John Coleman's hourlong news special "Global Warming – The Other Side" now online, all five parts here

The evil fools don’t care about science or about debating. They have an end goal and they don’t care how they get there. Your life, my life or millions of other lives, they will spin their lies regardless of the outcome. The laugh will be on them at the end. As Margaret Thatcher said, “Eventually, they will run out of other people’s money.”

It seems to me to be, although a tad American for my taste, as you might expect, a pretty thorough and workmanlike job.
But I understand it is only a tiny station so how much coverage it will eventually get I have no idea.
Could you imagine the BBC or even the major US networks running an hour on this?
Or indeed on such lines?
However it’s another link in the chain and credit where credit is due.
Kindest Regards

They dropped out 75% of the stations and did not recalculate the whole range based on the lower number of stations?
They dropped out many of the stations with cooler temps?
Unbelievable.
And some wonder why they didn’t want to release the data.

Solve climate change by picking up the mess your dog makes on the lawn.
ROFLMAO!!!

Nice and folksy. Hard-hitting statements. It seems that the work on NOAA and NCDC data needs to be given more analysis, and if the contentions hold up, more exposure.

It’s still amazing to me that anyone would believe that people can change weather. How did we get to this idiotic, illogical point? Imagine how bad it would be if the man-made warming wasn’t masking the cold.

The show had a nice mix of serious and light material. Near the end, The “Hide the Decline” song and animation made a nice counter weight to the serious charges concerning temperature data tampering by NOAA and NASA. The explanation of the tampering was nicely presented, and easy to follow.

I watched the first section and it’s very poor. Misleading in fact.
The presenter references Al Gore’s movie and the IPCC and then goes on to debunk Al Gore’s movie (re CO2 lagging past temperature changes).
What about the IPCC?
Given that the presenter obviously never checked the IPCC reports himself he should have said that.
IPCC – Third Assessment Report (2001), chapter 3, page 203:
“..Whatever the mechanisms involved, lags of up to 2,000 to 4,000 years in the drawdown of CO2 at the start of glacial periods suggests that the low CO2 concentrations during glacial periods amplify the climate change but do not initiate glaciations (Lorius and Oeschger, 1994; Fischer et al., 1999). Once established, the low CO2 concentration is likely to have enhanced global cooling (Hewitt and Mitchell, 1997)…”
[A short extract only to demonstrate the point.]
In fact the whole 3rd chapter is concerned with the complexities of the CO2 cycle. (I’d never read that chapter of the IPCC report but it only took me about 15 minutes to find the relevant chapter and the above citation).
The IPCC agrees with the presenter that CO2 lags temperature changes!
How can this be? Don’t the IPCC realize this destroys their whole hypothesis?? (It doesn’t)
He also brings up, gasp, CO2 is a trace gas. As if to say “I rest my case”. The fact that it’s a “trace gas” is not in contention.
So, my point is, the presenter is either ignorant, or is relying on the ignorance of his audience. Like Al Gore with his movie.
Maybe the rest of it is good, I don’t know I only watched the first video segment, in which he also interviews a few well-known and knowledgeable scientists. They probably know that CO2 lagging temperature in the ice core records doesn’t destroy the hypothesis that CO2 might affect temperatures as well. And they probably don’t believe that CO2 can’t affect the temperature “because it’s a trace gas”.
I’m a skeptic and I don’t believe the certainty of the future temperature rises and the consequent four horsemen of the apocalypse that the IPCC has projected.
But it’s a sad day for skepticism when someone produces this kind of material.
P.S. Blog plug – for explanation of why “it’s a trace gas” is irrelevant see http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one
REPLY: Part 4 is the best – Anthony

Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes.
Jim Hansen

scienceofdoom (22:33:47) :
Although you are correct in what you say, we must remember the targeted audience. These are NOT well versed climate tradgics (like us), they are people who most likely got their AGW info from Al Gores movie/dvd. So it makes sense to highlight Al Gores “stuff”. Plus the IPCC report you refer to was launched in 2001, Al Gores movie was produced 2004/5 so he should have known CO2 lagged temps but misrepresented by clever use of words.
This was a TV programme. It has to be made palatable (interesting) for people lest they switch off. So I wouldn’t expect deep deep scientific analysis of the IPCC reports, but rather easier to understand bite sized segments debunking “commonly held” beliefs, most of which comes from Al Gores publicising of AGW. To that end it was an excellent job well done.
The key for me was the data manipulation revealed. Somebody may well run with this info now. Lets hope so.

Mr. Coleman reminded me of somebody I once watched every night.
The voice, the manner.
All he needed to do was put on some thick black-rimmed glasses, and he could do Walter Cronkite on SNL.
Very nice presentation, a must for You Tube.

Could you imagine the BBC or even the major US networks running an hour on this?
No, not anymore. Except that here in the U.S., Obama has seen fit to certify that only Fox is to be believed. [pbuh]

The most important important part of the presentation was his direct public accusation that Michael Mann has committed academic fraud. Overall the presentation was targeted to the layman with just enough science language to make the point. The obvious snearing was good too.
Good Job. Thanks to Anthony Watts for posting and Mr Coleman for presenting.

“DOES ANYONE happen to know Al Gore’s telephone number? I need to get in touch with the former vice president in the worst kind of way.
You see, I’ve got a question for Big Al: Where is global warming hiding? If it is around, we could use a visit about now.
My feet are cold, my hands are cold, my everything is cold. This has been one bad old winter, and we still have two months to go.
This wasn’t supposed to happen. By now, we were supposed to be in the grips of global warming and the tulips should be blooming in January.
How do I know? Big Al told me so. Beware! Global warming is coming! Those were his exact words–well, almost.”
Where’s global warming when you truly need it?
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/012010/01152010/521020

i thought it was a poor quality reporting (or reading from the prompter) and could not finish watching it. came off a like a Faux News piece.

OT
but just for fun.

Daily Telegraph: 10 Feb 2009

Scotland’s ski industry could disappear within decades because of global warming, according to the Met Office.
“Climate change doesn’t mean there won’t be snowfall. It just means it won’t happen as often or with as much of it.”
BBC: 15 January 2010
The CairnGorm Mountain ski centre in the Highlands will be closed for the day – because of too much snow.
“The CairnGorm Mountain has been enjoying a bumper winter.
It has had its best Christmas holiday season in 14 years, with more than 8,000 skiers…”
Met Office: 10 December 2009
“…very likely that 2010 will be a warmer year globally than 2009.”

Expect another crap summer and cold winter then. :o)

absolutely shocking
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html Obama will lose any credibility unless he changes course real quick…

Answer for those who ask for your credentials.
So I take it you have faith, not understanding. Asking why and how is for understanding. Asking who you are is for faith.
Proof of religion.

Baa Humbug:
It would be simple and concise to let the audience know that the IPCC agrees with him. But he claims to debunk the IPCC’s position.
Why is it so confusing for his audience to say “We debunk Al Gore’s movie, and the IPCC agrees that Al Gore’s movie was junk. We don’t agree with the IPCC about future temperature changes as a result of CO2, but in this point we are in agreement.” ?
Why is deception or ignorance ok? He’s as bad as Al Gore.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/15/co2-lags-temperature-in-the-ice-core-record-doesnt-that-prove-the-ipcc-wrong/

scienceofdoom (22:33:47) :
Your critique is noted. Although a “nice shot across the bow to open the US Climate Gate war” would have been in order as well – kinder…
I’m happy to see people stepping up to the plate – it takes courage.

Nice to see that this anti-AGW gains more and more momentum
and then some OT from the American Spectator

Among the Intellectualoids
Global Warmists Feel a Chilly Wind
By Tom Bethell on 1.14.10 @ 6:08AM
Two weeks ago I wrote an article here about global warming and the advocates — call them warmists — who tamper with Wikipedia to reflect their own biases. One warmist named William Connolley, a green ideologue in Britain, had rewritten 5,428 climate articles. His goal was to bring the articles into line with Green Party dogma.

No pun intended, but despite the subdued atmosphere I think this show was the knock-out punch. No doom and gloom, no arogant denial or pushing any political buttons. Nope, just a bunch of mostly, uh… old men… speaking plainly, reporting the facts and nothin’ but the facts.
🙂
And I even got a history lesson (Revel). How about that!
Anyway, does anyone know how many people viewed the airing of this? I know KUSI is a small station, but in a big city like San Diego… who knows? It will surely be put up all over the internet and spread in time, though.
Again, my thanks to Anthony for putting this up.

Nik: Isn’t the whole point of anomalies that using them instead of absolute temperature removes the problem that Smith is making a case for?
Your point would be valid if only long-lived stations were used. Unfortunately, there are only very few really long records, and even most of these consists of data from stations that have been moved around in those locations.
The temperatures are computed for “grid cells” taking into account the temperatures of stations up to 1200 km away when there are no local data. Thus, as E.M.Smith has pointed out, beach thermometers will be used to compute inland temperatures if the inland thermometers are no longer recorded.
(Btw. also see the recent post from Jeff Id of the AirVent to see what happens if you only use the long-lived stations form GHCN)

Smith’s description of reducing and contracting the sample locations towards major lowland population centers is stunning. I am appalled by the implications of it. For me, the damage to the global warming argument is wholly devastating.
Very little remains. A poor understanding of complex climate process has served as the basis for immense, forced posturing.
Raving is gobsmacked.

When you want to get people to believe a lie, shock them. When you want to convince them they’ve been had, you need to proceed gently, but firmly and confidently, just as Mr. Coleman is doing. His task is one of deprogramming, not of rocket science.
I’ve watched the fist two, and will finish a bit later time permitting. If #4 is the best, as Anthony says, I’m really looking forward to it, because what I’ve seen so far is masterfully done. Sure, it’s not heavy on detail, but it paints a broad, clear and accurate picture of not only the science, but also the selfish motives of those pushing the falsehoods, as well as the dire consequences for us if we allow them to set the agenda.
I give it an A+ so far.

Phil Jones said in an email dated 21 Feb 2005:
‘The sceptics seem to be building up a head of steam here. Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated. Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data.’
Business as usual, hiding the decline.

[quote scienceofdoom (01:05:16)] :I only watched the first video segment, in which he also interviews a few well-known and knowledgeable scientists. They probably know that CO2 lagging temperature in the ice core records doesn’t destroy the hypothesis that CO2 might affect temperatures as well. And they probably don’t believe that CO2 can’t affect the temperature “because it’s a trace gas”. [/quote]
That’s not the impression I got from the video. It seemed to me they were saying that, overall, the effects of CO2 don’t match the predictions of the IPCC.
And, with all due respect, there’s nothing in your blog post that supports their conclusions either.
We can measure the top of the atmosphere (TOA) energies for out-going long wave radiation and there’s been no significant decrease in that value for the past 20 years. It’s about at the same place in 2002 that it was at in 1983.
See for yourself here: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/GIFS/LW.gif
TOA is the top line.

CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS .03%, WHICH IS 1 PART IN 3333
@Ralph (02:11:10) :
Addressing scienceofdoom’s criticism of CO2 being a trace gas, I wonder if he could find the CO2 molecule here, at it’s illustrated actual atmospheric concentration, if they were moving like real particles?
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The rest of the atmosphere doesn’t absorb the radiation, only the CO2, so the only way the CO2 can influence the air it’s surrounded by is kinetically.
Now:
1. how much does the thermal energy of CO2 increase per photon absorbed?
2. how much is the thermal energy of the rest of the atmosphere going to increase under the kinetic influence of the increased energy of the CO2 molecules it contains?
That poor little CO2 molecule ( the lonely little “1” above) sure has it’s work cut out for it.
In this paper, in German, there’s an illustration of Dr. Wood’s experiment of 1909, in which he showed that the greenhouse theory may well be hokum (page 6).
http://www.frank-wettert.de/wp-content/report-klimaretter-1-1.pdf
And, in this article, a thoughtful geologist goes into some detail about what is wrong with the “greenhouse” theory, from which it is a little clearly why predicting the future of something about which you have no idea what it’s doing now isn’t science (didn’t we already know that?).
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

John Coleman comes across as the Walter Cronkite of AGW scepticism.
A good informative report that I think is effective in making people think twice about the science.

magicjava:
I threw in the line about what the scientists interviewed would know as a throw away line. I’m sure they’ve read the IPCC report but let’s ignore that. Obviously they don’t agree with the IPCC’s conclusions and neither do I.
My main point is, did our presenter explain what the IPCC says and explain the problems with it?
He claims he did. But he presented Al Gore’s movie instead. Thereby misleading his viewers.
Deception? Or ignorance? Has he any idea what’s in the IPCC report? If he hasn’t read it, then he shouldn’t be claiming he’s totally debunked it.
He’s making skeptics look bad. Or maybe he is representative of skeptics, in which case, a sad day..

scienceofdoom (04:02:14) :
“My main point is, did our presenter explain what the IPCC says and explain the problems with it?”
That isn’t the point of the presentation. What he’s done is to bring viewers up to speed on the lies they are immersed in. There is no point in addressing a topics most haven’t a clue how to understand. They have been brainwashed and need to be deprogrammed, and he has done a magnificent job of that.

I’m in Australia and would like to preserve the doco so I can show some friends.
What would be the best bit of software I could use on an XP box to capture and save it onto the HDD.
A great video, none of this stuff gets into the media here. I’m going to push it out wherever I can.

1. Simple to understand rock hard and “idiot proof” arguments which will help to make the case in Congress and the Senate.
2. Good presentation linking almost the entire Skeptic Community of Blogs including Lord Monckton’s SPPI.
3. Love the educative touch with the questions and the entertaining part of the Global Warming band.
In short: A very powerful piece of communication for a very broad public.
That’s exactly what we need and we will need much more of it.

Thanks for putting the videos up – I’d really have regretted if I’d not been able to watch them.
Even if ChiefIO, a.k.a E.M.Smith, will get more hot ears from all the praise heaped upon him – he really socked it to them. It was good that what he’d worked out so diligently on his blog is now available for a huge, lay audience.
One more thing: watching the Chinese astrophysicist, it occurred to me that these green AGM taxes on carbon fuels will not just make life a misery for Joe Public.
It means that all our high powered scientific institutions, which need a lot of energy to run experiments – especially physicists and astrophysicists – won’t have enough funds to run those experiments.
Thus its not just the economies in the Western World which will suffer. All our advanced science laboratories, doing the hard science we all need to have a better future, will have their research severely impeded, if not curtailed altogether.
I leave it to your imagination what this will entail for all of us, around the globe.

vg (01:09:20)

I am torn in how to respond. I am very skeptical of CAGW scenarios and see the CRU emails and related files as evidence of unethical and unscientific behavior – but they are not sufficent in themselves to dismiss the notion of significant AGW nor is this presentation. The simple fact that the number of stations was reduced does not invalidate the trend data – even though it looks remarkably odd. The piece does not connect the dots. In this respect it is no better or worse than Al Gore’s movie.
The argument that the over-simplifications and distortions are justified because the goal is to inform those who are not familiar with the details of the issue – is unpersuasive to say the least.
My concern is that it is too easy to show the flaws in the piece and thereby dismiss more scientifically and rigorously constructed arguments. I had the same reaction to the recent Not Evil, Just Wrong.
That said, thanks for providing access to the show. I hope it leads to more detailed discussions.

Espen (01:50:01) :
Unfortunately, there are only very few really long records
There is more length to the records than NASA GISS, NCDC and CRU allow for.
That is part & parcel of their half-truths.
The manipulation/erasure of data goes deep, and they all know it.
Joe D’Aleo knows it, and I know it too. I see it firsthand, and my conversation with NCDC is an exercise in futility as they circularly evade. ANYBODY who digs for records will soon come to find out just how bad it really is. It’s ugly, and we all pay taxes to have our precious data butchered.

I hope this leads, not to more circular conversations with bloody hands, but with some serious dismissals of agency heads and perpetrators who have participated in this hoax. Nobody is getting anywhere with these people.
They have literally handcuffed themselves to their warming agenda and models. While the world cools and the climate changes, all they can do now is to watch thier forecasting disintegrate.

BarnesandNoble.com/Books
search results
Storms of My Grandchildren, James Hansen, Book
So now James can write a doping/duping scandel appendix. to his grand kiddies.
It is very sad to leave a legacy of fraud in front of little innocent eyes.
This explains why crooks want to write their own history and beat the truth that come later.

Opps, some of my previous comment dropped out, imagine that!
E.M.— I thought someone in your position would be bigger! (Roadhouse)
Mammoth job.
Very well done! Here’s to you. ;~D

Lets get this one in the public schools.

rabidfox (21:59:26) said:
With the possible (but not probable) exception of FOX, this program won’t be aired on any other TV station. Thanks for making it available here.
Do not despair!
(a) check the ratings for Fox. They are wiping the floor with every other cable outlet, and threatening the networks
(b) as the father of two “millenials” (one premed and one in grad school) I can assure you that internet exposure (particularly an organic, so-called “viral” exposure) is exponentially more important than ANY mainstream medium.
My observation is that news has become Non-Newtonian; that is, it’s now “shear-rate dependent”. The FASTER it accelerates, the FARTHER it moves.
The MSM are stuck with an old Newtonian, linear model of “‘legs”; that is, that there’s a linear relationship between “coverage” (meaning the MSM imprimateur) and “import”. Ain’t true. The dominate factor now is dv/dt; I suppose the engineering units of that would be “internet hits per second per second”.

As it’s going to take 3 years for the CRU investigation into Jones to come to fruition in UK it is good to see the US able to short-circuit this and set the ball rolling right now. I see that Hansen has issued a denial so expect legals to follow – goody !
This criminal exposure combined with the attached discovery that CO2 has already done all it can do to the climate somewhat defuses the AGW case.
Just how the libtards will climb down from their castle in the air will be fascinating to see – one hopes it will be voluntary and with some dignity rather than at their embarrassing ‘day in court’.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/co2_cannnot_cause.html

Dr. Bob (05:59:14) :
Is he saying that when it comes time to do the math, only data from 4 stations is used?
Yes. I have relations and friends all over No. Calif., and they were totally msytified that the late summer and early fall we all experienced was somehow
turned into the Xth warmest in history.
What E.M. Smith has described is how they did that.
They cheated by not using the vast majority of the temperature data.

Thanks Anthony for getting the video up.
Let’s see, when can I watch …

I enjoyed Part 4—the meat of the show—and even though the presenter came across like Ray Goulding (from Bob and Ray, my fav deadpan comedians), he presented his argument for his audience; i.e. the people who were shown on the “Man in the Street” interviews.
What struck me most was the deletion of data stations in the late ’80s early ’90s. When was that decision made, who made it, and why?

Prince Philip:
1) For eco/environmental programs to be successful, it needed the religions of the world to invest it with some sort of “spiritual imperative”;
2) Religious leaders can then influence their own people, especially in backward countries with high illiteracy, to the cause of ecology and environmentalism. Prince Philip explained, “In many parts of the world, the only person with influence is the local religious leader.”
http://www.rightsidenews.com/201001017982/energy-and-environment/qholyq-green-unholy-insanity.html

DR (07:01:58) :
The counter argument is the satellite data and surface records tell the same story
Trend may have similarities. But GISS is off beam. It changed the track it was on beginning in 1989. And it gets worse after that.
Compare satellite to GISS.

Dr. Bob (05:59:14) :
Is he saying that when it comes time to do the math, only data from 4 stations is used?
I believe E.M. will probably respond to questions similar to this. But, yes, that is what his analysis shows:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/gistemp-ghcn-selection-bias-measured-0-6-c/
I suggest folks with similar questions refer to his blog.
Ron de Haan (04:50:43) :
1. Simple to understand rock hard and “idiot proof” arguments which will help to make the case in Congress and the Senate.
I think you give our government officials too much intelligence.

scienceofdoom
According to Richard Tol on January 12, 2010, at http://umbrellog.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?p=95688#p95688 the following statement – “Summary for Policy Makers is very selective, up to the point of twisting the chapters’ findings beyond recognition. In case of SAR WG3 Chapter 6, this was done against the will of the authors. The IPCC has learned from that. The selection process for authors is now more careful (awkward people like myself are not welcome) and there is self-selection too (David Pearce withdrew).” Richard Tol
CLIMATE POLICY—FROM RIO TO KYOTO
A Political Issue for 2000—and Beyond
http://media.hoover.org/documents/epp_102b.pdf
(In particular refer to page 19/20: ‘Politics Enters into Drafting the IPCC Report.’ Here examples are given of ‘substantial changes … made between the time when the report was approved in Madrid and the time it was printed.The convening lead author, Ben Santer, readily admitted to making these changes.)

DR (07:01:58) :
The counter argument is the satellite data and surface records tell the same story so it does not matter if the surface data has been manipulated.
We have satellite data prior to 1979?
Wow…

The issue is not whether CO2 initiated past glaciations, although I recently participated in a forum with a Lehigh Univ professor who presented graphics in which he made that inference (wouldn’t come right out and say it, but the message was there until I came on). The point of this is that the paleoclimatological record does NOT show that CO2 causes temperature increases – it shows that past CO2 spikes were caused by temperature increases. The reason for focussing on Gore is that long after the climate community recognized what geologists already knew, Gore’s propaganda piece – all of it – is founded on a known LIE over cause and effect between T and CO2 in the geologic past. The oar that the IPCC shoved in is nothing more than speculation that increased or decreased CO2 could have been a factor in glaciation and interglacial episodes as a dampening or amplifying factor.
The point is a simple one about solubility of gases in liquids and where the CO2 comes from NATURALLY, and how its increases and decreases in the geologic past are a record of natural climate variability which had NO effect on the paleoclimate but was, rather, CAUSED BY the paleoclimate. I have been demonstrating it to my Intro classes for years and years using a warm bottle of seltzer, a chilled bottle of seltzer and two volunteers, one of which is about to get really wet.

scaned = scanned

jack morrow (07:33:35) :
OT
Heard on radio where Mike Mann just received a $500, 000 grant from Obama administration. True????
True. Mann received job stimulus funds to assist “postdoctoral scholars and graduate students and contribut[e] to the understanding of abrupt climate change.”
http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/14/hide-the-job-decline-stimulus-funds-to-climategate-professor/
One of about 40,500 Googlehits for Michael Mann $500,000 grant.

magicjava (08:05:13) :
Is the source code for these adjustments available online? I’ve only seen model source code.
That’s exactly what E.M. is working with. See:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/agw-and-gistemp-issues/

xyzlatin (4:25:02) Use Realplayer/Realdownloader…Should work unless you’ve got a “Rudd et
al-filter”… 🙂 SL Solna Sweden 17 days and counting below 0C but close to
Stockholm and Baltic coast still relatively “warm”…

Ack I meant Tim not Tom darn O and I next to each other.

Spread the word folks,spread the word, get your favorite websites to link to the story.MSM may pick up on this yet and with luck Christopher Booker on the UK Telegraph may showcase it. I will give up drinking ale forever if it makes the BBC.
Well OK maybe for a week.

[quote Tim Clark (08:20:45) :]
magicjava (08:05:13) :
Is the source code for these adjustments available online? I’ve only seen model source code.
That’s exactly what E.M. is working with. See:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/agw-and-gistemp-issues/
[/quote]
Thanks Tim. If he’s already on it, I’ll let him do it.
Still, it’d be nice to have the code just in case. I didn’t notice a download link in any of his blog articles. I’ll shoot him an e-mail and ask where he got it.

I think this coverage was a bit too one sided. You should not lead off a piece of journalism with a line like “There is no man made global warming” unless you have 100% conclusive proof that there is no man made global warming. The “I want you to open your mind for an hour…” line was condescending and does our side no good at all. And Coleman licking the boots of his experts in interviews and asking no tough questions at all…not to mention not having someone…even one person…on from the warming alarmist side…didn’t do us any favors either.
Bad journalism all the way around…and I was so hoping this would feel like a real report and maybe convince a few people.

An excellent program. My jaw hit the floor when that girl said that in order to reduce her global footprint she was picking up after her dog, and recycling. I wish Coleman had asked her how exactly dog turds lead to global warming. But it just illustrates what the government and IPCC already know: people are generally stupid. And the Stupid are easily manipulated.

Just watching part 4 now.
Turns out Joseph D’Aleo lives in my hometown.

scienceofdoom (22:33:47) :
I think you may be missing the point. While the IPCC addresses the lag in CO2 decrease at the start of a glaciation period, the more damning evidence is the lag in CO2 increase at the start of a warmer period — proving that temperature increases can happen quite naturally without being invoked by increases in CO2.
The paper below shows this nicely:
Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations, Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck, Science 283, 1712 (1999), http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712
“High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”

tucci:
As I noted there are certainly plenty of “pathologies” visible in the CRU emails. Moreover, if your point is that the whole global temperature record is somewhat bizarre, I do not disagree. However, the point at issue is the effectiveness of this particular presentation. Most of the claims will be readily dismissed by the scientific establishment. What was needed and what I did not see in the video were specific proof points – not hand waving – beyond the summary chart that showed the effect of before and after the change in the number of stations (upon which more time should have been spent). For example, if you charge that Bolivia cannot be represented by 2 temperature stations show the pattern in the Bolivian stations that do exist. If California should not be represented by four stations, show what happens when you include the “cool” stations that have been dropped.
Please do not misunderstand. I have followed this debate since before Anthony’s Stevenson screen experiments. I do have a pretty strong background in data analysis. I am very skeptical as to the quality of the underlying temperature data, the ability of many climate scientists to maintain their objectivity and the underlying agenda of many CAGW advocates.

Is there a way to get this on u-tube so it can go viriral??

J.Peden (08:51:23) : It’s come to the point that no one believes any more in “Hollywood Scientists” a la “Al Baby” famous “scientist” and Nobel prize laureate, just check around with your senses if it is cold or warm.

Sean Peake (08:45:56) :
Boballab
Could you not download the page, print it out and then apply an OCR to it?

When you start out from the page you have to select the state from a menu, then from that you get a menu of all the stations fro that state, you select one and from that it takes you to another menu that runs by year and month. So for the year 2008 and for State College PA, there is 12 different links and you have to select each one. From there it searchs their database and gives you a link to the page which is this:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/B79A3FEA-2CD5-646F-43D8-F54CBBBC0CEF.PDF
Now this opens up a seperate window with that PDF page in it.
Now here is the kicker: For just this one station that goes back to 1893 that means pulling up roughly 1,392 pages (if no months/years missed on the record). So I can’t see putting out the cost of the ink/paper to print out almost 1,400 pages, then spend the time to scan it back in just for 3 readings per page.
Also some of the PDF’s do not have good scans of them and the stuff is very faint, here is and example of that:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/D29AE247-5EC6-01C9-01CF-703CC32182F1.PDF
Now imagine doing that process for all the stations in the USHCN dataset (roughly 1200).

Dave thanks for your help. I’ve already got the latest Flash, I’ve installed Download helper and still it’s no use – when I go to the KUSI page and it says, Click below, there is only a blank area and no “hand” appearing to indicate anything at all to click onto.
I hope this will get put onto U-tube.

Re: dave ward (Jan 15 10:06),
There is a difference in Firefox version. Mine is Firefox 3.5.7. Flash 10.0.r42 is installed, perhaps with Acrobat 9.
Upward compatibility may be the problem?

I think some of you are misunderstanding the audience and intent of this video series. It was not aimed at scientifically sophisticated people who are naturally curious, it was aimed at a general public audience who on average have limited mathematical and scientific skills. It was aimed at the same sort of folks that can be convinced by a commercial that my laundry detergent is better than their laundry detergent because is smells better and my friends compliment me about my white shirts.
It is not pitching “scientific proof” it is sowing the seeds of doubt. It is like the door left ajar, that makes people say to them selves — “Hmmmm that is odd” and entices them to open the door and see what the funny noises are in the other room.
Before you can convince, you must create interest and curiosity.
That was the objective. Create just enough doubt that the curious start to dig for themselves, and the true believers acknowledge that others with more scientific skills than they have discovered a “door ajar”. That makes it possible for the true believer to re-examine facts they previously accepted as settled, as beliefs subject to change.
I suspect that like climate gate itself this will slowly grow, it will not go viral explosively like some topics but will be like a rising tide where it slowly infiltrates emails to friends, comments in chat rooms, postings on web forums. That slow growth will errode the certainty many feel about the topic.
Then and only then can you start airing the dirty laundry in detail.
Larry

boballab (08:33:44) :
Tim Clark (07:54:43) :
Mike Ramsey (07:24:47) :
NCDC is providing limited access to some of the summaries, but they are not providing feasible access to the original manuscript forms of the surface weather observations such as the Form WBAN-10. This is the form used by the Weather Bureau, Air Force, and Navy to officially record the daily, 12HR, 6HR, 3HR, 1HR, and speacial surface weather observations before transmission by data communications network, telephone, or mail to the appropriate government agency for quality control and climate data archiving. Summaies do not report much of the observations and data recorded on this form. The data recorded on this form is subject to a variety of quality control procedures and adjustments when they are reconciled to parallel data transmissions and the secondary summaries presently available in the datasets.
I have tried occassionally over the years to gain access to the Form WBAN-10 records I originated many years ago. As recently as last month, NCDC informed me that I would have to request a customized purchase quotation for their contractor to search, retrieve, and copy the form or forms I wished to obtain from NCDC, and the cost would likely be not less than about $60.00 per form retrieved. Naturally, a paygate or paywall of that size makes it financially impossible to copy or compile the original raw data observations for a meaningful time period directly from the original manuscript records for even one observation station, much less thousands of such stations.
To make matters worse, on more than one occassion I have been informed by workers at NCDC that some of the original manuscript records were subjected to water damage and are being destroyed by white worms (larvae) from insect infestations eating the original manuscripts. They did not say which of the manuscript records or how much of the manuscript records are affected, except to say it may be significant. If the surface weather observation forms are among any significantly damaged manuscript collections, we may be permanently losing access to those records.
I reported this problem with negligance of the manusript archive by telephone to a staffer in U.S. Senator Inhofe’s office, and I suggested an investigation of the extent of the damage, if any, be conducted, and the surviving records and/or images be preseserved from any further destruction and loss.
Access to the original maunscript records is important, because analysis of the original obervations can settle many disputes about post-observation corrections, adjustments, and methodological artifacts in the summaries and dependent studies. Arguments about the effects of TOBS (Time of Observation) adustments can be understood better by examining the hourly and special observations omitted in all of the summaries. The effects of FROPA (frontal passage) is an example where sharp differences in MIN/MAX air temperatures are irregular when post-processing adjustments attempt to apply standard adjustment procedures for TOBS calculations. Some regions of the continent are subject to more frequent frontal passages with more dramtaic differences in air temperatures in different parts of the day than are assumed for TOBS claculations. Having the hourly and special observations could pinpoint such differences in the consequences of using various methodologies.
Suffice it to say, if anyone cares about the preservation of these records, they had better act before its too late to stop their destruction.

Pooh, I forgot to mention that if you’re not getting the new tab or the video doesn’t play from there you might check the Error Console under the tools tab and see if any errors are being reported. It’s been a few years since I encountered a significant bug in Firefox but you might turn in a trouble ticket with them. My experience dealing with them on a bug was a positive one.
Good luck
Bruce

Scienceofdoom (22:33:47) :
Unless you wrote this to advertise your website I think you missed the plot.
The audience was the lady that picked up her dogs merde to save the planet.

boballab (08:33:44) :
I am familiar with that site on NCDC with the pdf’s of the scanned originals.
Unfortunately, there appears to have been some changes made, as some of the pdf’s are scans of paper done recently. They are too clean, lack a signature, and don’t look to bear the marks of age as they should. Comparing them to the reported temps and precip data from newpapers of the time, I know why.
Some years and some months in years match, but therein lies evidence of potential tampering.
What a tangled web this has turned out to be.

Viv Evans (05:39:36) :
They will use the extra CO² taxes to fund their reseach to find yet more environmental problems to tax us on.

Lucy Skywalker (10:37:09) :
Dave thanks for your help. I’ve already got the latest Flash, I’ve installed Download helper and still it’s no use – when I go to the KUSI page and it says, Click below, there is only a blank area and no “hand” appearing to indicate anything at all to click onto.
I hope this will get put onto U-tube.

I take it then that you are going directly to these KUSI pages and it does not let you click on the video graphic ?
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81557272.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81558532.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81558842.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559582.html
Have you double checked to see if your Firefox browser has java script enabled?
Go to Tools —-> Options —-> Content, and see if the Java script check box is enabled.
Mine is and I can see them just fine. Looking at the page source it looks like they call java scripts on the page.
Larry

I’d love to see Gavin or someone address this directly and in detail. I found the program and the supporting documentation on the blogs very convincing as to the horrors of what’s been done to the surface temp record. Having said that, I try not to make up my mind until the other side has had the opportunity to provide their own rebuttal.
I thought both the progam and the blog data was very well done. I’d known about the dropouts, I knew they were felt to bias the trend data warmer, but I now have a much deeper understanding of how that happened.
Thank god for the satellite data. Tho even that can’t save us from continual diddling of the historic pre-1979 record. At this rate, there is going to be a new little ice age in the 1960s by and by so they can keep their trends scary.
Otoh, this may be why we are getting more and more stories of “temporary pause” of 20 years or so in warming. . .they must be starting to realize they can only diddle the back numbers so far, and then must do some log-rolling and hope that warming starts up again.

rbateman, it shouldn’t be too hard to see if these have been tampered with. Examine the fonts used, especially those before 1980-82 when computer-based fonts became the norm. Even if there are courier fonts used, it’s easy to spot those made by a typewriter (remember those?) and by a PC

Boballob, it seems the NCDC is using the Tobacco Industry defence: bury your opponents in paper

@ Lucy Skywalker (10:37:09) : There are several D/L tools available. The one I’m referring to is this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3006
It puts a small 3 colour animation in your toolbar which rotates when it finds something. Click on the arrow beside it, and you get a list of content. These clips were all entitled “movie**********mp4” .

“hotrod ( Larry L ) (12:25:27) :
Lucy Skywalker (10:37:09) :”
Lucy (and Hotrod),
I had the same problem at first (picture showed, no way to play it), but I finally just crashed my browser (go to task manager and kill the process) and then restarted it and it worked.

*********************
Bernie (09:36:28) :
tucci:
As I noted there are certainly plenty of “pathologies” visible in the CRU emails. Moreover, if your point is that the whole global temperature record is somewhat bizarre, I do not disagree. However, the point at issue is the effectiveness of this particular presentation. Most of the claims will be readily dismissed by the scientific establishment.
******************
Bernie: Did you notice there were scientists in the video who disagreed with the non-consensus. Just because they don’t go along with the hockey team does not mean they are not part of “the establishment.” They are and they are doing what all scientists are supposed to do, they are being skeptical!

Lucy Skywalker, they are now posted to YouTube (at least part 1 of 7 is. I din’t check to see if the other parts were there)

Re: J.Peden (Jan 15 08:51),

Are you getting paid to spout this nonsense or does it just come naturally?

Take it easy there J.Peden. Geez, I was making a statement of fact. That is the counter argument! I did not say it was mine. Warmers argue the satellite and surface data are “in good agreement”, thus arguing the surface data being manipulated is irrelevant.

Hail to the Chiefio… go man go !

Hopefully the mainstream media will pick up on it and broadcast nationally. Nah that will never happen, they are part of the conspiracy.

[Quote]
George E. Smith (14:48:25) :
[….]
Another element of the loss of surface measuring stations, is the extent to which stations are selectively placed at known urban heat islands, such as airport runways. Well of course that is for the benefit and safety of flight cres, who really want to know the runway weather to determine safe take off envelopes.
[Unquote]
One of the reasons why the HCN (Historical Climate Networks) were created in the first place was to eliminate the non-representative data of the stations in the Airways Network such as the airports having paved runways, taxiways, and other improper influences.
Independent investigators could look at the other datasets originating in other meterological networks to see if any trends can be discerned with and/or without the influences of UHI. Those small airports which still have grass-gravel runways and taxiways supporting small numbers of propeller driven aircraft in relatively rural environments may provide some useful insights in comparisons to the HCN datasets.

This program’s message is quite harmful to the public in the big scheme of things. No, CO2 will not cause the end of the world, but you have to look at this issue from a macro level. All of the things that release CO2 into the air directly harm the environment in other ways. Perhaps when policy makers enact such regulation, they are trying to strengthen America through weining it off of environmentally unsound practices and jump-start the economy and improve living conditions. not a case of big brother trying to get you, it’s a case of government protecting its citizens living now, and those that will inherit this world in generations to come.

Well I posted links to this video series on another web forum I visit and already two other individuals have picked them up and are passing them on to others.
That sort of geometric growth does not take long to have effect. Like a nuclear chain reaction all you need is for on average each re-posting results in another individual picking up the content at a frequency greater than one to one.
This multiplication factor must be greater than one for the chain reaction to grow.
Even for very small multiplication factors just slightly larger than unity the number grows very large over time. The process of “going viral” on the internet is very similar, if on average every forwarding of a topic to others results in more than one additional forwarding you have continuous gain over time, with the vast majority of the increase happening perhaps 50-60 generations down the line when the number shoots toward infinity. The limiting factor then becomes how long it takes on average for each viewer to pass on the links to others.
Unlike something like Michael Jackson’s death this forwarding time delay will not be seconds or minutes but probably hours. If this video series goes viral we should know in about 2-3 days I would guess.
Larry

JonesII (06:45:20) :
‘However, global warmer preachers keep on preaching all over the world, all the time through ads, NGOs, journalists, even the pope has accepted the new creed.’
More info here:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/eco-imperialism-every-environmentalists-dream/#more-660
‘ARC is a secular body that helps the major religions of the world to develop their own environmental programmes…We help the religions link with key environmental organisations – creating powerful alliances…’