Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like A Myth


Image Credit – Wood For Trees and Werner Brozek

From the Investor’s Business Daily:

The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they’re not even close.

Yes, many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the earth. Of course there are some who don’t.

But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth’s climate to warm.

This is the finding of the peer-reviewed paper “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” and this group is categorized as the “Comply with Kyoto” cohort.

Members of this group, not unexpectedly, “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

Academics Lianne M. Lefsrud of the University of Alberta and Renate E. Meyer of Vienna University of Economics and Business, and the Copenhagen Business School, came upon that number through a survey of 1,077 professional engineers and geoscientists. Read More At IBD

The study, Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change, by Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer can be found here.

A couple interesting quotes within:

“Third, we show that the consensus of IPCC experts meets a much larger, and again heterogenous, sceptical group of experts in the relevant industries and organizations (at least in Alberta) than is generally assumed. We find that climate science scepticism is not limited to the scientifically illiterate (per Hoffman, 2011a), but well ensconced within this group of professional experts with scientific training – who work as leaders or advisors to management in governmental, nongovernmental, and corporate organizations.”

“The vast majority of these professional experts believe that the climate is changing; it is the cause, the severity and the urgency of the problem, and the need to take action, especially the efficacy of regulation, that is at issue.”

The Investors Business Daily Article goes on to note that:

If the alarmists are getting only limited cooperation from man, they are getting even less from nature itself. Arctic sea ice, which sent the green shirts into a lather when it hit a record low in the summer of 2012, has “with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”

“This is only the third winter in history,” when more than 10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, Real Science reported on Tuesday, using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois.

At the same time, the Antarctic “is now approaching 450 days of uninterrupted above normal ice area,” says the skeptical website Watts Up With That, which, also using University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research data, notes that “the last time the Antarctic sea ice was below normal” was Nov. 22, 2011.
Read More At IBD

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Surveys and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

228 Responses to Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like A Myth

  1. DaveG says:

    justthefactswuwt say:
    Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like A Myth

    That is the whole point, the alarmist have very little to work with so the regurgitate the same old worn out models and weather gone mild with occasional weather gone wild as proof of their doom and gloom predictions. All predicated on lies and misinformation!

  2. Jantar says:

    But, but, but……… 97% of scientists agree that global warming is happening and that man is the primary cause.

    Now it turns out to be only 36%. Is this an inverse relationship between CO2 concentration and the number of scientists who believe in concensus?

  3. D.B. Stealey says:

    The “consensus” from the 1970′s. This is actually quite a good video, which shows how different perceptions were, only a few decades ago. Narrated by Spock. Fascinating.

    Nothing unusual has happened since then. In fact, the global temperature has changed by less than during most of the Holocene. Temperatures have been essentially flat for the past 16 years. But the public’s perceptions have changed, due to the relentless propaganda raining down on them 24/7/365.

  4. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead in Cowburg says:

    There’s an entire cadre of critics of this paper already…because the polled professionals belong to APEGGA, otherwise known as the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists & Geophysicists of Alberta. “Shills for Big Oil”. Yawn. I don’t belong to APEGGA, never have. I work overseas, so paying a dues to an organization that doesn’t even give you a cool hat is pointless. Regardless, A great many people there are NOT oil-related. But no matter. The shill-brand has gotten out of the bag, and therefore the findings are instantly invalid. (/sarc for safety’s sake). But, I’ll betcha the numbers are correct. People who think for a living tend to despise the Klimate Kooks Klan.

  5. Justthinkin says:

    Every honest climate scientist,in fact,all honest scientists(no,I don’t count the mental manipulators as scientists) are complicent in this scam by their silence.

  6. Jeff Norman says:

    I agree with Mike Bromley. IMO confining this kind of survey to members of organizations like the APPEGA is just asking for criticism. I am also somewhat disappointed that I have never been asked to complete such a survey despite being a professional engineer.

  7. Latitude says:

    “This is only the third winter in history,”
    =====
    I hate this……..define history first

  8. Jim Clarke says:

    Well, if the APEGGA is comprised of shills for big oil, then it only stands to reason the IPCC is comprised of shills for big government. Even more so. Many in the APEGGA are not paid by oil companies, while nearly everyone associated with the IPCC is paid by government.

    So the questions to all those warmists out there…who pays you or gives you money, and why are you ‘shilling’ for them? Why have you sold out by taking grants or salaries? If the only valid scientific information comes from scientists who accept no compensation for their scientific work, who among you can throw the first stone?

    Hypocrites!

  9. Mindert Eiting says:

    Well said, Stealey at 9:40 am. It reminds me of a story in my newspaper about a man who was wrongly diagnosed Alzheimer by his neurologist. While he got the wrong medicines, his doctor let raining down on him relentless propaganda, making him to believe the diagnosis more and more but at the same time noticing that nothing went wrong with his memory. After a few years of maltreatment he found out the truth. So people do more than listening to propaganda.

  10. mark fraser says:

    As a former APEGGA member, I’ll state that I have no “big oil” dependencies (other than wanting to have affordable energy) and that I’m as skeptical as anyone I know. I suspect that most of those polled are less dependent upon the petroleum industry than the alarmists are on alarmism.

  11. Mario Lento says:

    Leonard Nimoy, does not like being called Spock.

    Anyway – I am amazed at the number of people (who still believe in AGW) who also are completely unaware that the “natural” short term warming trend stopped around 1997/1998 with the El Nino. They just don’t have the time or desire to find out the facts, yet they still have the time to vote and defend their choice (based on what?). This to me, is in fact the definition of a low information voter.

    Of course we should refrain from using terms like “Low Information Voter”, as the left has labelled people like me “Deniar”.

  12. Mr. Africa says:

    While I am as big a skeptic as there is and believe that mankind’s contribution is something less than 25% (possibly FAR less), I cringe whenever our “side” brings up the “fastest rebound in the Arctic” meme. It seems a bit disingenuous because of course a higher melt off will bring a more dramatic freeze up. It is sort of like getting the dreaded “most improved” award when you are young. “You still suck, but you have come a long way Johnny!” Ok…that’s all…

  13. Mark and two Cats says:

    The Investors Business Daily Article goes on to note that: … skeptical website Watts Up With That…
    —————————————
    Recognition – YAY!

    [Reply: But they didn't make it a hot link. ☹ — mod.]

  14. andrewmharding says:

    The AGW crowd have been trotting out the same cliches for years eg “It’s worse than we thought” (It has never been better than they thought!!). “The science is settled” to give just two.
    The problem is not the scientists it is the governments, they have got an awful lot of revenue to lose if AGW is publicly disproved; taxes on air travel, petrol, diesel, car taxes other green taxes etc etc. AGW is not going to be publicly disproven, we have the BBC the Met Office and the EU and over the other side of the Atlantic, Obama, in Australia they have Gillard! Propaganda which would be worthy of Goebels, is the mainstay of AGW, mantra rather than scientific reasoning, ardour rather than logic, ridicule and insults rather than debate.The science never made any sense, it confuses weather with climate, it is based on computer models only, any evidence that is contrary to AGW is very quietly publicised.
    In my view the only way that AGW can be publicly disproved is if legal action is taken against one or more of the organisations that have provided bad advice to governments. I don’t know if that is even possible.

  15. manicbeancounter says:

    There is always a rider that should be put on any look at warming trends. A small amount of historical warming is nothing to be concerned about. It is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) that justifies government policies. This is projected as something for the future. Demonstration that warming is happening, along with signposts of the impending adverse consequences are necessary, but far from sufficient, conditions to substantiate these claims. The many failures in short-term predictions reduces the weighting (credibility) that is given to the CAGW projections. This, in turn, affects the cost-benefit justifications for policy.

  16. Athelstan. says:

    “Klimate Kooks Klan”

    Poetic alliteration Mike Bromley luv it. Strike one for Canuckistan!

    Btw, is it cold in Cowburg and do bears s*7t in the woods?

  17. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Mr. Africa says:
    February 17, 2013 at 10:50 am
    ——————————————-
    You have a good point about the “fastest rebound in the Arctic” meme. However, doesn’t the fact that the Arctic is rebounding so quickly make the alarmism of the Arctic ice loss that much less alarming?

  18. Edohiguma says:

    I’m still amused how they call it “climate change”. One look at this planet’s history shows that the climate has never been stable and has always changed. Sure, from a human point of view climate is long term stable, but what are 2,000 years, for example, when dealing with Earth itself? Nothing. And even in those last 2,000 years we’ve had several climate changes, far bigger than what is happening today and there’s no way that the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods (which were global as one look into Asian history proves without a doubt) were triggered or “made worse” by humans.

  19. Steven Mosher says:

    “with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”

    Perfectly normal and in fact expected . After large ice losses in the melt season there is a negative feedback. Ice acts as an insulator, so where there is little or no ice, heat is lost rapidly leading to large increases in ice formation ( area ). That’s why in the final analysis area and extent are not the best metrics for understanding the total picture. That’s why volume in the end is a better metric. Although we do amuse ourselves watching area and extent and area and extent are more important during the melt season ( when albedo feedback can operate cause the sun is up) Put another way, the more record losses in area you see in the melt season, the more records in rapid gains you will see when there is no sun in the arctic.
    Basically, a record that doesnt matter as much in terms of albedo.

  20. Vince Wilkinson (@Archeobiognosis) says:

    CAVEAT EMPTOR

    The WUWT regurgitation machine is in full swing here, attempting to manipulate public opinion with smoke and mirrors and little else.

    Firstly, Taylor has been criticized by the reports authors posted on the Forbes article, for using data that was not controlled in it’s collection. The survey targeted Geophysicists and engineers actively promoting the industry viewpoint. Walk into a meeting of alcoholics anonymous and you can find 100% of the people have been drinkers.

    Secondly, of the 1077 surveyed, the majority believe warming is partly caused by man.

    So, if you read this post and immediately think, I knew it, you are suffering from extreme confirmation bias. Read behind the headlines to discover the truth and don’t expect to find anything other than fraudulent disinformation from the likes of Watt Up With That.

  21. pokerguy says:

    “But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth’s climate to warm.”

    This is actually a radical view.

  22. D.B. Stealey says:

    Steven Mosher,

    What is the problem with an ice-free Arctic? I can only see benefits, such as sharply reduced shipping costs, less fuel used, and shorter transit times.

    Give me a scare story, I’m going thru withdrawal.☺

  23. Jeff Alberts says:

    Of course one can point out that the CRU received big money from major oil companies. And then there’s Al Jazeera-Gore. Apparently you’re only a shill if you think the sky isn’t falling.

  24. Wayne d says:

    As a Life Member of APEGGA and a member of the first Civil Engieering class to specialize in Water and Pollution at the University of British Columbia, I am not at all surprised by this paper. We learned about “Climate Change” being the norm way back in elementary school. I just wonder whatever happened to our education system? Politicization? Merde.

  25. Chris Beal @NJSnowFan says:

    Most has to do with the sun and that .02% of sunspot energy. .02% is a big deal with the size of the sun. It takes time for earth to cool down coming out of historical high sunspot cycles. I do agree there is Urban Global Warming but it is located near citys only. Cut down trees that release on av. 4 tons of water water vapor per tree and replace it with pavement and you will get higher temp readings and dryer air. Most Temp reading sites were sourounded by farms and trees in the past 30 to 100 years.
    BC (Black Carbon)that is dumped into the areas that jets fly 25,000 to 40,000 feet is main cause for BC deposits in the N hem ice caps/snow resulting in much faster summer melting. Jets that fly are like GIANT blower heaters heating so much air it is amazing. Look at this chart when Jut fuel consumpion rose and so dit global temps. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=jet-fuel&graph=consumption
    I see a pice of another puzzle. Also look at global temps when the economy came to a stand still in 2008, Global temps took a short but sharp drop off.

  26. Eric Simpson says:

    “Green shirts”… I like it.
    And if Michael Mann were to bust in to our house and start trying to peddle his leftist hooey about global warming er climate change, I would say: “Quit what you’re saying. Cease and desist immediately from uttering your fallacious drivel. Because I don’t think it’s right that you green shirts try to push your leftist vision and ideas on the rest of us. At best what you fear-mongers holler about is extreme exaggeration; at worst, it’s an outright fabrication, like your hockey. stick. And without the hockey stick, there’s nothing unusual about current temperatures or the climate, it’s just another day on Planet Earth. Be gone bad Mann!! Before I call the cops!”

  27. D.B. Stealey says:

    For proof that WUWT allows comments by blinkered True Believers, check out the post by Vince Wilkinson above.

    Wilkinson doesn’t understand some things. I’m here to help:

    First, this survey was done by people very sympathetic to the catastrophic AGW scare. So all favorable numbers are padded, and 36% was all they could muster. The respondents who say that global warming was “partly” human-caused do not even know what they were responding to. Weasel words like “partly” can mean anything, so they mean nothing. “Partly” can mean 0.001%, or 40%, or anything. Since “partly” is not defined, it is meaningless and can be disregarded for all practical purposes.

    There are no empirical, testable measurements available which confirm that belief. None. AGW is simply a conjecture. It has never been credibly measured. The ONLY cause-and-effect relationship between temperature and CO2 shows that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T — not vice-versa. Wilkinson cannot produce a similar chart showing that CO2 leads T. There are no such measurements available, but not for lack of searching.

    The alarmist crowd started out with a faulty premise [CO2 causes measurable global warming], so they necessarily ended up with a faulty conclusion. CO2 may cause some minuscule warming, but any such warming is entirely beneficial. And for the past 16 years, there has been no global warming despite a steady rise in harmless, beneficial CO2.

    The consternation expressed by people like Wilkinson stems from the falsification of their basic belief system. The globe is not warming, as was universally predicted by the entire alarmist crowd. Now their belief is being falsified by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth. The inevitable result is wild-eyed comments like Wilkinson’s. It’s just cognitive dissonance from the True Believers in the catastrophic AGW scare.

  28. chris y says:

    Steven Mosher-

    “After large ice losses in the melt season there is a negative feedback.”
    When the sun drops sufficiently low in the sky, there is negative feedback, independent of ice loss. Except for May, June and July, the net radiative forcing is negative.

    “Ice acts as an insulator, so where there is little or no ice, heat is lost rapidly leading to large increases in ice formation ( area ).”
    Ice has a thermal conductivity more than 3 times higher than water. It is a lousy insulator. However, ice can reduce heat transport from the underlying water by creating a dead air space between the water surface and the underside of the ice, and/or by providing a shelf upon which an overcoat of insulating low density snow ( as low as 0.03 W/m-K for fresh snow versus 0.6 W/m-K for water and 2 W/m-K for ice) can find a perch.

  29. Steven Mosher says:

    DB Stealey,

    what is the problem with an ice free arctic?
    None that I can see. Look at what I wrote. quote my words exactly.
    There are some simple facts that folks really dont have to deny, but they get trapped into denying them because they dont like the policies of the folks who point out the facts.

    1. The arctic summer volumes, area and extent continue to decline.
    You can attack satillites, or accuse them of fraud, but the summer ice is on a downtrend.
    2. There may have been times in human history when it was less. Data here is less certain
    than data in the past 30 years. So, one should not go around as you have, claiming
    with certitude that there has been less ice. That’s a bad as alarmists claiming the loss
    is unprecedented.
    3. there are many potential causes for this, Among them: changes in SST, changes
    in circulation patterns, changes in wind, soot, changes in clouds, salinity, and yes
    changes in warming. For example, in the 30s when it was warmer low and behold there
    is some evidence ( not proof) of less ice. And when it was warmer in the holocene, you
    guessed it.. less ice. Did AGW cause all the loss? dont be silly. Does increased warmth
    have nothing to do with? dont be silly.
    4. The causes for ice gain and loss in the north pole and south pole are different. For example,
    you see increased ice in the south. Does soot have anything to do with that? haha. The point
    is you can’t really compare the north and south without attending to a host of different
    factors that can drive the metrics in opposite directions over short time scales.

    5 Effects. understanding the effects of less ice is at the Bleeding edge of science. With only a few datapoints, say 5-6 years ( 2007 and on ) the best you can expect is a variety of possible
    impacts. Its clear however that one cannot conclude that there will be no problem. There isnt enough data to conclude there will be a problem and the converse holds as well. That same lack of data cannot support your certitude that there will be no problem. Ignorance is not bliss.

    Here are some possible issues that bear looking into: changes in weather patterns in the NH.
    Will you see “new weather” nope. You’ll see your grandfathers weather with a different frequency distribution. Like heavier snowfalls in the NH during winter? record snowfalls?
    not necessarily. will you see it every year? nope, its weather. But on average, if the hypothesis hold up, you’ll see heavier than normal over long periods.

    In short, there is no reason for alarm but neither is their reason to ignore the possible impacts.
    There is no reason to bury your head in the sand. No reason to deny facts. No reason to trust reconstructions of the past over measure data from the present. No reason invent wacko ideas for why ice melts. No reason to attack the satellite community. just as on the other side there is no reason to extrapolate from a change in ice to the end of the world.

    Finally it really is silly to find the most extreme alarmists and argue the exact opposite of what they claim. two wrongs …. the saying goes..

  30. Steven Mosher says:

    Chris.
    Compare water covered by ice with water not covered by ice.
    you get the idea.

  31. Steven Mosher says:

    And chris ” Acts as an insulator” means what it says. it doesnt say ice IS an insulator, but as you know the combination of ice and the dead air reduces heat transport and acts AS an insulator.
    reading is fundamental

  32. Peter Miller says:

    Vince Wilkinson says: “The WUWT regurgitation machine is in full swing here, attempting to manipulate public opinion with smoke and mirrors and little else.

    Firstly, Taylor has been criticized by the reports authors posted on the Forbes article, for using data that was not controlled in it’s collection. The survey targeted Geophysicists and engineers actively promoting the industry viewpoint.”

    What complete BS. As an active geo-scientist, I know absolutely no others (like me) who think CAGW is anything other than a complete crock. As for engineers, I have met a couple of lukewarmers, but the rest are hard core sceptics.

    At the end of the day, it boils down to this: if you are a government geo-scientist, you believe in global warming – you have to, or there are serious employment consequences.

    If you work in the private sector, you can make up your own mind, which is why there is almost universal scepticism towards global warming.

  33. A.D. Everard says:

    D.B. Stealey says:
    February 17, 2013 at 1:14 pm

    For proof that WUWT allows comments by blinkered True Believers, check out the post by Vince Wilkinson above.

    Wilkinson doesn’t understand some things. I’m here to help: [etc.]

    *

    Well put, D.B. You did a far better job than I could have done.

    What I would add is that I’ve only known the skeptical side to actually put their science on the table. The alarmists are too busy hiding theirs. WUWT is the best site in the world, IMHO, thick with REAL science, REAL scientists and REAL research. I know where to come to find out the truth AND have a decent discussion. Can anyone say that about the alarmists sites? No, not even close.

    You pointed out the facts beautifully and very neatly. Cheers. :)

  34. Oflot says:

    some things here:

    *could we please move away from words like “alarmists” and “denialists”, it just comes off as childish and unprofessional
    *the study makes it pretty clear its targetting an “skeptical” group, yet they the majority still believed in humans influence
    *why such missleading titles?

  35. Latitude says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    Perfectly normal and in fact expected . After large ice losses in the melt season there is a negative feedback. Ice acts as an insulator, so where there is little or no ice, heat is lost rapidly leading to large increases in ice formation ( area )
    ======
    Mosh, can you define this with numbers?
    How low was the ice loss? how much more was gained?
    Does that amount of ice loss justify this much gain?

  36. Crob says:

    Vince Wilkinson..thank you for bringing possible problems with the study to light. Any true skeptic on this board should be encouraged by, not bothered by, your advice to “read beyond the headlines.” Actually looking at the data from such studies and checking whether the conclusions actually follow is at the core of many skeptical posts on this site, so your input is appreciated.

    I haven’t had a chance to read referenced study, but could you go into more detail about how the non-controlled nature of the study impacts any of the conclusions cited? What variables do you think should have been controlled that were not?

    I should also note that, while your input is appreciated, your tone towards the other readers of this blog is not. Please try to be respectful, even if some responding to you have not been.

  37. Gary Pearse says:

    The IBD article notes that 75% of climate papers were pro anthropo in 2004 and 46% in 2008. and that was before the gatekeepers who kept skeptical papers out of the main journals and had editors fired for admitting skeptical papers were hit by climategate. There has been a flood of skeptical papers since.

  38. Well, if you had absolutely no chance to think on your own and still had to test consensus position on a particular topic of science, correct methodology requires genuine experts of that very field to be excluded from the poll.

    If you wanted to know for example, that homeopathy was science or pseudoscience, so it deserved financial support from government on taxpayer’s money, you’d never ask a group of homeopaths if they believed substances diluted until not a single molecule of the supposed agent remained in them had still beneficial effect, would you? Even if you would and found 98% consensus on this issue among them, it would be utterly meaningless.

    On the other hand, asking experts of neighboring disciplines like doctors, pharmacologists, biologists, nurses and the like makes sense.

    It is the same with climatology. As soon as the scientific value of the basic paradigm of a field, in this case fitting multiple computational models of high complexity to a single run of a unique physical instance is questioned, it is up to experts of neighboring fields to decide its validity. They may not be able to do their own research in that field, but they do have ample background to understand and evaluate the methods applied in the field in question.

  39. chris y says:

    Steven Mosher-

    The ice is not acting like an insulator. The air space is acting like an insulator. The snow is acting like an insulator.

    “you get the idea.”
    “reading is fundamental.”

    Perhaps these reflexive snarks are indicative of some sort of climo-coprolalic malady.
    More likely that you have been spending too much time over at RC or SS.

  40. Camburn says:

    Climate Science is settled. There is now no reason to continue to fund research.
    Time to remove it from the US federal budget

  41. Jeff Alberts says:

    Mosher: “In short, there is no reason for alarm but neither is their reason to ignore the possible impacts.”

    What possible impacts? There needs to be evidence that anything out of the ordinary is happening for there to be impacts which can be attributed to humans.

    Mosher: “There isnt enough data to conclude there will be a problem and the converse holds as well. That same lack of data cannot support your certitude that there will be no problem. Ignorance is not bliss.”

    Hmm. there’s a chance my car might just explode, even though I have no evidence to support it. I mean, it’s got a 12 gallon tank filled with volatile gasoline. One little spark is all it takes. I’d better not go near it, even though there’s no evidence that it can spontaneously explode. Better not leave your house. There are all sorts of things out there which can kill you. Precautionary Principle, and all that.

    Mosher: “Will you see “new weather” nope. You’ll see your grandfathers weather with a different frequency distribution. Like heavier snowfalls in the NH during winter? record snowfalls?
    not necessarily. will you see it every year? nope, its weather. But on average, if the hypothesis hold up, you’ll see heavier than normal over long periods. ”

    Ok, so on average we haven’t seen an increase in extreme weather, unless you have data to the contrary. Hypothesis falsified, again.

  42. D.B. Stealey says:

    Steven Mosher,

    I can’t answer all those strawman arguments, I have things to do!

    You didn’t cut & paste the words you were responding to, and I’m not willing to re-read every comment to try and figure out what you mean. All I asked was:

    What is the problem with an ice-free Arctic? I can only see benefits, such as sharply reduced shipping costs, less fuel used, and shorter transit times.

    I didn’t try to “prove” anything, I didn’t take an extreme position, and I wasn’t arguing. I was just asking.

    “We don’t know yet” is not a good answer. It is the old Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy, and it is used to try and prop up “what if” arguments. The fact is that there are no credible scare stories resulting from an ice-free Arctic.

    I still see nothing alarming about an ice-free Arctic. It has happened before, and it will happen again. Naturally. And I can find no verifiable, testable scientific evidence showing that human activity has anything at all to do with it.

    • • •

    Oflot,

    H.L. Mencken wrote:

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

    What else would you call people whose every effort is to alarm the public over an imaginary scare?

    • • •

    A.D. Everard,

    Thanks.

  43. Latitude says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 17, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    “but the summer ice is on a downtrend.”
    ======
    well yeah, when you start measuring at the coldest winter…
    seals, whales, polar bears, birds, etc are all increasing in numbers….they think that’s a good thing
    Who decided what was “normal” for Arctic ice in the first place?
    =====
    “but neither is their reason to ignore the possible impacts.”
    =====
    so far it’s only the product of an over active imagination……

    0.039 – 0.028 = 0.011

  44. Latitude says:

    Mosher: “Will you see “new weather” nope. You’ll see your grandfathers weather with a different frequency distribution.
    ===========
    Mosh, in your opinion are we going to see the “dust bowl” more or less frequently?

  45. Camburn says:

    Actually, the Arctic has been ice-free during every interglacial of the past. During MIS-11, both polar areas had large ice free areas.

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644725-geoscientists-engineers-dont-believe-in-climate-change.htm#ixzz2LAtp1Qee

    During MIS-5, the temps were approx 5.0C warmer than present temps:

    http://www.moraymo.us/Raymo+Mitrovica_2012.pdf

    “The oxygen isotopes in the ice imply that climate was stable during the last interglacial period, with temperatures 5 °C warmer than today.”

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/abs/nature02805.html

    I don’t understand why anyone is getting upset that the Arctic Ice is melting. It is a normal occurrence during inter-glacial periods.

  46. I love it when the likes of Vince Wilkinson come on. That awful squealing noise he made is certain sure proof that we are hitting the targets…again and again and again.
    We haven’t won the war yet, but we’re starting to win battles.

  47. davidmhoffer says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 17, 2013 at 1:28 pm
    And chris ” Acts as an insulator” means what it says. it doesnt say ice IS an insulator, but as you know the combination of ice and the dead air reduces heat transport and acts AS an insulator.
    reading is fundamental
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yes, and it suppresses evaporation too… not that there is a lot at arctic temps, but the point is that water in all its phases is remarkably complex. One of the complexities which you seem to dismiss out of hand is that ice extent is not particularly significant. Let’s do the math, shall we?

    Salt water doesn’t freeze the same way as fresh water. As even a thin layer of ice forms at surface, salt is ejected out of the ice and into the water below. That water, because of the increased salinity, sinks downward, bringing warmer water to the top…which melts that thin layer of ice. This process continues until all the water in the water column reaches the freezing point.

    Now the arctic ocean is on the order of 1 km deep, but I am given to understand by another commenter oon another thread that according to NOAA, due to layering in the arctic ocean, this process only extends to about 100 meters to 150 meters. Let’s use NOAA’s number, in fact for easy figuring let’s use the lower end, 100 meters.

    So let’s assume a column of water with a surface area of 1 m^2 and a depth of 100 m for a volume of 100 m^3. Let’s assume that it starts out one degree above the freezing point. How much energy must the column of water lose to freeze the top one cm of water?

    Heat capacity of water ~ 4,200 joules per kg per degree
    Density of water ~ 1,000 Kg per m^3
    Energy lost cooling by 1 degree
    = 4,200 * 100 * 1000
    =420,000,000 joules

    Energy to turn top 1 cm to ice
    ~ 334 kJ/Kg. = 334,000 joules per Kg
    1 cm = 0.01 meters
    area of water column above is 1 m^2
    volume of 1 cm of water
    = 0.01 *1 = 0.01 m^3
    Density of water ~ 1000 Kg per m^3
    energy to turn 1 cm into ice
    =0.01 * 1000 * 334,000
    =3,340,000 joules

    Now I may have well messed up the math in this, counting up the zeros is not my strong suite. But the great thing about WUWT is when you mess up, someone will let you know in short order.

    My point however should be clear. Casually dismissing ice extent as being of less importance that ice thickness simply doesn’t stand up to reason. If the ice thickness was 10 times as much, it would still represent only a 1/10 the energy loss required to cool the water column to the freezing point, and that is for water just a single degree above freezing. It would take about 1.27 meter thick ice to match the energy change of the 100 meter water column below it. If the water had to cool from say 3 degrees above freezing, that would represent very nearly 4 meters of ice to match the energy change in the water. So even thin ice represents massive energy changes.

    So sorry, while you are perfectly correct that ice extent tells only a part of the story, it is in fact significant.

  48. Robert in Calgary says:

    Bravo! D.B. Stealey at 1:14pm

    I would love to see Josh work a lot of that info into a cartoon.

    Perhaps with a generic “Vince Wilkinson” with imploding brain.

  49. Skunkpew says:

    And the very day that the antarctic sea ice regresses and goes below “normal” the warmists will point at that as proof that AGW is real.

    At some point all you can do is laugh, otherwise the warmists will drag you down with them.

  50. geran says:

    Of course, most readers and commenters here know that “consensus” has little to do with the actual science. So posts such as this are fun because it throws it back in the face of such extreme warmers as commented above. Also, it brings out the “closet” warmers!

    Keep it up, WUWT. More, quicker, sooner!

  51. Oflot says:

    “What else would you call people whose every effort is to alarm the public over an imaginary scare?” D.B. Stealey
    I think the words denialist and alarmist should be confined to issues not regarding facts or truths as I feel it tries to steer topics away from science. Hence making it seem more amateurish. But I guess for articles like the one one Forbes and IBD, its befitting for them to try to move it away from science since they missrepresent the study anyways.

    I am a lurker on WUWT I dont generally post much(think this is my third comment all in all) but I have to say something, because I like WUWT but I dont like posts like this one because I feel it caters towards dumbing down the discussion.

    p.s excuse my english, second language

  52. Mr Bliss says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    And chris “Acts as an insulator” means what it says. it doesnt say ice IS an insulator, but as you know the combination of ice and the dead air reduces heat transport and acts AS an insulator.

    reading is fundamental
    ——————-
    Yes it is Steve, but if you had said that “the combination of ice and the dead air reduces heat transport and acts AS an insulator” , that would have been much more accurate than saying “Ice acts as an insulator”.

    Writing is fundamental

  53. Scott Scarborough says:

    To all of you who cringe when “the fastest Ice gain on record” is brought up because it is only the flip side of the most ice lost during the summer. If the positive feed back of open ocean hypothesis were true the arctic would NOT gain the ice back at record pace after it melted in the summer. So this “fastest Ice gain on record” meme does have a point. The point is that there is no “Death spiral” of positive feedback.

  54. trafamadore says:

    “with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”

    and when was the previous record? In 2008, the year after the previous minimum. Which makes sense: if you have a low minimum, when the ice cap refreezes, of course you are going to have a record rate of ice formation. Sort of a silly point to argue, unless you are into misinformation.

  55. Mark and two Cats says:

    Vince Wilkinson (@Archeobiognosis) said:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:10 pm
    CAVEAT EMPTOR
    The WUWT regurgitation machine is in full swing here, attempting to manipulate public opinion with smoke and mirrors and little else.
    ———————————————-
    If WUWT is such an egregious propaganda apparatus, how did this guy’s comments get posted?

    Vince – try posting something heterodoxical on Real Climate and see if it gets accepted… I’ll wait.

    Dum dee dum dum……

    stretch

    yawn

    ZZZZzzzz…..

  56. James Allison says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    “with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”

    Perfectly normal and in fact expected .
    =========================================
    Expected with benefit of hindsight?

  57. Luke Salvalaggio says:

    I am a member of APEGGA, I have nothing to do with oil as I am a computer engineer who works more in telecom/iptv stuff than with the oilfield.

    The tired and worn meme that we’re all shills for big oil is just something repeated for the useful idiots of the world to gobble up so as to maintain their narrow world view. These people will never be convinced.

    Completely rhetorical, but why is there never any wailing and gnashing of teeth about the incestuous relationship between Big Alarmism and Big Government? Hell, Big Alarmism gets more money from Big Oil than any skeptic I’ve read anywhere online. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good emotionally driven cultural death spiral.

    Love your site Anthony, rare commenter, obsessive reader. Keep up the good fight.

  58. ferd berple says:

    Vince Wilkinson (@Archeobiognosis) says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:10 pm
    Read behind the headlines to discover the truth and don’t expect to find anything other than fraudulent disinformation from the likes of Watt Up With That.
    ==============
    Then why does WUWT allow you to post this, while Real Climate and the Team censor any posts that attempt to post facts contrary to AGW belief?

    The difference is that Real Climate and Climate Science in general operate similar to a cult. They have a god-head (Hansen) and as with a cult no one is allowed to question doctrine. Any person that does not conform is removed from the cult (Judith Curry).

  59. davidmhoffer says:

    trafamadore says:
    February 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I would like to extend my congratulations to tramafadore for participating with facts and logic.

  60. Vince Wilkinson (@Archeobiognosis) says: February 17, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    The WUWT regurgitation machine is in full swing here, attempting to manipulate public opinion with smoke and mirrors and little else.

    Ummm, yeah, it is either that or me throwing up a quick post on an article I came across that I thought others might be interested in.

    Firstly, Taylor has been criticized by the reports authors posted on the Forbes article, for using data that was not controlled in it’s collection.

    Post links and references to criticisms related to this study and, if they are accurate and substantive, I will add them as an update to this article.

    The survey targeted Geophysicists and engineers actively promoting the industry viewpoint. Walk into a meeting of alcoholics anonymous and you can find 100% of the people have been drinkers.

    True to an extent, but the same applies to surveys of “climate scientists” whose paychecks depend on the continued propagation of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative.

    Secondly, of the 1077 surveyed, the majority believe warming is partly caused by man.

    So what, so do I. The study indicates that most people take a more nuanced view of “climate change” and do not support drastic actions to address a problem that may not exist.

    So, if you read this post and immediately think, I knew it, you are suffering from extreme confirmation bias. Read behind the headlines to discover the truth and don’t expect to find anything other than fraudulent disinformation from the likes of Watt Up With That.

    Can you please provide evidence/examples of this “fraudulent disinformation”?

  61. pat says:

    complete with appoving comments from the CAGW consensus choir:

    18 Feb: Age Opinion, John Cook, University of Queensland: There is no such thing as climate change denial
    In a sense, there is no such thing as climate change denial. No one denies that climate changes (in fact, the most common climate myth is the argument that past climate change is evidence that current global warming is also natural). Then what is being denied? Quite simply, the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. A more appropriate term would be “consensus denial”.
    There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists…
    A prominent Australian fake expert is Ian Plimer, the go-to guy for political leaders and fossil fuel billionaires. He hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change…
    Finally, with consensus denial comes the inevitable conspiracy theories…
    A key element to meaningful climate action is closing the consensus gap. This means identifying and rebutting the many rhetorical techniques employed to deny the scientific consensus.
    This article was adapted from Understanding Climate Change Denial.
    John Cook does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations…
    This article was originally published at The Conversation…
    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/there-is-no-such-thing-as-climate-change-denial-20130218-2ely3.html

  62. Toto says:

    So what, so do I. The study indicates that most people take a more nuanced view of “climate change” and do not support drastic actions to address a problem that may not exist.

    It’s not the 97% (*) of climate scientists (*) who believe in CAGW that is the problem.
    (* = grain of salt)
    The problem is the huge number of scientists, politicians, and general public who believe that climate change is THE most important problem facing us today, or even the ONLY problem facing us today. Even if it’s worse than anybody thought, it’s not an abandon everything else problem, far from it.

  63. D.B. Stealey says:

    Pat reports on John Cook’s preposterous statement:

    “There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion.”

    Cook cannot cite any testable, reproducible scientific measurements of AGW. Because there are no verifiable, testable AGW measurements. That is the central fallacy in the so-called “consensus“.

  64. Jeef says:

    So, Vince, 36% of respondents of a vested interest survey may have issues, even if there’s more than 1000 of them, yet less than 100 respondents of a similar survey with a poorly framed set of questions returning a 97% hit rate is gospel truth, is it?

    Bye bye!

  65. F. Ross says:

    Vince Wilkinson (@Archeobiognosis) says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:10 pm
    “…
    Read behind the headlines to discover the truth
    …”

    [+emphasis]

    Which is…?

  66. john says:

    I think that usually when “consensus” is used in regards to climate change it is often
    followed by ” of climatologists”.

  67. JazzyT says:

    From theInvestor’s Business Daily article:

    Arctic sea ice, which sent the green shirts into a lather when it hit a record low in the summer of 2012, has “with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”

    Here’s what this looks like:
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/02/Figure2.png

    Follow this year’s ice extent, along the blue line. It starts off coming up from a record low–over 750,000 square km less than in any previous year–and is rebounding to levels consistent with the past few years, which are distinctly lower the 1979-2000 average. You can see for yourself whether this growth is particularly impressive. You can also see where the curve started, at the minumum, at the end of summer 2012, here:
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    You can click on various years over on the left to add traces and make comparisons.

    Hmm. Yes, there are a few weeks of ice growth left, but the curve is leveling off; the steepest part historically comes around November-December, as winter sets in. So, we have a “new normal” amount of ice, rebounding from a record low–I guess it had to have record ice growth to get back there.

    Interesting that the max ice isn’t retreating as much as the minimum has been. But Hell isn’t freezing over, and neither is the world. If this is how Investor’s Business Daily describes data, I wouldn’t want to bet my hard-earned money on their advice.

  68. Ben D. says:

    Mr Mosher,….Inconvenient Ice Study: Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/08/inconvenient-ice-study-less-ice-in-the-arctic-ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/

  69. Jeff Alberts says:

    john says:
    February 17, 2013 at 7:15 pm

    I think that usually when “consensus” is used in regards to climate change it is often
    followed by ” of climatologists”.

    Sooo, which one of them high-falutin’ climatologists has a climatology degree? Hansen? Mann? Santer? Jones? Briffa? Any of them??

  70. JazzyT says:

    It would be helpful if anyone reporting on a poll of “Scientists and Engineers” would report numbers of respondents, and poll results, separately for each group. Science and Engineering are different, though closely related professions, with overlapping, but non-identical skill sets. Each historically has informed the other, and applied scientists are often a bit of each. A good engineer might make a good scientist, and vice versa, but there’s no guarantee; I’ve seen more than a couple from each group that don’t fully grasp what the other group does. Any divergence of opinions between the two would be interesting; it would also be interesting to know whether the opinions of a small group of scientists were being lost among those of a much larger group of engineers.

  71. Kajajuk says:

    wow, impressed with the range of posts; clearly not shaped by omission censorship. Props!!!

    Steve Mosher makes a many valid points and i am on the fence too looking at the the polarized (pun intended) camps of faith based science on each side of the fence.

    There simply has not been enough global measurements, of enough global metrics, to make a definitive global prediction let alone establish causation (on a global scale). Each side quotes models, or slams models….analysis of ice cores, or re-analyss of ice cores…blah blah blah

    It is the process of science, in its purest form, to observe and wonder…test and measure…repeat
    Climate change is a standard globally; that is to say always changing. So where is the worry?

    Well boy and girls as this intellect sits on the fence looking at both crowds squawking it just goes hmmmm. The Sun is the driver of the climate on the Earth. The insolation of the sun’s energy varies as the planet wobbles, precesses, and dances eccentrically about the shining orb, so it does not simply warm like a cup of water in front of the fire.
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_3.php
    According to a theory, only acknowledged in the mid 1970 (due to faith based elitist science), the globe should be well on its way to a minor glacial period for the next 10,000 years or so; i.e. ice formed during the winter at each pole should persist, in some fashion, through to the next summer and SLOWLY accumulate. And so…
    * a trend to an ice free summer in the Arctic ocean seems strange (great rebound in ice formation in the following winter is not so strange especially due to the large amount of fresh water drained into the arctic gyre from Russia, less ice to reflect sunlight when the sun smiles so much less) during a creeping to a glacial era
    * parts of the Antarctic is loosing ice net mass from SOME of the shore but gaining net mass in SOME of the rest of the continent; again i go hmmm i wonder if this could affect the rotational inertia of a planet…and i wonder if that could be a bad thing for 7 billion tiny “dinosaurs”
    * tree lines on all continents are advancing northwards; hmmmm
    * polar bears seem to be dying of starvation and drowning to death; hmmmm, that”s weird
    * lakes in Russia boiling off methane, birds are changing their migration or not migrating, virus’ and molds scourging wildlife all about…
    * seems to be an increase in water redistribution all over the place, hmmmm
    It probably doesn’t “mean” a thing, no worries mate, business as usual…but there does seem to be a lot of interest in weather based satellites being launched, hmmmm; ahh it’s probably just for a new cable station or cell phone app…
    I know you say that does not seem like someone on the “fence”, but the fence it is since these and many more observations may not have a single causation, let alone one humble green house gas

  72. Theo Goodwin says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    “That’s why in the final analysis area and extent are not the best metrics for understanding the total picture. That’s why volume in the end is a better metric.”

    The other half of the picture is that there are reliable techniques of measurement for area and extent but only new and untested techniques for volume. The satellites bounce something off the surface of the ice. One uses a laser I believe. They are measuring the relative bumpiness of the ice and using it as a proxy for volume. Obviously, such techniques must be supplemented by some other technique such as using sonar to measure the bumpiness underneath the ice and then the two sets of results must be combined in a grid that accurately matches surface to undersea. At this time, the undersea measurements are only spotty and only enough to allow one to conclude that the surface measurements are plausible as measures of volume. They cannot be said to confirm the surface estimates of volume.

    However, even if the satellites and their undersea partners proved to be perfect, they give us a picture of volume that goes back only ten years at most. Many faithful believe that the old ice was bumpy above and below the surface and that all the extent recovered since the summer is thin. Such a belief is nothing more than convenient mythology. No one knows. The relevant measurements beyond ten years into the past simply do not exist. Some true believers might say that today’s satellite and undersea measurements support the view that old ice is bumpy and high volume while new ice is smooth and fine. But why bother gathering evidence to support what must remain a myth?

  73. Jeff Alberts says:

    Kajajuk, there have been little tiny up and down wobbles throughout this interglacial. In fact there is no time without a wobble, as far as we know. The current wobble is well within the range of all the other wobbles, again, as far as we know. Slight upward wobble here, slight downward wobble there, no big deal really. When the next glacial comes, it will be relatively quick, geologically speaking. One or two or even 20 years with “lower than normal Arctic ice” won’t stop it.

  74. davidmhoffer says:

    kajajuk;
    Well boys and girls as this intellect sits on the fence looking at both crowds squawking it just goes hmmmm.
    >>>>>>>>>
    Well Kajajuk, if you’re going to jump into this forum casting yourself as an “intellect” looking down your nose at us “squawkers” I can suggest that you may be in for a rough ride. You may want to begin by getting your assertions correct and doing a bit of research:

    1. If you think the sun is THE major driver of climate, then I suggest you research the “faint sun hypothesis” and you may want to review articles and comments (and responses to) by Leif Svalgaard. You may discover that the topic has been discussed in considerable detail, and that your assertion is premature.

    2. Less ice to reflect sunlight is too simplistic. Under a range of circumstances the albedo of water exceeds that of ice. Soot collects on ice, but not on water.

    3. The notion that unbalanced ice formation in the Antarctic might affect the rotational inertia of the planet sent me reaching for a calculator but I had to stop and grab tissues instead due to a cola up the nose moment. I decided to just suggest that given your “intellect” that you do the calculations yourself to see just how silly a notion that is. By doing it yourself you’ll learn a lot more than me telling you.

    4. If polar bears were actually starving and drowning in any numbers your statement would be true. But it isn’t. The polar bear population has doubled to quadrupled (depending on whose numbers you use) in the last couple of decades, and the stories of starving and drowning bears have been debunked as isolated incidents presented fraudulently on this and other sites.

    5. Russian lakes boiling off methane? In what quantities and how is it different that frozen lakes emitting methane from rotting debris in the past? Birds changing migration patterns? That’s what resulted in the acid rain mythology….and it also isn’t new. Viruses and molds scourging wildlife? Sorry, on that one you’ll need to cite a study or article to back up your assertion, and I’ll bet it gets picked to shreds in nothing flat if you do. The biosphere by many measures is healthier than it has been in a long time, much healthier than the LIA some 400 years ago, and a long list of species that were on the brink of extinction have recovered.

    6. There are several recent articles on this site about the Palmer Drought Index and the most recent studies that are going to be cited by the next UN report which pretty much show that nothing unusual is going on regarding water “distribution”.

    7. Your remark about weather satellites being launched with a sarcastic sneer about being for cell phones…. well that’s just the kind of humour one expects from an “intellect”.

  75. tommoriarty says:

    It is clear to me that the folks at IBD (and the folks here at WUWT who authored this post) either did not actually read “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” or did not understand it.

    I did read it, and this post (and the IBD article) are embarassing misinterpretations. Sadly, the usually very good WUWT has failed this time around.

    Here are some important lessons to be learned…
    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/science-or-science-fiction-professionals-discursive-construction-of-climate-change/

  76. John F. Hultquist says:

    Kajajuk says:
    February 17, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    “There simply has not been enough . . . ”

    “* tree lines on all continents are advancing northwards; hmmmm

    First quote above: There is enough science, physics mostly, that says CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause environmental catastrophes. If you think there is, explain how the mechanisms work.

    Second quote above: Please read the linked to paper . . .
    http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic29-1-38.pdf
    . . . that shows prior warmth and higher latitude tree line in Canada. Then explain why we should be worried? hmmmm

    Also, most of your other arguments can be shown to be seriously flawed.

    If it was warmer before, and it seems to you to be warmer now, why would you find less ice on the Arctic Ocean in late summer to “seem strange?”

    And don’t go back to the Milankovitch cycles – they are too long term for you to claim “the globe should be well on its way to a minor glacial period for the next 10,000 years or so.” That idea and that number are not backed by any explanatory mechanisms – just folks looking and commenting on things they don’t understand. Here is an interesting paper, though:
    http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/GerardWeb/Publications_files/Roe_Milankovitch_GRL06.pdf

  77. orson2 says:

    I wonder if Theo Goodwin’s comment (HERE)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/17/global-warming-consensus-looking-more-like-a-myth/#comment-1227091
    could be expanded into a full post?

  78. Kajajuk says:

    Hi Jeff,

    The citation about the Milutin Milankovitch theory was to suggest the known measure of the cycles within cycles and in particular i was referring to the figure on the last page where the amount of energy from the sun is the addition of each of the contributions . If you start at zero and move to the left, about 10,000 years there is a reinforced minimum with the precessional influence and the obliquity (or wobble) contribution as well as a downward trend from the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit. This suggests a minimum insolation or irradiance from the sun, hence a glacial trend. i.e. This is the trend without human influence. A type of standard, maybe?

  79. Kajajuk says:

    hmmm,

    David… i was being poetic not condescending and i offered, ad hoc, observations of information that i have come across…the facts are not mine.

    We are all intellects.

    And thanks for enlightening me on my many misconceptions, especially with regards to the passive part the Sun plays in warming the Earth.

    When you are doing the calculations on the change in rotational inertia, please start with ice caps at both poles and remember that Antarctica is the tallest continents even though it is highly squished and covered 98% with ice. The Arctic region is much less dense and much less mass than Antarctica. Please remember that the earth is a spheroid, bulging in the middle…oh and the ocean crust is less dense and thinner that the continents. Then when you do the change in rotational inertia for your second calculation assume all the ice is now liquid from the Arctic and distributed around the equator. Not that much of difference, right, a slight slowing and nothing more.
    Try again with a spheroid of 7 large plates around a liquid center, again with ice on both poles…now do it again with all the “top” ice distributed evenly around the bulging equator…of course this is a simplification, damn models…but do you notice the slight spreading of the plates?
    Now imagine that the whole system has a slight wobble…do you see the plates moving and the liquid center starting to ooze out? Na it is probably me and the miss use of my integral tables…never mind :)

  80. tommoriarty says: February 17, 2013 at 9:36 pm

    It is clear to me that the folks at IBD (and the folks here at WUWT who authored this post) either did not actually read “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” or did not understand it.

    Given the two quotes from deep within the paper included in the article above;

    “Third, we show that the consensus of IPCC experts meets a much larger, and again heterogenous, sceptical group of experts in the relevant industries and organizations (at least in Alberta) than is generally assumed. We find that climate science scepticism is not limited to the scientifically illiterate (per Hoffman, 2011a), but well ensconced within this group of professional experts with scientific training – who work as leaders or advisors to management in governmental, nongovernmental, and corporate organizations.”

    “The vast majority of these professional experts believe that the climate is changing; it is the cause, the severity and the urgency of the problem, and the need to take action, especially the efficacy of regulation, that is at issue.”
    http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf+html

    one might deduce that I had read some portion of the paper. In terms of understanding the paper, the data in Table 4 on page 1492 and the conclusions are quite clear, well educated professional experts with scientific training/geoscientists are quite skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative. This is a very similar to this 2011 paper’s finding that:

    “On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503

    Why do you think that increased scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW?

  81. markx says:

    Steven Mosher says: February 17, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    The arctic summer volumes, area and extent continue to decline.
    Yep, must be getting a bit warmer. Question is, what is the cause?

    There may have been times in human history when it was less. Data here is less certainthan data in the past 30 years. So, one should not go around as you have, claiming
    with certitude that there has been less ice. That’s a bad as alarmists claiming the loss
    is unprecedented.

    Nope, there IS evidence, and it would be quite a stretch of the mind (what with ice core data etc) that this was not the case. Whereas the alarmist statement usually directly states or implies the phrase “in the satellite era”. That is just meaningless in the greater scheme of things. When they are more “all encompassing” in their time scales, there is actually no evidence to support the statement, and quite some evidence for the contrary case.

    There are many potential causes for this, Among them: changes in SST, changes
    in circulation patterns, changes in wind, soot, changes in clouds, salinity, and yes
    changes in warming. For example, in the 30s when it was warmer low and behold there
    is some evidence (not proof) of less ice. And when it was warmer in the Holocene, you
    guessed it.. less ice. Did AGW cause all the loss? Don’t be silly. Does increased warmth
    have nothing to do with it? Don’t be silly.

    Gotta agree with every point. You don’t sound like an alarmist here, Mosh.

    The causes for ice gain and loss in the north pole and south pole are different. For example: you see increased ice in the south. Does soot have anything to do with that? haha. The point is you can’t really compare the north and south without attending to a host of different factors that can drive the metrics in opposite directions over short time scales.

    Gotta agree with every point. Don’t get the soot reference, as it seems quite feasible to me that soot effects may be greater in the north, what with China and polar airline routes. But, anyway, you don’t sound like an alarmist here either.

    So …. Here I ask a question. What the hell IS Mosh arguing?

    That CO2 may contribute some to the current warming? Tick.

    That it is very unclear at this stage how serious or not, this is or may be? Tick.

    That we really don’t have enough data to date to be sure of what is happening? Tick.
    That embarking on worldwide precipitate action on the basis that “…it MAY BE TOO LATE and doing something, anything is better than nothing and besides some of us are going to get very wealthy outta this …” is currently looking like a really dumb idea? Tick

    That everyone else is a complete dummy and only Mosh really understands the issues and the science and anyway he’s not going to state anything very clearly or explain himself because you dummies would not understand it anyway? Tick

    Please tell me if I have anything wrong.

  82. markx says:

    again..this time with line breaks fixed:

    Steven Mosher says: February 17, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    The arctic summer volumes, area and extent continue to decline.

    Yep, must be getting a bit warmer. Question is, what is the cause?

    There may have been times in human history when it was less. Data here is less certain than data in the past 30 years. So, one should not go around as you have, claiming with certitude that there has been less ice. That’s a bad as alarmists claiming the loss is unprecedented.

    Nope, there IS evidence, and it would be quite a stretch of the mind (what with ice core data etc) that this was not the case. Whereas the alarmist statement usually directly states or implies the phrase “in the satellite era”. That is just meaningless in the greater scheme of things. When they are more “all encompassing” in their time scales, there is actually no evidence to support the statement, and quite some evidence for the contrary case.

    There are many potential causes for this, Among them: changes in SST, changes in circulation patterns, changes in wind, soot, changes in clouds, salinity, and yes changes in warming. For example, in the 30s when it was warmer low and behold there is some evidence (not proof) of less ice. And when it was warmer in the Holocene, you guessed it.. less ice. Did AGW cause all the loss? Don’t be silly. Does increased warmth have nothing to do with it? Don’t be silly.

    Gotta agree with every point. You don’t sound like an alarmist here, Mosh.

    The causes for ice gain and loss in the north pole and south pole are different. For example: you see increased ice in the south. Does soot have anything to do with that? haha. The point is you can’t really compare the north and south without attending to a host of different factors that can drive the metrics in opposite directions over short time scales.

    Gotta agree with every point. Don’t get the soot reference, as it seems quite feasible to me that soot effects may be greater in the north, what with China and polar airline routes. But, anyway, you don’t sound like an alarmist here either.

    So …. Here I ask a question. What the hell IS Mosh arguing?

    That CO2 may contribute some to the current warming? Tick.

    That it is very unclear at this stage how serious or not, this is or may be? Tick.

    That we really don’t have enough data to date to be sure of what is happening? Tick.
    That embarking on worldwide precipitate action on the basis that “…it MAY BE TOO LATE and doing something, anything is better than nothing and besides some of us are going to get very wealthy outta this …” is currently looking like a really dumb idea? Tick

    That everyone else is a complete dummy and only Mosh really understands the issues and the science and anyway he’s not going to state anything very clearly or explain himself because you dummies would not understand it anyway? Tick

    Please tell me if I have anything wrong.

  83. Kajajuk says:

    Hi John,

    I gave a collection of observed information that made me go hmmmm. I am on the fence between the “hand waivers” calling for doom and gloom and the “cool cucumbers” calling for indisputable proof before of causation.
    My thesis, for lack of a better word, is that the earth is showing signs of rapid change. Maybe it is a complex of a billion eyes, maybe it is 500 + nuclear bomb tests in the open atmosphere, maybe flash floods in moderate rainfall zones is simple weather variability, maybe “century” storms every couple of years in Australia is just a really bad roll of the dice, maybe the dramatic increase in algae blooms is the result of farming pollution, maybe the millions of dead fish off the coast of North and South Carolina is not from a fungus helped by a warmer winter by my the fish breathing too much oxygen to quickly, maybe the advancing of the tree line is not a sign of a warming trend climatically but the result of blowing seeds in northernly winds, maybe the cyclone that hit Australia in the north and then went the “wrong” way around the continent was just the result of strange heatwave (its happened before), winter storms that dump an unusual amount of snow could be the result of natural variation in the combination of two low pressure systems again,, the seeming increase in wild fires is probably just alarmist propaganda as are the many severe droughts in the US, China, Russia, and Australia, i certainly have not done a study to see if worldwide precipitation is increasing of late. In fact i am sure i could come up with several alternative theories of causation for a multitude of observation or i could simply ignore them…
    I do not care if you or anybody is worried, nor am i trying to worry anyone…
    I am curious by these times and fascinated by the zeal of both camps and remain on the fence!
    And so i appreciate your most excellent debunking of my comments, bravo!
    http://www.wsl.ch/staff/niklaus.zimmermann/papers/JVegSci_Gehrig_2007.pdf
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090122162332.htm
    http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1501/2283.full
    It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. ~Thomas Jefferson

  84. MieScatter says:

    Hey justthefacts, have you seen these facts?
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

  85. Ice acts as an insulator. Refrigerator evaporators must be ‘defrosted’ every few hours otherwise the ice that forms on them prevents heat transfer. If ice can prevent the transfer of heat in your freezer then I humbly propose that it can block the transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere.

  86. johnmarshall says:

    Climate change is ongoing. Climates always change, it is what they do, get used to it. Adapt or die.

  87. markx says:

    Kajajuk says: February 18, 2013 at 12:54 am

    “…. maybe “century” storms every couple of years in Australia is just a really bad roll of the dice, ….[....]….maybe the cyclone that hit Australia in the north and then went the “wrong” way around the continent was just the result of strange heatwave (its happened before)…..”

    Nothing odd happening in Australia …it has all happened before … business as usual…
    Here ya go: check out cyclones decade by decade; http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/cyclones.cgi?region=aus&syear=2006&eyear=2006&loc=0

    And, it’s all happened before even prior to those records:

    Here is an Australian report showing we should expect a super cyclone every 200 to 300 years, not every 1000 as previously suspected;
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/full/413508a0.html
    “….. determine the intensity of prehistoric tropical cyclones over the past 5,000 years from ridges of detrital coral and shell deposited above highest tide and terraces that have been eroded into coarse-grained alluvial fan deposits. ………. We infer that the deposits were formed by storms with recurrence intervals of two to three centuries and we show that the cyclones responsible must have been of extreme intensity (central pressures less than 920 hPa). …. Our estimate of the frequency of such ‘super-cyclones’ is an order of magnitude higher than that previously estimated (which was once every several millennia..)….”

    Droughts? In Australia? Well, there’s no end of them: Some of the worst droughts on the Australian continent occurred in 1895-1903, 1911-1916, and in 1918-1920. Later, there have been some pretty bad droughts in 1982-1983, 1995-1996, and 2002-2003.
    http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/droughthistory.html

    These guys touting doom and disaster might even turn out to be correct in the long run. But, they sure as hell don’t know that yet, and they know they don’t know. The very fact they lie, exaggerate and propagandize to this extent leads me to doubt their integrity and motives in the most serious way.

  88. markx says:

    MieScatter says: February 18, 2013 at 1:18 am

    Hey justthefacts, have you seen these facts?
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

    Hi Mie. Have you read the associated paper? (Levitus 2012)

    Do you realize that impressive rise in heat content represents a temperature increase for the top 2000 meters of the world’s oceans of 0.09 degrees C … over approximately a 60 year period.
    …and, it is all measured in degrees C, and the starting temps back in the late 50′s were taken from shipboard measures. (Dunno about you, I’m not too confidence they were quite so precise back then…)

    What that chart mainly tells us is water has a great capacity to store heat, plus there is one helluva lot of water on this planet. And a whisker of a measure one way or the other can make a very impressive chart.

  89. richard verney says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    “….That’s why volume [of ice] in the end is a better metric…”
    ////////////////////////////////////
    But it is area not volume that is material to albedo, and a thin layer of ice is just as effective as a thick layer of ice for preventing heat loss interchange form ocean to atmosphere.

    But in the end, since we only have a snapshot of data, the extent of data is woefully inadequate from which to make any meaningful comparisons and extrapolations.

  90. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Perhaps a new useful measure to track evolution of ice would be how many days a year that the ‘arctic + antarctic sea ice area’ is above the 30 year mean.

    It was above it for a while last year and already for a day or so this.

    The theory would go that you would expect this to increase for quite some time now if nature is self-correcting, whereas you would expect it to flunk out completely if the alarmist projections are correct.

    Anyone at WUWT want to track it??

  91. davidmhoffer says:

    Kajajuk says:
    February 17, 2013 at 11:45 pm
    hmmm,
    David… i was being poetic not condescending and i offered, ad hoc, observations of information that i have come across…the facts are not mine.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Condescending is what you were, and not only are the facts not yours, they aren’t even facts. As for trolls who insist they are on the fence while spewing one alarmist line of claptrap after another, let’s just say you’re not the first to try such a strategy.

    As for your response to me about ice and inertial mass, your first comment was very specific. It was increase in ice in one part of Antarctica versus decrease in another. When I scoffed at the notion and suggested you produce the math to show this could possibly be significant, you changed the problem. Now you claim to be talking about the entire ice sheet melting and the water somehow gathering mostly in the tropics. Again, lots of arm waving and vague references to integral tables, but no timelines, no mass/inertia calculations, just arm waving.

  92. D. Patterson says:

    Mr. Africa says:
    February 17, 2013 at 10:50 am
    While I am as big a skeptic as there is and believe that mankind’s contribution is something less than 25% (possibly FAR less), I cringe whenever our “side” brings up the “fastest rebound in the Arctic” meme. It seems a bit disingenuous because of course a higher melt off will bring a more dramatic freeze up. It is sort of like getting the dreaded “most improved” award when you are young. “You still suck, but you have come a long way Johnny!” Ok…that’s all…

    There is no need for you to cringe at all. The rapid refreeze is a very significant indicator with respect to the question of whether or not global Warming is responsible for the diminished Arctic ice extents. If there really was AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), the multi-seasonal changes would necessarily result in significantly reduced refreezing of the melted Arctic icee cap and the observed record ice extents in Antarctica could not be occurring. The refreezing of the Arctic ice in parallel with the record ice gains in the Antarctice are important contra-indicators of Global Warming (AGW). Remaining silent about its existence and importance only serves to aid and abet the false propaganda which commits scientific fraud by omitting such contrary evidence.

    What does deserve criticism is the deceptive use of the terms “history” and “human history” to describe the known observations of Arctic ice extent, when in fact such ice eextents for nearly 100 percent of human history are unknown due to lack of observation.

  93. markx says:

    davidmhoffer says: February 18, 2013 at 6:00 am
    re Kajajuk says: February 17, 2013 at 11:45 pm

    “…….. the entire ice sheet melting and the water somehow gathering mostly in the tropics….”

    This is an intriguing and recent finding. I have commented on it a few times in WUWT but it has not caught anyone’s interest. It is interesting because it means the effects of warmer seas on Greenland and Antarctica would be lessened as ice caps lost mass (ie, a self limiting mechanism) … apparently the effects on dropping sea levels towards the poles would be very significant. (we are talking perhaps hundreds of metres of sea level fall there).

    Here is a video by Jerry Mitrovica, (very much of alarmist bent, but he is a good speaker and it is a very interesting talk) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w

    MSM article on global gravitational effects of ice melt here; http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt

    Technical article here: Evolution of a coupled marine ice sheet–sea level model Gomez etal JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, F01013, doi:10.1029/2011JF002128, 2012
    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/evolution_ice_sealevel.pdf

    (Note, in the video at 5.44 he shows ancient coral structures to demonstrate that sea levels have NOT been rising constantly and smoothly since the start of the Holocene. Fair enough. But what he DOES demonstrate is that about 5000 years ago – ie the Holocene Warm Period, at least in the equatorial pacific, the sea levels were up to 3 meters higher than they are now … not so great for the longer term hockey stick story? The theoretical alarmist take on this is that the sea floor started to sink about 5000 years ago (once the last of the glacial ice melted?) …. but, given Mitrovica’s and Gomez’s work above, it might just have got colder after the Holocene warm period and more polar ice means lower equatorial sea levels..{note, the models had worked out the amount of seafloor fall before this new data was published}. NOAA tells us it was not warmer in the Mid Holocene Warm period, ‘except for summer and in the Northern Hemisphere…..’ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html )

  94. Jeff Alberts says:

    Kajajuk says:
    February 17, 2013 at 11:15 pm

    Hi Jeff,

    The citation about the Milutin Milankovitch theory was to suggest…

    I was referring to wobbles in the completely meaningless metric called “global average temperature”, not rotational or axial wobbles of the Earth.

  95. markx says:

    Re: 3 metre higher sea levels 5000 years ago, theories on falling ocean floors, and NOAA telling us that the Mid Holocene Warm Period was not much hotter than now: This from Wikipedia (yeah, I know … but considering Connolley has trodden all over there it is all the more significant! … and I do include the reference.)

    The Hans Tausen Iskappe (ice cap) in Peary Land (northern Greenland) was drilled in 1977 with a new deep drill to 325 m. The ice core contained distinct melt layers all the way to bedrock indicating that Hans Tausen Iskappe contains no ice from the last glaciation; i.e., the world’s northernmost ice cap melted away during the post-glacial climatic optimum and was rebuilt when the climate got colder some 4000 years ago.

    Dansgaard W. Frozen Annals Greenland Ice Sheet Research. Odder, Denmark: Narayana Press. pp. 124. ISBN 87-990078-0-0.
    http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/publications/FrozenAnnals.pdf/

  96. beng says:

    ****
    Kajajuk says:
    February 18, 2013 at 12:54 am

    My thesis, for lack of a better word, is that the earth is showing signs of rapid change.
    ****

    You apparently have no idea of what rapid-change really is.

  97. Kajajuk says:

    well quoted Markx…”Our estimate of the frequency of such ‘super-cyclones’ is an order of magnitude higher than that previously estimated (which was once every several millennia..)”
    I do estimate that all is well, sunshine, rainbows, and lollipops everywhere…you know even an out of the ordinary storm system in 2010, 2011, and 2013 does not prove anything really.

    So your fanatical nay saying is just as warranted as the alarmist rhetoric which should, i estimate, lead us to the bliss of a conquered divide. On every issue!

    Or an apparent lengthening and accelerating frequency of drought from your own post is in my estimation not even worthy of investigation, or further estimation, since we all know what must be true; so why even bother to wonder or question…like a hundred years ago science is done, we have conquered the apple harvest and it is unblemished…amen!

    a system as complex as global climate cannot be deduced well from ten years of direct measure, but likely 100 in my humble estimation; the estimations from indirect means can only give us wonder to explore the truth. Not dancing along in our favorite parade.

    I am not a doomsayer, just a curious mind perceiving more than a few fascinating trends; least of which is the possibility of a warming planet (when it should be “cooling”). A possibility that is credible, albeit not definitive, by virtue of considering the likely ‘estimation’ of what a warming Earth would entail; then designing experiments and metrics to validate or invalidate…likely learning something in the process, as well as developing technologies…oh my a security guard is approaching, later dude…

    “Nothing to see here folks, just move along; and please put your cell phones in your pocket with the GPS on and locked or I may have to detain you on suspicion of being a terrorist.
    And check out are page on faceb00k…”

  98. I have to agree that maybe to some extent the reaction to Global Warming could be perceived as alarmist, but I think that’s because people these days don’t seem to listen to information if it doesn’t scare them. Scientists and ecologists have been positing that human lifestyles have been contributing to climate change for decades. And you can’t disagree that technological and population trends have definitely contributed to major changes. On the flip side there are studies that say that cows actually contribute more to Green House Gas levels than humans. But the difference is that we can change our behaviour – cows aren’t going to stop pooping just beacuse its getter hotter or colder. I would never advocate any radical measures, mostly because I personally believe that sustainable change often needs to be slow, otherwise people do not adopt it. And propoganda is a dangerous instrument – that both sides weild! I just think we all need to be a little better, so that there are still resources left on this planet for the generations yet to come. While I don’t agree with what some of these quotes say, I applaud that you’re bringin up the point for debate – at least we’re talking about – and the more you know, the more you grow.

  99. HenryP says:

    This is only the third winter in history,” when more than 10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, Real Science reported on Tuesday, using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois.

    Henry says
    well, we knew this didn’t we?

    arctic ice will gain again from 2015-2038
    just like it did from 1925-1945
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

  100. MieScatter says: February 18, 2013 at 1:18 am

    Hey justthefacts, have you seen these facts?
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

    Yes, I consider it highly suspect. If you look at the measurement location data that the graph is based on (and use the top left arrow to page from present to 1955);
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/OC5/3M_HEAT/showfig.pl?navigation=t_dd_20122012_1_back_99

    you’ll see that coverage doesn’t become sort of adequate until this century when, “Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete.”
    http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

    If you use the up and down arrows on the prior measurement location data map to go shallower and deeper in the ocean you’ll see that coverage gets much worse with depth.

    Furthermore, they are still sorting out how to accurately measure heat content using Argo, per the changes that were made to the heat content graph last year;
    ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/PDF/heat_content_differences.pdf

    Their findings included;

    “Largest differences 2004-2008 in the Southern Hemisphere, where consistent data collection begins ~2004.”

    “Major factor in differences is new/changed data, updated quality control”

    “Questions to be answered: Are quality control differences related to Argo delayed-mode quality control, NODC handling of data, or both?”

    Also, the abstract for Levitus;
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract

    states that:

    We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases.

    i.e. rewriting/recreating the past, and in the paper;
    http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf

    if you look at Figure 1 on page 2, you’ll see that, even at present, the data coverage down to 2000m is less than 50%. Furthermore, when you take into account that data coverage for 700m is almost a 100%, it means that data coverage below 700m is quite low.

    Point being that our historical record of ocean heat content is highly suspect and our current measurement capabilities are reasonably suspect, thus estimates of historical ocean heat content down to 2000m and back to 1955 are highly suspect.

  101. Kajajuk says:

    David… it is not a strategy. In the blogs of club alarmist i argue nay.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/
    And one of my favourite links…when poking the fire;
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/
    After ten years of this sport i am leaning on the warming side, but not ready to sing along with chicken little, just yet.
    am ready to;
    * map the Earth’s geodesic every six months
    * use GPS to measure any tilting of the continental margins
    * measure the surface temperature of the oceans, globally and dynamically, as well as the surface temperature of the continents
    * investigate fanatically all species die offs
    * measure the radiative output of the Sun as well as the spectrum of radiation dynamically
    * measure the energy flux from the Earth into space
    * measure the incidence of radio nucleotides in/on glaciers
    This could go on and on. I do periodic searches but find only ads and proprietary articles or shamefully biased articles with speculation and press releases of research intent (with no follow up, even after years) with much speculation…sign of the times i guess as science unravels as commodity
    I must say that this blog is wonderful, Great comeback links i have enjoyed reading. No selective censorship to craft the threads; very cool and sadly rare.
    peace out

  102. Gail Combs says:

    Kajajuk says: @ February 17, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Milankovitch cycles ~ there was a bit of a problem with them but it was resolved by Gerald Roe and well before that by Nigel Calder who knew in 1974 ” the right quantity that should be compared with the insolation – i.e. the sunshine near the Arctic circle – is not the ice volume itself but its time derivative.” That has been pretty much accepted by all parties.

    Greenland GISP2 Ice Core Graph – 10,000 years

    Nir Shaviv associate professor at the Racah Institute of Physics puts forth more possible factors. In Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? near the bottom he show this graph fig 5

    Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970′s, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6).

    The “SKY” experiment demonstrates link between cosmic rays and condensation nuclei!…. This link implies that a large fraction of the 20th century global warming can be explained through increased solar activity (which reduced the cosmic ray flux reaching Earth).

    He has a lot more work listed under Personal Research

    The Milky Way’s Spiral Arms and Ice Ages on Earth: A detailed summary of the evidence linking between passages of the Solar system through the Milky Way spiral arm, and the appearance of ice age epochs on Earth. This including the cosmic ray flux reconstruction from iron meteorites….

    Natural or Anthropogenic? Which mechanism is responsible for global warming over the 20th century?

    A primer on Climate Sensitivity, why global circulation models cannot predict it, and why empirical evidence suggests it is small.

    Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter, one can quantify the solar climate link and establish that an amplification mechanism (such as the cosmic ray climate link) must exist. Anyone thinking that only the solar irradiance variations are important (e.g., the IPCC scientists) should read this.

    Related research:
    Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle – Summary of the above research from a geochemist’s point of view, that of my colleague Prof. Jan Veizer.

    And from WUWT Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes

    E.M. Smith looked at another possible factor Why Weather has a 60 year Lunar beat

    Bob Tisdale has done a lot of work on ENSO showing the oceans cause a stepwise increase in temperatures link

    Willis Eschenbach even took his stuff from WUWT and published a peer reviewed paper on The Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis

    What most people forget is the actual IPCC mandate is NOT to figure out what factors drive the climate but to come up with data to hang the rap for “Catastrophic Climate Changes” on humans.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.

    I explain the political reason why here.

  103. Kajajuk says:

    Hi HenryP

    There is a trend of increasing sea ice coverage in Antarctica;
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79369
    I found your link hard to follow. And one more…
    http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Antarctic_Sea_Ice_Reaches_New_Maximum_Extent_999.html

    I am trying to find an article i came across that states that the Arctic sea ice varies between 2 and 10 million square kilometers, but i cannot find it…
    http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/maps-of-average-sea-ice-extent-in-the-arctic-summer-september-and-winter-march-and-in-the-antarctic-summer-february-and-winter-september_1167
    Closest i could find, but it is dated

  104. Theo Goodwin says:

    beng says:
    February 18, 2013 at 8:49 am

    “You apparently have no idea of what rapid-change really is.”

    Right. Take the Arctic sea ice. Alarmists imagine that in some ancient time (The Golden Age) ice began growing from the center of the Arctic Circle (or thereabouts), that the ice accumulated volume over the millenia and produced plateaus and bumpiness, and that nothing changed until global warming caused melt from the edges toward the center because the thinner ice is on the edges. That is the Myth of the Arctic sea ice that Alarmists work from. However, it is the very denial of a scientific approach to understanding Arctic sea ice or anything.

    There are myriad forces that cause Arctic sea ice to change. We saw just last year that a storm can rearrange Arctic sea ice in quite profound ways. There is a considerable body of knowledge about the effects of winds and ocean cycles on Arctic sea ice. A scientific approach would have us research those natural processes and it would caution us that we will know diddly about sea ice until we have some profound knowledge of some processes. Profound knowledge of nature always requires well confirmed physical hypotheses whose confirmation is the result of years of exhausting empirical research. To cite the records of two satellites that together yield ten years of data as establishing some truth about Arctic sea ice is to buy into the myth wholeheartedly.

  105. Gail Combs says:

    MieScatter says:
    February 18, 2013 at 1:18 am

    Hey justthefacts, have you seen these facts?
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No but I have seen this article by By Nir Shaviv on his paper accepted in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

    The oceans as a calorimeter
    …It turns out that there are three different types of data sets from which the ocean heat content can derived. The first data is is that of direct measurements using buoys. The second is the ocean surface temperature, while the third is that of the tide gauge record which reveals the thermal expansion of the oceans. Each one of the data sets has different advantages and disadvantages.

    The ocean heat content, is a direct measurement of the energy stored in the oceans. However, it requires extended 3D data, the holes in which contributed systematic errors. The sea surface temperature is only time dependent 2D data, but it requires solving for the heat diffusion into the oceans, which of course has its uncertainties (primarily the vertical turbulent diffusion coefficient). Last, because ocean basins equilibrate over relatively short periods, the tide gauge record is inherently integrative. However, it has several systematic uncertainties, for example, a non-neligible contribution from glacial meting (which on the decadal time scale is still secondary).

    Nevertheless, the beautiful thing is that within the errors in the data sets (and estimate for the systematics), all three sets give consistently the same answer, that a large heat flux periodically enters and leaves the oceans with the solar cycle, and this heat flux is about 6 to 8 times larger than can be expected from changes in the solar irradiance only. This implies that an amplification mechanism necessarily exists. Interestingly, the size is consistent with what would be expected from the observed low altitude cloud cover variations.….

  106. Theo Goodwin says:

    D. Patterson says:
    February 18, 2013 at 7:11 am

    Very well said. Very important point. The Alarmist myth makers will howl and scream but we must hold their feet to the fire.

  107. Kajajuk says:

    Hi beng,

    [snip . . as requested . . mod]

  108. Steven Mosher says:

    “But it is area not volume that is material to albedo, and a thin layer of ice is just as effective as a thick layer of ice for preventing heat loss interchange form ocean to atmosphere.”

    really? when a thin layer is easily broekn up by normal arctic cyclones that previously did nothing to thicker ice? It pays to think the whole problem through.

  109. tommoriarty says:

    {you are spamming the thread so I am removing your previous identical posts . . mod]

    Please indulge me with one more attempt to get the blockquotes correct. thanks.

    I criticized this post by saying…

    It is clear to me that the folks at IBD (and the folks here at WUWT who authored this post) either did not actually read “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” or did not understand it.

    JustTheFacts responded with some quotes form the original journal paper and noted…

    one might deduce that I had read some portion of the paper. In terms of understanding the paper, the data in Table 4 on page 1492 and the conclusions are quite clear, well educated professional experts with scientific training/geoscientists are quite skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative.

    Yes, yes , you are almost right about table 4. The point of the paper was the that these in Alberta leaned to the skeptical when it comes to global warming. That is why Alberta was chosen. That table is labeled “Frames’ relative positioning (percent) within their organization and industry.” Alberta was the laboratory, so to speak, in which the minds of the “deniers” (their word, not mine) could be probed and examined.

    The important part of the paper, from the author’s perspective, is about “Framing experts’ identities,” where they try to figure out why these experts think the way they do. That is the type of approach that social scientists take – they want to see what makes you tick. That is why the social sciences probably should not be called sciences at all. It is easier for them to make up stories about why people think the way they do based on their “identities” and “relative positioning” rather than examining the scientific merits of their arguments.

    If you really think that this paper supports your (and my) view on expert opinion concerning global warming, I suggest you re-read the “discussion and conclusion.” Here are some highlights…

    Nor is this merely a binary debate of whether climate change is ‘science or science fiction’. There are more nuanced intermediary frames that are constructed by these professionals. Indeed, by differing in their normalization and rationalization of nature, they vary in their identification with and defensiveness against others, and in their mobilization of action.

    Get it? They say deniers (their word, not mine) are “defensive.”

    Or this. These professionals…

    …engage in identity and boundary work – to varying degrees – to legitimate themselves as experts and de-legitimate opponents as non-experts, while establishing the cognitive authority of their version of science versus others’ non-science. Defense can result from different worldviews and from identity threats.

    Or this.

    Our findings give greater granularity in understanding which professionals are more likely to resist, why and how they will resist, and who is more likely to be successful…

    … an interest-based discourse coalition may be formed that has the potential to overcome the defensiveness.

    Get it? Resistance may not be futile – but we’re working on it.

    JustTheFacts, I have seen you do some good work here on WUWT. But you blew it this time. Please take this as constructive criticism.

    There are lessons to be learned
    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/science-or-science-fiction-professionals-discursive-construction-of-climate-change/

  110. Steven Mosher says:

    “Ben D. says:
    February 17, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    Mr Mosher,….Inconvenient Ice Study: Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/08/inconvenient-ice-study-less-ice-in-the-arctic-ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/

    ##################
    1. The study covers the area north of Greenland
    2. The operative word in the study is MAY
    3. In the warmer past of the Holocene its not at all unexpected that ice would be less.
    4. It has nothing whatsoever to do with
    a) the potential hazards of ice loss
    b) GHGs effect on global temperature

    So, yes there may have been less Ice in the past, as I have noted on several ocassions. And Yes Skeptics generally accept this studies hook line and sinker because they like the answer.
    But the answer even if true has nothing whatsoever to do with the future of the arctic as we warm the planet to Holocene levels and beyond. Yes a warmer globe leads to less Ice. Although many here deny that.. And then after denying it they point to Holocene studies where a warmer world did cause less Ice. Go figure.

  111. davidmhoffer says:

    kajajuk
    I do periodic searches but find only ads and proprietary articles or shamefully biased articles
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I suggest you go through the extensive resources on this site under the resource tab. You’ll find direct access to all the data that you claim you cannot find there.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/

  112. Ed Ingold says:

    There is a great piece over on Mike Smith’s Meteorological Musings blog spot about the lack of availability of computer space available for the weather forcasters at NASA and NOAA, because the computers are clogged up with modeling projects about Global Warming. This is one of the reasons the European forcasts are so much more reliable on storm forcasting. Another example of how disasterous and costly this whole folley has been

  113. Steven Mosher says:

    Latitude says:
    February 17, 2013 at 2:49 pm
    Steven Mosher says:
    February 17, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    “but the summer ice is on a downtrend.”
    ======
    well yeah, when you start measuring at the coldest winter…
    seals, whales, polar bears, birds, etc are all increasing in numbers….they think that’s a good thing
    Who decided what was “normal” for Arctic ice in the first place?

    #########################

    1. Summer Ice is on a downtrend, you agree.
    2. Pick a different start date. go back to early records.. map based and not as accurate as
    current records and you will find that the decline is long term. There is no evidence otherwise.
    3. Increasing numbers of animals.. yes. who gives a rats ass about animals. not me. Your stupid arguments against positions I don’t hold are amusing. If you want to run away and argue against some polar bear lover go right ahead. I’m not one who cares about that issue.
    4. Who said anything about normal? One could define “normal’ however you like by merely
    picking a time period and normalizing. That’s not the point. Whether or not there has been more or less ice is not the point. The point is summer ice is declining. There are many causes. Among those causes is a warmer planet. Adding GHGs will cause more warming. A good guesser would suggest that the future will have less ice, not more. The question is
    A) is that safe?
    B) are we certain beyond all doubt that it is safe
    C) Can we do anything about it
    D) Should we?

    It makes sense to argue about whether there is anything we should do. You may think there is nothing we should do or can do. That does mean you have to make foolish arguments about the facts of ice decline or the facts of why ice melts. It also means you dont have to make strawman arguments about animals I dont emantion and I dont care about.

  114. Theo Goodwin says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 18, 2013 at 10:35 am

    “really? when a thin layer is easily broekn up by normal arctic cyclones that previously did nothing to thicker ice? It pays to think the whole problem through.”

    Careful. You seem to be saying that arctic cyclones have no impact on thicker ice. Also, you seem to be saying that you have a definitive science and history of arctic cyclones.

    Also, one way that thinner ice comes to resemble thick ice is through the action of arctic cyclones. The ice gets mangled into piles.

  115. Kajajuk says:

    [dude . . you are drunk . .come back tomorrow . . mod]

  116. Kajajuk says:

    [snip . . i mean it, go home . . mod]

  117. Kajajuk says:

    before i start on my reading list i would like to say very emphatically,
    I care greatly for the natural world; when the animals start to higher ground, i am on their tails.
    So to speak. Then sit upon the hill and watch the show along the coast unfold.
    I did seem like a really long deep quake???

    blossoming wildlife would be marvelous,
    perhaps it is time for sustainable cities toward the 60th,
    and a UN “vatican” on Ross Island, Antartica

  118. Phil. says:

    HenryP says:
    February 18, 2013 at 9:28 am
    This is only the third winter in history,” when more than 10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, Real Science reported on Tuesday, using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois.

    Immediately following the first summer when the sea ice area dropped below 2.5 million square kilometers. Do you think there might be a connection?

  119. TonyG says:

    URL for the actual paper: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full (as I posted to tips & notes on the 14th :{ )

  120. Keith Sketchley says:

    Hmm … “”This is only the third winter in history,” when more than 10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, ….” has to be interpreted by looking at the amount of open water at the beginning of freezeup.

    The more open water, the more new ice – because every fall air temperature goes below the freezing point all over the Arctic Ocean.

    So 2012’s record new ice results from 2012’s record low ice extent.

    (Open water comes from summer melt and from piling up of ice by currents and wind.)

    Sounds like a meaningless statistic, not ammunition for either alarmists or skeptics.

  121. TomR,Worc,MA says:

    Kajajuk says:
    Can you provide links for these please. (unless I missed a “sarc” tag)

    “* tree lines on all continents are advancing northwards; hmmmm

    * polar bears seem to be dying of starvation and drowning to death; hmmmm, that”s weird

    * lakes in Russia boiling off methane
    , birds are changing their migration or not migrating,
    virus’ and molds scourging wildlife all about…

    * seems to be an increase in water redistribution all over the place”

  122. The authors of the original study, Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer, have published a comment at Forbes indicating that James Taylor (the author of Forbes blog linked by IBD and a member of The Heartland Institute) got it almost entirely wrong. For example, from the Lefsrud and Meyer’s comment:

    “First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …””

    and

    “In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.”
    (link to the author’s comment: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/1363-1219-5279)

    When I looked into the survey further, it became clear that Taylor had distorted the study even more than the Lefsrud and Meyer had indicated: only members of the Alberta Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) had been surveyed, APEGA membership is dominated by employees and regulators of Alberta’s petroleum industry, and 84% of survey respondents were engineers, not scientists. Taylor neglected to mention any of these points, each of which casts doubt upon his claims, especially his claim that the study is in any way representative of scientists in general.

    Given such significant errors, Taylor should issue a correction or even a retraction, yet he has failed to do so. Instead, he has republished his original post at least once since being corrected by the authors of the study whose research and conclusions he distorted.

  123. JazzyT says:

    D. Patterson says:
    February 18, 2013 at 7:11 am

    The rapid refreeze is a very significant indicator with respect to the question of whether or not global Warming is responsible for the diminished Arctic ice extents. If there really was AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), the multi-seasonal changes would necessarily result in significantly reduced refreezing of the melted Arctic icee cap and the observed record ice extents in Antarctica could not be occurring.

    Increased greenhouse gas concentrations will cause the air to trap more solar radiation. This is especially prominent in the arctic summer, when the sun shines most of the time. During the arctic winter, when there is little to no sunlight, there will be little to no solar heat to trap. Any increase in winter temperatures, which would lead to decreased winter ice, would have to come from air or water currents. How does increased heat transport from these stack up against trapped heat? You’ll need to address this before you can have any confidence in your conclusions.

    Antarctica is a different, more complicated case. The climate there is strongly influenced by the circumpolar current. which is currently (um, now) very strong. This is thought to be warming some parts of Antarctica and cooling others. There is also some thought that this is driven by stratospheric cooling, given the loss of ozone in the ozone hole.

    This seems to lead to increased formation of sea ice, which freezes each winter and melts, almost completely, each summer. (Note, parenthetically, that winter sea ice will have very little impact in terms of any ice-albedo feedback.) Antarctic land ice, on the other hand, seems to have been diminishing for about all of the time we’ve observed it. This ice won’t contribute to an albedo feedback any time soon, but does contribute to sea level rise.

    The Antarctic situation is quite interesting, but given its complexity, you might want to wait until you have the Artic process straight before tackling it.

  124. D.B. Stealey says:

    Brian Angliss says:

    Taylor had distorted the study even more than the Lefsrud and Meyer had indicated: only members of the Alberta Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) had been surveyed, APEGA membership is dominated by employees and regulators of Alberta’s petroleum industry, and 84% of survey respondents were engineers, not scientists. Taylor neglected to mention any of these points…

    If engineers were surveyed, and 84% of respondents were engineers, what’s the problem?

    Also, engineers can be classified as scientists — but not all scientists are engineers.

    There is nothing wrong with James Taylor’s article.

  125. Ed_B says:

    JazzyT says:
    “Antarctic land ice, on the other hand, seems to have been diminishing for about all of the time we’ve observed it. This ice won’t contribute to an albedo feedback any time soon, but does contribute to sea level rise”

    I would like to see the data supporting the loss of land based ice in Antarctica. I did not know they had satellites there with radar.

  126. tommoriarty says: February 18, 2013 at 10:39 am

    JustTheFacts, I have seen you do some good work here on WUWT. But you blew it this time. Please take this as constructive criticism.

    I reposted an interesting article from IBD, along with a link to and quotes from the associated paper. This resulted in an open and active debate in comments, which is what I consider to be success. Additionally, I have yet to see a credible challenge to my observation that well educated professional experts with scientific training/geoscientists are quite skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative. I restate my question to you:

    Why do you think that increased scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW?

  127. Brian Angliss says: February 18, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    “First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …””

    This a valid point, but the same issue exists with the oft cited survey of “75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure” that is held up as evidence of the “scientific consensus”:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

    I am sure you diligently challenge anyone who leverages this non-representative survey, right?

    Given such significant errors, Taylor should issue a correction or even a retraction, yet he has failed to do so. Instead, he has republished his original post at least once since being corrected by the authors of the study whose research and conclusions he distorted.

    How many of the articles that have cited the obviously erroneous 97% of scientists statistic have been corrected or retracted? Why should Taylor be held to higher standard than say the New York Times?:
    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/

  128. barry says:

    The paper referenced by IBD is examining (in part) the opinion of ‘professionals’ with a vested interest in denying or downplaying human-caused climate change.

    eg,

    Continuing with the theme of identity, Lefsrud and Meyer (2012) turn their attention to how scientific ‘experts’ in climate negotiate their identities in the Canadian oil and natural gas industry. They describe the strategies by which these professionals attempt to support their identities and positions, and to legitimate their claims to expertise. These experts actively engage in defensive institutional work that opposes any meaningful action on climate change. Defensive institutional work is facilitated by identity work where experts legitimate their expertise while delegitimizing opposing views. Experts vary in their opinions on the causes of climate change and the policies required to address climate change. While many of them are engaged in aspects of ‘institutional defense’, the paper points to the considerable heterogeneity of framings and identities that these professionals invoke as they attempt to respond personally and organizationally to the challenges of climate change.

    http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1431.full.pdf+html

    The top article seems to have missed the point. It’s hardly unexpected that professionals in industries potentially threatened by policies to mitigate carbon emissions would take a non-neutral stance on the matter, and where their discipline may have a relation to climate science they may try to elevate their competency on climate change science. What is mostly absent from the analysis in IBD, and entirely absent in the top post, is that the competency of these individuals is inflated. There is a small number of properly qualified experts in climate science whose views are more or less aligned with these other professionals, but expertise counts and the opinion of self-elevated ‘experts’ should not be cast as equivalent to actual experts. Likewsie, downplaying the opinion of actual experts by tring to draw some equivalence is only an exercise in positioning (exactly what the industry professionals are perceived as doing according to the paper).

    On the flip side, one could elevate the expertise of Greenpeace ‘experts’ with an engineering/science background (who are not strictly qualified in climate science) in order to inflate the number of climate science experts endorsing the IPCC view. That would be just as untenable.

  129. D.B. Stealey says:

    barry sez:

    “… ‘professionals’ with a vested interest in denying or downplaying human-caused climate change.”

    Since there is no testable, empirical evidence showing “human caused climate change” on a macro [global] basis, your opinion makes no sense. And your comment about mitigating carbon emissions indicates that you are the victim of alarmist propaganda.

    More “carbon” [by which the scientifically illiterate mean CO2, a tiny trace gas] is entirely beneficial at current and projected concentrations. More CO2 is better, and there is no downside.

  130. Gail Combs says:

    Kajajuk says:
    February 18, 2013 at 10:01 am
    …. I am trying to find an article i came across that states that the Arctic sea ice varies between 2 and 10 million square kilometers, but i cannot find it…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Speaking of polar ice, do not forget the active volcanoes in both the Arctic and Antarctic.

    New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade

    National Geographic: Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths

    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.: Geologists Discover Signs of Volcanoes Blowing their Tops in the Deep Ocean Evidence of Violent Eruptions on Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Defies Assumptions about Seafloor Pressure and Volcanism

    Smithsonian magazine: Antarctica Erupts!

    July 15, 2011, National Geographic News: A chain of giant, undersea volcanoes has been found off Antarctica “All told a dozen previously unknown peaks were discovered beneath the waves—some up to 10,000 feet (3,000 meters) tall, according to the British Antarctic Survey…. The scientists were expecting to find volcanoes. For one thing, the South Sandwich Islands are actively volcanic. For another, in 1962, a passing British naval vessel found large patches of floating pumice that could only have come from an underwater eruption.”

    Nov 27, 2012: Giant Underwater Volcanoes Discovered “In the first ever-survey of its kind, a chain of massive volcanoes that rise up to 1.86 miles were discovered lurking beneath Antarctic waters near the South Sandwich Islands in the remote Atlantic Ocean”

    July 2007: Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves “The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before. The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.”

    University at Buffalo: Study of Dust in Ice Cores Shows Volcanic Eruptions Interfere with the Effect of Sunspots on Global Climate

    Bipolar correlation of volcanism with millennial climate change

    Abstract
    …we find that volcanic ash layers from the Siple Dome (Antarctica) borehole are simultaneous (with >99% rejection of the null hypothesis) with the onset of millennium-timescale cooling recorded at Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2; Greenland). These data are the best evidence yet for a causal connection between volcanism and millennial climate change and lead to possibilities of a direct causal relationship. Evidence has been accumulating for decades that volcanic eruptions can perturb climate and possibly affect it on long timescales and that volcanism may respond to climate change….

    Although the Earth maintains a remarkably constant temperature, climate fluctuations have been identified on many timescales. On the 103-year scale, poorly understood Dansgaard–Oeschger (DO) events (1, 2), extremely rapid coolings/warmings and subsequent cold/warm periods, are best exhibited during the last glacial period [20,000–110,000 years before the present or 20–110 thousand years ago (ka)] but may extend with reduced amplitude into the Holocene (3) (the comparatively stable, warm, last ≈11 ka). Proposed causal mechanisms involve harmonics of Milankovitch (orbital) forcing, thermohaline circulation, internal ocean–atmosphere oscillations, solar forcing, and even long-period tidal resonances in the motions of the Earth and Moon. Recent work suggests that the fluctuations resemble those of a system possessing threshold instability. Rapid transitions between states are exhibited in many climate models, including those of oceanic circulation, atmospheric energy balance, and atmospheric regime change. It is becoming increasingly apparent that global climate models currently either omit some natural forcings from the simulations or underestimate the size and extent of climate response to threshold crossings, e.g., by considering the North Atlantic as the amplifier for DO oscillations and only including North Atlantic triggers in the model (4). The possibilities that rapid climate change can induce volcanic activity and, conversely, that volcanic eruptions can force millennial climate have both been suggested in the past (5). Based on evidence we have found using our optical profiles of deep boreholes in the polar ice caps, we conclude that volcanism may supply a vital missing link in millennial climate change.

    E. M. Smith has an interesting side note on the topic of ” long-period tidal resonances in the motions of the Earth and Moon.”

    Lunar Cycles, more than one…

    University Study

    At Northwestern University, Dr. Frank Brown conducted a 10-year study showing that during a full moon, plants absorb more water. The study was conducted in a laboratory setting, and even though the plants were out of sight of the moon, its gravitational pull still influenced the plant’s absorptive qualities.

    Root-Crop Studies

    Further studies regarding the effects of the moon’s phases on plant germination involved root crops–one conducted by Lili Kolisko in 1939 and another by Maria Thun in 1956. Both showed that root crops achieved maximum germination in the days just prior to a full moon

    Yes, tides in the ground water. Think that might “lubricate” some fault lines too?

    And with those moving eclipses there is also a movement of where the maximum tidal forces are applied.

    Each saros series starts with a partial eclipse (Sun first enters the end of the node), and each successive saros the path of the Moon is shifted either northward (when near the descending node) or southward (when near the ascending node)….It takes between 1226 and 1550 years for the members of a saros series to traverse the Earth’s surface from north to south (or vice-versa). These extremes allow from 69 to 87 eclipses in each series (most series have 71 or 72 eclipses). From 39 to 59 (mostly about 43) eclipses in a given series will be central (that is, total, annular, or hybrid annular-total). At any given time, approximately 40 different saros series will be in progress.

    Gee… where have I seen a 1500 ish year cycle before… Can you say “Bond Event”? Could there be a mode where, for just a little while in geologic time, the shift of tidal forces cause the Gulf Stream to dramatically slow while things ‘readjust’? Yes, it’s speculative, but say you spent 800 years getting the water moved into the Arctic / Atlantic and then the moon starts pulling it all back into the Pacific? It will take some time to equalize the global oceans and during that time I could easily see less pressure to push the Gulf Stream all the way up north. Yes, just a random speculation. Yet “water moves”… so something must happen.

    E.M. Smith also points to this in another article.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

    The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change

    Charles D. Keeling* and
    Timothy P. Whorf

    Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0244

    Contributed by Charles D. Keeling

    Abstract

    Variations in solar irradiance are widely believed to explain climatic change on 20,000- to 100,000-year time-scales in accordance with the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, but there is no conclusive evidence that variable irradiance can be the cause of abrupt fluctuations in climate on time-scales as short as 1,000 years. We propose that such abrupt millennial changes, seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon. A well defined 1,800-year tidal cycle is associated with gradually shifting lunar declination from one episode of maximum tidal forcing on the centennial time-scale to the next. An amplitude modulation of this cycle occurs with an average period of about 5,000 years, associated with gradually shifting separation-intervals between perihelion and syzygy at maxima of the 1,800-year cycle. We propose that strong tidal forcing causes cooling at the sea surface by increasing vertical mixing in the oceans. On the millennial time-scale, this tidal hypothesis is supported by findings, from sedimentary records of ice-rafting debris, that ocean waters cooled close to the times predicted for strong tidal forcing.

    I do not think scientists have even finished making the list of all the possible influences on climate much less determined the relationships or strengths. The fact that the IPCC is claiming the “Science is settled” and humans are found guilty would be laughable if it was not so costly in terms of time, resources, money, misery and deaths the fixation on CAGW has already caused.

  131. Mark Bofill says:

    barry says:
    February 18, 2013 at 5:18 pm
    ——————————————–
    You seem to imply that ‘industry’ experts’ are no more to be trusted than their counterparts, ‘Greenpeace’ experts, but the IPCC is the objective and qualified party in the middle. I don’t think this is in fact so. Arguments concerning the motives of industry experts certainly apply to the IPCC bureaucracy, and if I remember correctly the bureaucracy selects the Lead Authors. I haven’t read Donna LaFramboise’s book yet, but I strongly suspect she raises further arguments regarding IPCC credibility there that might be worth examining.

  132. Brian Angliss says:
    When I looked into the survey further, it became clear that Taylor had distorted the study even more than the Lefsrud and Meyer had indicated: only members of the Alberta Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) had been surveyed, APEGA membership is dominated by employees and regulators of Alberta’s petroleum industry, and 84% of survey respondents were engineers, not scientists.
    *************************************************************************************************************************
    Dear Brian:
    As a member of APEGA, I suggest you learn the difference between “Scientists” and “Engineers” and “Geoscientists” before you go casting aspersions on our profession. My degree is in “Applied Science”. We make “practical” solutions by applying science to real world situations, not some pie in the sky (hypothesis?). We have almost 68,000 registered members and this is just in the tiny province of Alberta. That’s 68,000 “practical” people not star gazers.

    “Climate Change” issues have been discussed openly and at length within our organization so when you see the results of a poll, you can be assured that people have voted with reasonable access to available information. Climate is just as important to those who do design work for the oil industry as it is for those of us who work in other areas. You really need to think about that. APEGA members are ultimately responsible to the PUBLIC, and not to any particular industry or self interest group. To suggest otherwise is insulting.

    From http://www.apega.ca/About/ACT/code.htm

    CODE OF ETHICS
    (established pursuant to section 20(1)(k) of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act)
    Preamble
    Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall recognize that professional ethics is founded upon integrity, competence, dignity and devotion to service. This concept shall guide their conduct at all times.
    Rules of Conduct
    1 Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall, in their areas of practice, hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public and have regard for the environment.
    2 Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall undertake only work that they are competent to perform by virtue of their training and experience.
    3 Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall conduct themselves with integrity, honesty, fairness and objectivity in their professional activities.
    4 Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall comply with applicable statutes, regulations and bylaws in their professional practices.
    5 Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall uphold and enhance the honour, dignity and reputation of their professions and thus the ability of the professions to serve the public interest.

  133. M Simon says:

    Can you please provide evidence/examples of this “fraudulent disinformation”?
    Heck. I’d settle for evidence/examples of honest disinformation.

  134. davidmhoffer says:

    Brian Angliss;
    and 84% of survey respondents were engineers, not scientists.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I see comments like this and I wonder…. what do people like you think engineers study in order to get their degree? Calligraphy?

  135. The three lines in the graph that begin with 1997 or 1997.1 appear to
    me as cherrypicked to start barely in time to include a century-class
    single year spike. Smoothed versions of those indices, when smoothed in
    the manner used for smoothed HadCRUT3, only go 11-12 years with no
    upward trend. Have a look at:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

  136. Skeptical layman says:

    I have a question for any CAGW alarmist.What would prove you wrong?

  137. markx says:

    Kajajuk says: February 18, 2013 at 9:03 am

    Re: “frequency of such ‘super-cyclones’ is an order of magnitude higher than that previously estimated (which was once every several millennia..)”

    Kajajuk, our records only really go back about 200 years, we don’t even know if we have seen one of these. Maybe the 1899 Cyclone Mahina which hit Baturst Bay in North Queensland came close.

    “…I do estimate that all is well, sunshine, rainbows, and lollipops everywhere…you know even an out of the ordinary storm system in 2010, 2011, and 2013 does not prove anything really….”

    Where? When and how defined? By your own statements below, do you really think you can use the term “Out of ordinary storm systems ..”?

    You state yourself “…a system as complex as global climate cannot be deduced well from ten years of direct measure, but likely 100 in my humble estimation …” I largely agree with you here, except I’m pretty sure 100 years does mean a lot either.

    “… your fanatical nay saying…” I quoted a few facts. With all due respect you should perhaps tone down the soapboxing and try doing the same.

    “… is just as warranted as the alarmist rhetoric which should, i estimate, lead us to the bliss of a conquered divide. On every issue!…”
    I’m not sure quite what you are saying here, but you are either alarmed or you ain’t. And you, my friend sound at least extremely concerned. :-)

    “….Or an apparent lengthening and accelerating frequency of drought from your own post is in my estimation not even worthy of investigation, or further estimation, since we all know what must be true; so why even bother to wonder or question…”

    The key word here is “apparent”. Time scale issue to consider again, perhaps? American drought indices show no change, I’m not sure Australia uses a meaningful drought index.

    “..I am not a doomsayer, just a curious mind perceiving more than a few fascinating trends; least of which is the possibility of a warming planet (when it should be “cooling”)…”

    Sure, I agree here. It (the planet) is perhaps warming to some extent. The questions are; over what time scale, and is it different this time? Temperature aside, we can see the reduction in summer ice extent in the Arctic. Definitely warmer there, in summer, but when did this last occur (we don’t know), and then, what about the Antarctic?

    “..A possibility that is credible, albeit not definitive, by virtue of considering the likely ‘estimation’ of what a warming Earth would entail; then designing experiments and metrics to validate or invalidate…likely learning something in the process, as well as developing technologies…..”

    This is all happening, and I think it is a good thing. We will learn by it. But no-one benefits from the alarmist approach of “.. we already understand this, it is disastrous, we must act now or it will be too late!”.

    You know, and I know, that they know they don’t really know much yet.
    We should ‘hasten slowly’, measure and study, and discuss openly.

  138. Robert in Calgary says:

    Hmm. I’m looking though Angliss’ twitter feed.

    https://twitter.com/bangliss

    Here’s one from Dec. 21st. – “Corporate values lead engineers to deny industrial climate disruption as a way to protect their jobs.”

    Comments from Engineers….?

  139. Justthefacts – The 97% number comes from the Doran and Zimmerman 2010 (D&Z2010) study. It polled “10,257 Earth scientists” from

    “all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities.”

    This is a more representative survey of scientists than one professional organization’s members from one part of one country. D&Z2010 also had 3146 responses, or a response rate of over 30.7%, which is far better than 1077 out of 44,000 members (according to Lefsrud and Meyer), or about 2.4%. Furthermore, when you run the mathematics on the margin of error and confidence level of D&Z2010, you find that 77 respondents is more than sufficient to measure opinion when the opinions are so wildly skewed.

    For a standard 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level (ie a 1 in 20 chance that the actual results will be outside the +/- 5% margin of error), D&Z2010 would have needed a sample size of just 39 super-experts to accurately determine what 97.4% of the hypothetical 100,000 super-experts thought. Alternatively, for a 95% confidence level and a sample size of 79 respondents, the margin of error would be +/- 3.5% (for the same 100,000 population). Alternatively again, for a 5% margin of error and a sample size of 79, the confidence level is 99.45%.

    However you parse the mathematics, Taylor’s post about Lefsrud and Meyer is simply wrong. As is your claim about D&Z2010.

    As for the New York Times, they accurately reported what the Anderegg study said. Taylor did not. And thew New York Time does run corrections when errors are pointed out to them – Taylor has not.

  140. Donald L Klipstein says: February 18, 2013 at 7:30 pm

    The three lines in the graph that begin with 1997 or 1997.1 appear to
    me as cherrypicked to start barely in time to include a century-class
    single year spike. Smoothed versions of those indices, when smoothed in
    the manner used for smoothed HadCRUT3, only go 11-12 years with no
    upward trend. Have a look at:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

    Please repost your comment in this thread;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/

    and Werner will address it there. The succinct summary is that Werner identified the longest period of time to present for which there has been no warming in each data set. Identifying this unique attribute of each data set is obviously not “cherry picking” as each data set only has one cherry per se.

  141. davidmhoffer says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm
    Brian Angliss;
    and 84% of survey respondents were engineers, not scientists.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I see comments like this and I wonder…. what do people like you think engineers study in order to get their degree? Calligraphy?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I’m going to answer my own question since I’m pretty certain Angliss won’t respond.

    Electrical engineers study mostly calculus and physics, lots and lots of physics.
    Mechanical engineers study mostly calculus and physics, lots and lots of physics.
    Civil engineers study mostly calculus and physics, lots and lots of physics.
    Chemical engineers study mostly calculus and chemistry and some physics
    Geological engineers study mostly calculus and geology and some physics

    Get the picture Brian? The difference between a scientist and an engineer is what? I’ll answer that too.

    When a scientist screws up the science, their paper gets withdrawn or debunked.
    When an engineer screws up the science, telescopes have to be retrofitted with eye glasses at a cost of tens of millions of dollars. Companies go bankrupt. Environmental disasters happen. Buildings collapse. People die.

    Which is why engineers don’t have the unmitigated gall to produce graphs with no error bars and pretend that it is science.

  142. Wayne Delbeck and Davidmhoffer – I’m an electrical engineer myself with a Master’s Degree and 15 years of professional experience, so I know very well what engineers study, and I’m not about to cast aspersions on any engineer. After all, we study how to apply science to create solutions to problems, and that’s one hell of a lot of fun. But just because we’re trained in how to use the scientific method does not make us scientists.

    A “scientist” is someone who uses the scientific method in order to study how the world works and does so as a profession. Most engineers don’t study the world in the same way, and the engineering skill set is quite a bit different from the scientist skill set. We can’t simply open up the definition of “scientist” to include anyone who uses the scientific method regularly in their professions because that makes the word meaningless. After all, would you call a medical doctor a scientist in the same way a chemist or biologist or meteorologist is? How about a veterinarian? A professional sportsman? An automobile mechanic? All of those professions and more use the scientific method of observing, hypothesizing, testing, and drawing conclusions, but none of them are practicing scientists. And neither are most engineers.

  143. Brian Angliss says: February 18, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    Justthefacts – The 97% number comes from the Doran and Zimmerman 2010 (D&Z2010) study.

    That’s erroneous, per Barry Wood’s deconstruction;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

    the “Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey”. The student’s “MSc thesis entitled “The Consensus on the Consensus” – M Zimmermann , who was Peter Doran’s graduate student (and the EoS paper’s co-author). The thesis can be downloaded here:
    http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html

    for $2.

    It polled “10,257 Earth scientists” from

    “all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities.”

    Also erroneous, per Barry Wood’s deconstruction;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

    it was a “survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with.” Here’s a good critique of the survey by Larry Solomon.
    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/that_97_solution_again/

    Furthermore, when you run the mathematics on the margin of error and confidence level of D&Z2010, you find that 77 respondents is more than sufficient to measure opinion when the opinions are so wildly skewed.

    77 respondents to a poorly designed survey from some student’s thesis may be sufficient for you to define a global scientific consensus, but the rest of us think it’s a joke… Additionally “96% of the scientist that responded were from North America (90% USA, 6.2% Canada), with 9% from California alone.” which makes the survey even more biased.

    However you parse the mathematics, Taylor’s post about Lefsrud and Meyer is simply wrong. As is your claim about D&Z2010.

    I’ve presented evidence to substantiate my claims, no need to parse the mathematics as you have attempted to do. The 97% statistic is garbage no matter how you parse it.

    As for the New York Times, they accurately reported what the Anderegg study said. Taylor did not. And thew New York Time does run corrections when errors are pointed out to them – Taylor has not.

    Let’s not worry about the Times and Taylor for now, let’s see if we can get you to correct your erroneous statements about M. R. K. Zimmerman’s poorly constructed thesis…

  144. Brian Angliss says: February 18, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    A “scientist” is someone who uses the scientific method in order to study how the world works and does so as a profession.

    Again erroneous, you are on a streak here, i.e. according to Wikipedia;

    A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

    Your inclusion of “does so as a profession” makes no sense, like Einstein wasn’t a scientist when he was working for the Patent Office and published his Annus Mirabilis papers in 1905?

  145. davidmhoffer says:

    Brian Angliss says:
    February 18, 2013 at 8:42 pm
    Wayne Delbeck and Davidmhoffer – I’m an electrical engineer myself with a Master’s Degree and 15 years of professional experience, so I know very well what engineers study, and I’m not about to cast aspersions on any engineer.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yet you did exactly that. Your suggestion reads pure and simple that engineers are not qualified to comment on climate science, yet “scientists” are. That right there is the second largest problem with the climate science debate. The first is the unbelievable gall of producing results with no error bars and claiming them to be definitive. The second is “deciding” that an engineer well versed in radiative physics shouldn’t have an opinion but a physicist with the exact same training should.

    I had this same debate with Jan Perlw1tz of NASA who insisted that Briffa’s last paper (which debunks that precious hockey stick that the IPCC relied upon for so long) could not be correctly interpreted by people who weren’t “climate scientists”. I asked that he identify a single aspect of the paper that could not be understood by someone with first year math and stats. He ran away like a little sissy because the truth of the matter is that there is NOTHING in that paper that someone with first year math skills could not understand.

    Your precious survey is just another example of the alarmist “scientists” defining anyone who agrees with them as being a scientists and anyone who disagrees as being “unqualified”

    I have no degree at all sir. If you’d like to cross swords with me in the area of radiative physics and the greenhouse effect, by all means give it a go. Let’s see what YOU have.

    Or are you not “qualified”? In which case, how do you determine who is?

  146. Justthefacts – Most of the stuff you’re claiming is erroneous, isn’t. For example, the results I quote are from D&Z2010. That they’re also from Zimmerman’s masters thesis doesn’t make the fact that they were also published in Eos an less true.

    Similarly, it’s not possible for a direct quote from D&Z2010 to be erroneous. While claims about the representativeness of the paper or unintentional selection biases may have merit, Barry’s guest post doesn’t actually claim that Zimmerman didn’t send the survey to the number of people claimed in D&Z2010, nor does his post claim that Zimmerman didn’t actually receive 3146 just as D&Z2010 says. Thus my quote is also not erroneous.

    So, I’ll admit the possibility that D&Z2010 is less representative than would be ideal. But given that Barry doesn’t delve into the nationalities of the respondents, I’ll only grant the possibility. After all, there are a large number of foreign-born scientists who come to the United States to practice their profession.

    As for the math, you’ve done nothing to address it, and the math doesn’t lie. Especially since my calculations are extraordinarily conservative – there’s no way that there are 100,000 climate super-experts in the world, and so the margin of error is likely much smaller. But if you like, we can cut the population by a factor of 10 just to account for your concerns about the sample’s representativeness. D&Z2010′s conclusions will still hold whether you like the math or not.

    As for Taylor, we can’t simply ignore him given this entire thread is based on the fact that he wildly distorted the results of a poll, claimed it produced results that it doesn’t, and has not corrected his distorted claims even after the authors of the study told him he was wrong. There is no excuse for that.

  147. davidmhoffer – as you point out, electrical engineers study “calculus and physics, lots and lots of physics,” just like mechanical engineers, et al. And that’s true.

    But as an EE myself, I studied quantum mechanics and optics. That doesn’t mean I understand the physics of chemical reactions. Mechanical engineers study the physical properties of materials like spring force, friction, and hardness. That doesn’t mean they understand the physics of electron flow. And so on.

    Having studied electrical engineering myself, I know what kind of physics I was taught. And it was nothing resembling what is required to truly understand atmospheric physics as well as a meteorologist or a climatologist does. In my day job working in aerospace, I work with hundreds of engineers and scientists, and the only ones who truly understand atmospheric physics are the ones who do it day and day out and/or who came out of college with at least a BSci in a field related to atmospheric physics.

    On the other hand, I know a huge number of engineers and scientists who think they understand it, but don’t.

  148. davidmhoffer says:

    Cmon Brian, give it a go.

    Explain to me how it takes anything more than algebra skills to understand the application of Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Explain how it takes anything more than first year calculus to understand Planck. Explain the justification for anomalies from completely different temperature regimes being averaged together to arrive at a global temperature trend when they represent completely different energy fluxes. Explain to me how the effective black body temperature of earth differs from the surface temperature of earth and how doubling of CO2 affects each. Explain how the IPCC meme of CO2 doubling = 3.7 w/m2 = +1 degree is NOT applicable to surface temperatures according to the IPCC themselves. Explain how the laps rate can possibly be defined as under going a linear response to CO2 doubling despite the atmospheric air column not being uniform in terms of water vapour.

    Pick one. Explain to me why “scientists” can “understand” these issues, but I can’t. Pick one, and show me that I’m over my head.

  149. justthefacts – that’s a fair point about Einstein. But the independent scientist is a rarity these days – science has become as much a profession as engineering or teaching. I think that’s a good thing, by and large, since most fields of scientific study are either so large that no single person can understand it all, or so specialized that it takes years or decades of dedicated work to have an impact, or both.

    My point about the broad definition of still holds, however – there comes a point where you cannot simply include everyone who uses the scientific method as a “scientist” without making the term meaningless. There are engineers who are scientists, and vice versa, but most engineers are not scientists and most scientists are not engineers. Again, both professions have related but quite different skill sets.

  150. Brian Angliss says:
    February 18, 2013 at 8:42 pm
    Wayne Delbeck and Davidmhoffer
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Well Brian, we can all agree to disagree about “consensus” and do mathematical contortions till the cows come home. As an engineer, I accept “measurements” show the earth has warmed an average of a fraction of a degree C over the last however many years you want to pick with various ups and downs. Some areas may have warmed or cooled some two or three or four degrees. You pick a number out of the hat. Over the last 45 years I have worked in temperatures from minus 40 C to plus 40 C in locations all around the world. I live in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains. The temperature here can change 20 degrees C in a matter of hours – http://www.crownofthecontinent.net/content/chinook-wind/cot082353989BFBFAE2A

    It is hard to get excited about a fraction of a degree on average temperatures when you have experienced a wide variety of temperature extremes including: ” The temperature rise at the onset of the event is abrupt and steep; an increase of 27°C in 2 minutes has been observed.”
    http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/chinook

    So Brian, regardless of the “Consensus”, I am pretty sure we will adapt since we live in highly variable climates around the world. The climate is always changing and I expect it will be a very long time before the present crop of little dinosaurs can figure out all the parameters to create a proper predictive model.

    And no, I don’t work for the oil industry and my last name is Delbeke. But you got the pronunciation right.

  151. markx says:

    Brian Angliss says: February 18, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    “……After all, would you call a medical doctor a scientist in the same way a chemist or biologist or meteorologist is? How about a veterinarian? …[...]…All of those professions and more use the scientific method of observing, hypothesizing, testing, and drawing conclusions, but none of them are practicing scientists. And neither are most engineers….”

    Ah, you assume too much sir. Take the humble veterinarian. There are many roles filled by those in such a profession, all the way from someone in a clinic dealing with pets to those in the intensive animal industries, immersed in spreadsheets, trials, replicates, and statistics. Then you have the epidemiologists, usually government employed. Not to mention those in research in every major university in the world. Same goes for medicos.

    I think you may be right about not being able to compare engineers to practicing scientists. It is my experience that engineers are the most analytical and practical professionals I have encountered, adapting their most easily to many unusual situations. (disclaimer, I ain’t a engineer!)

  152. davidmhoffer says:

    Brian Angliss;

    I’ve worked up a head of steam here bud. Let’s add to the list.

    Explain to me what skills other than statistical analysis are required to analyze tree ring data? How are these different from the stats skills of say, an economist?

    Other than the science required to collect the satellite data in the first place, what skills are required to plot a temperature trend from UAH or RSS data that someone proficient in Excel cannot do?

    Explain why the logarithmic properties of CO2 can only be understood by climate “scientists” (who run for cover when I bring it up).

    What aspect of the spatial/temporal distribution of GHE being biased toward night time lows in winter seasons at high altitude cannot be understood with first year physics?

    But most of all Brian Angliss, when these topics come up with climate “scientists” why do they flap their arms and holler than you have to be a “climate scientist” to understand them and then change the subject?

  153. davidmhoffer says:

    time lows in winter seasons at high altitude cannot be understood with first year
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    should have read latitude, not altitude. Well in retrospect…. both.

  154. David Cage says:

    Every honest climate scientist,in fact,all honest scientists(no,I don’t count the mental manipulators as scientists) are complicent in this scam by their silence.

    You are being unfair to many climate scientists. One of the companies I dealt with before I retired had a whole group of them employed as computer modellers because they could not get grants thanks to their disbelief in AGW. I also know of others in as varied fields as railway and supermarket management for the same reason.

  155. Philip Shehan says:

    The 1077 pareticipants in the survey were a self selecting group who decided to respond out of 40,000 potential participants.

    Self selecting surveys are nototoriusly unreliable as the motivated (for whatever reason) take the effort to respond. They are vulnerable to group manipulation and answers based on self interest.

    In this case the fact that the respondents are involved in the fossil fuel industry is a loaded set of potential respondents in the first place. And 70% of respondents are not even scientists, they are engineers.

    The authors of the paper recognise these problems, but their paper is not concerned with accurately getting the numbers of participants who agree or disagree with the AGW. They are concerned with studying the reasoning of those who fall into various atitudinal groups.

    From the Abstract:

    …In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizesexpertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionalityand metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessmentof the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, relatedindustries, government regulators, and their professional association.

    Keywords
    climate change, defensive institutional work, emotion, expertise, framing, metaphor, petroleum industry

  156. Gail Combs says:

    Brian Angliss;
    and 84% of survey respondents were engineers, not scientists.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    davidmhoffer says: @ February 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm
    I see comments like this and I wonder…. what do people like you think engineers study in order to get their degree?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    A heck of a lot more math than scientists.

    I am a chemist and the chem engineers I took classes with also had to take MORE physics and MORE math than I did. Chemistry is a four year degree, chem engineering is a five year degree.

    People like Brian don’t have the foggiest idea of what they are talking about when they make remarks like that.

  157. MieScatter says:

    Gail Combs, that’s interesting. Since we have recently gone through an extended solar minimum and a sputtering start to the new cycle, then the fact that ARGO shows a continuing rise in heat content is even more spectacular then?

  158. Philip Shehan says:

    Gail Combs says:
    February 19, 2013 at 2:15 am…

    Engineers are not scientists. They are excellent at engineering and I would never drive over a bridge designed by a geneticist.

    Certainly engineers have a background in science and mathematics. It is not a matter of how many years studying an undergraduate degree are involved. Undergraduate courses involve learning established scientific knowledge in the textbooks (as established by scientific consensus) and applying that knowledge to the solution of engineering problems.

    From postgraduate research studies on scientists go beyond established knowledge to find new knowledge. The answers are not in the back of the textbook. It is at least as important to know what the right questions you should be asking are as to come up with the right answers. The questions may turn out to be unanswerable, give entirely unexpected answers, which may mean an entire paradigm has to be overturned, or lead you to understand you were asking the wrong question and lead to new directions of enquiry altogether. They are trained in the evaluation of scientific evidence in a way that nonscientists, even those whose courses involve a thorough understanding of accepted scientific knowledge are not.

    I have worked with qualified medical doctors who have undertaken research degrees and they often have a hard time adjusting to the different way of thinking and working.

  159. Gail Combs says:

    Donald L Klipstein says:
    February 18, 2013 at 7:30 pm

    The three lines in the graph that begin with 1997 or 1997.1 appear to
    me as cherrypicked …..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The cherry picking was done by the CAGW alarmists. We just counted back from the present.

    The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled ‘The State Of The Climate’ and can be read at
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    It says

    ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

    The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
    https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

    The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes. The likely causes of these biases include forcing errors in the historical simulations (40–42), model response errors (43), remaining errors in satellite temperature estimates (26, 44), and an unusual manifestation of internal variability in the observations (35, 45). These explanations are not mutually exclusive. Our results suggest that forcing errors are a serious concern.”
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109

    Dr. Phil Jones – 5 July 2005
    The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

    Dr. Phil Jones – 2009
    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.

    CO2 and temperature are not correlated. This is a direct plot of temp anomaly vs CO2: http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg580/stanrobertson/1993-2012_zps7947e219.jpg

    Solar Insolation does: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/eemian_greenland.jpg?w=640

    Also see Nir Shaviv’s paper

    Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter, one can quantify the solar climate link and establish that an amplification mechanism (such as the cosmic ray climate link) must exist. Anyone thinking that only the solar irradiance variations are important (e.g., the IPCC scientists) should read this.

    Shaviv shows a link between solar 11 yr cycle and ocean heat in his peer-reviewed paper.

  160. Brian Angliss says: February 18, 2013 at 9:27 pm

    Most of the stuff you’re claiming is erroneous, isn’t. For example, the results I quote are from D&Z2010. That they’re also from Zimmerman’s masters thesis doesn’t make the fact that they were also published in Eos an less true.

    Come on, you said “The 97% number comes from the Doran and Zimmerman 2010 (D&Z2010) study.” inferring that the 97% was from a peer reviewed study. It obviously didn’t. It came from a Master’s thesis that was only reviewed by one of the authors of the paper that cited it.

    Similarly, it’s not possible for a direct quote from D&Z2010 to be erroneous. While claims about the representativeness of the paper or unintentional selection biases may have merit, Barry’s guest post doesn’t actually claim that Zimmerman didn’t send the survey to the number of people claimed in D&Z2010, nor does his post claim that Zimmerman didn’t actually receive 3146 just as D&Z2010 says. Thus my quote is also not erroneous.

    I’ll agree here and say not erroneous, just misleading, in that the 97% not based on 10,256 individuals polled, or the 3146 respondents, but rather just 77 carefully selected “experts”.

    D&Z2010′s conclusions will still hold whether you like the math or not.

    The math is irrelevant if the survey participants, selection process, questions and construction are all highly suspect. If the 97% statistic where accurate, why has it never been validated by a more reputable surveyor? Would you rely on a survey from someone’s masters thesis to make medical decisions?

  161. davidmhoffer says:

    Brian Angliss;
    But as an EE myself, I studied quantum mechanics and optics. That doesn’t mean I understand the physics of chemical reactions. Mechanical engineers study the physical properties of materials like spring force, friction, and hardness. That doesn’t mean they understand the physics of electron flow. And so on.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    What an utter cop out.

    The formulas that describe voltage, resistance, capacitance and inductance are pretty much the same as the formulas that describe force, friction, springs and fly wheels. K(e)= 1/2 mv^2. K(c)= 1.2 cv^2. Once you study one field of physics making the move to another becomes easier and easier. Not to mention that in a discussion of radiative physics you try and distract everyone by yapping about chemical reactions. Sorry bud, in the climate debate, the chemical reaction, conversion of carbon to CO2 to result in a doubling of CO2, has already happened, so even if engineers understood zippo about chemistry, the point is moot (which you well know)

    But you didn’t answer my question, did you? SB Law is P=5.67*10^-8*T^4 with P in w/m2 and T in degrees K.

    Are you seriously going to tell me that an EE with a P Eng can’t figure out how to use this formula because you never studied radiative physics? You are unable to enter into a discussion as to who that formula shows in regard spatial/temporal distribution of warming being biased to night time lows in winter seasons in high latitudes? You are incapable of having a discussion that changes to day time highs, in summer, in low latitudes must be by comparison diminished?

    As an EE P. Eng, are you capable of applying that one formula to show that cold regions will warm more than warm regions, making the temperature of the earth more uniform? As an EE P.Eng I’d think you would be capable of understanding the wind is driven by pressure differential (like current is driven by voltage differential) and pressure differential is minimized by a more uniform global temperature (like hooking up batteries in parallel with large voltage differences versus batteries in parallel with small voltage differences) and hence a warmer world should feature fewer severe weather events, not more? Really, the concepts are beyond your ken as an EE P Eng? Seriously? I’ve been banging that drum for 10 years and the leaked IPCC AR5 report says I was right and they were wrong the whole time.

    I with no degree can understand ohms and farads and voltage as well as friction, momentum and springs as well as SB Law, Planck and absorption spectra, but you, with your EE and P. Eng are not? Seriously?

    An engineer who studied calculus, quantum mechanics and optics who can’t make the leap to calculus, quantum mechanics and SB Law? What;s the difference between the atmospheric window and a band pass filter? You do remember what a band pass filter is don’t you? Are the concepts so foreign that you can’t understand them? Or did you fail to even try?

    Frankly, if an EE P. Eng wants to stand up and say that he is incapable of understanding these concepts, then all I can suggest is that you are a victim of self imposed ignorance.

  162. Brian Angliss says: February 18, 2013 at 9:43 pm

    But the independent scientist is a rarity these days

    I disagree, since climate science has become so corrupted I think we are having a healthy resurgence in the independent scientist. Per davidmhoffer says:February 18, 2013 at 10:07 pm, the skillsets exist, add in the time and desire and you have multitude of independent scientists doing what the climate establishment is not, i.e. performing “research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature”.

  163. Gail Combs says:

    More information showing the Global Warming Consensus is a Myth from “The Conversation” of all places.

    Warwick Wakefield

    The first statement that the climate catastrophists make is that “the science is in and all the relevant scientists agree.” The impression is created that the only people who disagree are ignorant, knuckle dragging, sister shagging, types believe that homeopathy is a scientifically sound system.

    What if the fact is that hundreds and hundreds of top flight scientists from the top flight universities and other scientific institutes vehemently reject the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory on the best of scientific grounds? What if it can be shown that the battle about the validity of this theory is fought with great ferocity at the highest levels of the worldwide scientific community? Then it would be seen that this foundation statement, “all the relevant scientists agree,” is totally false.

    Here are just a few of the top flight scientists who reject the AGW theory:

    Harold Lewis

    Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

    Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

    It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

    The money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    *******

    William Happer

    Professor of Physics at Princeton University

    The earth’s climate has always been changing. Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefiting the biosphere. Indeed, there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years.

    I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims.

    The management of most scientific societies has enthusiastically signed on to the global warming bandwagon. This is not surprising, since governments, as well as many states and foundations, generously fund those who reinforce their desired outcomes under the cover of saving the planet. Certain private industries are also involved: those positioned to profit from enacted controls as well as financial institutions heavily invested in “green technologies” whose rationale disappears the moment global warming is widely understood to be a non-problem.

    **********

    Dr. Philip Lloyd

    Former professor at University of Witwatersrand, established a course in environmental chemical engineering.

    Currently serves as an honorary research fellow with the Energy Research Centre at the University of CapeTown.

    “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven’t a clue about the forces driving our climate past. I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

    **********

    Frederick Wolf

    Professor of physics, Keene State College in New Hampshire

    “Several things have contributed to my skepticism about global warming being due to human causes. We all know that the atmosphere is a very complicated system. Also, after studying climate, I am aware that there are cycles of warm and cold periods of varying lengths which are still not completely understood. I am impressed by the number of scientific colleagues who are naturally skeptical about the conclusion of human induced warming.”

    ***********

    David Packham

    Former principal research scientist with CSIRO

    Senior research fellow, climate group at Monash University

    “I find that I am uncomfortable with the quality of the science being applied to the global warming question. This lack of comfort comes from many directions: A lack of actual measurements for terrestrial radiation and the use of deemed values for particulate radiation absorption; The failure to consider the role of particulates from biomatter burning; The lack of critical thought and total acceptance of the global warming models as conclusive evidence; The lack of transparency and obscuration of the critical weaknesses in the GCMs. Along with these discomforts goes an observation that research funding for environmental research in Australia, in my case mercury and wildfires, is almost impossible unless it is part of yet more greenhouse data gathering.

    There is also an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence. It is as if one is doing one’s colleagues a great disservice in dissenting and perhaps derailing the gravy train. The effect of the group think is creating a corporate data gathering mind set amongst our young researchers that I think is dangerous.”

    **********

    Dr. Joanne Simpson

    Atmospheric Scientist, formerly of NASA

    First woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology.

    Called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years” by

    atmospheric scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.

    Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.

    **********

    Thomas B. Gray Meteorologist

    Former head of the Space Services branch at the

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a researcher in NOAA’s Space Environment Laboratory and Environmental Research Laboratories.

    “Nothing that is occurring in weather or in climate research at this time can be shown to be abnormal in the light of our knowledge of climate variations over geologic time. The claims of those convinced that AGW is real and dangerous are not supported by reliable data,”

    **********

    Peter Stilbs

    Chairs the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm

    Stilbs coordinated a meeting of international scientists and declared his skepticism about manmade climate fears. Stilbs wrote on December 21, 2006 that “by the final panel discussion stage of the conference, there appeared to be wide agreement” about several key points regarding man-made climate fears.

    • “There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis.

    • The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

    • Actual claims put forward are that an observed global temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected from natural variation. However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued global warming since 1998.

    • There is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years.

    **********

    Dr. Robert Balling

    Climatologist of Arizona State University

    Former head of the university’s Office of Climatology

    Has served as climate consultant to the United Nations Environment Program,

    the World Climate Program,

    the World Meteorological Organization,

    and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

    Balling expressed skepticism about man-made climate fears in 2007. “In my lifetime, this global-warming issue might fade away,” Balling said in a November 11, 2007 interview with the Arizona Republic newspaper.

    Noting the pressure he feels as a skeptical scientist, Balling explained, “Somehow I’ve been branded this horrible person who belongs in the depths of hell.” He added, “There’s just no tolerance right now.” The article explained, “Balling’s research over the years has explored sun activity, pollution from volcanoes, the urban-heat-island effect and errors in past temperature models as possible causes of rising temperatures.”

    *********

    Hajo Smit

    Meteorologist of Holland

    Member of the Dutch IPCC committee

    Snow forecaster for Dutch winter sports

    Has presented his research on soil moisture’s role in global

    climate models at National Center for Atmospheric Research.

    During my full year working at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, I became suspicious about the way modeling science is done. Odd arbitrary parameterizations seemed the rule rather than the exception.

    The “practice of simplifying models so that accurate measurements can be used to calibrate them, seemed to be abandoned by GCM groups in favor of a childish delight in presenting colorful computer printouts of when and where which temperature changes will occur.

    Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.

    The vast amount of new research since my graduation points to clear cut solarclimate coupling and to a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales.

    ***********

    Oliver K. Manuel

    Professor of Nuclear Chemistry of the University of Missouri-Rolla

    Authored more than 100 scientific papers and published research in peer-reviewed literature.

    “Compared to solar magnetic fields, however, the carbon dioxide production has as much influence on climate as a flea has on the weight of an elephant,”

    ***********

    Ivar Giaever

    Nobel Prize Winner for Physics in 1973,

    Fellow of the American Physical Society

    “Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he added.

    *******

    Dr. Robert Austin

    Physicist, Princeton University

    “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple.”

    *******

    Dr. Don Easterbrook

    Professor of geology at Western Washington University

    “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”

    *******

    Dr. Robert B. Laughlin,

    Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist

    “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.

    *******

    Dr. Hans Jelbring

    Climatologist, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University

    “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”

    *******

    Dr. John Reid

    Atmospheric Physicist, who worked with CSIRO‘s, Division of Oceanography and worked in ocean waves research.

    “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I

    know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”

    *******

    Dr. Judith Curry

    Chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology

    Defected from the global warming activist movement.

    “There is ‘a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink.

    *******

    Philip Stott

    Professor of Biogeography, University of London.

    “As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets.”

    *******

    Leonard Weinstein

    NASA, Langley Research Center, presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace

    “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong. The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory.

    It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed.

    There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate.”

    *******

    Hilton Ratcliffe

    South African astrophysicist, member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics

    The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. The data does not support Gore’s hypothesis. Without trying too hard, I found 35 fundamental “errors” in An Inconvenient Truth. The word “errors” is in quotation marks because it is inconceivable to me that these falsehoods could all have been inadvertent. Some or possibly all were put there to deceive the viewer. There appears to have been money gained by [Michael] Mann, Gore and [UN IPCC‘s] Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud. If proven in a court of law, they should be heavily punished and their ill-gotten assets confiscated and put to the benefit of mankind.”

    *******

    Coalition of German scientists

    More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in August 2009.

    “Humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions.

    Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.

    More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role.

    Indeed CO2′s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.”

    “Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

    Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.”

    ******

    American Physical Society

    In 2010, more than 260 scientists, members of the American Physical Society,(APS) endorsed the efforts of skeptical Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer to substantially amend the APS alarmist statement on man-made global warming.

    Happer

    wrote to APS governing board: ―Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.

    Some of the signatories

    Harold M. Agnew,

    White House Science Councilor (1982 -1989)

    Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory

    Ralph B. Alexander,

    Associate Professor of Physics Wayne State University

    David V. Anderson,

    Research Physicist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    Eva Andrei,

    Professor of Physics Rutgers University

    Robert H. Austin,

    Professor of Physics Princeton University

    David F. Bartlett,

    Professor of Physics University of Colorado

    Franco Battaglia,

    Professor of Chemical Physics and Environmental Chemistry University of Modena, Italy

    Peter J. Baum,)

    Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics University of California at Riverside

    Ami E. Berkowitz,

    Professor of Physics University of California at San Diego

    Alan Berman,

    School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences University of Miami

    Barry L. Berman,

    Chair Physics Department The George Washington University

    Arie Bodek,

    Professor of Physics University of Rochester

    Richard J. Briggs,

    Deputy Director, Superconducting Supercollider Laboratory

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    Lowell S. Brown,

    Professor of Physics University of Washington

    William T. Buttler,

    Experimental Physicist Physics Division Los Alamos National Laboratory

    C. Todd Chadwick,

    Professor and Former Chairman Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry State University of New York,

    Lawrence Cranberg,

    Professor of Physics University of Virginia

    Steven R. Cranmer,

    Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

    David H. Douglass,

    Professor of Physics University of Rochester

    James E. Draper,

    Professor of Physics University of California at Davis

    William T. Duffy Jr.,

    Professor of Physics Santa Clara University

    David F. Edwards,

    Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    Los Alamos National Laboratory;

    Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering, Colorado State University;

    Jens G. Feder,

    Professor of Physics of Geological Processes University of Oslo

    Douglas E. Fields,

    Associate Professor Department of Physics and Astronomy University of New Mexico

    Edward J. Finn,

    Professor of Physics, Georgetown University

    Ivar Giaever,

    Professor, School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

    Nobel Prize in Physics 1973

    Eleftherios Gkioulekas,

    Associate Dean of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard

    Mike Gruntman,

    Professor of Astronautics University of Southern California

    Aksel Hallin,

    Chair in Astroparticle Physics Department of Physics University of Alberta

    Sultan Hameed,

    Professor of Atmospheric Science School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University, New York

    William Happer,

    Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

    Jack M. Hollander,

    Professor of Energy and Resources, University of California, Berkeley

    Alexander E. Kaplan,

    Professor Electrical and Computer Engineering The Johns Hopkins University

    Jonathan Katz,

    Professor of Physics Washington University

    Robert S. Knox,

    Professor of Physics University of Rochester

    M. Kristiansen,

    Professor Electrical and Computer Engineering Texas Tech University

    Moyses Kuchnir,

    Applied Scientist Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

    Joseph A. Kunc,

    Professor, Physics and Astronomy University of Southern California

    Gary S. Kyle,

    Professor of Physics New Mexico State University

    Paul L. La Celle,

    Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering

    Max Planck Institute for Biophysics, Frankfort

    .Sau-Hai Lam,

    Professor of Engineering Princeton University

    Steven K. Lamoreaux,

    Professor of Physics Yale University

    Robert B. Laughlin,

    Professor of Physics, Stanford University

    E. O. Lawrence,)

    1986 Nobel Prize in Physics 1998 Member National Academy of Sciences; Fellow AAAS

    Harold W. Lewis,

    Professor of Physics Emeritus University of California at Santa Barbara Chairman,

    Richard Marrus,

    Emeritus Professor of Physics University of California at Berkeley

    John Martinis,

    Professor of Physics University of California, Santa Barbara

    Associate Professor of Physics Illinois State University

    Joseph Maserjian,

    Senior Research Scientist, California Institute of Technology -Jet Propulsion Laboratory

    Michael Monce,

    Professor of Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics Connecticut College

    Christopher R. Monroe,

    Bice Zorn Professor of Physics Joint Quantum Institute, University of Maryland

    Richard A. Muller,

    Professor of Physics University of California at Berkeley

    Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

    Principle Author, Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes

    Rodney W. Nichols,

    President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences

    Vice President and Executive Vice President, The Rockefeller University

    William P. Oliver,

    Professor of Physics Tufts University

    Frank R. Paolini,

    Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut at Stamford

    Donald Rapp,

    Professor of Physics and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas (1973-1979) Author, Assessing Climate Change and Ice Ages and Interglacials (Springer-Verlag)

    John E. Rhoads,

    Professor of Physics Midwestern State University

    Stanley Robertson,

    Professor of Physics Southwestern Oklahoma State University

    Isaac C. Sanchez,

    William J. Murray, Jr. Chair in Engineering and Associate Chair Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin U

    Nicola Scafetta,

    Research Scientist Physics Department Duke University

    S. Fred Singer,

    Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus University of Virginia

    John R. Smith,

    Project Physicist, Experimental High Energy Physics Department of Physics University of California at Davis

    Peter Stilbs,

    Professor of Physical Chemistry Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm,

    Thomas F. Stratton, Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory

    Szymon Suckewer,

    Professor of School of Engineering & Applied Sciences Princeton University

    Salvatore Torquato,

    Professor of Chemistry and the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, Princeton University

    Richard W. Vook,

    Professor of Physics Syracuse University

    John Weiner,

    Visiting Professor, University of Maryland

    Steven J. Werkema,

    Deputy Head Fermilab Antiproton Source Department

    Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

    Samuel A. Werner,

    The University of Missouri

    Bruce J. West,

    Adjunct Professor of Physics Duke University

    David C. Williams,

    Associate Professor Department of Physics University of Alabama at Birmingham

    Ya-Hong Xie,

    Professor of Materials Science and Engineering University of California at Los Angeles

    Martin V. Zombeck,

    Physicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

    From comments @ http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808

  164. Philip Shehan says:

    Brian Angliss says:
    February 18, 2013 at 2:33 pm…

    Brian, I had not read your comment on the piece and the ensuing discussion before posting my comments above, but I agree with you comments except that in my reading of the actual paper by Lefsrud and Meyer I understood the number of engineers to be 70% (Table 2). I take it you are including engineers in training (14%) to get 84%. Fair enough.

    http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf+html

    Do you have a link to their objections to the misinterpretation/misrepresentation of their paper?

    Clearly I agree with your distinction between scientists and professionals trained in science based disciplines, and you clearly understand as an engineer yourself that this is not a slur on engineers, any more than an engineer suggesting that as a scientist I am not qualified to design structures is a slur on me. They require different skill sets, that’s all.

    Before the critics get stuck into me concerning my criticism of self selecting surveys, I am on the record as having criticized the oft quoted figure of 97% consensus of climatologists on AGW for the same reason. However I agree that for reasons you give, that figure is likely to be closer to the mark and more relevant when it comes to the subject of climatology than the 36% figure given for the consensus opinion of engineers and geoscientists.

  165. tommoriarty says:

    I criticized JustTheFacts use of the paper “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change,” in the journal Organization Studies.

    JustTheFacts responde to my criticism at February 18, 2013 at 4:58 pm reponds with

    I reposted an interesting article from IBD, along with a link to and quotes from the associated paper. This resulted in an open and active debate in comments, which is what I consider to be success. Additionally, I have yet to see a credible challenge to my observation that well educated professional experts with scientific training/geoscientists are quite skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative. I restate my question to you:

    Why do you think that increased scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW?

    That is an interesting recasting of what this post does. In fact, you have presented “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change,” in the journal Organization Studies as evidence to support a position thay you believe. However the Organization Studies paper does not make the claim that “scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW.” If fact, the article is all about social standing creating “increased skepticism of CAGW” despite “scientific literacy.” The paper is about how to overcome the “defensiveness” of “deniers” (their word, not mine).

    Now, let me make this clear (again): I agree with you that “scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW.” But be clear about this also, the Organization Studies paper that your post is about does not support that view – quite the opposite.

    James Taylor, at Forbes, made the same claims that you made concerning this journal article (and was eaten alive by commenters). The principal authors of the Organization Studies paper, Lefsrud and Meyer, personally commented at the Forbes site, saying..

    First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

    And they conclude their comment with..

    But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such! We trust that this clarifies our findings.

    So, you misreprsented the Organization Studies paper. Please do not recast by saying your post was really about the IBD article, not the Organization Studies paper, You referenced the Organization Studies paper, and the IBD article was all about the Organization Studies paper. When I challenged you earier about actually reading or understanding the Organization Studies paper you insisted that you had.

    You also say “I reposted an interesting article from IBD, along with a link to and quotes from the associated paper.This resulted in an open and active debate in comments, which is what I consider to be success.” That is poor rationalization. You and I could both dream up lots of “interesting” but untrue things that would lead to “an open and active debate in comments.”

    Bottom line, you misrepresented the Organization Studies paper.

  166. davidmhoffer says:

    Philip Shehan;
    However I agree that for reasons you give, that figure is likely to be closer to the mark and more relevant when it comes to the subject of climatology than the 36% figure given for the consensus opinion of engineers and geoscientists.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    What total poppycock. Let’s do a survey shall we?

    1. Is the climate changing? Y/N
    2. Is there a human impact on climate change? Y/N

    If you ask any group of scientists or engineers conversant in the issues those two questions and get anything less than 100% yes to both answers, then you’ve surveyed people who should give their degrees back.

    3. Do you think that human impact is significant? Y/N
    4. Do you think that human impact is significant enough to cause catastrophe?

    You know why these latter two questions don’t get asked in the survey? Like h*ll you don’t know. 97% representative my snipping snip.

  167. davidmhoffer says:

    Brian Angliss;

    Suppose you, and EE P Eng, is designing a circuit. It has one component with high enough current draw that you are concerned about the temperature rise of the component. No problem for you, you’re an engineer! An EE no less!

    So, you’d probably start with the current draw (I) and the resistance (R) to come up with the power dissipated in watts via P=I^2R. Then you’d figure the surface area of the component from its dimensions (which I presume you can do as they taught this in high school even if you didn’t take it as part of your EE, so no need to call in an ME to do this for you).

    Now you have P in w/m2. Then you would use SB Law to determine the equilibrium energy flux at ambient temperature, add your P in w/m2 to that, and calculate a new equilibrium temperature for the component.

    Did I get anything wrong so far Mr EE P Eng?

    Now if tolerances are particularly tight, I’d expect you to check emissivity and adjust accordingly. I’d expect you to determine the method by which the component is mounted to the rest of the equipment, and adjust for conductance. If there is significant air flow, you’d adjust for conductance to the air. If the component is in an enclosure, you’d need to investigate the radiative properties of the enclosure as they will further raise the temperature of the component.

    Anything in that process that is wrong sir? Anything that YOU as an EE P Eng cannot handle?

  168. davidmhoffer says:

    Anything in that process that is wrong sir? Anything that YOU as an EE P Eng cannot handle?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Either you answer no and have to give your degree back or you answer yes and show that you damn well DO have all the knowledge required to have a discussion about energy balance in the climate debate despite your protestations otherwise. watts are watts and temperature is temperature and the damn formulas are the same damn formulas and you damn well know it.

  169. davidmhoffer says:

    Now if tolerances are particularly tight, I’d expect you to check emissivity and adjust accordingly. I’d expect you to determine the method by which the component is mounted to the rest of the equipment, and adjust for conductance. If there is significant air flow, you’d adjust for conductance to the air. If the component is in an enclosure, you’d need to investigate the radiative properties of the enclosure as they will further raise the temperature of the component.

    Well a friend of mine who is an EE just sent me an email suggesting that a real engineer would probably want to do some testing at this point to verify calculations if the tolerances are indeed stringent. So I asked her, if the data came back completely different from your calculations, would you throw out the data? Or the calculations?

    She said she’d double check the calibration of the test equipment, and if it was sound, she would take the data over the calculations.

    A guess she’ll never make it as a climate scientist.

  170. markx says:

    Brian Angliss is perhaps laboring under the mistake impression that all ‘climate scientists’ are fully qualified in ‘atmospheric physics’.

    Not so, their backgrounds and educations are probably almost as varied as those of the people who post in here. There are probably a few ‘renaissance men’ in the fold who have a good grasp on the whole big picture, but although they may tick boxes in surveys as ‘climate scientists’ most are just beavering away doing their little bit focused on their area of expertise. It is the surfeit of purpose directed funding and the political soapboxing which keeps the whole thing heading in only one direction with its foregone conclusions.

  171. davidmhoffer – First, my lack of response to your increasingly agitated comments is not my ignoring you or giving up – sometimes I need to sleep and other times my day job requires me to step away from responding to comments for a few hours.

    Second, I apparently created an inaccurate perception – I do not have a Professional Engineer’s certificate. It is not necessary in the US, or generally in electrical engineering in the US, to have one in order to claim that one is an “engineer.” I apologize if I created that impression. In my field, having a certificate means you are more employable and can expect a higher salary, but not much else. I understand that a certificate is all but a requirement for other fields, however, such as civil engineering.

    Third, you are correct that much of the math is similar, and that anyone with a certain skillset will be able to replicate much of the results. I’ve done enough of that myself in my own studies of climate, and it’s those replications that are the reason I accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change (although my prefered term is “industrial climate disruption”). But I, and the vast majority of engineers, are skilled amateurs, not experts.

    I really don’t understand what’s so radical about the idea that engineers are not the same as scientists. Just because I can change my own tires, gap my own spark plugs, and change the oil in my own cars doesn’t mean that I’m an automobile mechanic. A mechanic does work on cars day in and day out and is far more expert than I will ever be, not because I couldn’t be an expert, but because I have chosen instead to use my time to become an expert in my field of electrical engineering. Similarly, just because I can run a router, hang doors and windows, and rebuild my own bathroom doesn’t make me a carpenter.

    The only things I can think of is that actually do explain the resistance to this idea that I have observed are a lack of humility on the part of engineers and other non-experts, motivated reasoning based on self-interest, and/or a lack of awareness of the limitations of one’s own knowledge and expertise.

    Fourth, you wrote that my “suggestion reads pure and simple that engineers are not qualified to comment on climate science, yet ‘scientists’ are.” As an EE myself, and as someone who has been reporting about climate science and climate disruption for about a decade now, including verifying many of the results of key papers myself, I certainly did not suggest that engineers are not qualified to comment on climate science. I pointed out that engineers are not scientists in the sense I have previously described in my comments above, and I explained how it was that Taylor distorted the original study. Nothing more.

  172. justthefacts – You asked “If the 97% statistic where accurate, why has it never been validated by a more reputable surveyor? Would you rely on a survey from someone’s masters thesis to make medical decisions?”

    To the best of my knowledge, no public opinion polling agencies have tried to survey just scientists about their opinions regarding climate change, but if you have other information to the contrary, I’d be interested in the links.

    As for your second question, of course I wouldn’t rely on a survey from someone’s Master’s thesis to make a medical decision. But medicine well known to be a tremendously difficult and complicated set of subjects. The same is not true of public opinion polling. There is a significant difference in the technical difficulty of the two subjects that make your comparison invalid.

    You also wrote re: independent scientists: “I disagree, since climate science has become so corrupted I think we are having a healthy resurgence in the independent scientist.”

    This is remarkably close to conspiracist thinking. There is no evidence that climate science (or the multiple specialities of other scientific fields that feed into climate science) has become “corrupted.” Some individuals have made mistakes, and some of those individuals should have corrected their mistakes when they were discovered, but the field(s) as a whole are unaffected.

    I don’t consider WUWT to be “corrupted” because Taylor distorted the study that started this whole thing. But I do blame Taylor, and he should correct or retract his post. And I’ll even go so far as to request that WUWT post a correction/update to the OP that Taylor got it wrong.

  173. Gail Combs says:

    Brian Angliss says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:35 am

    …..This is remarkably close to conspiracist thinking. There is no evidence that climate science (or the multiple specialities of other scientific fields that feed into climate science) has become “corrupted.” Some individuals have made mistakes, and some of those individuals should have corrected their mistakes when they were discovered, but the field(s) as a whole are unaffected…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You have GOT TO BE KIDDING!
    Just for a start read

    Caspar and the Jesus paper

    There has been the most extraordinary series of postings at Climate Audit over the last week. As is usual at CA, there is a heavy mathematics burden for the casual reader, which, with a bit of research I think I can now just about follow. The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists, and I’m going to try to tell it in layman’s language so that the average blog reader can understand it. As far as I know it’s the first time the whole story has been set out in a single posting…..

    Beware the global warming fascists: Johnny Ball on how he has been vilified for daring to question green orthodoxy

    Andrew Montford has already produced a detailed and damning study on how the UK’s Royal Society has become politicised in recent decades. His conclusions are clear.

    Immense damage has been done to the reputation of the Society by its last three presidents. While the fellows’ rebellion has improved matters considerably, the continuing desire of the Society’s leadership to engage in political controversies represents a serious ongoing risk to the Society’s reputation and an abandonment of its principles.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/royal-society-funding/

    Wall Street Journal
    Like the first “climategate” leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.

    The scientists include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, both of whose reports inform what President Obama has called “the gold standard” of international climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)….

    The Secret History of Climate Alarmism: A very German story of power politics disguised as environmentalism

    Madrid 1995: Was this the Tipping Point in the Corruption of Climate Science?

    The BBC’s ‘dirty little secret’ lands it in a new scandal: The truth of a secret meeting that decided BBC policy on climate change has come out online

    How can the BBC be saved from itself without destroying it?: Dumbed-down climate coverage is just a symptom

    Physicists send letter to Senate — Cite 160 scientists protest regarding APS climate position

    And that is just the start of a long list of links to Science corruption. Heck the corruption is rampant through out science. US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds

    How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?
    ABSTRACT
    The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys….

    A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct….

    Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

  174. Anthony Watts says:

    Note to commenters: Brian Angliss is just trolling for comments so he can claim “conspiracy theory” in his next hateful blog post on scholars and rogues. He really isn’t interested in much factual content here.

  175. davidmhoffer says:

    Anthony Watts says:
    February 19, 2013 at 11:02 am
    Note to commenters: Brian Angliss is just trolling for comments so he can claim “conspiracy theory” in his next hateful blog post on scholars and rogues. He really isn’t interested in much factual content here.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I noticed that. In his response to me he rambled on about….well about not much. He’s got a certificate. Woohoo! But not a single response to any of the actual science questions that I proposed to him. He’s run away from my challenge to discuss the science just like I knew he would. He can’t demonstrate that I’m over my head, so he rambles on about changing oil in cars not making you a mechanic. In other words, he’s so far over his head that all he’s got available to him is misdirection.

    Rather pathetic when you consider that this is the norm for people of his type. They’ll bend your ear about who is qualified and who isn’t, but when you ask them to demonstrate that they are….they aren’t.

  176. Philip Shehan says:

    Gail Combs says:
    February 19, 2013 at 4:56 am

    No one said acceptance of AGW was unanimous. The number of scientists in the world numbers in the tens if not hundreds of thousands so compiling a list of dissenters is easy, especially when the list of those who “vehemently reject” includes a number who do not reject the theory outright but are “skeptics” in the true sense who feel the evidence is not strong enough at the present time. That was my position for the first 2 decades of the global warming debate.

    And one of those, David Packham, former principal research scientist with Australia’s CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) who complains about the gravy train, cannot have been around CSIRO in the years of the Howard Conservative government when they shot the messengers at CSIRO who were telling them things they did not want to hear concerning AGW.

    I understand that a similar attitude prevailed under the Bush administration.

  177. D.B. Stealey says:

    Brian Angliss says:

    “A ‘scientist’ is someone who uses the scientific method in order to study how the world works and does so as a profession.”

    That eliminates Angliss from the subset “scientists”. Because the Scientific Method is ignored by every purveyor of the CO2=catastrophic AGW [CAGW] conjecture.

    Why? Because there is no quantifiable, testable measurement of AGW. Belief in AGW is a conjecture, nothing more. There is no testable, empirical measurement of AGW.

    Now, AGW may well exist. But if so, it is too small to measure. It is inconsequential. That is why there is endless discussion over the ‘sensitivity’ number. No one knows for certain what it is, or even the sign.

    Next time Angliss pipes up about scientists, keep in mind that by his own definition, he isn’t one. An honest scientist would insist on rigorously following the Scientific Method. And that leads straight to the conclusion that AGW is simply an unfalsifiable conjecture.

    And the so-called ‘consensus’ is a myth. The OISM Petition shows us what the true consensus is: CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. That is the true consensus of of honest scientists.

  178. Gail Combs says:

    Philip Shehan says:
    February 19, 2013 at 1:22 pm

    Gail Combs says:
    February 19, 2013 at 4:56 am

    No one said acceptance of AGW was unanimous…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is EXACTLY what is being said.

    The Science Is Still Settled
    In testimony to Congress about global warming, Al Gore declared that “the science is settled” and he was right. The fact that CO₂ heats the atmosphere absolutely is settled science. The fact that the amount of CO₂ that humans have already emitted is causing warming at an unprecedented rate is also settled, and the longer we continue emitting CO₂ the worse it will get.
    …Gore said that if left unchecked, global warming could lead to a drastic change in the weather, sea levels and other aspects of the environment. And he pointed out that these conclusions are not his, but those of a vast majority of scientists who study the issue.

    Members of the committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, listened very carefully to Gore, as they seemed to take to heart his final message: that in a few years this whole debate will look very different.

    “This is not a partisan issue, this is a moral issue,” Gore said. “And our children are going to be demanding this.”

    And to confirm in the mind of the people that “The Science is Settled” and there is a “Consensus” any dissenting fews were either muzzled or attacked with the “Big Oil Funded” smear campaign.

    BBC Climategate: aka “impartiality my arrse”
    http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/190316-bbc-climategate-aka-impartiality-my-arrse.html
    Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

    Ohh dear. Never mind trifling matters like kiddy fiddlers and corporate stupidity, here we have a real stinker.

    In Jan 2006 the BBC held a meeting of “the best scientific experts” to decide BBC policy on climate change reporting, i.e. to freeze out the AGW deniers and sing only from the Green Gravytrain Songsheet, expressed thus:

    “The BBC held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus”

    Silencing dissenting views. How very impartial.

    After FOI requests, the BBC has been in court with many a lawyer spending our money to try and block said FOI request to get the list of the 28 attendees at this great meeting of impartial scientific minds.

    Why? If functionaries of the BBC have made a policy decision to ramp up one point of view and rubbish another, the basis on which that was decided should be in the public domain. Unless of course it was all yet another crock of BBC shit to be covered up at all costs….

  179. Captain Dave says:

    Many of the APEGGA members are Canadian university-educated engineers. When we graduate, we take part in a non-educational ceremony entitled “The Calling of an Engineer.” During it, we swear an oath to be thorough and to try and think of everything that could go wrong and design with the worse case in mind so that nobody will be hurt by our negligence. I doubt the CAGW zealots are thus restricted.

  180. Robert in Calgary says:

    Anthony said earlier –

    “Note to commenters: Brian Angliss is just trolling for comments so he can claim “conspiracy theory” in his next hateful blog post on scholars and rogues. He really isn’t interested in much factual content here.”

    Yes, I got the sense he would fit in nicely with Laden, Lewandowsky and Cook.

  181. Yes – Brian Angliss also posts at the “Society of Environmental Jouranlists”; “Inside Climate News”; DeSmog and a few others. From reading his posts I reckon his viewpoint and mine are about as far apart as our ages (cause I’m a bit of a fossil). He’ll really hate the post today about the temperature trends at Boulder, CO as he lives near there, Masters from U of C and degree from Penn State not that means anything, just an interesting anecdote from his bio on Scholars and Rogues. Off to read new threads and bye to this one.

    Wayne – skiing in Banff today.

  182. barry says:

    Mark Bofill says:
    February 18, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    You seem to imply that ‘industry’ experts’ are no more to be trusted than their counterparts, ‘Greenpeace’ experts, but the IPCC is the objective and qualified party in the middle.

    I’m merely reiterating the views in the study – that professionals in industries with a vested interest in the climate science debate inflate their own expertise on climate science. I pointed this out in response to justthefactswuwt implying an equivalence of understanding between these professionals and dedicated climate scientists.

    No one here would be foolish enough to go to an optometrist to get advice on heart palpitations. justthefactswuwt appears to think that a petroleum engineer is as knowledgable about the effect of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as a physicist that has studied the matter for years.

    The structure and scientific underpinning of the IPCC makes it more amenable to a neutral position, but motives are hard to discern, and there may well be bias. The paper that underpins this thread discussion studies, among other things, motivations of the demographic under review. I think IBD and particularly justthefactswuwt have missed the point of their reference material. The article that heads this thread not only misses the point but makes false argument by doing so. That’s all I wanted to point out. I’m sure there will be a thread before long devoted to spotlighting the instituional bias of the IPCC.

  183. Anthony, I’m hardly trolling. I have never written about Lewandowski or his work on conspiracy ideation, so you have no basis for accusing me of planning to do so now. My posts about your website and you personally have been strictly factual. I understand that you may not like what I’ve written, but that’s not the fault of the facts themselves. If you don’t like what I write, then don’t do things that demonstrate you have a double-standard with respect to when it’s OK to pre-publish documents, or that demonstrate that you’re unwilling to run corrections on posts, like this one, that are so blatantly distorted that the victims of the distortions pointed it out themselves.

    And you’ll notice that I not once linked back to Scholars & Rogues. Instead I pulled bits of my posts into my comments here. Had I been a traffic troll, I would have linked to my own posts instead.

    davidmhoffer: I did answer your points indirectly, as there was no point in addressing every single claim you made. I said “you are correct that much of the math is similar, and that anyone with a certain skillset will be able to replicate much of the results.” That’s an admission that anyone with the necessary skills can do much of what you described in your three posts. But as I pointed out using several analogies that you either failed to understand or chose to ignore, being able to do those things doesn’t automatically make you a scientist or an expert.

    D.B. Stealey – that you mention the OISM “petition” is interesting. I analyzed the petition years ago and found that, using the OISM’s own criteria, the total population of scientists would be just shy of 10.7 million. 31,478 signers divided by about 10.7 million “scientists is about 0.3%. That’s hardly a challenge to anyone claiming that the OISM petition “debunks the consensus.” By the way, if you use the OISM “petition” as your standard for who does and does not qualify as a scientist, that makes Taylor’s original Forbes blog even more wrong than it already is, because the APEGA study didn’t survey medical doctors, metallurgists, mathematicians, computer programmers, et al.

    Robert in Calgary: I realize that you meant the comparison of me to Cook, Laden, and Lewandowski as the most horrific insult you could imagine, but given John Cook’s science is impeccable and, unlike the author of this post, Cook admits his mistakes and runs corrections when someone points them out to him, I’ll accept your comment instead as an amazing compliment.

  184. Theo Goodwin says:

    Brian Angliss says:
    February 18, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    “A “scientist” is someone who uses the scientific method in order to study how the world works and does so as a profession. Most engineers don’t study the world in the same way, and the engineering skill set is quite a bit different from the scientist skill set. We can’t simply open up the definition of “scientist” to include anyone who uses the scientific method regularly in their professions because that makes the word meaningless. After all, would you call a medical doctor a scientist in the same way a chemist or biologist or meteorologist is? How about a veterinarian? A professional sportsman? An automobile mechanic? All of those professions and more use the scientific method of observing, hypothesizing, testing, and drawing conclusions, but none of them are practicing scientists. And neither are most engineers.”

    Preposterous. Are you truly unaware that there have been for centuries medical doctors who were first rate scientists? How about priests? Ever hear of Gregor Mendel?

    You consider meteorology a science? What is it about, computer code?

    If your effort in this post was to prove that your ignorance of the history of science is unequaled in modern times then you have succeeded admirably.

  185. davidmhoffer says:

    Brian Angliss
    davidmhoffer: I did answer your points indirectly, as there was no point in addressing every single claim you made.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    You answered not a single point about the science sir, directly or indirectly. It is obvious that you are incapable of doing so.

  186. davidmhoffer says:

    C’mon Brian.
    Pick a point. Just one. I gave you a whole list, and at least one is wrong.

    But you don’t have a clue which one, or you would have jumped on it.

  187. Mario Lento says:

    D.B. Stealey says:
    February 18, 2013 at 3:37 pm
    “If engineers were surveyed, and 84% of respondents were engineers, what’s the problem?”

    I agree. But there is a difference (and this is not meant as a slam to most scientists) between engineers and scientists in general. If an engineer’s output does not work, they go hungry. An engineer has to apply science in practical ways. Somehow, the idiots on left don’t seem to understand this.

  188. Mario Lento says:

    From D.B. Stealey: “and 84% of respondents were engineers”

    The difference is that engineers apply science to solve problems. If an output from an engineer does not work… eventually they go hungry. I’m not slamming scientists, but it seems that many on the left don’t understand what engineers do.

  189. Mario Lento says:

    From D.B. Stealey: You wrote “If engineers were surveyed, and 84% of respondents were engineers, what’s the problem?”

    I agree with your sentiment… But must add: The difference is that engineers apply science to solve problems. If an output from an engineer does not work, eventually they go hungry. I’m not slamming scientists, but it seems that many on the left don’t understand what engineers do.

  190. Kajajuk says:

    Holocene not all it was cracked up to be;
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

    Spring arrives 50 days earlier in the Arctic;
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110302171320.htm
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
    Could not find the original article, only the abstract…

  191. David says:

    markx says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:29 am
    Brian Angliss is perhaps laboring under the mistake impression that all ‘climate scientists’ are fully qualified in ‘atmospheric physics’.
    ==========================================
    markx, it is far worse then that. The vast majority of ‘climate scientist” are not atmospheric scientist at all. Many are social science professionals who have done papers on the predicted affects of CAGW disasters on society. (They are considered “climate scientist.) Many are biologist in one field or another. They take the predicted disasters from the warmist, then they go to some area of the planet where the climate is outside of the normal flux, (like this has not always occured) and they say, if this trend continues such and such disaster will result. They are now climate scientist.

    Most of the OSIM petition was signed by qualified PHDs in the hard sciences. Furthermore the OSIM petition did not pussyfoot around. It directly addresed the C in CAGW, and stated an emphatic No!, and also expressed a strong support for the KNOWN benefits of an increase in CO2. This alone makes the OISM petition far more valid then the 97% of scientist survey.

    The strange warmist idea that confirmation bias, group think, selfish greed etc, (the dark side of human nature) only exists in the business world or the world of men who prefer small govt, but is exempt from Goverment people, is quite inane. This is especially true considering that “democide” (death by Govermen), is by far the leading cause of death and murder in the last hundred years.
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hawaii.edu%2Fpowerkills%2F20TH.HTM&ei=EnkkUcvvMcemiQLcsoHYDg&usg=AFQjCNHKIzZwk4m_p3j8cPGHGnyqwLudHw&sig2=q4rA_0hVTpQmNXxlW_6oCg&bvm=bv.42661473,d.cGE

  192. Philip Shehan says:

    Gail Combs says:
    February 19, 2013 at 2:05 pm…

    Are you serious that consensus means unanimity? It clearly does not. It means (OED) a general agreement of opinion or testimony, a majority view or a collective opinion.

    I do not particularly like the term that the science is “settled”, but it means that there is a consensus among climate scientists that to a very high degree of probability anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are having a measurable and significant effect on the global climate. That does not mean that research into details of what the specific effects will be in various regions, how much and on what timescales.

    That the BBC has decided that the consensus of scientific opinion is such that the contrary view should not be presented as having equal weight is as reasonable as making such a decision on the view that HIV does not cause AIDS or that vaccinations cause autism.

    And on the Oregon petition:

    The petition of 31,487 “scientists” is a project of Frederick Seitz, a free market, anti regulation ideologue who as the book Merchants of Doubt points out has been using precisely the same tactics when working for industry in the smoking, acid rain, and ozone depletion campaigns. It was launched with a phony “research paper” tricked up to look like a paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, who strenuously objected to that misrepresentation.
    The petition has been collecting signatures since 1998. Signatories are only required to have (or claim) a BSc degree or higher qualification. Possession of such degrees does not qualify someone for the description “scientist” unless they are engaged in research. The website does not explain how it verifies the claimed qualifications or identities of the signatories. Joke names such as Geri Halliwell (aka Ginger Spice) have appeared on the list.
    The largest field of signatories, over 10,000, are engineers and over 2000 are medical practitioners. Generally these people are not scientists. There is no provision for those who may have signed since 1998, but have changed there stance in the ensuing 13 years of accumulating evidence to have their names removed. I have changed my views since 1998.
    Indeed the website says that it marks the names of those who have died (and therefore unable to review their position) with an asterisk. So the dead get to vote.

  193. David says:

    The real facts on the OISM petition.

    Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

    2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

    3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

    4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

    5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

    6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

    7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

    Now show me the list of the 97% petiton that was worded in such a mealy mouthed way as to be meaningless.

  194. David says:

    Philip Shehan, your assertions concerning Frederick Seitz are without merrit, and even shameful.

    Frederick Seitz had a major impact world-wide on solid-state physics. His role in the U.S. can be compared with that of Nevill Mott in England and Yakov Frenkel in the Soviet Union. Besides Seitz’s pioneering scientific contributions, he was talented as an institution builder as well as a promoter and administrator of interdisciplinary cooperation in a broad scientific arena. Among Seitz’s awards were the Franklin Medal (1965), the AIP Compton Medal (1970), the National Medal of Science (1973, the country’s highest award for scientists), the NSF Vannevar Bush Award (1983), and numerous awards for distinguished service to U.S. government agencies. He was elected to 9 Academies, including 6 abroad, and honored by 32 doctorates from universities in five countries. In 1993, the University of Illinois renamed the Materials Research Laboratory in his honor. Seitz died in New York, age 96, on March 2, 2008.”

    Here are some more details on other signers of the OISM petition….

    1. Atmosphere (579)

    I) Atmospheric Science (112)
    II) Climatology (39)
    III) Meteorology (343)
    IV) Astronomy (59)
    V) Astrophysics (26)

    2. Earth (2,240)

    I) Earth Science (94)
    II) Geochemistry (63)
    III) Geology (1,684)
    IV) Geophysics (341)
    V) Geoscience (36)
    VI) Hydrology (22)

    3. Environment (986)

    I) Environmental Engineering (487)
    II) Environmental Science (253)
    III) Forestry (163)
    IV) Oceanography (83)

    Computers & Math (935)

    1. Computer Science (242)

    2. Math (693)

    I) Mathematics (581)
    II) Statistics (112)

    Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

    1. Physics (5,225)

    I) Physics (2,365)
    II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
    III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)

    2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

    Chemistry (4,822)

    1. Chemistry (3,129)

    2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

    Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

    1. Biochemistry (744)

    I) Biochemistry (676)
    II) Biophysics (68)

    2. Biology (1,438)

    I) Biology (1,049)
    II) Ecology (76)
    III) Entomology (59)
    IV) Zoology (149)
    V) Animal Science (105)

    3. Agriculture (783)

    I) Agricultural Science (296)
    II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
    III) Plant Science (292)
    IV) Food Science (81)

    Medicine (3,046)

    1. Medical Science (719)

    2. Medicine (2,327)

    General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

    1. General Engineering (9,833)

    I) Engineering (7,280)
    II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
    III) Metallurgy (384)

    2. General Science (269)

    BTW, unlike some dead voters the OISM signers did vote, and since have passed.. Your statement in this regard demonstrates a profound lack of logic.

    here is a link for you to the actual study. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oism.org%2Fpproject%2F&ei=d5IkUbrnJoP6iwLZn4CoAw&usg=AFQjCNEfMRCvaI3e-4PnBquBgt0CMW6tFg&sig2=l8IVB8p7cwqNZlU9d0xmug&bvm=bv.42661473,d.cGE

  195. David says:

    From the OISM petition….
    Does the petition project list contain duplicate names?

    Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.

    Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?

    Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

    In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

    Are any of the listed signers dead?

    In a group of more than 30,000 people, deaths are a frequent occurrence. The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories. When we do learn of a death, an “*” is placed beside the name of the signatory. For examples, Edward Teller, Arnold Beckman, Philip Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen are American scientists who signed the Petition and are now deceased.”

  196. D.B. Stealey says:

    Mario Lento and David,

    Exactly right. Angliss says:

    “I analyzed the petition years ago and found that, using the OISM’s own criteria, the total population of scientists would be just shy of 10.7 million. 31,478 signers divided by about 10.7 million “scientists is about 0.3%. That’s hardly a challenge to anyone claiming that the OISM petition ‘debunks the consensus’.”

    Horse manure. That is no “analysis”, and Angliss is no statistician. The OISM Petition was co-signed by tens of thousands of scientific professionals who downloaded their copy, signed it, and mailed it in — no emails were accepted. That means that more than 30,000 scientists and engineers took the time to register their professional opinions that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Tens of thousands of science professionals have staked their reputations on those facts.

    NO alarmist survey has come anywhere close to those numbers, because the so-called “consensus” is bull crap. The true scientific consensus is that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Angliss is just blowing smoke, like the relatively small alarmist crowd likes to do.

    Nothing Angliss says negates the fact that more than 30,000 scientists and engineers have co-signed the OISM statement. CO2 is not a problem, no matter what Angliss and is handful of co-alarmists claim. They have bought into the false True Belief that “carbon” is gonna getcha — and they cannot be seen to climb down at this point, despite the fact that Planet Earth is falsifying their ridiculous global warming superstition.

  197. barry says:

    The Oregon Petition managed to get – what – 32 000 signatories since 1998?

    That many positive respondents in 15 years is pretty desultory.

    Can anyone advise as to how many people were approached to sign? If we can do that, then we can get closer to understanding whether this is a preponderance of opinion, or a small sample out of many people who may have rejected the petition.

    How were the credentials authenticated?

    At 0.3% of the entire US science community, the majority of respondents not experts in climate science, and a non-scientific survey methodology, this data should be taken with a bucket of salt by any proper skeptic seeking to understand the expert opinion on human-caused climate change.

  198. TonyG says:

    77 respondents (out of 10,000 approached) is more representative how?

  199. Werner Brozek says:

    Brian Angliss says:
    February 19, 2013 at 8:17 pm

    31,478 signers divided by about 10.7 million “scientists is about 0.3%. That’s hardly a challenge to anyone claiming that the OISM petition “debunks the consensus.”

    And by this logic, how many people protested the Keystone pipeline and what is the population of the U.S.?

  200. davidmhoffer says:

    barry;
    At 0.3% of the entire US science community, the majority of respondents not experts in climate science, and a non-scientific survey methodology, this data should be taken with a bucket of salt
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    And yet despite the supposed broad consensus amongst the science community, attempts by SkS and others to produce a comparable petition to the contrary have not only failed, they have failed miserably. The only surveys that dispute the Oregon petition are comprised of vague and misleading questions responded to by a tiny sample size, and yet are held up as being credible. If the position was credible, given that the fate of the world hangs in the balance, one would think that a clear statement would garner the support of tens of thousands of scientists with a minimum of effort. Yet even with major efforts, not such support had appeared.

    barry wants to complain about the splinter in our eye while ignoring the plank in his.

  201. davidmhoffer says:

    Re; Brian Angliss

    What purpose this troll had is beyond me. He overstated his credentials and had to take a climb down, presented no facts or arguments about the science itself that would sway anyone one way or another, demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge of both science and engineering and how they overlap, and when invited to discuss a single point of science (of his choosing), his presence evaporated. Ah, ’tis only been a single day, perhaps he will return?

    But what he did do is confirm a pattern that we see over and over and over again. Appeal to authority, dismiss out of hand any authority which expresses disagreement as being not qualified. When challenged to discuss the science directly, poof and disappear.

    It is trolls like Brian Angliss who prove to me over and over again that the science of CAGW is hollow. If it wasn’t, the CAGW proponents would be eager to discuss it, show their work and data, use surveys with clear, concise language from large cross sections of the scientific community. How hard could it be to do such a thing with the fate of the world hanging in the balance? Instead all they present is bluff and bluster. One cannot help but conclude that is all they have.

    C’mon Brian…. just one point of science. Just one. Chicken?

  202. Kajajuk says:

    Previous posts and this is to respond to a request to cite my points that put me on the warming side of the debate.

    Last post implies Arctic climate change of late, and the next citation is a bit mealy mouthed but was the type of information that led to my watching about polar bears…
    http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2246
    http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=80101367459

    Tree line information was posted earlier.

    I remember an article a while back that was a simple (un-speculative report, except that it may be liquid methane at the bottom of the lake stirred up by a storm) about a Siberian lake that appeared to be boiling…i could not find that article, but a search “methane gas release russia” led to 301,000 hits so the article is likely a needle amidst all the hay, but…
    The Independent has done at least two articles on this. The latest…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html
    http://terryorisms.com/2011/12/17/huge-methane-releases-stokes-global-warming-fears/
    An earlier BBC news release that states ‘No alarm”…
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8437703.stm
    There are reported vast amounts of methyl hydrate on the continental margins of the Arctic Ocean…0.7 to 4.4 trillion cubic meters in Alaska alone;
    http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/118ns_003.htm
    A bathymetry map of the Arctic Ocean suggests this estimate by the energy sector may mean there are more than 24 times this amount (an estimate by me by 15 degrees for Alaska divided into 360 for the shelves not including the area of the continental shelves)
    http://geology.com/world/arctic-ocean-bathymetry-map.shtml
    This does not include any estimates from permafrost or at the bottom of lakes around the sub-arctic or arctic terranes.

    I concede that the migration anomalies of birds (and other species) and the mass die offs of 81 species in 31 countries since the start of 2013 cannot be tied to climate perturbations alone.

    hmmmm, * seems to be an increase in water redistribution all over the place”
    This is an observation of mine own, as far as i know. It could be tested within a 100 hours of study, but not on my immediate to do list;
    * a survey of precipitation records in global zones: equatorial, and temperate… maybe by longitude and latitude “squares” or types of regions with respect to precipitation (zones)
    * analysis of data for an approximate curve of best fit… look at the first and second time derivatives for max and min or especially no change,..
    or look for simple trends if curve is linear like…blah blah blah
    * analysis of year (and/or month) totals over time and in relation to the median (is there redistribution between the zones? is there no significant change?)
    * calculate the precipitation total for the Earth on a yearly basis (and/or monthly) Is there more water vapour in the the atmosphere or less? How much is there?
    This may be a case of seeing what the media wants me to see, so all i can do is apologize for stating an opinion, and can offer no citation.

  203. theuglytruth says:

    If so many scientists do not believe global warming is caused by man, doesn’t that tend to show they might be scared into silence? Are they depending on government funding for their research, that would get cut if they came out with their beliefs? How about their acceptance in media and scientific journals, most of which have an agenda of their own?

    So much for the right to their personal opinion.

  204. Kajajuk says:

    Thanks Gail C for your post.
    I finally got around to reading it. And yes, i not only have considered volcanism in the polar regions but have been fascinated by the idea and science behind it leading to many manic research sessions. Most of the articles i have read previously, and enjoyed the ones i have not come across. The Wood institute is frustrating, because (and sadly typical) they provide much background info but delve into speculation about coming research and meaning. The follow-up to which i can not find. Still waiting for the 2003 speculation of exploring possible “new” life at “discovered” hydrothermal vents around the Gakkel Ridge, as one example.
    As a layman this becomes profoundly irksome.
    I wholeheartedly agree that there is much yet to explore before proclaiming a cause of global warming, iff there is a long term trend to warming.
    There are also at least a half dozen inactive (or active? are they being monitored?) volcanoes under the west antarctic ice sheet.
    All these systems (and have all of them been discerned?) are inter-related and beg more study than simply pointing fingers at CO2 and over-reacting. A reaction that might have little to no effect or might even worsen the situation.

  205. Kajajuk says:

    theuglytruth says:
    February 20, 2013 at 1:33 pm
    If so many scientists do not believe global warming is caused by man, doesn’t that tend to show they might be scared into silence?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Unfortunately, science has a very very long history of being influenced by issues other than the evidence.

  206. Philip Shehan says:

    “David says:
    February 20, 2013 at 1:09 am
    Philip Shehan, your assertions concerning Frederick Seitz are without merrit, and even shameful.”

    I am aware of Seitz’s achievements. No human being is always right or always wrong.

    His positive contributions to science do not invalidate my claims as to his conduct as I have outlined it. Where exactly have I got the facts I state wrong?

  207. D.B. Stealey says:

    Philip Shehan says:

    “And on the Oregon petition…

    “Joke names such as Geri Halliwell (aka Ginger Spice) have appeared on the list.”

    Fibbing again? Prove your assertion. Every co-signer is listed alphabetically.

    The fact is that the alarmist crowd has tried repeatedly to equal the number of legitimate scientists and engineers that co-signed the OISM Petition. They have failed miserably, not coming anywhere close to the 30,000+ OISM signatories. The OISM Petition is the true consensus.

    The alarmist ‘consensus’ is a myth, as anyone following this debate — whether they will admit it or not.

  208. Philip Shehan says:
    February 19, 2013 at 1:18 am
    The 1077 pareticipants in the survey were a self selecting group who decided to respond out of 40,000 potential participants.
    *********************************************************************************************************************
    Man, I thought I left this thread yesterday but the comments and references just show people don’t understand and don’t look beyond their noses and don’t even understand why there is a red underline under what they have mistyped. (Too angry and typing too fast?)

    I know a lot of APEGA (Used to be APEGGA till we got too many “G’s”)

    Philip, there were not 40,000 potential participants, there were 68,000. Of the roughly 55,000 were engineers or engineers in training. The others were of various designations such as Geologists and Geophysicists – these are usually guys and gals that get their hands dirty playing in the dirt or using geo-phones and computers to figure out what is in the dirt, or flying fancy instruments behind airplanes and using computers. In fact, I doubt anyone in this association hasn’t used a lot of computers.

    We have now bundled all these folks into a common category called “Geosciences”. There are 303 P. Geo’s and 165 trainees in Alberta, for now there are 4150 Geologists and 1240 or so Geophysicists.

    Some of the 68,000 may in fact be scientists carrying out scientific studies. But most of us (Whether they are called “GeoSCIENTISTS” or not) are simply applying science to do useful work. Sometimes we may make scientific discoveries but we would consider ourselves scientists.

    Some may be scientists, but most are not. In fact, and it may not be appropriate to say it in this day and age, but the favourite engineering sport at the university I graduated from was dunking undergraduate science students.

    So, don’t worry about insulting engineers by saying we aren’t scientists. We know it, thank goodness. Think about that the next time you turn your water tap on or flush your toilet or drive down a road and cross a bridge to go fly from LA to New York. If we worked like some of the “scientists” we read here, you’d likely be dead by now.
    http://www.apega.ca/About/summary/12-31-2012.pdf

    Final comment:
    Kajajuk says:
    February 20, 2013 at 12:08 pm
    Previous posts and this is to respond to a request to cite my points that put me on the warming side of the debate.
    ******************************************************************************************************************
    You ought to go tent camping in Pangnirtung. (no guns allowed) You might change your outlook.
    http://www.apega.ca/About/summary/12-31-2012.pdf

  209. D.B. Stealey says:

    Wayne Delbecke,

    The difference between climatologists’ and engineers’ models.

  210. Philip Shehan says:

    Wayne Delbeke says:
    February 20, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    Wayne, you appear to be entirely missing the point of my comments. I agree with you entirely.

    Go back to my post at Philip Shehan says: February 19, 2013 at 1:18 am and read them from there.

    I wrote that engineers are excellent at engineering and I would not drive across a bridge designed by a geneticist. I also wrote that as I scientists I would not consider it a put down that I am not qualified to design bridges. Although I am in biomedical research, I recognise that probably the greatest contribution ever made to human health was the engineers who in the 19th century began to put in clean water supplies and sewage systems to take the waste away.

    I was responding to other commentators here who think that remarks that engineers are not scientists is some kind of put down. It isn’t.

    My point is that scientists have a particular skill set and way of thinking that makes them far more qualified to assess scientific research than engineers or other professionals trained in science subjects and the application of established knowledge. I know from my BSc degree that I was never asked or expected to question whether the course material is true. You are supposed to accept it, learn it and apply it. It is when you begin a research degree that you have to learn and apply a different way of thinking.

    That there are actually 68,000 possible respondents rather than the 40,000 that was stated in the research paper, of whom just over 1000 responded, demonstrates even more fully my remarks about the unreliability of self selecting surveys.

    —–

    Regarding the phony names that appeared on the Oregon petition. The petition organisers admit this has happened and blame it on people trying to discredit the petition. In demonstrating the laxity of the examination of the claims of those signing on, they did exactly that. After being alerted or otherwise discovering such names they are removed.

  211. D.B. Stealey says:

    barry says:

    “That many positive respondents in 15 years is pretty desultory.”

    barry is making assertions without even understanding the issue. The OISM Petition Project was a response to the proposed Kyoto accord. Once Kyoto failed there was no longer an effort to circulate the petition. Thus, more than 31,000 scientists and engineers [all with degrees in the hard sciences] co-signed the petition in a very short time.

    The entire petition reads as follows:

    We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.[my emphasis]

    No similar petition from the alarmist side has ever gotten nearly that number of signatures. The reason is simple: the true consensus is on the side of scientific skeptics, who know that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

  212. Mario Lento says:

    @Barry, You wrote: “At 0.3% of the entire US science community, the majority of respondents not experts in climate science, ”

    Do you really want to go on record as suggesting you think “experts in climate science” have actually produced arguments which haven’t already been debunked by plain old observation?

    You should actually think before you make statements that make you look like a trained parrot repeating phrases you were taught by the left wing media. Do you want a cracker now, Polly?

  213. Mario Lento says:

    @Barry,
    You wrote: “At 0.3% of the entire US science community, the majority of respondents not experts in climate science, ”

    Do you really want to go on record as suggesting you think “experts in climate science” have actually produced arguments which haven’t already been debunked by plain old observation?

    You should actually think before you make statements that make you look like a trained parrot repeating phrases you were taught by the left wing media. Do you want a cracker now, Polly?

  214. David says:

    Many other “talking” points you have made were debunked in my quotes directly from the petition. In any case your accusations about a few names slipping through are pedantic in the extreme and in no way discredit the 99.99 percent of very legimate scientist. The argument that 30,000 plus scientist is a small sample of the entire scientific community is pure sophistry, and meaningless in context ar there are no polls ever conducted that the majority of scientist respond to.. The fact is that 30,000 preofessionals trained in the scientific method, meaning trained to NOT offer an opinion regarding a :scientific” question unless they have studied it, did in fact study the issue with adequet depth to offer a clear opinion aimed directly at the C in CAGW.

    All contrary surveys are done incredibly poorly in comparision. Their question entirely ignore the “C” on CAGW. (This alone discredits them COMPLETELY) Their rejection of respondents to an ever smaller portion of the respondents until they got the answer they wanted. and calling them “climate scientist” is piss poor science. The vast majority of ‘climate scientist” are not atmospheric scientist at all. Many are social science professionals who have done papers on the predicted affects of CAGW disasters on society. (They are considered “climate scientist.) Many are biologist in one field or another. They take the predicted disasters from the warmist “what if computer models, then they go to some area of the planet where the climate is outside of the normal flux, (like this has not always occured) and they say, if this trend continues such and such disaster will result. They are now “climate scientist”.

    Your comments of Dr Fred Seitz political leanings is odd to the extreme. The strange warmist idea that confirmation bias, group think, selfish greed etc, (the dark side of human nature) only exists in the business world or the world of men who prefer small govt, but is exempt from Goverment people, is quite inane. This is especially true considering that “democide” (death by Govermen), is by far the leading cause of death and murder in the last hundred years, directly responsible for over 100 million people murdered. In general people that belive in small govt and freedom, personal freedom, business freedom, property rights, etc, do not like to tell others how to live, and, if left alone, then they tend to leave alone, in fact being more likely to not have an agenda.

  215. tommoriarty says:February 19, 2013 at 6:38 am

    Now, let me make this clear (again): I agree with you that “scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW.” But be clear about this also, the Organization Studies paper that your post is about does not support that view – quite the opposite.

    This is erroneous, as I stated above in reference to the data in Table 4 on page 1492, “the conclusions are quite clear, well educated professional experts with scientific training/geoscientists are quite skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative.”

    So, you misreprsented the Organization Studies paper. Please do not recast by saying your post was really about the IBD article, not the Organization Studies paper, You referenced the Organization Studies paper, and the IBD article was all about the Organization Studies paper. When I challenged you earier about actually reading or understanding the Organization Studies paper you insisted that you had.

    Cast aspersions as you wish, but the facts are clear, try reading the article again. I didn’t make any representations, much less misrepresentations…

  216. Brian Angliss says: February 19, 2013 at 8:35 am

    To the best of my knowledge, no public opinion polling agencies have tried to survey just scientists about their opinions regarding climate change, but if you have other information to the contrary, I’d be interested in the links.

    I have never seen one either. Given the importance of this subject and huge sums of money supporting the Warmist cause, why do you think that there has never been a credible survey by one of the polling agencies on this subject?

    This is remarkably close to conspiracist thinking. There is no evidence that climate science (or the multiple specialities of other scientific fields that feed into climate science) has become “corrupted.” Some individuals have made mistakes, and some of those individuals should have corrected their mistakes when they were discovered, but the field(s) as a whole are unaffected.

    You can play with your conspiracy meme, but unless you’ve lived under a rock for the last few years and missed Climategate, Himalayagate, Africagate, Amazongate, Hide The Decline, IPCC’s regular use of gray literature and countless other scandals and indiscretions, you have to have some sense that climate science has been corrupted…

    I don’t consider WUWT to be “corrupted” because Taylor distorted the study that started this whole thing. But I do blame Taylor, and he should correct or retract his post. And I’ll even go so far as to request that WUWT post a correction/update to the OP that Taylor got it wrong.

    I’ll let James Taylor defend himself, go argue with him if you think he’s wrong…:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/20/as-the-consensus-among-scientists-crumbles-global-warming-alarmists-attack-their-integrity/

  217. Kajajuk says:

    Hi Wayne D,

    A summary of credentials will not change my point of view, and in fact strengths my suspicion that science has evolved into a caste system of prestige and privilege. Like some sort of priesthood of old. I have little interest in the opinions of even the most high and mighty; show me the evidence and help be understand the speculation.

    As for the Nunavut village camping trip, i expect the scientist will say, “we are not sure” and the residents will say ‘times are a changing’. This actually underscores my perspective of fence siting, with an eye focusing on the natural world. Nature responds to climate change dynamically not after a requisite number of committee meetings, political debates, and professional banquets.

    Some excerpts from an impotent 2005 study: http://www.gov.nu.ca/env/sbe.pdf
    “The majority of participants in both communities said they have observed less snow on the ground.”
    “According to the majority of report participants in both Pangnirtung and Iqaluit, sea ice has been forming later and breaking up earlier in the last 3- 5 years.”
    “Like other Arctic communities, Pangnirtung and Iqaluit find unpredictable weather a serious hazard. Hunting and travel parties can no longer predict when the weather will change and what that change will be.”
    “While is seems clear that both communities identify wind changes, the specific changes must be looked at individually (see Pangnirtung and Iqaluit summaries).”
    “As a result of small sampling, no conclusions can be made with the information that has been collected, however, the observations collected in this report illustrate the fact that Inuit have valuable information to offer to any future studies and have valuable observations to contribute to any future work in climate change.”

    More recently…
    “ABSTRACT To reduce the negative impacts of climate change on permafrost and Infrastructure, an adaptation strategy must be undertaken to support land use planning decisions. The case of Pangnirtung, Nunavut, is taken as an example. The paper outlines the principal steps undertaken by a multidisciplinary team to assess the current permafrost conditions and presents preliminary data in regards to three main terrain units subjected to development opportunities. Results show the high variability in the distribution of the sediment types, ground ice, and ground thermal regime.”
    http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/cpc/CPC6-1242.pdf

    Each of these papers are more of a “wait and see” than proclamations of eureka. At least the pegs for my tent would be easier to secure into the soil, probably.

    oh and BTW, it is the sub-Arctic regions that would start venting methane first, not the Arctic region; the Baffin islands and the North of Greenland are in the Arctic region.

    [Important, or impotent study? Mod]

  218. Kajajuk says:

    impotent scientifically. My opinion of the paper, based on the recommendations on page 30 and the lack of developing metrics based on the populations observations of climate change.
    Certainly not important in my view (scientifically), since it seems devised to mitigate and placate the concerns of the local population. This is just me reading between the lines of the paper;

    “The Department is encouraged to continue the collection of observations of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit within Nunavut communities by developing a more collaborative and comprehensive approach with each community in Nunavut and by allowing the interview to focus on the key observations and concerns of individual communities.” p 3
    The result of this study was to say there is not enough information to draw conclusions.

    The important part of the paper is the documentation of the observation of the inuit. e.g.
    “The winter is seemingly a shadow of its former self. It is quite short now and the dark period is when we had ice to travel on, at least starting from November we would be traveling by dog team on the ice. Nowadays, it is right up to December and even right up to Christmas that Inuit are out boating in the fiord. That is how much it has changed since my youth. You can now boat during the twelve days of Christmas. It was unheard of in the old days.” (Jaypeetee Qarpik, March, 2002).” section 5.2.1.6 p 26
    ““…it is noticeable that the sun is stronger in it’s intensity. These are not real burns, but they are a result of the drying out of the skin. It (skin) starts to peel more. Before, we would only get a suntan. Nowadays, some people start to burn and peel. There are more problems now with the skin cracking and peeling.” (Mosesee Novaqilk, March, 2002).” section 5.2.1.5 p 25

    Anyways, it was a interesting read, not without merit, but i thought it was scientifically impotent.

  219. barry says:

    So a sizable proprtion of geoscientists and engineers working for the petroleum industry in Alberta disagree with the IPCC assessments of anthropogenic climate change. And the opinons of these people working for companies with vested interests are immune to being influenced by their job? Because if we apply that premise generally, than the huge preponderance of geoscientists and engineers working for Greenpeace international that endorse the IPCC must also have come to their opinion independently of their job.

    Anyone buy that?

    I don’t buy any of it.

    But that is exactly what is being sold in the IBD article and the one at the head of this thread in regard to petroleum industy professionals.

    nothing beats reading the source material.

    http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf+html

  220. D.B. Stealey says:

    barry,

    As I’ve often pointed out, if it were not for psychological projection, the alarmist crowd wouldn’t have much to say.

    You are projecting. The truth of the matter is that many scientists and engineers are being silenced by pressure from their employers, to keep quiet about the fact that there is no scientific evidence supporting the CO2/climate scare.

    If you believe that someone who points out the fact that there is no credible evidence that CO2 is a problem is going to get a pay raise or a promotion for stating that fact, then you’ve drunk the Kool Aid. People always have opinions. The problem is when they are pressured to withhold their opinions. And as we have seen repeatedly, expressing the opinion that there is nothing unprecedented or unusual happening is dangerous to one’s employment. So wise up. You have it backwards.

  221. barry says:

    You are projecting. The truth of the matter is that many scientists and engineers are being silenced by pressure from their employers, to keep quiet about the fact that there is no scientific evidence supporting the CO2/climate scare.

    Tayler and justthefactswuwt are projecting a general consensus onto a survey of people with vested interests. The paper they project on to is clear about the sample criteria, which details the bias of that select group (describing it as “obvious”) in clear terms. Have you read it?

  222. D.B. Stealey says:

    barry says:

    “So a sizable proprtion of geoscientists and engineers working for the petroleum industry in Alberta disagree with the IPCC assessments of anthropogenic climate change.”

    There. Fixed it for you.

    A sizable proportion of honest scientists and engineers everywhere disagrees with the demonization of “carbon”. All the scientific evidence extant shows that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. There is no evidence of global harm from the rise in CO2. Therefore, CO2 is harmless. QED

    Anyone who disagrees with that has their head in the sand, because there is no testable, empirical scientific evidence that AGW even exists. It may. But without solid, measurable, empirical evidence, AGW remains a conjecture. Because there is no quantifiable, testable scientific evidence of global anthropogenic climate change. None.

    Thus, no honest scientist agrees that AGW is an established scientific fact. Those who believe that AGW is a scientific, evidence-based fact are simply religious true believers who have no use for the Scientific Method.

    Face the fact, barry: AGW is your religion.

  223. pottereaton says:

    barry said: “Tayler and justthefactswuwt are projecting a general consensus onto a survey of people with vested interests.”

    You don’t want to go there. The warmist side is filthy with vested interests in government and industries that are profiting obscenely. The scientists themselves are heavily invested in that the more they can convince people there is something to be afraid of, the more their pockets get lined.

  224. D.B. Stealey says:

    barry,

    Everyone can see that you’re projecting. You are trying to point out a mote in a skeptic’s eye, when you have giant beams in both your own eyes. You’re not fooling anyone.

    There is just no comparison between the rampant corruption among climate alarmists, and scientific skeptics — who are simply asking alarmists to try and prove their case by using verifiable measurements.

    Climate alarmists have never been able to prove their case. Instead, they project personal accusations in a desperate attempt to change the subject. But the onus is on the alarmist crowd, barry, not on scientific skeptics.

  225. Kajajuk says:

    It is interesting that so many dissenters are disposed of, like it is a new universal policy;

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

    “Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?”
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/18/Government-Scientist-Fired-for-Telling-the-Truth

    “Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.”
    http://www.naturalnews.com/037665_GMO_scientists_organ_damage.html#ixzz2Lswi4ovW

    Whistleblowers concerned for the safety of the public….disciplined, sued, terminated, and muzzled;
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2004/07/15/whistleblower_scientists040715.html

    The newest divisions of giant corporation are governments.

  226. barry says: February 24, 2013 at 9:49 am
    … justthefactswuwt are projecting a general consensus onto a survey of people with vested interests. The paper they project on to is clear about the sample criteria, which details the bias of that select group (describing it as “obvious”) in clear terms.

    Can please indicate my specific quotes within this article/my comments where I am “projecting a general consensus onto a survey of people with vested interests”, whatever that means?

  227. Jeff Alberts says:

    barry says:
    February 24, 2013 at 7:38 am

    So a sizable proprtion of geoscientists and engineers working for the petroleum industry in Alberta disagree with the IPCC assessments of anthropogenic climate change. And the opinons of these people working for companies with vested interests are immune to being influenced by their job? Because if we apply that premise generally, than the huge preponderance of geoscientists and engineers working for Greenpeace international that endorse the IPCC must also have come to their opinion independently of their job.

    Anyone buy that?

    If you believe that those who MAY work for the petroleum industry (not all the engineers/scientists you mention do) and therefore are making their statements based on a gravy train of cash, you have to apply that logic to the CAGW crowd, and add several orders of cash magnitude. I’ll believe the side that has the facts, regardless of funding.

Comments are closed.