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

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.