Cuccinelli warms to his task of climate change denial

By Phil Plait | July 15, 2010 7:00 am

kencuccinelliBack at my alma mater, the University of Virginia, state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli continues to tilt against his windmill of climate change: he still wants to investigate climate scientist Michael Mann for possible fraud. As I’ve pointed out before, Cuccinelli is attacking Michael Mann despite Mann repeatedly being cleared of all wrongdoing. Cuccinelli subpoenaed UVa for records involving Mann, but the University filed an appeal saying (correctly) this would chill academic freedom.

The Daily Progress has an update: Cuccinelli won’t quit:

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli argued Tuesday that the University of Virginia must comply with his demand for a trove of documents related to the research of former UVa climate change scientist Michael Mann, saying that Mann’s academic freedom does not shield him from Cuccinelli’s probe into possible fraud.


Apparently it doesn’t shield him from frivolous lawsuits, either. Mann has been investigated quite thoroughly by several panels, and has been cleared of wrongdoing. In my opinion, Cuccinelli is on a fishing expedition, hoping to find anything to throw against Mann.

Cuccinelli has made it clear he’s a climate change denier. The Progress calls him a skeptic, but a real skeptic looks at the evidence fairly and objectively. I don’t see much evidence of that; which is why I think the term denier fits better. I have little problem with climate change skeptics — someone who fairly and scientifically looks at the data to come to a reasonable conclusion. Technically, I’m a skeptic as well, since I have looked into the issue as best I can.

The difference is, the evidence I have seen all points to the Earth warming up. I have to rely on the experts, of course, since this isn’t my chosen field, but as a scientist myself I can look at the data and understand the processes involved in analyzing it. So when I say I think climate change/global warming is real, it’s not based on faith or politics or anything like that.

It’s based on evidence.

I hope the judge in this case upholds the UVa appeal, and denies (haha) Cuccinelli’s request. His ongoing attempts to look into Mann’s work does chill academic freedom, but it’s also bad money long, long after good.

Tip o’ the thermometer to Nicole Wassacommandago.


Related posts:

Deniers abuse power to attack climate scientists
UVa will fight climate change attack
Climate change followup
Climategate’s death rattle


Comments (139)

  1. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like UV could make some kind of a case to stop Cuccinelli based on the previous investigations. Surely there is a point where its harassment, frivolous lawsuits, and persecution to get a tangible personal/political/financial gain is illegal.

    This is so silly. Where does the law help Mann?

  2. Cheyenne

    Just to play devil’s advocate here for a second, and I understand how this aids in setting a bad precedent for academic freedom – but isn’t it possible the upside in complying with Cuccinelli would win out over the downside of fighting back?

    UVA declares this is a friviolous, garbage lawsuit (which it seems to be). Right now they’re paying something like $1500 per hour in attorney’s fees to fight him. Why not just release all the data and correspondence, show him he’s wrong, and see how that could strengthen the case for AGW? He would look like a fool, scientists would win, and they could show how much money he wasted. And what happens if the judge doesn’t uphold the appeal?

    I understand all the reasons for fighting stuff like this. I’m not discounting that. But you know how this is being spun – the science is garbage, scientists are hiding and afraid, etc. There is absolutely no doubt that it’s been a bad year for believers in AGW. Something has to be done to turn the tide. Yeah I’m probably wrong but just a thought.

  3. Guy

    Cheyenne,

    You can show climate deniers all the evidence you want and it will not change their minds. That is because they have already made-up their minds before looking at the evidence. That is what Phil is getting at. Deniers like Cuccinelli don’t want to hear the truth about climate change. What he wants is to find some inkling of evidence that he was right all along.

  4. Peptron

    @ Cheyenne :
    From what I understand, is that it has already been done. His methods have been checked and were found to be ok. Then somebody else comes to ask the same thing, it’s rechecked, and it’s refound to be ok. Then still another somebody comes to ask yet the same thing, then it’s still rechecked, and it’s still refound to be ok. Then yet still another somebody comes along and asks for the same thing, and then they just say: STOP IT ALREADY!

    I see the motivation of Mann as wanting to end the endless chain of rechecking the things that have already been checked and found ok. It’s like the antivaxxers that want yet one another research on the link between autism and vaccines.

  5. Cheyenne, what you suggest is hopeless – if they release a bunch of stuff, two things will happen (we’ve seen it before):

    (1) they will go through the correspondence with a fine toothed comb, looking for statements to take completely out of context (“hide the decline” kind of stuff)

    (2) they won’t find any evidence of fraud, but to them, this will only prove that that Mann has hidden the evidence, not that it doesn’t exist… They are already convinced they are right, and silly things like “facts” are not going to get in the way.

    So there’s no point in “giving in”, and a very large argument for standing ground.

  6. Sir Craig

    It is a fascinating transformation politicians go through (because that is exactly what Cuccinelli is – a politician first, AG second) the moment they are elected to office: They believe they have become experts in just about every field, from climate sciences to female reproductive health. If a single one of these political “experts” was ever quizzed on whatever it is they are trying to legislate or prosecute, public faith in the system would plummet from all the dismal scores.

  7. Gal

    “Why not just release all the data and correspondence…”

    Guy is right. The data are out there. Deniers are not capable of doing their own analysis, and cherry-picking is what they do best.

  8. TimG

    I oppose what Cuccinelli is trying to do because it is equavalent to having the IRS investigate political enemies (i.e. even if there was substance to the charges the way the law is being selectively enforced is an abuse of power).

    That said, the PSU report was a farce and in no way exonorates Mann.

    Clive Crook exposes the farce for what it was in the Atlantic

    He summarizes the logic of the PSU as follows:

    Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers — so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

    As rediculous as it sounds it is a fair representation of the ‘logic’ in the report.

  9. Elf Eye

    It would set a terrible precedent to give in to Cuccinelli’s demands.

  10. Michel

    Cuccinelliïsm is going to be a new word.
    And it will stand for something real bad.
    Like McCarthyism.

  11. @Cheyenne

    I think that there is also the potential that, in Cuccinelli’s case, anything that he finds that could be spun to support his claims of fraud very likely will be spun to support his claims, spurious though such “evidence” may be. That’s my prediction: if Cuccinelli does somehow manage to get access to the stuff he’s demanding, he will take little clips out of context and spin them to suggest wrongdoing. If I’m right, maybe I’ll apply for the JREF million. Personally, I hope I’m wrong and Cuccinelli either drops the whole thing or, if he follows through, finds the facts and makes a statement that he was wrong and that Mann is in the clear…again.

  12. gcruse

    It was incessant frivolous lawsuits that drove Palin from office, but I didn’t notice much protesting from the left over them. Not even post facto. Funny how it works.

  13. Messier Tidy Upper

    Perhaps if this does go ahead it could be the equivalent of the Dover trial for the Intelligent Design-Creobots?

    A high publicity knockdown that exposes the worst deniers? If folks are sosure Mike Mann is totally innocent then I say bring it on and let sunlight be the best disinfectant. (Metaphotrically speaking. No responsibility taken for any cleaning failures based on this advice! ;-) )

    The verdict on Anthropogenic Global Warming is in scientifically :

    98 % of climatologists (99% now even?) say “It is real and is happening.”

    The verdict on Anthropogenic Global Warming is also in when it comes to public opinion :

    Most general publicans ( ;-) ) say its all hogwash and isn’t real or worth taking seriously.

    Something needs to alter that perception after “climategate” perhaps this will be that something?

  14. dre

    I like how, in the Daily Progress article, Cuccinelli argues that the fact that Mann has been investigated before is proof that he should be investigated again: “It is truly the university’s position that none of those investigations were warranted and all of the groups cited acted without any reasonable basis in fact? If not, the very existence of those investigations reinforces the conclusion that there is sufficient basis for the attorney general to have issued the CIDs [civil investigative demands] in the instant case.”

    Even better: “That some of the investigations cited have been completed and have allegedly ‘cleared’ Mann does not alter the analysis.” [emphasis mine]

    Amazing.

  15. Cheyenne

    @Guy – I completely agree with you. What you are challenging me on wasn’t really my argument.

    @ Todd – Yes of course he’ll spin and weave and take things out of context. That’s what guys like him do. Why be afraid of that? Guys like Phil Plait and the climate scientists then can try to put everything into context and let the public decide what to think. Get everything out there (and as far as I know Mann was cleared by Penn State – his data and correspondence at UVA haven’t been released – er, I think). People hate what are perceived as secrets and backing away from a challenge. Cuccinelli is a playground bully. He should be taken on not by lawyers trying to block access but by scientists opening up their data and correspondence and showing him how wrong he is.

    I already know I’m probably wrong, just trying to air an idea that I think might have some degree of merit :)

  16. Messier Tidy Upper

    The Australian Lateline program had an interview with UN climate change chief negotiator Yvo de Boer earlier tonight.

    In it he mentioned the failure of the Copenhagen summit and the damage done to public belief in AGW by Climategate.

    It also notes the heavy price former Aussie PM Kevin Rudd paid following grandiose promises to act on climate change and a propsed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and a huge backflip after the Aussie opposition party thre wout tehir oold leader and replaced him with climate skeptic Tony Abbott then blocked the ETS (which they dubbed a “great big new tax”) and it failed to pass. (Long story.) Kevin Rudd was then dumped – unprecendente dfor afirts term Prime Minister in Australia and we got our first female PM Julia Gillard who will be going to an election shortly.

    Climate change has heavily affected Australian politics already & claimed two political casualties if nothing else.

    A transcript of the interview is supposed to be available here :

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2955162.htm

    But doesn’t seem to be working – at least not for me yet. :-(

  17. @dre

    “…the very existence of those investigations reinforces the conclusion that there is sufficient basis for the attorney general to have issued the CIDs [civil investigative demands] in the instant case.”

    To rephrase, “the very existence of investigations into John’s suspected arson activities reinforces the conclusion that there is sufficient basis to investigate him for the same arson activities again.” Sounds awfully similar to double-jeopardy to me, but I’m not a lawyer or Constitutional expert (and I realize that double-jeopardy does not necessarily apply here). Come on, Cuccinelli. You should know better.

  18. Seth J.

    Giving Cuccinelli the data he wants on GW research will have the exact same effect that giving a copy of Obama’s birth certificate would have to Orly Taitz.

    The response will be, “It’s still a fake!”

  19. Messier Tidy Upper

    Apparently it doesn’t shield him from frivolous lawsuits, either. Mann has been investigated quite thoroughly by several panels, and has been cleared of wrongdoing.

    In fairness and as a former skeptic myself, it should be noted that many people view the “clearing” more as “whitewashing” excercises conducted by partisan judges rather than legitimate “name clearing.”

    This is the reality whether folks like it or not.

    A court of law has a bit more authority and legitimacty in many peoples eyes than a panel of university heads or climatologist colleagues.

    If a legal court with an impartial judge clears Mike Mann then it will be a lot more effective and credible than any of the previous investigations which is one reason why I think Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli getting his trial and tehn getting smacked down could be a very good thing for the AGW side of this debate.

    So I’m with (#2) Cheyenne on this one. If your’e wronmg (& maybe we are) then you won’t be alone at least. ;-)

    BTW. Just seen that the transcript link is working now – Yay! :-)

    From there this uis one part I found especially interesting :

    ***

    TONY JONES: [‘Lateline’ interveiwer -Ed.] Did the Climategate scandal and the revival of climate scepticism around the time of the conference in some ways poison the talks?

    YVO DE BOER: I don’t know if it poisoned the talks in the sense that politicians recognise, I think, that the criticism was of the symptoms of climate change, not of the core issue. But having said that, I think the Climategate issue has done a huge amount of damage to public opinion, to public confidence that this is a real issue that people need to worry about and it’s going to take years of investment in order to rebuild that.

    TONY JONES: So the momentum disappeared, do you think, during that period and partly as a result of that?

    YVO DE BOER: Any politician, anywhere in the world, including Australia, needs public backing in order to be able to advance and I think that public opinion looked at Climategate and said, well maybe this issue is not quite as serious as we thought. And that then makes it more difficult for politicians around the world to act boldly.

    So we need to reinvest in building that public confidence and understanding.

    ***

    Yes, I’m afraid I *do* think Climategate has been a game changing event at least for the general public who heard the splash it made and didn’t see the ripples fade away.

    Another event that brings back the public focus and attention and changes what people think could be just what the AGW side needs. Cuccinelli – and for that matter Inhofe should get their way in the short term so they lose badly in the long term is my thinking here. ;-)

  20. Cheyenne

    @Messier Tidy Upper-

    Yeah I agree and I’m annoyed that you said that better than I did ;)

  21. Utakata

    Phil Plait wrote inpart:

    “Cuccinelli subpoenaed UVa for records involving Mann, but the University filed an appeal saying (correctly) this would chill academic freedom. ”

    Funny, isn’t this the type of government interference that libertarians rally against?

  22. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ 20. Cheyenne :

    My apologies then! If it’s any consolation that doesn’t usually happen when I post! ;-)

  23. YAY! I’m so glad you pointed out that a skeptic looks at the data and the evidence and goes from there. I don’t take things at face value. If someone says the Moon is made of cheese; Darn-it I want evidence. That doesn’t make a me a Lunar Cheese Denier.

    It is when people see the evidence and deny it OR just flat out deny it without any evidence or research that you’re in denial (i.e. lalalalala). The problem for a lot of people is that since this has become so politicized it is hard to know what is what in the realm of climate change. Everyone has an opinion and seems to have their own data. How accurate is it? Who has the more accurate data? Argh! People also love to sling the word ‘agenda’ around.

    I’ve teetered on the subject. It is warming but how much is caused exclusively by humans? Climate science appears to be incredibly complex so I’m watching it with great interest. Either way, we have to be smarter about how we treat the planet (and the people on it).

    This would be so much easier if people were claiming the Moon were actually made of cheese…

  24. @Lewis

    This would be so much easier if people were claiming the Moon were actually made of cheese…

    Agreed. And think of the number of people we could feed if the Earth heats up enough and we put two slices of toast on either side of the moon.

  25. Pi-needles

    Toasted Moon (pie?) sandwhich anybody? ;-)

  26. MartinM

    Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers — so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

    I read the report, and this doesn’t bear much resemblance to the reality. How peculiar.

  27. Paul in Sweden

    Cuccinelli uses court filing to dispute Mann climate research
    The Washington Post
    July 13, 2010; 4:53 PM ET

    “Cuccinelli’s lawyers argue none of those inquiries examined Mann’s grant applications at the University of Virginia, where he worked until 2005, nor whether Mann violated the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. Instead of undermining the request for documents, Cuccinelli’s office say the number of previous investigations shows there is some reasonable basis for questioning Mann’s actions.

    “Simply put, the other investigations confirm that there is substancial reason to inquire, but none can ‘clear’ Mann of violating FATA because no one, other than the Attorney General, has asked that question,” they write.

    The filing also reveals that the university claimed that it no longer held emails from Mann when they were requested through a Freedom of Information Act by Del. Bob Marshall (R-Prince William) in December 2009. But after receiving the attorney general’s civil subpoena, the university revealed that it could resurrect the emails from university servers.

    The university must respond to the attorney general’s brief by July 20 and oral arguments have been set for August 20.”
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/07/the_university_of_virginia_hol.html

    As for the whitewashes…..

    Climategate and the Big Green Lie – Politics – The Atlantic
    “Jul 14 2010, 12:13 AM ET | Comment

    By way of preamble, let me remind you where I stand on climate change. I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously. I think energy policy should be intelligently directed towards mitigating this risk. I am for a carbon tax. I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption. The scandal attracted enormous attention in the US, and support for a new energy policy has fallen. In sum, the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute, and set back the prospects for a better energy policy.

    I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.

    The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann — the paleoclimatologist who came up with “the hockey stick” — would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for “lack of credible evidence”, it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT’s Richard Lindzen tells the committee, “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what’s going on?” The report continues: “The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen’s statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.”) Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers — so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709

    Academic Freedom

    Phil, you said recently “‘Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” is wrong and dumb; in fact the act of swinging your fist at all is a threat.'” Which to me is duh! Most people know the act of threatening someone else is in itself illegal.

    Let us put aside for the moment the fact that everything that is paid for by the work and sweat of the public taxes is community property(research, data, NASA images…etc)

    Your academic freedom ends where the structural engineering of my bridges, power plants, buildings, pharmaceutical products, environmental concerns or government policy begins!

    Every academic has all the academic freedom they want when it is on their own dime. Once they leave the land of ivory towers, pixie dust & unicorns and enter the world where the rest of us live there are standards, regulations and laws that govern products & programs.

    Although you may champion the various whitewashes which include the most recent University of East Anglia sponsored mockery which included Sir Muir Russell and David Eyton, BP(Beyond Petroleum we do solar wind & wave power for a pass by Greenpeace & WWF..etc,etc & and started it with Enron…) Vice President, Research & Technology, I do not believe many of your readers would approve of an investigation into the recent BP/Deep Horizon Spill conducted in the same manner as climategate.

    Can you imagine your fellow CAGW faithfuls’ reaction to multiple whitewashes of the current gulf of Mexico oil spill?

    Perhaps you can, I think we are witnessing it with the pass the federal government is getting on the lack of response to an actual non-theoretical Armageddon crisis.

  28. amphiox

    Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers — so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

    Yet another sterling example of quote mining a document to make it seem like it is supporting a wholly ridiculous assertion, without bothering to read and understand the entirety.

  29. Peter

    This man seems totally ignorant. All the education he has seems to have gone to waste.

    His endless witch hunts, baseless accusations, inability to differentiate the difference between science and A ‘hokus pokus’ right wing ‘religiosity’ is stunning.

  30. Daffy

    I don’t know Ken Cuccinelli; neither can I read minds. But I would bet my mother’s retirement fund that what he is really doing here is trying to impress Republican Party leaders so he can run for higher office. Betcha.

  31. Pi-needles

    @ ^ Daffy : shouldn’t that be “you betcha!” spoken in an Alaskan accent? ;-)

    And with turkeys being slaughtered in the background? ;-)

    I won’t take that bet – its too much of a sure thing.

    A Palin-Cuccinelli Republican ticket for 2012? Its so wrong its almost right. ;-)

  32. Jarrod H

    I do see an interesting caveat that no one here seems to have addressed. Mann is, or was at the time, a researcher at a state university. As such, he is technically employed by the people of the state of Virginia. While I agree this is a fishing expedition, it isn’t outside the bounds to expect people to be responsible to their employers.

    Technically, work product created at the University of Virginia would be owned by the people, and so there’s something to be said for being open and transparent.

    Even the panels involved have found , while no scientific wrongdoing occurred, that the appearance of it was present due to the lack of transparency on AGW researchers.

  33. Litg

    Cuccinnelli will say anything for the publicity.

    But in more important news, you went to UVA? Tough break.

    Go Hokies! :-P

  34. @Pi-needles: You are totally one of those liberals that drove Sarah Palin out of office with frivolous lawsuits, forcing her to spend vastly more time being the center of attention of many adoring fans while raking in huge quantities of money when all she wanted was to be the quiet and modest governor of a low-population state!

  35. ChrisD

    @Bart #5

    Cheyenne, what you suggest is hopeless – if they release a bunch of stuff, two things will happen (we’ve seen it before): ….

    Bingo. You have absolutely nailed it. This is precisely what would happen.

  36. ChrisD

    @TimG #8

    [T]the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers — so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

    As rediculous as it sounds it is a fair representation of the ‘logic’ in the report.

    No, it isn’t. It’s a sort of exaggerated version of one of the points the report makes. And not one of the stronger points, either.

  37. Katharine

    Also, Ken Kookinelli is unfortunately the attorney general of my state.

    This is also the dude who has problems with the fact that our state seal shows a boob.

  38. ChrisD

    @dre 14

    Even better: “That some of the investigations cited have been completed and have allegedly ‘cleared’ Mann does not alter the analysis.”

    Allegedly? It seems that this ‘Attorney General’ doesn’t understand the actual meaning of “allegedly” (if he can put “cleared” in quotes, then I can put “Attorney General” in quotes too).

  39. @Katharine

    This is also the dude who has problems with the fact that our state seal shows a boob.

    Cuccinelli’s on your state seal?

    (Yes, that was insulting. No, it was not an ad hominem, since I’m not saying that he’s a boob, therefore he’s wrong or should not be listened to.)

  40. Nemesis

    I don’t get what deniers stand to gain from their stance, unless, like Cuccinelli, they are in the market for handouts. Even if you don’t believe it’s happening, shouldn’t you still strive to be a steward of the earth?
    As far as “climategate” is concerned, how do the environmentalists benefit from telling us to watch our carbon emissions? Oh, there will be less pollution and waste. That sounds just awful. “I’m just gonna keep burning tires in ma pit, until god strikes down with vengeance and furious anger.”
    Yes, I am saying we should continue on our self-destructive path, until a deity steps in and banishes all the environmentalist degenerates to their well-deserved fiery resting places, alongside John Lennon, Adolph Hitler and all the other non-believers.
    Or, maybe we could just start acting right.

  41. MartinM

    I’m surprised Phil didn’t quote this part of the DailyProgress article:

    Huertas said it is preposterous to believe that climate change is the result of a conspiracy by scientists such as Mann. “That’s the same type of thinking we see from people who don’t believe we landed on the moon,” he said.

  42. Actually, Cuccinelli’s latest document is even more frightening. Among the things he asserts:

    -Michael Mann wrote misleading grant applications because he is a “Post Normal Scientist” more concerned with quality of data than truth and the language of Post Normal Scientists is misleading to normal people.
    -The VA attorney general doesn’t require pesky “evidence” to issue a CID when investigating fraud. The attorney general can investigate anyone of his choosing (which is how he gets the evidence), but can only charge them if he finds evidence during his investigation.
    -Any funding ever touched by a state school magically turns into state funding, even at a school where only 5% of the funding is from the state.
    -Controversial science is equivalent to fraud

    I’ve started a blog documenting the full idiocy of Cuccinelli’s assault on academic freedom. Reading the full document Cuccinelli submitted (which is what the daily progress article is based on) will make you fear for the future of science in Virginia.

  43. Bruce Almighty

    To quote Marcus Brigstocke: Global warming is a left-wing liberal conspiracy because of all the things we have to gain from it like…..well, there’s….um…..NOTHING AT ALL, YOU LYING BASTARDS!
    Check him out on youtube!

  44. Andy

    Mann should agree to an investigation since he and everyone else supporting his data seem so confident in his practices. If it turns out the investigation finds nothing, then Mann will only reinforce his credibility and the investigation calls will forever stop in the US. If it turns out they find something sketchy, his credibility will be forever tarnished, as will the climate change debate.

    Mann certainly seems confident in his data and practices, why not present everything and explain it? Surely, an investigation wouldn’t hurt the situation, unless he indeed has something to hide. Refusing an investigation is basically an admission of guilt. Furthermore, Mann has never faced an independent investigation (Penn State = conflict of interest).

  45. MartinM

    Mann should just agree to an investigation. Since everyone seems so confident he has nothing to hide. If it turns out the investigation found nothing…

    …then the denialists will declare it a whitewash and demand another. Again.

  46. Andy — why should Mann give any legitimacy to this politically motivated witch hunt? And your “Penn State = conflict of interest” comment is wildly off-base. Leave the professor to do his job in peace without politicians looking over his shoulder (with utterly baffled yet self-satisfied looks on their faces).

    Btw, Cuccinelli sounds like he’s been reading the Scientology playbook. Why think when you can just sue, sue, sue?

  47. Cheyenne

    If I was Mann I’d welcome the investigation. I’d love to show a guy like Cuccinelli to be a fool. The last thing I’d do want to do is lawyer up with a firm like Hogan Lovells. Looks bad, looks a little cowardly (rightly or wrongly – that’s the perception among a lot of people). I’d absolutely want the chance to show my work to everybody. I wouldn’t have anything to hide.

    “Furthermore, Mann has never faced an independent investigation (Penn State = conflict of interest).” This sort of seems like BP clearing itself after doing its own internal investigation.

  48. MartinM

    Mann’s already shown his work to everybody. Nobody welcomes a frivolous investigation.

    “Furthermore, Mann has never faced an independent investigation (Penn State = conflict of interest).” This sort of seems like BP clearing itself after doing its own internal investigation.

    Yeah, major Universities risk their reputation by shielding corrupt staff members all the time.

  49. ChrisD

    @Andy 38

    Mann certainly seems confident in his data and practices, why not present everything and explain it?

    You assume good faith on the part of the investigators. I, and many others, are not at all comfortable with that assumption in this particular case.

    Surely, an investigation wouldn’t hurt the situation, unless he indeed has something to hide

    Or unless people with a political ax to grind are allowed to sift through years’-worth of private emails, sticky notes, and diagrams on the backs of cocktail napkins looking for things to take out of context.

    It wouldn’t exactly be unprecedented.

  50. One more point on Cheyenne’s comment:

    I understand how this aids in setting a bad precedent for academic freedom

    D’you not think that might be part of the point? The exercise of academic freedom has given us:

    – scholarship that set the Bible in context as (just) another ancient near Eastern document;
    – ‘demotion’ of the Earth as the centre of the universe;
    – the theory of evolution by natural selection;
    – safe contraception;
    – recognition that ability is not dependent on race;
    – recognition that things like gender and race are socially constructed.

    among other things. I wonder how people who vote for the likes of Cuccinelli feel about those things?

  51. QuietDesperation

    But I would bet my mother’s retirement fund

    Yeah, it’s easy to bet other people’s money, isn’t it? Pfft! Liberal.

    (Hint: I’m teasing)

    A Palin-Cuccinelli Republican ticket for 2012? Its so wrong its almost right.

    How about 2016? I might be able to retire early before then, and amscray to Costa Rica or Belize or somewhere. Probably Belize. They speak better English there than what I hear here in So Cal.

    Heh heh. “Hear here”

  52. Cheyenne

    #40- Yes I think that’s part of the point. That’s why I typed “I understand how this aids in setting a bad precedent for academic freedom…”.

  53. Cheyenne Says: “This sort of seems like BP clearing itself after doing its own internal investigation.”

    No it doesn’t. It “sort of seems” like you just want to remake the rules. Perhaps Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University could conduct the final inquisition, though it is in Virginia. But the locale isn’t important since you’re just making up the rules as you go along anyway!

  54. Andy

    “Yeah, major Universities risk their reputation by shielding corrupt staff members all the time.”

    and who investigates the University to confirm their findings…? That’s the whole point of an independent investigation. You can’t defend their findings with anecdotal evidence against the obvious conflict of interest.

    All public companies, for example, are required to hold independent audits of activities under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to eliminate conflicts of interest in year end statements (as a result of Enron). What makes a University any different? Same goes for any organization, including the government. Failure to conduct an independent review of any organization only breeds corruption within those organizations.

  55. One thing is clear, science organisations and research groups should increase public outreach and science popularisation… good PR never hurt anyone.

  56. MartinM

    …and who investigates the University to confirm their findings…?

    You’re absolutely right. Clearly what we need is an infinite regress of investigations investigating the previous investigation.

  57. 24601

    “Refusing an investigation is basically an admission of guilt. ”

    I bet you’re one of those “I haven’t done anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide” folks who have no idea why everyone else is making such a big fuss about privacy on the internet, aren’t you?

    He’s already been investigated, several times. Saying no to yet another round is no admission of anything other than being fed up with being investigated.

  58. Andy — by calling for Sarbanes-Oxley-like oversight, you’re calling for more government oversight of science, based on the whims of politicians and scientifically illiterate or even hostile voters. See Timothy Ferris’ “The Science of Liberty” (Harper 2010), in which he shows that kind of thing rarely if ever works out for the betterment of science.

  59. Andy

    It only takes 1 independent investigation, Martin. Independent, meaning: having no vested interest or association with a particular organization. There’s clearly reason to eliminate Penn State’s conflict of interest. If he was investigated by say, the FBI, there’s clearly no reason to believe that the FBI would hide information to protect him.

    By your logic, I’m assuming you would have accepted testimony by Bernie Madoff’s CFO, better yet his internal auditor, that all his books were in order…Why do you think we have so many levels of government oversight in all kinds of arenas? The US is built upon checks and balances.

    Mike, I agree with you on that point, but I’m actually a fan of less government as well. More regulation isn’t the answer, I was using SOX purely as a comparison. I generally trust the science community and it’s often self regulating thanks to peer review, however I do believe some may be less than honest, especially those vested in something of this caliber on a political level.

  60. Bob L

    Andy Says: @ “All public companies, for example, are required to hold independent audits of activities under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to eliminate conflicts of interest in year end statements (as a result of Enron).”

    I am only a layman but isn’t there this process in science called “peer review”? Or are you going to hand wave the consensus on the grounds you believe the scientific community as being in the tank with Mann and therefor part of the conspiracy? Even if the previous true how is a witch hunt from a political hack like Cuccinelli equate to an independent auditor in your example?

  61. Andy

    I don’t abject to an investigation into Mann because so much of the climate change data lies on his contributions as an associate of the United Nations, another conflict of interest. The whole situation is truly a political nightmare.

    Bob, you’re missing the point. A simple investigation could clear Mann of wrong doing and silence political opposition. However, it could also uncover a very significant flaw in his practices and there’s a lot riding on that data. The goal of the opposition is obviously to find any possible flaw in his practices, therefore I would expect the investigation to be very thorough, just as scientists approach problems with skepticism. An investigation of that caliber would do much to uphold the climate data, assuming Mann has been honest in his practices.

  62. Andy — thanks for the reply, though I’m not in favor of the nebulous concept of “less government” (Reagan peddled that line for years and what we got was an even larger federal government and a national debt of 60% of GDP, compared to Carter’s 23%). What I’m in favor of is a more efficient and equitable government. In a nation of over 300 million people, a “big” government is inevitable.

    Anyway, as for your comment “however I do believe some may be less than honest,” well that’s what peer review is already there for. Also, I see you don’t give any details about these hypothetical scientific charlatans who must roam the streets at night spray painting equations on shuttered storefronts and statues of city fathers and must be regulated as if they were corporate criminals.

  63. Andy

    Mike, the majority of scientists don’t have so much riding on their research in the political arena. The majority of scientists do research for Universities that arguably don’t directly impact the American people. The majority of the research is simply for informational purposes. The only other scientists subject to such oversight work for Big Pharma and they’re regulated by the FDA. These guys work for the UN, why aren’t they subject to oversight? All government employees are subject to oversight, as are any industries regulated by the government (nearly every industry). I also agree on the efficient government point by the way, which is why I oppose having government involved in certain matters. While I don’t think we need regulation on University research, I do believe the government should maintain oversight of scientists that work for the government. For example, the FDA independently verifies studies, regardless of peer view.

  64. Andy — Thanks again for replying. I agree with your point about colleges and corporations. That is often scandalous, and there have been a few good books and many essays published on the subject (the NY Review of Books has printed some excellent reports), but to assert that peer review in general is untrustworthy, well I just don’t see it.

    I wish I had the time to respond to the rest of your reply, but the ultimate (and prettiest) arbiter just ruled that I have to clean the bbq grill.

  65. Andy

    Peer review is generally trustworthy, I just feel that those working for the government should also be subject to an independent, bi-partisan/non-partisan government review, similar to how the FDA functions. It would help curb some partisan bickering, that’s about it.

  66. ChrisD

    @Andy 52

    There’s clearly reason to eliminate Penn State’s conflict of interest.

    But Penn State doesn’t have a conflict of interest. Mann’s grants represent a vanishly small fraction of PSU’s total (0.06% for 2006-2009). PSU’s interest isn’t in covering up for Mann, it’s in dealing quickly and decisively with anyone who commits research misconduct.

    Scholars and Rogues has an excellent writeup on this issue. Notable quotes from interviewees (not PSU people):

    “[U]niversities try first and foremost to protect their reputations above those of individual scientists and wouldn’t be inclined to whitewash.”

    “[W]e live and die by our good name with reviewers and funding agencies. Why risk the whole institution for one investigator?”

    “[L]ying in science is a death penalty, certainly for the scientist, and to the extent that the institution is also culpable, the institution itself.”

    You should read it:

    http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/02/15/psu-cover-up-extremely-unlikely/

  67. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ Andy : That sounds like a very good idea to me. I’ll second that suggestion.

  68. I remember watching a great video once in which a lawyer gives a talk on how answering police questions can never ever help you, whether you’re guilty or not.

    Similarly, I don’t see how complying with this political witch hunt can help Mann in any way. We’re dealing with conspiracy theorists here, who have already tried and convicted him. Being cleared of wrongdoing in yet another investigation won’t change any minds.

  69. Paul in Sweden

    I recommend everyone listen to the 98 minute long “The Guardian ‘Climategate’ debate” that was held this week and full audio is available now at:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jul/15/climategate-public-debate

    ‘Climategate’ debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argumentPolemical and partisan characterises the climate debate online – but at last night’s Guardian debate there was courteousness and a distinct warmth in the air Something remarkable happened last night in the polarised world of “warmists” versus “sceptics”: a candid but not rancorous public debate. I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong but, to my knowledge, never before have all sides of this frequently poisonous debate shared a stage. The outcome was illuminating.

    Hosted by the notorious left-wing British global warming activist and writer, George Monbiot.

    @about 90mins
    “two more questions…I see the women in the red dress there…”

    Reply:
    […]
    “In fact, this made me think that the microkernel approach was essentially a dishones approach aimed at receiving more dollars for research. I don’t necessarily think these researchers were knowingly dishonest. Perhaps they were simply stupid. Or deluded. I mean this in a very real sense. The dishonesty comes from the intense pressure in the research community at that time to perusue the microkernel topic. Ia a computer science research lab, you were studying microkernels or your weren’t studying kernels at all. So everyone was pressured into this dishonesty, even the people designing Windows NT. While the NT team knew the final result wouldn’t approach a microkernel, they knew they had to pay lip service to the idea.”

    “You could change a few words there and get Global Warming”.

    Referenced quote –
    Voices from the open source revolution
    By Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, Mark Stone
    The Linux Edge 103
    google books –
    http://tinyurl.com/2wmfru2

    There are a lot of points that stood out. The one above athought was ‘Spot On’.

    There is another at about 60 minutes.

  70. MarcusBailius

    The points raised above linking Cuccinelli’s pursuit with McCarthyism may have a point: He’s clearly fishing for data so he can “find his hypothesis in the data”, rather than targeting his requests at areas he already has clear evidence on. In other words, he has no evidence on which to base his request. Further, he does indeed seem to be claiming that since Mann has been investigated, there must therefore be something worthy of investigation. An investigation which failed to find him guilty, was therefore a flawed investigation.

    It’s clearly mad. It is saying (to me!) more about Cuccinelli and his mindset and ambitions, than it does about Mann or the University of Virginia.

    And it is basically what McCarthy did; this is a witch-hunt. Once you’re accused of being a witch, of course, it’s extremely difficult to clear yourself, since any witness that testifies that you’re not a witch has obviously either been influenced by the use of witchcraft (thus, in the eyes of the prosecution, proving the case) or is a witch themselves (and therefore their evidence cannot be trusted and they should probably be investigated themselves…).

    Cuccinelli and his like are trying exactly the same thing. And when the history of all this is written up, they will indeed come out of it looking pretty much like McCarthy did.

  71. Paul in Sweden

    71. MarcusBailius Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 2:34 am

    McCarthyism is a good characterization of what is going on in the ‘CAGW'(Catastrophic Global Warming) field. Any scientist, warmist or not who does not pick up the flag for CO2 based Catastrophic Global Warming is beaten into obscurity by activists posing as scientists.

    Look what has happened to Linzen, Chrisy, Von Stoch or remarkably both Pielkies!

  72. Messier Tidy Upper

    Just to make it clear – what I was seconding back in what’s now comment # 69 here was :

    66. Andy Says: [July 15th, 2010 at 3:14 pm]

    Peer review is generally trustworthy, I just feel that those working for the government should also be subject to an independent, bi-partisan/non-partisan government review, similar to how the FDA functions. It would help curb some partisan bickering, that’s about it.

    ***

    That’s what sounds like a very good idea to me & a suggestion I’ll second.

    (Quite a few comments have popped up post-moderation afterwards that weren’t there when I first posted and have made the ^ arrow potentially confusing.)

    I think more openness and accountability and transparency would be better.

    I do think controversial issues such as (C)AGW need to be carefully addressed in a manner where the old adage about Caesars wife not only needing to *be* above reproach but also needing to be *seen* to be above reproach is standard.

    The Climategate scientists may well – almost definitely – have been innocent an dabove reproach – but they certianly have not been clearly seen to be innocent or above reproach in the public eye.

    I do think it helps to have a clearly neutral, impartial (as much as possible) and independent arbiteur examine the conduct of Mike Mann and the other climategate scientists and then decide what the reality was.

    I do not think the investiagtions conducted so far – in-house and by Mann’s patrons and supporters meet that mark. Justice must be seen to be done not just done.

    That said, while Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli would make a good (ie. rigourous, strong and passionate) *prosecutor* of the case against Mike Mann I would NOT want to see Cuccinelli as a judge or member of any jury on thsi specific case (or any others relating to Global Warming) because of Cuccinelli’s own clear anti-AGW anti-Mike Mann bias.

  73. Nigel Depledge

    Gcruse (12) said:

    It was incessant frivolous lawsuits that drove Palin from office, but I didn’t notice much protesting from the left over them. Not even post facto. Funny how it works.

    Wait, what?

    I thought Palin left office because she was incompetent. Her idea of foreign policy experience (seriously) was keeping an eye on the Russians across the Bering Strait.

    And who, exactly, do you mean by “the left”? The Russians themselves? Why would they care who governs Alaska, so long as that person does not have the authority to lob nukes their way?

    Or do you mean people like Phil, who believe that reality should actually be consulted when formulating policy? If that’s your idea of “leftism”, then call me a communist. ‘Cos, to me, that approach looks pretty middle-of-the-road.

  74. Nigel Depledge

    Messier Tidy Upper (13) said:

    Perhaps if this does go ahead it could be the equivalent of the Dover trial for the Intelligent Design-Creobots?

    A high publicity knockdown that exposes the worst deniers? If folks are sosure Mike Mann is totally innocent then I say bring it on and let sunlight be the best disinfectant. (Metaphotrically speaking. No responsibility taken for any cleaning failures based on this advice! )

    The verdict on Anthropogenic Global Warming is in scientifically :

    98 % of climatologists (99% now even?) say “It is real and is happening.”

    The verdict on Anthropogenic Global Warming is also in when it comes to public opinion :

    Most general publicans ( ) say its all hogwash and isn’t real or worth taking seriously.

    Something needs to alter that perception after “climategate” perhaps this will be that something?

    Erm … sure, except look how much influence Dover has had on the IDists. It’s like Edwards v Aguillard all over again. It made them change tack, but it has not made them re-evaluate their goals. Now, instead of “ID is science”, they’re crying “specify that the weaknesses of evolutionary theory must be taught”.

    Now, (a) in the ideal world that is inside my head, this last tactic would, of course, result in students being taught how science has addressed all of the weaknesses of Darwin’s theory (as he discussed in detail in On the Origin of Species); however, (b) I recognise that, in the real world, it opens the door for teachers to share creationist propaganda (either because they believe it themselves or because they submit to pressure from parents or school boards).

  75. Morcheeb Sanjay

    I’m wondering if Cuccinelli can take what he hands out? Would he agree to an investigation into his private e mails and contacts. What will we find then?

  76. Nigel Depledge

    Messier Tidy Upper (16) said:

    In it he mentioned the failure of the Copenhagen summit and the damage done to public belief in AGW by Climategate.

    Climate change has heavily affected Australian politics already & claimed two political casualties if nothing else.

    Wow, and did no-one think to point out that Australian researchers have reached the same conclusions as the University of East Anglia, despite being a different bunch of people?

  77. Paul in Sweden

    76. Nigel Depledge Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 3:32 am

    Wow, and did no-one think to point out that Australian researchers have reached the same conclusions as the University of East Anglia, despite being a different bunch of people?

    More importantly it was pointed out by the members of the Australian Labor Party; hence the downfall of Rudd. The Bureau of Meteorology(BoM) and Cisro have also taken some hard hits(Maybe I will post some info on those regional scandals too:) ). Gillard has taken some mighty steps backwards regarding your religion of Global Warming making sure they will not fall into the same trap the Kiwis have fallen anytime soon but Australia is still in bad shape.

    No worries Nigel most people are not drinking the Kool-Aid, there is no need to parade the streets with the sandwich board on, give the polar bear suit a rest. Spain(Obama’s Green Model) is planing on retroactively cutting back its’ green subsidies and it is widely believed that all 600 of their PV solar companies will collapse because they cannot stand on their own on Global Warming Kool-Aid, Pixie dust and Unicorns. Germany and other countries are doing the same.

    It doesn’t seem that your new model for the world is working out. China the champion of Green Energy by the Leftist has promised to put out at least one dirty low tech coal fired power plant a week. How many is that since the failure of COP15 in Copenhagen?

    Your efforts are better placed in research. Let us see if Gen IV nuclear can be made as cheaply as coal. Heck in my dreams I see hydrogen fuel as the way to go but sadly I believe the most recent paper on hydrogen production came from the University of East Anglia and it is widely believed that products from there are tainted.

    All of science has suffered because of your religion of Global Warming.

    Who can trust a scientist now?

    Where are the skeptics?

    Stop anti-science and this faith based church of CO2 based Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming(CAGW).

  78. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Paul from Sweden wrote:
    “Look what has happened to Linzen, Chrisy, Von Stoch or remarkably both Pielkies.”

    They were shown to be wrong, time and time again. Thats what is good about science; if you talk crap you get corrected.

    ” Pixie dust and Unicorns”

    Your statement is ironic considering some of the things that Cuccinelli has come out with.

    “Cuccinelli at first publicly stated that it was possible that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and that the validity of any law that he signed could be challenged to raise the question of Obama’s citizenship.”

    And then reality hit home, and Cuccinelli had to change his view to stop himself being laughed at:
    ” In response to the controversy surrounding his statements, Cuccinelli on March 15, 2010, issued a statement clarifying that he believes that Obama was born in the United States.”

    I wonder if reality will hit home again for Cuccinelli?

    “All of science has suffered because of your religion of Global Warming.”

    The only faithhead here is you Paul, that doesn’t understand the difference between science and religion.

  79. Paul in Sweden

    78. Morcheeb Sanjay Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 4:47 am

    Paul from Sweden wrote:
    “Look what has happened to Linzen, Chrisy, Von Stoch or remarkably both Pielkies.”

    They were shown to be wrong, time and time again. Thats what is good about science; if you talk crap you get corrected.

    Sanjay, wrong in the sense that each of the scientists I mentioned understands the properties of GHGs and the design flaws of current general circulation models and will not don a tin foil hat and polar bear suit and join the all night rave at the all too frequent UN climate conferences each billed as the ‘the last chance to save the planet’?

    Any scientist that does not go along with CAGW activists is pushed aside.

    Perhaps later I will post the corrections that the IPCC scientists that I mentioned above have presented, published and are accepted begrudgingly by the scientific community. To you this is wrong.

  80. Paul in Sweden

    78. Morcheeb Sanjay Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 4:47 am

    Your statement is ironic considering some of the things that Cuccinelli has come out with.

    “Cuccinelli at first publicly stated that it was possible that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and that the validity of any law that he signed could be challenged to raise the question of Obama’s citizenship.”

    That is really our of left field Sanjay, but I’ll play your game.

    Where were you born Sanjay? I know the hospital where I was born, and each of my brothers. I know where the hospital is where my mother and the house where my father were born.

    We can visit the homes or hospitals where just about everyone of our presidents are born.

    Where was Obama born? I know he has a certificate of live birth issued by the Island state of Hawaii which was issued at the request of any parent at the time of Obama’s birth regardless if the child was born on United States soil or not.

    Where is Obama’s place of birth?

    Was Obama born in a hospital in Hawaii? If so, which hospital in Hawaii? What is the big secret? Was he born in a modest home in Hawaii that is keeping quiet so that after he leaves office there can be so surprise opening of the birth place of Obama as a tourist attraction.

    I frankly do not give a FF where our current president was born and if the laws of our land were violated by having a POTUS elected that was not born on US soil.

    That is an interesting topic you have brought up Sanjay, where was Obama born? Do you know?

    If you do call the newspapers I am sure they will eat the story up.

  81. Paul in Sweden

    78. Morcheeb Sanjay Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 4:47 am

    “All of science has suffered because of your religion of Global Warming.”

    The only faithhead here is you Paul, that doesn’t understand the difference between science and religion.

    Sanjay, I am a skeptic. I understand that science is a slow moving process based on evidence. Your religion of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is based on faith. There are hopes and dreams that one day the bishops and cardinals of the church of global warming will find an anthropogenic CO2 signal and a further dream that the leaders of the Church of Global Warming will find multiple positive feedbacks induced by anthropogenic CO2. Until then, your Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming remains a theory to actual scientists that study our climate and a religion to the greater number who run through the streets screaming the end is near.

    Sanjay, I would be very excited if we could find a way to control the earth’s temperature. If we could control the earth’s temperature as if we have a thermostat(via CO2 or someother GHG) as the faithful in your church proclaim what temperature should we set it? At your bible studies please mention that ‘Paul in Sweden’ would like the temperature to be much colder than it is today(even though he knows it is bad for agriculture) and while you are at it heck, I don’t like it when it rains on Saturdays or Mondays. :)

  82. JJ

    Well said Paul, I’m skeptical to the same degree. I don’t feel a catastrophe is anywhere in our future. I’d be much more concerned about entering another ice age. Humans typically flourished during warmer periods (Middle Ages – warmer than today based on northern hemisphere data) and struggled during the colder ones. Global warming means a longer golf season…

  83. Paul in Sweden

    72. Messier Tidy Upper Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 3:08 am

    That said, while Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli would make a good (ie. rigourous, strong and passionate) *prosecutor* of the case against Mike Mann I would NOT want to see Cuccinelli as a judge or member of any jury on thsi specific case (or any others relating to Global Warming) because of Cuccinelli’s own clear anti-AGW anti-Mike Mann bias.

    Hey Messier, CAGW supporters were all to happy to have ‘judges’ in the various whitewashes with clear CAGW bias and forgetting the institutional conflict of interest in at least one case regarding one individual financial conflict of interest.

    Q. What kind of inquest interviews the defendants and none of the complaints?

    A. A Climategate Whitewash

    It is ridiculous.

    I linked an article in #27 by a Global Warming activist(there are others but that one is in the last few days). The whitewashes have not only not fooled anybody but have enraged scientists & layperson alike on both sides of this issue.

    It is my belief that the climategate whitewashes were painted in the shape of huge arrows that point to where the investigations should begin.

    Mess, I think I mentioned this on one of the other threads, I did the reverse flip of what you did. Not really with CAGW but with Wind & Solar power. I was all for it, until I learned that it is still just a novelty and just a tax burden. I am still for electric or LNG fleet vehicles in cities just because it makes sense to breath cleaner air. My real dream is hydrogen fuel cells but we haven’t cracked that nut yet. One day we will…

    There is even application for PV installations & Wind Power and my distant hope for wave power but ATM there is little hope for any of these to fill tiny niche markets. Windmills for remote desalination projects seem like a nobrainer to me but the cost benefit studies tell me different.

    I want a green energy world. One day we may have it. It ain’t today. We have 1.5+ billion people in this world without even electricity. People are dropping dead every day because of a lack of basic electricity & running water. My dreams of a green earth can wait until technology matures. Reality……..

  84. JJ (the other one)

    Paul… I try to read your posts but all I see is a sad creature, fishing for bites under his bridge. What stands out? Nothing of value…

    “ivory towers, pixie dust & unicorns”

    “champion the various whitewashes”

    “University of East Anglia sponsored mockery”

    “Greenpeace & WWF […] Enron”

    “BP/Deep Horizon Spill […] climategate.”

    “fellow CAGW faithfuls’”

    “Armageddon crisis.”

    “‘CAGW’(Catastrophic Global Warming) […] warmist […] Catastrophic Global Warming […] activists posing as scientists. ”

    “religion of Global Warming”

    “bishops and cardinals of the church of global warming”

    “faithful in your church proclaim”

    “climategate whitewashes”

    ..but really, nothing tops..

    “where was Obama born? Do you know?”

  85. Paul in Sweden

    86. JJ (the other one) Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    Paul… I try to read your posts but all I see is a sad creature, fishing for bites under his bridge. What stands out? Nothing of value…

    Nothing of value. I cannot argue with you JJ. :)

    Strong denigrating language to equal the language that is heaped on anyone that does not believe the world is coming to an end.

    There are actually a lot of serious scientists studying and publishing work on climate change.

    Earlier I mentioned four. The two Pielkies(Rodger Pielkie Sr. & Rodger Pielke Jr.) and Christy are all Global Warmists. They however have been rejected by their peers not for the quality of their work but because they recognize that CO2 is not the driver of Global Climate as the UN would have us believe so that all countries can be under UN regulations. They have a substantial body of work that indicates that black carbon, aerosols and particulates effect our climate. Pielke Sr. is above reproach and is rightfully quite offended by the treatment he has received. Christy rolls with the punches and Pielke Jr. fights back. Pielke Jr. wants action on our climate now. Lindzen is somewhat agnostic he sees the laboratory theoretic tempurature effect of the doubling of CO2 on the atmosphere but also recognizes the negative feedbacks. His Lindzen Choi ERBE 2010 paper is something everyone that is concerned about the Greenhouse effect should read.

    JJ and others, perhaps I should lay off the ‘stupid’ labels and silly catch phrases and only use them for the people that call me a denier, creationist, anti-vaxxer or a propagator of anti-science.

    Thanks for the wakeup call JJ :)

  86. Pi-needles

    Peter Sinclair’s “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” has a good videoclip take on this latest affair along with death threats aimed at Mike Mann & much more:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw&feature=PlayList&p=029130BFDC78FA33&playnext_from=PL&index=2

    It includes some nice references to the ‘V’ TV SF show (1983 version) movie at the start and finish.

    This site has a comprehensive and well made set of Global Warming Youtube clips available here:

    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33

    (My personal fave is the Mars attacks one. ;-) )

    And some ppl might especially remember this one:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/02/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/

    that the BA blogged about at the start of last month. Good informative clips all of them. ;-)

    @ 34. Naked Bunny with a Whip Says:

    @Pi-needles: You are totally one of those liberals that drove Sarah Palin out of office with frivolous lawsuits, forcing her to spend vastly more time being the center of attention of many adoring fans while raking in huge quantities of money when all she wanted was to be the quiet and modest governor of a low-population state!

    Why, yes I am. ;-)

    Although I don’t think it took much “forcing” for Sarah to choose to quit.

  87. JJ

    I recently read an article in Scientific American claiming the hunting of mammoth in the Arctic regions of now Russia and North America may have contributed to global warming. The reason for this, killing of the mammoth resulted in greater tree growth, which held more heat near the Earth due to the green leaves over taking the snow covered tundra. I thought it was utterly ridiculous. Is there any reason to believe that such a local incidence would have any significant effect on warming? I guess a solution to slow warming is to cut down all the trees in Arctic regions…I find that entirely far fetched.

    It’s also worth noting that there were many more plants on Earth during and after the Middle Ages, while global temps declined. Seems like these “scientists” are looking for anything to blame for warming. I’m surprised we haven’t heard anything about human and animal respiration contributing to warming…

  88. gK

    When people question scientific peer review, they are basically questioning the data that is published in hundreds of scientific journals for decades.

    So lets just throw out everything and start over since none of these publications has an FBI agent’s signature of approval.

  89. Ronan

    “There are hopes and dreams that one day the bishops and cardinals of the church of global warming will find an anthropogenic CO2 signal and a further dream that the leaders of the Church of Global Warming will find multiple positive feedbacks induced by anthropogenic CO2.”

    Paul In Sweden, is this how you actually perceive matters? You think that people who consider global warming plausible are just sort of hanging around, desperately waiting for climate scientists to make good on their promises and present plausible positive feedback mechanisms and solid links between an increase in CO2 and an increase in temperature?

    …Not so much. Many positive feedbacks have been known of for decades. To give three examples: Increased temperature leads to less polar ice, decreasing Earth’s albedo and allowing it to absorb more heat.
    Increased temperature in the oceans decreases their ability to hold carbon dioxide in solution, leading to outgassing, which leads to warming.
    Increased temperature destabilizes permafrost in the north, leading to the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. There are other feedbacks in effect, but these’ll do for starters.

    As for the link between carbon dioxide and warming, well, three marks in favor for there being such a link: Basic physics demands that if the concentration of a greenhouse gas increases, temperatures will also increase.
    Tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, both observed, are difficult to explain without greenhouse gas-mediated warming.
    And finally, when all known forcings (except carbon dioxide increase) over the 20th century are taken into account, they fail to account for the observed rise in temperatures. Plug CO2 in, though, and suddenly things make sense.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you already knew about some, or all, of these details, and I very much doubt that what I’ve said’ll change your mind in any way–but, one has to try. Because, you know, you were right: “Until then, your Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming remains a theory to actual scientists that study our climate…”

    A theory is the strongest an explanation can get, in science. Evolution “remains a theory.” Relativity “remains a theory.” Quantum mechanics “remains a theory.” Big bang cosmology “remains a theory.” Atoms “remain a theory.” And so does global warming.

  90. rdpayne

    Cuccenelli just wants to know if Mann ever might have taken home a government funded pencil

  91. Paul in Sweden

    90. gK Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    When people question scientific peer review, they are basically questioning the data that is published in hundreds of scientific journals for decades.

    Cold fusion was peer reviewed and we all know how that turned out.

    Scientists make a discovery, publish their findings, methods and data.

    Other scientists read the paper, replicate the study or experiment and confirm or discredit the findings.

    This however is not the practice in ‘Climate Science’.

    One scientists that has worked with another scientist publishes a spectacular assessment of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. That paper is passed of to a co-worker/colleauge that co-worker/colleauge rubber stamps the paper and in return expects that his more fantastic paper on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is rubber stamped by his buddy. In addition all ‘buddies’ ensure that no papers are aproved that counter the ‘Hockey stick team’s’ papers. No data is provided for the papers, it is never possible to recreate the fantastic tragic Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming findings and this is called ‘Climate Science’.

    Of course there is also the coercion of the media, the grants by the EU/UN to groups like the WWF to promote the ‘Climate Science’ peer review predictions.

    If it can’t be recreated and does not match real world data it is not science.

  92. Mike Mullen

    92. Paul in Sweden Says:

    When people question scientific peer review, they are basically questioning the data that is published in hundreds of scientific journals for decades.

    Cold fusion was peer reviewed and we all know how that turned out.

    ===============================================

    Yes when no one else could replicate the results of the laboratory experiments it was dismissed, that’s part of the scientific method, experimental results have to be reproducible. With climatology we are limited to observation and modeling, and as more observations are made models are improved, and those models seek to recreate the climate as best they can.
    As for the notion that the media coerced to support ‘Climate Science’ you clearly paid no attention to the endless denialism of outlets like FOX news and the eager way all the UK press hopped on the ‘Climategate’ bandwagon.

  93. Paul in Sweden

    93. Mike Mullen Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    92. Paul in Sweden Says:

    When people question scientific peer review, they are basically questioning the data that is published in hundreds of scientific journals for decades.

    Cold fusion was peer reviewed and we all know how that turned out.

    ===============================================

    Yes when no one else could replicate the results of the laboratory experiments it was dismissed, that’s part of the scientific method, experimental results have to be reproducible. With climatology we are limited to observation and modeling, and as more observations are made models are improved, and those models seek to recreate the climate as best they can.

    Yes, when scientific results in science cannot be reproduced they are dismissed.

    That is the way science works.

    Science is way different from ‘climate science’.

    In ‘climate science’ a computer game is built and called a General Circulation Model. It is well known that many of the major dynamics are unknown(clouds, positive & negative feedbacks, etc, etc) and the desired amplitude of tragedy is output by the computer modeler.

    The computer models when tested have no resemblance to the future instrumental data gathered.

    Computer models are not evidence.

    Computer models(GCMs) are incomplete and wrong.

    Computer models cannot even be set back to 1980, 1990, 2000 and predict the climate patterns that we have already witnessed.

    Billions of people on earth are however expected to except flawed General Circulation Models as ‘evidence’ in place of actual evidence.

    Climate Science is not ready for prime time. No policy should be enacted on the basis of GCMs and certainly not the GCMs that are so tragically flawed as we have witnessed to date.

    There is no evidence of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. We cannot even detect an anthropogenic temperature signal in instrumental data. Why should we believe that this undetectable signal that does not show itself today will appear in 2200(almost 200 years from now), the latest tipping point of CAGW speculators?

  94. Damon

    Want solid evidence?

    Step outside.

  95. Paul in Sweden

    95. Damon Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    Want solid evidence?

    Step outside.

    Joke is on you Damon, my outside by the latest NOAA anomaly report is -1C to -4C colder than the 30 year average ending in 2000.
    http://tinyurl.com/35j7jyc

    Weather & climate as always, are constantly changing.

  96. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Paul in Sweden writes:
    “Where is Obama’s place of birth?”
    Now who’s been drinking the unicorn pixie dust Kool Aid with Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters?

    “Sanjay, I am a skeptic.”

    I’m sure that Orly Taitz thinks of herself as a skeptic. Other people think she is something else entirely.

    “Perhaps later I will post the corrections that the IPCC scientists that I mentioned above have presented, published and are accepted begrudgingly by the scientific community. To you this is wrong.”

    If you were a skeptic you’d have done this straight away to back up that assertion.

  97. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Paul in Sweden wrote:

    “At your bible studies please mention that ‘Paul in Sweden’ would like the temperature to be much colder than it is today(even though he knows it is bad for agriculture) and while you are at it heck, I don’t like it when it rains on Saturdays or Mondays. ”

    Thats ironic considering that one of the most infamous deniers senator, James Inhofe said

    “…God’s still up there..”

    You see he has faith that its all just cycles of change created by a magic sky fairy.

    “Weather & climate as always, are constantly changing.”

    You’re telling us what we already know. Its what changes them that is the issue. I don’t subscribe to the magic sky fairy of senator Inhofe, preferring science to find out.

  98. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Paul in Sweden wrote:

    “Computer models(GCMs) are incomplete and wrong.

    Computer models cannot even be set back to 1980, 1990, 2000 and predict the climate patterns that we have already witnessed.”

    Are we to faithheadedly take your word as true or are you going to provide some evidence for this assertion?

  99. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Paul in Sweden said:
    “Chrisy, Von Stoch”

    Get their names right Paul. Christy and Von Storch.

  100. Paul in Sweden

    89. JJ Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    I recently read an article in Scientific American claiming the hunting of mammoth in the Arctic regions of now Russia and North America may have contributed to global warming. The reason for this, killing of the mammoth resulted in greater tree growth, which held more heat near the Earth due to the green leaves over taking the snow covered tundra. I thought it was utterly ridiculous. Is there any reason to believe that such a local incidence would have any significant effect on warming? I guess a solution to slow warming is to cut down all the trees in Arctic regions…I find that entirely far fetched.

    Yes JJ, I believe I mentioned the same study in a previous thread. Woolly Mammoth farts kept the temperature of the earth in balance and evil man happened onto the scene and just as in classic myths man poisoned the garden of Eden, eradicated the Woolly Mammoth and all of mankind was punished by the earth god for his transgressions with the last ice age.

    You are not alone in finding that far fetched. :)

  101. Paul in Sweden

    91. Ronan Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    “There are hopes and dreams that one day the bishops and cardinals of the church of global warming will find an anthropogenic CO2 signal and a further dream that the leaders of the Church of Global Warming will find multiple positive feedbacks induced by anthropogenic CO2.”

    Paul In Sweden, is this how you actually perceive matters? You think that people who consider global warming plausible are just sort of hanging around, desperately waiting for climate scientists to make good on their promises and present plausible positive feedback mechanisms and solid links between an increase in CO2 and an increase in temperature?

    …Not so much. Many positive feedbacks have been known of for decades. To give three examples: Increased temperature leads to less polar ice, decreasing Earth’s albedo and allowing it to absorb more heat.
    Increased temperature in the oceans decreases their ability to hold carbon dioxide in solution, leading to outgassing, which leads to warming.
    Increased temperature destabilizes permafrost in the north, leading to the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. There are other feedbacks in effect, but these’ll do for starters.

    As for the link between carbon dioxide and warming, well, three marks in favor for there being such a link: Basic physics demands that if the concentration of a greenhouse gas increases, temperatures will also increase.
    Tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, both observed, are difficult to explain without greenhouse gas-mediated warming.

    Ronan, the first paragraph of mine that you have quoted was needlessly polluted with sarcasm and inflammatory language. My mood at the moment and choice of language was not conducive to intelligent conversation. There can be no doubt of this.

    Yes, there are many positive feedbacks and in General Circulation models(GCMs) all are accounted for and weighted heavily. Where are the negative feedbacks? Are you aware of any General Circulation model that takes into account clouds or the increased clouds & precipitation generated by any increased surface temperature? If so, which one? If it exists, can we run the General Circulation model with data points beginning at 1960 and replicate the past 50 years of our global climate history? It seems to me that if a General Circulation model cannot reproduce our recent past climate that I should not trust the General Circulation model to predict our future climate 100 years out. Does this not seem a reasonable conclusion?

    Members of the ‘hockey stick team’ are also troubled that a greenhouse effect or heat storage has not been found:

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones”

    , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    Hi all

    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
    Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
    had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
    smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
    record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
    baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
    weather).

    Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global
    energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
    doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
    from the author.)

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
    travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
    shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
    system is inadequate.

    That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
    monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
    change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
    the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
    Sept 2007. see
    [2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
    urrent.ppt
    Kevin

    Ronan, I believe I have legitimate skeptical concerns regarding the policy initiatives proposed by the UN, the EU and the USA. I do not see the drastic actions prudent.

    This is not to say I am not concerned about our environment. We pollute the earth nine ways from Sunday. I think developing climate models is important, almost as important as collecting and archiving actual data. We do not know how are climate works. The idea that the fact that the earth has flipped back and forth from warm to coldmany times in the past and recent record as fast as the late 20th century and the premise that this latest 0.7C change since the end of the little ice age is due to ‘big oil’, the coal industry and capitalism just does not fly with me.

  102. Paul in Sweden

    #98. Morcheeb Sanjay Says:
    July 17th, 2010 at 2:24 am

    Paul in Sweden writes:
    “Where is Obama’s place of birth?”
    Now who’s been drinking the unicorn pixie dust Kool Aid with Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters?

    Certainly not myself Sanjay. Let us remember that it is you, and not myself that interjected the question of President Obama’s birth. Obama will be my president until 2012, I have never believed that even if it did turn out that Obama were found to be born outside of the USA that he would be removed from office. I was never a birther.

    This is your strawman. You own this Obama birth question. I see you failed to answer the question of where the current president of the United States was born, a question that you yourself brought up and I requested your answer in:

    >82. Paul in Sweden Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 6:59 am

    78. Morcheeb Sanjay Says:
    July 16th, 2010 at 4:47 am

    Your statement is ironic considering some of the things that Cuccinelli has come out with.

    “Cuccinelli at first publicly stated that it was possible that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and that the validity of any law that he signed could be challenged to raise the question of Obama’s citizenship.”

    That is really our of left field Sanjay, but I’ll play your game.

    Where were you born Sanjay? I know the hospital where I was born, and each of my brothers. I know where the hospital is where my mother and the house where my father were born.

    We can visit the homes or hospitals where just about everyone of our presidents are born.

    Where was Obama born? I know he has a certificate of live birth issued by the Island state of Hawaii which was issued at the request of any parent at the time of Obama’s birth regardless if the child was born on United States soil or not.

    Where is Obama’s place of birth?

    Was Obama born in a hospital in Hawaii? If so, which hospital in Hawaii? What is the big secret? Was he born in a modest home in Hawaii that is keeping quiet so that after he leaves office there can be so surprise opening of the birth place of Obama as a tourist attraction.

    I frankly do not give a FF where our current president was born and if the laws of our land were violated by having a POTUS elected that was not born on US soil.

    That is an interesting topic you have brought up Sanjay, where was Obama born? Do you know?

    If you do call the newspapers I am sure they will eat the story up.

    So… Sanjay are you going to keep us all on pins and needles or will you come out and tell us which hospital or home in Hawaii Obama was born? :)

    #98. Morcheeb Sanjay Says:
    July 17th, 2010 at 2:24 am
    “Sanjay, I am a skeptic.”

    I’m sure that Orly Taitz thinks of herself as a skeptic. Other people think she is something else entirely.

    “Perhaps later I will post the corrections that the IPCC scientists that I mentioned above have presented, published and are accepted begrudgingly by the scientific community. To you this is wrong.”

    If you were a skeptic you’d have done this straight away to back up that assertion.”

    101. Morcheeb Sanjay Says:
    July 17th, 2010 at 3:07 am

    Paul in Sweden said:
    “Chrisy, Von Stoch”

    Get their names right Paul. Christy and Von Storch.

    “If you were a skeptic you’d have done this straight away to back up that assertion.” you say, well Sanjay, here at BA I have not seen any links of any relevance regarding ‘climate science’. The links I have been provided might have just as well been a link to the Library of Congress. However, even though you have so far refused to answer your own question “where was Obama born?” and I believe your request for me to act on my ‘Perhaps’ regarding the three warmist climate scientists and the one CO2 Anthropogenic agnostic scientist is disingenuous; I will continue to play your “where in the world was Obama born game” & your “the only reason warmist scientists are eaten alive by the CAGW movement is because they were shown to be wrong, time and time again.”, a point I disagree with.

    So Sanjay, let me first ask you have you answered your own question? What is the name of the hospital or where is the site of Obama’s birth? Now moving away from your strawman, are you aware of the Muir-Woods, Rodger Pielke Jr. IPCC issue regarding the unsubstatiated claims between linkage of severe weather & CAGW?

    If not, this should be fun because there was just a press release by one of the newly assigned Working Group leaders of the UN IPCC AR5.

    Start by familiarizing yourself with:
    http://miha.ef.uni-lj.si/_dokumenti3plus2/190025/3clanek2.pdf

    It is a weekend and time is spartan but by late tonight, tomorrow or Monday I will hope to provide you a link to a Royal Society conference video on this very subject that comprised of all Global Warming Advocates, of which Rodger Pielke Jr. is one.

    My contention is that even if a scientist is an Anthropogenic Global Warming advocate, he will be ostracized if he does not pick up the flag for CO2 as the primary path to Armageddon.

    BTW: Sanjay, yes I am a sloppy typist.

  103. Paul in Sweden

    100. Morcheeb Sanjay Says:
    July 17th, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Paul in Sweden wrote:

    “Computer models(GCMs) are incomplete and wrong.

    Computer models cannot even be set back to 1980, 1990, 2000 and predict the climate patterns that we have already witnessed.”

    Are we to faithheadedly take your word as true or are you going to provide some evidence for this assertion?

    Sanjay, I have no evidence that any of the many computer models have been able to replicate our recent past history and this is why I have well founded doubts that those same General Circulation Models can predict the earth’s climate 100 years out.

    BTW: Sanjay, are you going to clue us in? You presented the question. Well? What hospital or where is the home that Obama was born?
    /sarc

    Sanjay, are you aware of any GCM that is capable of running our recent past global climate?

    Please tell.

  104. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Paul in Sweden said:

    “Computer models(GCMs) are incomplete and wrong.”

    “Sanjay, I have no evidence that any of the many computer models have been able to replicate our recent past history and this is why I have well founded doubts that those same General Circulation Models can predict the earth’s climate 100 years out.”

    You say before that computer models are “incomplete and wrong”. I’m asking you for your sources of information on that, since you seem to know so much about them.If you’re in any way trying to convince me or the readers of this blog that you’re correct then you should let us see your sources of information for that statement.

    “BTW: Sanjay, are you going to clue us in? You presented the question. Well? What hospital or where is the home that Obama was born?”

    Sarcastic you may be, but you are wrong to say I presented the question. Please tell me exactly where I said “Where was Obama born?”

    I said:
    “Your statement is ironic considering some of the things that Cuccinelli has come out with.”

    “Cuccinelli at first publicly stated that it was possible that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and that the validity of any law that he signed could be challenged to raise the question of Obama’s citizenship.”

    So where do I ask where the president was born? I’m talking about Cuccinelli’s penchant for making statements he later retracts so as not to sound like Orly Taitz. Try reading what I write rather than listening to the mad howling going off in your mind.

    “Sanjay, are you aware of any GCM that is capable of running our recent past global climate?

    Please tell.”

    You’re the one who claims to know all about GCMs. Why don’t you show me some source that displays that failure, instead of expecting us to accept your word for your assertions .
    Please show us that you are a skeptic by providing us with evidence. It isn’t hard. A link will do.

  105. Paul in Sweden

    99. Morcheeb Sanjay Says:
    July 17th, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Paul in Sweden wrote:

    “At your bible studies please mention that ‘Paul in Sweden’ would like the temperature to be much colder than it is today(even though he knows it is bad for agriculture) and while you are at it heck, I don’t like it when it rains on Saturdays or Mondays. ”

    Thats ironic considering that one of the most infamous deniers senator, James Inhofe said

    “…God’s still up there..”

    You see he has faith that its all just cycles of change created by a magic sky fairy.

    “Weather & climate as always, are constantly changing.”

    You’re telling us what we already know. Its what changes them that is the issue. I don’t subscribe to the magic sky fairy of senator Inhofe, preferring science to find out.

    Sanjay, you are going to be required to build housing for all of your straw men. Now it is Inhofe who happens to be a Christian. Before your strawman was Obama’s place of (never an issue for me)which I thought you would shed some light on. Are you now going to tell myself and the rest of the people where the current President of the United States was born? The name of the hospital, the location of the house or manger? Surely in the United States today with a vigilent press core the location of the place of birth of the Nobel Prize awarded POTUS is unknown. Come on Sanjay, you presented the Obama birth place question, just give in, TELL US.

    /sarc

    So Sanjay by all outwards appearances to me, you have faith in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming just as Inhofe has faith in Jesus Christ.

    Can you be an evangelist and point to any actual evidence connecting anthropogenic CO2 emissions to Catastrophic Global Warming?

    /sarc again, but only because I feel that I poisoned the well with my tone earlier on in the thread but in all fairness, Sanjay, this was another strawman.

  106. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Paul in Sweden said:

    “Sanjay, you are going to be required to build housing for all of your straw men. Now it is Inhofe who happens to be a Christian. Before your strawman was Obama’s place of (never an issue for me)which I thought you would shed some light on. Are you now going to tell myself and the rest of the people where the current President of the United States was born.”

    Since you’re apparently incapable of understanding my words I will repeat myself in a vain attempt to get past your evasion spectacles.
    I said earlier:

    “Please tell me exactly where I said “Where was Obama born?” I said:

    “Your statement is ironic considering some of the things that Cuccinelli has come out with.”

    “Cuccinelli at first publicly stated that it was possible that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and that the validity of any law that he signed could be challenged to raise the question of Obama’s citizenship.”

    So where do I ask where the president was born? I’m talking about Cuccinelli’s penchant for making statements he later retracts so as not to sound like Orly Taitz. Try reading what I write rather than listening to the mad howling going off in your mind.”

    I’m still waiting for your sources on why you consider the GCMs to be incomplete and wrong. It shouldn’t be hard for you to back up your assertions, you being a skeptic and not prone to considering that others will take your word at face value, as that would be gullible.

    “So Sanjay by all outwards appearances to me, you have faith in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming just as Inhofe has faith in Jesus Christ.”

    So Paul by all accounts you can’t back up your statement with even a link to a site where you got your ideas from. You just squeal ineffectual ad hominems.

    “Can you be an evangelist and point to any actual evidence connecting anthropogenic CO2 emissions to Catastrophic Global Warming?”

    Why don’t you present your sources for how you KNOW that the GCMs are “wrong and incomplete”, then I’ll show you my evidence for AGW and a catastrophe in the making.

    “sarc again, but only because I feel that I poisoned the well with my tone earlier on in the thread but in all fairness, Sanjay, this was another strawman.”

    Glad that you admit that you poisoned the well and that you are straw manning. The honesty didn’t hurt did it?
    Now show all of us what a good skeptic you are by backing up your words with a link to the sources of information that allowed you to come to the conclusion that GCMs are “wrong and incomplete”, or risk sounding as mendacious as Lonny Eachus and his mate adam.
    Convince me that you are on the level and a true skeptic.

  107. Paul in Sweden

    105. Morcheeb Sanjay Says:
    July 17th, 2010 at 8:40 am

    Paul in Sweden said:

    “Computer models(GCMs) are incomplete and wrong.”

    “Sanjay, I have no evidence that any of the many computer models have been able to replicate our recent past history and this is why I have well founded doubts that those same General Circulation Models can predict the earth’s climate 100 years out.”

    You say before that computer models are “incomplete and wrong”. I’m asking you for your sources of information on that, since you seem to know so much about them.If you’re in any way trying to convince me or the readers of this blog that you’re correct then you should let us see your sources of information for that statement.

    “If you’re in any way trying to convince me or the readers of this blog that you’re correct then you should let us see your sources of information for that statement.” you say Sanjay. I will take that at face value and force myself to have ‘faith’ that you are being sincere. On the basis of the above I will think of you as being like myself and many others out there, genuinely seeking answers. I am a skeptic.

    Not for nothing Sanjay, but after one of the above posts I was flabbergasted, godsmacked even at the reality of the words that I had just posted. I know I have at least one paper downloaded that reviewed the forward predictions of I believe 20 of the most prominent General Circulation Models. I will dig that up and share that with you but give me a break and be a little patient it is the weekend , stealing time to focus on papers and gathering links is hard. The results were not good of the GCMs reviewed. Honestly, I know of no GCM that has been able to recreate past climate.

    Why is it that no General Circulation Model has been able to generate past climate?

    Your question which is “prove that no General Circulation Model has ever generated a past climate record” is difficult, very difficult but I share your concerns. Like I said I am godsmacked by the state of ‘climate science’.

    I will seek answers, I hope you do the same.

    BTW: I am sure I have the Royal Society conference video that I mentioned bookmarked on the computer in the front room. When the wife goes to sleep I will watch it again and then post the link here with a few time markings of the relevant sections. Hope you had no problem downloading the previous PDF file.

    Skål Sanjay! :) looking forward to furthering this discussion with you – Paul

  108. NelC

    I have to say, that I find this question about Obama’s birthplace a bit bizarre in a thread about AGW denial. Isn’t it on his birth certificate? The one that was published quite some time ago? According to Wikipedia, it’s Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu. What’s the problem with that?

  109. Paul in Sweden

    @NelC so do I! It was a strawman. I could care less, but NelC that is cool you found something I assume everything is sourced and that is the end of that. I will check it out latter so if anyone every brings that issue up I have an answer.

    Phil I hope you are listening, a Global Warming thread on an astronomy blog addressing Svensmark et al. and the status of the CERN tests would be interesting as all hell!

  110. Ronan

    “If it exists, can we run the General Circulation model with data points beginning at 1960 and replicate the past 50 years of our global climate history? It seems to me that if a General Circulation model cannot reproduce our recent past climate that I should not trust the General Circulation model to predict our future climate 100 years out. Does this not seem a reasonable conclusion?”
    Quite a reasonable conclusion, Paul in Sweden (although, for what it’s worth, global warming doesn’t depend just on climate models for its predictions. You’ll notice that, in my earlier post, the examples of positive feedbacks I gave could have been arrived at without ever touching a GCM). You state that you have never seen an example of a GCM correctly predicting temperatures: well, let me provide you with a few (not many, I grant, but paywalls kept on bringing me up short) examples:

    IPCC comparison of actual temperature trends with no anthropogenic forcing, anthropogenic forcing but no natural forcing, and all forcing: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm Click on the Figure 12.7 link at the bottom of the page to get the same data, but with a description of where it came from.

    This paper by Knutson et al: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3709.1 Very interesting; it also contains comparisons between model results and temperature trends, with a focus on temperature shifts in individual parts of the globe rather than just an average.

    And finally, a shorter-term but still quite accurate prediction. In 1988, James Hansen presented three different projections for future temperature rise to the US Senate. One was based on increasing emissions (projection A), another added the effects of a (then-putative) volcanic eruption in the mid-90’s (projection B), and the third applied a sudden drop-off in emissions to the projection (projection C). Interestingly, when these projections are compared to the actual state of affairs (I patched this graph together myself, so if I made a mistake with any of the axes, please point it out), you can see that the actual temperature record agrees very well with projection B–which is what you’d expect if Hansen’s model were accurate, because we DID have a volcanic eruption (Mt. Pinatubo) in the early 90’s. The green line represents the smoothed observed temperatures: http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/9642/hansenprediction1988.gif

    My sources for the patched together graph, incidentally, is this site for the actual temperatures: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    …And this site for Hansen’s predictions: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

    As I stated earlier, these are simply what I found after a not-very-exhaustive search for information that wasn’t behind a paywall; please don’t get the impression that there isn’t more out there. I look forward, by the way, to seeing the paper you mentioned in your latest response to Morcheeb Sanjay.

  111. Ronan

    Sorry, accidental double post.

  112. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Paul in Sweden Said:

    “It was a strawman.”

    It was indeed. My statement was about Cuccinelli mouthing off and then retracting his statements so as not to get laughed at, as Orly Taitz is.

    “prove that no General Circulation Model has ever generated a past climate record”

    If you want to put it like that I can accept that. You could also show me the evidence you’ve seen that led you to the view that GCMs are “wrong and incomplete”. You are correct that they are incomplete, and should easily have shown them to be so. All models are incomplete, since by their very nature they are models, not reality. Incompleteness may not be a good criteria to judge a predictive model by, depending on the level of incompleteness it has. A predictive model should be judged by its capacity to predict with a fair degree of accuracy.
    As to being wrong, predictionwise GCMs are simulations of future scenarios- if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at this rate, then this may occur. If we cut the rate of CO2 emission this may occur, etc.
    They are not exact because other factors that we can’t predict exactly may happen to destroy the validity of that prediction, such as a volcano spewing plenty of dust into the sky that causes a cooling effect, and because our knowledge is always limited.
    To state that they are wrong is to infer that you know the future. So you have to demonstrate how you know they’re wrong and how you know better.
    The best argument that a climate skeptic, or denier, can make on the matter of GCMs is that no one knows exactly the future. They can’t state that predictions are wrong if the future hasn’t happened. Likewise a climate warmists can only say that warming MAY do this or that based on a model, since they don’t know the future either.

    ” Honestly, I know of no GCM that has been able to recreate past climate.”

    You do now:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

  113. Paul in Sweden

    Ronan, thank you for the links and yes I suffer the paywall problem too…

    It has been a long time since I have looked at the TAR or read Hansen’s old stuff. But heck the graphs and sub titles look good but I will read the chapter info so I know what I am looking at. Let me read and digest what you have referenced with your posted comments. It is after 1030pm here in Sweden and the misses and myself my go out to the pub to meet some friends. I am an early riser so I would think sometime Sunday morning Sweden time I’ll be back to you with my thoughts.

    You have a good Saturday night! :)

  114. Paul in Sweden

    @Ronan
    Stealing some time and taking a look at your first link:

    “IPCC comparison of actual temperature trends with no anthropogenic forcing, anthropogenic forcing but no natural forcing, and all forcing: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm Click on the Figure 12.7 link at the bottom of the page to get the same data, but with a description of where it came from.”

    I am looking at the TAR chapter 12 pdf
    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.pdf

    I have zoomed in on the plots ‘page 16 of 44′ in the PDF and I am not sure exactly what I am looking at right now. This is going to be more than a quick casual read through the chapter to identify the model and what it is doing beyond the brief graph description.

    This is going to take some time. This is a move in the right direction Ronan. Blue skies,lazy Sunday with lots of reading material, what could be better than that? Thanks again.

  115. Paul in Sweden

    Here is that presentation link that I mentioned earlier:

    The Royal Institution of Great Britain | Has Global Warming increased the toll of disasters?
    ” * Friday 5 February 2010
    * 7.00pm-8.30pm
    * Lecturers: Prof Roger Pielke Jr Bob Ward Dr Robert Muir-Wood

    In the wake of the latest climate change controversy to hit the headlines, The Royal Institution is delighted to be holding a debate between leading climate scientists, Robert Muir-Wood, Bob Ward and Roger Pielke Jr, chaired by the Guardian’s James Randerson.”
    http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&id=1000

    There is an mp3 file on the page, I would have almost sworn I saw a video of this event. All the speakers are basically on the same side of the fence.

    The disagreements referred in the above discussion are being carried over to AR5.

  116. Paul in Sweden

    114. Morcheeb Sanjay Says:
    July 17th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
    ” Honestly, I know of no GCM that has been able to recreate past climate.”

    You do now:

    Not so fast there Sanjay. Pretty pictures are nice and all but we have seen pictures from the IPCC showing todays temps rising up to the same temperatures as the MWP(SAR) and then a few years later seeing hundreds of years of temp records wiped out and replaced with a hockey stick.

    The PDF of the TAR WG1 chapter 12 is heavily referenced, as most chapters in IPCC Working Group One. It is not user friendly and is going to take a bit of time to digest. I have zoomed in on the actual graphs in the TAR WG1 chapter 12, they are a little different than the ones that Ronan displayed. I haven’t dug down enough to figure it out yet. I think the page that Ronan presented shows the model plot as an error bar. Zoom in on the graphs in the chapter 12 pdf, WTF is going on with the plot of the model?

    This is a good conversation we have going. It is slow going but I don’t think any of us have huge blocks of time to devote to this. Slow going is fine, it is interesting.

    Have you looked at any of the links I have provided so far Sanjay?

    I have just finished listening to that Royal Institute conference from February that I posted earlier this morning. Have you listened to any of it?

    There was also the conference this past week hosted by The Guardian’s George Monbiot(a virulent CAGW activist) regarding the climategate investigations which was very informative and very orderly. Monbiot surprised a lot of people. I posted that link in #72, that one is actually relevant to Phil’s original post. Have you reviewed that link? Has anyone else?

  117. The varying views on the validity of global climate change strike some people as horrific, especially since no one ~ even groups of respected scientists ~ seems in full agreement on this vital issue. Paul in Sweden perhaps puts this into at least some perspective, “Blue skies,lazy Sunday with lots of reading material, what could be better than that?” All along, as for the arguments on the relevance of global warming, would it be advisable to have a more reliable conference on the issue? In the interim, amazingly, it seems numerous posters lack links to back up their statements on their claims that overall global temperatures are rising.

  118. Paul in Sweden

    @Ronan Have a look at the figure 12.7 graphs as they appear in the actual text of the TAR WG1 chapter 12 pages – link above. Please review the accompanying text to the right of figure 12.7 and the supporting text in the prior page.

    Your TAR WG1 chapter 12 figure 12.7 does not appear to be the results of a predictive model. The graphical output instead looks to be the results of each of the cited known natural variations based on observations and the inputs of anthropogenic observations(aerosols etc) at various times. This is not a model that could be started and run from a starting point of 1950, 1980, 1990 without careful manual inputs along the way and replicate our recent past climate nor could we give it a start date of 2011 and expect any results to mimic the next decade or the next century.

    Still, climate models are useful tools. As with what you have suggested with the TAR WG1 fig 12.7 output. What it shows us and the IPCC states, what is represented is our known natural forcings and our suspected anthropogenic forcings against the recorded temperature record. I cannot except an answer to the quantitative effects of anthropogenic CO2 as “well we don’t have any other explanation, it must be CO2″.

    I poked around my bookshelf today pulling out printouts of papers trying to find some of those GCM studies. When I save papers to my computer I often do not think to append the file names with relevant info. So I have a lot of papers saved to disk with names that are kind of meaningless. I will keep searching. I’m confident I can dig them up and then find links to flip over to you.

    I saw you had some Hansen links also. I haven’t looked at them, what I have seen from Hansen’s predictive model work in the past would not bolster your confidence in computer models. As time allows I will take a look.

    You say in:

    “112. Ronan Says:
    July 17th, 2010 at 11:45 am

    “If it exists, can we run the General Circulation model with data points beginning at 1960 and replicate the past 50 years of our global climate history? It seems to me that if a General Circulation model cannot reproduce our recent past climate that I should not trust the General Circulation model to predict our future climate 100 years out. Does this not seem a reasonable conclusion?”
    Quite a reasonable conclusion, Paul in Sweden (although, for what it’s worth, global warming doesn’t depend just on climate models for its predictions. You’ll notice that, in my earlier post, the examples of positive feedbacks I gave could have been arrived at without ever touching a GCM). “

    Yes there are lots of positive feedbacks as I asserted earlier but there are negative feedbacks also. Sea surface gets warm, evaporation increases, clouds form(blocking more sunlight), precipitation increases, etc, etc, etc. The positive feedbacks are all but ignored in many of the assumptions by AGW researchers.

    How about the effects of global warming? The earth’s climate changes. It is changing right now. The IPCC focuses only on the possible negative effects. Which areas of the globe should we have global warming would be more productive for agriculture? What deserts that were once lush will once again be productive? No, I don’t know to what extent or even if mankind has affected our global climate. I think a lot more research needs to be done.

    Check out those conference links I posted earlier. They are relative to the thread OP.

  119. Steve in Dublin

    You know, this whole business of giving the anti-science crowd equal airtime is becoming tiresome. When 97% or so of the scientists that are actually practicing climatologists are telling us that pouring 28 billion metric tonnes of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere each year isn’t doing us a whole lot of good… I tend to come down on the side of believing that. Especially given that this greenhouse effect was discovered over a century ago, before mankind even really had a stake in it. It’s very basic physics.

    The evidence is all around us: spring comes earlier in the arctic region, glaciers are retreating, both poles and Greenland are losing ice at an alarming rate, the Northwest Passage is ice free in summer for the first time in centuries.

    The same vested interests that were creating fake ‘grass roots’ movements (please look up ‘astroturfing’ if you’re not familiar with the term) for the tobacco industry are now doing the same with respect to anthropogenic global warming. There are huge amounts of money at stake here. *Hundreds of billions of dollars* annually for big coal and oil to maintain Business As Usual.

    Any scientists who are still bucking the trend (i.e. the remaining 3% of holdouts) almost invariably turn out to be affiliated with right wing ‘think tanks’ like the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, the Science and Public Policy Institute, et. al. That accounts for: Lindzen, Christy, the Pielkes, Von Storch, etc. And there’s also the veteran lobbyists in there for a shout, like Mark Morano. Die-hard contrarians like McIntyre and McKitrick are also in their pockets.

    Bottom line: you can spend all day long nit-picking around the edges of global warming science with the likes of Lonny Eachus, Adam, Steve Huntwork, Paul in Sweden, etc. And you will *never, ever* get them to concede a single point on the science. These people *live to deny*. It gives them a raison d’etre. It’s what Phil refers to as the Noise Machine, a very apt term. I for one am refusing to engage with these people any longer, because it just lends them credence which they don’t deserve. But I still lurk, because my SIWOTI jones is strong.

  120. Ronan

    Paul in Sweden: Well, that is an inherent issue with climate models; many of the forcings acting on them (shifts in the intensity of the sunspot cycle, changes in human industry leading to more/fewer aerosols, volcanic activity, etc.) aren’t possible to predict by any means, and have to be plugged into the system. This doesn’t mean, though, that future climate is impossible to predict via a climate model; all one needs to do is prepare multiple scenarios for solar/volcanic/etc. activity, and then run the climate model multiple times for each scenario. The results of each run may then be combined into an overall range of possibilities for the future, and unless something really extreme happens (say, we end up getting a flood basalt eruption, or something like that), odds are the actual climate will be somewhere close to the predicted values.

    And this approach works, and there’s proof it works. Just look at the graph I patched together, comparing Hansen’s predictions in 1988 to the actual temperature trend. The actual temperatures don’t match scenario A, with no major volcanic eruptions. They do, however, match B and C rather well–and B and C include a major volcanic eruption in the mid-’90s, which (as it happened) actually occurred in the form of Mt. Pinatubo. Climate models really work. They predict the future as a range of possibilities, and not as a nice, tidy, “this is what is going to happen,” but a range of possibilities can still be very, very useful.

    As for positive effects of global warming–well, for relatively mild warming, there are likely some winners (Russia and Canada, for example). I’ve read that it’s vaguely possible that a monsoon system linked to the Sahara might come into existence, as well, although I gather that that’s pretty iffy (it’s been a while since I read up on that particular area). But, then, there are other downsides…The Amazon rainforest, for example, will probably not be stable in a significantly warmer world. The American midwest will be liable to desertify again. Europe in general will probably get less habitable. Africa…well, aside from a somewhat dubious greening of the Sahara, Africa probably won’t do so hot. Australia, under a hotter climate, would be likely to be…well, like Australia, only a lot more so. I’m afraid I haven’t read much on the subject of what course southern Asia is likely to take (other than much meltdown around the Himalayan plateau). There’ll definitely be some winners from climate change, and there’ll be some losers, but frankly I wouldn’t be comfortable betting that the winners will outnumber the losers.

    And, erm, finally, I haven’t yet had a chance to listen to all of the audio file you linked to, Paul in Sweden, but when I have the time, I’ll listen to the whole thing.

  121. Nigel Depledge

    OK, I daresay others have addressed this already, but I’d rather get this sorted before I’ve read all the other comments…

    Paul in Sweden (79) said:

    Your efforts are better placed in research. Let us see if Gen IV nuclear can be made as cheaply as coal.

    Nuclear fission power does not adequately reduce emission of CO2, because of the immense quantities of cement used during construction. Plus, what do you do with the waste? I’m all in favour of long-term underground storage until it cools off, but no prospective storage site has yet succeeded in getting past all the public objections.

    If you really want to go nuclear, you’re better off researching fusion, even though it’s about 1,000 times more difficult to achieve.

    Heck in my dreams I see hydrogen fuel as the way to go

    Actually, until we can find a catalyst that can stand in for the palladium or platinum that is used in current fuel-cell designs, this remains a pipe-dream. The world does not contain enough palladium and platinum even to meet our existing transport needs through hydrogen fuel cell use (let alone domestic and industrial power requirements).

    but sadly I believe the most recent paper on hydrogen production came from the University of East Anglia and it is widely believed that products from there are tainted.

    So, does belief dictate reality now?

    Irrespective of the public perception of UEA, there is every likelihood that they are still doing good science. The “Climategate” fiasco did not prove anything, except that scientists are people, too. If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tell us our life’s work and hard-won expertise are a load of rubbish, do we not get all hot and bothered and irate?

    All of science has suffered because of your religion of Global Warming.

    Nonsense. First, science is suffering because of deniers such as yourself. If you would ignore the Big Oil propaganda and simply look at the primary literature, you would see that global climate change is inevitable.

    Who can trust a scientist now?

    Anyone who thinks and considers evidence above their immediate gratification.

    Where are the skeptics?

    Doing high-quality science, as they always have.

    Stop anti-science and this faith based church of CO2 based Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming(CAGW).

    Well, I’m not so sure about Catastrophic, but global warming is happening now. I’m not asking you to take my word for it. Go and look at the primary climatology literature (you may need to start with a lot of textbooks first so that you can understand the papers, but that’s your problem not mine). If you don’t care to learn about the actual science that is being done around the world (yeah, not just at the UEA), then you should believe the people who conduct the actual studies, not the people who are trying to protect their investments.

    All that aside, your use of the term “religion” demonstrates that you don’t actually know any of the science, and have made up your mind based on the “he said / she said” style of coverage this topic gets in the mainstream media. Obviously, when it comes to rhetoric, scientists lose out. Why? Because they feel (for some weird reason) compelled to stick to facts and logical conclusions drawn from those facts.

  122. zamia

    “Unreasonable search” — The United States Constitution — Fourth Amendment provides protection against.

    Asking for huge amounts of data is certainly search. For what reason? Cuchinelli’s brief is saying because climate science is all wrong, therefore Mann’s request for funding for grad students to investigate scientific aspects is fraud.

    I hope the circuit court judge throws Cooch’s heap of manure out in scathing terms. This is harassment, not an investigation.

    Ask the question: Where did the Cooch get the idea for this from? Why did the Maine Republican party (captured by the Tea Party people) put investigation of climate scientists into the party platform? Like Maine has any climate scientists running amok? has any climate scientists?

    Cooch is carrying out somebody’s agenda. If he gets several years of emails, will they be put out in public — or out where somebody can mine them for Quotes Out Of Context? maybe find the word “trick” someplace?

    This serves the taxpayers of Virginia how? Who is it that Cooch is serving?

  123. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Paul in sweden said:

    “Have you looked at any of the links I have provided so far Sanjay?”

    Sorry, no I’ve had a lot of work to do. But I will definately check out the mp3 lecture link.

  124. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Steve in Dublin said:

    “Bottom line: you can spend all day long nit-picking around the edges of global warming science with the likes of Lonny Eachus, Adam, Steve Huntwork, Paul in Sweden, etc. And you will *never, ever* get them to concede a single point on the science. These people *live to deny*. It gives them a raison d’etre. It’s what Phil refers to as the Noise Machine, a very apt term. I for one am refusing to engage with these people any longer, because it just lends them credence which they don’t deserve. But I still lurk, because my SIWOTI jones is strong.”

    Steve, I agree with most of your post, but I’m hoping that there are differences among those who object to AGW. Paul in Sweden appears to have changed his tune to a more reasonable tone. I want to know what makes him object to AGW, and I’m trying to be open minded enough to have my own opinions questioned.

  125. Morcheeb Sanjay

    “There was also the conference this past week hosted by The Guardian’s George Monbiot(a virulent CAGW activist) regarding the climategate investigations which was very informative and very orderly. Monbiot surprised a lot of people. I posted that link in #72, that one is actually relevant to Phil’s original post. Have you reviewed that link? Has anyone else?”

    I have. You posted it in #71, Paul.

  126. Paul in Sweden

    127. Morcheeb Sanjay Says:
    July 21st, 2010 at 2:52 am

    Steve, I agree with most of your post, but I’m hoping that there are differences among those who object to AGW. Paul in Sweden appears to have changed his tune to a more reasonable tone. I want to know what makes him object to AGW, and I’m trying to be open minded enough to have my own opinions questioned.

    :) That is a good attitude Sanjay. Yes, there are differences between people who are on the various sides of the Global Warming debate. The only change in myself you have witnessed is the toning down the rhetoric and some mild restraint in responding to the same kind of statements you detest from skeptics that are made in support of CAGW.

    Conversely, I am interested in what evidence drives supporters of CAGW, to what extent they view it as a problem and what actions they feel are appropriate to deal with CAGW.

    Time is in short supply. So replies go in spurts.

  127. Paul in Sweden

    123. Ronan Says:
    July 18th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
    […]
    And this approach works, and there’s proof it works. Just look at the graph I patched together, comparing Hansen’s predictions in 1988 to the actual temperature trend. The actual temperatures don’t match scenario A, with no major volcanic eruptions. They do, however, match B and C rather well–and B and C include a major volcanic eruption in the mid-’90s, which (as it happened) actually occurred in the form of Mt. Pinatubo. Climate models really work. They predict the future as a range of possibilities, and not as a nice, tidy, “this is what is going to happen,” but a range of possibilities can still be very, very useful.

    Climate models do have a use, there is also a great effort to make them more useful

    The Hansen predictions are pretty controversial. There are many camps with many different views.

    The thrust of Hansen’s model predictions was to demonstrate that anthropogenic GHGs have and will have a dramatic effect on our global climate. Three different scenarios were offered and the various groups differ on their opinions of how well the model scenarios worked.

    So, scenario B is championed by some as coming close to the warming of the climate. Regardless of the fact that close enough is good for some and not good for others let us turn to the original premise of the climate model exercise. Hansen wanted to prove that if we put in X amount of GHGs into the environment simple physics dictates that the temperatures will increase in a predictable manner. This is also the basis of the whole CO2 reduction programs of the UN IPCC, the EU and the Obama administration, etc.

    So one of Hansen’s scenarios has a pretty picture that some say is close enough. How did Hansen’s model arrive at its conclusions? We must assume that the anthropogenic GHGs that were provisioned in the climate model were similar to the actual anthropogenic GHG emissions over the modeled period otherwise arriving with one out of three scenarios that closely corresponds in some people’s view to actual climate observations is meaningless. Arriving at an approximate solution(one out of three tries) by chance is what appears to be the case with the Hansen climate predictions of the effects of anthropogenic GHGs on global climate is what we have based on the fact that none of the inputs of the various GHGs in each of the three scenarios matched observations during the subsequent period from the climate models.

    The nuts and bolts of the above was summarized back in 2006:

    Evaluating Jim Hansen’s 1988 Climate Forecast
    Pielke Jr., R.
    http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000836evaluating_jim_hanse.html

    What would be interesting to see today is each of Hansen’s three scenarios modified with the actual known natural & anthropogenic GHGs and try to work out how the models then match observational data.

    Given that Hansen’s scenarios only contain one of three that is only considered by some to be an approximation of observed climate and the basis for the results are not based on assumptions that approximate observational GHG emissions & levels I do not see this in any way validating a conclusion that anthropogenic GHG emissions have any detectable effect on our Global Climate. The IPCC and the Climate Science community acknowledges that other natural forcing may exist. With our lack of understanding of our Global Climate as it stands today I have no reason to believe that the multidecadal up and down swings in temperature that we have witnessed since the end of the little ice age is nothing more than natural variation.

  128. Nigel Depledge

    Paul in Sweden (129) said:

    Conversely, I am interested in what evidence drives supporters of CAGW, to what extent they view it as a problem and what actions they feel are appropriate to deal with CAGW.

    First off, I disagree with your term “CAGW”. Let’s call it AGW. “Catastrophic” is too hyperbolic a term, and it implies a single sudden event.

    What evidence has convinced me? Here we go, in brief:
    1. Global temps are rising;
    2. Glaciers worldwide are melting (except for Mount St Helens);
    3. Polar ice sheets are getting smaller;
    4. Global concentrations of greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and methane) are rising;
    5. Emissions of CO2 and methane arising from human activity have increased over the last 200 yeasr or so, with an especially sharp increase over the last 50 – 60 years;
    6. No non-human-related cause of CO2 and methane emissions has changed to any significant degree over the last 100 – 200 years.

    A simple join-the-dots exercise leads me to conclude that these are all related. Furthermore, expert climatologists all agree that global warming is happening and that it is almost certainly caused by human activity. They may disagree on the details, but the main conclusion is clear.

    Why is this a problem? OK, again in brief:
    1. Thermal expansion of oceans will cause a rise in sea levels;
    2. Melting of land-based ice sheets will cause a rise in sea levels;
    3. Mean sea level is rising (this has been measured and is being monitored);
    4. Several major cities are pretty close to sea level (London and New York, for example);
    5. A great deal of prime arable land is pretty close to sea level;
    6. Several heavily-populated areas are pretty close to sea level;
    7. Global climate change is likely to lead to changes in annual rainfall as air circulation patterns and ocean circulation patterns change;
    8. Some areas currently farmed intensively are likely to become desert;
    9. There is a real risk that there are positive feedbacks that can come into play (such as the melting of permafrost leading to the emission of large amounts of methane; similarly, the melting of deep-ocean methane hydrates could have the same effect).

    And so on. There really is too much to be genuinely brief. Suffice it to say that a lot of clever people have been collecting data and trying to calculate the impact since the potential for AGW was first mentioned seriously in the 1970s. I have yet to see one good reason to doubt either their expertise or their sincerity. OTOH, the only recent arguments against AGW that I have seen rely either on denying the data (obviously, back in the 80s, there were far fewer data and the case for AGW was not firmly established) or on insiting that the Earth has negative feedback loops that will kick in any day now.

    What can we do about AGW? Again, as briefly as I can:
    1. Reduce emissions of CO2 and methane;
    2. Try so-called carbon-capture to see if we can directly reduce the concentrations of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere;
    3. Various far-fetched geoengineering projects have been suggested (such as using sulphate aerosols to increase the reflectivity of clouds, or pave the Sahara with mirrors, or what have you). Some of these are probably worth further investigation, but they would need an international consensus to put them into effect at full scale.

  129. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Nigel Depledge said:
    “Catastrophic” is too hyperbolic a term, and it implies a single sudden event.”
    MSN Encarta’s take on the word:
    ” disaster: a terrible disaster or accident, especially one that leads to great loss of life”

    Sea levels rising will be catastrophic for many people. Quibbling about the term seems nit picking when the fact is that mean sea levels are rising.

  130. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Paul in Sweden said:

    “I have just finished listening to that Royal Institute conference from February that I posted earlier this morning. Have you listened to any of it?”

    Are you going to make some point or observation based on the lecture? I’ve listened to most of it.

  131. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Paul in Sweden said:

    “Evaluating Jim Hansen’s 1988 Climate Forecast
    Pielke Jr., R.
    http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000836evaluating_jim_hanse.html

    I might add that not everyone agrees with Pielke junior’s evaluation. Tim Lambert, at Deltoid, has some evaluation of his own when it comes to Pielke jr’s views.

    “Pielke’s criticism of Hansen’s scenarios is badly misconceived. The important input to Hansen’s model was the total forcing from greenhouse gasses, but Pielke ignores this to focus on the growth rate of emissions of each gas. For instance, he claims that scenario B was off by a factor of 2 on CO2. This sounds like a lot until you discover that means that emissions grew by 0.5% per year instead of 1% a year. And that works out to scenario B having the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere within 1% of what has actually happened. Pielke is being much more than a little unfair by calling a prediction that got within 1% of the correct answer as not being “particularly accurate or realistic”.”

  132. Nigel Depledge

    Morcheeb Sanjay said:

    MSN Encarta’s take on the word:
    ” disaster: a terrible disaster or accident, especially one that leads to great loss of life”

    Nice one. Unfortunately, I’d trust MSN’s take on it about as far as I can comfortably spit out a rat.

    My point, which was perhaps too tacit but was certainly implied, was that the use of hyperbole polarises the debate, or propagates existing polarisation. It also allows the deniers to argue specifically against catastrophic AGW* while ignoring the big picture.

    * And the evidence for catastrophic AGW is more subjective, because it largely depends on one’s interpretation of the word.

  133. Paul in Sweden

    Have a bit of time and hope I can do a few replies(BTW, saw a news story about a stabbing at Comic Con but a stabbing at a big event – especially out there – seems almost a non-event, when I read the story I thought of Phil, I could care less about Comic Con but my wife would be in heaven there, so that is on the list :) .

    130. Nigel Depledge Says:
    July 21st, 2010 at 5:51 am
    Paul in Sweden (129) said:

    Conversely, I am interested in what evidence drives supporters of CAGW, to what extent they view it as a problem and what actions they feel are appropriate to deal with CAGW.

    First off, I disagree with your term “CAGW”. Let’s call it AGW. “Catastrophic” is too hyperbolic a term, and it implies a single sudden event.

    Let’s continue using CAGW as the IPCC uses “catastrophic” throughout the assessment reviews. “Catastrophic” is good enough for the IPCC, it should be good enough with you Nigel. The rebranding of ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’ was a marketing failure as well. Yes, the climate changes, all the time – I think that is the whole point of the realists. This is an important issue. The “consensus” is not on CAGW but the basic assumption that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will increase warming, however that amount of warming is unknown. It ranges from the undetectable to the fires of hell. The jury is out for how much warming. The ‘C’ in CAGW is purposeful. It was coined to provoke fear and expedient policy in the absence of evidence by the warmists and those seeking profit and tax revenue in the global warming industry.

    What evidence has convinced me? Here we go, in brief:
    1. Global temps are rising;
    2. Glaciers worldwide are melting (except for Mount St Helens);
    3. Polar ice sheets are getting smaller;
    4. Global concentrations of greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and methane) are rising;
    5. Emissions of CO2 and methane arising from human activity have increased over the last 200 years or so, with an especially sharp increase over the last 50 – 60 years;
    6. No non-human-related cause of CO2 and methane emissions has changed to any significant degree over the last 100 – 200 years.

    A simple join-the-dots exercise leads me to conclude that these are all related. Furthermore, expert climatologists all agree that global warming is happening and that it is almost certainly caused by human activity. They may disagree on the details, but the main conclusion is clear.

    1) Global temps have gone up and down since the end of the little ice age. The temperature change since about 1850 is believed to be as much as 0.6-0.7C over the instrumental record but warmists ignore that the temps have both gone up and down several times just as sharply(if you can really make a mountain out of those tenths of a degree). According to the CAGW the prior shifts in climate cannot be attributed to GHGs. Only during the later part of the 2Oth century it is said that GHGs(esp. CO2) have had an effect on the ‘Global Climate’ according to the warmists. There is no evidence that variances in climate which have occurred throughout recorded history and are continuing now are suddenly due to anthropogenic influences.

    2) Glaciers are melting, growing and remaining stagnant throughout the world today as they have been throughout recorded history. Only a fraction of the world’s glaciers have been studied. More remarkably the portions of studies which show the same or more dramatic glacier activity prior to CAGW possible anthropogenic attribution are all but ignored. Regardless, activity which has been recorded throughout history that is suddenly attributed to anthropogenic activity I have problems with accepting.

    Kilimanjaro glaciers have been receding, and I think there is well reasoned scientific evidence to attribute this to anthropogenic activity but not the CAGW hypothesis regarding Greenhouse Gases(GHGs). The glaciers of Kilimanjaro are at an elevation such that the temperature never drops below freezing(the same is true for the six major glaciers in the Himalayas). Even if CAGW existed, if an environment never drops below freezing there is no possibility for melt. Kilimanjaro is a poster child of the polar bear suit, tin foil hat crowd of CAGW. There have been numerous press releases and photo ops in front of the receding Kilimanjaro glaciers. Kilimanjaro is not melting, it is sublimating(freeze drying). It is sublimating due the the lack of precipitation due to the extensive logging of the timber in the rainforests surrounding Kilimanjaro. This has nothing to do with GHGs and CAGW.

    3) Polar ice sheets are getting smaller? This is vague because polar ice sheets have been portrayed in many ways. We have polar sea surface ice and we have permanent ice sheets, most notably on Antarctica & Greenland. There are questions regarding the status of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets as to if they are decreasing or increasing. There is little confident data. Perhaps you would like to review the GRACE instrument reports where much of this fear of ice sheet mass originates and then see that the predictions of ice mass loss are well within the error bars of each of the instruments. Regardless, the IPCC itself does not attribute sea level rise to ice sheet loss(as you astutely point out attribution of possible sea level rise would be due to thermal expansion.)

    There are various reports of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet depletion, when you look at the numbers, the fantastic headlines produced by the Global Warming Industry are not reconcilable. Greenland would take 10s of thousands of years and at the last rate regarding Antarctica that I saw from NASA when calculated out would take more than 300,000 years to melt. Our climate is constantly changing, I believe it impudent to bet the world’s collective farm on wild predictions of linear models of a chaotic climate that is anything but linear.

    Again variation in Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets is natural and there is no reason to believe that what we have seen in the late 20th century is anything different than we have seen in the early 20th century, during the 19th century or at anytime in recorded history.

    4. Several major cities are pretty close to sea level (London and New York, for example);
    5. A great deal of prime arable land is pretty close to sea level;
    6. Several heavily-populated areas are pretty close to sea level;

    Those are fears and not evidence of CAGW. In the absence of evidence why not tug on heart strings, it is marketing. Although if evidence was found of rapid sea level rise it would be prudent to build seawalls and protect from erosion as civilizations have done throughout time. The IPCC plucks the most volatile paragraphs out of sound papers for the sole purpose of raising alarm in the hopes that the panic will distract from the complete lack of evidence of the hypothesis of CAGW.

    5. Emissions of CO2 and methane arising from human activity have increased over the last 200 years or so, with an especially sharp increase over the last 50 – 60 years;
    6. No non-human-related cause of CO2 and methane emissions has changed to any significant degree over the last 100 – 200 years.

    So…? Of the small fraction of CO2 in the entire atmosphere, only a tiny subset, 3% or so is anthropogenic and it is increasing. That is pretty much a statement of fact. It is however in not evidence of CAGW.

    Why is this a problem? OK, again in brief:

    Nigel, I would rather address this in Ronan’s similar comments on this topic a little later in the day as time allows.

    What can we do about AGW? Again, as briefly as I can:
    1. Reduce emissions of CO2 and methane;.

    How? Where are the solutions? PV solar & wind are fairy tales. You stated previously that you have a problem with nuclear in part because the concrete has a CO2 emission factor. I have a problem with nuclear because it is just darn expensive. It seems to me by some of the things that I have read into your posts(and may have characterized you incorrectly) that you are a zero emissions individual. Yes, zero emissions would be ideal. I am right there with you and one day we will be there. The world needs real solutions regardless of CAGW. I want hydrogen fuel cells. Yes, I am aware we haven’t cracked the nut yet. We will. In spite of the damage done to all fields of science by ‘climate science’ I see progress and I still know that science builds little by little.

    Most of the world is unable & unwilling to give up cars, buses, ferries, airplanes, plastics, electricity and running water for wild predictions based on radical catastrophic hypotheses. Most of the elite CAGW proponents do not live the life they say is necessary that the rest of us are required to live for the preservation of life on earth. More than 1.5 billion people live without electricity and many without running water, as you surf the Internet on your computer(made from petroleum products and massive mining and huge expenditures of CO2 emitting energy) how does your benevolent crusade for zero emissions ring with people in dirt huts burning dung in non-ventilated rooms?

    We either have a crisis, or we do not. If your Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming(CAGW) is real, half measures will not be sufficient. It would be unacceptable to me for the local fire & rescue squad to dispatch to my home and put out half of my house fire. None of the proposed measures addresses CAGW as if it was a real threat. If CAGW was real, it would be managed by competent individuals. If Phil, as an astronomer alerted us to competent scientists who had calculated that there would be a catastrophic impact on earth I would hope that the scientists would not delete data, cherry pick data, subvert the normal peer-review process to hide calculations contrary to their own catastrophic predictions and provide their actual evidence that could be verified. After which, I would expect every government to be unified in an effort to render the threat neutral. I would not tolerate government leaching of funds from the disaster effort(as governments are doing now with CAGW), I would not tolerate NGOs charitable organizations(WWF & Greenpeace, etc…) from ballooning their coffers and executive salaries surrounded by parties, raves, polar bear suit, tin foil hat wearing activists.

    Until the activist-scientists at NASA, NASA NOAA, NASA GISS, NCDC, the Met Office, CRU, CISRO, BoM and the IPCC act in a scientific manner where evidence is published & presented, it is read, it is reproduced by others and it is accepted as science occurs I cannot accept the catastrophic scenarios presented by a fringe movement. Climate data with few exceptions should not be considered national secrets. ‘Climate Science’ is either science or it is not. If you cannot provide data, method and conclusions that can be verified, it must be relegated to academia and the realm of mental masturbation. When ‘climate science’ joins the world of science I will be very interested, so will many others. Until then I hope their booth at Comic Con does well and everyone sees them for what they are. Take that tongue and cheek. There is real science going on in ‘climate science’ but it is not in the headlines. It is important and I do believe climate models have value but not yet to the point where individual governments or the world can utilize ‘Climate Science’ to make long term energy and land management policy decisions.

    2. Try so-called carbon-capture to see if we can directly reduce the concentrations of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere;

    The only serious carbon-capture program that I am aware of was that of Norway, which has suspended the program because it was logistically and infeasible costly. If you are of the mind that the life giving CO2 trace gas is a toxin you would fear the tenuous nature of CO2 storage and the hypothetical danger of the sudden emission of gigaton upon gigaton of CO2 accidentally released into the atmosphere. A realist recognizes that Carbon sequestered of any scale must occur near the point of emission. Carbon Capture is yet another fantasy scenario.

    3. Various far-fetched geoengineering projects have been suggested (such as using sulphate aerosols to increase the reflectivity of clouds, or pave the Sahara with mirrors, or what have you). Some of these are probably worth further investigation, but they would need an international consensus to put them into effect at full scale. .

    I think “ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer” fits. When you decree the earth is on fire and throw billions of dollars in the air, what do you expect the answer to be?

    Obama’s Science advisor wants to paint all the government building roofs white to reduce global warming. While I see value of that during the summer months, I think the value of black roofs in the winter needs to be considered alongside of energy costs prior to hiring people to paint every government roof white.

    As 90 percent of the land based weather stations in the USA do not meet even the minimum requirements of NOAA specifications for climate monitoring, I feel that painting the black tar roofs and black asphalt surfaces where our surface monitoring stations are located would do wonders for global temperatures. Don’t you think?

    Yes, there are unique solutions, and they should be explored. If we do have a CAGW situation and we can delay it with a geo-engineering solution until technology catches up with predicted resource constraints while the world continues to elevate people from poverty into modern life, I am all for it(within reason). We should not spend money on pie in the sky dreams or nightmares as has been the case with CAGW. Personally, although I have some problems with mainland China(human rights, communism, etc…), I am heartened by the knowledge that millions upon millions are being lifted from poverty each and every year. They should be applauded for their efforts and not denigrated for bringing electricity, running water and proper sanitation to multitudes who have lived meager lives for millenniums. Similar statements can be made regarding India and their development efforts.

    Nigel, there is no ‘gotcha’. We have a crisis or we do not have a crisis. If we have a crisis, we have the wrong people doing the science. They are at the very least sloppy and incompetent. At the worst they are self-indulgent & corrupt(political). Seriously Nigel, if CAGW is real, there is no point in my wishing it away. Facts are facts, science is science(except of course in ‘Climate Science’).

    If buildings, bridges, civil infrastructure, pharmaceutical products(vaccines etc), airplanes and cars were developed with the same “robustness” as ‘climate science’ there would be riots in the streets.

    Nigel, on the basis of science and the profound lack of evidence, I cannot connect the dots like you and turn the world upside down based on your fears of a world cataclysm.

  134. Paul in Sweden

    123. Ronan Says:
    July 18th, 2010 at 10:39 PM

    Paul in Sweden: Well, that is an inherent issue with climate models; many of the forcings acting on them (shifts in the intensity of the sunspot cycle, changes in human industry leading to more/fewer aerosols, volcanic activity, etc.) aren’t possible to predict by any means, and have to be plugged into the system.

    Yes, Hansen demonstrated the impossibility to predict future climate even though his injection of a massive volcanic eruption at the 1995 mark in his computer model scenarios was a good guess but as is clearly visible on Hansen’s graphs, the observational data did not match his predictions and caused each of his three climate predictions to fail by predicting warming that never came to fruition.

    This doesn’t mean, though, that future climate is impossible to predict via a climate model; all one needs to do is prepare multiple scenarios for solar/volcanic/etc..

    No? If you produce enough predictions covering the widest range as possible some feel that this would be a success for climate modeling? The problem is that with the three predictions that Hansen presented the observational data showed that the earth’s climate did not warm to his wishes. In fact as you see in Hansen’s graph that the observational data from even Hansen’s own NASA GISS observations do not even reach the past highs of the temperatures of the past Altithermal and Eemian periods that Hansen clearly illustrated where anthropogenic forcings could not even be considered. Hey! Why were temps higher in the Altithermal and Eemian periods? Why were they higher just prior to the Eemian period at the beginning of the Holocene?

    Look at Hansen’s three scenarios with a, b and c again with his highlighted Altithermal and Eemian periods shaded in gray(BTW I believe he low balled the Eemian period and didn’t even include the beginning of the Holocene period which was much warmer than even the Eemian) and read his predictions.

    “Stormy weather [Interview with NASA GISS Chief James Hansen]
    Floods, droughts, hurricanes and disease outbreaks — an expert explains why climate changes give us yet another reason to find terror in the skies.
    By Suzy Hansen”
    October 23rd, 2001
    -http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/print.html
    Floods, droughts, hurricanes and disease outbreaks — an expert explains why climate changes give us yet another reason to find terror in the skies.
    By Suzy Hansen

    […]
    While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?[2018]” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

    As you demonstrated each and everyone of Hansen’s Climate Model predictions were above actual observed temperatures(even NASA GISS inflated temps) and his GHG assumptions were off. Again, as I said previously getting a result that is high but in a one in three chance mimics a pattern with wrong assumptions has little value. There would be much more value if Hansen took those same models, plugged in estimates of known natural forcings and tried to work out the anthropogenic forcings(if any) into his model work.

    How could anyone today speaking to the activist NASA GISS chief, Jim Hansen review his predictions in his westside New York City office not see that people are not at risk of needing to swim up the westside highway anytime soon. Looking at the global thermometer, seeing clearly that global temps have not risen to one of the three guesses that James Hansen led NASA GISS to project, each on assumptions that are incorrect, how could anyone seriously consider making policy decisions on energy that project 100 years into the future?

    And this approach works, and there’s proof it works. Just look at the graph I patched together, comparing Hansen’s predictions in 1988 to the actual temperature trend. The actual temperatures don’t match scenario A, with no major volcanic eruptions. They do, however, match B and C rather well–and B and C include a major volcanic eruption in the mid-’90s, which (as it happened) actually occurred in the form of Mt. Pinatubo. Climate models really work. They predict the future as a range of possibilities, and not as a nice, tidy, “this is what is going to happen,” but a range of possibilities can still be very, very useful.

    Ronan, I am right there with a range of possibilities being useful. The range of possibilities would be even more useful if the full range of possibilities were actually explored and grants & mandates were not what they are today with preconceived conclusions where the only debate is how to present more and more fantastic cataclysmic scenarios instead of real discussions with the many actual scientists who say “Yes, there is anthropogenic influences on the global climate but it is not limited or even predominantly due to CO2 emissions and we do not know how much an influence it will have” or the scientists who say that much more research on feedbacks is needed and needs to be included in the assessment reports. There has been an outcry for more inclusion of feedbacks in AR5 but I believe the conclusions have already been made. We will be very disappointed. All that is left now is to spin the yarn.

    Ronan, I look at this as a skeptic. Somewhere in your comments you used the word ‘likely’. The IPCC is quite partial to the word ‘likely’. The IPCC however makes many statements with ‘likely’ but backs it up with no factual basis. I have long since given away my printed copies of the various 2007 IPCC AR4 reports. I sometimes think that it would make a great presentation if every ‘likely’ statement that did not have solid foundation in science were redacted along with the one third of all UN IPCC AR4 references that were based on ‘grey literature(pamphlets from fundraising articles by the government funded WWF, Greenpeace, and other organizations, etc, etc). The most fantastic scenarios are the ones backed by ‘grey literature’ and have no factual basis whatsoever.

    and this approach works, and there’s proof it works.

    No, it does not and no there is no proof that it does. Hansen’s predictions (a, b, c) were too high and each of the scenarios when you look at the GHG forcings for each of the three GHGs that he provisioned in each of the three model runs the GHG emissions and rate of emissions were way off. How can any of the predictions be considered of any value? Wrong assumption, wrong magnitude and pretty picture is not science. If his assumptions for GHG emissions in magnitude and rate were correct and only his weighting of GHG forcing were wrong which resulted in a higher temperature in his predictions that would be a whole different story. You must be able to recognize this. This is why I say in order to have any value the model needs to be reworked with the actual known natural forcings and new work done to tweak the model in order to isolate any possible anthropogenic signal. I see the value of climate models but they do not seem to be used for anything but propaganda. Science is science but this is not the case for IPCC/NASA GISS ‘Climate Science’. I want serious work with competent people. Darn! Hansen goes to protests, gets arrested, spends his life in front of the camera, travels to the UK to testify that anarchists vandalizing a power plant were within their rights because electric plants will kill off humanity. I can see clearly that the NASA GISS chief, Jim Hansen has an agenda.

    Anthropogenic GHG emissions have not leveled off as Hansen provisioned. Anthropogenic emissions have increased dramatically and continue to do so and will continue to do so until a realistic energy solution is provided some time in the future. As I cited previously the GHG assumptions for each of Hansen’s a, b and c scenarios were way off. They do not match actual anthropogenic activity. It seems that observational data indicates anthropogenic GHG emissions increase year after year(never leveling off as Hansen assumed) but CO2 in particular no matter what the ever increasing tiny fraction of all the CO2 in our atmosphere, our atmosphere according to the Mauna Loa data set consistently rises only 1.5 to 2ppb each year(What is up with that? We dump more and more CO2 in the atmosphere each and ever year and the atmosphere says “I don’t care, CO2 will only be allowed to rise 1.5 parts per billion at an annual rate no matter what you do”). If you make a model of a chaotic stochastic system with a linear progression of catastrophic warming you cannot help but come to the same erroneous predictions as Hansen & the IPCC.

    Just as an aside and to demonstrate the complexity of modeling the global climate, this paper “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming” shows the futility with today’s lack of understanding of the dynamics of our Global Climate and that we are nowhere near developing a computer model that can predict our future climate five, ten, fifty or 100 years out.

    –http://economics.huji.ac.IL/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf

    The Amazon rainforest, for example, will probably not be stable in a significantly warmer world. The American midwest will be liable to desertify again. Europe in general will probably get less habitable. Africa…well, aside from a somewhat dubious greening of the Sahara, Africa probably won’t do so hot. Australia, under a hotter climate, would be likely to be…well, like Australia, only a lot more so. I’m afraid I haven’t read much on the subject of what course southern Asia is likely to take (other than much meltdown around the Himalayan plateau). There’ll definitely be some winners from climate change, and there’ll be some losers, but frankly I wouldn’t be comfortable betting that the winners will outnumber the losers.

    There are so many outlandish disaster claims and it is hard to know which ones you are referring to, but I will assume you are speaking of some of the most spectacular “Sky is falling” speculations by the IPCC AR4.

    The American midwest being less habitable does not ring a bell with me as far as IPCC disaster scenarios predicted by the CAGW industry. My first thoughts are of the American Dust Bowl which by all admissions by the CAGW crowd could not possibly be attributed to CAGW philosophy but instead the recognized land use errors and natural climate variations of the period. The Natural climate variations will repeat but because of our understanding today and the changes in land use the ‘Dust Bowl’ is unlikely to repeat. Why did we have the dust bowl? Why was it not due to CAGW in the past but if it repeats again this would be “evidence” of CAGW?

    Amazongate: At last we reach the source – Telegraph
    ““Amazongate”, it may be recalled, was one of the rash of scandals which rocked the authority of the IPCC last winter, when it was revealed that many of the more alarmist statements in its 2007 report originated not from peer-reviewed science but from papers written by environmental pressure groups. One which aroused particular controversy was a warning that climate change was putting at risk up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest. Chapter 13 of the IPCC’s Working Group II report on “climate impacts” specifically claimed that “up to 40 per cent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation”. It went on to say that this would cause such chaos in local climate systems that the forest could rapidly revert to savannah.

    The only source cited for this claim was the Global Review of Forest Fires, a paper written for WWF and the International Union for Conservation of Nature in 2000, the lead author of which was an environmental activist and freelance journalist. This in turn appeared to cite a paper published in 1999 by a team led by Dr Daniel Nepstad, “senior scientist” with another advocacy group closely linked to the WWF, the Woods Hole Research Center. However, Nepstad’s paper was primarily concerned not with climate change but with the impact of logging and fires.”
    –http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7883372/Amazongate-At-last-we-reach-the-source.HTML

    Yes, change in the Amazon but nothing at all to do with CAGW. It however is a fear that has spread throughout the CAGW industry.

    “Africa probably won’t do so hot.”

    This could be about the recent hypothosis that CAGW will cause civil war in Africa or will force more women into poverty or could be about:

    Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility – Times Online
    “A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.

    Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.

    The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

    This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035, dubbed ‘Glaciergate’ by commentators.

    The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

    Australia… The BoM and CISRO have taken a beating constantly predicting drought and getting it wrong more times than it gets it right(I don’t think people in Oz remember the BoM getting anything right). Not unlike the Met Office in the UK who has stopped seasonal forecasts because of their abysmal forecasts i.e. Barbecue summer, mild winter, etc, etc… and the near loss of their forecast contract with the BBC, which to me is strange as both the BBC and the Met Office are basically government appendages working together to gain additional government revenue through taxes and to bolster pensions which are bloated with overvalued ‘Green’ portfolios.

    Ronan, I am not going to say that all of the hypothetical disaster scenarios in the IPCC Impact statements are based on ‘Gray Litterature’ & propaganda from the WWF & Greenpeace. Some are. Others are serious studies and when your read them you find that they predict both negative impacts and positive impacts. Is global warming good or bad? Do we have the hubris to state that the temperatures of yesterday, unlike the various temperatures of the past are ideal and man can and should seize hold of some mythical thermostat and freeze the earths climate to the temps of the 1980s, 197Os, 60s, 50s, 40s, 30s, 20s or of the themperatures of the days following the Little Ice Age?

    No I am not going to say Global Warming is good(I like it colder), however if we are going to state the negatives we should also state the positives. This is good for planning. Which crops should we plant where and when? What regions of the world will have more rain needing flood control and where do we have to think about serious reservoirs? Those are real questions facing us regarding our constantly changing climate.

    That is not the point, the incessant exaggeration of poorly thought out and imaginative negative impacts of CAGW does not add up to a hill of beans.

    And, erm, finally, I haven’t yet had a chance to listen to all of the audio file you linked to, Paul in Sweden, but when I have the time, I’ll listen to the whole thing.

    No problem Ronan, time is in short supply. Both of the audio links are excellent and if you pay attention you will find that actually all the individuals involved in both of the conferences that I provided links believe that CO2 warms the Global Climate but argue over how much.

    In a nutshell Ronan, yes, climate models do serve a purpose. Yes, the mathematics, physics and statistics in ‘Climate Science’ are fascinating. Yes, the whole concept of CAGW can and has spawned at least one academy award winning movie and several others that I have viewed with my family. The status today is that CAGW predictions have no evidence to stand on and nobody has passed the memo to Mother Nature who seems totally oblivious to anthropogenic GHG emissions and our own observational data cannot see that it matters one bit either..

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »