Guest post by Steven Mosher
In Climategate: The Crutape letters we tried to avoid accusing Professor Jones of CRU and UEA of outright fraud. Instead, based on the record found in the emails, we argued a case of noble cause corruption. I enlarged upon that charge at Pajama’s Media . Commenters took me to task for being too soft on Jones. Based on the extant text at that time I would still hold to my case. No skeptic could change my mind. But Phil Jones makes it hard to defend him anymore. On March 1st he testified before Parliament and there he argued that it was standard scientific practice to not share data. Those who still insist on being generous with him could, I suppose, argue that he has no recollection, but in my mind he is playing with the truth and knows he is playing with the truth.
In 2002 Steve McIntyre had no publications in climate science. He wrote to Jones requesting temperature data. The history of their exchange is detailed in this Climate Audit Post. Jones sent data to McIntyre along with the following mail:
Dear Steve,
Attached are the two similar files [normup6190, cruwld.dat] to those I sent before which should be for the 1994 version. This is still the current version until the paper appears for the new one. As before the stations with normal values do not get used.
I’ll bear your comments in mind when possibly releasing the station data for the new version (comments wrt annual temperatures as well as the monthly). One problem with this is then deciding how many months are needed to constitute an annual average. With monthly data I can use even one value for a station in a year (for the month concerned), but for annual data I would have to decide on something like 8-11 months being needed for an annual average. With fewer than 12 I then have to decide what to insert for missing data. Problem also applies to the grid box dataset but is slightly less of an issue. I say possibly releasing above, as I don’t want to run into the issues that GHCN have come across with some European countries objecting to data being freely available. I would like to see more countries make their data freely available (and although these monthly averages should be according to GCOS rules for GAA-operational Met. Service.
Cheers
Phil Jones
We should note these things: Jones sent data. That was his practice. Jones is aware of the problems in releasing this data. Jones believes that these monthly averages should be released according to GCOS [WMO resolution 40] rules. In 2002 his practice is to release data to a total unknown with no history of publication. And Jones releases the data to him knowing that there are issues around releasing that data.
In 2004 Warwick Hughes exchanges a series of mails with Jones. In 2000 Jones appears to have a cooperative relationship with Hughes. In 2004 the record shows the following
Dear Jean Palutikof, Dr P.D. Jones,
I was just reading your web page at; http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ and wish to access the station by station temperature data, updated through 2001 referred to on your CRU web page; http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow as
“Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used.” Where can I download the latest station by station data which is a foundation of Dr Jones et al published papers ? Note, I am not asking about the CRU gridded data which I can see on your web site. Looking forward to your help,
Best wishes,
Warwick Hughes
Warwick,
The station data are not on the CRU web site. If you look at the GHCN page at NCDC, you’ll see they have stopped access and cited WMO Res. 40 for this. To my mind this resolution is supposed to make access free. However, it was hinted at to me a year or two ago that I should also not make the station data available.
The gridded data are there as you know.
I would suggest you take this up with WMO and/or GCOS. I have raised it several times with them and got nowhere.
Cheers
Phil
As Jones points out he believes that WMO Resolution 40 should make access free. Jones also says that he himself has taken up this issue with them. One can presume he took it up because he wanted to give access to data. Further, he knows that there may be agreements that preclude release of the data.
The start of 2005 is a critical point in the story line. Jones had cordial exchanges with Hughes in 2000. Jones shared data with McIntyre in 2002 and in 2004 Jones believed that the data should be shared. In 2005 he has been transformed. In January of 2005, McIntyre published a paper (MM05) critical of Mann. As luck would have it at this time former CRU employee Wigley sent an email to Jones about a flyer he has received that discusses FOIA. At this stage no FOIA have been sent to CRU. But Wigley and Jones are concerned about skeptics. What ever willingness Jones had to share data is gone. Again, Jones shows a clear understanding of the existence of agreements:
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.
At the start of Feb 2005, Jones’ attitude toward data sharing becomes clearer and also contradictory. Some people can get this data in violation of agreements, while others who ask for it using legal means will be thwarted.
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott [Rutherford]. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McIntyre and McKittrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
Two weeks after the publication of MM05, prior to the issuance of any FOIA whatsoever, Jones contemplates destroying data rather than sharing it. But read closely. Jones sends this data to Scott Rutherford. So what’s the standard scientific practice? The data is covered by confidentiality agreements. Jones shared it with McIntyre in 2002, and now shares it with Rutherford in 2005. Jones knows it is covered by agreements and he’s questioned those agreements—except when he finds it convenient to hide behind those agreements. He violates them as he pleases. He shares data as he pleases. And if he is pushed to share it he contemplates destroying it.
On Feb 21, 2005 Keith Briffa sends Jones a mail with a list of editorials that are critical of Dr. Mann for not releasing data. Jones replies to Warwick Hughes’ request for data that same day:
Warwick,
Hans Teunisson will reply. He’ll tell you which other people should reply. Hans is “Hans Teunissen”
I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.
You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia isn’t restricted there.
Several European countries are. Basically because, for example, France doesn’t want the French picking up data on France from Asheville. Meteo France wants to supply data to the French on France. Same story in most of the others.
Cheers
Phil
Jones has changed his attitude about the WMO. Prior to the publication of MM05 Jones believed that the WMO guidelines would make the data available. Moreover he argued with WMO that it should be released. Now, Jones changes his tune. He argues that he will not release the data even if the WMO agrees. His concern? Hughes will find something wrong with it.
When it comes to deciding whether to share data or not, standards have nothing to do with the decisions Jones made and he knows that. He knows he shared confidential data with Rutherford while he denied it to McIntyre and Hughes. He knows he regarded the confidentiality of those agreements quixotically. Violating them or hiding behind them on a whim. This was scientific malpractice. Lying about that now is beyond excuse.
April 2005 comes and we turn to another request from McIntyre: There is a constant refrain amongst AGW defenders that people don’t need to share code and data. They argue that papers do a fine job of explaining the science: They argue that people should write their own code based on description in papers. Here is McIntyre’s request. Note that he has read the paper and tried to emulate the method:
Dear Phil,
In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the other multiproxy publications, I’ve been looking at Jones et al [1998]. The methodology here is obviously more straightforward than MBH98. However, while I have been able to substantially emulate your calculations, I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger in the early periods. Since I have been unable to replicate the results exactly based on available materials, I would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in Jones et al [1998] as well as the code used in these calculations.
There is an interesting article on replication by Anderson et al., some distinguished economists, here [1]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf discussing the issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our attempts in respect to MBH98.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
When you cannot replicate a paper based on a description of the data and a description of the method, standard practice is to request materials from the author. McIntyre does that. Jones’ “practice” is revealed in his mail to Mann:
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE “DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE” SCARE
Date: Wed Apr 27 09:06:53 2005
Mike,
Presumably you’ve seen all this – the forwarded email from Tim. I got this email from McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I’m concerned he has the data sent ages ago. I’ll tell him this, but that’s all – no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be hundreds of lines of uncommented fortran ! I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series. I know why he can’t replicate the results early on – it is because there was a variance correction for fewer series.
See you in Bern.
Cheers
Phil
Jones does not argue that code should be withheld because of IPR[Intellectual Property Rights]. It’s withheld because he is not sure he can find it and he suspects that it is a mess. More importantly Jones says he knows why McIntyre cannot replicate the results. Jones does not argue “standard scientific practice” to withhold code; he withholds code because it’s either lost, or sloppy and because it will allow McIntyre to understand exactly how the calculations were done. This is malpractice. Today when questioned whether people could replicate his work from the papers he wrote Jones “forgot this mail” and said they could replicate his work. And we should note one last thing. Jones again acknowledges sending data to McIntyre. So, what exactly is Jones’ notion of standard practice? To share or not to share? What the record shows is that Jones shared data and didn’t share data, confidential or not, on a basis that cannot be described as scientific or standard. He did so selectively and prejudicially. Just as he refused data to Hughes to prevent his work being checked he refuses information that McIntyre needs to replicate his published results. At the same time he releases that data to others.
That’s not the end of the story as we all know. In 2007 the first two FOIA were issued to CRU for data. One request for a subset of the data was fulfilled after some delay. The larger request was denied. By 2009 it became clear to McIntyre that the CRU data had also been shared with Webster. When McIntyre requested the very same data that Webster got from Jones, CRU started again with a series of denials again citing confidentiality agreements, inventing the terms of those agreements ex nihilo. Webster could have the data. McIntyre could not.
What the record shows is that Jones had no standard scientific practice of sharing or not sharing data. He had no consistent practice of abiding by or violating confidentiality agreements. He had his chance to sit before Parliament and come clean about the record. He had an opportunity to explain exactly why he took these various contradictory actions over the course of years. Instead he played with the truth again. Enough.
Gaz:
Steve Mosher: “You can whine that people should trust Jones, but they don’t.”
My advice to anyone not trusting Jones and the HadCRU data: use the NASA data set. And their raw data. And their code.”
Gaz, I’ve recommended that. Unfortunately the climate science types don’t want to take the recommendation that you propose skeptics accept. BTW NASA have no raw data. here is what you don’t get Gaz. If you want to convince people you have to first establish trust. telling people what to do is not an effective rhetorical strategy. telling people they should believe a consensus is not effective for a “see for yourself” audience. I’ve given my suggestions to fellow AGWers as to the most effective way of engaging skeptics. I’m afraid that your strategies do more harm than help. please stop helping. It’s hard enough with Jones on the team of AGW believers, don’t make the job any more difficult.
here is a suggestion: go tell people you believe in AGW and you believe that data and code should be free. that will help.
Gaz (19:04:20) :
”
GL Alston “Most of the skeptical community would like little more than to remove the secret witch doctor mask from the process.”
See, here’s where I disagree. That’s not all you want. You want to keep on digging and digging and digging until you find the evidence that it’s all the big hoax you are convinced it is. That’s seems fairly obvious to me.”
I think people should avoid trying to “intuit” People’s motives. they should
also not generalize. For example. McIntyre requested code because he could not replicate the results. If you took the time to read the mails you would see him talking with osborn about this. you would see that Osborn has to request the SAME DATA from mann that Mcintyre wanted.
If you are going to accuse people of bad motives NAME THEM.
who was the first person to write the words “free the code”
what were his motives?
how do you know?
When you can PARTICULARIZE your charge you are saying something worthwhile. Your speculations about motive are as interesting as one of the unscientific posts about sun spots that people complain about.
Kim. “So are you merely ignorant or are you being disingenuous?”
No, I am telling you that I’ve never heard a climate scientist say “the science is settled” nor seen any evidence that one has. I’ve heard them talk about likelihoods and probabilities and uncertainties. I’ve heard plenty of variations on the theme that the uncertainties are no longer such that action to curtail emissions can be put off any longer. But “settled”, no. That seems to be pretty much an urban myth. There’s a archived Wiki entry (User:William M. Connolley/The science is settled) that might shed some light.
Anyway, I’m there’s plenty of stuff people actually did say that you can take issue with.
kim (16:39:59) :
Bingo, Moshpit, I found my use of ‘Piltdown Mann’ on 3/18/06 at the tail end of the 3/5/06 Humphrey thread at Climate Audit. For a couple of years I thought I’d invented it, but then checked the search function at CA and found a reference several months earlier, which I can no longer find. I suspect it was you then, but I don’t remember for sure.
CRAP!
I came up with it “independently” in nov 07 and posted a picture of piltdown carving a hockey stick. Looks like you beat me! kudos buddy, hat tips to you when I finish that article.
Well, thanks, Steve, but I’d swear I searched Climate Audit awhile ago and found someone with precedence over my use. I also think Steve snipped my use of it at least once, but he’s snipped me enough that I’m not sure. Especially when I first was over there I had a tendency to drift into policy and religion, big no-nos.
=====================
Gaz 20:52:35 You are quibbling. “Uncertainties are no longer such that actions to curtail emissions can no longer be put off” translates to the ‘science is settled’ enough.
======================
And please, Gaz; don’t give me William Connolley. He’s one of the miscreants for his perversion of Wikipedia. What a shame.
===================
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
Hello, the personal stuff starts.
I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science? What has the sceptic case got to hide?
————–
Uh, well, certainly not the decline!!
Sir, I started to study “global warming” at the University of Illinois in 1975 and have specialized in methane mitigation for the past 30 years. I’m a serious scientist who has won awards from US and UK agencies, non-profits and state governments.
That being said, I am very skeptical of the scientific basis for action being proposed by many who are alarmist about climate change. At first, I thought I was simply reviewing sloppy science, lousy sampling technique, horrid statistical analysis and one-dimensional analysis with very poor models.
Upon reading the Climategate emails (I’ve read them all), and communicating with colleagues in astrophysics and other disciplines, I’m coming to believe that the public is being scammed. It is a hideous realization, one that I am resistant to making but increasingly drawn to conclude as fact.
Is the climate changing? Most certainly, and atmospheric carbon deposition plays a role. Thus has it ever been. Atmospheric deposition of carbon and other compounds deserves very serious study and analysis, and related issues of oceanic acidification, radionuclide emission from coal fired utilities and the like are rarely mentioned by the climate science community.
Is it a looming catastrophe, warranting the cessation of nearly all industrial activity because of dangerous hurricanes, melting polar ice etc.? I am skeptical that anything presented in these analyses supports such hysteria. In fact, I am becoming increasingly confident that the analysis presented by CRU, NASA and others is absolutely the opposite of observed phenomena.
If you want my emails and data, please let me know. We have far more emergent problems facing the ecosystem than this exaggerated topic of climate change, and I’ll be happy to teach you about them.
Henry @ur momisugly GL Alston – Barry Kearns
I wholeheartedly agree with what Barry Kearns wrote earlier and I stick to that same argument..
Wat about the Carboniferous period when CO2 levels were into the thousands of ppm?
I think CO2 is like water and to ask for a limit on CO2 is just as non sensical as to ask for a limit on water. Unless you prefer deserts?
Bravo, Smokey. I read your posts regularly and they mirror my thinking exactly, except you write much more clever and to the point.
Has it been two years since the fantasy and fun filled days of Catlin Arctic Survey? It’s hard for me to believe and yet even harder still for the Catlin Crew.
Other than their mothers, who else will care?
James F. Evans (18:48:00) wrote: “and not be straight-jacketed by old ideas that are increasingly coming under stress by contradictory observations & measurements.”
Dr. Svalgaard (19:19:44) responded: “You don’t know what you are talking about. Astronomy is very much a 21st century endeavor. With instruments, both on the ground and in space, as never before. With increasing confirmation of our theories and nailing down with unprecedented precision the properties of our universe…[two PDF papers]…”The latter starting with: “Rapid advances in observational cosmology have led to the establishment of a precision cosmological model, with many of the key cosmological parameters determined to one or two significant figure accuracy”
Indeed, as I stated above, the technolgical cabability, for observation & measurement by both satellite in situ and remote (full electromagnetic wave spectrum) telescope, is at a Golden Age, on that we agree.
However, many of the ideas are old:
“big bang”, 1927, see comment (13:09:48) above.
“black hole”, roughly 1915, although rough ideas stretch back to late 18th century. A “singularity” with “infinite density, in an infinitely small volume — can’t be quantified.
“dark” matter, originally 1934 (has been updated), after galaxy rotational curves didn’t fit laws of gravity. Never been directly observed & measured. figures for amounts of “dark” matter as percentage of gravitational mass — all over the board, some as high as 95%.
“magnetic reconnection”, 1946 before space-age.
“neutron” star, 1934 updated 1967, “neutronium” never observed & meausured in the laboratory, and violates nuclear physics’ “island of stability” — neutrons fly apart and decay into electrons and protons.
“dark” energy, 1998, never been directly observed & measured, although claimed by some to be around 74% of the matter-energy of the Universe.
Many astronomers put “dark” matter and energy together at around 95% of Universe, both theoretical. 95% of the model is theoretical mass & energy that can’t be directly observed & measured and that’s called a “precision” model? You’re kidding me, right?
If it can’t be directly observed & measured, such as “dark” matter & energy and “black” holes can’t be directly observed or quantified as “infinity” can’t be quantified, again, how does that constitute a “precision” model?
Perhaps, of equal importance to the above criticisms is the question, how are these theoretical enities falsified?
What is the falsification test for these enities?
Falsification is a prime requirement of science (or I can say anthing because nobody can prove me wrong).
If they can’t be falsified and can’t be directly observed & measured, what are we really left with?
I’d suggest a lot less than meets the eye and is claimed in the astronomy community — “precision” is a self-serving label to deflect from the real state of affairs.
So, yes, there is a crisis in astronomy — and, of course, I wouldn’t expect a practitioner to agree, but there it is.
The so-called “big bang” is just the tip of the iceberg.
Gaz (19:40:13) :
‘Does anyone here really think that once all the raw temperature data comes to be freely available (instead of just almost all of it, which is the case now), that there is even the slightest chance that someone will come up with an analysis of it that shows something significantly different from what the various satellite and surface instrumental series already show?’
Really?’
From what I can gather, there is very little raw temperature data available. It has been so manipulated and ‘homogenised’ that any reasonable person has lost confidence in its veracity and in in those who are purveying it.
Henry Pool — Wat about the Carboniferous period when CO2 levels were into the thousands of ppm?
Wat indeed? It’s tempting to assume that increased CO2 isn’t harmful, but all the same, the point is that we don’t KNOW that it’s not. We don’t KNOW, really, much of anything. We don’t KNOW that an increase of CO2 in the present circumstances will produce a positive result, a similar result as in the past, and so on. It could well be that the IPCC warnings are correct. I don’t know. You certainly don’t.
All you have is a mere assumption based on little of substance.
Me, I’d like to game the system a bit in my favour and have a bit more science under our belts before we claim anything one way or another.
Gaz — See, here’s where I disagree. That’s not all you want. You want to keep on digging and digging and digging until you find the evidence that it’s all the big hoax you are convinced it is. That’s seems fairly obvious to me.
Read the above exchange. There’s a gulf between those who claim hoax and skeptics just as large as the gulf between skeptics and True Believers. That you don’t know this is rather telling, isn’t it?
Re: davidmhoffer (Mar 2 14:39),
“If someone screams FIRE! at the top of their lungs in the middle of the night, I am very likely to jump out of bed and check for a fire. If I kicked out the window and crawled naked into the back yard without bothering to check for smoke, flames, heat… you know…. EVIDENCE OF AN ACTUAL FIRE I would have a lot of broken windows and some very amused kids.”
Not sure where I saw it, but someone noted recently that it should be a felony to shout “GLOBAL WARMING” on a crowded planet.
Kim, I searched high and low for an example of someone actually saying “the science is settled”. I couldn’t find one, which I found surprising given the number of times is can be found in quote marks as if someone did in fact say it.
Steve Mosher: “Your speculations about motive are as interesting as one of the unscientific posts about sun spots that people complain about.”
That’s no skin off my nose. I was not making a scientific argument, just giving my impression of the general tone of the commentary on this blog and others like it. At times it reads like the final third of Lord of the Flies.
You say: “here is a suggestion: go tell people you believe in AGW and you believe that data and code should be free. that will help.”
Really? Help to do what?
As far as I know the CRU is arranging for that raw data to be available.
Then what?
Gaz (23:10:44) :
As far as I know the CRU is arranging for that raw data to be available.
Then what?
Gaz
They have lost the raw data.
Gaz (23:10:44) :
“Kim, I searched high and low for an example of someone actually saying “the science is settled”. I couldn’t find one, which I found surprising given the number of times is can be found in quote marks as if someone did in fact say it.”
You need to learn about a new website called “Google” — it really is amazing…
From http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0223/Senate-battles-EPA-in-greenhouse-gas-showdown
…
Instead of talking about dollars and cents, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson mostly found herself defending her agency’s key finding last year that greenhouse gases endanger human health and the environment.
…
“Let me begin by being direct: The science behind climate change is settled and human activity is responsible for global warming,” she said. “Not only have America’s top scientific institutions come to that conclusion, but so have numerous other industrialized countries.”
Re: Gaz (Mar 2 20:52),
“No, I am telling you that I’ve never heard a climate scientist say “the science is settled” nor seen any evidence that one has.”
The most recent instance I’m aware of is the statement released by Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, on Feb 19th.
Roger Pielke Jr had a blog post with that exact title on Dec 9th http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/science-is-settled.html.
Only today the Institute of Physics issued a statement which said pretty much the same
(from the Guardian) … The Institute of Physics has been forced to clarify its strongly worded submission to a parliamentary inquiry into climate change emails released onto the internet….
In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee “has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.”
It says: “That is not the case. The institute’s position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.”
I’m sure there are many more. You need to look a little bit harder next time.
PS even RealClimate once said “the science is settled – in favor of the contrarians” (but that post was on April Fool’s Day).
Doug in Dunedin (23:54:35) :
Gaz (23:10:44) :
As far as I know the CRU is arranging for that raw data to be available.
Then what?
Gaz
They have lost the raw data.
********************************
Only when we asked them for it. After this answer blew up in their face, jones wrote that he could reconstruct it if need be.
“Gaz: That’s no skin off my nose. I was not making a scientific argument, just giving my impression of the general tone of the commentary on this blog and others like it. At times it reads like the final third of Lord of the Flies.”
Most excellent. I thought you were making an argument, but you were just having feelings. If you see similarities between the tone of this and Lord of the Flies let me suggest that CAGW types are rather like the littluns.
Here’s one and most likely (one of those IPCC phrases) the source of all the other quotes:
Gore Takes Global Warming Message to Congress
G Alston: “Skeptics have a much simpler request — you make the claim, then you prove it.”
If climate scepticism consisted solely of that request, you would be correct. But the outcome would be one blog consisting of one statement. The reality is that climate sceptics do make claims – thousands, probably millions of them.
A brief sample taken at random:
“You are contradicting yourself.”
“Because there is no science what we have is lies damned lies and climate statistics…”
“AGW has become nothing more than another government program…”
“You have failed your assignment.”
“I think AGW is a religion…”
“He may be right about man-made climate change.”
“Really, skeptics, who’ve been called denialists, are just agnostic.”
Claims, one and all, and therefore open to challenge. Very few people are able to sit back, fold their arms and just say “prove it”. Most people want to offer their opinion. And so it is with climate sceptics.
“Gaz (23:10:44) :
Kim, I searched high and low for an example of someone actually saying “the science is settled”. I couldn’t find one, which I found surprising given the number of times is can be found in quote marks as if someone did in fact say it.”
As you didn’t mention any specific person, like a scientist and there are examples, but I found “someone” who actually did say “the science is settled”. Penny W(r)ong, Australia’s Climate Change Minister.
Feel free to replay it as many times as you like.
Henry@ur momisugly GL Alston
GL Alston: “I don’t know. You certainly don’t”.
Which brings me back to my original posting (on the 2nd March 7:10:13): I could not find any relevant research done on CO2. Everybody thought that somebody would do it and in the end nobody did it. I also determined that Al Gore’s link that was supposed to show a correlation between warming and CO2 concentration was a dead end: the CO2 increases lagged the warming by 800 years or so. So warming came first, then followed CO2 increases. Just like we learned at college: cold water dissolves CO2 and warmer water releases it back into the atmosphere (remember boling weater to get rid of the CO2?).
“Gaz (23:10:44) :
Kim, I searched high and low for an example of someone actually saying “the science is settled”. I couldn’t find one, which I found surprising given the number of times is can be found in quote marks as if someone did in fact say it.”
Actually you did mention climate scientists in a previous post, but this is what I found just in a few minutes;
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/5064/Manufactured-Science-Another-IPCC-Scientist-Reveals-How-UN-Scientists-talked-about-trying-to-make-IPCC-report-so-dramatic-that-US-would-just-have-to-sign-Kyoto-Protocol
Of course, Govnt’s get all their climate change policy advice from the IPCC. I believe Gore may have been the first to coin (Pun inteneded) the phrase “the science is settled”. Wonder why?