Scripps Institution of Oceanography cheapens itself by using the "D" word

Well, now there will never be any question about whether Scripps is political or not. They even made up a graphic to go with the story here. When a prominent scientific organization allows a member to resort to name calling on an issue in an official communications on their website, it cheapens the whole organization.

This appears to be a response to John Coleman’s hour long video special. It was dated the same day as the video release, Jan 14th. Of course, when you read his website at richardsomerville.com you may come to understand that he may not be speaking for everyone there at Scripps. Here’s his page at Scripps. Perhaps the UCSD President might benefit from some communications about the use of his institute to label people with differing views on science.

A Response to Climate Change Denialism

Uploaded photoRichard Somerville, a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, issued the following statement in response to a recent request to address claims recently made by climate change denialists:  

1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science. The world is warming. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more. Human activities are the main cause. The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.

2. The greenhouse effect is well understood. It is as real as gravity. The foundations of the science are more than 150 years old. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it. We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.

3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case. Unless mankind takes strong steps to halt and reverse the rapid global increase of fossil fuel use and the other activities that cause climate change, and does so in a very few years, severe climate change is inevitable. Urgent action is needed if global warming is to be limited to moderate levels.

4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over. The refutations are on many web sites and in many books. For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.

5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet. It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals. Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned.  Science is self-correcting. People who are not experts, who are not trained and experienced in this field, who do not do research and publish it following standard scientific practice, are not doing science. When they claim that they are the real experts, they are just plain wrong.

6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results. It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody. The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it.

—  Robert Monroe

Jan. 14, 2010

h/t to WUWT reader Skepshaka

Advertisements

270 thoughts on “Scripps Institution of Oceanography cheapens itself by using the "D" word

  1. Thanks for the story and for showing us how the roots of the Climategate scandal go into our best research institutions!
    I will be forever grateful to Anthony Watts, Steve Mosher, and others for exposing Climategate scandal.
    As the truth about the unholy alliance of politicians, scientists, and publishers unfolds, I finally realized that my 34-year battle with NAS (the National Academy of Sciences) was actually a battle with INAP (the International Academy of Propaganda).
    [snip]
    That’s just the way it is,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Sciences

  2. the most embarrassing about this is, that even applying AGW standards, this opinion is of an EXTREMELY poor quality.
    just one of several nonsense quotes:
    “We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger ”
    Scripps, how do you MEASURE the effect of the man-made global warming contribution ? the answer should easily be rewarded with a nobel price (disclaimer: only, if the answer is compliant with models)

  3. Somerville was one of the warmists who participated in the NPR IQ² debate in 2007 with gavin and eckwurzel against stott. lindzen and crichton. Somerville & Co. got their clocks cleaned in short order. He’s another distinguished climate loser that can be simply ignored.

  4. Doesn’t Mr Someville’s 1 to 6 points just beg to be answered in the same fashion? I can hardly contain myself! All I can do at this stage is shake my head in disbelief that he would be so silly as to say some of those things.

  5. His diatribe sounds like the writings of a juvenile.
    How does CO2 trap heat?
    BTW, who are these “thousands of climate scientists worldwide”?

  6. Somerville, in his 6 part summation, is regurgitating all the old garbage the AGW proponents have stated. Part 1 – the science is settled… NOT; Part 2 – Greenhouse effect is well known… NOT; Part 3 – Climate predictions are coming true… NOT… apparently he hasn’t been reading the news about the US’s and Europe’s nasty winter; Part 4 – Man made greenhouse gases overwhelm natural climate variations… NOT; Part 5 – (Climate) science has it’s own high standards… NOT… he obviously hasn’t seen surfacestations.org; Part 6 – Leading scientific organizations (CRU, NOAA, GISS)… NOT… he obviously has ignored Climategate.

  7. In his fifth point he talks about how other scientists examine the research, repeat it and extend it. Yes, in real science. However when the original scientist in question refuse to release their original data, replacing it with modified numbers and refusing to reveal their algorithms and code, well… repeating it is difficult. Who’s in denial now? We won’t talk about “carefully reviewed research journals” since the CRU letters have shown that that is theater. As for item 3, wow… time to step away from the bong.

  8. Robert Gibbs had the same disdain for those “creepy anti-progressives” in Mass until the vote results were tabulated last night. (I can’t wait to see the responses to this Mr. Somerville from some Climate Realists/Dissidents here.)

  9. Go to the Scripps website. They aren’t just drinking the CAGW koolaid, they are swimming in it.

  10. That response looks like a copy and paste job from some global warming propaganda sheet from 2001. It makes you wonder if they really believe what they are saying anymore. It’s like they’re living in an echo chamber.

  11. How about the 5-8 inches of rain yesterday and today in southern California. Droughts and fires forever.
    Look outside and explain the rain in California.

  12. Science has its own high standards. ……. It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals.
    Damn right they’re carefully reviewed.

  13. “…All I can do at this stage is shake my head in disbelief that he would be so silly as to say some of those things….”
    In a later news release, Head of Scripps Institution of Oceanography explains why man will never venture underwater, into the air, or travel faster than 30 MPH….
    To some extent I feel sorry for the guy. He put together his piece when he had absolute faith in the IPCC, and the IPCC began to let him down just as he released it…

  14. 1. IPCC science is settled, but not correct.
    2. No one knows the sensitivity of the climate to CO2. Many have guessed.
    3. Predictions of the Global Circulation Models have not come true.
    4. Natural processes have frequently acted as quickly before as they have this time.
    5. Yep, science is self-correcting, as we see happening now.
    6. It is clear that the claims of the climate alarmists have not been carefully studied and criticized. Witness the glacier bit.
    Even for a climatologist, Somerville has revealed himself as remarkably ignorant and/or disingenuous. You pick.
    ================================================

  15. “The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure”.
    Does this mean there are historical proxies identified for solar activity? I would be interested to know if that were the case.
    OK, that was the non-snarky reply. My gut reply is: “[snip] Has this guy never sat in the sun on a clear day??”

  16. CO2 is stronger than the sun? Who knew my last “sun”-burn was actually caused by CO2?
    Ah, but water vapor is an even stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. We know this because we can measure it. Maybe I got a waterburn?
    I love good scientific explanations.

  17. A stiff uppercut to the skeptics would have been to boldly take on climategate and show that all these highly decorated scientists that warmers are relying on have been wrongly shafted. The fact that he doesn’t even mention this glaring anti-science, even though it was the central message of Coleman’s report, shows that Dr Somerville is guilty of anti-science himself. Vacuous regurgitation of the dated and falsified AGW mantras with no acknowledgement of climategate shows that the shell-shocked AGW cult gives full meaning to the “D” word.

  18. Perhaps Mr Somerville should spend less time overstating our confidence about climate processes and utilizing appeals to authroity and more time trying to figure out why the observed warming over the industrial era is less by almost a factor of three from what was exepected due to GHG’s, and then try to reconcile that fact with his statements that “Our climate predictions are coming true” and “The greenhouse effect is well understood”.

  19. Blimey, I think I could do better than that.
    For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming.
    And?

  20. Prof Somerville clearly needs to get out more – or at the very least, get his head out from where the sun don’t shine…

  21. His point 5 is my particular pet hate; it shows up all the time. No one EVER needs to know anything at all about any particular field to be entitled to expose an error.
    I’m not a nuclear scientist but I vividly remember hearing the first gushing news reports about Fleischmann and Pons’ cold fusion claims, and turning to my wife and saying, “I’ll believe it the moment they drop dead from radiation poisoning.”
    According to RIchard Somerville I should actually have been obliged to believe it all and keep my trap shut (and possibly invest my savings in it too).

  22. So, let me get this straight— the main difference between those who are skeptical of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming and the proposers of the hypothesis is causation. There is general agreement that warming has occurred over the past two centuries.
    The proponent’s argument rests entirely on the belief that increased levels of a known greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from human industrial activity has caused the observed rise of temperatures.
    The skeptics do not agree that carbon dioxide is the cause of the observed rise of temperatures but have not proposed an alternative explanation.

  23. I’d like to see a link to the original. I’d like to get a screencap of it, so that I have physical evidence.
    If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, this shows once again that climate researchers are more like political advocates than they are about actually trying to find out what is happening with the world’s climates.

  24. I don’t get it. Two or three clicks re. point 3 and anyone can see for themselves that not only is he wrong, but he’s a liar too.

  25. I have just sent this – and am not holding my breath for the reply!
    Dear Sir,
    I have read your statement regarding the above, and hope that you intended it to be funny – because it certainly would be. If it is serious, then you have succeeded in putting yourself so far out along the anthropogenic global warming plank that you will fall, along with the likes of Mr Gore and Hansen, into the abyss of ignominy.
    1. Science is never settled – you reveal yourself to be bigoted and unscientific through this statement.
    2. ‘The greenhouse effect is well understood’ – oh no it isn’t – if you don’t know that you should not pontificate.
    3. Sea levels are not ‘rising at the high end of predictions’. Check your facts then you won’t look ignorant.
    4. ‘For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming.’ Er no, actually, it is very relevant as any look at graphs showing temperatures and changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere will show you – not hard to find. It would also show you that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature – they do not cause them – but somehow I didn’t expect you to know that.
    5. ‘Science has its own high standards.’ You are living proof of the falsity of this statement (see 1 above).
    6. ‘…to learn about what science has discovered and accept it’. Absolute dictatorship then – no questioning, no challenging. By your standards, Galileo should have been executed for challenging the orthodoxy of the day (he nearly was actually).
    I do not expect an answer to this as you are obviously so entrenched in your views; I still fell the need to stand up for intellectual freedom and scientific honesty.
    Yours sincerely,
    David Leigh

  26. “4…That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.”
    Uhm, for major ice ages yes…but what about smaller ice ages? And what about solar variation rather than distance? He’s assuming the output of the sun never changes, and yet we haven’t had any significant solar activity in sunspots or flux in how long now? This coming after some of the most active cycles observed?

  27. I have filed a written complaint to UCSD based upon their Principles of Community
    “We affirm each individual’s right to dignity and strive to maintain a climate of justice marked by mutual respect for each other.”
    http://blink.ucsd.edu/HR/policies/POC/principles-of-community.html
    I have taught the history of genocide at two colleges and know full well what Holocaust denialism is. To use such a term in a formal, posted expression of the Institute’s view is inexcusable. I would hope that there are repercussions.

  28. Richard Somerville is, himself, in denial.
    1. No, the science is NOT settled. Claiming it is is nothing more than an amateur and arrogant attempt to stifle dissent. That’s not working anymore, stop playing that game.
    2. Nobody is disputing that there is a “greenhouse effect”, in spite of its woefully poor name. The claim that any recent increase is demonstrably due to human influence is childishly naive.
    3. “Our climate predictions” are doing everything BUT coming true. Rising sea level is occurring at the LOWEST end of even cyclical changes, and is in fact stalled. Melting sea ice is just not happening no matter how much you pretend it is.
    4. The standard “warmist” arguments have been refuted many times over. Your nice shiny hockey stick is tarnished and broken. “WE” most certainly do NOT “know” why ice ages come and go, although there are very probable theories.
    5. This was my favorite: “Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet.” Yes, indeed, that is how Science SHOULD work. “Climate science”, however, is somehow exempt. The claim that those not “in the club” are “not doing science” makes me wonder if he actually knows what Science is.
    6. Doesn’t even merit a response, it’s just too stupid.
    Richard Somerville, I hope you follow the link here and read this, because you need to understand just how childish, arrogant, and downright STUPID you sound. No branch of Science has ever successfully shut down dissent as “climate science” has so far done. You are wrong. Your entire discipline is wrong, it is built on a shaky foundation that has already proven to be wrong.
    There is no consensus other than in your little echo-chamber world. Outside in the real world, physics work differently than your models, and your hippy-era idealism. No, there’s no “massive” conspiracy, like all conspiracies it is just small enough to completely fall apart once it’s exposed.
    Any time ANY “scientist” pushes this “you have to do this to avoid certain doom” way of thinking, that person ceases to be a scientist and becomes a political activist.

  29. Haha – a while back I ran across a series of comments on RC that implied that the “science is settled” comment was made up by the denialists and no pro-AGW scientist had ever really used it.
    Maybe the ownership of the term “settled” can be settled now 😀

  30. OH MY GOD.
    I can no longer tolerate the absolute stupidity of these alarmists.
    “Our predictions are coming true.” Yeah? Like James Hansen predicting that Manhattan’s West Side Highway will be underwater by 2008? Or the completely far-fetched IPCC predictions of expected temperatures? Or that cold and snowy winters will become a thing of the past? Or that we will have an abnormally warm Autumn in 2009?
    I truly believe that alarmists are anti-intellectuals. They are wholly incapable of thinking and processing data for themselves. The are weak cowards that would rather “bow down to the professionals” instead of actually looking at and examining the data themselves.
    They are weak minded followers. Ugh!

  31. I’m going to Australian venacular here, mainly because if you understand it, it fits perfectly. If you don’t understand it, Maaaannn your missing out 🙂
    If this bloke was standing in the middle of the MCG (100,000 seat sporting arena) and announced this 100,000 people would ask in curous “Is this bloke fair dinkum”?
    He really is the stone age backwater of current knowledge isn’t he?

  32. This has to be the weirdest piece of writing ever to come out of what I was led to believe was a reputable scientific institution.
    Richard de Sousa sums it up succinctly [though quoting the recent European weather as an argument does not help – PLEASE, weather is not climate!].
    I’m particularly concerned at 3 and 4 where Somerville trots out ‘factoids’ that are known to be incorrect like increasing rate of sea-level rise and ice melt and apparently is quite happy to ignore evidence that the warming “over a few decades” is not out of line with the warming “over a few decades” that took place at the beginning of the last century and at various times in the past two millenia.
    The explanation usually put forward for warm-mongers talking like this is the need to keep on-side with the grant factories but I can’t see anyone at Scripps being out of work just because global warming isn’t happening.
    What’s the axe he’s grinding?

  33. I think it is totally appropriate for Somerville to use the “D” word. Denialists deny that the world is warming despite hard evidence showing it to be a proven fact (e.g. even DR Spencer admits the world has warmed). Sceptics, on the other hand ,are sceptical about the extent and cause of that warming. Most of the contributors on this blog fall into the category of Deniers refusing to accept that any warming has taken place –often resorting to juvenile arguments that a couple of cold weeks in the U.S and Europe prove global warming to be false. Note Henry Chance above now goes as far to use a rainy day in California to support his denialist stance. He is not alone. Earlier this week it was a snowy day in the Australian alps that had everyone talking. Such comments (while getting alot of airtime at the moment) are very damaging to the cause of legitimate sceptics who have a valid claim that we need to investigate the claims surrounding AGW more closely.
    REPLY: Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the associations of the word with the holocaust. -A

  34. I can see who the real deniers are in this piece. This is a line-by-line political reassertion of the alarmist arguments that real science is currently tearing apart.
    Important Question: How much funding of Scripps is tied to AGW research, as in confirming AGW and providing endless and more-terrifying catastrophic consequences to push political agendas?

  35. Recent papers including Mr Somerville:
    Rahmstorf, S., A. Cazenave, J. A. Church, J. E. Hansen, R. F. Keeling, D. E. Parker, R. C. J. Somerville, 2007: Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science, 316, 709 (2007); published online 1 February 2007 (10.1126/science. 1136843).
    Le Treut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson, and M. Prather, 2007: Historical Overview of Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
    Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, R. B. Alley, T. Berntsen, N. L., Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, J. M. Gregory, G. C. Hegeri, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B. J. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. Jouzel, V. Kattsov, U. Lohmann, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J. Overpeck, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. Rusticucci, R. Somerville, T. F. Stocker, P. Whetton, R. A. Wood and D. Wratt, 2007: Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group[ I] to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
    IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
    Jouzel, J., et R. C. J. Somerville, 2007: Le groupe intergouvernemental d’experts sur l’evolution du climat: le consensus a l’échelle planétaire. Comprendre le Changement Climatique, Odile Jacob (Paris), J.-L. Fellous et C. Gautier (eds.), pp. 27-44.
    Somerville seems to be a preferred contact of the French IPCC mafia Jouzel, Cazenave and Le Treut… Flush.

  36. Prof. Somerville “Si tacuissesphilosophus manisses” or for people not familiar with Latin. if you didn’t say anything about climate you might still be a philsopher. Sorry me english iis not so good.

  37. Somerville has his own high standards.
    His irrational trust in and and admiration for Mann, Schmidt, Hansen, Jones, el al, have him speaking in middle school depth.
    It’s quite astounding that a person of his supposed stature would write and release such a rudimentarily shallow piece.
    He must have been targeting journalists to provide them with easy bullets to repeat without any scrutiny.

  38. Who is a climate change denialist?
    One who says, that climate has always been stable, just now runs away because of man-made CO2?
    Or us, saying climate change is the most natural thing ever, changing all the time between warmer and colder periods, under different influemcimg forces.
    It’s getting bizare, even language-wise.

  39. “The skeptics do not agree that carbon dioxide is the cause of the observed rise of temperatures but have not proposed an alternative explanation.”
    Multi-decadel pacific oscillation(the favorite of Dr Roy Spencer formerly of NASA), Solar Variability, CO2 fails to explain the Middle Ages Warm period, Cloud Dynamics ….the degree of the observed rise in temperature does not co-incide with satellite tempurature measurements.
    Then there is the fact that temperatures have been rising in fits and starts since the last ice age.
    How many alternative theories does one need?

  40. From the man’s web-site:
    “The role of scientists is to help assess the science and present it in an intelligible way that is policy relevant.”
    Now you know, you duff scientists out there who aren’t finishing the job and making policy recommendations, you’re not fulfilling your role. Get better at it.

  41. Someone needs their research funding requests reviewed.
    Can’t be giving out money to false prophets, nutters or members of the “settled Science” club

  42. I am now getting tired of this. These statements by professionals must be seen as “on record – as testimony” to be included as evidence in possible future trials. In my opinion information given as fact intended to persuade and guide public as well as governmental opinion and spending is subject to laws covering fraud, incitement, and perhaps terrorism. I am sure the legal egales here will come up with a multitude of additional felony charges. On their advice I bought a solar panel, then returned it, now I have to go back – come on!! (nudge nudge, wink wink)

  43. When you want the goods on someone, the web provides.
    Somerville sounded very much like NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco.
    a Google search of “Richard Somerville Jane Lubchenco” turns up many hits
    A fine sample is here
    http://www.coejl.org/news/20051008_yale.php
    “Interspersed with these work sessions were a series of plenary speeches and panels, presented by global climate change scientists (e.g., Stephen Schneider, Richard Somerville, Jane Lubchenco), social decision researchers (Baruch Fischhoff, George Lakoff), business leaders (Jim Rogers, CEO of Cinergy), and politicians (Al Gore, John Kerry, Jim Leach), and entertainers (Al Franken), among others.”

  44. The d word doesn’t bother me, but I think there are some holes, equivocations, uncontroversial generalities, pious platitudes, straw men, and even pomposity in this statement of Somerville’s. Is he a scientist at Scripps or an administrator? Scripps relies on funding sources, of course they are going to bolster any notions that alarm and increase the flow of money from funding sources.
    Somerville needs to get out of his ivory tower. There is a very healthy market in America for authors willing to undertake popularized explanations of things as complicated as relativity and quantum science. If Scripps doesn’t at least show an attempt to engage this lay public fairly they risk losing the public’s regard. Climate science and the global warming thesis still needs a lot of fleshing out because as things stand now the public perception is becoming that it’s a flimsy thing defended with some pretty juvenile tactics.

  45. This is a classic!
    5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet … It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals. Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned. Science is self-correcting. ……
    (has this guy heard of CRU, let alone the emails? )
    6. The leading scientific organizations of the world .. have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results. It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody.
    …The first thing that the world needs to do … is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it.
    Or ELSE!
    ….. yessir, nosir, threebagsfullsir! … and we silly internet people won’t mention Climategate and Glaciers ever again!
    PS; Scripps is the place where they do the Mauna Loa adjustments.

  46. 5. Science has its own high standards.
    Guess he missed the “Harry Readme File” about just how bad the CRU code was… You know, the ones that said things like the whole thing ought to be tossed out and just start over… and that no runs could be reproduced due to a combination of bad code and lost data.

    It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet.

    So Al Gore will be pulling his media coverage? And tell me again what Climate Science degree Hansen has?
    I know he can’t be talking about me, since I focused on computer code and data; things directly in my field of expertise. I am an experienced professional in the field with a State issued college level teaching credential in it. Can’t be talking about Joe D’Aleo either, as he is a credentialed meteorologist.
    Must be one of those other half dozen Ph.Ds on the video… /sarcoff>

    It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals.

    Oh, I get it now! “Science” only comes from the editors you have intimidated into being under your control and only can be valid from journals where the views that do not agree get suppressed.

    Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned.

    I think he left out a few words, as evidenced by the CRU Emails. This ought to have read:
    “Other scientists from your circle of pals, vetted to have your view, examine the research produced by the circle of pals, and repeat it endlessly, and extend it in the direction of more grant money. Self confirmation bias renders to these results the label “Valid”, and other views if accidentally exposed are either suppressed or if they do find the light of day ruthlessly branded “wrong ones” as a propaganda effort is undertaken to abandon them.”
    People who are not experts, who are not trained and experienced in this field, who do not do research and publish it following standard scientific practice, are not doing science.
    So, that would be Al Gore, Hansen, Puchari, Jones … Oh, and you are upset that folks bypassed a broken peer review process when it was found to be subject to undue influence by a circle of pals that was suppressing anyone who did not agree with their point of view?
    Sorry, but “public review” is the way forward now. Back room deals and self dealing are “not cool”…

    When they claim that they are the real experts, they are just plain wrong.

    Oh, and please point out the professional expert computer programmers that wrote the GIStemp code, produced the External Requirements Specification ERS, created the flow charts and design documents, did the QA runs and built the Benchmarks and benchmark data?
    Oh, that’s right, there are no design documents ERS or otherwise, there are no QA runs and there is no Benchmark code, and Hansen is NOT a professional computer programmer, and… So this would say that Hansen is “just plain wrong.”
    It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody.
    Ah, yes, the “if you find something wrong you must be accusing everyone else of conspiracy” argument.
    So, exactly how many folks have done a “Characterize the input data for benchmarking” step on GHCN data? How many have run benchmarks on GIStemp? Heck, how many people have ever even READ the darned thing in the last decade? As near as I can tell, I’m the first guy to get it to run outside NASA.
    And, exactly how many folks have reviewed the computer code used by NCDC to adjust GHCN and USHCN data sets? Oh, that’s right, they have not released their code.
    So exactly how many of those thousands of scientists have actually done anything OTHER than just accept the NCDC data and the GIStemp runs on it as Gods Own Truth and used it to do some other research? You are not a conspirator if you are a dupe.
    So if you think about this you will figure out that there are maybe a dozen (and I’m being VERY generous) folks at NCDC and GISS that have a clue what is in the computer code and have read it or worked on it. Not thousands. Order of magnitude 10s. And they need not be conspiring, just wrong.

    The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it.

    Ah yes, the old “Shut up and drink the KoolAid” argument. Worked out real well for Jim Jones and followers…
    Well, no, thank you very much. I prefer to mix my own drinks and know exactly what is in them. I’ll look at your published recipe for your drink, but then I’ll mix up a batch. Then I’ll QA test it on some lab critters. If they live, I’ll benchmark the effect on a suitable sample. Finally, I just might drink a bit of it myself. But no, I’ll not be putting my dipper in your bucket and just having an uncritical guzzle…
    Here is the deal: Want me to stop policing GIStemp an GHCN? Simple:
    Publish design documents, QA test suites and QA run results, benchmark data and benchmark run results ( including white noise, pink noise, red noise, representative data, and data with built in bias for both warming and cooling), along with the code used (For NCDC as GIStemp is now published, but for GIStemp, please publish the code you actually use. The GISS web site has options to adjust baseline period and in-fill range that are not in the published code – Not Nice to publish one code and use a different one…) I’ll take a look at it. If it’s clean, I’ll be happy to go do something else.
    (I’d really love to get back to my stock market analysis tools… so “Make My Day” and publish those benchmarks…)

  47. The insanity of partisan AGW will only be ended when people like Richard Somerville are removed from positions of trust and “authority”. If they really believe the hoax, they are incompetent. If they don’t believe the hoax, then they can’t be trusted.

  48. Busy people
    http://www.climatecentral.org/about/people/
    Board
    Richard Somerville
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
    Dr. Somerville is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. He is a theoretical meteorologist and an expert on…
    Founding Board
    Jane Lubchenco
    Dr. Lubchenco serves as Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Prior to her Senate confirmation in early 2009, she resigned from the Board of Climate…

  49. So if the science is settled, we should stop funding AGW research related to CO2, seems simple enough.

  50. Trysail
    Speaking only for myself
    I agree that warming has occurred over the past two centuries because we are coming out of the Little Ice Age.
    I do not agree that carbon dioxide is the cause of the observed rise of temperatures to the degree that the Warmists do. CO2 is a radiation forcing factor but there are poorly understood feedbacks, it is not the only greenhouse gas, there are other forcing mechanisms and we do not have a complete understanding of all the natural cycles affecting climate.
    In order to tease out the effect of CO2 against all these other factors you have to rely on somebody’s model and parameterizations within that model that could very easily predict the observed thing (and I am being charitable saying that the models are actually predicting correctly) for the wrong reason.

  51. Some people (old professors and the like) should stop spreading their “scientific drible” after a certain age. It seems that they stagnate and are unable to absorb new knowledge after a while and just get embarrasing as they regurgitate ancient knowledge as if cast in stone.
    My own supervisor was just like that, the old sod (hate him actually).

  52. The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.

    I am not aware of any measurements of the effect of man-made carbon dioxide, but perhaps somebody can correct me.
    I am aware of measurements that indicate increasing temperatures over the latter part of the 20th century, but these are not a measure of the effect of man-made carbon dioxide, just of temperature.
    I am aware that climate models indicate that CO2 has an impact, but these are models and not measurements. Also, the models are designed specifically with CO2 having an exaggerated effect (positive feedback).
    I am aware of measurements that indicate increasing sea-level, but again these do not measure the effect of anthropogenic CO2, just the level of the sea.

  53. Dr. Somerville, please do not insult those of us with education and experience in varied science and engineering disciplines. It is not difficult to ascertain the data manipulations, the deceptions, and the outright lies in climate science.
    Physics is impartial. CO2 cannot know if it is over Abilene, Texas, or San Diego, California. Thus, both locations should respond to CO2. Yet they do not.
    CO2 does not meet the accepted and known requirements under process control fundamentals. CO2 fails as a means to changing the average global temperature, see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html
    Small towns in the USA show absolutely zero warming during more than 120 years of record-keeping. What small trends in warming did occur were much more pronounced from 1910 to 1940 than that from 1975 to 2009. CO2 cannot explain this.
    San Diego, California (a place where someone from Scripps should know quite well), shows a cooling from 1975 to 2009. CO2 increases cannot explain this, either.
    see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-warming-from-co2.html

  54. Well, now there will never be any question about whether Scripps is political or not. They even made up a graphic to go with the story here. When a prominent scientific organization allows a member to resort to name calling on an issue in an official communications on their website, it cheapens the whole organization.
    In which case get on to the San Diego Union-Tribune it was their headline writer and reporter, Robert Monroe, who used the ‘D’ word.

  55. If truly made analogous to evolution, AGW would be be like “Anthropogenic Albino Evolution” (AAE). While we can all agree about the fossil record, and rightfully dismiss creationism or “intelligent design”, if people were to begin theorizing that man-made factors were causing all evolution in all life forms to head towards complete albinism, and then started saying that such inevitable whitening of all life on earth was “settled science”, they’d be tarred and feathered.
    AGW has a lot in common with “intelligent design” though – listen to his statement, “The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes.” That sounds an awful lot like, “The evolution of the eyeball, or the bombardier beetle, cannot possibly be caused by random natural selection.”

  56. Mr. Somerville seems to think we are too stupid to make up our own minds and just trust the scientists. He makes hardly any technical arguments. He thinks we should only trust research that go through the peer reviewed process, despite that there’s stronger and stronger evidence that peer review journals have a strong bias against papers that shed doubt on AGW.
    If these are the main pro-AGW counter-arguments, then it is no wonder why they have been losing the PR battle.

  57. Well that is really sad to hear. I e-mail converse with a chap at Scripps, whom I discovered through a fly fishing website; but we have never actually met.
    He seems like an extremely nice guy, and he is a PhD CO2 expert in that group there at Scripps. He has supplied me with numerous important CO2 papers. His specific CO2 interest is not directly climate related (well CO2 isn’t is it ?)
    Yes he has chuckled at my position and says I need reprogramming. But as I have said Dr Steven Piper is a very nice fellow.
    To hear that an outfit like Scripps, that I have always held in high regard, because of my interest in ocean/fishing interests; mmay be contaminated with the East Anglia disease, is truly disappointing.

  58. I don’t know whether the organization could have been cheapened – it would have to be expensive to start with. If it were building on people like Richard Somerville, I strongly doubt it.
    Together with Gavin Schmidt and Brenda Ekwurzel, they made the “concerned team” in the IQ2 debate against Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen, and Philip Stott. According to the audience, the skeptics won.
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/intelligence-squared-climate-debate.html
    Schmidt may have many problems and he may have looked arrogant at places but he was by far the brightest member of the “concerned” team, as far as I can say. When it comes to the implicitly displayed intelligence, what Ekwurzel and Somerville have shown was really, really lousy. They were just parroting some pop-science emotional statements at the Gore level. I wouldn’t believe that they could be employed as scientists if someone hadn’t told me.

  59. Notice that all he does make assertions of authority and denial of the legitimacy of any who qustion him.
    IOW, he is just yet another AGW promoter.

  60. [blockquote] Roy (09:55:44) :
    His point 5 is my particular pet hate; it shows up all the time. No one EVER needs to know anything at all about any particular field to be entitled to expose an error. [/blockquote]
    As Tim Allen said as “Jason Nesmith” in the movie “Galaxy Quest”:
    “It doesn’t take a great actor to recognize a bad one. “

  61. ahahah I noticed the comment it’s as sure as gravity. Thing is, we don’t understand gravity yet, that’s why we are spending billion on CERN, THE SCIENCE ON GRAVITY IS NOT SETTLED!!!

  62. MJK:
    “Most of the contributors on this blog fall into the category of Deniers refusing to accept that any warming has taken place”

    That’s not true of the regulars here. We don’t bother to correct every OTT “no warming” assertion, but when the issue is explicitly debated this site’s consensus is that there is warming since the LIA, and in multi-decadal phases during the 20th century.
    Of course it’s true to say that there has been “no warming” in the 21st century, or over the past eight to ten years. But that’s not denialism.

  63. I notice next to the story Anthony’s excellent climate widget. Now I challenge the individual Mr. Somerville to do a non-parametric correlation between the temperature anomaly and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere for the period from 1980 to the present and present the results. Correlation is not causation, but as somebody who has been eyeballing non-parametric correlations between time series, this one looks like it is going to be close to zero. Dr. D’Aleo has done it for a much longer time and come up with a very weak correlation (.44 if I remember) with a really ratty r-squared. Mr. Somerville, sadly you are no scientist, just another hack who pretends to be one. You will notice I drop Dr. from Mr. Somerville’s title, he is not worthy of it.

  64. Did you notice something? About Richard Sommerville’s statement? His sentences? They’re all short. He’s frustrated. He’s angry. He’s old. Out of touch. And not thinking very straight. Calm down, its OK. Retire. Fish. Garden. Reminisce.

  65. 1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science.
    This is an assertion not in evidence.  In fact, I assert the opposite. 
    2. The greenhouse effect is well understood. 
    Really? It is not the total water vapor which is most important (measurements show this goes up with temperature) but rather the amount of water vapor near the upper tropospheric emission level which is important.  Mann and presumably Somerville  assure us that they are certain that the Clauius-Clapeyron equation which dictates that water vapor increases with temperature increases applies to the upper troposphere.  Too bad that observations indicate that this is not occurring.  See Patlridge, et al, 2009, “Trends in Middle- and Upper-level Tropospheric Humidity from NCEP Reanalysis Data”.  Without increased specific humidity above 850 hPa, the AGW hypothesis is null and void.
    3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case.

    Arctic sea ice loss in 2007 was due to winds blowing the ice out to sea where it eventually melted.  Notice that the 2009 arctic ice anomaly is back to normal. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
    Sea level has been rising for the last 20,000 years. Since 1900, sea level has been rising at about 20cm per century, and hasn’t changed much recently – as seen in the graph below.
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Ri
    The slope is pretty constant and has even flattened since 2006. If you want to see the big picture, look here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
    Note that from 15,000 years ago to 8,000 years ago, sea level rose about 14mm/year – which is more than four times faster than the current rise rate of 3.3mm/year. .  8,000 years ago it was rising at four times the current rate. Wow! Using Somerville’s argument, it must have been hot! (Not)
    Point 3 is a bunch of hooey.
    4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over. The refutations are on many web sites and in many books. For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.
    Why would ice ages have anything to do with warming in the last half of the 20th century or the subsequent cooling in the first ten years of the 21st century?  What a random comment.  Regrading man-made changes in the greenhouse effect, why has it cooled in the 21th century?  CO2 has gone up but temperature has not.  Maybe the natural variation in the earth’s climate accounts for the changes we have witnessed. Mann’s and the rest of the AGW models cannot account for this decline in temperature. 
    5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet.
    LOL!  Official science has placed its entire creditability behind AGW.  How creditable will official science be when AGW collapses?  Somerville, you and your colleagues have screwed the pooch. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=screwed%20the%20pooch
    6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results. 
    And the question remains, how will these organizations ever recover their credibility after such a debacle?

  66. ((Kim.
    Even for a climatologist, Somerville has revealed himself as remarkably ignorant and/or disingenuous. You pick ))
    How about delusional?? Funding parasite?? The Hippies have a lot to answer for.
    regards

  67. “”” Steve Oregon (10:51:12) :
    Busy people
    http://www.climatecentral.org/about/people/
    Board
    Richard Somerville
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
    Dr. Somerville is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. He is a theoretical meteorologist and an expert on…
    Founding Board
    Jane Lubchenco
    Dr. Lubchenco serves as Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Prior to her Senate confirmation in early 2009, she resigned from the Board of Climate… “””
    Well the good Dr Jane Lubchenko performed a very famous experiment that is on youtube apparently; someone posted it here.
    She took “ordinary tapwater”; which presumably contains the usual chlorine, fluoride, and whatever other governmnet mass medications they are doing these days, and she dyed it blue with “a common laboratory blue dye”.
    Next she chilled it down by adding big chunks of dry ice; which bubbled furiously from the bottom of the cylinder. This chilling changed the “common laboratory blue dye” to a “common laboratory yellow dye.”
    It was a demonstration which she said showed how coral reefs, and shell fish can be harmed by CO2 in the atmosphere.
    The obvious conclusion from her experiment is that corals and shellfish cannot suvive in “ordinary tap water” that is chilled with “dry ice”, and dyed yellow, with “a common yellow laboratory dye” but that presumabbly they can survive in “ordinary tap water” that is dyed blue with “a common laboratory blue dye” at room temperature.
    Way to go Dr Jane; you are a flippin teaching genius. I could suggest some improvements in your experiment. First of all, instead of using “a common laboratory blue dye”, try using something like an Aniline blue dye which is somewhat more color fast, and doesn’t change color when you chill it.
    Then instead of using “ordinary tap water” in your experiment; which might vary from municipality to municipality, I would import some much more ordinary water (by orders of magnitude) from Australia, and get it from the Great Barrier Reef, where it has actually been observed that corals and shellfish, can in fact survive and prosper. I have never actually found any real corals growing in “ordinary tap water” but I have actually caught real live shell fish in something quite close to “ordinary tap water, namely the water in the Sacramento/San Joachin river delta system. One day there, while fishing with my son for striped bass, with flies, we found a spot with some nice bass on it, but then I made 23 casts to a particular area, and on 21 out of those 23 casts, I actually caught 21 live clams; each of which had actually grabbed my 4 inch long Clouser Minnow Fly, and had the hook point right inside its shell. Agressive little buggers they were about an inch in diameter, and they really smacked that fly hard.
    So I know that shellfish will grow in “ordinary fresh water”, but I am not sure about the “ordinary tap water” with chlorine and fluoride in it.
    But Dr Jane, if you saqy it is true; I believe you, because aren’t you an oceanographer or something?

  68. Reaching far, far back into my memory, I remember the old science fiction mag Analog. The basic thesis of the mag was to take a possible and then run with it to see what the results were. Not a lot of BEM stories. In addition to the stories, the mag would actually run some scientific content every issue. One of the issues ran a article on the greenhouse effect and how it was possible to construct a greenhouse to a reasonable degree using materials (salt comes to mind, and sodium chloride is transparent in the infra-red) the greenhouse effect had nothing to do with the absorption. Heat was absorbed during the day and then radiated out in the infra-red. However, since there was no convection because of the enclosure, the interior remained warmer than the exterior by a reasonable degree.
    Not to say that CO2 does not effect things as a minor forcing, but the “greenhouse effect” as commonly enunciated has more to do with atmospheric convection than it does with molecular absorption.

  69. Trysail:
    “The skeptics do not agree that carbon dioxide is the cause of the observed rise of temperatures but have not proposed an alternative explanation.”

    Here’s one more to add to the list offered above by Harry: CFCs, One such unknown, CFCs, has recently been indicted. (See below.) The case the author makes is at least as persuasive as the case against CO2. It most definitely establishes that the science is NOT settled.

    tonyc (21:30:19) :
    A friend posted this note that about a recent peer reviewed paper in Physics Reports detailing that CFC’s are to blame for warming observed in 20th century.
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/09/the-ozone-hole-did-it.aspx
    The abstract for the paper:
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/09/the-ozone-hole-did-it.aspx
    Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion
    by Qing-Bin Lua

  70. “The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.”
    Well then, it must have been the warming from CO2 that helped creat the conditions for life on this planet instead of the sun. Statements like this from people with such credentials really reinforces my belief that an education doesn’t equal intelligence in many cases. (No dissrespect to the many educated and intellegent folks here.)

  71. I just got Robert Monroe on the phone (the guy whose name is at the bottom of the announcement) and asked him what was meant by denialist and whether it had something to do with Holocaust denialism. His definition was that it was someone who denies a point of view irrespective of the evidence presented. So then I asked if thats what they were doing by denying the skeptic viewpoint. he seems to think its not. i then told him that many skeptics find the term denialist insulting since it associates us with Holocaust deniers. Instead we should respect each others points of views and be respectful. He seemed to agree.
    Overall he was receptive to conversation, so if you guys want to call him he might be willing to reconsider the use of the terminology. His number is on the Scripps website.

  72. Out of a sense of fairness I offer to Richard Somerville the same degree of respect he has shown to me. Richard, coincidence is not causation, and bong water shouldn’t be used to make the Kool-Aid.

  73. Somerville isn’t a “climate scientist.” He’s a “theoretical meteorologist”… A climate modeler. He has no background in anything related to paleoclimatology (geology, geophysics, paleobotany, physical geography, oceanography, etc.). Unless someone understand how and why the climate has changed in the past, they can’t even begin to model how the climate should be changing now.
    Anyone with at lease a half-decent geoscience education would know that there are enough data out there to reasonably conclude:
    The Earth’s climate is relatively insensitive to atmospheric CO2 fluctuations between 200 ppmv and 7,000 ppmv. If the Earth has never before behaved as if the climate is highly sensitive to CO2 changes of a few hundred ppmv, it’s unlikely to be doing so now (no matter how many times some physicists say “Stefan–Boltzmann”).
    Phanerozoic CO2 v Temp
    The Earth’s climate has been warming since about 1600 AD along with the natural progression of a ~1,470-yr solar-driven climate cycle…
    Moberg
    The 1,470-yr cycle is painfully obvious in ice cores…
    GISP2
    The warming from 1976-1978 to 2003-2007 occurred when the PDO, ENSO and other decadal/multidecadal oscillations were in positive or warm modes…
    PDO Phase vs HadCRUT3
    There has been no global warming since at least the year 2000…
    UAH LT
    There are also sufficient data from fossil plant stomata question the assertion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels (~275 ppmv) to ~388 ppmv today was unusual or even primarily anthropogenic…
    SI vs MLO & Ice Core
    His use of the phrase “climate change denialists” is prima facie evidence of his cluelessness. Michael Mann very annoyingly used a similar phrase (“climate science deniers”) in his idiotic letter the the Wall Street Journal.
    No one is denying “climate change” or “climate science.” However the science of the role that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions play in climate change is just about as unsettled as science can be.
    However the fact that in 1998, Jimbo Hansen accurately predicted the growth in atmospheric CO2 over the next 20 years…
    Hansen’s CO2 Model
    And then the actual warming was less than that which Hansen predicted for a world in which anthropogenic carbon emissions ceased after the year 2000…
    Hansen’s Model vs UAH
    Might just be a CLUE that the climate modelers lack a sufficient understanding of how the climate works in order to accurately model it.

  74. I would ask Dr. Somerville what John Isaacs would think of his comments? Surely there is some shame left in climate science.
    Isaacs was one of the great men of oceanography, professor at Scripps and until his death the Director of IMR (UC San Diego). Isaacs despised academics who would distort science to achieve academic funding. Isaacs was perhaps the last of his breed- a man who could rise to high rank without a Ph.D and perhaps Ph.Ds are why we have no more John Isaacs.
    A great (and typical) Isaacs’s quote:
    “I have much greater faith in simple observations and untrammeled
    thinking than I have in sophisticated observations and simplistic thinking!”

  75. SIO is ground zero for the modern concern that elevated CO2 emissions would result in global warming. Austrian Geochemist and nuclear scientists Hans Suess, was hired in 1955 by Roger Revelle to study C14 in atmospheric CO2 both as a consequence of atomic bomb tests and to study how it cycled into the deep ocean as a means to figure out the age of the oceans – the latter in response to the International Geophysical Year (1957). The atmospheric studies led Suess and Revelle to speculate that humanity was carrying out a global geophysical experiment through the carbon dioxide emissions linked to industry and the modern lifestyle. They saw implications for AGW, a concern which Revelle pursued in further studies. A good history can be found at
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Revelle.htm

  76. P Gosselin (09:59:50) :
    Somerville was one of the warmists who participated in the NPR IQ² debate in 2007 with gavin and eckwurzel against stott. lindzen ans crichton. Somerville & Co. got their clocks cleaned in short order. He’s another distinguished climate loser that can be simply ignored.
    _______________________________________________________________________
    Good recall, PG!
    [URL]http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20938/Climate_Realists_Beat_Alarmists_in_New_York_Debate.html[/URL]
    “Somerville, speaking next, immediately backpedaled from any notion that he believed global warming was alarming or catastrophic.
    “The motion before us, global warming is not a crisis, means we ought to know what crisis means,” Somerville stated. “The word does not mean catastrophe or alarmism. It means a crucial or decisive moment, a turning point, a state of affairs in which a decisive change for better or worse is imminent.”
    Somerville then asserted, “the science community today has impeccable settled science … that demonstrates the reality of global warming and its primary origin in human activities. … We also have powerful tools to project many aspects of the future climate with considerable confidence.”
    Global warming “contrarians,” argued Somerville, are like people who argue HIV does not cause AIDS and that continental drift is mere fantasy. Responding to the reality that Galileo and Einstein were similarly viewed as contrarians in their time, he said, “An occasional Galileo does come along or an Einstein. Not often. Most people who think they’re a Galileo are just wrong.”
    Finishing his remarks, Somerville asserted the scientific community is in near-universal agreement that human-induced global warming is intensifying and is causing a litany of climate crises, such as rapid sea level rise, more frequent and severe tropical storms, and receding ice caps.
    “None of these observational facts is a surprise to the science community,” Somerville claimed. “They are what we had predicted.”
    Riiiight.

  77. To throw his own words back at him.
    “3. Our climate predictions are coming true…. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case.”
    So, if their predictions are coming true, how come he claims the ice melt is “happening faster than the anticipated worst case”. So their predictions are too conservative?

  78. “Sam the Skeptic (10:19:52) :
    This has to be the weirdest piece of writing ever to come out of what I was led to believe was a reputable scientific institution.
    Richard de Sousa sums it up succinctly [though quoting the recent European weather as an argument does not help – PLEASE, weather is not climate!].”
    Agreed, but this “weather” is signaling a change from a warm cycle to a cold cycle and it has to start somewhere. I say it started several years ago and will get worse.

  79. in point 4, Somerville seems to be saying that if climate change happens quickly, it must be manmade. Britain descended into the Little Ice Age over just 20 years. So how did the tiny, not burning much fossil fuel late Middle Age population cause climate change? But of course, I’m forgetting – LIA never happened!

  80. Now why didn’t he just tell us this years ago?? Think of all the time that’s been waisted with all this silly science stuff. Everyone can just go home now and take up gardening or something.

  81. Ok AdderW
    I just have to respond to this:
    “Some people (old professors and the like) should stop spreading their “scientific drible” after a certain age. It seems that they stagnate and are unable to absorb new knowledge after a while and just get embarrasing as they regurgitate ancient knowledge as if cast in stone.”
    This is just ageist, unfounded and unkind and demands a response.
    There have been many disparaging comments by warmists and the MSM that skeptics are all old, retired and out of touch. Many are, in fact, in retirement or at the end of their careers but they are in no way out of touch with science. The warmists and MSM know very well why this is but refuse to say it. It’s simply that this demographic is secure enough finanacially and have established reputations so they can speak out without fear of reprisals, which we know about all too well from the CRU e-mails.
    One of the reason that there has been an appropriate skeptical response in the scientific community to AGW in the face of this overwhelming unholy alliance of Big Green and Big Appropriations Science is because there are these experienced, reputable senior scientists who are, both willing to speak out and, in a secure retirement position to do so. These people include principled people like Roger Pielke Sr. and Steve McIntyre and many, many others.
    I’m sorry that your supervisor was so difficult. I know from experiences of some of my friends what a problem that can be. I was lucky. My supervisor was an outstanding Physicist of international renown. He passed away just one year ago. I never discussed climate with him but I know very well what he would have said to me if I said I’d built a climate computer model that trumped the data.

  82. “MJK (10:20:21) :
    Most of the contributors on this blog fall into the category of Deniers refusing to accept that any warming has taken place –often resorting to juvenile arguments that a couple of cold weeks in the U.S and Europe prove global warming to be false. Note Henry Chance above now goes as far to use a rainy day in California to support his denialist stance. He is not alone. Earlier this week it was a snowy day in the Australian alps that had everyone talking. Such comments (while getting alot of airtime at the moment) are very damaging to the cause of legitimate sceptics who have a valid claim that we need to investigate the claims surrounding AGW more closely.”
    Unfortunately true. As the comments grow here, the more they’re devolving into petty politically jeering. I’ve pointed out before the way forward is not to drive a wedge between the political extremes but to occupy the middle ground and bump the warmists to the far left and the denialists to the far right.
    ClimateGate is the paradox. It’s been seized upon as proof that the climate record has been corrupted, with the implication that there’s been no warming. This has somehow been extrapolated to suggest the entire climate circus is part of a single conspiracy.
    More likely the planet has warmed somewhat and we should until proven otherwise just accept that. Real skeptics should now be asking whether the warming is a continuing trend, to what extend we play a part, and whether it’s feasible to try to reverse it.

  83. “It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody.”
    That is the part that gets me. If AGW is just some baseless cult, then it is an awfully big cult.

  84. As a geologist, I took special offense from Somerville’s item #4, wherein he stated:
    “For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.”
    Recently, a paleobotanist studied some alpine soils in the Alps and found, to her amazement, that the switch from temperate-climate pollen to glacial-type pollen took only 3 years!
    This was corroborated by another researcher that studied some lake sediments in England and found that the switch from a warm, interglacial regime to a glacial regime took as LITTLE AS 4 MONTHS!!
    In light of these OBSERVATIONS, it is completely absurd that Mr. Somerville would make statements that assert transitions from interglacial to glacial epochs are “slow-acting processes”. Last time I did the math, both a three-year and a four-month time span are much shorter than “a few decades”.
    In fact, it is the next Glacial Epoch I fear more than anything the earth faces, except perhaps a planet-killing asteroid strike.
    Certainly these are just a couple of examples indicating Somerville is woefully uninformed, and yet he has the audacity to use his vaunted position to spread disinformation.
    No other explanation than a cult.

  85. Okay, I wrote Somerville this e-mail
    “1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm.” Assertion
    “This is solid settled science.” Assertion.
    “The world is warming.” It has for half of it’s 4.5 billion year history.
    “There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more.” So it warmed until 98. So what. Proof of warming is not proof of AGW.
    “Human activities are the main cause.” Assertion.
    “The warming is not natural.” Assertion.
    “It is not due to the sun, for example.” Assertion.
    “We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide” False assertion. We cannot measure the feedback.
    “and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.” False assertion. We don’t know that TSI is the only solar effect. Showing that it is not TSI is not showing that it is not the sun. Showing that it is not the sun is not the same as showing it is not natural variation.
    “2. The greenhouse effect is well understood.” False assertion. Climate feedback is part of the effect and it is very poorly understood.
    “It is as real as gravity.” False assertion.
    “The foundations of the science are more than 150 years old.” Irrelevant.
    “Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat.” Irrelevant. It is the feedback that is the basis for dispute.
    “We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it.” So what?
    “ We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.” So what?
    “3. Our climate predictions are coming true.” False assertion.
    “Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes.” False assertion. They are happening at the low end of the predicted changes.
    “Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case.” False assertion. 2007 is weather, not climate.
    “Unless mankind takes strong steps to halt and reverse the rapid global increase of fossil fuel use and the other activities that cause climate change, and does so in a very few years, severe climate change is inevitable.” Unsupportable speculation.
    “Urgent action is needed if global warming is to be limited to moderate levels.” Unsupportable speculation.
    “4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over.” False assertion.
    “The refutations are on many web sites and in many books.” The sources for false refutations is irrelevant.
    “For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming.” Straw man.
    “We know why ice ages come and go.” Assertion.
    “That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years.” Assertion.
    “The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes.” Misleading. Implies that slow acting causes are the only things available. Error in your logic to say that if you eliminate one cause you have eliminated them all.
    “But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.” Assertion.
    “5. Science has its own high standards.” We’ve seen them from climate gate, the IPCC glacier melting projections, and the IPCC use of Wiki graphs.
    “It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet.” It works by people cherry picking climate proxies and using them upside down.
    “It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals.” Carefully reviewed by friends who never seem to find the errors.
    “Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it.” False assertion. Only friendly scientists are given the data necessary to reproduce the research. Then the research is reproduced by a cabal that is coordinating their efforts.
    “Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned.” Which is why we have a 10 to 1 variance in climate sensitivity estimates.
    “Science is self-correcting.” Given enough time.
    “People who are not experts, who are not trained and experienced in this field, who do not do research and publish it following standard scientific practice, are not doing science.” Like the IPCC when they miss glacier melting projections by 315 years. Like Briffa when he uses proxie samples that are too small for his methods. Like Mann when he cherry picks proxy records to suite his needs.
    “When they claim that they are the real experts, they are just plain wrong.” When you claim that logic and reason work differently for different professions, you are just plain wrong.
    “6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results.” Simple lie. They were endorsed by a small committee from those organizations who did nothing at all to determine the their truth.
    “It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody.” Straw man.
    “ The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it” Illogical argument from authority.

  86. Here we go again:
    “settled science”
    “carefully reviewed research journals”
    “leading scientific organizations of the world”
    “thousands of climate scientists”
    Only 75% pass rate. The third one should include the magic words ‘peer reviewed’ to qualify as a proper Warmbot.
    “Our climate predictions are coming true.”
    Oh yeah?
    BBQ Summers?
    More Hurricanes?
    Warmer winters?
    New York under the waves?
    Lack of warming since 1998?
    Himalayan Glaciers?
    NO discernable sea-level rise (I have lived at the seaside for over 50 years. NOTHING has changed!)
    I don’t know of a single correct prediction, just the usual chanting of ‘Global Warming, Global Warming, Global Warming, Halleluiah’ every time some poor s*ds get hit by a storm, flood or whatever.
    As usual no explanation at all for previous warming and cooling events apart from ice-ages. Just a series of declarations about cherished beliefs and the usual crap about since it cannot be one thing (the sun) it must be AGW. This is laughable and of course it is not science.
    If I had known it was possible to be this stupid and still become a “distinguished professor emeritus and research professor” when I was at school I would have taken a very different career path.

  87. This is what I sent…
    Subject: Denialism
    Text: Thanks for the clarification. I will no longer visit you’re aquarium or anything “Scripp” as I can’t support Political Science. My kids will miss the aquarium, but there are others that stick to science…which is never settled.

  88. Professor Emeritus?
    lol.
    Stop trying to talk down to us Richard Somerville, your failure to engage with intelligently expressed skepticism about your beliefs tells us all we need to know.

  89. This is garbage science that can’t be quantified:
    “1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science. The world is warming. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more. Human activities are the main cause. The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.”
    Nobody knows the energy budget of the climate system. Nobody has been able to count the heat trapped by the sun or the heat generated by industrial activity. Nobody has been able to count how much is absorbed by the climate system, how much is radiated into space, or how much is stored in the ground, plants, under the sea or in the atmosphere. This was attested to in the climategate emails. Nobody knows the energy budget, it is so overwhelmingly vast, difficult to measure and complex that it is beyond our current ability to measure it. We don’t have the technology or the science.

  90. What unmitigated arrogance.
    Were this gentleman employed in private industry where he actually had to produce results, he wouldn’t be (i.e., employed)- not for long in any event.

  91. “4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over. The refutations are on many web sites and in many books. For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.”
    This too is junk science. The causes of ice ages are numerous and complex. They can happen regularly and predictably, irregularly or not happen at all (as it has been for most of the planet’s past). For all we know a full on ice age could be starting right now. The Little Ice Age could have been the first stage and the current warming period just a temporary recovery before a major glaciation. If anyone says they know the answer they don’t. Any speculation about future climate, as Freeman Dyson and Michael Crichton both have said, is science fiction.

  92. “5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet.”
    Al Gore? BBC journalists? George Monbiot? James Hansen? Just about any eco-activist? ALL unqualified.

  93. Blimey! What a foolish guy. This was obviously written in haste.
    I’ve no doubt it will come back to bite him (and Scripps) big time, and fully expect his “settled science” comment to be filtered and homogenized soon.

  94. Sam the Skeptic (10:19:52) : This has to be the weirdest piece of writing ever to come out of what I was led to believe was a reputable scientific institution… What’s the axe he’s grinding?
    When I saw the headline, I thought… “the leader doth protest too much, methinks”… What has he got to hide?
    His CO2 records? To say nothing of the unholy splice onto the ice CO2 records which I am certain are waaaaaay too low… The belief in “unprecedented” CO2 depends on MLO being ok, the splice being ok, and the ice CO2 records being ok. I think not. I suspect bad science at the very least. And this comparatively unchallenged belief is still a mainstay of AGW.

  95. Follow the money and you will find the most crazy ideas in the institutions that receive the most research funds.
    Thanks to corrupt practices of the National Academies of Sciences (NAS).
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography has steep competition from Washington University here in Missouri, the University of Chicago, Harvard University and Caltech (to name a few).
    What a sad state of affairs for science!
    Oliver K. Manuel

  96. “David (09:55:16) :
    Prof Somerville clearly needs to get out more – or at the very least, get his head out from where the sun don’t shine…”
    He obviously thinks it does…

  97. “3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case. Unless mankind takes strong steps to halt and reverse the rapid global increase of fossil fuel use and the other activities that cause climate change, and does so in a very few years, severe climate change is inevitable. Urgent action is needed if global warming is to be limited to moderate levels.”
    The last sentence confirms the bogus quality of his points. He is asking for regulation, which only serves to tax and then reward corporations, to simply limit the warming. But since the warming is limited (nothing can be unlimited) then he is asking for governance over something that governance is not needed for. This is a typical tactic used by activists. Call for regulation over a non-problem. It’s like asking for government to enforce limits on population growth when the population replacement rate has been falling for decades and will continue to fall as modernity spreads.

  98. Icecap Note: Scripps is a once great institution in the days of Jerome Namias but like many other organizations and the professional societies, Scripps has let the big AGW grant money pervert their science.

  99. I went snorkeling this summer at The Cove down below Scripps. Sea level was at the same place and the beach was the same size that it has been for my entire life.
    He should get out of his office sometimes and go down to the beach, instead of getting his education from watching Al Gore flicks.

  100. When an internationally respected research institute issues an internal memorandum insisting its scientists do not challenge the science of manmade global warming, and enforce same through bullyboy tactics, the statements above are without credibility.

  101. So, it took Somerville 6 paragraphs to say “Is not!”? Or rather, “It is too getting warmer because of man!!!” Other than the amusement I got our to reading his juvenile rebuttal, I didn’t really get any thing out of it. No insights, no information, just “I’m right and they’re wrong because I believe it so.” I guess that’s what they’ve been reduced to. Upon reflection, that’s as refreshing as last night’s election. Keep it up guys and gals!!!!

  102. I think Somerville has just confessed to all who can read that he isn’t a scientists and that his arguments hold no merit. In fact he’s proved that as far as our climate is concerned he knows buga-all and has no credibility.
    This reflects very badly on the once respected Scripps Institute!

  103. lol, Trying to multi-task. Instead of “our to” (? where did I get that from?) It should read, “from”.

  104. ummm, slightly dumbfounded expression, that someone would put up so many strawman arguments in one page…
    also Science and peer review are not synonyms. Peer Review wasn’t regularly practiced until the mid-20th C (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#History for example).
    Prior to C20 the process of Science advancement was largely carried out by amateurs, and “non-experts” who became expert in the field simply by studying it.
    When we look at the current old-guard of “climate scientists” many studied other fields, and came to climate study later. e.g. Hanson is/was an astronomer

  105. I wonder if there is anyone at Scripps actually studying the oceans so that we can know more about this relatively unexplored realm of our planet? Why is an oceanography institute involved in climate change? Research dollars I suppose, sigh…….

  106. It is a rare occasion that you find a person, that is generally accepted as being pretty intelligent, to be in disagreement with in almost every word he says. Even when he is not talking about climate. All the stupid metaphors he makes. From his website: ” just as intelligent people listen to their physicians when their health is in question. Good science input can inform wise policymaking.” I have a debilitating disease if I had always followed this man’s advice I would now be in a wheelchair, finding my own way in science and talking to the good physicians makes I now run marathons. How can you be a scientist and be so arrogant? I’m a biologist and have done research for years and I know how much we don’t know. He should know that too and act like it.

  107. Surely this wasn’t written by a scientist? It is more base, inaccurate and opinionated than even that written by the warmist journalists. By comparison Monbiot is measured and nuanced; Refkin is (was) thoughtful and balanced. It reads more like a troll posting on a blog. The article is so full of factual errors, crude assertions, irrelevant straw men, schoolboy howlers and alarmist politics that one doesn’t know where to begin. Fortunately Tilo Reber above has done an excellent job on deconstructing this vacuous nonsense.
    Tilo has listed no fewer than 17 unsubstantiated assertions of which 8 are manifestly false. Of the remaining verbiage that comprises this article, six more statements are either irrelevant or straw men arguments.

  108. There should be a law against scientists in denial of the truth. In the case of Richard Somerville he is telling blatant lies.

  109. I laugh uproariously at most of the responders here. Such Free-enterprise slaves you do not even know you are campaigning against proven facts so that individual businessmen (who Are NOT you) can continue to make money hand over fist at the expense of the environment we live in.
    When the Point of No return has been reached you can be sure that the Bush family and the Bill Gates of the world will be well looked after in shelters built by your tax money but completely off limits to you. You can be sure that they will have all the clean air to breath in filtered chambers but YOU will have to live a shortened lifespan in a sick world.
    You can be sure that they will start wars as they try to grab onto the shrinking resource base from within those safe shelters but that YOU will be completely responsible for paying for that war via taxation and for sacrificing yourself and your loved ones in it. No soldier with the name of ‘Bush’ or ‘Clinton’ or ‘Gates’ or ‘Rothchilds’ will EVER be your trench partner. you are expected to die as you are nothing but cannon fodder to them and yet you campaign to make them stronger not weaker. You feed into their conspiracies and lies.
    check out ‘Land use in the Himalayas’ and compare this info to the story recently about how the section in the IPCC report stating the melting rate of the himalayas glaciers was heavily exagerated and you can see where the deception is going.

  110. I don’t know who this guy is. My apologies if is he has some global or local credibility. His assessment reads as a rather out of date AGW press release. It sounds like a sort of pre-CRU universal AGW propaganda statement.
    If he is trying to counter the recent allegations about station data manipulation, he has failed miserably. Actually, I felt rather sorry for the guy.

  111. “Robin (13:59:40) :
    […]
    check out ‘Land use in the Himalayas’ and compare this info to the story recently about how the section in the IPCC report stating the melting rate of the himalayas glaciers was heavily exagerated and you can see where the deception is going.”
    Oh come on Robin, you sound like a really smart guy, let us know. What’s with the Himalaya’s?

  112. Robin, and I only snicker at the people that laugh “uproariously” at the responders. (Obviously being slaves to the state.)

  113. I am astounded – totally gobsmacked actually – that he could not only write such a statement but – if he read it prior to publication – did not see that it read like a statement from Wikipaedia. As with other comments, I don’t even know where to start: frankly, this is like a 14 yr olds science report taken from press releases from WWF, PETA, Greenpeace and Wikipaedia – full of assertations and unfounded assumptions. I hasten to add that I am a schoolteacher and am familiar with such reports – I also do have a BSc and a MSc in geology.
    Here is just one question for Mr Somerville. You said, ‘This is solid settled science. The world is warming . . “.
    Pray explain the causes of the Younger Dryas Event. No? Thought not.

  114. Johnhayte (12:44:09) :
    “It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody.”
    That is the part that gets me. If AGW is just some baseless cult, then it is an awfully big cult.
    Naw, there are some cults that are bigger: Scientology, for example, according to adherents.com, is the 22nd largest religion in the world with about a half-million adherents. Somerville’s assertion, however, is just plain ignorant. There are a great many climate scientists who do NOT acept thew AGW hypothesis, and many more operating in specialized niches who accept the word of people like Hansen, Jones, Mann, Briffa et al. These people ARE conspirators and allied with a truly unsavory cabal of elitists and opportunists.

  115. Reading that stuff I would think is clear this whole AGW thing is a large washmaschine for booth the brain and money. It has nothing to do with a science, it just plays that role in a completely other show of fraud and bribery. No wonder there it looks like the curtain just falls:
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/sorry-but-this-stinks.html
    just look at the TERI list of sponsors:
    http://www.teriin.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43
    I would think this people will see the global warming – they’ll find a hot seat everywhere.

  116. Richard Somerville has clearly placed himself into the ranks of those who practice the “science of deception and half truths”. I don’t care how many letters of the alphabet follow your name as a signifier of credential. If you FAIL to be totally honest and truthful in science… you are not qualified.

  117. 1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science have been shattered. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have proven the Hockey Stick a fraud. Measuring CO2 atop the world’s largest active volcano in the middle of the world’s largest temperature dependent, CO2 ladened, water sink is a supremely bad idea. How does science distinguish the CO2 molecules generated by man from those generated by Mauna Loa and the Pacific Ocean? Do they look for name tags?
    2. 95% of all CO2 is generated by nature. 99.999% of all water vapor is generated by nature. Wv by a factor of 26 has more of a spectral absorption bandwidth and gw influence than does CO2, After adding the influences of N2O, CH4 and CFCs, it turns out nature is responsible for 99.72% of the GGE; Man only 0.28%.
    3a. One tidal gauge in Hong Kong Harbor showing a 2.3 mm/yr sea level rise, situated on geology which is sinking is singly responsible for all this baloney of rising sea levels. Hundreds of tidal gauges around the world show no increase at all. The increases are only in computer projections and the minds of programmers. The data says otherwise.
    3b. In general, glacial ice is melting below 1,500 feet. But above 1,500 feet, it is increasing. The all-important Mass Balance of all the world’s inventory of ice is growing, not shrinking.
    4. During the last 200 years CO2 has been higher than today on two occassions: 1825 and 1942 (Beck 2007). 600 million years ago CO2 was 7,000 ppm, 18 times higher than today. If all the 4,000 Gt of known fossil fuel reserves were burned and added to the 750 Gt already in the atmosphere, the resulting logarithmic temperature increase would be a mere 1.5C. This would increase temperature from the present 14.5C to 15.9C. For the last 550 million years temperatures have held between 12C and 22C. There has been absolutely no relationship between CO2 and temperature for the last 550 million years. (Berner and Scotese). The worldwide temperature drop of 0.595C in 2008 erased all the temperature increases dating back to 1780.
    , the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
    5. By “high standards of science” are we talking about Cllimategate?
    6. The political management at the UN IPCC, national academies, and scientific societies may speak for their members, but do not necessarily represent the views of their members. I submit the majority of thinking adults from scientists to cab drivers know this manmade global warming is just that “Mann” made.
    Too many scientists are grazing at the public trough of grant money and cannot stop themselves from eating. Other scientists are main-lining and cannot pull the tube out of their arms. It’s time for these charlatans to become clean and sober.

  118. 1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science
    What a ridiculous statement.

  119. The world is warming….
    It is so unfortunate for this man that he doesn’t look out his window.

  120. While the Scripps credo supports the global warmers” Doctrine of Certainty, elsewhere on the Scripps website (“Global Warming: The Great Experiment on Planet Earth”) we can find the following:
    Thus [carbon emissions are] an experiment whose course and outcome are uncertain. … We are passengers on a voyage into fog-shrouded uncharted waters. Some say, there are reefs ahead. Others say, there are none. The truth is, no one knows. [italics added]
    So, apparently, the effects of global warming aren’t as certain as Scripps would like the public to believe.

  121. asks if Somerville
    David (09:55:16) :
    JSinAZ (09:48:09) asks “[snip]? Has this guy never sat in the sun on a clear day??”. If he does, David (09:55:16) explains the fool’s pig ignorance. Geez those gases are hot!

  122. The greenhouse effect is well understood. It is as real as gravity. The foundations of the science are more than 150 years old. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it. We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.
    Both sides of this issue could say this in their argument. It is ambiguous. But what is implied by Richard Somerville is the issue.
    CO2 is a minor player in climate. Other factors are far more important and are the real climate controlling players. CO2 goes along for the ride with those other factors where ever they go, not vice-versa.

  123. I love his use of the “Appeal to Authority” argument.
    Sadly, however, the Authority that Appeals to him is proving less credible day by day!
    Another argument he makes is that there is nothing, other than CO2, that can be responsible for what is happening to our climate.
    Wasn’t this the argument once used to burn witches.
    “there was nothing wrong with that cow before it died! It must be witchcraft”
    Wouldn’t it have been wiser to have actually looked at the data for sea-level rises, ice-melts and “unprecedented” temperature rises before you sharpened your quill and penned this puerile nonsense?
    One day, you will look back at all of this, and you will cringe!

  124. If the science is settled, surely there is no need for further research. Could save an awful lot of money, but would make a lot of research scientists redundant.

  125. 3. Our climate predictions are coming true.
    Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
    Richard Somerville, I will try to be polite, but you are sorely wrong in this point. Even a casual investigation would show most predictions of ‘manmade global warming’ are wrong.
    Primarily you can check global temperature and manmade co2 production since 1998. The graphs of these two are heading in opposite directions not in the same direction as ‘manmade global warming’ predicts. That prediction is the foundation of AGW and that foundation does not exist.
    Co2 controlling temperature correlates poorly.

  126. Science has its own high standards
    Yes, it is supposed to. That is why many are shocked by ClimateGate!

  127. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned.
    That is true. That is why the Mann Hockey Stick graph has been exposed and abandoned by those who care about real science.

  128. The thing that puzzles me in all of this is that no-one seems to have read Kyoto.
    It talks quite clearly about CO2 EQUIVALENT..!
    So in fact – CO2 itself is not the ‘bete noir’ (we know that anyway) – its the OTHER greenhouse gases expressed as ‘CO2 equivalent’.
    So – why is no-one (on either side) talking about water vapour; methane, etc..? And how can the world reduce these (if that were ever a problem) – by talking all this rubbish about a ‘low carbon’ economy..?
    Seems to me its as if rabbits were a problem, but expressed as ‘squirrel equivalent’ – global governments immediately say: ‘Right – we’ve got to get rid of squirrels’…

  129. “It is not due to the sun, for example”
    So why does it get cooler at sunset even though the CO2 level doesn’t drop at sunset.
    He is distinguished alright. Why is it cooler on a cloudy day even though CO2 remains a constant? He seems to be bound by a narrow dogma.

  130. It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody
    1. I agree, it is silly. And no one is imagining and asserting it.
    2. A strawman has been set up that says this though.
    3. But I do assert that some political policy makers, some business men and women, some environmentalists, some scientists, and also some Marxists, are.

  131. @MJK: “Most of the contributors on this blog fall into the category of Deniers……”
    This sort of statement here at WUWT is usually accompanied by data or dismissed out of hand.

  132. JSinAZ (09:48:09) asks “Has this guy never sat in the sun on a clear day??”. If he has, David (09:55:16) explains the fool’s pig ignorance. Geez those gases are hot!

  133. The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it
    I agree!
    Science is showing a good chance that there is a cooling coming to the earth for possibly the next 30 years. We should be preparing for the food shortages and higher food prices that would come from it.

  134. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.
    I’m sorry, but this just lacks.
    Again, casual investigation will show it lacks.
    For one example, if co2 increases makes temperatures increase then where is the increase in temperatures? The manmade co2 level in the earth continues to steadily rise but temperatures are going down.

  135. After being to his web site and seeing these I understand him better:
    IPCC, Bali, climate modelling.

  136. “Robin said:
    “When the Point of No return has been reached you can be sure that the Bush family and the Bill Gates of the world will be well looked after in shelters built by your tax money but completely off limits to you.”
    Ahahahahahaha thanks for the late night laugh, Robin. I just need Batman now to come and save the day.

  137. I just feel sorry for Mr. Sommerville. He must have seen brighter days.
    But I don’t feel sorry for SCRIPPS who/which use this old guy (he looks younger than he speaks) as a mine-dog.

  138. Again an example of how to make your point by proving a supposed thesis from the persons critical of your conclusions wrong.
    Apart from a handfull of “real denialists” to whom denialism is the same as AGW is for the AGW followers -with some denialists even denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas- no sensible sceptic is claiming that the average sealevels have not risen and may likely continue to rise in the forseeable future and that increasing CO2 levels are likely to have some influence on average earth surface temperatures.
    No sensible sceptic will claim that early 20th century increases in average global temperatures are related to ice age cycles defined by the earth rotation and orbit. But they do point out that these cannot explain the little ice age and medieval warm period either.
    And what are the results of climate science other than a set of models that do not work? Certainly the by now ridiculous Al Gore propaganda picture show does not reflect results of any meaningfull science.
    Threatening with such concepts as “severe climate change” is infamous without explaining why climate change is undesireable. All the alarming messages brought to the world lack a basic degree of diligence or scientific sincerity. The claims on antropogenic CO2 being responsible for Kilimanjaro glacier melt have been proven wrong. The claim on Himalaya glacier melt proven unsupported, the claims on ice free arctic ridiculed and so on.
    Fact is that we understand very little of the complexity of our climate system and its short term (within a millennium or a few millennia) oscillations, the other fact is that we do not know if there is a serious problem caused by humans and, should there be a problem, if there is anything we can do about it with an acceptable cost benefit balance – very unlikely-.
    So if the politicians are impatient, tell them to be impatient for a long while to come until we have sufficient competent data on the climate and its drivers and a more than remote understanding of the mechanisms driving it.
    Anybody calling persons, scientist or non scientist critical of one’s own opinions deniers is shooting himself out of the argument driven debate and knowledge enlarging proces.

  139. Ah, things get loopier and more so! Keep the strong faith!
    And remember, no one can use the D word, they must use “skeptic”!

  140. RE: Charles S. Opalek, PE (14:31:15)
    You’re the Man, Charles!
    I don’t know where you came up with your facts, but they are utterly irrefutable! Keep it up!

  141. Good point very well made, David (15:03:38). Nice analogy, too: zapping squirrels when the real problem is squirrel-equivalent rabbits.
    My guess is that the answer is found by following the money trail. What else with these AGW carpetbaggers?
    Methane is no big $ deal. In Oz you can just shoot a few million wild camels (as proposed the other day by Tony Abbott, Oz Opposition Leader) and/or bag cattle arses.
    Water vapour, by some accounts at least, may be the real “rabbit” in the AGW scheme of things. Not even the clowns (apt descriptor Harry (12:19:54)) at IPCC would try to tell us we need less water! Then again, is that their next move? After all, IPCC has perfected the art of irrational thinking.
    But a whole trillion dollar worldwide industry – financial and industrial – has burgeoned already to whup CO2. What a bonanza for the “carbon” industry it was when, just pre-Poxenhagen, the EPA identified CO2 as the “rabbit” by declaring that this gentle life-giving gas is a poison!

  142. The world is warming…by about 0.6 C over the past 100 or so years. Can anyone tell the difference with such a tiny temperature rise? My thermometer on the wall can’t even measure to that accuracy. Why are AGW alarmist so stupid?

  143. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more.
    Air temperatures = fudged, altered, erased, lost (see ClimateGate)
    ocean temperatures = you mean AMO, PDO? those go in cycles
    melting ice = http://robertb.darkhorizons.org/WhatGlobalWarming.htm
    rising sea levels = http://robertb.darkhorizons.org/WhatGlobalWarming.htm
    The ice has stopped melting and has returned.
    The N. Pole is the same as it was in 1959. Patches of open water.
    The oceans have not risen visibly in my lifetime. The Northwest Passage was open a mind-boggling 1 summer.
    What settled science? What evidence?

  144. Wow, what a list of hype by an educated man strictly intended to instill in John Q public, less inclined to follow the details that “there is nothing to see here, move along.
    By blogs that support his agenda driven “science” is he speaking of Real Climate, where well written statements from PHD scientist are what is edited or banned. “Real Climate is happy to take uninformed laymen comments and allow them through and thoroughly trash them, it is the informed comments from other scientist which they bann.
    Whether this man respects blogs such as “Watts up” or Climate Audit or not is irrelevant. The links contained within are to commentary, and sometimes to peer reviewed articles and publications by very respected PHD scientist I outlined just a few and their credentials, here are some links which were in the blogs http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
    these links are to their view, not to view of layman or fringe scientist.
    Does this man in his Ivory Towerer know of the OISM petition, signed by over 31,000 scientist , circulated just in the USA, with over 9,000 PHD signatories, all disputing CAGW. Has he read commentary by scientist such as Lindzen http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Richard_Lindzen.html and many others, highly qualified PHD scientist that state far more then minor differences and subtle changes. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptical scientist. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS’ true position. The Russian Academy of Sciences and the US Association of State Climatologists are just two of the scientific organizations that have trenchantly expressed serious doubts about the imagined “consensus” on climate change.
    The science is far from settled, his insistance that it is, after being exposed to all of the above that is upsetting, not if he agrees, disagree, or does not care about the subject. Ivory towers are real, perhaps nowhere more real then in the field of climate research.
    http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf
    There are real and very serious problems in the climate science community within the IPCC and that the recently released e-mails from very key scientist within that community are confirmation, not revelation of the problems. Has this man been provided you with access to the full summary, and the full technical report, which decimated to the point of withdraw from the IPCC publications, what was their most prominently displayed study; this was not as some say, a few minor statistical problems. Perhaps he would read a quick summary from one of the authors who wrote wrote the paper exposing fmajor, not nuanced flaws in Mann’s IPCC report which uncermoniusly withdrawn from IPPCC reports… http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=789 Does he know that McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s paper was upheld by three independent reviews as reported to the United States congress. Does he know that within that review was a detailed study of the problems of peer review within climate science. Has he read statements from IPCC scientist such as this Mike Hulme. listed as the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/uea-climate-scientist-possible-that-i-p-c-c-has-run-its-course/ and this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/zorita-calls-for-barring-phil-jones-michael-mann-and-stefan-rahmstorf-from-further- as just a small sample of what is available, reflecting the growing awareness of the problems confirmed in climate gate. Has he even read a quick summary by Lindzen which barely touches the problems mentioned or the science referred to… http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf
    This Scripps man commentary is full of one straw man after another. The IPCC itself admits it understanding of medium term, short term, and long term affects on the climate from the oceans is low. They admit there underswtanding of cloud formation is low. The observation have only met the lowest sensitivity estimates of global warming if you ignore known 30 year cysles and do charts from trough to peak, not from peak to peak as any unbiased anaylsis would do. Really, the man speaks to people as if they were idiots. Ugh, very distatesful, very elitist, very Ivory tower.

  145. ‘5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet.’
    Then you won’t mind removing the pedestal from the likes of Gore and Pachuri.

  146. Graham Dick (15:07:12) :
    JSinAZ (09:48:09) asks “Has this guy never sat in the sun on a clear day??”. If he has, David (09:55:16) explains the fool’s pig ignorance. Geez those gases are hot!
    ——
    Reply: Well, sure, he’s sitting in a convection oven; there’s no other explanation. Now, if we could just convince him that the broiler was burning a hole in his head, maybe he’d come around.

  147. The good doc needs to get in his delorean. 1996 arguments don’t pack quite the same punch in 2010…

  148. My message to Richard Somerville who’s e-mail is [snip]
    Sir,
    As a scuba diver, I held Scripps in some esteem. Now, it has just become another Natural Climate Change Denying Organization.
    What a shame

  149. I would never advocate torturing the Scripps folks for their unkind remarks towards those of us with questions. That would be bad.
    Perhaps they could be stress tested though.

  150. OK :^) you can just go to the Scripps Institute web site and search and his e-mail address will pop up

  151. I’m dumbfounded. And disappointed. I had always thought highly of Scripps. This man speaks as if the country is populated by 5th graders. And maybe that is an insult to 5th graders.
    I will never give any credence to anything that comes out of Scripps again.
    They join a lot of other places on my list.

  152. Ref – MJK (10:20:21) :
    “I think… Most of the contributors on this blog fall into the category of Deniers..
    _____________________
    You seem to have trouble reading, or perhaps English is a second language?

  153. The fact that the hockey stick graph, the hanno look-a-like, and the Himalayan speculation were included in the IPCC’s ‘science’ disproves point 5 (validation and checking of findings).
    Certainly the hockey stick graph and hanno graph (from Wikipedia) were exposed by sceptics in mammoth battles.That is sloppy work rather than painstaking expert work
    The refusal to grant FOI requests also shows that there is no desire to have results checked by ‘outsiders.’
    Re point 6; no-one is claiming that ‘thousands’ of scientists are in a conspiracy.
    Many perfectly honest scientists are working with manipulated data without their knowledge. They can hardly be accused of deliberately conspiring. On the other hand, they have no chance of doing any useful work.

  154. Hi, my name is Scott, and I’m a Denier.
    I deny that we have so far contributed significantly to
    the temperature rise of the Earth/atmosphere system.
    My basic science and logic skills plague me with this
    denialist thought.
    Here’s why:
    Temperature is a measurement of energy, it is not itself
    meaningful other than as a way to express an amount of
    energy.
    A total lack of energy is of course absolute zero, or -273.15
    degrees Celcius.
    Let’s take at face value that the temperature, i.e. energy,
    increased 0.74 degrees Celcius during the 20th century.
    The 0.74 is the IPCC claim, which I trust is true.
    Let’s assume the temperature at the beginning of the last
    century was 14 degrees Celcius, which appears to be around
    most estimates. We then ended the century around 14.74 degrees.
    So how much energy did we gain?
    ((273.15 + 14.74) – (273.15 + 14.0)) / (273.15 + 14.74) =
    (0.74) / (273.15 + 14.74) =
    0.74/287.89 = 0.0026 = 0.26% increase
    Yes, this argument is over how much man has contributed to
    26 hundredths of one percent to the increase in energy of the
    planetary system.
    26 hundredths of one percent, which in a system consisting
    of a planet, its moon, the planet’s atmosphere, and the planet’s star
    has to all but fall totally within the expected natural variance
    over 100 solar revolutions of the planet as it tilts and whirls,
    and bobs up and down in the plane of the ecliptic.
    The only reason the scientists never mention calculating from
    absolute zero is an old marketing gimmick. By keeping the
    vertical axis of their graphs at terrifically small graduations,
    the minor fluctuations can be made to appear alarming.
    Plot temperature increases over the last century from absolute zero
    on a graph and you get a straight line.
    Straight lines won’t sell books or secure grant monies.
    Pass the word: ask for graphs from absolute zero.
    Yes, I recognize that life is sensitive to minute fluctuations in
    temperature, and yet also recognize that doesn’t mean we are to
    blame. Our contribution to the 26 hundredths is round off error.

  155. Clearly this dude is suffering from the 5 stages of grief. His beloved religion, AGW, is now in it’s death throes. No one should pile on while he mourns.

  156. He says : “Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes.” This must be their area of expertise, yet it seems to be against the accepted rise at the lower end. Have they published the raw data and the research for true independent verification? [i.e. as in point 5].
    Perhaps they measure the sea level from a boat – as the AGW researchers get fatter and more numerous the boat is lower in the water, so the sea level appears to rise!

  157. When proven wrong, just restate the errors you’ve made, and mock the offenders.
    1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science. The world is warming.
    Nope. Sorry. World warmed a bit prior to 2000, but has been stable or cooling for nearly a decade since. And the ocean is cooling, as well: not warming as they assert.
    http://www.usclivar.org/Newsletter/V6N2.pdf
    2. The greenhouse effect is well understood. It is as real as gravity.
    Again, no, and no.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
    http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
    3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case.
    More misleading, at best, and/or false information.
    Sea levels aren’t anomalously rising.
    http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/10/new-peer-reviewed-study-sinks-claims-of-sea-level-rising.html
    Sea ice isn’t anomalously melting
    http://boingboing.net/2009/01/07/sea-ice-area-returns.html
    Nor are glaciers
    http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting
    4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over.
    Another blatantly false assertion.
    5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet.
    It also doesn’t work by peer-pressure passing for peer-review, nor by cooking the data. And the internet is just a venue for dissemination of the legitimate information which propagandists like Somerville don’t want us to have.
    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3308/Ignorant-Skeptics-UN-Scientist-Prof-Trenberth-says-only-poorly-informed-scientists-disagree-with-UN–Appeals-to-Authority-The-IPCC-has-spoken
    Just because science has “high standards” doesn’t mean all scientists do, as the CRU-Tape Letters, and John Coleman’s information clearly show.
    6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results.
    Appeal to authority – which ignores the massive opposition by the members to the few biased heads of those societies who are pushing their agenda, regardless of the lack of evidence for it and the ample evidence against.

  158. I used to make a wager with people: if they’re so religiously convinced of AGW – have it tattooed on their bodies, preferably where it can be seen in public. That way, decades later, we’ll know who the knuckleheads were way back when.
    OH, WAIT! This guy came out and said this publically! I guess this is sort of tattoed on his head already. Yup, smeared right on, his picture is on the page. I can only hope these folks stick around for the “I told ya so’s” down the road. Someone’s archiving all these folks, I hope…

  159. That’s true for fools, anon (17:11:54). But then
    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
    “”When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” (Edmund Burke?)

  160. Point 3: “Many observed climate changes, like rising sea levels, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes.”
    The Marine Room restaurant in La Jolla Shores is a favorite of Scripps Institute and UCSD faculty. It has provided spectacular sea level, ocean front dining…… since 1941. The Marine Room has of course flooded out a few times, particularly during the 1990s, when tide station sea level measurements peaked for San Diego. Dr. Somerville and his associates can easily confirm that their tables at the Marine Room are still there, despite the forecasted sea level changes.

  161. greg2213 (17:54:11) :
    “I wonder where he gets his info? From award winning movies, maybe?”
    …and the TV and the internet?

  162. Scientists of honest repute do not make such bold certain statements. They well know today’s theory’s about the workings of physical phenomena may well be disproved tomorrow. Dismiss him – he’s a bully-boy and not credible.

  163. Oliver K. Manuel (09:32:39) : “1. Climate changes and cycles of solar activity are both related to the Sun’s oscillatory motion about the center of mass of the solar system….That’s just the way it is”
    I wouldn’t bet on it.
    Henry chance (09:43:05) : “Look outside and explain the rain in California.”
    Hmm. Maybe it’s due to the fact that it rains in California. Or it could be El Nino, coupled with high Arctic downflow. Or it could be that rain dance I did on New Year’s Eve. It might have been a rain dance. Not sure. Heck, might have been a snow dance. Stay tuned.
    @ David (09:55:16) :
    http://www.johnernst.com/sight_windows_p50.html
    Phil. (11:00:17) : “…the San Diego Union-Tribune… writer and reporter, Robert Monroe…used the ‘D’ word.”
    True. As near as I can tell, the good Dr. Somerville, despite his numerous logical and factual failures, never once used the word “denialism” in his text. It was, apparently, a slip of the pen on the part of the esteemed Mr. Monroe, who has been hanging out with the wrong crowd.

  164. Honestly; this guy is like the Iraqi information minister.
    Restating falsehoods make them no more correct.

  165. Anticlimactic (17:32:42) :
    Perhaps they measure the sea level from a boat – as the AGW researchers get fatter and more numerous the boat is lower in the water, so the sea level appears to rise!
    And their boat is taking on water.

  166. Tilo Reber:
    “We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide” False assertion. We cannot measure the feedback.

    I hope you’re right, but I seem to remember reading that there’s some fancy way of differentiating the manmade CO2 from the naturally produced portion. Is there or not?

    DirkH (14:27:42) :
    “Schrodinger’s Cat (14:16:36) : ”
    You’re alive?

    Maybe it’s his ghost, the Cheshire Cat.

    royfomr (14:49:34) :
    Another argument he makes is that there is nothing, other than CO2, that can be responsible for what is happening to our climate.

    Refuted by “Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion”, in Physics Reports, by Qing-Bin Lua

    Harold Blue Tooth (15:25:46) :
    After being to his web site and seeing these I understand him better:
    IPCC, Bali, climate modelling.

    His post is syrup of IPCC, IOW.

  167. MJK (10:20:21): “I think it is totally appropriate for Somerville to use the “D” word. . .”
    Douglas DC (10:55:53): “Almost reads like some sort of medieval condemnation of heresy. . .”

    Douglas has it right. The reason the Warmists are comfortable with the term ‘denier’ is because to deny the ‘settled’ (i.e. self-evident, revealed) truth of Global Warming is a heresy, a refusal to accept the Gospel according to the cloaked priesthood of ‘Climate Scientists’, whose Oracle is Gore.
    We are lucky that this sanctimonious clique has not (yet) risen to the top of a dictatorial theocracy, so have not the power to put the Deniers to the rack and screw and torch. But give them time and unfettered access to power, and they may yet become our oppressors. Already there are murmurs in the Obambi administration of taxes and controls on the free Internet.
    Climategate and the failure of Copenhagen are cracks in the foundations of the temple they are building (with our taxes, of course), but the ediface continues to grow. The Goracle and his priesthood and acolytes must not be allowed to repair the damage and enshrine their litany in law. For surely they will conclude that Deniers, those who refuse “to learn about what science has discovered and accept it,” cannot be permitted to roam free in the land.
    This screed by one of the minor priests among the Warmists is a warning that they continue to pursue their ambitions for power and control undaunted. Continue the fight!
    /Mr Lynn

  168. Odd this, as I received a comment on my blog http://hayduke2000.blogspot.com/ saying things in suspiciously similar verbiage:
    “You’re an idiot and a Denier. Climate change, like gravity, is an observed phenomena. Ignoring it doesn’t make you right.” Pangolin
    But then, Pangolin also said, “STFU.”

  169. “WOULD I LIE…?”
    “From: Eystein Jansen
    To: Richard Somerville
    Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Responding to an attack on IPCC and ourselves

    Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:16:33 +0100
    Cc: wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/15/news-on-the-new-non-scientist/
    (lots more there)
    Oh, yeah, he’s an “objective” bystander, all right! ;=P
    @photon without a Higgs (17:26:18)
    “Richard Somerville is a theoretical meteorologist whose research interests include geophysical fluid dynamics, thermal convection, computational methods, predictability, atmospheric modeling, numerical weather prediction, radiative transfer, cloud physics, and climate.”
    http://myprofile.cos.com/somerv96
    You got it.

  170. jorgekafkazar (18:12:15) :
    Hmm. Maybe it’s due to the fact that it rains in California.
    Whoever wrote this song must have been a denier. 😉
    It never rains in California
    but girl don’t they warn ya
    It pours, man it pours

    It did pour today, man it poured!

  171. Gary (17:33:53) :
    I used to make a wager with people: if they’re so religiously convinced of AGW – have it tattooed on their bodies, preferably where it can be seen in public. That way, decades later, we’ll know who the knuckleheads were way back when.
    OH, WAIT! This guy came out and said this publicly! I guess this is sort of tattooed on his head already. Yup, smeared right on, his picture is on the page. I can only hope these folks stick around for the “I told ya so’s” down the road. Someone’s archiving all these folks, I hope…

    “Which Side Were You On?” I look forward to asking that.
    What I I wish is that these know-it-alls would put their money where their mouth is. Supposedly (according to Hansen, Gavin, and several other big names) 2010 is shaping up to have a “better-than even likelihood” (e.g., 3 in 5) of being the hottest year on record, following 2009’s upthrust to second-highest status. And yet the odds available on that bet at https://www.intrade.com are only 1 in 4. It’s free money for the taking — so why aren’t they picking it up?

  172. The first association of the word ‘Denier’ with ‘Global Warming’ came from a linguist named Deborah Tannen. In a PBS interview on March 27, 1998, Tannen said:
    “Holocaust denial has had far more success in the United States than any other country. In our eagerness to show both sides, sometimes that means giving a forum to people who claim that the Holocaust never happened. A woman broke a book discussing their tactics–the Holocaust denier’s tactics–and she was invited on television if she would also allow them to invite deniers and debate them. She said, but there’s nothing to debate; this is history; it’s fact. And she was told, don’t you think the audience has a right to hear the other side. So often we give a platform to marginalized or even totally discredited views in our eagerness to show the other side. This also is why global warming everywhere in the world is accepted as a problem, and the question is: How do we approach it? Just the other day I mentioned global warming to a taxi driver, and he said, “Do you believe that? There’s no such thing.” Only in the United States have we given a lot of air time to just a few discredited scientists who say this isn’t a problem, just so that we can show the other side. ”
    So its clear that the term ‘Denier” is intended to associate climate skeptics with Holocaust Deniers and to use this linguistic device to intimidate people and shut down debate.

  173. A Response to Climate Change Denialism
    That’s the first of Mr Somerville’s problems. Most of us here are not “denialists” so much as we’re skeptics of anthropogenic climate change. Climate has been changing for anywhere from three to four and a half billion years. We don’t deny that. We DO have a very healthy skepticism that the current warming is being caused by the burning of fossil fuel. Mr Somerville isn’t very smart if he doesn’t know that, or he’s an outright fraud, creating a straw man to attack, rather than the truth. Strike one.
    Richard Somerville, a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, issued the following statement in response to a recent request to address claims recently made by climate change denialists:
    1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science. The world is warming.

    Is it? Really? Apparently it was from about 1970 up until about 1998, but since then, it’s either maintained an equal temperature or is cooling. We’ll have to wait to see if the warming returns, or the cold intensifies. That particular statement blows “settled science” right out of the water. Sorry, Mr. Somerville, your battleship is sinking. As for “the essential findings of mainstream climate change science” being firm, we don’t even know all the questions to ask, much less how to find the answers. At the same time, half the “climate scientists” try to either deny or hide the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age – all events with historical records to confirm them. Strike two.
    There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more.
    Anthony Watts has proven beyond any argument that the United States Weather Service stations cannot provide reliable information, for any one of dozens of reasons, satellite records don’t go very far back, ocean temperatures change because of current activity that has existed probably for 10,000 years (PDO, ENSO, AMO, etc.). Ice melts for many reasons, including changes in ocean currents as the result of the evidence presented above, the fact that the earth is recovering from the Little Ice Age that ended about 170 years ago, and because winds shift back and forth, sometimes bringing moisture, sometimes not (Kilimanjaro, for instance). Strike three.
    Human activities are the main cause. The warming is not natural.
    Any person that makes a blanket statement like that is NOT a scientist, he’s either a politician, or he’s a snake-oil salesman. Strike four.
    It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.
    Did you actually say that? What we are able to do is to measure how much carbon dioxide human activity is pumping into the atmosphere, based pretty much on consumption records. From all that I’ve read, the leading cause of warming of the earth is the retention of heat from the sun. So little of the heat trapped by the earth comes from sources other than the sun that they may as well be considered non-existent. We’ve also learned in the last decade that the sun has a far greater effect upon the earth than we previously believed: sunspots (number and intensity, effect on cosmic rays, etc.) , solar variability (output by type, axial “wobble”, rotation, etc.), variations in magnetic field strength, and many other, lesser solar variables. As for being able to “measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide”, you might be able to CALCULATE is effects, but there is no way to accurately determine which portion of atmospheric carbon dioxide is “man-made”. Strike five. You’re well on your way of retiring your entire side.
    2. The greenhouse effect is well understood. It is as real as gravity. The foundations of the science are more than 150 years old. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it. We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.
    First, if the “greenhouse effect” is so well known, why don’t any of you ever mention that water vapor is the primary component of all atmospheric greenhouse gasses, comprising 95%. Carbon dioxide makes up only 4% of atmospheric greenhouse gasses. Humans contribute less than 4% of the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide. How can 0.0016% (human contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gasses) control, dominate, and master the other 99.9984% of all greenhouse gasses? While the science of greenhouse gasses may be “well-understood”, it doesn’t appear that “climate scientists” fit that category. Strike six.
    3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes.
    Another bullshit statement with no true scientific evidence to back it up.
    I’m not going to continue to address each issue. You, sir, are NOT a “scientist”. I’ve worked daily with many scientists, from geologists and geophysicists to cultural anthropologists to astrophysicists to biological scientists to computer scientists. I spent 26 years in the US Air Force as an imagery analyst. I only know that if I’d done something as poorly this, other people would probably have died. If I had ever produced such a sloppy, unverified, and patently FALSE report as this, I would have been court martialed, stripped of all rank, and probably spent several years making small rocks out of big ones. You are lucky that you work for “academia”, where such sloppiness is tolerated, perhaps even encouraged.

  174. Robin (13:59:40) : “I laugh uproariously at most of the responders here.”
    Thanks for stopping by, Mrs. Somerville.

  175. Two Essential videos disproving AGW
    (1) CONGRESSMAN LINDER DISCUSSES CLIMATE CHANGE ON CBS NEWS, “WASHINGTON UNPLUGGED”

    Congressman Linder states that if drug company researchers or cancer scientists funded by federal monies hid their data, and coded programs to skew results, they would be ARRESTED, and JAILED.
    * * * * *
    (2) GLOBAL WARMING – DOOMSDAY CALLED OFF – 5 PARTS
    Written and directed by Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen

    The 5-part video series includes statements from these academics:
    Climatologist:
    Dr. David Legates
    Center for Climate Research
    University of Delaware
    A computer model is a very sophisticated computer program that attempts to simulate all of the processes associated with the atmosphere. In particular therefore, what we need to have is as much data as possible to be able to fire the model, to be able to understand the processes. Generally what we find is that many of the processes that work in the climate work at a variety of scales that a computer model simply cannot resolve. One of the things we do not do well in climate models is simulate precipitation. And again precipitation is affected by virtually every component of the climate system, and in turn, every component of the climate system affects precipitation. So precipitation is a very good diagnostic as to how well the climate model is doing. And most climate models don’t do precipitation well at all.
    A computer does only what it is programmed, and in particular, … (part 5 of 5) garbage in , garbage out.
    Kyoto – Japan – 1997
    Glaciologist,
    Jorgen Peder Steffensen
    Curator
    Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics
    Ice from Viking age – 1.5 degrees warmer than today
    Inland icesheet, Greenland, 2003
    NORDGRIP = Greenland icecore project
    DRILL down to rock at bottom of Greenland icesheet – ice core is 3 kilometers in length
    Get temperatures back 10,000 years.
    Greenland temperature was at its coldest in 1875, exactly when humans started measuring temperature by thermometer!!!
    Other core samples from Greenland confirm that the little ice age ended about 140 years ago at the coldest point in the last 10,000 years.
    The natural pronounced alteration of warm and cold periods has also been confirmed in other ways:
    >Carbon 14 dating of organic matter from peet bogs and tree rings
    >data from CyTi caves in China and North Africa
    If Greenland and Antarctica melted tomorrow, sea level would rise about 100 meters. That process would take 2,000 to 3,000 years. If east Antarctica melted, sea level would rise 80 meters. But the temp in East Antarctica is so far below zero, that it will not melt. If temps rised 10 degrees, the result would be more humidity in the atmosphere from the evaporation of sea water, that would increase snowfall significantly in Antarctica, causing the ice to INCREASE. Therefore, if warmer climate, then East Antarctica will grow!!! The warmth of the tropical ocean generates enormous amounts of water vapor which is distributed to the rest of the world and falls as rain or snow. So water vapor, clouds and precipitation play a decisive role in the climate throughout the atmosphere. The United Nations Climate Panel bases its various scenarios on what will happen if we double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This would not only result in a climatic disaster, the calculations say that more carbon dioxide would also increase the amount of water in the atmosphere. It is this cocktail, more carbon dioxide and water that according to the theory must lead to a greenhouse effect many times as great as carbon dioxide on its own. The trouble is, temperature increases in the atmosphere just don’t seem to have happened to the degree that the models predict.
    Professor John Cristy
    University of Alabama, Huntsville
    Used weather satellites – brought together data from 7 or 8 staellites- strung the data together- result: no change in atmospheric temperature!!!!
    Climate scientist once said, “My model is right, it’s the real world that’s wrong.”
    Professor Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
    Stockholm University
    Male / Maldives
    Sea level fell 20-30 centimeters in last 30 years, since 1970-1975
    He thinks it is from strong evaporation of equatorial waters.
    Evaporation of tropical seawater moves the masses of water to the poles where it falls as snow.
    Cannot have increased precipitation at location “A” without increased evaporation at location “B”, and that is the balance of the globe.

  176. David Hume had a perfect quote for such occassions:
    “Where men are the most sure and arrogant, they are commonly the most mistaken, and have there given reins to passion, without that proper deliberation and suspense, which can alone secure them from the grossest absurdities.”
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Hume
    Seems to me that the Scots are a very level-headed bunch… Milord Monckton also springs to mind. Can’t wait to catch him in Perth on 8 January. I shall have to start practicing my curtsey 🙂

  177. Correction. (sort of) to my yonason (17:33:05) :
    My very first link was to show that there was no ocean warming, and that it was in fact cooling. The link I gave there was only part of the story, since he subsequently repented of his initial finding. This one was supposed to supplement it.
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/correcting-ocean-cooling-nasa-changes-data-to-fit-the-models/
    It indicates that the change in Willis results were probably do to more than the “… certain amount of surprise and skepticism [his results were met with] by the climate science community,…” I’m guessing it was more like he got a visit from the climate orthodoxy enforcers, who “persuaded” him “kind gentle like” that if he ever wanted to work in the field again, he had better “correct” his “errors.”
    …but the science is ROCK SOLID! Uh Huh!

  178. What the rest of you don’t know is a bit of background on this. When KUSI committed to the special “Global Warming: The Other Side” the news department thought it was prudent to seek out response on the program from our important local institution, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. So the news team contacted Scripps and requested a representative to appear on our newscast immediately following the special to react to the program. Scripps refused to send anyone. After repeated contacts, finally Dr. Somerville agreed to answer written guestions via a recording the day before on the shore near Scripps. Our cameraman with camera and questions from the producer went there and recorded the interview. The day of the special a minute of Dr. Summerville’s response was edited and combined with the written statement from NASA as reaction to the program and ran on both on 10 PM and 11 PM newscasts.
    Meanwhile, the response was posted on the website. I did not know about any of this until after the fact, by design of the news department.
    Lo and behold a nasty editorial then showed up on a local website called City Beat.
    I started to write a response today, but had to quit and get to work predicting and reporting on our big ole El Nino winter storm. It is now quiting down, so I can take a minute to share what I had written:
    Richard Somerville, Ph.D. is a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He has told San Diego “City Beat” that KUSI promised to present his written statement on-air but didn’t. He was talking about my January 14th hour long program “Global Warming: The Other Side”. KUSI contacted Scripps seeking a response to the program for our 10 PM newscast that night. Scripps referred our Producer to Somerville. The Producer who had that assignment assures me that no “promise” was made. But according to the nasty City Beat editorial, that slam-bams the program, Somerville said the station included only a couple of “garbled” sentences from a lengthy interview during a 10 p.m. newscast. He called KUSI and Coleman unethical.
    I object to his statement and take particular exception to be called unethical.
    First, I was aware the station was seeking a response from Scripps but un-ware that it had been obtained until shortly before the program aired. I scrambled to get some of it on the newscast. I was told to use less than a minute of the Somerville interview and to read the entire statement from NASA. I was attempting to accomplish good journalism. I don’t know that I totaled accomplished that, but I am sure that KUSI and I were not unethical.
    I am going to go through the video of the Somerville interview done by one of cameramen using questions written by one of producers to see if I can put together a longer video which I will post on this website. I think that will help give more balance.
    But please understand, equal time is not required or justified here. The media, including the KUSI newscasts carry frequent reports supportive of the global warming claims and agenda. The media frequently carries programs about the dire global warming predictions. “An Inconvenient Truth” shown over and over again in the schools is totally one-sided. Our one and only program debunking global warming falls far short of balancing the overall budget of global warming coverage on television or even KUSI.
    Here is Dr. Somerville’s six point statement about the skeptical side of the global warming debate from the Scripps website. After each of his points, I offer a response.
    A Response to Climate Change Denialism
    Richard Somerville, UC San Diego, issued the following statement in response to a recent request to address claims recently made by climate change denialists:
    The use of any form of the word “denier” when referring to another person or group of people is generally regarded as the strongest insult possible because the word has been only widely used in the past sixty years to describe people who deny the Holocaust of millions of Jewish people by the German Nazis during the 1930s and 1940s. I am offended by the use of this word by Dr. Somerville and the other Global Warming “Alarmists”, (A word first used by my friend Joe D’Aleo to refer to those who support the Global Warming science and agenda.) I would urge the professor to soften his prose and use the word “skeptic” when referring to those of us who regard man-made global warming as bad science.
    1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science. The world is warming. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more. Human activities are the main cause. The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.
    This is, indeed, the heart of the debate. Dr. Somerville, Al Gore, et al, regard the science settled and proven. To me this couldn’t be further from the truth.
    First, the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas theory relies on a concept called radiative forcing by which the minor atmospheric gas CO2 interacts with water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas to cause significant warming. I have read, and understand, the scientific papers that present this hypothesis. Presenting a theory, arguing its case, calculating what impact it will have if correct; none of these are proof. And, peer review is not proof, either. It only means there are others who find the theory compelling. A vote of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is not proof either. The cadre of scientists who are on that panel are all totally dependent on the global warming issue for their livelihoods, professional status and the stability of their institutions. It would be very difficult for them to vote down this theory. By the way, researchers into the IPCC found that not many of the members of the panel are scientists and of those that are, few actually studied the radiative forcing research papers. So what do they have for proof? Computer models that use the radiative forcing theory to project future temperatures have projected steadily rising temperatures. The modelers used 1980 as the starting year so they could compare the forecast temperature rise against the actual rise since 1980. Into the late 1990’s they claimed the rise in temperatures matched the forecast and therefore radiative forcing had been proven. However, I see a couple of things wrong with this. One is that the temperatures stopped rising in 1998 and have been in a decline since (according to the best data I can find). The computer model predicts continued warming, but the temperatures go into decline. That seems to side track that so called “proof”. And, now there is another big problem with this computer model based “proof”. The new climategate findings, first reported on our television program, show there is extensive manipulation of the temperature data at the National Climate Data Center. It is the temperature data from there that the computer modelers rely on for their proof. So their proof is now under a serious cloud of doubt.
    I hope to finish this tomorrow and post it as a blog on my website.
    I may obtain the Somerville interview from News and edit and post some of it later. I may.
    Meanwhile, I have just posted my complete interview with Joe D’Aleo on my webpage and plan to post the complete E. Michael Smith interview the first of next week.
    John Coleman

  179. yonason (18:15:00) :
    “a climate modeller”
    LOL! Sounds like it.

    —————————————————————-
    He is a modeller. From ‘Selected Publications’ at his web site:
    A nonlinear spectral model of convection….
    ….using a two-dimensional primitive-equation numerical model with rigid boundaries….
    ….the model simulates….
    ….Numerical models of thermal convection in the laboratory and in the atmosphere….
    ….in a general circulation model….
    ….Extended-range forecasts with the GISS model of the global atmosphere….
    ….an atmospheric circulation model….
    ….NCAR general circulation model….
    ….with the NCAR general circulation model….
    ….Using an efficient numerical model to simulate….

    =================================================
    =================================================
    “My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”
    ~~Freeman Dyson
    ….a numerical weather prediction model….
    ….barotropic models….
    ….Three-dimensional simulations of convection….
    ….Diagnostic modeling….
    ….Diagnostic modeling….Part II….
    ….in a general circulation model….
    ….climate model results….
    ….Single-column models….
    ….stochastic radiative transfer model….
    ….generalized energy balance climate model….
    ….Modeling springtime shallow frontal clouds with cloud-resolving and single-column models….
    ….simple aerosol climate model….
    ….an idealized model….

  180. in previous comment I placed the Freeman Dyson quote in the middle of segments from Richard Somerville web site
    opps
    sorry for the confusing comment

  181. photon without a Higgs (18:41:59) :
    Yes, it does pour in California when the El Nino’s come in. And they go all the way back to the days of the 49er Gold Rush.
    I have seen many of them in my lifetime, going back to 1955.
    This one, however, is colder up North, with snow levels lowered to 4-5000′ where the El Nino’s go all the way up to 8-9000′.

  182. photon without a Higgs (20:23:17) :
    yonason (18:15:00) :
    “a climate modeller”
    LOL! Sounds like it.
    —————————————————————-
    He is a modeller. From ‘Selected Publications’ at his web site:
    A nonlinear spectral model of convection….
    ….using a two-dimensional primitive-equation numerical model with rigid boundaries….
    ….the model simulates….
    ….Numerical models of thermal convection in the laboratory and in the atmosphere….
    ….in a general circulation model….
    ….Extended-range forecasts with the GISS model of the global atmosphere….
    ….an atmospheric circulation model….
    ….NCAR general circulation model….
    ….with the NCAR general circulation model….
    ….Using an efficient numerical model to simulate….
    ….a numerical weather prediction model….
    ….barotropic models….
    ….Three-dimensional simulations of convection….
    ….Diagnostic modeling….
    ….Diagnostic modeling….Part II….
    ….in a general circulation model….
    ….climate model results….
    ….Single-column models….
    ….stochastic radiative transfer model….
    ….generalized energy balance climate model….
    ….Modeling springtime shallow frontal clouds with cloud-resolving and single-column models….
    ….simple aerosol climate model….
    ….an idealized model….

    =================================================
    =================================================
    “My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”
    ~~Freeman Dyson

  183. Thanks belong to Anthony and all the commenters here for the superlative education I’ve received in “climate science” over the last two years. It certainly puts me equal with, and perhaps even ahead of, many of the “scientists” on the hockey team.

  184. Ok so we have established that the guy is biased and towing the good old AGW lines.
    What I am more concerned about is what this means for the ARGO data set since Scripps is shoulder deep in it. Has it too been Mann-ipulated and homogenized to hide the decline?

  185. Dr. Sommerville is correct. Human activities are the main cause of the apparent warming; by cherry picking the temperature data, by selecting temperature data that support the theory, by tampering with the data bases, by ignoring other sources for temperature change, and by limiting time range of interest in climate to the last 50 years. Unfortunately, these human activies are by scientists with no integrity whether qualified by his standards or not. Finally the points made by Dr. Sommerville do not contain any substance. Al Gore could have made the same statements. Or did he?

  186. “The warming is not natural”
    The pre-war and pre-AGW warming 1900-1945 was steeper in gradient than the warming of the alleged AGW period until the 1998 super El Niño.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1945/to:1997/trend
    Perhaps the good professor believes that the global temperature had continued on a steady even downward slope since the Holocene optimum, as ‘hockey stick 1’ would have it, until c 1900.
    In that case, how does he explain the 1900-1940 warming?
    To my mind, the whole AGW edifice rests on one episode of warming, associated with the 1998 El Niño event, and, of course, that Mann graph.
    The rest of his spiel is a hotchpotch of logical fallacies (straw man, red herring, authority and numbers) which he probably thinks are good enough for the hoi polloi.

  187. yonason (20:01:24) : [Correction. (sort of) to my yonason (17:33:05)] “My very first link was to show that there was no ocean warming, and that it was in fact cooling. The link I gave there was only part of the story, since he [Willis–jk] subsequently repented of his initial finding. This one was supposed to supplement it.
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/correcting-ocean-cooling-nasa-changes-data-to-fit-the-models/
    Yonason-san: The link above was, I believe, retracted by the later post based on a communication via Fred Singer:
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/apologies-to-josh-willis-correcting-ocean-cooling-part-3/

  188. photon without a Higgs (20:30:41) :
    Most interesting what Freeman Dyson says about it: They are too comfy to get out of the office.
    The Subcomittees should have Dyson there to rate the merit of their payola.
    Peer Pay Review.

  189. Scripps is one of the institutions which is funded by the California Energy Commission to conduct climate studies. In 2007, the CEC awarded $2,300,000 to Scripps. Under the contract, “Scripps will install and run meteorological and hydrological stations in key areas in the state, enhance the available climatic and hydrologic records, investigate climate extremes, and lead the preparation of the 2008 Scenarios Study for the Climate Action Team.” Link here:
    http://www.energy.ca.gov/business_meetings/2007_minutes/2007-12-05_MINUTES.PDF
    It is not surprising that academics at Scripps would use the “D” word to try to protect their climate programs when they receive so much funding from California taxpayers, especially when the state is functionally bankrupt.
    It is another case where the government pays academics to produce the kinds of results which the government wants.

  190. rbateman (20:32:03)
    Another example of fraudulent claims of rises in sea level is in Tasmania. There, a historic seaside mark was inscribed in rock on the Isle of the Dead in 1841 to indicate the mean sea level (MSL). Recent investigations by esteemed global warming debunker, the late John Daly, show that MSL is now about 30 cm lower than in 1841.
    Apparently, there are 19th century paintings showing boats moored at places that are now dry.
    This in itself is a story of chicanery by scientists driven by the AGW fraud. It’s an interesting read at
    http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm
    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans-daly2004-2.php

  191. MJK (10:20:21) : edit
    “I think it is totally appropriate for Somerville to use the “D” word. Denialists deny that the world is warming despite hard evidence showing it to be a proven fact (e.g. even DR Spencer admits the world has warmed).”
    “evidence” as in what? 90% of US surface stations fail siting standards, GISS data is manipulated, Aussie, Kiwi, and Russian data is likewise manipulated by “homogenization” and site cherry picking, while old data is made cooler to amplify fake trends. It’s not hard to deny assertions of factuality when the data is fraudulent.
    “Sceptics, on the other hand ,are sceptical about the extent and cause of that warming. Most of the contributors on this blog fall into the category of Deniers refusing to accept that any warming has taken place –often resorting to juvenile arguments that a couple of cold weeks in the U.S and Europe prove global warming to be false. Note Henry Chance above now goes as far to use a rainy day in California to support his denialist stance.”
    Bub, it’s been raining here in Los Angeles for 5 days straight so far with no letup in sight. Annual rainfall since Jan 1 is some 100% above normal. We are 156 degree days below normal since last July 1 (that means almost 1 degree C below normal every day for the last 6.5 months, a significant change in climate. Does that much time of such a significant below normal anomaly count as “climate change”?). I recall just a few weeks ago some fools were saying the El Nino was going to make LA even dryer than normal. Lets see some of that.

  192. I’m familiar with Professor Somerville too from the Intelligence Squared debate. Seems to me he is one of those mediocrities who brown-nosed his way to a PhD and to a research then professorial position all these years, and he is now paying back his friends and employer in volume, which speaks to the man’s utter lack of intellectual integrity. Because his statement is pretty unscientific and more propagandistic. So I have to laugh, because I’m familiar with mediocrities of his ilk in some of my own work experience who pretend to be “experts.” I let the other responses to his diatribe speak for themselves, they responded far better than I could at the moment, I’m laughing so hard at Somerville.

  193. Bulldust (19:53:57)
    His nibs Lord Monckton has it all. This kind of caper is rare for me but, what the hell, I emailed him last night with some numbers about cooling in Oz which I’ve posted here.
    For all the schedule pressure he must be under, this great man had the time and decency to reply overnight. I’m looking forward to his Sydney visit.

  194. VIDEO: “GLOBAL WARMING – DOOMSDAY CALLED OFF” – 5 PARTS
    Written and directed by Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen
    Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Y3iOFF6LE
    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y_7QNdysiQ
    Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LksZ75KnqJA&NR=1
    Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtdL-i52wSI&NR=1
    Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6xb4jcPqLI&NR=1
    The 5-part video series includes statements from these academics:
    Climatologist:
    Dr. David Legates
    Center for Climate Research
    University of Delaware
    Glaciologist,
    Jorgen Peder Steffensen
    Curator
    Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics
    Professor John Cristy
    University of Alabama, Huntsville
    Dr. Sallie Baliunas
    Astrophysicist, Harvard University
    Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
    Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
    Stockholm University

  195. Robin,
    “No soldier with the name of ‘Bush’ or ‘Clinton’ or ‘Gates’ or ‘Rothchilds’ will EVER be your trench partner.”
    You got it exactly right. The little guy is being manipulated and skinned by these elitist cabal, and you can toss many other names into the pot including Soros, Gore and Rockefeller. And you know what? Most of them are the guys lobbying and pushing for a binding cap & trade to continue the proud elitist tradition of helping themselves to our money.
    The scam works like this. Pressure the government into implementing a means of controlling and rationing energy by certificates that are obtained from the government, that are mandatory and can be traded by privateers. The money is wrung out of consumers pockets into their bank accounts just as surely as water is wrung out of a spin dryer.
    Why do you think James Hansen has been so vocally opposed to the scam? He is the only person with an iota of sincerity left and he knows it will a) do nothing to alter the climate and b) create a society dependent on government largess, whim and widespread fraud.

  196. I can see here how Somervilles article has been completely shredded by hundreds of posters on just this one blog. And that got me thinking about why this guy would bother uttering such nonsense, until I realised he isn’t writing to convince skeptics. He is writing to reassure the faithfull.
    There must be an army out there, of believers whose faith is being sorely tested. They are becoming agitated and afraid. They have seen the enemy looming over the horizon and are awed by his weapons. Somervilles words are the rallying cry of the madman before descending into his bunker for the last time.

  197. Well, since we’ve heard from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, what about Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution?
    Any wacky fun sorts of people there, ready and waiting to do the “science is settled” regurgitation?

  198. A relief to be on the same wavelenght as other contributors..!
    Here’s another crumb of comfort. We have a Chinese student staying with us here in Cambridge – and I’ve met his sister who is reading Business Studies at the University of Essex. By chance, we got onto the subject of ‘climate change’ – and she is of EXACTLY the same view as the rest of us on here..! So – if the younger generation are becoming skeptical – there’s hope for us yet..!
    Another point I’d like a view on. ‘Carbon Trading’ – what the hell is that..?? Its not like oil, gas, or pork belly futures – it doesn’t exist..! Seems to be its like trading in the fabric from which the Emperor’s New Clothes were made…

  199. Somerville is a wide-eyed believer in AGW who obviously doesn’t understand that shouting insults in unacceptable terms destroys much of his credibility; the shallow AGW mantras he uttered removed the remainder. He reminds of a Diane Arbus photograph I saw at the time of the war in Veitnam and have never forgotten – the subject was a scrubbed and shining American teenager in blazer and political campaign boater, waving a tiny US flag and wearing a ‘Bomb Hanoi’ lapel badge.

  200. I honestly thought that many of the posts on here were denying climate change. Not all of them, certainly. But a fair proportion. Now some of these same people want to deny that they are denying it. This is getting to be a very circular discussion. Personally I prefer to call a spade a spade rather than calling it a digging tool. But some might prefer the tool label.

  201. Sou (05:17:03) :

    I honestly thought that many of the posts on here were denying climate change. Not all of them, certainly. But a fair proportion. Now some of these same people want to deny that they are denying it…

    Why don’t you give us a list of the “many” posts here “denying climate change”? I’d like to see what you consider a “fair proportion” of comments saying what you allege.

  202. In an article in Yale Forum, linked to from the sidebar of the Sommerville piece on Scripps website, scripps Assistant Director Stephen Bennett made this revealing comment:
    In a brief telephone interview from Atlanta, where he was attending the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Bennett pointed to his own experience having doubted and questioned climate science research as an operational meteorologist and consultant.
    A further insight into the thinking at Scripps – taken from coverage in Yale Forum (referenced from the sidebar of the Sommerville piece on Scripps website) .
    This statement from Scripps Assistant Director Stephen Bennett: “About three years ago, it dawned on me that my experience as a meteorologist did not equip me with appropriate knowledge on the state of climate change science. It was professionally humbling to realize that I had misunderstood the primary issues and I had been communicating incorrect conclusions to my clients and colleagues for several years.”
    Bennett says he set out to learn climate scientists from what he now calls “the domain experts” and now feels that meteorologists “have a professional responsibility to not express their personal opinions disguised as facts” on issues such as climate change.
    End Quote
    I think in the last para he means to say “learn climate science”.
    He appears to have had what I would liken to a religious conversion three years ago, when he saw the light and sought further enlightenment.
    So apparently, even meteorologists are unqualified to comment on climate change, unless they have have been anointed at the temple of the “Domain Experts”.
    Do you think he was having a pop at you, Anthony?

  203. Posters, I hate to be a pedant (actually I love it but I was being nice) but where does ‘tow the line’ come from?
    I was taught that it was ‘toe the line’, meaning ‘to conform to rules as set down by authority’ which came from sailors being ordered to stand with their toes neatly touching a specified ‘line’ or join in the deck planking.
    Like many others, inaccurate use of language is distracting.

  204. Mr Somerville May be distinguished Professor Emeritus, but if he really made these claims he is no scientist.
    His points, particularly point 3 suggest he either has no idea what he is talking about or he is being deliberately dishonest.

  205. Sorry, hit submit button too quickly;
    Last line should read
    Like many others, I find inaccurate use of language and traditional sayings distracting.

  206. The poor chap was just having a ‘torn skirt’ moment. It would be like a Christian finding out that Jesus didn’t exist, a Scientologist discovering that Thetans are a joke, and Muslims learning that mohammed was… Anyway I don’t care because I invested in a hundred acres of mallee scrub out in the depths of the outback that’s probably worth two and sixpence and a bag of rabbits if I was lucky enough to find a bigger fool on which to offload this dry dusty no-good snake infested albatross around my neck …that is until a god-send in the form of the “Cap and Trade” scheme, because, guess what? My parched nightmare is really a save-the-world giant carbon sink and I can swap the C02 it is furiously gobbling with a power station that is furiously Co2 pumping. Q.E.D. Of course I will have to deal with a whole pile of greedy middle-men, bankers, brokers and rat-bags like me who jumped aboard this gravy train of smoke and mirrors. How smart am I. So bring it all on I say.

  207. From the CRU emails, Richard Somerville
    “I think we ought to say that the science was
    absolutely not compromised or watered down by the review process or by political presure of
    any kind or by the Paris plenary. I think it would be a mistake to attempt a detailed
    point-by-point discussion, which would provoke further criticism”

  208. ” we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide”
    Is this true? I don’t know of a way to directly measure the effect of carbon dioxide on anything in the atmosphere. There are too many variables to consider.
    All temperature measurements relating to CO2 are indeterminant as to cause, and there is an assumption, albeit a pretty good assumption, that CO2 is the cause of part of the warming. However, Mr. Somerville could increase the scientific knowledge base by doing his measurements now while CO2 atmospheric concentration is increasing drastically, and the average global temperature has been falling.

  209. Sou said:
    “I honestly thought that many of the posts on here were denying climate change.”
    The term “climate change” is a misleading political term for global warming. So what if lots of people fervently believe global warming is bunk? It is easy to do because the tenets kept by the AGW priesthood have more scientific holes than a spaghetti colander.
    Please continue to be “honest” with your comments. It means so much.

  210. Sou (05:17:03) :
    I honestly thought that many of the posts on here were denying climate change. Not all of them, certainly. But a fair proportion. Now some of these same people want to deny that they are denying it. This is getting to be a very circular discussion. Personally I prefer to call a spade a spade rather than calling it a digging tool. But some might prefer the tool label.

    If you really think that “many of the posts on here were denying climate change“, you are either not reading them or lack the scientific background to understand what’s being posted here.
    The basic premise of most skeptical arguments is that the climate is always changing… It always has changed and always will change; and that there is nothing anomalous about the nature of the climate changes observed over the last 150 years or so.
    The propensity for people like Somerville and Mann to label us as “climate change deniers” or “climate science deniers” is further evidence that anthropogenic global warming has essentially become a religion to them. It’s not adequate for them to argue or debate the scientific issues, they must categorize skeptics as being almost blasphemous by claiming that we deny “climate change” or deny “climate science.”
    Earth Science is dominated by the Principle of Non-Uniqueness. That’s why Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses is so important in geology and geophysics. For any given set of observations, there are likely to be many models that can explain the observations (multiple working hypotheses). The people who seem to dominate the climate modeling community (Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Jimbo Hansen, etc.) do not have Earth Science backgrounds. They build complex models that seek to find specific relationships… And they generally find the relationships they are seeking. I can easily build valid geophysical models that totally ignore geological reality. I’ve seen people drill very expensive dry holes based on very good geophysical models that ignored geological reality. Models are Garbage-In Garbage-Out. Models can be useful tools of science; but they do not constitute the science itself.
    As myopic as the climate modelers are… The IPCC is far worse. The IPCC’s mission is to find anthropogenic causes of climate change. Trying to understand the cause of a phenomenon is science. Trying to find a specific cause of a phenomenon is politics.

  211. Not at Anthony, Peter Plail (05:28:38), but he may well have been having a lend of you.
    Anyone who can read and maybe crunch a few numbers can tell you how climate changed in the past.
    Anyone can walk outside and tell you what the climate is doing to-day.
    It’s the unconscionable alarmist doomsaying pointy heads of any description under the sun who tell you to shut the hell up and pay up, ignorant unqualified denier, because the science is settled on climate change in the future. They’ve been around for yonks. A pox on them.

  212. Earth Science is dominated by the Principle of Non-Uniqueness. That’s why Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses is so important in geology and geophysics. For any given set of observations, there are likely to be many models that can explain the observations (multiple working hypotheses). The people who seem to dominate the climate modeling community (Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Jimbo Hansen, etc.) do not have Earth Science backgrounds.

    Unfortunately, Mann does. Otherwise your point was very good.

  213. Roger Knights (12:07:48) :
    Unfortunately, Mann does. Otherwise your point was very good.

    Mann’s undergrad and first two graduate degrees were in Math & Physics… His second two graduate degrees were from Yale’s Dept. of Geology & Geophysics… I wonder how much course work in geology he took. Yale’s G&G grad programs aren’t exactly geared toward geology…

    Atmosphere/Oceans/Climate Dynamics
    Biogeochemistry/Paleoceanography/Paleoclimate
    Geochemistry/Petrology
    Paleontology/Evolution
    Physics of the Earth’s Interior
    Tectonics/Surface Processes

    It’s odd that there are no grad programs in structural geology , sedimentation & stratigraphy, geomorphology, etc.
    Based on what he teaches at Penn State and having come from a Math/Physics background, I would guess that Mann’s Geology & Geophysics PhD was probably in the Atmosphere/Oceans/Climate Dynamics program.
    On another note… Irrespective of the Hockey Stick and Climategate antics… Mann does have very impressive academic credentials. Masters and doctorates in both physics and “G&G”.
    Of course that doesn’t mean that he ever heard of the Principle of Non-uniqueness or Chamberlain’s method.

  214. so he’s in the ClimateGate emails, he’s worked with James Hansen, and he’s a modellor.
    it’s a wrap.

  215. did he come here to play Jesus
    to the lepers in his head?

    but Mother Nature and ClimateGate won’t let those lepers heal

  216. PaulH (09:42:57) :
    That response looks like a copy and paste job from some global warming propaganda sheet from 2001. It makes you wonder if they really believe what they are saying anymore. It’s like they’re living in an echo chamber.

    It’s a fervent belief. Feverish. Hot. It boils out of their minds like steam. It’s cooking their brains. It can’t be contained, and has to spill out of their mouths in a heated rush of hot air…

  217. Not A Carbon Cow (17:11:03) :
    “Temperature is a measurement of energy…”
    Hi, Scott. I think you have hit on an important point, despite the fact that your statement isn’t correct.
    First, why it’s wrong, as stated. When calculating the change in total chemical energy of a system, one of the terms involves multiplying the change in entropy (units of energy per degree) by the temperature. In other words, to convert temperature to energy, you need to know more than the temperature. A hot brick contains more energy than the same volume of air at the same temp.
    Second. That brings me to why I think what you said is important. The warmers want us to think that temperature, or rather average temperature, is the only measure by which we can tell if the planet is warming. Now, while instantaneous temperature tells you how hot it is now, the temperature history doesn’t tell you anything at all about how hot or cold it will be tomorrow. The averages tell you less, and the deviations from those averages, even less. I think that’s an even bigger “trick” than “hide the decline.”
    If you don’t use a frying pan all winter, then use it more and more often all summer, does the fact that it’s average temperature increases mean it is getting hotter, and so you better not now store it near anything flammable, because soon it will be red hot?
    Their “temperature anomaly” is just a slight of hand, to get us to focus on an artifact, and one which, by their “adjustments,” they have enhanced. Even without the artificial enhancement it is a meaningless concept, and all the more so with. It’s purpose is to trick us into seeing what isn’t there.
    If you look at more detailed plots of temp records you will see that the highs and lows remain about the same, but in some cases the curve broadens and in others it narrows. What that means is that, for a given year, more days are either warmer for broadening or colder for narrowing. That affects the average for the year, but not the max or min, which they have obscured by that “trick.” There is no consistent or significant change in the depth of the troughs or the height of the peaks. They’ve hidden the fact that the pot cools when you take it off the stove.
    And, just as the pot cools when you take it off the stove, so it also gets cold at night.

  218. Well this very morning, I heard on my local radio station, an interview with one of the smartest thinkers on this planet. Dr Tmomas Sowell; talking about his new book on ” Intellectuals, and Society.”. He is with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Roughly he defined “Intellectuals” as people who produce no testable output. Now he wasn’t being derogatory. He pointed out that Scientists and engineers (and lots of others) submit their output to a simple test; it has to work. So does the plumber’s and the carpenter’s output.
    Intellectuals on the other hand put out nothing but ideas; that simply are not testable entities. People may listen to these ideas, and agree or disagree, and other intellectuals may offer their own ideas; but in the end, they are not proposing experiments to test for anything.
    In that sense, Sowell believes that Intellectuals can be very dangerous; but he did not assert they all are. Jim Jones clearly was; who knows if Barack Obama is; or if he fits the mold. He certainly hasn’t produced anything that is testable.
    However the crux of this story, is that the host asked Sowell if he had drawn any conclusions about the AGW hypothesis; bearing in mind, that he is basically an economist, and not a scientist. Dr Sowell responded immediately that he had rejected the whole notion years ago, as basically unproven silliness. How did he reach that conclusion ?
    Well, he said; “any fool can see that if it gets hotter, there is going to be more moisture in the atmosphere which will form more clouds, and those increases in clouds will reflect more sunlight out into space, so It must stop warming in a self regulated fashion. Then he heard that the climate modellers did not even properly account for clouds in their models; so he concluded it was all bunk.
    Now it has taken me longer to type what he said than what he said; but how is it that a non scientist but rational thinker like Dr Thomas Sowell can put his finger right on the nub of the problem so quickly with no extensive scientific training.
    Way to go Dr Sowell; “it’s the water”. No wonder the good Dr is also one of my heroes too.
    PS he also offered that BH Obama is a total failure; but then he knew that long before the man ever got up and proved it himself.
    Now it took me much longer than Thomas Sowell to reach the conclusion that AGW theory was pure bunk; but that was because I focussed on the scientific minutiae that seemed to say it had to be so. For Dr Sowell, it simply made no sense; pure and simple, from one of the world’s truly great minds.

  219. George E. Smith (18:47:06) :
    “Well this very morning, I heard on my local radio station, an interview with one of the smartest thinkers on this planet. Dr Tmomas Sowell; talking about his new book on ” Intellectuals, and Society.”. He is with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Roughly he defined “Intellectuals” as people who produce no testable output
    Carl Sagan, somewhat of pseudoscientist himself, wrote the following about JHU Physicist Robert W. Wood** …

    The truth may be puzzling or counterintuitive. It may contradict
    deeply held beliefs. Experiment is how we get a handle on it.
    At a dinner many decades ago, the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to the toast, “To physics and metaphysics.” By “metaphysics,” people then meant something like philosophy, or truths you could recognize just by thinking about them. They could also have included pseudoscience. Wood answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it seems to make. He consults the scientific literature. The more he reads, the more promising the idea becomes. Thus prepared, he goes to the laboratory and devises an experiment to test it. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are checked. The accuracy of measurement is refined, the error bars reduced. He lets the chips fall where they may. He is devoted only to what the experiment teaches. At the end of all this work, through careful experimentation, the idea is found to be worthless. So the physicist discards it, frees his mind from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.(1) The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded as he raised his glass high, is not that the practitioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the other. The difference is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory

    What, then, does one say about those who have a laboratory, and who still can’t, or won’t, get it right?
    _______________________________________________________________________
    ** Note that it was Wood who, in 1909, falsified greenhouse theory. See page 6 here. (if you need, Google Translate should give you a good idea of what’s going on there)

  220. The science is not settled.
    How variable is the Sun? Measuring total solar energy flux has not been possible until the past 30 years. The causative forces for the sunspot cycle remain under fierce discussion and dispute. The same can be said for the reversals in magnetic orientation of the Sun. The detection of solar neutrino flux has been a severe test of the theory of nuclear chemistry. I recall “What’s SNU” headlines. The theories of theoretical mass of the theoretically massless neutrino are enough to make one’s head spin. Can a neutrino change its spots (from electron neutrino to muon neutrino)? How can you tell, when the particles in question are so difficult to detect?
    Even the allegedly simpler task of measuring solar flux at the surface of the Earth is extremely difficult. You know-clouds, air pollution, instrumental problems-it’s tough if you want 0.01degree C accuracy.
    Precisely how would we find proxies for the historical record of solar flux?
    As for gravity, now. What is it?
    What theory incorporates gravity with the other three standard forces?
    Can we make gravity? Can we thin it out?
    Where are the gravity waves? Joe Weber tried for years, but his instruments had too much noise to be definitive. Now LIGO experiments are underway.
    Considering the degree of uncertainty in our understanding of the Sun and of gravity, to speak of settled science is disingenuous.
    And I haven’t even begun on the climate!

  221. yonason (17:14:25) :
    Not A Carbon Cow (17:11:03) :
    “Temperature is a measurement of energy…”
    Hi, Scott. I think you have hit on an important point, despite the fact that your statement isn’t correct.
    Yonason,
    Yes thank you, you are of course correct. My main point was to emphasize the very small percentage of change we are debating with the believers.
    I don’t ever see the point stressed that we should begin temperature measurements at absolute zero, not some arbitrary point (the temp 150 years ago, or whatever we choose to use to smooth our graphs).
    As the Earth and seas have always been the Earth and the seas, the heat capacitance of the various components is not a consideration, due to the fact that as a whole, the components don’t change (sure, we get more dust and rocky material from space, but this amounts to little).
    The percentage change in energy of the Earth system is very very small and arguably wholly within expected natural variances.

  222. Not A Carbon Cow (16:19:16) :
    OK. And, yes, it is disturbing that they deal in degrees C, rather than degrees K, which is really the quantity they should be dealing with, though even then averages aren’t all that meaningful, especially for radiative processes. They are very sloppy, to say the least, which helps them conceal much that they don’t want seen.

  223. I guess there’s not much chance that Somerville will respond here – anyway, the thread is ending – but surely he knows about it!
    Mr. Somerville, why not explain yourself? You couldn’t look more foolish than you do, so you have nothing to lose!!

Comments are closed.