what Ferdinand says is true, then CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere.

    It doesn’t matter to me either way, but you can’t have it both ways. CO2 is either well mixed, or it isn’t.

  63. JPeden says:
    July 9, 2012 at 11:56 pm
    Scepticism is at the very heart of the practice of real science. It is necessary to every step, …
    ================================================
    Yes, I agree, but if you call yourself “sceptic” it is a different thing. Example: defecating is natural and necessary, but would you call yourself “defecator”? I do not think so.

  64. Smokey says:
    July 10, 2012 at 9:21 am

    If what Ferdinand says is true, then CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere.

    CO2 is well mixed in over 95% of the atmosphere, that is all above the oceans and above a few hundred meters over land.
    For the first few hundred meters above land, many sources and sinks are at work: at night plants exhale CO2 + bacterial and fungal decay of vegetation + human sources. During daylight plants remove lots of CO2 quite fast. That makes that one can measure any level of CO2 midst a forest or field or town, depending of the time of the day and the amount of sunlight. And that is one of the reasons that many historical measurements are worthless for the knowledge of the real “background” CO2 levels of that time…

    If you get over 500 meter over land, the differences are much smaller to unmeasurable. Only the enormous intake/outgassing as result of the seasonal temperature swings needs some time to be distributed with altitude and latitude (weeks to months) and between the NH and the SH (months to 2 years).
    See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/inversion_co2.jpg for CO2 flight measurements below and above the inversion layer and

    where you can see the difference between the CO2 levels during a few summer days over land at Giessen (SW Germany, semi-rural) and at three “baseline” stations: Barrow, Mauna Loa and the South Pole. All data are raw measurements (hourly averages for the stations, 1/2 hour averages for Giessen).

  65. “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”
    George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950)

    The drunken believer will always be intoxicated on the desire for catastrophe, the skeptic has to accept that they will always be called names, it is the only defense a true believer has.

  66. Greg House says: July 10, 2012 at 9:26 am
    It is a matter of context, no? We don’t often discuss/define groups by their secretion/excretion processes, yet there is an appropriate context for that to occur. Your psychic perception in reference others’ internal context regarding “sceptic” is itself, ‘a different thing’. You have no clue what I mean if I call myself a skeptic, nor even the context to which that has applied for the past fifty years.

  67. Steve Keohane says:
    July 10, 2012 at 10:02 am
    You have no clue what I mean if I call myself a skeptic,
    =============================================
    You mean it well, but the public perception might be different. Just use a dictionary.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sceptic : “sceptic archaic and US, skeptic [ˈskɛptɪk]
    1. (Philosophy) a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
    2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc., in general

    Still no problem with that?

  68. joeldshore says:
    July 10, 2012 at 5:42 am

    “I also have to admit that I am confused… Because someone with no integrity or code of ethics stole private e-mails…”

    I challenge the confused Joel Shore to post evidence showing that the Climategate emails were ‘stolen’. Seems to me they are still there. Someone with access simply copied them.

    It is clear to even the most casual observer that the email dump was an inside job. A hacker would have posted all the emails. A hacker would not have parceled them out over years. A hacker would not have redacted information, which was done to protect the insider’s identity. And Steve Mosher told me definitively who the insider was [I don't recall the name, it was a while back and only part of a larger conversation. But Steve was certain].

    So the ball is in Joel Shore’s court: he needs to provide convincing evidence that a hacker “stole” the emails – or we will know that Joel Shore himself is the one with “no integrity or code of ethics.”

    REPLY: Ditto that, and while Joel is at it, I’d like to hear why he isn’t disturbed by the demonstrations of “no integrity or code of ethics.” in the emails themselves. Sheesh. I have it on good knowledge that it wasn’t a hack, but was an inside whistleblower at UEA. No, I can’t share. – Anthony

  69. Has anyone gone to RealClimate and posted any of this? Would be interested to see if it would stay up or be snipped.

  70. @ Greg House
    “The most ridiculous thing is when “skeptics” argue that they do not deny AGW. No, it is irrelevant, that there is something you do not deny, because they do not call you denier for that. They call you “denier” for what you deny, like the catastrophic consequences. You do deny the catastrophic consequences, don’t you, so what is the problem?”

    The problem is, that to deny something happening in the future is linguistically speaking non-sense. The verb deny is always connected with situations (events, facts, rights, responsibilities, etc.) connected with the past or the present, not the future., even a “consequence” can only be denied (however foolishly) after it has taken place. or while it is taking place. Holocaust deniers did not deny that Jews would be murdered in the future, but that they had been murdered in the past. If Greg House can point to a catastrophy happening now or having happened in the past which he thinks is due to global warming, let him tell us about it now, with the required proof of the human responsibility. Few sceptics will deny the event or the proof, if these can be seen to be incontrovertible, if not, they will debate, provide counter arguments, counter proof, etc., but not flatly deny.

    So Greg House has shown, against his apparent will, the ridiculousness of the use of the term “denier” for those sceptical about future CAGW.

  71. Smokey says:
    July 10, 2012 at 10:35 am
    So the ball is in Joel Shore’s court…

    …with some added spin —

    “…scientists who are being harassed by other people sometimes say some impertinent things…”

    Like Ben Santer impertinently fantasizing about beating the crap out of Pat Michaels? *tsk* That young scamp.

    “…in their private e-mails…

    Any correspondence, written, electronic, or oral, originating from any publicly-funded organization is *not* private. If the taxpayers paid for it, it’s public property *unless* there is a compelling (read: national security) reason to classify it.

  72. Jim says:
    July 10, 2012 at 7:36 am

    I am with you Jim – I like the term realist! But on the other hand I am quite happy to be called a denier!
    I DENY that the evidence presented for AGW/CAGW or virtually any other type of GW is convincing.
    I DENY that they have demonstrated a scientifically valid theory, let alone a proof.
    I DENY that there is any scientifically based (i.e. reproducible) observational evidence to demonstrate the catastrophic type claims.
    In short – I DENY being scientifically convinced or ‘swayed’ by the presented information.
    I do ACCEPT that climate change is occuring
    I do ACCEPT that a relatively small proportion of that may just be anthropogenic in ’cause’ but the vast majority of any change is MOST LIKELY natural based on current knowledge.

    No amount of youtube videos, Al Gore special effects or whatever will PROVE AGW or CAGW without direct reproducible evidence and experimental observation!! Heck, if the proof were there – it would be as obvious as the nose on your face, based on vast amount of so called ‘climate research’ dollars spent !

    Look at the Higgs boson story – a good few decades in the making – and it’s STILL NOT PROVEN (ok, ok – it virtually is – but you get my drift!) and all done on a couple of (very expensive) particle accelerators, NOT by a few dozen ‘elite’ in dispersed academic institutions manipulating data to get it to ‘show’ what they want via email discussion and dodgy statistics!!

    Put simply – if you had a choice of getting on a jet plane built by the warmista scientists (with the attendant if/buts/maybes, etc) or one built by the scientists at CERN – which one would you TRUST as likely to be properly validated as actually able to fly! To my way of thinking, the human/world economic situation being ‘based’ on the warmistas arguments is no better than us all being shepherded onto a plane built by them! I for one am DENYING to board THAT plane!

  73. Dr Engelbeen, thank you for the courtesy of your reply and for the links which you have given. I will read them with interest but there is too much material for me to absorb quickly and still reply on this thread.

    I am willing to be persuaded to your standpoint if the evidence is good enough. But there are a lot of diverse criticisms in Jaworowski’s paper and I will need to be convinced on all of them.

    For example, Jaworowski argues that there is supercool liquid water in the ice and CO2 is significantly more soluble in this than oxygen or nitrogen. This implies that the remaining air pockets will be relatively depleted of CO2. In his paper Fig.2 shows a chart indicating that CO2 concentrations in ice melted for 7+ hours are much higher than in ice subjected to dry extraction or 15 minute melt extraction. Presumably this is because the dissolved CO2 is released on melting due to Henry’s Law. I will be interested to read why this should be regarded as a false result.

    You also state that high CO2 readings can be rejected because the relevant samples are contaminated by drilling fluid. Again, I will hope to read that rejection followed an analysis of samples for contamination and that the high readings were not simply taken as a proxy for contamination.

    In addition to questions over the ice core records, there are also stomata studies and the direct CO2 readings collated by Beck. These suggest that CO2 levels have risen and fallen by relatively significant amounts over a matter of decades and that historical levels above those of today are commonplace. I am aware that you have commented on these issues previously, questioning their reliability. However, the more confirmatory evidence that has to be refuted, the more inclined I am to invoke Occam’s Razor.

    [Moderator, sorry I've gone a bit off topic.]

  74. Although phrased to the much larger general field of argumentation, I think this piece is very much on point to this controversy in climate.

    http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/07/ad-hominem-is-the-strongest-form-of-argument-only-an-idiot-would-say-otherwise/

    For me this the money quote

    “With a thunderbolt of astonished clarity, I suddenly realized why this is, or, rather, what the great benefit intentional or not would be: if a man says that an opponent argues that price fixing causes rationing, or that politicians cannot be trusted to make decisions over your baby’s health, that man spreads his opponent’s message, even while denouncing it; but if that man denounces the opponent, saying he is a tool of moneyed power, or is a member of an ‘astroturf’ movement rather than a grassroots opposition, then no one who hears that man hears the message. All they know is that the opponent is a man of bad character.
    It is simple, simplistic, and effective.”

    The piece is not very long and I would recommend reading it all.

  75. C.W. Schoneveld says:
    July 10, 2012 at 11:57 am
    @ Greg House
    The problem is, that to deny something happening in the future is linguistically speaking non-sense. The verb deny is always connected with situations (events, facts, rights, responsibilities, etc.) connected with the past or the present, not the future., even a “consequence” can only be denied (however foolishly) after it has taken place. or while it is taking place. …
    So Greg House has shown, against his apparent will, the ridiculousness of the use of the term “denier” for those sceptical about future CAGW.
    =======================================================

    No, the future is predictable in terms of probability in many cases, just think of the next sunrise. And your linguistic tool will not help, because you confuse the actual future event that has not happened yet with the (alleged) proof that this event will happen. Of course there can be disagreement on whether the proof is there or not.

    So it is not about denying the future, it is about denying the (alleged) present proof. You need a better argumentation.

  76. Mr. Layman here. The word to describe the CAGW (or any “Save the Planet”) on me would not be “skeptical” but “suspicious”.
    They’ve shown little reason to trust their honesty. Because of their track record, it’s to easy to suspect that waht may have been an honest mistake was an attempt to deceive.
    (It would take an “H” of alot to convince that Al Gore and Mann “et al” have not been attempting to deceive.)

  77. Kev-in-Uk says:
    July 10, 2012 at 12:59 pm
    No amount of youtube videos, Al Gore special effects or whatever will PROVE AGW or CAGW without direct reproducible evidence and experimental observation!!
    ==================================================================
    I read somewhere that Al Gore’s glaciers calving were special effects shots for the movie Day After Tomarrow.

  78. I read somewhere that Al Gore’s glaciers calving were special effects shots for the movie Day After Tomorrow.
    They used styrofoam.

  79. dcfl51 says:
    July 10, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    It would take a complete blog to counter all arguments made by the late Jaworowski. That is not the place here to do that, but the problem is that these are recurrent points, again and again used to “refute” that ice cores are quite reliable samples of ancient air, be it averaged.

    Take Jaworowski’s Fig 2:
    Ice from Greenland cores shows much more CO2 when melted over a longer period than over a short period or when measured in crushed ice.

    What Jaworowski “forgot” to tell you is dat Greenland ice is frequently contaminated with highly acidic Icelandic volcanic dust, which reacts with seasalt dust, including carbonates, thus producing in situ CO2 and more when dissolved…

    While it is true that some liquidlike layer is formed at the ice-air surface which may dissolve some CO2, that is of little interest as any liquid layer, including CO2, is removed during the measurement under vacuum at the crushing tests or everything is removed and measured after cryogenic separation for the sublimation tests.

    The same problems for the high readings. Simply read what Neftel himself said about that:
    See: http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/neftel82-85.pdf

    Stomata data have their own problems: It is a proxy based on local CO2 levels over land in the previous growing season, see how these change in the main wind drirections by land use changes over the centuries… The same problem with many of the historical CO2 measurements: wrong time, wrong place. Both contradict each other for the period 1935-1950, where Beck’s compilation shows a 80 ppmv “peak”, not seen in any other proxy or ice core…

  80. Gunga Din says:
    July 10, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    I can believe it! The truth is, that I was once a believer (not in the Mann et al sense – but in the accepted the ‘published’ material) and like many folk who find they were duped – I am totally distrustful of the ‘published’ stuff. The worst part of it is – that as a scientist – I accepted the published material – BELIEVING that the presenters had followed good scientific protocol, etc. My present anger, therefore, comes from the fact that I KNOW better, but didn’t have the time or inclination to check. This really sticks in my craw. You go to the doctor for medical advice – you do not expect to have to check his diagnosis? These people are supposed to be professionals? The fish in my desk top tank have a more professional attitude! So now, I have had to return to the first principles of the scientific method – which is basically to check the stuff for yourself – and the more I check, the less comfortable I become with the so called climate scientists…….enough said I think…

  81. Smokey says:

    I challenge the confused Joel Shore to post evidence showing that the Climategate emails were ‘stolen’. Seems to me they are still there. Someone with access simply copied them.

    (1) Well, the same could be said of the Heartland memos: Noone stole them. It seems to me they are still there. Someone just managed to fool Heartland into sending him copies.

    (2) How the Climategate e-mails got into the hands that they did is still unknown and I’m not really going to believe vague statements by Anthony and Steven Mosher that they have good knowledge of how it happened but can’t tell us. (That sounds just like the sort of lines we were fed before the Iraq war about how if we only had access to the intelligence, we would be convinced of the danger that Saddam posed.) However, even if they were leaked by someone who had access to them, that is still in a sense stealing. I do not have the right to release private information that I might have access to at my employer and indeed could rightly get into serious trouble if I did so. Furthermore, it is known that the RealClimate site was hacked in an attempt to publish the e-mails there, another illegal activity.

  82. [SNIP: I personally agree, but this is off-topic and will almost cerainly derail the thread. It is not necessary to respond to everything. -REP]

  83. Rob Huber says:
    July 9, 2012 at 10:30 pm
    Greg House:

    I really don’t give a damn what you call me.

    They label us so as to justify disregarding us.

  84. Dave Wendt: A fellow named Lakoff has been saying that for a long time, and it seems that members of a particular political persuasion have taken that message to heart.

    A character called “Zombie” at Pajamas Media just did a “book review” on the subject.

    Back more directly on topic (and in connection with that), I totally understand the desire to assume the best of one’s opposition, for the sake of comity, but I do not believe that we can honestly look at the situation and say that the labeling is a matter of error of perception that can be easily corrected by a reasoned dialogue.

    On the other hand, more power to those who try, I am capable of being wrong.

  85. It never ceases to amaze one to see the contortions of reality the AGW fanatics seem to go through to justify fraud, lies and bad practices. Joel Shore is a prime example here.This shows that you can give someone education but it does not guarantee integrity or ethics.

  86. joeldshore says:
    July 10, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    (2) How the Climategate e-mails got into the hands that they did is still unknown and I’m not really going to believe vague statements by Anthony and Steven Mosher that they have good knowledge of how it happened but can’t tell us.

    The police investigation said there was no evidence the computers were hacked.

    (That sounds just like the sort of lines we were fed before the Iraq war about how if we only had access to the intelligence, we would be convinced of the danger that Saddam posed.)

    We found WMDs in Iraq. The DNC admitted that, then said “they weren’t the WMDs we were looking for.”

    However, even if they were leaked by someone who had access to them, that is still in a sense stealing.

    Knowingly, deliberately producing false information products to support a personal agenda when you’re paid to produce honest ones *is* stealing. Bradley Manning released classified government electronic communications to WikiLeaks, but the charges against him do *not* include theft.

    I do not have the right to release private information that I might have access to at my employer and indeed could rightly get into serious trouble if I did so.

    If you work for a private corporation and the e-mails are on that employer’s server, the e-mails belong to your employer. If you work for a taxpayer-funded organization and the e-mails are on that organization’s server, the e-mails are public property. If you work for an institution in either of those categories, you haven’t been paying attention during the mandatory Info Security classes the HR office circulates periodically.

    Furthermore, it is known that the RealClimate site was hacked in an attempt to publish the e-mails there, another illegal activity.

    So was Sarah Palin’s. What’s your point?

  87. Gunga Din says:
    July 10, 2012 at 3:07 pm
    I read somewhere that Al Gore’s glaciers calving were special effects shots for the movie Day After Tomorrow.
    They used styrofoam.

    Good call.

    Al Gore’s “traveling global warming show,” the award-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” includes a long flyover shot of majestic Antarctic ice shelves. But this shot was first seen in the 2004 blockbuster “The Day After Tomorrow.” Sculpted from Styrofoam and later scanned into a computer, the ice shelf “flyover” looks real. –ABC News, April 18, 2008.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Weather/story?id=4682216&page=1

  88. joeldshore says:
    July 10, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    I do not have the right to release private information that I might have access to at my employer and indeed could rightly get into serious trouble if I did so.

    If the information is corporate proprietary information, that’s correct.

    If the information involves illegal activity and you keep your mouth shut, you’ll be charged as an accessory after the fact if that information gets out.

  89. >>
    Bill Tuttle says:
    July 10, 2012 at 11:28 pm

    If the information involves illegal activity and you keep your mouth shut, you’ll be charged as an accessory after the fact if that information gets out.
    <<

    It could be “accessory before the fact.” It depends on what you know and when you knew it.

    Jim

  90. Bill Tuttle says:

    The police investigation said there was no evidence the computers were hacked.

    Can you give a cite for this? Did they determine that the computers were not hacked or simply that they could not conclude one way or the other?

    We found WMDs in Iraq. The DNC admitted that, then said “they weren’t the WMDs we were looking for.”

    Look, even Bush admitted there were no WMDs in any real sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE as did the commission that investigated the issue. We weren’t told that we had to invade Iraq because there might be a few old decaying shells of mustard gas still left around from the time of the first Gulf War. We were told that we had to invade because there were WMDs that posed a real threat to us, a claim the Bush Administration seems to have not even believed themselves (Or else their negligence in allowing the wholesale looting of depots where these WMDs were likely to be constitutes blatantly putting us in much graver danger than we were when the supposed WMDs were in Saddam’s hands…basically incompetence of mind-blowing proportions, roughly akin to if the TSA handed out weapons to suspected Islamic militants boarding planes rather than trying to detect and confiscate them!)

    You extreme right wingers are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

    Knowingly, deliberately producing false information products to support a personal agenda when you’re paid to produce honest ones *is* stealing.

    ….Which no independent investigation has found occurred.

    If you work for a taxpayer-funded organization and the e-mails are on that organization’s server, the e-mails are public property.

    People who work for the government or taxpayer-funded organizations do not forfeit all rights to privacy in their communications. There are certain freedom of information laws that allow for the release of information because of the public’s right to it but those laws are not without limitations and they do not state that anybody who has access to certain information can release it at their own will to the public.

    So was Sarah Palin’s. What’s your point?

    My point is that there were violations of the law that were perpetrated by some of those who obtained and disseminated the Climategate e-mails.

  91. Bill Tuttle says:

    If the information involves illegal activity and you keep your mouth shut, you’ll be charged as an accessory after the fact if that information gets out.

    The legal way to deal with such cases is through proper channels, not by releasing private communications wholesale to the internet. And, indeed, in this case we now know from several investigations that there was no illegal activity of any sort…except quite possibly by those who released the information.

  92. dcfl51 says:
    July 10, 2012 at 6:55 am

    ferdberple, slightly off at a tangent but, since you asked about the ice core CO2 history, I have come to regard this as the second hockey stick and no more reliable than Mann’s temperature reconstruction…..
    ___________________________
    You beat me to it.

    The manipulation of the temperature record, and we have plenty of evidence of that, was the first BIG LIE. The manipulation of the CO2 record is the second BIG LIE. Even the idea that CO2 is “Uniform and well mixed” is a LIE. Unfortunately the CO2 lies are harder to show and very well defended.

    Lucy Skywalker also has a good compendium of information on the CO2 lie HERE.

  93. FerdiEgb says: @ July 10, 2012 at 9:46 am

    …CO2 is well mixed in over 95% of the atmosphere, that is all above the oceans and above a few hundred meters over land….
    _________________________________
    Over the oceans??? how ironic that this is the next WUWT article.

    Unexplored Possible Climate Balancing Mechanism

    As far as the higher atmosphere goes, even with averaging tons of samples (and averages are ALWAYS less variable than an individual reading and the more samples the less the variability – see link) satellite sampling STILL found variability. Given other comment exchanges with FerdiEgb, he does not seem to understand that a graph of individual readings will always show more variability than say monthly averages . Example: Satellite Temp Graph

    Here is a aimage of CO2 distribution in the atmosphere: AIRS link (Note this is MONTHLY AVERAGES)

    Significant Findings from AIRS Data

    * Carbon dioxide is not homogeneous in the mid-troposphere; previously it was thought to be well-mixed

    * The distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere is strongly influenced by large-scale circulations such as the mid-latitude jet streams and by synoptic weather systems, most notably in the summer hemisphere

    * There are significant differences between simulated and observed CO2 abundance outside of the tropics, raising questions about the transport pathways between the lower and upper troposphere in current models

    Zonal transport in the southern hemisphere shows the complexity of its carbon cycle and needs further study

    http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/data/about_airs_co2_data/

    Also when Dr Jaworowski tried to get funding for more research on the reliability of CO2 measurements in ice cores he was denied

    ….It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere.” [said Dr Jaworowski]

    Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6&p=3

    (There is a pdf from the good Dr on this subject floating around somewhere but I lost the link)

    IF THAT does not convince you that the CO2 data is just as “Political” as the so called temperature data, I doubt anything will, but you can also read CO2 the Greatest Scientific Sandal of our Time by Dr. Jaworowski on the politics behind IPCC. It is a real eye opener.

    More reading on CO2 well mixed conjecture: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more
    Also see

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/little-bubbles-part-2-firn-the-great-equalizer/

  94. Gail

    I don’t know if you ever saw my article on historic co2 measurements? It contained loads of background information and analysis

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    Ferdinand makes lots of comments as did Ernst Beck himself. I would like to see an audit of this material. Its difficult to believe everyone measured Co2 incorrectly for 130 years then along came Keeling and managed to get it right first time.

    tonyb

  95. joeldshore says:
    July 11, 2012 at 6:56 am
    Bill Tuttle says: “If the information involves illegal activity and you keep your mouth shut, you’ll be charged as an accessory after the fact if that information gets out.”
    The legal way to deal with such cases is through proper channels, not by releasing private communications wholesale to the internet.

    It’s already been established that those communications were sent from publicly-funded computers and thus were *not* private. And the reason those communications were leaked at all is because the people responsible were breaking the law by refusing to release them.

    Are you familiar with the term, “whistleblower”?

    And, indeed, in this case we now know from several investigations that there was no illegal activity of any sort…except quite possibly by those who released the information.

    Oh, really?

    “Norwich’s flagship university was at the centre of a new row today after it emerged it broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny in the climate change row… The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided the UEA failed in its duties under the (freedom of information) act but said it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late…”

    http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/crus-climategate-finally-makes-the-news-in-norwich/

    http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/yes-climategate-scientists-did-break-the-law/

    I’ll be back to answer your comment of July 11, 2012 at 6:50 am in a bit. Ciao!

  96. Gail Combs says:
    July 11, 2012 at 8:33 am

    As explained before: well mixed doesn’t mean that any huge change of CO2 at any point in the atmosphere is instantly distributed all over the earth. Well mixed only means that a substantial change is distributed all over the earth in a reasonable time frame.

    For huge changes in uptake and release as happens over the seasons (some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged in a few months), that takes days to weeks to level off in the same altitude and latitude. Weeks to months for different latitudes and altitudes in the same hemisphere and months to 2 years between the two hemispheres (as the ITCZ hinders air exchanges between the hemispheres).

    Thus in my opinion and that of anyone with some knowledge about gas mixing, CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere.

    Further, it doesn’t matter if there is a lot of extra CO2 change in the lower few hundred meters over land. Even if that was 1000 ppmv over the first 1000 meter, the resulting increase in temperature is near unmeasurable, only the CO2 levels over the full air column are of importance.
    The same for the small monthly and seasonal differences over the months (less than 2% of the scale!): these are not of the slightest influence on the greenhouse effect.
    And the uptake of CO2 in the oceans has hardly any influence on the CO2 levels measured directly above the ocean surface, as the mixing speed in the atmosphere is much higher than between the atmosphere and the oceans.

    In his latest work, Jaworowski only repeats his objections of 1992, as if there were no newer works which refuted his objections, to begin with, the work of Etheridge e.a. of 1996.
    Including such incredible stupid remarks like that there is no difference between the age of the ice layers and the average age of the enclosed bubbles (even if that was measured top down in firn by Etheridge). And that CO2 migrates from lower to higher levels. That makes that, in my opinion, he had not the slightest shred of credibility left about his knowledge of ice cores. Thus please, please, never use his “knowledge” again, as that only costs you your own credibility.

    About Glassman: I had several discussions with him. As he is a master in misinterpreting everything what others say, it is next to impossible to have a real good discussion.

    See e.g. his Fig. 1 in the first reference, where he suspects a huge, deliberate, error from the IPCC, as the figure doesn’t add up to the huge flows back and forth of CO2 between the atmosphere and the oceans. Thus he “adjusts” the IPCC results, but what he forgets is that the figure shows the average of the fluxes over a year. Many mid-latitude areas are CO2 sinks in winter and sources in summer, adding to both the (seasonal) inflows and outflows, but with a small average result over a year. And so there are many misinterpretations…

    And you forgot the heavy discussion with lots of comments of mine in your last reference:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/little-bubbles-part-2-firn-the-great-equalizer/#comment-785490 and following…

  97. joeldshore says:
    July 11, 2012 at 6:50 am
    Bill Tuttle says: “The police investigation said there was no evidence the computers were hacked.”
    Can you give a cite for this? Did they determine that the computers were not hacked or simply that they could not conclude one way or the other?

    Good point. It seems they just quietly gave up on it because they couldn’t find any evidence that the server was hacked.

    http://poosoft.web.id/norfolk-police-give-indications-that-climategate-investigation-is.html/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/26/norfolf-police-give-indications-that-climategate-investigation-is-closed/

    “We found WMDs in Iraq. The DNC admitted that, then said ‘they weren’t the WMDs we were looking for’.”
    Look, even Bush admitted there were no WMDs in any real sense[,] as did the commission that investigated the issue. We weren’t told that we had to invade Iraq because there might be a few old decaying shells of mustard gas still left around from the time of the first Gulf War. We were told that we had to invade because there were WMDs that posed a real threat to us.

    Why we went — from Colin Powell’s speech to the UN, 5 February 2003:

    First, you will recall that it took UNSCOM four long and frustrating years to pry — to pry — an admission out of Iraq that it had biological weapons…Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material.
    And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had. They have never accounted for all the organic material used to make them. And they have not accounted for many of the weapons filled with these agents.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.05/index.html

    Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.06/index.html

    Now, what did we find in Iraq?

    Third, some people claim that these weapons are pre-Gulf War munitions with a badly degraded chemical agent that is no longer lethal or even harmful. To them, I point to the declassified statement from the intelligence report that chemical warfare agents might degrade over time, but they still remain hazardous and potentially lethal. I also point to the Secretary of Defense himself, who expressed strong concern about these weapons just last week. Secretary Rumsfeld said, QUOTE “They are dangerous… They are weapons of mass destruction. They’re harmful to human beings. And they have been found. And they had not been reported by Saddam Hussein as he inaccurately alleged that he had reported all of his weapons. And they are still being found and discovered.”
    Finally, there are some who insist that despite finding more than 500 munitions filled with mustard or sarin nerve agent, there are no WMD in Iraq. Allow me to quote statements made two weeks ago on the floor of the House during the debate on the Iraq resolution, straight from the Congressional Record:
    • “Absolutely no evidence of any kind of weapons of mass destruction.”
    • “There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”
    • “I am struck to hear people still defending the arguments about the weapons of mass destruction.”
    • “We know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know that to be the case.”
    • “I knew from the very beginning that there were no weapons of mass destruction.”
    • “We are certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction–and never did.”
    This is patently not the case.

    http://armedservices.house.gov/schedules/6-29-06WeldonOpeningStatement.pdf

    Mustard gas is nasty stuff, and it doesn’t deteriorate much over time. In 2001 the town of Vimy, site of the Canadian war memorial, had to be evacuated because mustard gas was leaking from shells collected by the French authorities during their “Iron Harvest.” The gas was ninety years old, and still toxic.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2001/04/14/vimy010414.html

    We found binary sarin nerve agent shells rigged as IEDs in Iraq. Not Iran-Iraq War leftovers – Saddam didn’t have binary agents then (not that he didn’t *try* to make them).

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/bomb-said-holddeadly-sarin-gas-explodes-iraq/

    Then, there’s that little matter of the 550 metric tons of yellowcake we found in Iraq — you know, that stuff Joe Wilson said Saddam hadn’t been shopping for?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/

    … a claim the Bush Administration seems to have not even believed themselves (Or else their negligence in allowing the wholesale looting of depots where these WMDs were likely to be constitutes blatantly putting us in much graver danger than we were when the supposed WMDs were in Saddam’s hands…basically incompetence of mind-blowing proportions…)

    “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.”

    Eight years of Bill Clinton reduced the size of the military to the point where we wouldn’t have had the number of boots on the ground we needed to guard everything in Iraq even if we’d sent everyone we had in uniform. We didn’t win Gulf II with the Clinton military, we won it with what remained of the Reagan military.

    You extreme right wingers are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

    “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

    ”Knowingly, deliberately producing false information products to support a personal agenda when you’re paid to produce honest ones *is* stealing.”
    ….Which no independent investigation has found occurred.

    Two words. Michael Mann.

    Or maybe you think he just keeps making honest mistakes.

    ”If you work for a taxpayer-funded organization and the e-mails are on that organization’s server, the e-mails are public property. “
    People who work for the government or taxpayer-funded organizations do not forfeit all rights to privacy in their communications.

    They do when they use that taxpayer-funded server to send e-mails, regardless of the content.

    There are certain freedom of information laws that allow for the release of information because of the public’s right to it but those laws are not without limitations and they do not state that anybody who has access to certain information can release it at their own will to the public.

    What is it about the term “whistleblower” that seems to escape you so?

    ”So was Sarah Palin’s. What’s your point?”
    My point is that there were violations of the law that were perpetrated by some of those who obtained and disseminated the Climategate e-mails.

    There were violations of the law, but it appears the authorities disagree with your personal and somewhat biased belief of who the actual culprits of Climategate were.

    The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided the UEA failed in its duties under the (freedom of information) act but said it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late…”

    http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/crus-climategate-finally-makes-the-news-in-norwich/

    http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/yes-climategate-scientists-did-break-the-law/

  98. Bill Tuttle says:
    July 11, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    “Then, there’s that little matter of the 550 metric tons of yellowcake we found in Iraq — you know, that stuff Joe Wilson said Saddam hadn’t been shopping for?”

    At one time, UNSCOM had noted 600 tons of yellowcake that had been cataloged at Al Tuwitha and was listed on the UN website. I always thought Saddam, the Great Saladin, was using it to fertilize his roses at one or more of his many palaces financed by the Oil-for-Food program since he was such a loving and caring person. Of course, we also know that George Bush was the instigator of the Peloponnesian War in 431 BC. It was for oil, too. CO2; there’s NOTHING the Magic Gas can’t do!

  99. Bill Tuttle, good rejoinder. But it will be lost on the true believers of the AGW cult as these are people without honesty or integrity and will justify and do anything which suits their beliefs. They all know the facts and deliberately distort them with intent. But with facts being plain to everyone, they are the ones who look like fools.

  100. Babsy says:
    July 11, 2012 at 6:45 pm
    Bill Tuttle says:
    July 11, 2012 at 12:21 pm: “Then, there’s that little matter of the 550 metric tons of yellowcake we found in Iraq — you know, that stuff Joe Wilson said Saddam hadn’t been shopping for?”

    At one time, UNSCOM had noted 600 tons of yellowcake that had been cataloged at Al Tuwitha and was listed on the UN website.

    Absolutely correct.

    We didn’t find the missing 50 tons nor did we find any of the enriched ore that came out of the Siemens centrifuges — same models that Iran is using, that the Left insisted were being used to make pharmaceuticals. We *did* find the centrifuges — wrapped in heavy plastic and buried in the rose garden of Saddam’s nuke director.

  101. Bill Tuttle says:

    Good point. It seems they just quietly gave up on it because they couldn’t find any evidence that the server was hacked.

    That is not even what is claimed on the biased websites that you cite as sources. All that is said is that the investigation is inactive. There are many reasons why an investigation runs dry…It doesn’t mean that they have no evidence that the server was hacked. They may have excellent evidence of that but can’t trace who did it. I am not saying that is the case…but it is as possible interpretation as yours. The difference is that I am not presenting it as if it were the only interpretation.

    As for the WMD stuff, despite Kurth Weldon’s attempt to put lipstick on a pig even George Bush admitted that we didn’t find WMD there in any reasonable sense of the word. And, your link to a story about the yellowcake in no way implies that this was ADDITIONAL yellowcake to what Saddam was known to already possess, which is what the Plame/Wilson thing involved.

    “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.”

    Eight years of Bill Clinton reduced the size of the military to the point where we wouldn’t have had the number of boots on the ground we needed to guard everything in Iraq even if we’d sent everyone we had in uniform. We didn’t win Gulf II with the Clinton military, we won it with what remained of the Reagan military.

    Frankly, that is a bunch of partisan nonsense. They seemed to have no trouble finding the necessary soldiers to secure the oil fields in special operations (I believe some even before hostilities officially commenced or at least in the very early hours.) If they were really so constrained by the state of the military that they couldn’t find the troops to secure a facility where it was known for a fact that Saddam had high-grade conventional explosives that could be used for nuclear weapons (since they had been locked and tagged as such by the UAE), then they shouldn’t have gone in at all. If the purpose of my mission is to prevent WMD from getting into the hands of terrorists, I have the CIA telling me that a control freak like Saddam is very unlikely to give up control of WMD to terrorists (particularly those who have such a stellar record of turning on their former allies as Bin Laden!), and I don’t think I have the necessary troops to secure facilities where there are most likely to be WMD so that they can’t be looted by any poverty-stricken Iraqi that can commandeer a truck and then sold on the black market, then it is pretty much a no-brainer of whether or not I choose to go to war!

    Why would one start a war to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD from Iraq when with a large degree of likelihood the outcome of the war would be to help vastly increase the likelihood of terrorists acquiring WMD from Iraq?

  102. Bill Tuttle says:

    They do when they use that taxpayer-funded server to send e-mails, regardless of the content.

    No…They do not.

    What is it about the term “whistleblower” that seems to escape you so?

    “Whistleblower” laws are designed to protect people who report things that they perceive as abuses through proper channels, not to protect people who take the law into their own hands. In certain cases, self-styled “whistleblowers” have felt strongly enough to take things into their own hands (Pentagon papers, Wikileaks) but in that case these people have to recognize that what they are doing is likely not legal, may be prosecutable, and must be prepared to face the consequences.

  103. Bill Tuttle,

    Disregard joel shore. His comments sound exactly like Media Matters talking points, because that is what they are.

  104. Bill Tuttle says:

    http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges

    I’ve tried to write a longer comment but it doesn’t seem to be getting through. If you don’t understand why John O’Sullivan, the ringleader of the so-called “Dragon Slayers” that even Anthony has wisely chosen not to lend credence to by posting their stuff, then you can read what AGW skeptic Peter Ridley has to say here: http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html

    O’Sullivan’s link in that piece to a London Times article is a dead link and when I tried to look in their archives or on google, I couldn’t find anything to support O’Sullivan’s claim. I think that we can safely assume it is nonsense unless you can find a credible source to back it up.

  105. One of the most interesting unanswered question about the Iraq war is whether the Bush Administration was actually played as a pawn by the Iranian intelligence service, who succeeded in getting the Administration to depose their worst enemy and thus vastly increase their influence in the region: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/06/05/40080/did-iranian-agents-dupe-pentagon.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/25/usa.iraq10

    Perhaps eventually the truth about all this will come out.

  106. Is this getting through? Normally i see my post under a waiting to reviwed notice. I just posted something and got nothing. I recently had my computer hacked. I dont know enough about computer to know if they left me with a problem. (The bastards took all my World Of Warcraft toons and over 200,000 in gold!)

  107. Getting weirder — Tried to post again and got a message saying I had already posted that post — yet my post appears nowhere? I give up. The world can live without my post.

  108. joeldshore says:
    July 12, 2012 at 6:21 pm
    Bill Tuttle says: “They do when they use that taxpayer-funded server to send e-mails, regardless of the content.”
    No…They do not.

    Good luck arguing that POV in court. If it’s on a publicly-funded server, it’s public property unless it’s been classified. From the DC FOIA (which mirrors the US FOIA):

    All public records (“all books, papers, maps, photographs, cards, tapes, recordings or other documentary materials regardless of physical form characteristics prepared, owned or used in the possession of, or retained by a public body”)

    https://sites.google.com/site/andrewjohnstonresearchpage/data/public-records

    From The Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press

    Public records are broadly defined as “all records, reports, forms, writings, letters, memoranda, books, papers, maps, photographs, microfilms, cards, tapes, recordings, electronic data processing records, recorded information and all other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been prepared, or having been or being used, received, possessed or under the control of any public body.” 5 ILCS 140/2(c)

    http://www.rcfp.org/category/open-government-guide-table-contents/r1/r1c/r1c1?page=4

    What is it about the term “whistleblower” that seems to escape you so?
    “Whistleblower” laws are designed to protect people who report things that they perceive as abuses through proper channels, not to protect people who take the law into their own hands. In certain cases, self-styled “whistleblowers” have felt strongly enough to take things into their own hands (Pentagon papers, Wikileaks) but in that case these people have to recognize that what they are doing is likely not legal, may be prosecutable, and must be prepared to face the consequences.

    Daniel Ellesberg and Bradley Manning were not charged with theft of public documents, they were charged with the unauthorized release of *classified* documents to the general public. Bottom line is that anyone using a publicly-funded server has *no* right to expect a :right to privacy.”

    Gotta scoot for now — day job, and all that…

  109. Smokey says:
    July 12, 2012 at 6:36 pm
    Bill Tuttle,
    Disregard joel shore. His comments sound exactly like Media Matters talking points, because that is what they are.

    I know — the fun is in seeing how fast he drops some subjects (or starts repeating himself) because MM doesn’t have enough different talking points to cover them.

  110. joeldshore says:
    July 12, 2012 at 6:21 pm
    Bill Tuttle says: “Good point. It seems they just quietly gave up on it because they couldn’t find any evidence that the server was hacked.”
    That is not even what is claimed on the biased websites that you cite as sources. All that is said is that the investigation is inactive. There are many reasons why an investigation runs dry…It doesn’t mean that they have no evidence that the server was hacked. They may have excellent evidence of that but can’t trace who did it. I am not saying that is the case…but it is as possible interpretation as yours. The difference is that I am not presenting it as if it were the only interpretation.

    The usual procedure in the event that they have evidence, but no leads, is to release an official statement that “the investigation is ongoing.” If they have no evidence, they usually put it into the Cold Case file.

    As for the WMD stuff, despite Kurth Weldon’s attempt to put lipstick on a pig even George Bush admitted that we didn’t find WMD there in any reasonable sense of the word.

    Interesting that you guys spent eight years claiming “Bush lied” and then you pull out a Bush quote to “prove” there were no WMDs in Iraq. And you must have a very exclusive definition of “reasonable” —

    WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center’s commander said here today.
    “These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

    http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

    Citing the United Nations resolutions that called for destruction of all of Hussein’s banned weapons, Hunter added that “the verified existence of such chemical weapons” proves they were not destroyed and “in part because of such violations, we voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001528.html

    From your U-Toob link, it’s clear that Bush was referring to Saddam’s nuclear program. Did we find any nukes? No.

    Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians.

    http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/topten/articles/20070128.aspx

    And, your link to a story about the yellowcake in no way implies that this was ADDITIONAL yellowcake to what Saddam was known to already possess, which is what the Plame/Wilson thing involved.

    I didn’t say it did. What I *did* say was that there’s fifty metric tons of yellowcake unaccounted for, and we found the centrifuges which Saddam was using to enrich it – the same exact make and model the Iranians were using until Stuxnet ate them up.

    “Eight years of Bill Clinton reduced the size of the military to the point where we wouldn’t have had the number of boots on the ground we needed to guard everything in Iraq even if we’d sent everyone we had in uniform. We didn’t win Gulf II with the Clinton military, we won it with what remained of the Reagan military.”
    Frankly, that is a bunch of partisan nonsense.

    Frankly, I find that amusing, coming from an armchair academic with no military background.

    They seemed to have no trouble finding the necessary soldiers to secure the oil fields in special operations (I believe some even before hostilities officially commenced or at least in the very early hours.)

    The SF lads were securing the airfields and the surrounding buildings within direct-fire range. The oilfields themselves were bypassed, not secured, because a good part of them were on fire.

    http://www.financialexpress.com/news/burning-oil-wells-signal-that-iraq-is-on-retreat/77524/1

    The oilfields weren’t secured until civilian contract security teams moved in along with the firefighters, months later – the military had its hands full being a police force in the main cities.

    If they were really so constrained by the state of the military that they couldn’t find the troops to secure a facility where it was known for a fact that Saddam had high-grade conventional explosives that could be used for nuclear weapons (since they had been locked and tagged as such by the UAE), then they shouldn’t have gone in at all.

    You made the assumption that Saddam had all his eggs in one basket. He didn’t – he had small arsenals and dispersed facilities to make them more difficult to target during the Deny Flight years. Read some history books.

    If the purpose of my mission is to prevent WMD from getting into the hands of terrorists, I have the CIA telling me that a control freak like Saddam is very unlikely to give up control of WMD to terrorists (particularly those who have such a stellar record of turning on their former allies as Bin Laden!), and I don’t think I have the necessary troops to secure facilities where there are most likely to be WMD so that they can’t be looted…

    First you said that Saddam just had *a* facility and now you’re multiplying them to fit your narrative. And there were several other reasons (which you’re rather conveniently ignoring) for going into Iraq.

    …by any poverty-stricken Iraqi that can commandeer a truck and then sold on the black market, then it is pretty much a no-brainer of whether or not I choose to go to war!
    Cheney admitted he underestimated the number of troops they’d need for peacekeeping. That was a residue of believing the DoS-centric view that the mere presence of US troops would automatically ensure stability. The realization that the striped-pants set didn’t know what it was talking about and they’d need more boots on the ground was the reason for the Surge.

    Which worked.

  111. joeldshore says:
    July 12, 2012 at 6:58 pm
    @me: O’Sullivan’s link in that piece to a London Times article is a dead link and when I tried to look in their archives or on google, I couldn’t find anything to support O’Sullivan’s claim. I think that we can safely assume it is nonsense unless you can find a credible source to back it up.

    So, your argument isn’t with the content,

    Yesterday the London Times broke the latest news on the fate of disgraced British climatologist Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia (UEA). Jones breached the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. The Times reports that the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided that the UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late.

    but the source.

    Okay, here are a couple of credible sources:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/crus-climategate-finally-makes-the-news-in-norwich/

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/1/25/no-climategate-foi-prosecutions.html

    Meanwhile, here’s the relevant info to the Times story —

    Header: “The eco-cause has taken a bigger hit than BP”
    Writer: Bill Emmott
    Published: 12 July 2010
    Extract: …scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by the independent committee set up to…underlying facts were not altered by the UEA’s withholding of data and desire to emphasise…Meanwhile Phil Jones, the director of UEA’s Climate Research Unit and at the heart…

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/billemmott/article2639314.ece

    Interestingly enough, the link to any archived article at the Times just shunts me to the current front page.

  112. Ooops. Credible source #3 slipped through the cut’n’paste process (just in case you have a quibble about my citing WUWT or BH as a credible source) —

    In a statement, Deputy Information Commissioner Graham Smith said it was an offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information act “to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information”
    He said the requests were made by a climate change sceptic in the 2007-2008 period and as the case was more than six months old “the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone” under existing legislation.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8484385.stm

Comments are closed.