Grasping at Straws

If you try really really hard to ask questions a certain way, then you’ll get the answers you want. ~ charles the moderator

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0

Scientists misread data on global warming controversy

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

“If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you,” then, with apologies to Kipling, you might not be a climate scientist.

Well-publicized troubles have mounted for those forecasting global warming. First, there was last year’s release of hacked e-mails from the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, showing some climate scientists really dislike their critics (investigations are still ongoing). Then there was the recent discovery of a botched prediction that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 in one of the Nobel-Prize-winning 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. Instead, the glaciers are only shrinking about as much as glaciers everywhere, twice as fast as they did 40 years ago, suggest results from NASA‘s GRACE gravity-measuring orbiter.

The recent controversies “have really shaken the confidence of the public in the conduct of science,” according to atmospheric scientist Ralph Cicerone, head of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Cicerone was speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting last month on a panel calling for more communication and release of data to rebuild lost trust for scientists. IPCC chiefs have made similar calls in the handling of their reports.

Scientists see reason for worry in polls like one released in December by Fox News that found 23% of respondents saw global warming as “not a problem,” up from 12% in 2005. Also at the AAAS meeting, Yale, American University and George Mason University released a survey of 978 people challenging the notion that people 18 to 35 were any more engaged than their elders on climate change. Statistically, 44% in that age range — matching the national average — found global warming as either “not too important” or “not at all important,” even though they grew up in an era when climate scientists had found it very likely that temperatures had increased over the last century due to fossil fuel emissions of greenhouse gases.

But what “if” (apologies to Kipling again) scientists are misreading those poll results and conflating them with news coverage of the recent public-relations black eyes from e-mails and the glacier mistake? What’s really happening, suggests polling expert Jon Krosnick of Stanford University, is “scientists are over-reacting. It’s another funny instance of scientists ignoring science.”

Krosnick and his colleagues argue that polling suggesting less interest in fixing climate change might indicate the public has its mind on more immediate problems in the midst of a global economic downturn, with the U.S. unemployment rate stuck at 9.7%. The AAAS-released survey of young people, for example, finds that 82% of them trust scientists for information on global warming and the national average is 74%.

“Very few professions enjoy the level of confidence from the public that scientists do, and those numbers haven’t changed much in a decade,” he says. “We don’t see a lot of evidence that the general public in the United States is picking up on the (University of East Anglia) e-mails. It’s too inside baseball.”

Read the rest of the story here.

Advertisements

206 thoughts on “Grasping at Straws

  1. Hi Charles, link to original article does not seem to work.
    cheers
    John
    Reply: Oh you nit pickers (thanks, fixed) ~ ctm

  2. Top link works, but not the bottom one.
    Maybe the title should read:-
    Scientists misread data on global warming – the controversy

  3. The problem now becomes how to gently let down those who have staked so much (financially, professionally or emotionally) on the imagined pending doom. It won’t be easy, as admitting to having been a dupe (or duped) will be a challenge .

  4. Had the pleasure last night of seeing the last of Darwin College Cambridge’s lecture series on “Risk”. Given by Prof. Robert Watson of UEA (actually UK “government”) titled “Risk and (human induced) Climate Change”. I expected a world-class twaddle-fest (since a humble apology was hardly likely) and so it proved.
    The man is a great speaker; admittedly not in the V I Lenin or A. Hitler class, but still damned good. Fascinating use of multiple fallacies and rhetoric, in particular the weasel-wording of the title which would enable him to say that he’d said he was talking about AGW even though most of his talk was of the “if it gets hotter you won’t like it” type and applied equally to any change whatsoever in the climate. Naturally no mention at all was made of sundry queries about the quality of the temperature curves displayed, or the rather distressing tendency of hurricanes etc. to decrease rather than increase as he kept predicting – whoops, sorry, projecting!
    All good stuff, but I’m not at all sure that all the audience was convinced. To judge from my small circle of friends and acquintances, scientists are not misreading the data (for once!) at all.

  5. …”it’s too inside baseball.”…
    That’s because the MSM won’t print the story in order to keep it that way.

  6. Trying to do most things in the eye of public forums serves primarily as a distraction most times. Facts lead to direction as misfacts lead to misdirection. If someone really wanted to reduce Greenhouse gases, one would only have to make an alternative that is both more convienent and cheaper. Unfortunately most major industry leaders have already made their methods the most convienent and anything cheaper they bought and buried. We haven’t advanced enough as a society to yet look past out own lives or our own times. One possability would be to take steps to put laws or regulations that keep technological, economical, ecological, and humanitarian progressions from never being added to our society or civilization. (examples: Electric car from the 50’s bought by GM and buried, deregulation of the private section of our economy, global warming & the truth/mistruth, New Orleans compared to Hadies – N.O. everyone complained about Phema/Haties everyone donated money or time to help/Chile everyones just watching) These ignorances we see every day and say it’s a shame. No ones doing anything, everyones waiting for someone to do something, & I don’t know what to do… But I do have some Idease!

  7. I agree. I’m a scientist and I know a lot of scientists. None of them along with all of the nonscientists I know are aware of Climategate. It’s amazing to me how many are more worried about sports news and to a lesser extent the economy and local news. The climate just never crosses their minds.

  8. I think they’re kidding themselves. If they were more scientific about polls, they would know that trends can take a while to register. And this, I think, is going to be one hell of a trend.

  9. Not to be critical of Fox News, but relying on the results of a single poll is a fools mission. For example, lets conduct two identical polls about AGW, polling 1,000 readers on each of the two sites, “The Huffington Post” and “Free Republic”. Will we see similarities in results between the two? Very unlikely. Add the results of each poll, and calculate the responses of the 2,000 respondents as if they were one data set, and then we will greatly improve the confidence level of the results. However, “The Huffington Post” is not going to report the results based on the responses of the FREEpers, and vice versa!
    How a poll question is asked will have major consequences to the poll results. For example, if the question is phrased as:
    A) Do you believe that humans are making a contribution to Global Warming?
    will produce a very different response than the question:
    B) Do you believe that human’s contribution to Global Warming will have serious consequences in the near future?
    or even
    B) Do you believe that human’s contribution to Global Warming will have serious consequences in the distant future?
    All questions have their own set up problems. While A) is not a leading question, it allows a “yes” answer even if the respondent thinks that the human contribution exists but is minuscule. Thus even AGW skeptics would likely answer “yes” to question A). The results of this question would certainly produce a skewed and misinterpreted result.
    B) is a leading question that forces the respondent to accept the given that humans are contributing to Global Warming, but does allow a person to answer “No” if he or she rejects the alarmist paradigms (rising ocean levels, melting ice caps, increase in extreme weather, etc.)
    The poll results between A) and B) could easily have a 50 point spread.
    Complexity of the poll question is a delicate balance. A ‘too simple” question imparts ambiguity, requiring the respondent to to use his /her imagination to interpret the meaning of the question. A “too complex” question produces skewed results due an overly complex Boolean function that will confuse some respondents.
    Another factor that can affect the poll results is whether the AGW question was asked exclusively, or whether it was part of a larger set of poll questions. In the latter case, even the ordering of the questions will likely affect the results. The first question asked in a set of questions implies either most importance, or in some cases least importance.
    An improved form of polling (commonly used at Universities) allows for five possible responses to a given question, but this is usually not done by the professional pollsters dealing with the public.
    See “20 Questions a Journalist Should Ask About Poll results”
    http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/4

  10. Anyone with substantial experience in social statistics or econometrics knows you can shape your analysis to prove just about anything, at just about any stage of your research. We all take our own inferences “seriously” but know not to take anyone else’s that way. The layers of scope for intentional or unintentional bias are huge, running from theory selection, to specification, to underestimating various uncertainties, to functional identification, to question formation, analytic framework and above all, the process of informal inference and discussion……and quasi-experiments don’t address all the issues. Not to mention all-too-common dodgy standalone stats. Much more to say on this, but this isn’t the place.
    The recourse in this article to “push-polling” on climate, then discussing very loosely perceptions, and confidence in science and scientists, is classic rhetorical diversion and classic soc-sci blather ( I say this as an economist).
    The conclusion reduces to
    – keep going with the agenda, the plebs are distracted, and
    – the details don’t matter so long as the story sells.
    There’s no point in rehashing Willis’ great article in response to Dr Curry, but similar sentiments certainly arise in reading this.
    And what does “Arguments about science do obscure news and television discussions over steps to take in dealing with climate, from investing in nuclear power to regulating coal plants” mean? Stop talking science, it confuses people? Just push out the message and the facts be damned?
    Underlying this is an assumption that ordinary people aren’t rational enough to deal with debate. That things have to be sorted out among the cognoscenti before being presented neat and simple for approval. That may appeal to bureaucrats, social engineers and behavioural economics meddlers like Sunstein, but it is just another argument for a revolutionary vanguard. And look where that got us.

  11. Hmm. Just keep adjusting the input until you get the output you want. Sounds familiar.
    Robert of New Kent

  12. Like much of the climate change issue, public opinion is being misread, manufactured and blown out of all proportion.
    Few countries have been as brain washed as the UK. Most people here would describe themselves as concerned about the environment and will spout some politically correct dogma if questioned about it. However the bits that stick in their minds are the bits that suit them. It might be some vague concern about pesticides or polar bears or recycling but very little really connects to CO2 reduction. If you question them about their specific CO2 reduction habits most will become vague or trot out excuse after excuse about why they haven’t actually significantly changed their lifestyles or homes.
    Most are sure they want something done about reducing CO2 but what they really mean is they want the issue to magically disappear. They want government or big business to reduce CO2 emission, without it costing anything or inconveniencing them in any way. CO2 is a problem, just somebody else’s. Even the highest echelons of AGW find it impossible to match actions with their beliefs and only a few of them like Monbiot seem to be trying. Has no one asked themselves ‘if I can’t change myself, how can I change the rest of the World?’ Apparently not.
    Most of those who would call themselves sceptics are equally disinterested. It’s just another excuse to avoid doing what they don’t want to. Very few actually know the real concerns about climate science and frankly don’t care. It’s only as you dig into the science that you begin to have serious doubts about how much scientists really know about the climate and become aware of how mad the current solutions are. Climate change is the ultimate money pit.
    It infuriates me that the AGW fraternity and scientists see real sceptics as their enemy. It’s not us, it’s not the people that are looking at the science and seeing the flaws, it’s the people who aren’t looking at all.
    Among the most seriously myopic are the climate scientists themselves. Each time they’ve assumed that the science from another department is accurate, without actually asking some fundamental questions, they’ve weakened the science. Each time they’ve accepted a colleague’s work for peer review and not actually seriously reviewed it, they have helped to screw up climate science. Each time they kept quiet when someone was wildly exaggerating, they’ve worked to create the chimera that is ‘robust’ AGW theory.
    All these polls on climate opinion are only measuring the levels of self delusion not the levels of enlightenment.

  13. One of the fundamental issues is that the greater population at large are less educated in the ways of science – or should that be the mystical ways of science.
    Over the past decade, schools have been escalating emphasis on administration, and political correctness and dragging science into a creationism verses evolution debate.
    While this is no slant against those with religious beliefs, but the very fact that the scientific process is in apparent conflict with creationism indicates a deep flaw with the education system. Specifically, creationism and scientific process are two totally different mechanisms – it’s like arguing which should be taught in schools, Math or English?
    Therefore, it’s not so surprising that many young adults are putting more faith in scientists because they themselves have no core understanding of science. Up to this point the scientific process has had little bearing on any given individuals life, but now we are all drawn into determining what science actually is. For a lot of us (when we were at school we had to get up before we went to bed and walk up hill both ways) we can have a bit of trouble telling the difference between belly button fluff and an atom.
    The majority of people appeal to the scientific authority – it isn’t rocket science, though. A given individual with a (theoretical) high school education may not understand the mathematics and the advanced principles involved, they *should* be educated enough to understand and ask pertinent questions.
    Maybe this is too harsh, but the education system is useless to the majority of students, and completely fails those who truly need help with their education.

  14. Actually, all this poll shows is that people who are home to answer the phone for pollsters (i.e. Oprah watchers) still trust scientists because Oprah says to. If you want to move the hoi polloi, you need to put pressure on Oprah to answer for promoting fraudulent global warming books to her viewers.

  15. Why are they bothered about polls anyway? OK rhetorical question – they need AGW to be forefront in the public mind so their political masters will keep the funds flowing. My response: Get a life.

  16. Garh Paltridge summed it up thus:
    “The problem with propaganda machines is that the average man in the street has learnt to smell them, recognize them, and be highly sceptical of them. His distrust may be hidden for a while for various reasons of inertia and politics, but given some small encouragement by way of an obvious glitch in the system, he will rather enjoy tearing the thing apart.
    And such a glitch seems to have occurred in the climate game with the leaking a few months ago of thousands of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. Among other things, they reveal how researchers may indeed go off the rails when they can no longer distinguish between research and political activism.
    The response of prominent scientists within the global warming establishment both to Climategate and to the subsequent emergence of a very obvious and very extensive degree of scepticism about their work is quite extraordinary.
    They have had control of public opinion concerning the disastrous nature of climate change for so long that they cannot even conceive of the possibility that sceptics may have a point. It seems instead that to return to their place in the sun it will merely be necessary for scientists to engage more powerfully in active promotion of a belief in climatic doom.
    To build a bigger propaganda machine in other words. It doesn’t occur to them that it is exactly this sort of behaviour that got them into trouble in the first place. It is exactly this sort of behaviour that is ultimately likely to lose their battle for them.

  17. IS GLOBAL WARMING MAN MADE?
    CO2 is known to be a heat trapping greenhouse gas. The theory of man made global warming assumes that the CO2 in the atmosphere (about 0.04% of air) that has increased due to use of fossil fuels by humans has been causing global warming.
    In science, the method used to verify the validity of a theory is to compare the theory with actual observations. To verify the theory of man made global warming, we may compare the change in CO2 in the atmosphere to change in mean global temperature during the same period.
    In science, for a theory to be valid, it must apply at all times. As a result, to verify the validity of the theory of man made global warming, we can consider the years since 1998. The result of this comparison is shown above.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/trend
    In the chart above, based on the data since 1998, for more than a decade, there has been increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but there has not been any change in the mean global temperature trend.
    As a result, based on more than a decade long data, global warming is not man made.
    Cheers

  18. Public opinion about AGW is important to me from an investment point of view. I never bought into the notion that AGW was real or severe or a big problem. It’s no big deal but blown out of proportion by a willingly complicit media and it has been so since its inception.
    So when will public support break and when will governments shift the spending focus on something else? It’s already happening in Germany; the subsidies for renewable energy production get reduced by 15 percent for all new installations. New PV installations on the valued agrarian soil of Germany get nothing at all from now on. (It sounds irrational on a factual level as there is enough agrarian land available everywhere east of Germany but makes sense on the political level: You want to stop subsidizing so you use the excuse of scarcity of agrarian land in Germany; it just has to appeal to voters instincts.)
    The AGW scientists will never regain their importance. The momentum they once had is just whithering away. They will fade into obscurity. The cool phase of the PDO is their undoing.
    Meanwhile we will happily use microgeneration (coupled heat+electricity production at home, hydrocarbon fuel cells like the Bloom box, home PV+batteries) whenever it gives us cheaper energy. This path will be taken by the middle class; the poor will have to buy the ever more expensive grid electricity and pay the price for our green religion. (in Germany, grid providers have to inflate end consumer prices so they can pay the politically fixed prices for renewable energy ; they are forced to buy this energy)
    Microgeneration is rapidly becoming viable under these circumstances. Public support for subsidized renewables drops with the ever increasing electricity prices. At the same time, people are just apathetic towards the science, tell’em that the globe is warming and they’ll say alright it’s warming, now where do i get some cheap wood for my fireplace for the next winter.

  19. All three young intelligent people in our LA office at my recent visit there, barely knew of AGW, were not in the slightest concerned about it, knew nothing of the climate controversy or ClimateGate or of Cap&Trade (or health reform for that matter).

  20. There is no point in taking polls of the public. Most wouldn’t even understand how a simple watch works so how would they even be close to having a basic understanding of how the climate works. Worse than that the climate is a very complex system, which is to this day not well understood by the cleverest scientists (at least the real ones) and so can’t make any predictions other than just guesses that are meaningless. How will the public ever be convinced they have been duped by the AGW hoax and fraud? I don’t know the answer unfortunately. We appear to be going around in circles yet the media, the governments and the public are still treating AGW by and large as a real threat. I hate to say this but I think truth will lose out this time, at least for the short to medium term. So, I sometimes wonder if we (as in AGW skeptics) are the ones grasping at straws.

  21. Reading between the lines, it seems the point Professor Jon
    A. Krosnick is making is that there are numerous “groups”
    all engaged in various lines and levels of “groupthink”.
    If I’m correct, he’s applying it to sceptics and AGwers; those
    in between and those non-interested alike.
    This is a form of interaction wasmade famous by Irvine L Janis
    a number of years ago in his “Victims of Groupthink” .
    It’s partly supported by selective attention, partly by selective
    exposure, and partly by the groups/goals with whom you
    tend you identify though time.
    The term “hubris” applies when you identify closely enough
    with your perceived peers that you exclude all other people
    and possibilities from having rational points of view.
    “They” are almost always wrong.
    To mangle an old saw and a Unix/Linux term:
    Birds of a feather awk together.
    Sort of like the opinion groupings that show up in the
    polls.

  22. Monstrously condescending from ‘inside baseball’ to ‘hacked emails……showing some climate scientists really dislike their critics’. This is shameful and offensive, but at least it’s in a big league newspaper.
    At least they’re telling the readers that there is a baseball game on. They missed the anthem and the rout it’s been so far, though.
    =============================

  23. “It’s another funny instance of scientists ignoring science.”
    “Funny” as in “strange” rather than “funny” as in “comedic” — as long as you consider an opinion poll to be more science than SWAG…

  24. And here I had foolishly been thinking that the central concern of natural science was detemining truths about the structure and dynamics of the physical world. Silly me! The central concern of natural scientists, apparently, is to enhance and enforce the prestige of natural scientists.
    But of course, there are no absolute truths and it’s all socially constructed anyway. Derrida, Derrida!

  25. 23 responses
    John of Kent (02:29:25) R.S.Brown (05:00:23) :
    ______________________
    From reading through all the responses I submit that with regard to polls, all of these comments are true, valid, right on, etc.
    Polling, surveys, whatever you will call them, can only give you miniscule pieces of feedback.
    The trick, for each of us, is to take the piece(s) of value and leave the rest. Kind of like finding a fleck of gold in two tons of dirt and rock.

  26. ” Most wouldn’t even understand how a simple watch works .’
    I dunno, it seems to me that to understand how the 30 dollar Cassio on your wrists works would require reading Quantum Mechanics for Dummies.

  27. Ocean2 @ 4:24
    Agreed. I’ve been in a couple of online debates on the issue of AGW and have tried to call attention to the turning-on-its-head of science. Of the AGW supporters who responded to questions about falsification the common responses were “what would falsify your denial?” and “when all the experts agree, I’ll agree.”. They have faith in the scientists, but can’t say why. They also saw nothing wrong with keeping data and methods hidden from those who “are only out to disprove the truth”. Such confounding lines as “experts have shown that the sun doesn’t affect earth’s climate” were also entered. The discussion of feedback loops versus buffering of complex systems got good, but for the most part it was a religious discussion rather than a scientific one.

  28. The first part of the story states that the crisis of confidence in science is real:
    “The recent controversies “have really shaken the confidence of the public in the conduct of science,” according to atmospheric scientist Ralph Cicerone, head of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.”
    –and–
    “Scientists see reason for worry in polls like one released in December by Fox News that found 23% of respondents saw global warming as “not a problem,” “
     But then the story pivots and conjectures that maybe we are asking the questions wrong.
    “But what “if” (apologies to Kipling again) scientists are misreading those poll results and conflating them with news coverage of the recent public-relations black eyes from e-mails and the glacier mistake? What’s really happening, suggests polling expert Jon Krosnick of Stanford University, is “scientists are over-reacting. It’s another funny instance of scientists ignoring science.” “
     The story then digresses into ‘if we only ask the right leading questions we can get the poll numbers we want so no worries’.
    http://www.busreslab.com/tips/tip34.htm
    My take?  Science is staring into the abyss.  Professional science, (e.g. (here in the USA) AAAS, NSF, American Physical Society (APS), American Meteorological Society (AMS)) have “gone all in” on AGW and left themselves not a crack of wiggle room. This goes so against the spirit of science that it astounds me.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7170299/Sir-David-King-IPCC-runs-against-the-spirit-of-science.html
    “In science, people are supposed to rock the boat. If someone challenges your findings, you make measurements, check the arguments, and see if they might be right. Well-established theories such as evolution and relativity have survived this process. The ideas you don’t hear about are the ones that didn’t make it through this ordeal by fire.
    If you depart too far from this in your desire for consensus, the consequences can be disturbing. The emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia suggest that certain members of the IPCC felt that the consensus was so precious that some external challenges had to be kept outside the discussion. That is clearly not acceptable.”
    And what is Dan Vergano’s solution? Denial.  After all, the science is settled.~
    The next to last paragraph is telling.
    “One Senator who has complained loudly is Sen. James Inhofe, R.-Okla., who in 2003 famously called climate change a “hoax.” But Inhofe has already convinced the people he is going to convince, Krosnick says. “Public opinion changes when leaders who previously held one opinion, suddenly switch.””
    This top down view of public opinion is laughably incorrect.  Public officials lead public opinion at their peril.  Note Obamacare.  Instead, successful leaders respond to public opinion.  If they don’t then they are voted out.  Senator Inhofe will have the last laugh.  And if professional science doesn’t get its act together they will go off that cliff.

    Mike Ramsey

  29. This is all part of a counter propaganda campaign.
    It’s just like Pachauri saying we are sinking into the dark ages where ideology trumps reason!
    Or Gavin Schmidt who stated that skeptics are full of “paranoia and ClimateGate has allowed the nutters (that’s us) to control the agenda!
    We are fine if we concentrate on the science.
    There is only one back side of the story.
    You can shake hands and make it up with the media and the frauds once, but it won’t happen twice.
    As it looks now, the same papers are falling into their old habits.
    And we have been promoted from “Deniers” to “Nutters”!
    That is the real world.
    And the real world to stop this scam is the world of politics.
    All we can do now is to get rid of this Government and stop the funding of the AGW Machine.
    That’s our reality.

  30. TinyCo2 (04:15:51) :
    Among the most seriously myopic are the climate scientists themselves. Each time they’ve assumed that the science from another department is accurate, without actually asking some fundamental questions, they’ve weakened the science.
    —————————–
    I think this is a HUGE part of the problem of the global warming scare. Earlier, colleagues accused me of being a conspiracy theorist for claiming that scientists were pushing what looks like a huge hoax in their alarmist predictions. My historian colleagues could not understand how a majority of scientists (a very large number of people) would be in on the hoax and not let the fact that it is a hoax slip. Very difficult to explain to them how science can be wrong (not necessarily a hoax) and how large numbers of scientists can subscribe to ‘group think’.
    But if you consider how very specialized scientists are, how focused on the minutiae of their discipline, and how incapable so many are of standing back and seeing the big picture, then you can begin to understand how the global warming catastrophist theory would persist. In my experience, from biology undergrad and grad-student days, there are many individuals like this in science: it is understandable because of the degree of expertise that is required to advance science in any discipline, but it does not make scientists good philosophers, or really help them understand the history – and therefore the fallacies – of science in the past. Being scientists, many have chosen to put their trust in other scientists, because they have to. Therefore the degree of incompetence and mendacity at the CRU and probably elsewhere is outside their normal reckoning. Nor are they necessarily interested in, or understanding of, politics – being a Ph.D does not give one extraordinary political insights, although many on the left chose to think so.
    As David L (03:38:19) says:
    “…. I’m a scientist and I know a lot of scientists. None of them along with all of the nonscientists I know are aware of Climategate. It’s amazing to me how many are more worried about sports news and to a lesser extent the economy and local news. The climate just never crosses their minds.”

  31. In Europe everything has gone silent on the subject
    It is out of the press, there is no information from the political channels.
    Just total radio silence.
    The reasoning behind it:
    If the polls show the public is not interested in the subject, why creating a media hype?
    They will do the dirty job behind the scenes.
    Last week the Dutch Government crashed and every Government decision has stalled except for a treaty between the Netherlands and Indonesia to fight Global Warming.
    We still have a very long way to go!

  32. Excessive reductionism is the enemy of good science, and there many examples of how it fails. If complex systems could be readily explained by a singe variable, we would have cured cancer by now.

  33. The writer of the article is just doing his part to bail out the AGW cause. Hopefully he won’t be successful.
    Rockmike, Don’t believe fairytales about viable electric cars in the 50’s. GM doesn’t produce very car that is conceived even the gasoline powered ones.

  34. AGW still is being embedded in blank minds very strongly in the K-16 US educational system with no whiff of any skepticism except to repeat the meme of an energy supplier funded conspiracy to deny the science. That won’t change until teachers begin to doubt the veracity of what they’re teaching. The best that might be hoped for is that young scientists will be able to break out of the restrictive group-think going on now and do research that refines the cartoon picture we have of climate. A richer understanding eventually will filter down to the educational system. Counter-acting that, of course, is the need of the MSM and politicians to hype crisis so that they can sell their products. Crackpots on all sides further obscure things with their noise, too. In the end, though, people believe and do what’s in their best interest as they understand it. It’s up to advocates of any position to tell the truth because truth really does have a way of being the last one standing.

  35. Is the “OMG, it’s Global Warming” novelty wearing off for you?
    How often do you mentally flog yourself for your participation in the usage of fossil fuels in your daily life routines?
    Are you ready to forego the modern world and return to the 19th Century lifestyle over Global Warming?
    Are you warmer or colder than you were 5 years, 10 years, 20 years ago?
    Are you more worried about Global Warming or the Next Ice Age?
    In your opinion, is Climate Change swamped by other far more pressing problems, or is Climate Change the mother of all problems?
    When an ad appears talking about or referring to Climate Change, does your heart leap for joy, or do you think to yourself “Oh brother, here we go again”?

  36. IS GLOBAL WARMING MAN MADE?
    CO2 is known to be a heat trapping greenhouse gas. The theory of man made global warming assumes that the CO2 in the atmosphere (about 0.04% of air) that has increased due to use of fossil fuels by humans has been causing global warming.
    In science, the method used to verify the validity of a theory is to compare the theory with actual observations. To verify the theory of man made global warming, we may compare the change in CO2 in the atmosphere to change in mean global temperature during the same period.
    In science, for a theory to be valid, it must apply at all times. As a result, to verify the validity of the theory of man made global warming, we can consider the years since 1998. The result of this comparison is shown above.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/trend
    In the chart above, based on the data since 1998, for more than a decade, there has been increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but there has not been any change in the mean global temperature trend.
    As a result, based on more than a decade long data, global warming is not man made.
    ————————————–
    Using Minitab:
    Mean =-.0105
    S.D. = .269
    Distribution NOT “Normal”. Actually, flat random noise from the -.5 to +.5 realm. RANDOM no pattern.
    Max

  37. “R.S.Brown (05:00:23) :
    […]
    This is a form of interaction wasmade famous by Irvine L Janis
    a number of years ago in his “Victims of Groupthink” .
    It’s partly supported by selective attention, partly by selective
    exposure, and partly by the groups/goals with whom you
    tend you identify though time.”
    Very true, and also a danger for skeptics. What helps most is reading the other groups best offerings (even if it hurts) and talk to people with a different opinion. We could be wrong after all – if the ocean heat content would be rising for instance i would have to reconsider my position.
    “rbateman (07:50:34) :
    Is the “OMG, it’s Global Warming” novelty wearing off for you?
    How often do you mentally flog yourself for your participation in the usage of fossil fuels in your daily life routines?”
    The AGW scam brought me the cheapest fuel i ever had. The German government doesn’t tax LPG and i have my car running on LPG. You know, LPG produces less CO2… It’s half as expensive as the hugely taxed gasoline and slightly less taxed Diesel here. So no, i don’t flog myself, i’m a good citizen – and a whore for subsidies!

  38. When it comes to public opinion, it should come as no surprise that CAGW Theory would face increased scrutiny and opposition around the same time as Copenhagen and other Cap and Trade schemes are/were up for serious consideration.
    We are talking trillions of dollars, why would people not want to make absolutely sure that the cost, benefit, and efficacy of the proposed solution makes sense?
    The CRU e-mails, IPCC errors and cold winter in the NH have, IMO, made this backlash more pronounced… but anyone reading these polls should consider how much of this is a result of scandal, and how much of this should be expected for any really-really big spending program that does not demonstrate direct, tangible benefits.
    Someone quoted in the NYT Partisan Attack Ad Plan post a quote from Napolean along the lines of “When your enemy is in the middle of making a mistake, never interrupt them”. The more conspiracy and wild hand waving the Gores, Romms, and Hockey Team do about Big Oil, conspiracy, not getting adequate air time (like that was ever an issue but anyway), McCarthy (lol, how many CAGW sites out there list names of scientists and alleged links to “Big Oil”?), hottest X EVAR… the more they will drive people (other than their base) to question them. So by all means, let them continue to fight the wrong battle, please do not interrupt them!

  39. No, there are times when no matter how careful (and fair) you are when crafting a question, you still won’t get an answer out of a scientist.
    The problem is that scientists want to project certainty (there tends to be an inverse relationship, the less actual certainty, the more they attempt to project certainty) to the general public.
    For the objective scientist, “I don’t know,” is a completely valid answer.
    But it tends not to win grants, get papers published, or move political agendas — in other words in pure Science, “I don’t know,” is preferred above claiming more certainty than actually exists.
    But in the politics of science, “I don’t know,” is a dead-bang loser.
    It takes ethics and courage to resist the temptation to over-state your case.
    Don’t kid yourself, going along with the crowd is just as easy in science as anywhere else — maybe easier — and more necessary to your professional survival.
    But, “going along to get along,” isn’t a profile in courage or the fulfillment of objective scientific responsibility.
    Sadly, this corrosive desire to “fit in” has corrupted many a scientist.
    — Laboratory Science
    — Field Science
    Two different animals because Laboratory science can vigorously test a hypothesis and field science often can not test a hypothesis at all.
    And the difference in the results can be night and day.

  40. Maybe they could separate the wheat from the chaff by asking “do you consider C02 to be a dangerous pollutant?”

  41. MichaelC58 (04:49:46) :
    All three young intelligent people in our LA office at my recent visit there, barely knew of AGW, were not in the slightest concerned about it, knew nothing of the climate controversy or ClimateGate or of Cap&Trade (or health reform for that matter).
    ——————————————————————-
    That’s the issue at hand. THIS is why the AGW crowd have been able to propagate.
    Laissez-faire mentality. This is what the AGW’ers are hoping for. Thanks to the ” leaker “, MANN-made global warming ” deniers ” like myself have had a chance to look at some data and opposing views.
    Many thanks to this website as well as Steve’s, now my friends and family have a chance to discern what is and what isn’t.
    If it weren’t for this place( and Steve’s as well as other websites), they would have never seen the manipulation, destruction, lying and suppression of the Mann-made global warming cronies.

  42. My social group includes two engineers, a physics professor, a pharmacist, a lawyer, and a medical librarian. The economy, the stock market, house prices, and Iraq have been frequent topics of conversation at our gatherings. If the subject of global warming ever came up, I missed it.

  43. …..challenging the notion that people 18 to 35 were any more engaged than their elders on climate change……Statistically, 44% in that age range — matching the national average — found global warming as either “not too important” or “not at all important,” even though they grew up in an era when climate scientists had found it very likely that temperatures had increased over the last century due to fossil fuel emissions of greenhouse gases.
    …………………………………………………………………………..
    I find this pretty cool. I like the young generation coming up. There is something about them that is unlike other generations of my lifetime.
    My generation is the 60’s early 70’s. Despite the belief that that generation was peace-loving I found (and still find) my generation to be constantly confrontational and always trying to overthrow every and anything that moves—even if that overthrow makes no sense.
    The next generations since then until now have not really had an identity expect for maybe video games, the internet, and cel phones. But they seem to not have a particular identity.
    But this current young generation seems to have a face. They seem to want to face reality. My generation wanted escape from reality and to create a utopia that never could happen. This current generation seems to be creative about the real world. They seem to want real answers. And they are anything but confrontational.
    I like it!

  44. The thing about climate science is, it doesn’t matter what opinion polls say, or which scientists made intentional or unintential errors, the climate will be what it will be. Only some vast mass conspiracy on a global scale by hundreds, if not thousands of scientists involving the measurements of everything from sea level, to arctic sea ice and satellite data would be needed to bring about any “hoax”.
    Here’s the hypothesis the AGW proposes: Human activity, specifically the production of CO2, is altering the climate. Here’s the expected observable effects from that hypothesis: rise in average global tropospheric temperatures, especially pronounced at higher latitudes, reduction of arctic sea ice (and eventually, Antarctic sea ice) on an annualized basis, the cooling of the stratosphere due to the delay of thermal transmission from the troposphere, an intensification of the hydrological cycle as wet areas will see more intense rain or snow, and dry areas will see more intense dryness, species stress as ecosystems change, acidification of the oceans through the absorption of some the exess CO2, increased release of methane from the melting of permafrost and destablization of ocean deposits through warming waters…
    The AGW hypothesis will not be absolutely proven by the occurance of anyone, or even all of these events taking place and being measured and observed, BUT the lack of even a large number of them would be damaging to the AGW hypothesis. So far, the hypothesis remains credible as all of the above effects have been observed, with the exception of the reduction of the Antarctic sea ice on an annualized basis– as it is in fact slightly increasing. Some AGW models account for this through the unusal weather patterns created by the reduction of the ozone layer over Antarctica. If however, in the next few decades, the year to year extent of Antarctic sea ice does not level and then begin to decline, it could be a sign of trouble for AGW. Also, even though the rate of the decline of the arctic sea ice has been greater than the rate of the incline for Antarctic sea ice, if the arctic sea ice also began a long term reversal of its annualized decline, and began to increase and show positive anomalies (over a period of more than just two or three years), that would be a major hole in the AGW hypothesis.; AGW theorists think quite the opposite will occcur, and eventually it will be the Antarctic sea ice that will show a leveling in it’s slow annualized incline, reverse course and begin to decline like the arctic sea ice.
    So AGW scientists have made specific prediction, and so far the preponderance of the evidence supports their theory. Only the data…not the pundits, nor politicians, nor the public opinion will change that…and February 2010 continues this year’s trend as one of the warmest on (satellite record) for tropospheric temps, and if the Jan-Feb. 2010 trend continues, then 2010 will be the warmest year on instrument record, and be one more bit of data supporting the AGW hypothesis.

  45. “Krosnick and his colleagues argue that polling suggesting less interest in fixing climate change might indicate the public has its mind on more immediate problems in the midst of a global economic downturn, with the U.S. unemployment rate stuck at 9.7%.”

    Federal carbon emissions regulation, permit fees and rationing are out. But on the bright side, “the public” still loves the climate science that is behind it!
    That should cheer up all of the depressed climate quacks out there.

  46. Around 1979 the public got a wakeup call on what life would be like if there were no more oil.
    That issue still has traction and to frame an energy policy on reasonable steps to increase efficiency and reduce waste to stretch the existing sources farther would garner a lot of support from the public at large.
    But to simultaneously hit us with guilt, shame and a plea to altruism for future generations sake when we can’t see the clear benefit and then witness the experts begin to lose credibility may be reaching a mile too far.
    Now we’re entering a PR battle along with a pissing contest.
    Bring on the clowns.

  47. 44% ……found global warming as either “not too important” or “not at all important,”
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    If the general population knew about WattsUpWithThat that number would grow!
    I still hope for the day that WUWT will get into the top 100 websites (by number of hits) in the world.

  48. Max Hugoson (08:05:15) :
    IS GLOBAL WARMING MAN MADE?
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    If you take into account UHI, temp station placement, dropping of certain temp stations from the temp record, fiddling with temp data handling methods, bias of acceptance of papers for publication in science magazines and journals, Hollywood continually making global warming movies,
    all of which are man made,
    then yes, global warming is man made.

  49. Max Hugoson (08:05:15) :
    IS GLOBAL WARMING MAN MADE?
    CO2 is known to be a heat trapping greenhouse gas. The theory of man made global warming assumes that the CO2 in the atmosphere (about 0.04% of air) that has increased due to use of fossil fuels by humans has been causing global warming.
    In science, the method used to verify the validity of a theory is to compare the theory with actual observations. To verify the theory of man made global warming, we may compare the change in CO2 in the atmosphere to change in mean global temperature during the same period.
    In science, for a theory to be valid, it must apply at all times. As a result, to verify the validity of the theory of man made global warming, we can consider the years since 1998. The result of this comparison is shown above.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/trend
    In the chart above, based on the data since 1998, for more than a decade, there has been increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but there has not been any change in the mean global temperature trend.
    As a result, based on more than a decade long data, global warming is not man made.
    ======
    Causal relationships don’t require the dependent variable to change in lock step with one independent variable with other independent variables are involved.
    Despite the cooling influences of a La Nina and a down-cycle in sunspot activity, the 2000-2009 decade was warmer than the previous decade.

  50. [ MichaelC58 (04:49:46) :
    All three young intelligent people in our LA office at my recent visit there, barely knew of AGW, were not in the slightest concerned about it, knew nothing of the climate controversy or ClimateGate or of Cap&Trade (or health reform for that matter).]
    At least there is hope for the world. The brain washing failed. At least these 3 have not been educated beond their intelligence.

  51. The public would be a 100% supportive of the climate science community if they were open and honest with their research ( keep the public informed) but since it is the other way around where research is supressed to avoid any scrutiny. The way the climate scientific community is handling this tells me they have something to hide and have a personal interest in the outcome.
    If they were open and honest there would be no problem addressing global issues people world wide would be more supportive but since they have gone this route they the scientists have only themselves to blame for the state of science today. It all comes down to honesty and they choose the other road the road of ( just because we said so) road. Science needs a overhaul and if it doesn’t nothing will change.

  52. Quoting from Richard Harter’s Piltdown Man page.
    “The hoax succeeded in large part because of the slipshod nature of the testing applied to it; careful examination using the methods available at the time would have immediately revealed the hoax. This failure to [adequately] examine the fossils went unmarked and unnoticed at the time – in large part because the hoax admirably satisfied the theoretical expectations of the time.
    “The hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further reconsideration. “

  53. ” Only the data…not the pundits, nor politicians, nor the public opinion will change that…and February 2010 continues this year’s trend as one of the warmest on (satellite record) for tropospheric temps, and if the Jan-Feb. 2010 trend continues, then 2010 will be the warmest year on instrument record, and be one more bit of data supporting the AGW hypothesis.’
    How old is the current atmosphere of the earth? Something on the order of 10^9 years, if I recollect aright. In that temporal context, how likely is that, in a highly chaotic system, temperature ‘trends’ over such short durations will be significant? Granting, for the sake of argument, that in the 20th c. the ‘global temperature’ rose .6 degrees with a margin of error of plus or minus 2, and that the current ‘global temperature’ is is about 290 Kelvin, how significant is such a rise? And how significant has the anthropogenic influence been, including but certainly not limited to the increase in greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels?
    I’ve been studying Pielke Sr, to the best of my limited ability. It is certainly intuitively persuasive that human activity has a marked affect on the atmosphere, as it has on all of the other ‘spheres’.

  54. Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
    (thank you & forgive me)
    ———————
    If you can keep your head
    when all about you are losing theirs
    and blaming it on you,
    then, with apologies to Kipling,
    you might not be a mann-made
    psyentist.

  55. Wren (10:05:20) :
    Causal relationships don’t require the dependent variable to change in lock step with one independent variable with other independent variables are involved.
    But that is how CO2 was blamed in the first place because they did match for a few years.
    Of course you could take the other stated reason “we couldn’t think of anything esle to blame”

  56. @ Charles of SOMA. Sir Charles, was your baronetcy created in 1984, perhaps?
    Reply: Is this someone who knows me? ~ ctm

  57. Wren (09:47:44) :
    My social group includes two engineers, a physics professor, a pharmacist, a lawyer, and a medical librarian. The economy, the stock market, house prices, and Iraq have been frequent topics of conversation at our gatherings. If the subject of global warming ever came up, I missed it.
    Everyone knows that religion isn’t a polite topic of conversation. Those others are all safe, though.

  58. I hope someone checks out my figures in the preceding post. Idon’t trust myself.
    “Only the data…not the pundits, nor politicians, nor the public opinion will change [evidentiary confirmation of the hypothesis of CO2-driven global warming]”.
    The ‘data’ can change nothing. The world does not fall naturally apart into bits of data (at least not in the sense statisticians use the word). Data are human constructs, and valid data refer to reality as signifier to signified.
    Anyway, R. Gates, your dispassionate and thought-provoking exposition of the AGW stance was a pleasure to read in the overheated climate of this debate.

  59. City warmed by ‘false spring’
    “There was only one year in 1988 when we didn’t have snow after the first day of spring,” he said. “We want it to end, but wishing and hoping and praying won’t do it.”
    ———————–
    OT for the Weather is Not Climate Dept.

  60. “CO2 in the atmosphere (about 0.04% of air) ”
    Isn’t this figure an order of magnitude off ? (I ask because I screwed up this calculation before). I’ll stick my head out and go with .00380%.

  61. ” temperature ‘trends’ over such short durations ”
    Something fell out from that sentence into the ether; ‘short durations ‘ refer to the satellite record (30 years) and the more problematic surface record (200 years of spotty data).

  62. Arthur,
    You actually raise an interesting philsophical point related to the notion that the “data” doesn’t change anything, which is far beyond the scope of this thread. In a short form version though, certainly reality, or the “world” as you stated, is not broken down into neat little bits of data, but that data comes from what we chose to measure or pay attentin to, and how, therefore, our minds choose to break down reality into neat little bits of information. If I stick a thermometer into a pan of water which is placed over a heat source, I can choose to break down the reality of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the pan by reading that thermometer and having it tell me the “temperature”. As the temperature rises past 100 degrees F, and then on to 150 degrees F, and so on, as some point I wouldn’t choose (unless I was into experiencing pain and bodily harm) to stick my hand into that water. So in this way, by measuring the average kinetic energy of the molecules in that pan, via a very focused and specifc means, the data has in fact changed something…namely, my consciousness, whereas I choose at some point not to stick my hand in the now boiling water.
    And so it is the AGW hypothesis. Very specifc data collection is underway on a global basis, and yes, while the actual collection and analysis of the data doesn’t change the dynamics of what is going on in the oceans and atmosphere, (unless you believe the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle can work on such a large scale!) it does change the consciousness of those scientists who study that data. Depsite all the hoopla, the great majority still believe the data is indicating that the AGW hypothesis is probably correct.
    Now, what ought to be one of the roles of sites like this (and Anthony does a tremendous service to all concerned) is to make sure that the data is accurately gathered, broadly shared and reviewed, and then communicated in a way that policymakers and the public at large can understand…without hyperbole, political colorations, or allegiance to any outcome other than the accurate understanding precisely what the data is or isn’t telling us.
    And the next few years of data gathering are critical to changing perceptions of all concerned, one way or another….

  63. Peter of Sydney (04:50:33) :
    Take heart. AGW had a massive head start, a get deal of coin and media backing.
    Just give it time and the planet will show how incorrect the climate scientists have been on hanging a shingle on a single gas.
    Mike Ramsey (06:41:59)
    When you have the ear of the media, you can manipulate the masses and politicians rely on these masses for votes. Unless AGW does a stupid thing, it will take time for the mighty to fall. In which case they will be affecting policies until then.
    The problem is that when these scientists fall, ALL of scientists will be painted by the same brush.

  64. Joe said:
    “Just give it time and the planet will show how incorrect the climate scientists have been…”
    How much time Joe? I am fairly certain, that even if the next 10 years are warmer that the last 10, which were warmer than the 10 years before that, we will see some AGW skeptics who will never accept the data. Likewise, if somehow the arctic sea ice were to suddenly began a long period of positive year to year anomalies, and the troposhere were to go into long period of cooling (like 10 or 20 years) there would still be those who would cling to the AGW hypothesis. Both camps, in the extreme, are True Believers, and will cling their position and ignore all contrary data so as to prevent cognitive dissonance.
    Meanwhile, the true scientists will remain objective, and simply see if the data matches the predictions set forth. To the extent they do, and the data checked, verified, and shared with peers, then they report their findings, and the same for the data that does not support the hypothesis. These past few years of the slowdown in the upward march of tropospheric global temps are easily and well justfied as being related to the extended solar minimum and the extended La Nina. Moving forward, already the data is saying that 2010 is starting out to be a record year, most likely the warmest year since measurments began. If this comes to pass, then the scientist will have yet one more piece of data adding to the confirmation of the AGW hypothesis.

  65. R. Gates (12:04:37) said:

    Depsite all the hoopla, the great majority still believe the data is indicating that the AGW hypothesis is probably correct.

    Belief is not part of the scientific method. It is a hallmark of the other philosophy.

  66. Hmm,
    leaning too heavily on one poll is dangerous..

    Now if this was a set of polls trending the same way thats a different matter.

  67. RayG (11:03:06) : “@ Charles of SOMA. Sir Charles, was your baronetcy created in 1984, perhaps?”
    Ray, I think you’re confusing Orwell with Huxley.

  68. derek (10:43:11) :
    “…the scientists have only themselves to blame for the state of science today.”
    Derek, please change it to;
    “…the Carbon Cult have only themselves to blame for the state of Climate science today.”
    Because the rest of us are watching in disbelief.

  69. “…And the real world to stop this scam is the world of politics”
    This is exactly the problem, By the time rational argument can convince the MSM and the public at large, the politicians may have done their worst. It’s essential imo to direct our efforts at opinion formers. The problem of disinfecting the teachers and their pupils can come later.
    I’ve only been out to a pub about four times since new year. On two of those I;ve got into furious arguments with otherwise sensible men who have swallowed the entire AGW hypothesis wholesale. On the other hand I have met a young lady about to start a PhD in some arctic-related field – and she is convinced the AGW hysteria is based on ‘politics’ / money – not science.
    Let’s hope her generation will try to unpick what has been done – after all they have careers and reputations to forge. But it’s the ambition of the politicos and NGOs which is the massive stumbling block, allied to their stupidity, never mind the ‘scientists’

  70. Arthur Glass (11:49:35) :
    “’CO2 in the atmosphere (about 0.04% of air) ‘
    “Isn’t this figure an order of magnitude off ? (I ask because I screwed up this calculation before). I’ll stick my head out and go with .00380%.”
    Its roughly 380 parts per million.
    Dividing by 10^6 = 0.000380 mole fraction CO².
    [moved the decimal point 6 digits to the left]
    Times 100 = 0.038 per cent.
    [moved the decimal point 2 digits to the right]
    Best to check everything, Arthur, even if you’ve done it before correctly. If you’ve done it before incorrectly, use more question marks.

  71. R Gates
    Quote: ” and be one more bit of data supporting the AGW hypothesis.”
    I’m sorry, but you could not be more wrong.
    The only way is if you eliminate every other thing, including it’s just natural, which is something we can not do.
    I have an hypothesis that invisible glass shrinks as it gets warmer.
    I’m going to fill my invisible glass with water and warm it up.
    The water spilling over the top supports my hypothesis that invisible glass shrinks as it gets warmer.
    You can’t see or test for it either.

  72. Causal relationships don’t require the dependent variable to change in lock step with one independent variable with other independent variables are involved.
    So true. Except lock step was the prediction.
    Less snow in winter was predicted. Nothing about a chance of the snowiest winter ever.

  73. re the less-than-successful fightback this week:
    BBC: Pallab Ghosh: Climate change human link evidence ‘stronger’
    The analysis, published in the Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change Journal, has assessed 110 research papers on the subject.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8550090.stm
    a wag on Bishop Hill was amused by some on the Editorial Board at Wiley:
    EDITOR IN CHIEF, Mike Hulme, University of East Anglia, UK
    ***Perceptions and Communication of Climate Change
    Irene Lorenzoni
    University of East Anglia, UK
    Lorraine Whitmarsh
    Cardiff University, UK

  74. Willingness to bend the rules for the sake of climate change advocacy unfortunately isn’t a disease restricted to climate scientists. There are many people within government and within the news media who are similarly afflicted. Warmist zealots in newsrooms are blocking the story from the mainstream media, and warmist politicians are blocking it from the political arena.

  75. wren,
    “Causal relationships don’t require the dependent variable to change in lock step with one independent variable with other independent variables are involved.”
    You have to apply correlation tests and calculate confidence intervals. If a relationship has a high confidence, say 99%, then we can eliminate chance, at low confidence we can’t draw any conclusions.

  76. Re Arthur Glass (11:49:35) :
    “CO2 in the atmosphere (about 0.04% of air) ”
    Isn’t this figure an order of magnitude off ? (I ask because I screwed up this calculation before). I’ll stick my head out and go with .00380%.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Percent [%] stands for hundreths
    ppm = parts per million
    1M ppm = 100% [100 hundreths of a million]
    380K ppm = .380 of a million or 38%
    38K ppm = ,038 of a million or 3.8%
    3800 ppm = ,0038 of a million or 0.38%
    380 ppm = ,00038 of a million or 0.038%

  77. R. Gates (09:50:41) : Here’s the hypothesis the AGW proposes: Human activity, specifically the production of CO2, is altering the climate. Here’s the expected observable effects from that hypothesis: rise in average global tropospheric temperatures, especially pronounced at higher latitudes, reduction of arctic sea ice (and eventually, Antarctic sea ice) on an annualized basis, the cooling of the stratosphere due to the delay of thermal transmission from the troposphere, an intensification of the hydrological cycle as wet areas will see more intense rain or snow, and dry areas will see more intense dryness, species stress as ecosystems change, acidification of the oceans through the absorption of some the exess CO2, increased release of methane from the melting of permafrost and destablization of ocean deposits through warming water …
    If that were only the case! The AGW Alarmists hypothesize hundreds of disastrous outcomes, from acne to malaria epidemics to Manhattan under 20 feet of ocean to the entire planet boiling away.
    You attempt to restrain the AGW hypothesis to a paltry set of marginal, indeed unmeasurable, minor phenomenological tweaks. That’s rather disingenuous. Haven’t you seen Al’s movie? Or Hansen’s Venus Syndrome lectures?
    Frankly, R, I’d be relieved if the Alarmists confined themselves to minutia. Maybe we’d all see that more rain, longer growing seasons, more biodiversity, more biological productivity, etc. are GOOD things, and nothing to be alarmed about. Maybe forestalling to coming glaciation should be a project the whole world gets behind. That would better, IMHO, than spending $trillions on non-solutions to a non-problem.
    Unfortunately, R, you don’t speak for Al, or James, or the IPCC, or the EPA. All those guys have dire reports of a catastrophic future if we don’t devolve civilization to the Stone Age immediately, like yesterday, and it may already be too late.
    PS – species stress? Gag me.

  78. Joe (12:06:16) :
    “The problem is that when these scientists fall, ALL of scientists will be painted by the same brush.”
    _________________________
    Agree! It’s an ‘internal’ problem that THEY have to deal with. Unfortunately, they (whoever ‘they’ are) don’t seem to be doing anything except talking to each other about everything but their problem. Their problem, as in the difference between “science” and some wierd thing called ‘psyence’. (I used to think that everyone talked about the weather:-)
    The ‘psyentists’ and their ‘psyence’ will win and take over the Scientists and the every field of Science. It’s “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers” all over again. Life’s a beach, sometimes you drown.

  79. Wren (10:05:20) :
    Despite the cooling influences of a La Nina and a down-cycle in sunspot activity, the 2000-2009 decade was warmer than the previous decade.
    According to NOAA, we’ve been in an *El Niño* Southern Oscillation since November — it’s the culprit that produced a relatively snowless Vancouver for the Winter Olympics.
    The 2000 – 2009 charts I’ve seen indicate that temperatures have either flatlined since 1998, or warmed so slightly as to be insignificant. According to the CAGW canon, temps should have continued to climb at a steady pace, matching the increase in CO2, regardless of other factors.

  80. Latitude said:
    “The only way is if you eliminate every other thing, including it’s just natural, which is something we can not do…”
    Sorry, but that is never the standard for testing a hypothesis. You don’t have to eliminate “every other thing”, for that would take a hypothesis about what “every other thing” would be reasonable, and you’d be chasing your tail forever. The AGW hypothesis simply has to posit certain real world, measureable effects that will happen, gather data to support or deny the existence of those effects, analyze the data, and report the results. This is the scientifc standard.
    In the end, even if we see the polar sea ice at both poles melt, the average global temp go up by 9 or 15 degrees, and all sorts of other effects predicted by AGW hypothesis, no one can never say for 100% certainty that it was all caused by AGW related to CO2..but you can say it is likely to very high degree of certainty.

  81. M. Simon (13:18:50) said:
    “…Less snow in winter was predicted…”
    This is simply not true. Climate scientists (and scientists in general) have long realized the chaotic nature of complex systems and the existence of unknown variables.Many AGW models show MORE snow for certain regions for several decades, followed by more rain as the winters get too warm. No model predicts a lock-step linear progression, where each year is warmer than the next, etc. Events like solar minima and la nina are part of that chaotic, non-linear, system. But, what is predicted are trends. The arctic sea ice will trend downward, (but not lock step every year) but over decades, sea levels will rise over decades, permafrost will melt, etc.
    Chaotic systems are never lock-step and linear, but over a broad enough sample and long enough period of time, trends will emerge. This is the nature of climate change, and the role of AGW theory is to predict those trends. If they don’t materialize over time, (and many scientists obviously think they already have) the the theory can be discarded. If they do materialize, the theory is not proven as absolutely correct, but only proven as very likely correct.

  82. Mr. Gates’ analysis might have been reasoned and dispassionate. It also had nothing to do with AGW. Mr. Gates makes the same mistake that most people do when they look at AGW theory. They approach it backwards. Specifically, AGW does not seek to prove that the world is getting warmer. Rather it seeks to identify the cause. Natural warming can explain all the things that he mentions. These things neither support, prove or disprove AGW and are in fact simply straw-man arguments. The preponderance of the science that deals directly with CO2 as a cause of the warming does not fit with the observations of the natural world. While there is still a slight possibility that the AGW may have some validity, it gets smaller by the day. One thing that he did say was however correct. The climate will be what it will be no matter what politicians, climate scientists and Al Gore and his ilk say or do.

  83. It all comes down to thermometers for me. A thermometer measures a given temperature in a given place at a given time. (If its read accurately and is correctly calibrated). I still fail to understand how Jones and Co. can take a thermometer reading, (assuming its accurate), and interpolate that to cover hundreds of Sq Km. My background is aviation, and an airfield Wx station is designed to give me the conditions on the runway, nowhere else. I know enough meteorology to know that 5km away the conditions may be quite different. How they can presume to produce a global or even regional average using the methods they do is beyond my comprehension, and seems beyond all logic. Add to that the good work done here regarding the siting of most Stevenson screens, and to this bear with little brain, the whole process seems fundamentally flawed.
    So, I fail to see how anyone can trust the raw data, never mind interpolate it to a few tenths of a degree. I am now old enough to have seen nearly 60 years of weather, and here in the NE of the UK. It is is cold in winter, and about every 10-15 years, we might get a good summer. I read enough history to know that the Romans grew grapes not far from here 2000 years ago, and that a millennium later, the Vikings colonised Greenland. For Jones, Mann and Co to tell me that the world is warming by 0.2C or whatever per decade, given the vagueness of their raw data I find a bad joke. I would not buy a secondhand car from these people. But then I have thought about the matter, but I suspect that most of the people in this country and others, do not bother to think about it. A large part of the problem is their disengagement from politics. If it comes from the mouth of a politician, it is fundamentally flawed anyway.

  84. Statistics, it seems, is the new Science!
    Consensus, aka “another poll showed”, is now more important than observation, geologic precedence and apolitical objectivity than the shrivelled organ that was once ennobled as “the scientific method”
    How did this happen? Was it just because of a societal shift, born of hubristic certainty, that elevated sound-bite answers above heretical questioning?
    When, and how, did it happen that second-rate geographers from third-rate universities using fourth-rate (I’m being generous here) statistical comprehension to leap-frog their inabilities to the core of world strategic planning?
    I haven’t a clue other than a suspicion that our political guardians may be teetering between grade 5 and “you voted for this moron” status.

  85. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (09:50:12) :
    …..challenging the notion that people 18 to 35 were any more engaged than their elders on climate change……Statistically, 44% in that age range — matching the national average — found global warming as either “not too important” or “not at all important,” even though they grew up in an era when climate scientists had found it very likely that temperatures had increased over the last century due to fossil fuel emissions of greenhouse gases.
    …………………………………………………………………………..
    I find this pretty cool. I like the young generation coming up. There is something about them that is unlike other generations of my lifetime.
    My generation is the 60’s early 70’s. Despite the belief that that generation was peace-loving I found (and still find) my generation to be constantly confrontational and always trying to overthrow every and anything that moves—even if that overthrow makes no sense.
    The next generations since then until now have not really had an identity expect for maybe video games, the internet, and cel phones. But they seem to not have a particular identity.
    But this current young generation seems to have a face. They seem to want to face reality. My generation wanted escape from reality and to create a utopia that never could happen. This current generation seems to be creative about the real world. They seem to want real answers. And they are anything but confrontational.
    I like it!
    My reply;
    I have raised a couple of video gamers myself, I have been talking to my daughter (a young professional web site developer, very savvy on social media trends and mechanisms) about her low levels of concern about the whole spectrum of issues with the AGW fraud and debate.
    She has the opinion that the whole issues of global warming in SO a NON-issue in reality to the day to day requirements of working in today’s economy, even from the prospective of marketing and advertising venues and slow volumes, that Natural forces of the general market will “do what they will” out of any bodies control to regulate the system.
    That the resources spent talking about, but doing nothing about the weather, are just more of the usual waste, due to expenditures on attempts at manipulation, of the free thinking minds of the smart and educated. Who are swimming with the current where ever it goes, knowing it is totally out of control anyway.

  86. Mike,
    Alarmism comes about when science mixes with politics…and it has a valuable role to play. It was a good thing that there was some alarmism when it was recognized that flurocarbons were depleting the ozone layer. Scientists found the link, and something political was done about it. I try to avoid even listening to the alarmists, and focus on the science, as politics in general is far too tedious for me.
    Jim and Mr. Gore, and the rest have a role to play, and honestly and passionately believe they are right. It is naive and a gross misunderstanding of these men to think it is about money, fame, research dollars or anything else. They really believe what they are saying, and if…and that’s still open for exactly the kind of healthy debate we have here at WUWT, but if the AGW hypothesis is correct, then the “alarmists” will have served exactly the role they need to fill.
    Personally, I straddle the fence on the AGW issue in terms of outcome. I happen to currently think there is a pretty good over 75% chance that the AGW hypothesis is correct, but I am not completely convinced that the outcome will be totally dire. We are due for another glacial period in the current Ice Age we are in, and holding back this glacial period through AGW could be the best thing for all of us. On the flip side, the acidification of the oceans, and loss of biodiversity are a concern for me, more so than other so-called “dire” consequences. The Chinese, Russians, Canadian, U.S., and others are already making plans for the exploitation of the arctic once the sea ice melts. This is human nature…to use resources as they become available…for better or worse.

  87. The best version of ‘If’, in my opinion, starts:
    If you can keep your wife, while all around are losing theirs and blaming it on you….

  88. Max Hugoson (08:05:15) wrote:
    IS GLOBAL WARMING MAN MADE?
    CO2 is known to be a heat trapping greenhouse gas. The theory of man made global warming assumes that the CO2 in the atmosphere (about 0.04% of air) that has increased due to use of fossil fuels by humans has been causing global warming.
    In science, the method used to verify the validity of a theory is to compare the theory with actual observations. To verify the theory of man made global warming, we may compare the change in CO2 in the atmosphere to change in mean global temperature during the same period.
    In science, for a theory to be valid, it must apply at all times. As a result, to verify the validity of the theory of man made global warming, we can consider the years since 1998. The result of this comparison is shown above.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/trend
    In the chart above, based on the data since 1998, for more than a decade, there has been increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but there has not been any change in the mean global temperature trend.
    As a result, based on more than a decade long data, global warming is not man made.
    ——————–
    Max: Let’s not be as irresponsible as Gavin Schmidt. CO2 is increasing at about 1% a year or 10% a decade. The radiative forcing associated with increase CO2 (which only flat-earthers deny) varies with the log base 2 of 10%, which is 14% a decade. Reasonable, but revisable, estimates of the forcing associated with a doubling (one log base 2 increase) are 3.6 W/m^2, which translate to 1 degC increase using Boltzmann’s law (pure physics, no feedbacks). So you would expect to see a 0.15 degC rise due to CO2 alone on your graph – something you can’t detect in the background noise and natural variability. So your graph tells us nothing about whether warming is man-made, natural, or some combination of both.
    The CAGW crowd believes that feedbacks will amplify this warming by a factor called climate sensitivity which they believe lies somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5. That would be 0.22-0.68 degC. The higher end of this range is getting increasingly unlikely (Hansen has reduced is personal estimate of climate sensitivity from 3 to 2.5), but the lower end isn’t incompatible with your graph. Climate models do show occasional decade-long pauses in warming, but fifteen-year-long pauses are rare.
    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/V1003/readings/Kerr.Science.2009.pdf
    So every year that the pause continues, the probability that climate sensitivity is in the high range of 1.5-4.5 diminishes (if it is even >1). As it goes down, the projections of catastrophe should go down too.
    If you consider the whole 20th century, CO2 is halfway to doubling, making the log base 2 of the increase equal to 0.5 (or 0.75 if you add in the other long-lived GHGs). These numbers are also compatible with observed twentieth century temperature warming. (If you are skeptical about some of the surface record, consider only the fraction confirmed by satellite data.) Of course, the CAGW crowd amplifies this warming with feedbacks and then cancels the amplification with aerosols – and nobody can prove they are right or wrong. (They think aerosols explain the mid-century temperature dip, but – given the MWP and LIA – natural variability is a satisfactory explanation.)

  89. RE: Max Hugoson (08:05:15) : “IS GLOBAL WARMING MAN MADE? CO2 is known to be a heat trapping greenhouse gas.”
    This happens, I believe, primarily, in three narrow wavelength bands, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). Most of the effect of any new parcel of CO2 added to the atmosphere is masked by near 100 percent absorption in these particular bands from the CO2 already in the atmosphere.
    [Max Hugoson] “To verify the theory of man made global warming, we may compare the change in CO2 in the atmosphere to change in mean global temperature during the same period.”
    I do *not* think this constitutes proof. First, I believe, you would have to rule out all other possible coincidental causes, such as recovery from the ‘Little Ice Age’ before you might say this is a proof of your theory or you need to demonstrate that this process is physically capable of driving such an event. As far as I can tell, this has not been done.

  90. Joe (12:06:16) :
    The problem is that when these scientists fall, ALL of scientists will be painted by the same brush.
    Yes, I completely agree.  How incedably stupid of official science to place themselves into such a clef stick. 
    http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/in-a-cleft-stick.html
    The memberships of the various professional societies need to vote the bums leading them out on their kiesters.
    Mike Ramsey

  91. A C Osborn (11:01:48) :
    ‘Wren (10:05:20) :
    But that is how CO2 was blamed in the first place because they did match for a few years.
    I understand that’s when the magical, mystical “Amplification” number of 2.5 came into being. It was the only way to “Balance the Books”.

  92. Krosnick says. “Public opinion changes when leaders who previously held one opinion, suddenly switch.”

    John McCain has switched — or at least backed away from being a warmist to being a luke-warmist.

  93. royfomr (14:17:26) :
    Your comment made me think of the quote below:
    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. ”
    H. L. Mencken

  94. R Gates
    Quote: “but you can say it is likely to very high degree of certainty.”
    Exactly like my invisible glass…
    ….and they would both be 100% wrong.
    ….and both would not match observations to support either hypothesis in the real world.

  95. R Gates:
    So AGW scientists have made specific prediction, and so far the preponderance of the evidence supports their theory. Only the data…not the pundits, nor politicians, nor the public opinion will change that…
    We know you believe this to be true. But that is because you believe the data of GISS and Hansen et al.
    I don’t trust their figures. Too many “fiddles” have been exposed for that. I find it totally disgusting that my scientists in my country (NIWA) are prepared to blatantly “fix” the result they want. Because I don’t trust their figures, I remain unconvinced in AGW.
    That the 2020’s will be warm is not proof of AGW in any case. The world has been warming for a couple of centuries. You know as well as I do that radically accelerated warming is required. And the figures so far for that are not at all persuasive, even using GISS etc.
    Not only that, you need to show that it is a bad thing. People are prone to assuming all change is bad, but that doesn’t make it true. The warming of the last century has been a good thing. Perhaps another degree will make the world better.
    I would also like you to consider whether your moderate response here is what the hard-core AGW advocates are proposing. They (Greenpeace, Gore, Mann etc) don’t hold with “the evidence will prove them right” They demand immediate, decisive action NOW, or we are doomed.

  96. Polls are only important at a political level and as for on the science level it is irrelevant in the long run as the truth always comes out. We can use polls against the Warmists as a hammer but that does not make us right. The only thing that will make us right is weather over time.

  97. he says. “We don’t see a lot of evidence that the general public in the United States is picking up on the (University of East Anglia) e-mails. It’s too inside baseball.”
    Now I wonder why that is? Phhhtttt!

  98. old construction worker (14:43:05): “I understand that’s when the magical, mystical “Amplification” number of 2.5 came into being. It was the only way to “Balance the Books”.
    The imaginary magical mystery amplification number isn’t just 2.5, it’s 3.783 (4.54/1.2)
    but don’t take my word for it, here it is out of the mouths of Gavin, Hansen, & Co. at GISS:
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/gavin-schmidts-good-science-part-2.html

  99. ” On the flip side, the acidification of the oceans”
    Please don’t say this.
    Ocean pH 8-8.2 has a long way to go to become acid.
    Saying “ocean acidification” is just more alarmism, and a catch phrase designed to instill fear.
    Again, it’s a product of “computer models”, and we do not know enough about that either to model anything.
    Even the most hysterical “robust” models still leave the ocean as very alkaline .

  100. The AGW theory has morphed into a secular religion, with the high priests of “climate change” sheparding their flock of True Believers and excommunicating those who deviate from the sacred canons, question the existence of the Greenhouse CO2 God, or dispute the apocalyptic epistles of human-induced global warming.
    More here on the Church of Global Warming. The Reformation is underway.
    http://bit.ly/cLnKGS

  101. Pete H (16:02:58) :
    There is a book:
    “A Slobbering Love Affair”
    by Bernard Goldberg
    From Amazon;
    “Goldberg shows how the mainstream media’s hopelessly one-sided coverage of President Obama has shredded America’s trust in journalism and endangered our free society.”
    I would say it’s certainly true, in the case of CAGW.

  102. RE:Max Hugoson (08:05:15) : “IS GLOBAL WARMING MAN MADE?”
    I see I completely missed the point of your article in my earlier post. I humbly apologize.

  103. The trolls have regrouped. The place is crawling with them.
    They had been knocked back on their heels by ClimateGate and had been in hiding under the bridge. But this ‘warmest decade on record’ combined with the high UAH anomaly for two months in a row seems to have given them reason to come out.
    I guess the deception practiced among top global warming scientists that ClimateGate conclusively revealed doesn’t mean anything to them—or they’d still be knocked back on their heels. But that’s par for the course for them since real science didn’t mean anything to them in the first place.
    So my question now is: what will they do when UAH, and all other data sets, drop precipitously for months when El Nino ends?

  104. Jimbo (15:10:54) :
    The only thing that will make us right is weather over time.
    It could be that the weather is what’s making the change in the polls already.

  105. Adverts on TV here in Australia state that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 and a website, 100places.com I think it was. I wonder if they know this is BS?

  106. Joe (12:06:16):
    The problem is that when these scientists fall, ALL of scientists will be painted by the same brush.

    I believe that’s what will happen in the end, which is both sad and fitting. I say fitting because I believe the majority of scientists are not so convinced or are against the AGW thesis but are not speaking out in protest. Even if only say 50% of the scientists are in this category, they all should be standing up and participate in “defrocking” the AGW fraud. I understand their pressures and their preoccupation with their work. However, it doesn’t excuse them. As is often said “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

  107. R. Gates (14:35:11): Mike… It was a good thing that there was some alarmism when it was recognized that flurocarbons [sic] were depleting the ozone layer. Scientists found the link, and something political was done about it.
    No, R, the fluorocarbons alarm was another hoax. No one, not even scientists, have found fluorocarbons in the atmosphere above Antarctica. The hypothesis was never proved, and the elimination of fluorocarbons has not affected the ozone hole one iota.
    However, DuPont made $billions because their patent on Freon was running out. And asthma victims have suffered enormously because the non-CFL inhalers are less effective. The CFL scare caused huge harm, no good, except for windfall profits to big corporations, and is the perfect parallel to AGW Alarmism.
    Jim and Mr. Gore, and the rest have a role to play, and honestly and passionately believe they are right. It is naive and a gross misunderstanding of these men to think it is about money, fame, research dollars or anything else.
    I did not mention the motivations of Al and James, but since you bring it up, how do you know what those are? Are you a confidante? Are you their psychiatrist? Let’s not be deaf, dumb, and blind here. It is plainly obvious that both men are deeply entwined financially in Alarmist carbon trading scams and both men are media hogs. Was Al’s movie an accident? Gimme a break, R!!!!
    Personally, I straddle the fence on the AGW issue in terms of outcome.
    How convenient for you. You have the “science” wired, but the outcomes are not your concern. Are you also in the bio-warfare industry? An arms trader? A bomb-maker? Do you think science is a-political? Are you context-challenged?
    Get real, R. Come down off your cloud.

  108. Arthur Glass (06:08:56) :
    “And here I had foolishly been thinking that the central concern of natural science was detemining truths about the structure and dynamics of the physical world. Silly me! The central concern of natural scientists, apparently, is to enhance and enforce the prestige of natural scientists….”
    As soon as scientists were paid to be scientists and as soon as scientists were given directives from others “the central concern of natural science to detemine truths about the structure and dynamics of the physical world.” went out the window and “political agendas” took its place.

  109. R. Gates (14:00:38)
    I come across theories that are real head scratchers at times in it’s total lack of common sense.
    Example: Hydro Power Generation claims they are 92% efficient.
    Where did they get this number and how was it arrived at?
    No one knew just that this claim was over 100 years old.
    Do you want to know how it was arrived at?
    150 years ago when the hydro turbine was created, it would not turn unless there was a space around the edge of the turbine. An 8% space. So if the water does not touch this 8% then it must be 92% efficient.
    When real actual angles of deflection math and the rotational descepancies are calculated to this turbine, the actual efficiency is less than 2% at harnessing energy out of the water.
    Who knew?

  110. Patrick Davis (17:11:32) :
    I wish there were commercials on tv for WattsUpWithThat.com!

  111. Patrick Davis (17:11:32) :
    Quote: “Adverts on TV here in Australia state that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 and a website, 100places.com I think it was. I wonder if they know this is BS?”
    Patrick, they didn’t care when they knew that all the other things were BS before.
    advocacy
    .

  112. A C Osborn (11:01:48) :
    Wren (10:05:20) :
    Causal relationships don’t require the dependent variable to change in lock step with one independent variable with other independent variables are involved.
    But that is how CO2 was blamed in the first place because they did match for a few years.
    Of course you could take the other stated reason “we couldn’t think of anything esle to blame”
    ***********************************
    Take this one step further as some posts on “real climate” do: a few years of correspondence between the climate models and temperatures are proof that they are correct.
    The only climate model I would give any credence to is one that gives some reasonable approximation of the past ice ages, their periodicity, and the Daansgard-Oeschger events in between.

  113. “Climatologist”.
    As I pointed out on another thread, a “climatologist” needs to have a thorough understanding of many disciplines before he or she can claim to understand climate. Chemistry, physics, math, statistics, and also they must know about data gathering, have some idea what’s going on with computer programming, records, record storage, etc. It really is a gargantuan task.
    There are parallels, though. One thing you learn when restoring or working on cars is that you can’t just understand an engine. You need to have knowledge of physics, working with glass, upholstering, painting, and a big list of other skills.
    If you’re the I.T. guy at a medium company (like me), you’ll need to understand programming, processes, accounting, documents, paperwork, dealing with government, wiring (network cabling), and another list of skills.
    So far, the “climatologists” I’ve seen don’t seem to have the skill set required to make the sweeping, certain proclamations that they have. How can you possibly be doing this work if you don’t understand records? Or archiving? It makes no sense. The idea is that what you can’t do yourself you have other people to do. Which means swallowing your pride and actually LISTENING to the input from those looking after records, or programming, accounting, chemistry, physics, statistics, etc. And stop wasting valuable productive time by dabbling in politics… that would help.
    There is not a single person in this world who knows all there is to know scientifically. There may have been a time when someone could… like back in Newton’s day, maybe even Franklin.

  114. R Gates opines that AGW is a hypothesis! At long last we see such an acknowledgement from the pro-AGW side! It is not a theory, far from it, and it is refreshing to see a pro AGW advocate noting this crucially important point relating to the status of the science relating to AGW.
    A hypothesis is a mental construct, usually based on an understanding of relevant physical theory, about causal relationships between observed physical phenomena. It requries “verification” through independently verifiable and consistently reproducable experimentation or observation, specifically aimed at defining the causal relationship, and ensuring that such causes are unique to the posited relationships . And if the AGW hypothesis, namely that anthropogenic CO2 is contributing to the post 1850 global mean temperature increase at a 0.n to n.0 degree C magnitude scale, can be so “verified” in independent and consistently reproduceable observations and experiments, the hypothesis may then become a “theory”.
    Currently, there is no independent and consistently reproduceable experimental or observational support for the AGW hypothesis. Rather, so far, there is conflict in the experimental and observational data – some data supports the hypothesis, and much doesn’t. And, unfortunately for the AGW advocates, it is a very difficult hypothesis to verify because of the complex dynamics of the climate, and because of the need for extensive time windows, of the order of several hundred thousand years, for example, to gain a more robust definition of what constitues a natural background to the current variability in global mean surface temperatures.
    So let us note, AGW is a hypothesis, awaiting robust experimental and observational verification.

  115. R. Gates (14:35:11) :
    Quote:””Alarmism comes about when science mixes with politics…and it has a valuable role to play. It was a good thing that there was some alarmism when it was recognized that flurocarbons were depleting the ozone layer. Scientists found the link, and something political was done about it””
    R, you’re not making sense.
    It was hysterical alarmism that jumped the gun before the science was in.
    Which is a perfect analogy of what is happening now. I don’t think it was what you were looking for though.
    They were wrong about flurocarbons………………

  116. Looks like another major mistake has been revealed…
    Loss of soil carbon ‘will speed global warming’
    Guardian – September 2005
    Their findings, published in Nature today, show that carbon was being lost from the soil at an average of 0.6% a year: the richer the soils, the higher the rate of loss. When the figures were extrapolated to include all of the UK, the annual loss was 13m tonnes.
    “There was no single factor other than global warming that could explain such changes in non-agricultural soils, they said. “These losses completely offset the past technological achievements in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, putting the UK’s success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a different light,” said Detlef Schulze and Annette Freibauer, of the Max Planck Institute, in Nature.”
    Guardian has now revealed that this was wrong.
    “A national survey of the soils of Great Britain, funded by the department for environment food and rural affairs, claims to have found no net loss of carbon over approximately the same period.”
    If this incorrect data has been entered into the climate models it means they have all temperate soils as being a carbon source and not a carbon sink. That’s hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 per year they said was being released into the atmosphere which wasn’t. Staggering!
    And I bet they aren’t taking into account earthworms either.
    Mean earthworm density was higher under elevated CO2 and worms mixed soil at deeper depths. Mixing deeper low carbon content soil with shallower high carbon soil may result in a dilution of net carbon inputs in forest soils exposed to elevated CO2. (Sánchez-de León, 2008)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/08/sciencenews.research1
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/07/carbon-dioxide-global-warming-soil

  117. latitude, I highly doubt that CFC believers will ever understand that they were duped.
    Banning Freon was more political than scientific. In fact, the replacement is likely more harmful, in more tangible and demonstrable ways.
    But banning Freon made a lot of people feel good about themselves, gave them a sense that they had participated in “saving the world”, and pointing out that the science doesn’t back the scare is an exercise in futility.

  118. Douglas Haynes (17:53:44) :

    R Gates opines that AGW is a hypothesis! At long last we see such an acknowledgement from the pro-AGW side! It is not a theory, far from it, and it is refreshing to see a pro AGW advocate noting this crucially important point relating to the status of the science relating to AGW.

    As a matter of fact, AGW is not even a hypothesis. It is merely a conjecture: click
    The link above explains the difference, which should be understood by everyone reading this site. Proponents of AGW [and even more ludicrously, of CAGW] continually attempt to elevate their pet conjectures beyond hypotheses, and up to theories. No doubt one of them will soon refer to the Law of AGW.
    Language has meaning, and nowhere more so than in science. By allowing AGW propagandists to unilaterally change the accepted meaning of conjecture, to mean hypothesis or theory instead, it is for one reason: to attain power:
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
    “The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

    Kudos to Douglas Haynes for pointing out that R Gates is not using “theory” for what is a conjecture. There may be some slight wiggle-room by the AGW Humpty Dumpty numpties for calling their AGW conjecture a hypothesis. But that is quite a stretch, as Dr Glassman makes clear in his excellent dissertation on the differences between a Conjecture, a Hypothesis, a Theory and a Law.

  119. Charles,
    As the science actually gets stronger on AGW the rhetoric from climate change deniers gets stronger, and their transparently political attacks on the science become more transparent.
    Grow a sense of irony!

  120. Reply: Oh you nit pickers (thanks, fixed) ~ ctm
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    Wait a second, wait a second, isn’t that knit pickers with a ‘k’ ?

  121. ” Rockmike (03:32:56) :
    “Unfortunately most major industry leaders have already made their methods the most convienent and anything cheaper they bought and buried. We haven’t advanced enough as a society to yet look past out own lives or our own times. One possability would be to take steps to put laws or regulations that keep technological, economical, ecological, and humanitarian progressions from never being added to our society or civilization. (examples: Electric car from the 50’s bought by GM and buried,”… (etc)
    =================================================
    Rockmike, the first thing your post brought to my mind was Puff the Magic Carburator. I personally know two people who swear that their late uncle built Puff (which got 100 mpg) in the ’50s, and sold the patent to a car company that immediately buried it. I’ve never been able to get out of them WHY the “uncle” didn’t build another one for his own use, given that patents only restrict the SALE of the patented object. The “uncle” could have made all he wanted to give away to friends and family, and never violated the sale prohibition. Also, patents have a statute of limitations on them, and he could have remade them later. But the “uncle”, being dead, could not answer the questions.
    Electric cars… do you have any idea how NON-green those things are? They DO have to be recharged when not in use, and the regarging would at LEAST triple your power use. This isn’t a cell phone, it’s a freekin’ CAR.
    Did it ever occur to you that IF GM actually did what you said, that perhaps they couldn’t overcome the power usage problem?
    Further, rechargable batteries are based on lithium, which is an extremely rare item. A full HALF of it is mined in Bolivia alone. We will run out of lithium a LONG time before we run out of oil… and then when everyone has dead cars sitting in their driveways, how will you recharge your laptop and cell phone when the batteries wear out? Save lithium batteries for the SMALL items! 😉
    So, even if GM actually DID deep-six an electric car decades ago, there could have been a very good reason for it… that reason probably being that they couldn’t figure a way around the obvious (to me) problems.
    The sinister, eeeevile, corporate plots to keep us from advancing are not all that they’re cracked up to be. Puff the Magic Carburator is a myth, and I suspect that a lot of the other “corporate plots” are also myths.
    So lighten up. Corporations are not evil. They are in business to make money to feed their kids, just like you are. New technology that would give them an edge over their competitors would be used, not concealed.

  122. R. Gates:
    Here’s the hypothesis the AGW proposes: Human activity, specifically the production of CO2, is altering the climate.
    Any argument or practice which specifically eschews the Scientific Method as applicable in testing this hypothesis – as exampled by the ipcc’s “Climate Science” – cannot possibly prove this hypothesis.
    Only some vast mass conspiracy on a global scale by hundreds, if not thousands of scientists involving the measurements of everything from sea level, to arctic sea ice and satellite data would be needed to bring about any “hoax”.
    You cannot deny the fact that CO2 AGW is a pseudo-scientific – “Climate Science” – hoax by denying its possibility, the latter which you also present as nothing more than an untethered postulate.

  123. Rockmike (03:32:56) :
    Unfortunately most major industry leaders have already made their methods the most convienent and anything cheaper they bought and buried.
    The word use or word meaning problem with this kind of “conspiracy” claim is that what has allegedly existed and been “buried” must be distinguishable from what has “never existed” in the first place. In other words, if you can never seem to find what has been “buried”, it’s logically the same as it having “never existed”, and therefore ‘it’ can’t have been “buried”.
    Electric golf carts have existed for quite some time, and back in the ’50’s there were plenty of electric “Street Cars”. But the kind of batteries necessary to run individual automobiles up to the level of function required for the multiple uses of automobiles, have simply not been adequately developed.
    Or are the adequately developed batteries instead “buried” somewhere – right there with the cancer cures and the fountain of youth?

  124. J. Peden said:
    “You cannot deny the fact that CO2 AGW is a pseudo-scientific – “Climate Science” – hoax by denying its possibility, the latter which you also present as nothing more than an untethered postulate.”
    I completely deny the supposed “fact” that AGW due to rapidly escalating CO2 is pseudo-science. There is solid physics behind the GH forcing mechanism that CO2 and other gases play in the troposphere…and thank goodness they do, or we’d all be…well, non-existent. What real honest to goodness scientists, thousands of them, are seeking to find, through all the natural variation is the data that shows a rapid build up of CO2 since the industrial revolution will cause the earth to warm more than it would have through natural variation alone. There is nothing pseudo about this effort or the science behind it. But even if this data is found, the AGW hypothesis will never be proven in an absolute terms, but only in probablistic terms, with a very high degree of certainty. And of course, no matter how much data or proof is offered, certain mindsets will never accept it, and that’s just human nature.

  125. Re: R. Gates (Mar 6 22:18),

    But even if this data is found, the AGW hypothesis will never be proven in an absolute terms, but only in probablistic terms, with a very high degree of certainty.

    You mean like the following example?
    August 23, 2000: email 0967041809. S Schneider

    … please get rid of the ridiculous “inconclusive” for the 34% to 66% subjective probability range. It will convey a completely different meaning to lay persons—read decision makers—since that probability range represents medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like “quite possible” is closer to popular lexicon, but “inconclusive” applies as well to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be misinterpreted on the outside”.

    Then Tom Karl chimes in..

    Steve, I agree with your assessement of “inconclusive”—“quite possible” is much better and we use “possible” in the United States National Assessment. Surveys have shown that the term “possible” is interpreted in this range by the public

    But Schneider isn’t satisfied with “possible”, so he goes for “quite possible”, then (probably thinks) what the heck, go the whole hog.

    “Great Tom, I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across various cultures here. Please get the “inconclusive” out! By the way, “possible” still has some logical issues as it is true for very large or very small probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is probably OK—but “quite possible” conveys medium confidence better—but then why not use “medium confidence”, as the 3 rounds of review over the guidance paper concluded after going through exactly the kinds of discussions were having now?”

    Keep in mind, the discussion is about a 34%-66% range, a just as likely as unlikely scenario. But if these wags had of kept going, we could have ended up with “absolutely positively certain.” lol
    Is this the type of “probablistic term” you were thinking of?
    Thanks to John P Castello

  126. “Anu (21:36:43) :
    J.Peden (20:27:20) :
    You cannot deny the fact that CO2 AGW is a pseudo-scientific – “Climate Science” – hoax
    Sure I can.
    And I can invite you to put your money where your mouth is.”
    That’s just a stupid bet as it is likely that the next 5 years will be slightly warmer than historically. We are on a steady upward climb from the last ice age. Get back to me when we average 22 degrees and then I’ll bet on a decline. It’s a bit like betting on the population of the world not increasing in the next 5 years.
    Sceptics like me don’t say the world won’t get naturally warmer – but that we aren’t responsible for unusual warmth which will be catastrophic.
    cheers David

  127. The thruth is that nature operates in cycles. And now we are heading into a cooler cycle, nomatter what the Carbon Cult is saying.
    So, what is it, voters in the UK?
    Will you accept that the Government can just CUT you out of the grid next time the grid cannot take it? How many minutes can you take, when this happens?
    It is in fact BIG OIL=BIG GOVERNMENT in Norway that will profit from this. Its Statoil, remember?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7386628/How-will-David-Cameron-keep-the-lights-on.html

  128. Gail Combs (17:27:12) :

    Arthur Glass (06:08:56) :
    “And here I had foolishly been thinking that the central concern of natural science was determining truths about the structure and dynamics of the physical world. Silly me! The central concern of natural scientists, apparently, is to enhance and enforce the prestige of natural scientists….”

    As soon as scientists were paid to be scientists and as soon as scientists were given directives from others “the central concern of natural science to determine truths about the structure and dynamics of the physical world.” went out the window and “political agendas” took its place.

    Warmists often suggest that climate skeptics must believe in a conspiracy in order to account for the prevailing scientific consensus on AGW. But these warmists presume that current science is working according to an out-dated and idealistic picture of a free market in ideas by disinterested and idealistic practitioners and gatekeepers, which is not how science functions nowadays. Nowadays, it is much more susceptible to fads, bureaucratic inertia, cheating, monetary inducements, and groupthink than previously. Here are extracts from an article by a scientist and scientific administrator with inside knowledge of the dark side of science:

    Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels
    By HENRY H. BAUER
    Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies
    Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences
    Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
    Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 643–660, 2004
    http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/21stCenturyScience.pdf
    ………….
    Supposedly authoritative information about the most salient science-related matters has become dangerously misleading because of the power of bureaucracies that co-opt or control science.
    Science as an Institution
    Dysfunction and obsolescence begin to set in, unobtrusively but insidiously, from the very moment that an institution achieves pre-eminence. The leading illustration of this Parkinson’s Law (Parkinson, 1958) was the (British) Royal Navy. Having come to rule the seas, the Navy slowly succumbed to bureaucratic bloat. The ratio of administrators to operators rose inexorably, and the Navy’s purpose, defense of the realm, became subordinate to the bureaucracy’s aim of serving itself. The changes came so gradually that it was decades before their effect became obvious.
    Science attained hegemony in Western culture toward the end of the 19th century (Barzun, 2000: 606–607; Knight, 1986). This very success immediately sowed seeds of dysfunction: it spawned scientism, the delusive belief that science and only science could find proper answers to any and all questions that human beings might ponder. Other dysfunctions arrived later: funding through bureaucracies, commercialization, conflicts of interest. But the changes came so gradually that it was the latter stages of the 20th century before it became undeniable that things had gone seriously amiss.
    It remains to be appreciated that 21st-century science is a different kind of thing than the ‘‘modern science’’ of the 17th through 20th centuries; there has been a ‘‘radical, irreversible, structural’’ ‘‘world-wide transformation in the way that science is organized and performed’’ (Ziman, 1994). Around 1950, Derek Price (1963/1986) discovered that modern science had grown exponentially, and he predicted that the character of science would change during the latter part of the 20th century as further such growth became impossible. One aspect of that change is that the scientific ethos no longer corresponds to the traditional ‘‘Mertonian’’ norms of disinterested skepticism and public sharing; it has become subordinate to corporate values. Mertonian norms made science reliable; the new ones described by Ziman (1994) do not.
    [The article continues at the link — RK]

  129. David L (03:38:19) :

    I agree. I’m a scientist and I know a lot of scientists. None of them along with all of the nonscientists I know are aware of Climategate. It’s amazing to me how many are more worried about sports news and to a lesser extent the economy and local news. The climate just never crosses their minds.

    But David, sports news is so much more important than Climategate.
    And when you combine sports news with local news, well, there just is no stopping the discussions.
    Here in Denver the media has the perfect storm of all these factors with the local Baal worship of the Broncos mixed in with gang violence; the murder of one Denver Bronco; the involvement of several others including bad boy Brandon Marshall, who apparently was involved, somewhat at the margins with the alleged killer in a New Year’s party, …
    See http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14519564?source=pop_section_news
    On this blog, we spent hours discussing minutia such as concentrations of CO2. In Denver, thousands upon thousands of hours are spent discussing the color of an SUV and its impact on the murder. The TV and newspaper are filled with all these details.
    Why?
    Because it sells paper and TV advertising.
    And what about Tiger? Now that is at the heart of a truly international religion, golf. How could it be otherwise?
    At the local watering hole I scandalized everyone present when I suggested golf is only a pastime; certainly entertaining, but hardly worth the emotional energy being poured into the fall from grace of its current patron saint.
    I can still drink beer there, but I can tell I’m being watched closely for anymore wayward behavior. Anymore social gaffs like that and who knows how much further I’ll fall in the index of social acceptability.

  130. Roger Knights (03:01:51) :
    Roger,
    Your comments and quotes are some the best things I’ve read in a long time. Excellent posting.
    Thank you.

  131. James F. Evans (08:18:43) :
    “… in the politics of science, “I don’t know,” is a dead-bang loser.
    It takes ethics and courage to resist the temptation to over-state your case.
    Don’t kid yourself, going along with the crowd is just as easy in science as anywhere else — maybe easier — and more necessary to your professional survival.
    But, “going along to get along,” isn’t a profile in courage or the fulfillment of objective scientific responsibility.
    Sadly, this corrosive desire to “fit in” has corrupted many a scientist….”

    Unfortunately the latest fad in industry is being a “Team Player” I can think of nothing worse for the advancement of science than turning whole generations of scientists into “yes man slaves” and thanks to John Dewey and his education theory of “codependency” that is exactly what has happened.
    Summary of Dewey’s Philosophy of Instrumentalism – http://wilderdom.com/experiential/JohnDeweyPhilosophyEducation.html
    * Dewey’s philosophy was called instrumentalism (related to pragmatism).
    * Instrumentalism believes that truth is an instrument used by human beings to solve their problems.
    * Since problems change, then so must truth.
    * Since problems change, truth changes, and therefore there can be no eternal reality.
    From Andrew Agostino – http://www.ifets.info/journals/2_4/agostino.html
    “John Dewey was an American philosopher and educator whose work has had a tremendous impact on progressive education as a whole… His theory of knowledge characterized as instrumentalist and related to pragmatism advanced the idea that in order to study learning, one must consider the context in the social world where learning occurs. He defined education as a nurturing, cultivating process where mature members of a social group accommodate newer members through specific, social interaction. The environment or “medium” sets up those ambient factors that encourage or hamper the development of human beings (Dewey, 1916)… Consequently, the environment encompasses all of those things that significantly shape activity. Dewey goes further to characterize the social environment as encompassing all those other human participants who are associated with the individual and whose expectations, demands, endorsement or condemnation of action frame the social situation. After all, no one can be engaged in an activity without taking into account the connection with the activity of others. This connection is fundamental to the understanding of the social environment because an individual’s actions will always be interrelated in meaningful ways to all others within the social medium… Once membership is established, the individual becomes cognizant of the emotional attitudes, beliefs, tools, goals of the group and pretty much begins to share the same supply of knowledge that the group possesses. Accordingly, this shared experience forms an emotional tendency to motivate individual behavior in such a way that it creates purposeful activity evoking certain meaningful outcomes. Prawat (1995) refers to this shared experience as ‘idea-based, social constructivism’, learners are engaged in discourse communities where they can come up with and apply functional ideas…”
    This is the educational philosophy shaping the training of our scientists for the last one hundred years. The AGW scandals and the changes we have noted in “the scientific method” is the logical outcome of this type of education system. Truth is fluid and based on
    “evoking certain meaningful outcomes” Is it any wonder that skeptics, people who are not team players, are viewed as heretics and traitors to be punished harshly?

  132. @Max Hugoson (08:05:15) :
    “In science, the method used to verify the validity of a theory is to compare the theory with actual observations. To verify the theory of man made global warming, we may compare the change in CO2 in the atmosphere to change in mean global temperature during the same period.”
    “As a result, based on more than a decade long data, global warming is not man made.”
    ——————
    While I agree with your conclusion, that global warming is not man made, my position is not heavily weighted in the temperature data (the data, of which is not only inadequate but is suspected to be skewed), but rather in the mathematical proofs afforded by established Physics, which lends to falsify the AGW hypothesis, especially the more alarmist positions (Al Gore, et al). Of course we should not ignore the temperature data, but it’s not the golden ruler that it’s purported to be. (Only 0.1% of the earth’s surface temperature is measured on a regular basis),
    Be careful that you do not make the same mistake as made by the warmists!
    While establishing correlation is important, it is NOT proof of causation. In order to establish causation based on observations, all other variables must be eliminated, or at least accurately accounted for. Then the observations must be repeated ad nauseum to establish statistical significance (i.e., to demonstrate that the observations are not due to random variability). For the climate, collecting data over just a few decades is inadequate. Establishing causation is virtually impossible to do in the laboratory for something as complex and macro as the earth climate system. (As far as the computer models go, well… garbage in, garbage out.) Since the variables cannot be eliminated, the best that can be done is too attempt to measure and quantify them. This quantification is a rather precarious endeavor for the climate, due to the high complexity, the large number of variables, and the immense quantity of data required to do so. AGW skeptics are not satisfied that climatologists have done this quantification properly and thoroughly, and therein lies much of the controversy.

  133. Anu (21:36:43):

    “And I can invite you to put your money where your mouth is.”

    That is the kind of response I would expect from someone lacking any verifiable, testable, empirical evidence that CO2 will cause CAGW [runaway global warming].
    Unless, of course, betting on next year’s weather is a pub game. Then it makes sense, because it’s being done for the fun of it.
    So on on that basis I offer you the following $1,000 USD wager, to be placed at Long Bets. The total $2,000 to be paid to the charity of the winner’s choice. Here’s the bet:
    There will be no “tipping point” causing runaway global warming, no matter how high CO2 levels rise within the next 50 years; global temperatures will be no higher than 3°C above February 2010, based on an average of all satellite measurements, now and in February 2060.
    I’m offering you a full fifty years of rapidly increasing anthropogenic CO2 levels [think China, Brazil, India, etc.] to see if the result is runaway global warming.
    For someone who resorts to wagers on the weather to give authority to his arguments, I’m giving you the opportunity to put up here and now, and possibly benefit the charity of your choice. And think of the fun you can have, telling people you’ve put your money where your mouth is.

  134. There are very few things in the “modern World” that aren’t ‘academic’. The one that seems to still hold the most water for normal, everyday folks is ‘family’. Another is ‘job’. Another is ‘health’. Another is ‘bills’.
    What we are about is very, very, very (yawn) ‘academic’. All that we say here will soon be forgotten. We need to enjoy the ‘academic’ moments for what they truly are: Brief excursions from reality and the things that really matter.

  135. R. Gates (22:18:53) :
    CO2 drives the Climate is DEAD
    CO2 leads “temperature” oops
    “Hot spot” in troposphere” oops
    increase in “heat trapping clouds” oops
    “Oceans getting warmer” oops
    “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” oops
    “The Hockey Stick” oops
    “Roman Warm Period” oops
    CO2 has a greater correlation that PDO, La Nina, El Nino, Sun’s activity and the Moon’s orbit. oops
    “Climatgate” BIG OOPS.

  136. R. Gates (12:39:05) :
    Joe said:
    “Just give it time and the planet will show how incorrect the climate scientists have been…”
    How much time Joe? I am fairly certain, that even if the next 10 years are warmer that the last 10, which were warmer than the 10 years before that, we will see some AGW skeptics who will never accept the data…..”

    You can not separate CAGW from big oil and banking, but the connection is not what the AGW crowd thinks.
    If the power behind CAGW has their way in 10 to 20 years it will not matter. The World Bank and UN will have succeeded in enslaving us all, the gloves will be off, there will be no more middle class, freedom or democracy. For that matter most of the “useless eaters” will find themselves sterilized.
    “Silvia Ribeiro, who heads the ETC Group’s office in Mexico City, has noted with
    concern that the California-based Epicyte corporation boasts a spermicidal corn
    for use as a contraceptive. “The potential of spermicidal corn as a biological
    weapon is very high”,
    she warned, and reminisced about the use of forced
    sterilizations against indigenous peoples.”
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/biopharm32905.cfm
    AGW has never been about science it is about manipulating the masses. It was started in 1972 at the First Earth Summit by Maurice Strong, big man in Canadian oil, the World Bank and the United Nations.
    Strong very bluntly stated his goal:
    “”It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-
    class… involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and
    convenience foods, ownership of motor vehicles, small electric appliances, home
    and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable” …
    But how would you go about forcing change? Well, Maurice Strong, like all the
    other Hidden Rulers, has been pretty vocal about the blueprints. After all, it’s not like
    has much to worry about, he’s already in power and people are, by and large, very
    stupid animals. ”
    http://www.brainsturbator.com/articles/maurice_stong_another_hidden_ruler/
    If you do not believe we have hidden rulers just checkout who started World Wildlife Fund a real big player in todays CAGW and environmental movement. It was founded in 1961 by Prince Philip of Britain and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.
    Then there is David Rockefeller, big in banking and oil too. Rockefeller has hosted luncheons at the family’s Westchester estate for the world’s finance ministers and central bank governors, following the annual Washington meetings of the World Bank and IMF for years. Rockefeller’s Chase Bank served as training grounds for three World Bank presidents, John J. McCloy, Eugene Black and George Woods. Again David Rockefeller is quite blunt about his agenda
    In his 2002 autobiography “Memoirs” on page 405,” Mr. Rockefeller writes:
    “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political
    spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents… to attack the Rockefeller
    family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and
    economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working
    against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as
    “internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world … If that’s the
    charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
    Given David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong’s major connections to the World Bank, is it any surprise that the Copenhagen conference contained a bait and switch where the World Bank was substituted for the UN as the controller of Climate Change policies?
    “The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol …
    The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”…. “It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
    Before you blindly jump on the CAGW bandwagon I suggest you look at exactly where that bandwagon is headed. Take a good hard look at the bankers.
    “Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years,… To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples… I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal. ” http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/Budhoo_IMF.html
    “In the dozens of countries where the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have imposed structural adjustment programs (SAPs), the people who have seen deterioration in their standards of living, reduced access to public services, devastated environments, and plummeting employment prospects…”http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html
    An analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries shows the world’s finances are in the hands of a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first report of global concentration of financial power ..http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few
    Mergers, acquisitions and L.B.O.’s…. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/29/magazine/leveraged-buyouts-american-pays-the-price.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all New York Times
    The Bankers Manifesto of 1892 (Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, SR from Minnesota before the US Congress) –
    “The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.
    When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.”
    http://argoray.net/files/manifesto1892.htm
    The US Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and its history:
    A PRIMER ON MONEY prepared by the Sub-committee on Domestic Finance, House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and Currency — 88th Congress, 2nd session, August 4th, 1964 (about 125 pages)
    http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/patman-primer-on-money.pdf
    A short version is here: http://www.michaeljournal.org/feddebunked.htm

  137. Pascvaks (05:56:02) :
    (Back to “Academics”)
    Joe the Plumber and his family are concerned about really ‘real’ things, sooo… His biggest concern about the climate war is how it impacts him, right?
    Fat Albert and friends want to get their hands in his pocket -we don’t.
    Fat Albert and friends want to… (well, actually, that’s pretty much everything Fat Albert and his friends want to do).
    Joe and Jane Plumber and the kids don’t have much and what they have they want to hold onto. Ergo.. Fat Albert & Friends have already lost the Mann-made Global Warming ponzi scheme.
    What happens to Global Corporations and Banks and Investors and Politicians and Psyentists who supported Mann-made Global Warming and Fat Albert and his friends? Joe and Jane and the kids don’t care. As far as they’re concerned, these wierdos don’t exist.
    Now if Joe and Jane think there is no problem, is there really a problem? Are the psyentists going to take over Science? Is a scheme of tax credits for a bunch of carbon going to go anywhere? Is their Congress’person’ going to get reelected by supporting some break-Ft-Knox giveaway, …ah, honestly?.. that’s a toss-up. Is the price of gas going to go to $8.999 a gallon?
    Not if Joe and Jane have anything to day about it!
    PS: Don’t worry about the Plumbers. Focus on the thieves out to steal your life savings from you and sell you $8.999 gas.

  138. Roger Knights (03:01:51)
    Jack Simmons (04:24:54)
    I commend you both for excellent insight.
    I did not get into the AGW debate and could have care less about it.
    But the area of science I was researching and studying dragged me into it.
    Ostersized for being different is was society does best, so being guarded at what is said is the norm. Especially keeping your mouth shut about religion in order to do business, survive and have a social life.
    I have talked with a few physicists and scientists and their minds are set in stone. Whatever was taught or in a book is absolute and no amount of math, physical evidence, conclusive experimentation will change that.
    I had one physicist say “where did you get the fantasy of salinity changes? From a Marvel Comic Book?”
    Dropped him with the website from a well respected oceanographer!
    I found a huge area science missed studying and thoughly understanding.
    ROTATION
    This area evolved from creating the math and finding the conclusive science to power generation and how the rotational turbine pulls only 2% of the energy from water.
    Evolution is strange in following the many paths that leads from it.

  139. R. Gates:
    I completely deny the supposed “fact” that AGW due to rapidly escalating CO2 is pseudo-science.
    No matter how completely you deny this fact, any argument or practice which specifically eschews the Scientific Method as applicable in testing this AGW hypothesis – as exampled by the ipcc’s “Climate Science” – cannot possibly prove the AGW hypothesis and is therefore “pseudo-science”.
    And of course, no matter how much data or proof is offered, certain mindsets will never accept it, and that’s just human nature.

  140. Anu (21:36:43) :
    J.Peden (20:27:20) :
    You cannot deny the fact that CO2 AGW is a pseudo-scientific – “Climate Science” – hoax
    Sure I [Anu] can.

    Anu, you cannot deny the fact that CO2 AGW is a pseudo-scientific – “Climate Science” – hoax by claiming that this fact is impossible.

  141. R. Gates (22:18:53) :
    “What real honest to goodness scientists, thousands of them, are seeking to find, through all the natural variation is the data that shows a rapid build up of CO2 since the industrial revolution will cause the earth to warm more than it would have through natural variation alone. There is nothing pseudo about this effort or the science behind it. But even if this data is found, the AGW hypothesis will never be proven in an absolute terms, but only in probablistic terms, with a very high degree of certainty.”
    I am glad to see that you agree that they HAVEN’T YET FOUND IT.
    The science is not settled.

  142. Response to Gail Combs (06:30:01) :
    Your rather long post seems to indicate you believe that some group of very powerful rich people want to force us into some kind of economic slavery by controlling the AGW issue. To this I say, why would they need the climate issue to do so? In the U.S., our government is already well controlled by large corporate interests, and the recent Supreme Court case allowing even a great pipeline of money to flow between the corporations and those who supposedly represent “we the people” only reinforces this issue.
    I think there is far too much paranoia on both sides of the issue of AGW, and certainly the rich and powerful (who have always run the world, will continue to do so, regardless of how the AGW issue plays out. The only thing really as stake in the AGW issue from a financial standpoint is WHICH rich and powerful group of people will get to be in power. We the people will always remain their loyal subjects, so long as we allow them such easy access to our seat of power. The onlly way to solve this would be to have a massive popular uprising and institute such sweeping campaign finance reform that the umbilical cord between the corporate and financial elite and our branches of government is forever and irrevocably severed.
    Be that as it may, the pursuit of many dedicated and highlly trained scientists to find the connection between increased human caused GHG and climate change is a nobel one, often solitary, and often involving months away from their families at remote sites around the world. Many of these scientists I know personally, have spent many hours discussing the issue with them, know of their personal dedication to finding the facts, and also know that most of them don’t listen to the political rattling around them, but rather, listen to the subtle messages that the data might be telling them.

  143. This is a good time to just check on my understanding, please let me know if I have it wrong.
    1) UAH monthly temperaure anomalies are not cumulative and only reflect an increase or decrease for that individual month against an arbitrary baseline period. They do not show any perspective to temperature over the entire interglacial period. At this point in time, the anomaly really has no significance but you have to start somewhere so that eventually, over a much longer period of time, it will have meaning.
    2) Eventually the Earth will return to it’s more normal state of glaciation and there isn’t much we can do about it short of changing the orbit or axis tilt.
    The return to normal will be complete in about 5,000 years from now.
    We don’t know when the start of this inevitable change will happen.
    In the time frame of Earthly changes of this type, 1,000 years one way or the other is insignificant.

  144. A C Osborn (09:22:03) said:
    “I am glad to see that you agree that they HAVEN’T YET FOUND IT.
    The science is not settled.”
    Yes, I personally am not 100% convinced, but the majority of climate scientists are. I’m at about 75% convinced, and if the next few years (between now and 2015 or so) see new summer time minimum sea ice extent modern records being set, and new instrument records for average global temperatrues, I will slip into the convinced category. On the other hand, if the arctic sea ice rebounds and we see many years of positive anomalies and we get back and see a trend of cooler years (not related to a solar minimum or la nina!) then I could become a skeptic of the AGW hypothesis. We are definitely at those watershed years for certain. I know many of my climate scientists friends think I’m being too cautious in waiting to fully say I’m 100% certain that the climate is warming and humans are the cause, and certainly to do know and understand the data better, but I’m naturally a conservative person, and always take a bit more convincing.

  145. R. Gates (09:48:59)
    I respect your opionion and you do have many valid points.
    The issue will probably never be settled until a catastophic even occurs where many lives are lost to get public attention.
    For now governments love the IPCC option as it encompasses all no mater if it is cooling or warming under the guise of “Climate Change”.

  146. R. Gates (09:48:59):

    …the pursuit of many dedicated and highlly trained scientists to find the connection between increased human caused GHG and climate change is a nobel [sic, heh] one…

    So it’s not if there is a connection between human caused GHG [moving the goal posts away from CO2; can’t blame you for that], but to “find the connection.”
    Thank you for posting that fine example of the difference between scientific skeptics and AGW true believers.
    Believers have the assumption that human activity is causing the planet’s climate to change, and they know that it’s just a matter of finding that evasive connection – that ‘noble’ endeavor – while skeptics simply want testable, verifiable evidence of what is so far an empirically baseless assumption.
    I’ll bet you don’t even realize that your mind is already made up, and closed to the possibility that human activity has not changed the planet’s climate to any measurable degree.
    It’s natural variability, Gates. That’s all. Occam’s Razor agrees: there is no need to invoke more entities than necessary to explain the climate.
    But if and when you can provide some testable, empirical and verifiable evidence that anthropogenic CO2 causes any measurable global warming, I’m all ears.

  147. R. Gates (09:48:59) : Be that as it may, the pursuit of many dedicated and highlly trained scientists to find the connection between increased human caused GHG and climate change is a nobel one, often solitary, and often involving months away from their families at remote sites around the world.
    What’s the Latin name of THIS logical fallacy: argumentum ad sacrificium?
    I busted my tail, deprived my family, traveled to the ends of the earth — therefore everything I say is factual.
    I bled all over my field forms. I pulled my hair out. I got frostbite. Therefore, I’m right.
    Poppycock and balderdash. Shades of the Greenpeace expeditions. It doesn’t matter one whit, R, whether the scientists in question eat caviar or pork ‘n beans from a can. The truth is not for sale or rent.

  148. Smokey,
    AGW represents a hypothesis, and as such, you look for data to support it. Because the climate is a large and complex system, there are many variables, and so each one needs to be accounted for and understood. The AGW hypothesis states several things that will occur if it is accurate, from warming of the troposphere to the cooling of the stratosphere, gradual melting of glaciers, acidifciation of the oceans, extreme hyrdological events, rising of sea levels, etc. Even if these events occur (and most if not all are) then it doesn’t prove aboslutely that the AGW hypothesis is correct, it only says it is correct to a certain degree of certainty. Most climate scientists say this level has been reached, but for some AGW skeptics, no matter what the data say, the uncertainty will always outweigh the certainty.

  149. R. Gates (10:01:17) :
    Yes, I personally am not 100% convinced, but the majority of climate scientists are.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    Would you provide a list of these so we can know for sure you aren’t making this up?

  150. What will the trolls do when UAH drops rapidly after El Nino ends?
    I could make a guess that comes from experience with tham and say we will rarely see comments from them.
    They are feeling bold now because of 2 months of fairly high anomaly in UAH. But this boldness shows the inconsistency in their message. Because they say no one should ever use short term occurrences in weather to prove what is happening in climate.
    They always want to talk about the long term—unless it comes to the long term from the Medieval Warm Period to today.

  151. Regarding “CO2 ‘traps’ heat. Hardly, and a significant misnomer. The theory is that some wavelengths of IR going outward from the surface is “intercepted” by CO2 molecules, and re-radiated back to the surface, undoubtedly so. But there is certainly an opposite effect as well. The same wavelengths of IR inbound from the sun must be also be being intercepted, and being re-radiated back away from the planet. Thus, there is also a preventing of warming of the surface by the same CO2 molecules.
    So, while higher concentrations of CO2 would cause a somewhat higher percentage of these wavelengths of IR outbound from the surface to be re-radiated back to the surface, by the same process, more inbound from the sun IR would be re-radiated back away from the planet, reducing the total quantity of IR reaching the surface, which would mean less available IR to be re-radiated back to the surface by the CO2 molecules. A higher percentage of IR would be re-radiated back to the surface, but of of a lesser total amount.
    Looks to me as if this would be a “push”, as gamblers would say, regarding warming, and since IR is radiated spherically, higher concentrations of CO2 might well have in total a slight cooling effect from an overall basis.
    If CO2 radiates IR back to the planet, with a warming effect, CO2 is most certainly at the same time preventing IR from reaching the surface, which has a cooling effect.

  152. I think before any believer in dangerous co2 warming can try to convert others to their beliefs they first have to do the math on Ferenc Miskolczi’s greenhouse law. For more than 2 years no one has shown his math wrong. I know RealClimate commenters have conjectured that it is wrong but that would just be opinions. No one has shown it is wrong.
    If there are those who have done the math work and found Ferenc Miskolczi to be wrong then please submit your work to the scientific community, and to Ferenc Miskolczi himself, for scrutiny to see if your work is correct.

  153. LarryOldtimer (10:56:25) :
    Here is Roy Spencer talking about negative feedback:
    part 1

  154. R. Gates (10:41:00) :
    Smokey,
    AGW represents a hypothesis, and as such, you look for data to support it. Because the climate is a large and complex system, there are many variables, and so each one needs to be accounted for and understood.
    Not all the variables are accounted for.
    No salinity changes? That effects evaporation. Added salt will also hinder solar radiation from penetrating.
    Mechanical understanding of evaporation? Evaporation itself is a highly complex process involving a number of factors.
    Mechanical understanding of rotation that allows the gases and vapours to rise. Mechanical understanding of the atmosphere that is very elastistic itself and has multi-layers. The shape of our atmosphere. The lateral different longitudes of the planets shape that encourages energy to move.
    Just being on an axis and rotating brings in many different energies compare to a stationary circle. Science is studying the planet like a stationary circle without understanding rotation incorporates a great deal more forces.
    We have many past mistakes in theories due to studying this planet as a stationary object and not like a rotating object.

  155. it’s easier to to say the debate is over and stay in your comfort zone than to do the math

  156. Richard Holle (14:22:07) :
    “I like the young generation coming up. There is something about them that is unlike other generations of my lifetime.
    But this current young generation seems to have a face. They seem to want to face reality. My generation wanted escape from reality and to create a utopia that never could happen. This current generation seems to be creative about the real world. They seem to want real answers. And they are anything but confrontational.”
    I have noticed exactly the same thing. My son and his friends, dont care much about politician-talk. Dont watch TV much. Only interested in real everyday problems.
    Its very interesting. I think the politicians will have to change their ways in order to captivate them.

  157. How can anyone not be skeptical when presented with an article like this?
    Columbia Daily Tribune
    Columbia, Missouri
    The way of the dinosaurs — Skeptics ignore climate change at our own risk.
    By JAN WEAVER
    Published Sunday, March 7, 2010
    source: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/mar/07/the-way-of-the-dinosaurs/
    “Concern about the costs of cap-and-trade legislation and increased government control of economic behavior are driving skepticism about climate change science. However, climate scientists, foresters, fisheries biologists, agronomists, ecologists, public health specialists, even insurers and re-insurers are concerned that without addressing climate change now through gradually increasing regulation of fossil fuels, we face unprecedented levels of droughts, floods, sea level rise, crop failures and climate refugees in the next century.”
    “The adjustments currently called for will be nothing compared to the costs and controls imposed by competing for space and resources in a world shrunk by climate change.”

  158. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (11:18:32) :
    LarryOldtimer (10:56:25) :
    Here is Roy Spencer talking about negative feedback:
    part 1
    my reply;
    One of the natural variability features of the global circulation is pointed out in this selection by Roy Spencer, as the peaks of moisture production then the decrease post peak is actually the effects of outer planetary Synod conjunctions on the atmosphere.
    Where by the electro-magnetic fields coupling through the solar wind, from the sun through the outer planets causes this influence he speaks of as the homopolar generator field effects of the earth shift ion charges into the atmosphere. Building up the moisture to the point of closest alignment, then as the fields drop the resurgence of negative charges build the “ice” cirrus clouds post peak. what Roy Has found here is the proof of the mechanism I have been talking about for 20 years.

  159. Be that as it may, the pursuit of many dedicated and highlly trained scientists to find the connection between increased human caused GHG and climate change is a nobel one, often solitary, and often involving months away from their families at remote sites around the world. Many of these scientists I know personally, have spent many hours discussing the issue with them, know of their personal dedication to finding the facts, and also know that most of them don’t listen to the political rattling around them, but rather, listen to the subtle messages that the data might be telling them.
    Meanwhile, here in the real world, we see those pseudo-scientists for what they actually are, and not what you so fervently wish them to be: CAGW/CC alarmism is a big gravy train for them, is how they continue getting grants, and they all have this great incestuous pal review system going. Certainly no one’s going to want to rock the boat in any way. Sadly, that is the extent of their “dedication”, and it is anything but “nobel”.

  160. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (11:19:40)
    Why the IPCC Models are wrong?
    Try page 111 of the IPCC WG3 report. 30 Gt/CO2emissions now, 60 Gt/C02 emissions by 2030, 100 Gt/CO2 emissions by 2100.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter1.pdf
    All the coal in the world amounts to 800 Billion Tonnes which we burn currently at a rate of 7 billion tonnes a year. If we doubled our coal burn to 14 million tonnes a year by 2030 we would completely run out of coal by 2075.

  161. R. Gates (09:48:59) :
    ‘Response to Gail Combs (06:30:01) :
    Your rather long post seems to indicate you believe that some group of very powerful rich people want to force us into some kind of economic slavery by controlling the AGW issue. To this I say, why would they need the climate issue to do so? In the U.S., our government is already well controlled by large corporate interests, and the recent Supreme Court case allowing even a great pipeline of money to flow between the corporations and those who supposedly represent “we the people” only reinforces this issue.’
    You left out the influence peddling of NGOs. Groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and Tides Foundation.

  162. rbateman (07:50:34) :
    Is the “OMG, it’s Global Warming” novelty wearing off for you?
    How often do you mentally flog yourself for your participation in the usage of fossil fuels in your daily life routines?

    I figure one very effective way to force the young to consider the results of fraudulent global warming “solutions” is to tell them, “very well, you must sacrifice your computer, IPOD and cell phone to stop global warming.”
    Does anyone really think teens and 20-somethings are going to hand over their energy-intensive toys so easily?

  163. Darn, lost another post!
    Sorry if this is repetitious.

    rbateman (07:50:34) :
    Is the “OMG, it’s Global Warming” novelty wearing off for you?
    How often do you mentally flog yourself for your participation in the usage of fossil fuels in your daily life routines?

    I figure one very effective way to force the young to consider the results of fraudulent global warming “solutions” is to tell them, “very well, you must sacrifice your computer, IPOD and cell phone to stop global warming.”
    Does anyone really think teens and 20-somethings are going to hand over their energy-intensive toys so easily?

  164. Someone just posted a brand new series of leaked emails by the usual suspects. They’re flailing around trying to find an answer to the corruption in the climategate emails: click
    What is between the lines is the fact that they fear for their gravy train. Too bad they don’t just cooperate with skeptical scientists. But then, their scary CAGW conjecture would be falsified once again.
    They should be more concerned about the insider in their midst who is leaking their emails.

  165. R. Gates (10:41:00) :
    Smokey,
    ‘AGW represents a hypothesis, and as such, you look for data to support it. Most climate scientists say this level has been reached, (Hockey Stick, OOPS, “Hide the decline”, OOPS, “China’s UHI Effect”, OOPS, PEER REVIEWED “NEW and IMPROVED HOCKEY STICK”, OOPS)…………. but for some AGW skeptics, no matter what the data say, the uncertainty will always outweigh the certainty.
    Data Does not support “CO2 Drives the Climate” thing. Computer models do the not the Data. Then again, I don’t live in a computer model but I have worked out in “this” Climate/Weather for almost 40 years.
    By the way. Do you want to buy one of those “Space Blankets”? No refunds.

  166. Smokey (14:35:44) :
    Someone just posted a brand new series of leaked emails by the usual suspects. They’re flailing around trying to find an answer to the corruption in the climategate emails: click
    What is between the lines is the fact that they fear for their gravy train. Too bad they don’t just cooperate with skeptical scientists. But then, their scary CAGW conjecture would be falsified once again.
    They should be more concerned about the insider in their midst who is leaking their emails

    I would LOVE to know who’s leaking so I could send them a thank-you note.

  167. Roger Knights Thank you for the link and information.
    It substantiates my thirty years of experience as an industrial chemist. I found dishonesty to be the norm not the exception. I even consulted a lawyer about my rights and obligations because of my concerns on the dishonesty issue.

  168. Smokey (05:46:07) :
    You’re already on my list of “hopelessly ignorant about AGW”.
    However, I’ll respond to your betting ideas.
    intrade allows people to make money on timescales of 1 year or so, not 50 years for some “charity of choice”. Telling people to “put their money where their mouth is” is not an attempt to win an argument, but to exploit people’s wishful thinking that AGW is not happening, for my personal gain.
    I invite you to put
    your money where your mouth is
    .
    The more skeptics that buy such ‘contracts’ (not “bet”), the better for me.

  169. toyotawhizguy (04:45:15) :
    “….While establishing correlation is important, it is NOT proof of causation. In order to establish causation based on observations, all other variables must be eliminated, or at least accurately accounted for. Then the observations must be repeated ad nauseum to establish statistical significance (i.e., to demonstrate that the observations are not due to random variability). For the climate, collecting data over just a few decades is inadequate. Establishing causation is virtually impossible to do in the laboratory for something as complex and macro as the earth climate system. (As far as the computer models go, well… garbage in, garbage out.) Since the variables cannot be eliminated, the best that can be done is too attempt to measure and quantify them. This quantification is a rather precarious endeavor for the climate, due to the high complexity, the large number of variables, and the immense quantity of data required to do so. AGW skeptics are not satisfied that climatologists have done this quantification properly and thoroughly, and therein lies much of the controversy.”
    Thank you for a very nice summary of the skeptics view point.

  170. Anu (16:07:23),
    Aren’t you the same guy who was gonna ignore me? I may be “hopelessly ignorant about AGW,” so I’m giving you a chance to show your superiority, and win some cash for your favorite charity.
    I should also note that it was you who originally challenged another poster @21:36:43: “And I can invite you to put your money where your mouth is.” I just wanted to see if you walk the talk.
    So I’ve made my offer, and if there’s a “tipping point” in the next 50 years, your charity gets all the cash, plus all accrued interest.
    I dislike the idea of paying Intrade a commission, and paying taxes on any winnings. With Long Bets, there’s an instant tax deduction, and you can’t back out or fade your own bet. Also, I like the idea of taking your money. Because I am convinced there’s no runaway global warming “tipping point.”
    Since you believe I’m “hopelessly ignorant about AGW,” what are you waiting for? So whaddya say? You in for a kilobuck?

  171. Vergano says ‘what if …scientists are misreading thse poll results and conflating them with news coverage of the recent publid-relations black-eyes from e-mails and the glacier mistake?” BLACK-EYES? MISTAKE?
    How can a radical environmentalst’s baloney be included in a “sacred” IPCC document and be called a “MISTAKE”? How many other “MISTAKES” were included to mislead the non-scientist non-comprehending public? Are they trying to bamboozle Joe Sixpack and are afraid he is going to rebel?

  172. You guys just do not know how much it infuriates those of us, that know how the weather and climate really works, to watch all of this hubris pass for knowledge.

  173. old construction worker (14:15:49) :
    “R. Gates (09:48:59) :
    ‘Response to Gail Combs (06:30:01) :
    Your rather long post seems to indicate you believe that some group of very powerful rich people want to force us into some kind of economic slavery by controlling the AGW issue. To this I say, why would they need the climate issue to do so? In the U.S., our government is already well controlled by large corporate interests, and the recent Supreme Court case allowing even a great pipeline of money to flow between the corporations and those who supposedly represent “we the people” only reinforces this issue.’
    You left out the influence peddling of NGOs. Groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and Tides Foundation.”

    The NGOs were one of the more brilliant moves of Maurice Strong. It is thought that he got the idea from his early work with YMCA international. Strong worked for Rockefeller in Saudi Arabia in the fifties and is a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation.
    “Your rather long post seems to indicate you believe that some group of very powerful rich people want to force us into some kind of economic slavery by controlling the AGW issue.”
    The long and the short of it is Corporations and bankers want to eliminate competition from the aggressive startup companies and they want to eliminate the pesky national borders and differing national regs that get in the way of doing business worldwide.
    Rockefeller make it very clear that there is indeed a conspiracy. “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world … If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
    However AGW is only one issue. Kissinger was also very blunt in his statement in the mid 1970’s “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”
    If you control CO2 you control the use of energy, so CAGW takes care of part one – control of oil or more percisely energy. So what about food?
    That is covered too. Actually the food issue, Animal ID to be specific, is where I started unraveling this mess. Animal ID lead back to NIAA or National Institute for Animal Agriculture, that lead back to the World Trade Organization that lead back to IPC, a group created in 1987 explicitly to drive home the GATT agriculture rules of WTO at the Uruguay talks. International corporations find national borders and national food safety regs to be a royal pain in the rump and WTO ag rules are designed to eliminate those borders and safety regs. The WTO also has teeth in the form of trade sanctions to force nations to comply with WTO rules thereby trumping national food safety regs. WTO and NAFTA were also instrumental in eliminating many of the small farmers allowing consolidation of a world wide food monopoly. Ten corporations now control most of the world food supply.
    The same media manipulation and slanted science seen in AGW is duplicated in the food safety scares used to persuade the masses that farming regs are necessary. Again the ultimate goal is international regs favoring large corporations and eliminating the small guy.
    I do not have to be a conspiracy nut to realize the USA has been driven to the edge of bankruptcy by the financial policies of the Federal Reserve and the US Congress. All I have to do is read what has been in the recent news: I am amazed that the US government, in the midst of the worst financial crises ever, is content for short-selling to drive down the asset prices that the government is trying to support….The bald fact is that the combination of ignorance, negligence, and ideology that permitted the crisis to happen still prevails and is blocking any remedy. Either the people in power in Washington and the financial community are total dimwits or they are manipulating an opportunity to redistribute wealth from taxpayers, equity owners and pension funds to the financial sector.” Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury http://www.countercurrents.org/roberts250209.htm
    “Stewart Dougherty, a specialist in inferential analysis, agrees. It is now “statistically impossible for the United States to pay its obligations”. http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/08.09/metastasis.html
    Food References:
    http://www.publiceyeonscience.ch/images/the_wto_and_the_politics_of_gmo.doc
    http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/12/the-festering-fraud-behind-food-safety-reform/
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
    An example of what is happening to the food security of other countries:
    http://www.rethinkingschools.org/publication/rg/RGRich.shtml
    http://www.countercurrents.org/mohanty230608.htm
    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/savePolishCountryside.php

  174. R. Gates (10:41:00) :
    Smokey,
    AGW represents a hypothesis, and as such, you look for data to support it.

    As importantly, R.: a real scientist interested in finding and showing something approaching “truth”, necessarily looks for data which contradicts his/her own hypothesis.
    If your hypothesis can be contradicted by data, you yourself should want to be the first to know if only because it’s your own hypothesis; but moreso because you are searching for something “true” and useful to the advancement of science, and hopefully also to the wellbeing of the World. Why push or advocate an hypothesis you yourself can significantly debunk?
    On the other hand, R., treating a scientific hypothesis solely as one would a political propaganda campaign designed to amass or win “votes” is simply not a scientific way to support an hypothesis, or to determine scientific validity in general.
    In the case of CAGW, not only do the ipcc Climate Scientists not look for evidence which contradicts their hypotheses, including not even letting others look at their very own “science”; the ipcc Climate Scientists also simply will not let their hypotheses be falsified.
    The ipcc Climate Scientists seem to have a congenital inability to ask, “What’s wrong with my hypothesis?”

  175. Mike D. (10:38:54) said:
    “What’s the Latin name of THIS logical fallacy: argumentum ad sacrificium?
    I busted my tail, deprived my family, traveled to the ends of the earth — therefore everything I say is factual.”
    Mike, the point here isn’t about what the data do or do not say, the point is the integrity of the men and women who are out, diligently, honestly, looking and researching the data. The vast majority of these climate scientists honestly gather and report exactly what they find, and dedicated and interested in only one thing…finding the truth. When I hear talk of conspiracies, and the whole “trilateral, Federal Reserve, UN, etc etc.” I just have to laugh at the ignorance.
    But I can say this about the AGW skeptics…either they will go down in history as the biggest heros to ever challenge the supposed dark cabal of the AGW “conspiracy”, or they will be known someday as a group of 21st century flat-earthers, who caused a great deal of confusion on the most important issue of our time.

  176. Gail Combs:
    That was a great article by Paul Craig Roberts. As usual, Roberts was incisive and he usually has a great handle on the US economy. And it is a very disturbing picture, indeed. I have feared for a long time that we were on the brink of something really bad, economically speaking. My fears may be coming to fruition.

  177. Gail Combs (20:10:20) :
    I agree with you. Co2 Cap and trade was never intended to reduce CO2. This issue has always been about control. Thanks for the links.
    Smokey (14:35:44) : ‘New emails’
    As for those scientists that wrote the email, they should clean up their own back yard first and make sure their “life” work meets “ALL PEERS” scrutiny and the Data Quality Act.
    As A TAX PAYER, I”M PISSED.
    In My World, the concrete used in the foundation has to be sent out for verification, if it IS bad, it HAS TO BE REMOVED. If it is used and the building fails and someone dies, lives are ruined and somebody is going to jail. This is how it is and should be.

  178. Larry (01:01:44) :
    “That was a great article by Paul Craig Roberts. As usual, Roberts was incisive and he usually has a great handle on the US economy. And it is a very disturbing picture, indeed. I have feared for a long time that we were on the brink of something really bad, economically speaking. My fears may be coming to fruition.”
    Thank you.
    I really hope R. Gates is correct “….When I hear talk of conspiracies, and the whole “trilateral, Federal Reserve, UN, etc etc.” I just have to laugh at the ignorance….”
    However the direction the USA has been going in the last century leaves doubts. When I read articles like that by Paul Craig Roberts
    OR reports such as”
    “In a sweeping move that has garnered surprisingly little attention this week the United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership that will see regulatory standards “harmonized” and will lay the basis for a merging of the US and EU into one single market, a huge step on the path to a new globalized world order.” The BBC reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6607757.stm) from the Summit in Washington on Monday: http://stopspp.com/stopspp/?p=122
    When the FDA here in the USA bluntly states:
    “The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.”http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/int-laws.html
    Yet during the debate on approving the WTO Agreement, Congress was justifiably worried that the multinational pact was in conflict with U.S. Sovereignty. Arguments for ratification were vehemently endorsed by Clinton Administration officials who were eager to get the agreement passed Congress. Congressional fears were lulled by pointing out Congress is ultimately responsible for changing the laws of the United States; and second, the U.S. is entitled to withdraw from the WTO. Also a feature of the Uruguay Round agreements are described as follows:
    “United States Law to Prevail in Conflict The URAA puts U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law under perfect protection. According to the Act, if there is a conflict between U.S. and any of the Uruguay Round agreements, U.S. law will take precedence regardless when U.S. law is enacted. § 3512 (a) states: “No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect.” Specifically, implementing the WTO agreements shall not be construed to “amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law relating to (i) the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health, (ii) the protection of the environment, or (iii) worker safety”, or to “limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, including section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.” http://www.eastlaw.net/research/wto/wto2b.htmd
    OR when I see that as soon as the democrats were back in control of Congress in 2009, Rosa Delauro, wife of globalist Stan Greenberg, rolled out HR 875, placing our ability to grow our own food in jeopardy I see evidence supporting D Rockefellers statement.HR 875 places the growing of food under regulations similar to the manufacture of drugs, an industry I worked in as a Quality Engineer/lab Manager so I know the regs when I see them. The crucial phase was this:
    “in any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction SHALL BE PRESUMED TO EXIST.”
    This means the fact you are growing veggies for you and friends does not exclude you from the regulation.
    The Commerce Clause: A farmer was growing wheat for his own use “The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce” The Supreme court found against the farmer!!!
    http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp
    “Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small quantity of winter wheat — some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his own property. When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay.
    Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce.
    The Court’s opinion must be quoted to be believed:
    [The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.
    After Wickard , everything is mere detail. The entire edifice of civil rights legislation stands on the commerce power. Under this maximum commerce power, the government has been free to regulate nearly everything, including a restaurant owner’s bigotry. The Court has held that if Congress sees a connection to interstate commerce, it is not its role to second guess.”

    As I said I really really hope I am seeing “conspiracy theories” under the bushes, but the recent actions of the FDA, USDA and people in Congress make me doubt it. The more I dig the more I find the USA is no longer a sovereign nation. The fact we have a chief scientist advising the president who co-authored a book earlier in his career that discussed the merits of adding a sterilant to public drinking water supplies to reduce population growth. A book that goes on to note that “compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution.”
    And couple that with the USDA funding Epicyte, who in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile. http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_85536/Covert_Sterilization.html
    Or a USDA who was also part of the development of Terminator gene, now held by Monsanto – W.Koelz, of the USDA who collected the wheat samples with the Terminator gene is specifically named in the Biopiracy lawsuits in front of both in the Indian Supreme Court and in the European Patent Office http://www.countercurrents.org/en-shiva270404.htm

  179. R Gates
    I have a lot of sympathy and respect for the scientists who go to extremes to pursue their profession, but as far as I understand it, the computer modelers have only to endure the air-conditioned cool of their computer rooms.
    I think I probably speak for many here who don’t have issues with research scientists who are gathering fundamental climare research data, but have a lot of issues with the scientists who spend their time working out ways of torturing that data to support their beliefs.

  180. Gail Combs (16:01:31) :
    Roger Knights Thank you for the link and information.
    It substantiates my thirty years of experience as an industrial chemist. I found dishonesty to be the norm not the exception. I even consulted a lawyer about my rights and obligations because of my concerns on the dishonesty issue.

    Here’s an on-topic book, Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion, on the dark side of modern science, by Daniel Greenberg,
    http://www.amazon.com/Science-Money-Politics-Political-Triumph/dp/0226306356/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261504566&sr=1-1
    Here are quotes from reviews on Amazon:
    Science, in the abstract, is supposed to be nonpolitical, even to transcend politics entirely. In truth, though, science is always conditioned by political reality—and by money.
    So writes journalist Daniel Greenberg in this wide-ranging indictment of the way in which science is conducted in the United States. Although funding for scientific research has been readily available since the end of World War II, he maintains, research bureaucrats have transformed the enterprise into “a clever, well-financed claimant for money” and the successful quest for that funding into a condition of employment and advancement. Given that climate, Greenberg suggests, basic research has suffered, so that many diseases go unconquered, while more politically glamorous investigations are rewarded. Increasingly corporatized–industry, he writes, accounts for two-thirds of all research and development dollars spent, and its “profit-seeking values” are radiating throughout the culture–scientific research is insufficiently policed and criticized, watched over only by the inmates. In the rush for funding, Greenberg argues, science becomes increasingly subject to ethical lapses, with scientists too easily endorsing dubious causes such as the so-called Star Wars missile-defense system and too readily putting human subjects in danger.”
    “Debunking science industry and policy myths left and right, Greenberg combines archival research and interviews with scientists and politicians in the know to explore why and how research has happened in the postwar U.S. “[B]ecause the politics of science is registered in money awarded or denied… [m]oney will serve as a diagnostic tool for our study,” says Greenberg. He goes on to describe the sycophancy, backbends and, sometimes, dishonesty practiced by researchers, and the willingness of some government scientists to keep their mouths shut when it behooves their bosses. A disturbing, compelling and well-researched conspiracy story of the ‘I knew it!’ variety.”
    ………..
    Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress by Daniel Sarewitz, is an excellent counterpart to Greenberg …. If science is corrupt on the one hand, it is also over-sold on the other, a point that Sarewitz addresses very methodically.”
    …………..
    “I’m one of those who believes that we have far more to gain from good science than we have to lose. Nonetheless, Greenberg’s book brought me up short. This is a dramatic, readable, well-documented, and shocking exposé of the dirty back-door means by which much support for science research is secured in this country. Greenberg cites example after example of how undeserving or questionable projects are funded while, presumably, more promising work goes begging because it lacks powerful patrons. Greenberg also argues that the whole system is corrupt because universities depend on grant overhead for operating budgets, while congressmen and -women want money for their districts, and various scientific disciplines want to increase their clout and standing. Greenberg clearly is very angry, and his anger stems from genuine outrage that an enterprise such as science, which is so important, and so powerful, has participated in making itself an often-sleazy political tool. I hope university administrators and all the federal officials responsible for science funding will read this book–the fault lies less with scientists individually than with the ways in which universities, the federal government, and scientific organizations see their self-interest.”
    …………..
    “The chapter on the National Science Foundation (NSF) and its claim a few years ago that the country faced a shortage of tens of thousands of scientists is illustrative. Greenberg shows this lobbying effort for increased funds as a knowingly false issue pushed by a merger of institutional and academic interests. Greenberg quotes a US Office of Management & Budget Report which had this to say about scientists: ‘They are the quintessential special interest group…’ He has much to say on the inflated claims of many projects. Although he specifically mentions the aborted Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), it is clear he views more recent projects such as the Human Genome Project, and cloning, in the same light.”

  181. So all this means is that any new real science is ignored as it does not fall into the proper peer review process.
    Let garbage science rule!

  182. R. Gates:
    But I can say this about the AGW skeptics…either they will go down in history as the biggest heros to ever challenge the supposed dark cabal of the AGW “conspiracy”, or they will be known someday as a group of 21st century flat-earthers, who caused a great deal of confusion on the most important issue of our time.
    Ok, Gates, I’ll bite: what do you know about the Scientific Method and how did you come by this info? What is your scientific background?

  183. J. Peden,
    My background is not important, as I am not putting forth any original research or adding to the sum total of AGW models already available. I am simply making educated extrapolations. I am not yet a True Believer in the AGW Hypothesis, though as admitted elswhere, and as is obvious from my posts, I tend to think there’s a better than even chance that it is correct. To become a full-fledged “true believer” or to pull back, and become a skeptic, I shall be watching the next few years with keen interest, specifically:
    1) Will the long term negative anomaly and downward trend in year-to-year Arctic Sea ice continue, or will it reverse (over more than just a seaon)?
    2) Will 2010 turn out to be the warmest on instrument record in the troposhere? Given that the current El Nino is not a strong as 1998, what other mechanism could explain this other than AGW?
    3) I also am following Solar Cycle 24 very closely and generally quiet behavior of the sun over the past few years. Even though Cycle 24 is starting to ramp up, the Interplanetary A Index is still weak, though GCR’s have decreased from what they were. This has implications for cloud cover, as most of you know.
    I have a great deal of respect for Anthony for managing this site so well, and allowing differing perspectives the opportunity for a forum. In general, the “true believers” on boths side of the AGW issue aren’t going to change their mind from this kind of discourse, but those such as me, who have associates and friends closely allied with climate research, find it most enlightening from several perspectives, for even though I listen to them, (and admittedly, they can be quite convincing) I prefer to do my own investigations as I remain far too curious about things to simply take anyone’s word as gospel.
    Here’s one last thought, I believe by 2015 or so, the AGW debate will be over, and my previoius statement about AGW skeptics being heroes or flat-earthers will have come to pass…

  184. R. Gates (11:59:22) :
    J. Peden,
    My background is not important, as I am not putting forth any original research or adding to the sum total of AGW models already available. I am simply making educated extrapolations.

    Your background is in fact important, if indeed you were never exposed to the processes involved in the Scientific Method.
    If you don’t know what the Scientific Method is and requires – and, as far as I’ve seen, you have so far refused to advocate its use in Climate Science – then you don’t know what the critical problem is with Climate Science. And you therefore can’t make any “educated guesses” about CAGW because you and Climate Science are not even in the ballpark, much less playing the game.
    Until you face the fact that Climate Science is not based upon the Scientific method, all you will do is fool yourself – as your three decision points also indicate.
    Do yourself a favor and find out that the Scientific Method requires open acesses to “materials, methods, including code” so that the “science” of any study or conclusion can be “replicated”, which is also perhaps the first rule of true scientific scepticsm and it’s built right into the Scientific Method. There is no true science without scepticism, Period. The Climate Scientists themselves appear to have not asked, “What’s wrong with my hypothesis”, which they should have done before even publishing.
    Btw, Peer Review by a few select reviewers was never designed or warranted to insure the “given truth” of the studies reviewed. Never ever! The real Peer Review starts after a study’s publication, as Steve McIntyre, for example, has proven once again – with great difficulty.
    Then ask your Climate Science buddies what they think about this crucial failure of Climate Science. They won’t like you, but that’s going to be a price of your “education”. You have to start at the beginning and that’s all there is to it.
    Also, btw, I myself would have never thought that scientists operating at the level of the ipcc’s Climate Science simply would not be doing real Science. But I looked starting back in 2000 and saw it myself, much before I’d ever heard of Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts. I was surprised, but there it was.

  185. R. Gates (11:59:22) :
    …those such as me, who have associates and friends closely allied with climate research, find it most enlightening from several perspectives, for even though I listen to them, (and admittedly, they can be quite convincing) I prefer to do my own investigations as I remain far too curious about things to simply take anyone’s word as gospel.
    Careful! It is curiosity that led many here to go from believing (though not necessarily advocating) CAGW to becoming skeptics, or climate realists. If you continue down that road, you may find yourself at odds with your buddies vis-a-vis the climate issue.
    I suspect that may be one key thing keeping you from investigating more fully.

Comments are closed.