"They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research"

By Phil Plait | October 9, 2010 7:00 am

Michael Mann, subject to a witch hunt about his climate research, speaks out:

What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the [Climategate] e-mails were published?

The truth is that they don’t expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none.

This is a tour-de-force of fighting back against politically-driven climate change denial.

But the attacks against the science must stop. They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Tip o’ the thermometer to Chris Winter.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Antiscience, Piece of mind, Politics

Comments (216)

Links to this Post

  1. Another climate scientist responds to Rep. Joe Barton | February 25, 2011
  1. TMB

    My feeling on reading it, which is certainly well-written and hits all the right points, is that it’s going to be ignored because of the messenger. Climate change deniers (and, more importantly, lay people who aren’t sure what to believe but are being convinced by the deniers) are going to say “Of course Michael Mann will say that, he’s one of Them.” What we need are editorials that make all of these points written by people who are seen to be objective(*).

    (*) “seen to be” is crucial… I would argue that most climate scientists *are* objective, but unfortunately that doesn’t matter.

    [TMB]

  2. Brad

    Really? I guess one can argue that the ClimateGate thing is of the past and we should all walk away, but it goes to a fundamental question of credibility in the broader scientific community. This is certainly not from someone who is anti-science:

    http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

    And as someone who has a Ph.D. and played the modern science grant-chasing game, this is true, an the tip of the iceberg:

    http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/92prom.html

    Please look at the larger issues, and get off the bandwagon – all the bandwagons.

  3. TheBlackCat

    @ TMB: That would be great in principle, but at least judging by the denialists on this blog and others, the very act of saying something like this makes you “one of Them”, makes you biased. It doesn’t matter what you do are how much they trusted you in the past, if you say something like this you immediately become The Enemy.

  4. Derecho64

    I heartily recommend reading “Merchants of Doubt”, by Oreskes. You will find that the attacks on climate scientists (including Mann) are part and parcel of a long campaign by vested corporate and ideological interests. Starting with the science that proved that smoking causes cancer, on to SDI, acid rain, the ozone hole, and now manmade climate change, a handful of morally-compromised scientists (including S. Fred Singer, still spreading lies at 86 years old) have done their best to satisfy their corporate and ideological masters by spreading FUD about all those issues. In short, they’ve sold their scientific souls for a few dollars. The attacks on climate scientists are just the latest of the dirty, nasty, below-the-belt profit- and ideology-driven smears that have gone on for decades.

  5. Zucchi

    Even if Cuccinelli were right, which he’s not — what the hell is a state AG doing judging the validity of scientific research?

  6. TheBlackCat

    @ Brad: So I suppose all of the people who did or threatened to leave the American Association of Petroleum Geologists because of their anti-AGW stance (which they ultimately changed) do not count?

  7. Oh noes. Now they will go after the fact that the word “faith” was used in that quote. I can see all the silly canards already!

    Well said though! :)

  8. For an interesting, if rather nauseating, first hand look at the core of the global warming denial movement, check out Rachel Maddow’s interview with Oregon congressional candidate Art Robinson.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

    It is impossible to deal with these people rationally.

  9. Derecho64

    Seems to me Lewis has gone old-age… Member of the APS for 67 years? He fits in with Singer very well – and was a co-signer with Singer of the petition to reject the APS statement on manmade climate change. His association with Singer taints his views.

    As for why some physicists have a problem understanding global warming, another physicist, Arthur Smith, has written a nice essay on the subject:

    http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_arrogance_of_physicists

  10. Brad

    @theBlackCat-

    Where did I say they don’t count? What I said was modern science is more about grant chasing and the politics of peer review than doing great science. That goes for all of them, of all political stripes. We need to change our scientists, before our science will change. The fakery on the part of the oil companies is matched by the fakery on the part of the climate change folks, even to the head of GISS who gets arrested at climate change protests – this is not science – by any of them – on any side.

    A pox on all their houses.

  11. Brad (#3), Lewis uses Climate as evidence of foul play in science. As I have pointed out repeatedly, Climategate was nothing more than smoke and mirrors by the right-wing noise machine to try to discredit scientific findings. Climategate was baloney from the very start.

  12. OFF TOPIC: Tomorrow’s date 101010 has a special significance in binary. :D (Corrected as I am not awake yet.)

    EDIT: DrFlimmer is right… Shows what not having enough coffee can do to a person… Although I think New Zealand is there already, and possibly Australia…

    Nevermind, I am going back to bed.

  13. Derecho64

    What “fakery” by climate scientists, Brad? Specifics, please.

    PS – The stolen emails count for nothing. Provide other evidence.

  14. DrFlimmer

    @ LarianLeQuella

    Yes, but today is tomorrow….

  15. Daniel J. Andrews

    I guess one can argue that the ClimateGate thing is of the past and we should all walk away,

    It was nonsense the day it came out. It was a manufactured controversy designed to discredit the scientists in the same way certain industries tried to discredit scientists working on acid rain, CFCs and ozone, pesticides, asbestos, tobacco smoke and cancer.

    Now five independent investigations (in the U.S. and abroad) have vindicated the scientists. An investigation by Penn State also cleared him as did a review by the EPA. Also the full stolen emails are available online and just reading them in context clears up most of the “conspiracy” even for those without any science background.

    But I agree we shouldn’t walk away. The people who stole the emails and the people who knowingly took them out of context in a deliberate effort to slander and libel scientists should be held accountable whether they be the hackers, the politicians or the Faux News people and associated puppets…err…I mean, pundits. Hold these people to the same standards they claim they’re holding scientists too–in the crucible of science and an evidence-based world they’d crumble faster than rice paper in a blast furnace.

  16. Peter

    @Brad,

    Well Brad, as a scientist you certainly know that quote mining and cherry picking are Logical Fallacies. “ClimateGate” was quote mining and cherry picking.

  17. TheBlackCat

    What I said was modern science is more about grant chasing and the politics of peer review than doing great science. That goes for all of them, of all political stripes. We need to change our scientists, before our science will change.

    Wait, are you arguing that all science is invalid, and the no scientist cares about doing “great science”?

    even to the head of GISS who gets arrested at climate change protests – this is not science – by any of them – on any side.

    Yes, scientists are not robots, they have interests outside of their job, and some take the implications of their work very seriously. How does that invalidate their science? Does a cancer researcher running in an fight breast cancer marathon make his or her results invalid?

  18. Charles Schmidt

    It makes no difference if it is politics or science many in both have their own agenda and spent much time on proving their view however, when anything comes up that is in conflict with it they will say that it is wrong. It makes no difference what the subject the time invested in the paradigm over rules objectivity on both sides of the issues, so who can and do we believe? Why not just go with all the evidence present it and move on with out trying to justify the view that they have?

  19. tmac57

    #17 TheBlackCat . Well said!!

  20. tmac57

    While it would not be practical, I wonder what would happen to all of those cynics/demagogues who are just using this issue as a political football, if all of the scientists and others who believe in AGW just said “OK fine we tried to warn you.You haven’t listened.We are ceasing all research and walking away now,and whatever happens is now your responsibility”? Would there be a brief moment of a feeling of victory, followed by an uneasy feeling of doubt,then a panic stricken realization that now no one was there to monitor,research or do anything about what they loudly proclaimed was a “Hoax”?
    Too bad that we don’t have a test tube world where we could perform these experiments without real world consequences.

  21. Cladinator

    Ok, nut jobs. When activists stop publishing climate change data and scientists start doing it, maybe then I will start to pay attention. Until then, you all seem far too arrogant to take seriously. Its all politics now but you goofy greenies are the only ones that refuse to admit it.
    Just get over it. The world isn’t going to end any time soon. You can start paying your bills again.

  22. dirk

    More faith, less questions says the scientist.

    Nobody denies climate change. To say people do is a complete lie. People only question the causes and the use of taxpayer money to fight it.

  23. Derecho64

    Cladinator, if we want the tiresome repetition of the lies spread by climatefraudit and WTFWT, just provide a link, and spare us the false outrage. There’s plenty at those two sites.

  24. Ron1

    @21 Cladinator … What are you talking about, you brainless, rambling dick!

  25. I didn’t realize we were all politically motivated. In fact, it struck me as very strange that something like the climate (which affects everyone, incidentally) would be used politically by anyone.

    But as soon as some scientists announces findings that show something bad that can only be corrected by cutting into corporate profits, the right wing goes insane and runs around screaming at everyone.

    Then some right-winger or another who isn’t hysterical (usually one of the higher-ups who thinks the way he gets his minions all riled up is really entertaining) spends a day or two rationalizing talking points and his minions calm down slightly and start spreading them like the plague.

    Case in point: Cladinator.

  26. tmac57

    Do not feed the troll who is clad in a theater-of-rant.

  27. hevach

    @22. dirk: Many, many, MANY people, on this very page of comments, deny climate change. While the case currently has come down to nothing more than taxpayer money use, it started as denial, and when things are off the court record they still turn to those terms.

  28. @ Cladinator (21):

    So you’re saying that climate scientists *don’t* publish data? This simply indicates that you haven’t taken the time to look at the literature.

    Protip: Don’t start a comment by calling everyone “nut jobs”, then go on to claim that everyone else is “far too arrogant to take seriously”. Projection much? ;)

    Obvious troll denialist is obvious.

    @ Dirk (22):

    Would you like to re-read Mann’s statement? He didn’t say “more faith” and “less questions”, he said that the questions currently being asked by Cuccinelli and friends are not in good-faith. They’re doing it to generate artificial controversy and doubt, not to legitimately question the science. But of course, everyone already knew this in the days following the whole “climategate” nonsense anyway.

  29. Ken Cuccinelli and his ilk do not care about being “right” or being “vindicated”. The way I see it this is all about swaying opinion and winning hearts and votes, and people like Michael Mann are the sacrificial lambs placed on the altar of public opinion. Obviously, public opinion has no effect on truth. But a majority of the public either do not want truth, or they conflate “truth” with “nodding my head because someone said something that agrees with my political beliefs”. People never like to believe their strongly-held beliefs are totally wrong. People love to think, and desperately need to think, that they are too smart to be fooled. So when the Ken Cuccinellis and Glenn Becks of this world bellow their idiotic nonsense, too many people assume that just because they agree with the message being spewed, it must be the truth. (To be fair, this tendency is not limited to the right end of the political spectrum.)

    Consider the Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education intelligent design trial. Michael Behe and Co. undoubtedly knew they were going to get their asses handed to them on a silver platter. But they didn’t care, as long as they got their message out. They knew that their existing constituency would eat it all up, and they knew that when the judge ruled against them, said constituency would rise up and say “We were persecuted! The liberal activist judge was legislating from the bench!” etc. Those people were already indoctrinated and don’t give a rat’s ass about the actual truth, only the so-called “truth” they believe in. So having the sham of ID exposed on the national stage didn’t matter to them at all. Really, the important thing for the ID movers and shakers is that the relative media circus surrounding the trial gave them a blast of free publicity like they never had before (and didn’t again until that repulsive anti-science mockumentary Expelled came out). And while all we freethinkers and other pro-science types were cheering Judge Jones’ decision, and laughing at how IDers like Behe made such complete lying asses out of themselves on the stand, people like Behe were skipping for joy over how many more people actually knew about the concept of ID because of the trial, and the fact many new “people of faith” would believe it regardless of the judge’s verdict. I would wager there are more believers in ID now than there were before the trial. There is no such thing as bad publicity, especially when the truth is not on your side, you have a built-in mechanism for claiming religious persecution and a religious constituency who, despite the fact they make up the large majority of the population, have deluded themselves into believing that they are the righteous, brave underdog.

    I see the seeds of the same pattern with Cuccinelli and other highly visible climate change deniers. More and more people are seeing that climate change is real. More and more people are being convinced by the data. More and more people are seeing climate change deniers for the politically motivated anti-science ideologues that they are. The climate change deniers know all this, and are now at the point where they are more than willing to publicly embarrass themselves in front of the whole nation in order to direct the glare of the media spotlight toward their anti-science agenda so that they can influence more people to believe in their nonsense… and make it that much harder for elected officials to actually help slow down the effects of man’s contribution to climate change. One would think that seemingly suicidal nonsense like what Cuccinelly is perpetrating would be detrimental to the cause, but never underestimate the determination of the irrational indoctrinated.

    It’s as if the climate change deniers studied game film of the Dover trial and made the necessary adjustments to their playbook.

  30. Messier Tidy Upper

    What no “Catterday” animal photo today yet, BA? ;-)

    Not that this particular blog post isn’t important & welcome too or that I would in any way try and dictate what Dr Phil Plait chooses to blog about, I’ll hasten to add.

  31. Messier Tidy Upper

    I agree with Mike Mann and the overwhelmingly vast majority of climatologists who consider Anthropogenic Global Warming to be a real and serious problem here. I say let’s give Cuccinelli his day in court and then we’ll see the climate contrarians lose bigtime and be even more discredited and the case for action against AGW re-invigorated. I would like to see Mann demolish Cuccinelli in a high-profile public trial as I’ve said (comments # 54 & 55) on the other recent thread on this. :-)

    PS. Haven’t yet read the later comments there and on this thread, will do so soon.

  32. Utakata

    Cladinator call us “nut jobs” because we don’t believe in climate denile nonsense, young earth creationism and/or our world being flat’ulation’ism. Instead we believe in science as means to distinguish truth.

    It’s reverse psychology that Cladinator types use to suggest our sanity is in directly proportional to us being labelled as “nuts”. And the more they believe that…the more they can reassure themselves it’s true even when the evidence dictates it’s not. I believe the term is referred to as “doublethink”.

  33. Katharine

    … Brad, you’re a PHYSICIST.

    Not a climatologist.

    I’m not going to trust an endocrinologist for geology information, etc etc.

  34. Katharine

    Also, there’s plenty of evidence that doesn’t get tossed around that’s quite reflective of human-caused climate change. Much of it manifests in changes to the ebb and flow of organismal population dynamics.

  35. Messier Tidy Upper

    Very minor nitpick but the headline here :

    “They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research”

    Looks ungrammatical to me.

    I could be mistaken but wouldn’t : “They are not questioning the scientific research in good faith” or something be more grammatically accurate?

    IVAN3THE MAN : You seem to be the expert here – do you want to chime in here yea or nay? ;-)

  36. Messier Tidy Upper

    @34. Katharine :

    Much of it manifests in changes to the ebb and flow of organismal population dynamics.

    Do you mean like the study quoted in one of my fave references and resources on the AGW debate here :

    http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/c/029130BFDC78FA33/12/w9SGw75pVas

    at the 7 minute five second or so mark.

    “Altogether, this study looked at more than 29,500 sets of physical and biological data. Of those almost 90% were changing in a direction consistent with global warming. Birds and bees don’t have a political agenda – at least we think not.”

    There’s an awful lot of very strong evidence collected by many hundreds or thousands of good and careful people showing AGW is happening. This didn’t start yesterday either – our understanding of the sceince behind it has been growing over a hundred and fifty years of serious research. The scientific conclusion is clear.

    Also, isn’t it odd that many of the same people who demand we take the Bible as being literally true – exactly as they interpret it – are now using “faith-based” as an accusation and a insult when it comes to the science of climatology?

  37. MartinM

    Meanwhile, Edward Wegman, author of the execrable Wegman report, is finally under investigation for academic misconduct. About bloody time.

  38. MartinM

    I could be mistaken but wouldn’t : “They are not questioning the scientific research in good faith” or something be more grammatically accurate?

    If ‘they’ referred to the deniers, that would be better, but it refers to “…the attacks against the science”. Attacks don’t question anything; people do.

  39. Utakata

    You can refere to my small observation at 32 about “doublethink,” Messier. “The act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs,” according to *Wikipedia. With denialist it’s both faith and science in an attempt to disprove warming is happening. Or at least that we humans are causing it.

    *Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

  40. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ MartinM : Fair enough. Good point.

    “Contrarians are not questioning AGW science in good faith” maybe?

    Note that I use “contrarian” instead of “denier” there because “Denier” is a term probably best kpet for the Holocaust Deniers in my view and is, arguably, too excessively insulting and counter-productive. If folks wish to engage people in effective communication that actually changes minds, name-calling is NOT the best way, methinks.

    ****

    PS. Yes I know the source I’ve linked to & the BA here do use the D-word but I wish they wouldn’t because, I think, it weakens their case and makes it harder to get their powerfully convincing points & information across.

  41. “almost 90% were changing in a direction consistent with global warming”
    Sorry, but this doesn’t mean squat, since the AGW pseudoscience has been formulated so conveniently that it’s “consistent” with all manner of contradictory effects. Anything bad that happens with nature is “because of AGW” these days.

    Propaganda aside, I have major questions still unanswered by any AGW alarmists with anything other than hand-waving, changing the subject or plain insults:
    1. Where is the proof that the last decades of warming have had a negative overall/global effect on human quality of life? (No, cherry-picked regional examples of various catastrophes won’t cut it. Only global statistics can answer this.)
    2. Where is the proof that the main policy proposed so far, i.e. “let’s do everything in our power to cut CO2 emissions and little else”, would actually change the global temperature evolution NOW (assuming for a second that it was in fact anthropogenic CO2 that started the warming decades ago)? If a positive feedback has started like the propaganda says, then it should be next to worthless to focus on removing the supposed initial factor this late.

  42. Bruce

    Some things blamed on global warming:
    – Heroin addiction
    – Increase in kidney stones
    – Earth spinning faster
    – Severe acne
    – Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden
    – Beer tastes different
    – Anxiety problems in people worried about global warming

    My fingers hurt from typing this post. Global warming strikes again!

  43. Jimdozer

    Donjoe, could you please answer my questions:

    1. Where is the proof that the last decades of warming have had a positive overall/global effect on human quality of life? (No, cherry-picked regional examples of various ecological successes won’t cut it. Only global statistics can answer this.)
    2. Where is the proof that the main denialist policy proposed so far, i.e. “let’s do everything in our power to not cut CO2 emissions, would actually change the global temperature evolution NOW (accepting the scientific evidence that it was in fact anthropogenic CO2 that started the warming decades ago)?

  44. Jimdozer

    Some things denialists try to pass off as causing global warming:

    -Its the sun.

    -Its underwater volcanoes.

    -Cosmic rays dunnit!

    -Volcanoes subaquan and landlubbing dunnit!

    -Its a commie plot!

    -Goddidit!

    And so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

  45. Kris

    @25 CafeenMan:
    “But as soon as some scientists announces findings that show something bad that can only be corrected by cutting into corporate profits, the right wing goes insane and runs around screaming at everyone.”

    And you are conveniently forgetting that the left wing has used the same findings to try to push a CO2 trading scheme, which would do nothing to actually reduce the CO2 emissions, while incurring large financial penalties. I thank FSM for Climategate, because it has at least stopped that idiocy from happening.

    And it’s the same left wing which constantly blocks the development of nuclear energy, which is the only viable way out of this mess. Take Germany for example, which is at the same time trying to reduce the CO2 emissions and replace its nuclear power plants with — wait for it — coal burners! All in the name of ecology.

    The reality is that Mann’s research has been used as a vehicle to promote an enormous financial scam (the CO2 trading), but when Mann was unjustly attacked as a result, his left wing “friends” all have suddenly disappeared. Why no left-wing politicians take on Cuccinelli now? Where’s Al “CO2″ Gore?

  46. fred edison

    The oceans chemistry is being altered by too much CO2. This is bad in many ways that will ultimately affect our dependence on it as a major food source. I don’t have to tell you that the oceans are already in a depleted state from over-fishing and pollution. If you don’t think that’s not something to be concerned about there has to be something wrong with you. The glaciers are melting, jeopardizing fresh water supplies to millions of people around the world. If you don’t believe that is a serious issue, then you have zero empathy for the people who depend on these disappearing glaciers for their life’s water. Do you find these problems laughable and would will you still be laughing when you can no longer deny them?

    I don’t see how someone can sit in their chair and act like global warming and excess CO2 is something strictly designed for their amusement. It’s actually appalling to me to witness what some commenters have said on this blog. These are serious, life threatening problems that will tend to affect the poverty stricken areas of the world more than the wealthier nations, being that the poorer nations don’t have the resources to help themselves and will have to turn to the wealthier nations to offer them aid. If you think global warming isn’t real and won’t affect you, either directly or indirectly, than I think you must have thought blinders on that are obstructing your objective view of what’s to come. I don’t know how or when, but one day you’ll be forced to wake up and smell the CO2 induced warming.

  47. Steve Metzler

    donjoe (#40) says:

    1. Where is the proof that the last decades of warming have had a negative overall/global effect on human quality of life? (No, cherry-picked regional examples of various catastrophes won’t cut it. Only global statistics can answer this.)

    What we’ve observed so far is a steady rise in global average temperatures since pre-industrial times of about .7C – .8C. That doesn’t sound like much, but temperatures are currently rising at about .12C *per decade* and this rate is accelerating. It is predicted that if the CO2 concentration doubles (from 280ppm pre-industrial to 560ppm) that this will have caused an average global temperature increase of 2C – 4C, with 3C being the most likely. Not only will this increase cause massive amounts of ice to melt, but more importantly it will result in catastrophic (there’s that word that deniers love to hate) changes to weather patterns. Large areas that were formerly relied on for agriculture will be in danger of becoming dust bowls, at a time when the world population is approaching 10 billion. Is that scenario serious enough to merit your attention?

    So while the situation at this moment may not seem threatening, it’s future generations that will be saddled with the problems caused by our greed. As these things go, this segues nicely into your next question:

    2. Where is the proof that the main policy proposed so far, i.e. “let’s do everything in our power to cut CO2 emissions and little else”, would actually change the global temperature evolution NOW (assuming for a second that it was in fact anthropogenic CO2 that started the warming decades ago)? If a positive feedback has started like the propaganda says, then it should be next to worthless to focus on removing the supposed initial factor this late.

    It’s not like those stupid scientists haven’t put a lot of thought into this. It’s just that you probably haven’t read anything about it. Well, here is your chance. The IPCC have run models of various scenarios that are likely to pan out depending primarily on how soon (if ever) we start serious development of renewables to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. There are images of these scenarios here:

    Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

    And an explanation of A1, B1, etc. here:

    See Box 5

    Obviously, the sooner we start to take this problem seriously, the better our chances are of averting catastrophe. Scenarios B1 and A1T would be good for us, but we need to start *now*. What Cuccinelli and others are doing is just trying to put up a smoke screen to cause FUD amongst the public in an effort to delay action.

  48. Paul in Sweden

    11. Phil Plait Says:
    October 9th, 2010 at 9:39 am
    … Climategate was nothing more than smoke and mirrors by the right-wing noise machine to try to discredit scientific findings.

    Phil, I am a regular reader of your blog but I do not recall your ever mentioning specific “scientific” findings. Would you be so kind as to point out the specific scientific findings regarding CAGW that you have made or that you are willing to repeat in this thread?

  49. Steve Metzler

    Regarding the extrapolation of CO2 levels into the future, Rick Baartman has developed a simple equation here:

    Comment on Tamino’s blog

    That fits the curve nicely:

    Fit of equation to measured CO2 levels

    It backwards projects to 1780 quite accurately as well. If we continue with Business As Usual concerning the burning of fossil fuels, we will hit the doubling point of 560ppm sometime just after 2050. What many people fail to acknowledge is that CO2 rise has gone *exponential*.

  50. Michael

    So what does Harold Lewis get out of posting his letter? Is he getting paid by someone? Does it make him attractive to women?

    The trouble with “credentialism” – saying Harold Lewis and Brad are not qualified to talk about AGW because they are physicists, not climatologists – actually supports Dr. Lewis’s letter: If only climatologists should talk about climate, then the APS is certainly in no position to post a statement about it. So why are the APS members doing it?

    “Because they are of good conscience,” some may say. So what? “Good conscience” is not science, it’s politics.

    This issue has become almost entirely political, unfortunately.

    “Well, it’s THIER fault! If only they would embrace the TRUTH(TM)!” say folks on both sides.

    But if AGW is really as terrible as we are to believe, I would expect those who are warning us to remove any and all political bias and make sure we are all properly informed as to its causes and consequences, so that we can make decisions as rationally as possible.

    Honestly, I don’t see it happening. What I see most often from AGW-believers is posts that say, “Deniers are going to kill us all just for money!” which, even if it is true, is a political, not scientific statement.

  51. owlbear1

    Simple question for deniers. Why do we have to continue to breathe poison to protect your employers’ profits?

  52. Paul in Sweden

    30. Messier Tidy Upper Says:
    October 9th, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    What no “Catterday” animal photo today yet, BA? ;-)

    Not that this particular blog post isn’t important & welcome too or that I would in any way try and dictate what Dr Phil Plait chooses to blog about, I’ll hasten to add.

    Yeah… where is the caturday foto Phil? I am sure that your brother-in-law has not run out of material. This past week marks the one year mark for my wife’s father’s cat(the wife’s father has left us for a year now…) coming to our home where we can seldom keep a house plant alive. I am proud to report that this must be the best cat in the world(now aged 7), he has done no damage, he has not missed his box once and he has adjusted to being an “inside cat” and is now a lap cat that prefers my lap(of all people to choose…) :)

    I enjoy your caturday pics Phil! Keep it going… -pleazeee

  53. Michael

    owlbear1 proves my point. And perhaps he/she is being satirical and I’m missing it, or he/she is a Poe.

    Oh well, I guess it’s better for us all to die from denialism than for AGW-proponistos to get off their moral hobby-horses and actually address the issues.

  54. brad

    Climate gate mails were smoke and mirrors Phil, the destruction of data was either gross incompetence or fraud, or both. Mann should have resigned, Hansen should resign for his clear advocacy – we need a clean and solid base for this. Pauchuri has essentially been asked to resign for his bungling of the last IPCC report. The last IPCC report did not site scientific sources for many conclusions, and was not a scientific consensus.

    Is global warming real? I thought so, until I did some research and found the science on both sides to be wanting…and yes, I do have a PH.D. from a top institution.

  55. brad

    owlbear1-

    Why do we need to ruin the lives of billions of people who are increasing the their quality of life for the first time, just because you are a true believer?

  56. brad

    …and folks, always remember – there is nothing special about the planet right now, oxygen itself is a contaminant brought on by life. I propose we go back to the pre-life atmosphere and remove all oxygen.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101008121348.htm

    And this genius has it right:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

  57. owlbear1

    Sadly, the path they are following to increase their quality of life is too destructive to continue along. The last 150 years of pollution lay as stark evidence of that fact. We need to find them a new path to follow to prosperity.

  58. Kris

    46. Steve Metzler
    “What many people fail to acknowledge is that CO2 rise has gone *exponential*.”

    There’s nothing shocking about it, really. If you take into account that the ratio of produced energy to produced CO2 is constant; that the energy demand is directly proportional to GDP, and that the GDP rises exponentially — then the CO2 emissions must be rising exponentially as well.

    That also means that there are basically three ways of stopping the CO2 increase, namely: (1) decrease CO2 per kWh, (2) decrease kWh per $ of GDP and (3) decrease GDP.

  59. Dave R

    Paul in Sweden, 45:
    >Would you be so kind as to point out the specific scientific findings regarding CAGW

    Why should he cite scientific findings about a term that is not used in the scientific literature and is instead a straw man used only by anti-science trolls?

    brad, 49:
    >the destruction of data

    No data was destroyed as you would know if you had paid attention to the results of the inquiries.

  60. Dave R

    brad, 49:
    >Is global warming real? I thought so, until I did some research and found the science on both sides to be wanting…and yes, I do have a PH.D. from a top institution.

    Please cite your peer-reviewed publications in which you published this alleged research showing that global warming is not real — or explicitly concede that you did no such thing.

  61. ND

    brad,

    Which data was destroyed?

  62. Utakata

    You forgot the increase warming denialist loons who post here, Bruce @ 42. Perhaps your fingers where too tired to mention that. Speaking of which…

    Get your finger out and look up that yourself, Paul in Sweden @ 49! I’m sure you have access to Google in your country as a start. /sigh

  63. Paul in Sweden

    “53. Dave R Says:
    October 10th, 2010 at 8:04 am

    Paul in Sweden, 45:
    >Would you be so kind as to point out the specific scientific findings regarding CAGW

    Why should he cite scientific findings about a term that is not used in the scientific literature and is instead a straw man used only by anti-science trolls?

    brad, 49:
    >the destruction of data

    No data was destroyed as you would know if you had paid attention to the results of the inquiries.”

    I rather like Phil although on some of his posted political opinions I happen to hold an opposing view. I rather doubt that Phil needs a second or as we speaking of CAGW the more appropriate term would be “proxy”.

    Am I to believe that Phil Plait has chosen “Dave R” as his proxy?

    I find the thought that Phil Plait would choose “Dave R” as his proxy as incredulous as the “belief” that no data was destroyed or the mincing of words that emails and data were not destroyed but simply denied to legal FOIA submissions so that alleged “climate science” could not be replicated. Science that cannot be reproduced is not science.

    If Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming happens in the woods and only a tiny group of co-authors and co-conspirators hear it — did it really happen? We may never know because in “Climate Science” evidence is replaced by “belief” and temperature records as well as R2 values are kept as state secrets.

  64. brad

    Owlbear1-

    So you get to decide how people in China, Africa, and South America get to increase their worth and food supply? Who put you in charge? We need good science, so we can come to good conclusions, and then move forward.

  65. owlbear1

    hmm,

    If you read some emails discussing data that you really don’t understand and claim they are your proof of a Globalwide Scientific Conspiracy – is that really sane?

  66. brad

    Data was destroyed, the original and most important data was destroyed in ClimateGate, and the “modified” data was kept. The US Government is now trying to recreate the original destroyed record. The excuses do not hold water.

    http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/14/14greenwire-scientists-return-fire-at-climate-skeptics-in-31175.html

  67. brad

    owlbear1-

    Ever applied for a grant? Gotten a Ph.D.? Analyzed data? Actually applied the scientific method? Your posts would indicate you are far from an expert on fraud and bias in science. This guy is:

    http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/92prom.html

  68. Derecho64

    I see Paul in Sweden has drunk the denier kool-aid by the megalitre.

    What data was destroyed? What data was denied?

    Ever hear of GHCN? Do you know what an NMS is?

  69. owlbear1

    No I don’t get to decide. If I got decide there would no longer be a debate. Please grow up? Just a little?

    Does it ever occur to you that your displayed lack of integrity (e.g. emails) completely undermines any opinion you might offer on the validity of scientific findings?

    Then you offer the answer, “I refuse to see facts, and will offer up conspiracy theories instead to maintain the status quo!”

    Or,… “People in China are starving! Exxon’s profits must be protected!”

    Again, goes back to that whole “personal integrity” thang…

  70. Chris Winter

    Brad wrote: “The fakery on the part of the oil companies is matched by the fakery on the part of the climate change folks, even to the head of GISS who gets arrested at climate change protests – this is not science – by any of them – on any side.”

    Well, no, there’s a great difference between the behavior of oil companies and that of scientists like Dr. Hansen. Like the late Carl Sagan, who once was arrested with other protestors at a nuclear weapons site, Dr. Hansen is taking part in civil disobedience. Sure, they both broke laws. So did Dr. Martin Luther King and the civil rights protestors. “Ethical” and “legal” are not always completely congruent.

    Oil companies generally prefer to keep their disobedience under deep cover. When we see Rex Tillerson at the barricades, you may have more of a case.

    [edit] Derecho64’s post reminded me to add that I don’t consider Dr. Hansen to be a faker.

  71. Nullius in Verba

    “No data was destroyed as you would know if you had paid attention to the results of the inquiries.”

    A lot of attention has been paid the the results of the inquiries. Here’s a comment from the CRU’s web page regarding source data.

    “We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

    To my recollection, data storage technology in the 80s was more than sufficient. Although I am aware that practice often fell short of the ideal. The idea that science has to be replicable was apparently not universally accepted.
    (Note, this “raw” data is not the actual raw data currently published on the web by Met offices around the world, as Phil Jones admitted in the letter to the Swedish Met Office that was leaked.)

    The inquiries are not reliable on this point. The Muir-Russell inquiry said “There seems clear incitement to delete emails, although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made.” However, the “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?” email sent by Jones to Mann was dated the day after Holland’s FOIA request for this correspondence (which was supposed to have all been open anyway as part of IPCC “transparency”) was received, in an email with the title “IPCC & FOI”. This constitutes a clear attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made. No public evidence has been presented that the papers in question were not deleted (like actually producing them), and Muir-Russell has admitted that he didn’t even ask. Anyone who says things like “you would know if you had paid attention to the results of the inquiries” is clearly not paying any attention to the inquiries. It’s not something they inquired into.

    Mann’s reply, incidentally, was “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.”

  72. owlbear1

    “To my recollection, data storage technology in the 80s was more than sufficient.”

    Seriously? You really expect everyone to nod in agreement?

  73. Utakata

    Maybe I should of not suggested him to do a Google search on the topic, Derecho64 @ 61. I presumed Paul in Sweden asked, “Would you be so kind as to point out the specific scientific findings regarding CAGW that you have made,” because he was genuinely interested in the subject, but was too um…lazy to do the research himself. But it looked he did his search in all the wrong places. I personaly would of stayed from sites with 911 conspiracy, porno and penis enlargement adds on them. I guess he didn’t. :(

  74. owlbear1

    “However, the “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?” email sent by Jones to Mann was dated the day after Holland’s FOIA request for this correspondence (which was supposed to have all been open anyway as part of IPCC “transparency”) was received, in an email with the title “IPCC & FOI”. This constitutes a clear attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made. ”

    He could also asking if he has to save those emails for the investigation. I know I routinely delete emails to clear up space. I move the important ones, the ones I ‘can’t delete’ to a different folder.
    What evidence do you have it was a ‘deliberate attempt’ to hide information?

  75. Derecho64

    Was CRU the sole repository for these weather data? Simple answer – either yes or no.

  76. Chris Winter

    Messier Tidy Upper wrote: “Looks ungrammatical to me.”

    You are not mistaken if it’s read the most common way, which is that “They” refers to Cuccinelli and his ilk. But if “They” refers to the arguments being used against Dr. Mann, then it is perfectly grammatical — although awkward.

    In fact, I would have worded it as you did.

    [edit] Ah, I see MartinM beat me to it. The dangers of posting before reading prior comments.

  77. Chris Winter

    Bruce (#41) worked his fingertips to the bone to give us a list he called “Some things blamed on global warming.”

    So… blamed on global warming by whom, and in what publication?

    You folks keep asking us to provide chapter and verse. Shouldn’t you do the same?

  78. brad

    Well, it seems the board owner is also against a discourse, as my latest posts have all been blocked.

    Have fun guys, but remember that to change things the science needs to be above reproach, the IPCC, GISS, and Climategate are not.

  79. Dave R

    Nullius in Verba:
    >data storage technology in the 80s […]

    Not keeping a *copy* of raw data obtained from a third party does not constitute “destroying” data. As the anti-science crowd has been told numerous times, if you want a copy of the national met services data then you need to obtain it from them, just like everyone else does.

  80. Dave R

    brad, 69:
    >my latest posts have all been blocked.

    Ah yes, another Google Galileo victimized by the global conspiracy.

  81. Chris Winter

    Kris (#42) wrote: “And you are conveniently forgetting that the left wing has used the same findings to try to push a CO2 trading scheme, which would do nothing to actually reduce the CO2 emissions, while incurring large financial penalties. I thank FSM for Climategate, because it has at least stopped that idiocy from happening.”

    Which is exactly what the fossil-fuel companies wanted to happen. Read Eric Pooley’s The Climate War.

    “And it’s the same left wing which constantly blocks the development of nuclear energy, which is the only viable way out of this mess. Take Germany for example, which is at the same time trying to reduce the CO2 emissions and replace its nuclear power plants with — wait for it — coal burners! All in the name of ecology.”

    I am in favor of nuclear power — as one component of a clean-energy supply. Germany banned nukes when the Green Party was in power there. They can’t turn on a dime. Neither can the U.S., unfortunately, because more R&D is needed.

    “The reality is that Mann’s research has been used as a vehicle to promote an enormous financial scam (the CO2 trading), but when Mann was unjustly attacked as a result, his left wing “friends” all have suddenly disappeared. Why no left-wing politicians take on Cuccinelli now? Where’s Al “CO2″ Gore?”

    So you admit that Cuccinelli is wrong. Good.

  82. Dave R

    Paul in Sweden, 57:
    >I rather doubt that Phil needs a second

    You posted in a public forum. Anyone has the right to respond to your nonsense.

    >we speaking of CAGW

    No. You are the one using that straw man, because you do not have any honest arguments. If you wish to continue to claim that that term is used in the scientific literature, provide some appropriate citations. Otherwise explicitly concede that it is not.

  83. Paul in Sweden

    “They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research” | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
    “64. owlbear1 Says:
    October 10th, 2010 at 10:18 am

    “To my recollection, data storage technology in the 80s was more than sufficient.”

    Seriously? You really expect everyone to nod in agreement?”

    Yes, unless they were ignorant or stupid or a CAGW disciple which would have them covered on both counts.

  84. Derecho64

    “Have fun guys, but remember that to change things the science needs to be above reproach, the IPCC, GISS, and Climategate are not.”

    If only the criticisms of the science were science-based. Scurrilous personal attacks and attacks on the science driven by political and ideological agendas aren’t, as Mann says, in good faith. As long as someone perceives that their interests are threatened by the science, they will believe the science is flawed, or a hoax, or the result of conspiracy. When those who believe that they’re threatened are rich and powerful, the attacks on the science will never cease, and folks like you will believe the attacks rather than the science.

    In short, you’re setting a standard which climate science can never meet. The problem isn’t the science, it’s your understanding of it.

  85. Derecho64

    Paul in Sweden, what data were destroyed, i.e., irretrievably lost?

    Show your work.

  86. Anchor

    The hubris of denialist thinking often reminds me of a story which Albert Einstein once related (back in 1920 as I recall) in order to illustrate his famed Equivalence Principle, which he identified as the “happiest thought in my life”.

    Imagine that an AGW denialist jumps out of a window 100-stories above the ground. He gets on his cell phone to report everything is fine and dandy as he plumets.

    “I feel no adverse accelerations and I have no reason to expect that my future will be any different. The idiot scientist-experts who claim that jumping out a window is potentially dangerous don’t know what the heck they are talking about. I’m obvious and living proof they are wrong.”

    He keeps reporting this conviction until his cranium is one milimeter above the concrete pavement. A fraction of a second after that…well, one might as well wait for his report from the afterlife he will have allegedly entered…

    Cue over to the related sect of religious certainty, who will unabashedly declare something even more imbecilic like, “No news is good news” as evidence for the existence of a place from which no message ever arrives.

    With apologies to Albert…but he would understand. He was a pretty decent dick himself.

  87. brad

    owlbear1-

    You are clearly confusing me with a different poster, or simply painting me wth the strawman brush – I think none of those things. you though, do seem to be a true believer, with whom intelligent factual discourse is not possible.

  88. Chris Winter

    Brad, going back to your links in post #2, I suggest the possibility that Hal Lewis may have “gone emeritus”. He evidently had a distinguished career as a physicist, but 67 years of APS membership would mean he’s likely in his late eighties.

    If you read Merchants of Doubt, you’ll find that the principles (S. Fred Singer, Robert Jastrow, Frederick Seitz, and William Neirenberg) all had distinguished careers before they turned into advocates for anti-science interests.

    As for Brian Martin, I haven’t had a chance to look closely at his Web site, but a quick scan shows that the names of some important whistleblowers are missing. Nor does he cite Henry Scammell’s Giant Killers, which is all about whistle-blowing in America. My working hypothesis is that he’s focusing on a certain kind of whistleblower.

  89. brad

    Will my comment get blocked again? Is the NY times not a good enough source for this board?

    Data was destroyed, the original and most important data was destroyed – the excuses do not hold water.

    http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/14/14greenwire-scientists-return-fire-at-climate-skeptics-in-31175.html

  90. Paul in Sweden

    73. Dave R Says:
    October 10th, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Paul in Sweden, 57:
    >I rather doubt that Phil needs a second

    You posted in a public forum. Anyone has the right to respond to your nonsense.

    >we speaking of CAGW

    No. You are the one using that straw man, because you do not have any honest arguments. If you wish to continue to claim that that term is used in the scientific literature, provide some appropriate citations. Otherwise explicitly concede that it is not.
    ———–

    Dave at least present the straw man that you claim I have presented.

    I said:

    Phil, I am a regular reader of your blog but I do not recall your ever mentioning specific “scientific” findings. Would you be so kind as to point out the specific scientific findings regarding CAGW that you have made or that you are willing to repeat in this thread?

    If you can make hay and find a strawman in that do so, all I ask is just clue me in on where you see your boogie man Dave.

    Be honest and genuine, but take your time, remember about half of the CAGW faithful here are below the IQ average of their group :)

  91. Derecho64

    Paul in Sweden is snipe-hunting.

    The use of “CAGW” is a dead giveaway. You need a new act.

  92. Chris Winter

    Nullius in Verba (#63) wrote: “To my recollection, data storage technology in the 80s was more than sufficient.”

    Sure, the technology by then had advanced well beyond the stage where a 50-MB hard disk needed its own floor-standing cabinet and was something only the engineering department at a well-endowed college could afford.

    But the question is what could the CRU afford? Even today they are a relatively small operation. (That, by the way, is what makes it ludicrous to claim that discrediting them can demolish the entire edifice of climate science.)

    Do you know what their budget for computing gear was back in the 1980s?

  93. Dave R

    Paul in Sweden, 80:

    I see you were not able to provide a single citation in support of your claim, yet you did not have the honesty to admit that you were wrong, like a decent human being would do. Thank you for providing a great example of the kind of people who spread these anti-science conspiracy theories.

  94. Chris Winter

    Kris (#52) wrote: “That also means that there are basically three ways of stopping the CO2 increase, namely: (1) decrease CO2 per kWh, (2) decrease kWh per $ of GDP and (3) decrease GDP.”

    Quite right But none of them would necessarily stop the improvement in living standards — unless it were done RIGHT NOW by draconian means. And you haven’t shown that anyone proposes that.

  95. Dave R

    brad, 90:
    >Is the NY times not a good enough source for this board?

    Your link is to an article about false claims made by the far-right Competitive Enterprise Institute, claims which are refuted in the article that you linked to. Citing that as support for your earlier claims is extremely dishonest, as usual for the anti-science conspiracy crowd.

  96. Derecho64

    The CEI is hardly an unbiased source, Brad. No data has been destroyed – merely a very small part of the CRU’s copies of the original station data has been lost. All the original data is still there in the archives of the NMS’s.

    NCDC in Asheville has 140,000 boxes of paper records that are being digitized; perhaps you, McIntyre, Watts, and the other citizen “scientists” can step in and volunteer to help. You’d be doing a real service, instead of carping from the sidelines, in ignorance and bad faith.

  97. I usually don’t get into these climate change brou-haw-haws, as it’s not really my area of interest, but this comment from Brad (#90) really struck me as odd:

    Will my comment get blocked again? Is the NY times not a good enough source for this board?
    Data was destroyed, the original and most important data was destroyed – the excuses do not hold water.

    I read the article he linked to, and it seems to say the exact opposite of what he believes it does. Quoting:

    Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”

    Which tends to make one suspect Brad’s reading comprehension skills, and thus his credibility in general.

  98. Kris

    @82 Chris Winter:

    IBM PC/XT, introduced in 1983, shipped with a 10MB HDD; the retail price was $5000. Also, in 1980, IBM made available 3380, a 1GB storage device, for a price of ca. $100K. So, a 100MB storage system (which would be more than enough) would have cost $10K-20K. That amount of money can be simply written into a grant application, and there would be no problems with approving it.

    I can believe that they actually had no storage for the raw data, but given that they likely could afford it, I’m more inclined to believe that they have deemed storing raw data unnecessary. So what we have here is simply a bad research practice. In their defense, such decision was probably strongly influenced by the ever inadequate funding. Theoretically, you don’t really need to store the originals, because (1) they can still be obtained from the national meteo services and (2) they are not really needed, unless the homogenization process is called into question… which is exactly what has happened here.

  99. Nullius in Verba

    #70, #98,

    The raw data being referred to is not the same as the raw data that you can download from the public archives, as I noted in my previous comment.

    #82,

    “Sure, the technology by then had advanced well beyond the stage where a 50-MB hard disk needed its own floor-standing cabinet and was something only the engineering department at a well-endowed college could afford.”

    Oh, dear.

    The IBM 3480 18-track tape drive was introduced in 1984 and could store 200 MB of data per tape cartridge (4x5x1 inches). This capacity had doubled by 1986, and doubled again by 1991. (I have no idea if this is what they had, I just picked it from a list at random as an example.)

    Tapes currently sell at about $15, I’m not sure what their price was in the 1980s, but it was not extortionate. The drive itself was a bit more expensive, at an initial price of $43K for a B22, but that would be affordable for a university. University mainframes have had tape back-ups for as long as I can remember.

  100. Dave R

    Nullius in Verba, 100:
    >The raw data being referred to is not the same as the raw data that you can download from the public archives

    No, it’s data held by the national met services, data which the CRU was explicitly forbidden to share, but which anyone can obtain from the national met services, in the same way that the CRU obtained it from them. This has been explained to you enough times already. Why are you still trying to mislead people about it?

  101. Derecho64

    “The raw data being referred to is not the same as the raw data that you can download from the public archives, as I noted in my previous comment.”

    All the “raw data” is still around – you’ll have to pry it out of the NMS’s.

  102. Dave R

    Samual L, 69:
    >Looks like something’s afoot in Kiwiland.

    Yes, the usual anti-science cranks making claims that they know to be false.

  103. owlbear1

    hmm, I could point to your posts in this thread talking about destroyed data but what would be the point?

    I guess I’ll just have to believe this email that tells me that being called “dumb” by a mendacious jackass means I win…

  104. Kris

    @95 Chris Winter: “But none of them would necessarily stop the improvement in living standards — unless it were done RIGHT NOW by draconian means. And you haven’t shown that anyone proposes that.”

    Have you actually read what the Copenhagen conference was supposed to approve?

    The problem is that both decreasing CO2 per kWh and decreasing kWh per $ of GDP require large investments. And the Copenhagen treaty would have simply siphoned a large amount of money from the energy companies, thus ensuring that the necessary investments are never made. It could have succeeded in stifling the GDP growth, but then, the CO2 increase would still be exponential, only slower.

    There are several simpler ways of forcing energy companies to make the needed investments, but they never get the media time. I wonder why. (Notably, Hansen is of similar opinion. He proposes of a simple ban on construction of new coal-fired plants, instead of cap-and-trade).

  105. Nullius in Verba

    #101,

    Because it’s not the same raw data. It’s been processed.

    Phil Jones reported in evidence to the British Parliament that he had been forbidden to share the data by (amongst others) the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. But somebody leaked the request and reply behind this refusal, and it turns out that Phil’s letter said “We stress that the data we hold has arisen from multiple sources, and has been recovered over the last 30 years. Subsequent quality control and homogenisation of these data has been carried out. It is therefore highly likely that the version we hold and are requesting permission to distribute will differ from your own current holdings.” The Swedes replied: “Given the information that the version of the data from the SMHI stations that you hold are likely to differ from the data we hold, SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site.”

    This is what is meant by “data which the CRU was explicitly forbidden to share”. The Swedes don’t want CRU publishing data that’s been diddled with and saying it’s their raw data.

    Phil’s stuck. He can’t publish the data he’s got and say it’s raw data, because it won’t match the public record, and he can’t say “go to the public record” because if you put that into his code you’ll get a different result to his. He can’t give code to transform real data to what he’s got, because he made no records of what he did to construct it, and didn’t keep any back-ups. So he’s reduced to saying the Swedes’ understandable reluctance to be tarred with his sloppy data handling is the same as a refusal to let him release it.

    This is the same university whose data and software quality practices led to the generation of the Harry_read_me.txt file. (The output from which was accepted at peer review!) This is all SOP at UEA.

  106. ND

    brad,

    Posts with links automatically go into moderation. There is no censorship here.

    Also, please explain the following line from the NYT article you posted.

    “Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.””

    Please explain how this article is damning evidence against the CRU scientists.

  107. Paul in Sweden

    “92. Derecho64 Says:
    October 10th, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Paul in Sweden is snipe-hunting.

    The use of “CAGW” is a dead giveaway. You need a new act.”

    Bring your complaints to the IPCC Derecho64 Catastrophic with reference to anthropogenic global warming is their characterization. Read one of the IPCC’s many tales for yourself, do not take the words on blogs or newspaper headlines for granted. Blame the messenger if you wish but that is from the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Gospel.

    Derecho64 if you have a serious point to address I will of course tone down the rhetoric.

  108. Paul in Sweden

    “105. Kris Says:
    October 10th, 2010 at 12:29 pm ”

    “Have you actually read what the Copenhagen conference was supposed to approve?”

    Most of the COP15 Denmark conference sessions are still online. Judging by the comments I see here at BA I doubt many have actually listened or participated in them.

  109. Dave R

    Paul in Sweden, You are a liar. You have been asked several times to substantiate your claims and all you have done is repeat the same lies.

  110. Paul in Sweden

    “86. Derecho64 Says:
    October 10th, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Paul in Sweden, what data were destroyed, i.e., irretrievably lost?

    Show your work.”

    hmmmm. Show you the work that has been deleted… How do I do that?

    Derecho64 how about you just produce the Wahl-Briffa emails from 2006 and I will tell you they haven’t been deleted?

  111. Utakata

    Incase is anyone getting confused about this…

    Straw man argument:

    “A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    Straw man argument according to warming denialists:

    Anything that disagrees with them.

  112. Paul in Sweden

    110. Dave R Says:
    October 10th, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Paul in Sweden, You are a liar. You have been asked several times to substantiate your claims and all you have done is repeat the same lies.

    Dave, you may not agree with me and I may not agree with you on various topics however I participate in this forum with honesty. Yes, I use rhetoric and ill humor at times to those offended… live with it, I deal with what is heaped upon any sheep that does not follow the herd.

    Dave calling me a liar is unfounded. The statements I make I believe to be true, I am not a liar. If you for some reason have evidence to refute my claims simply post the Wahl-Briffa emails from 2006 and prove they have not been deleted or have been made available.

  113. Dave R

    Paul in Sweden, calling you a liar is absolutely correct. You have consistently failed to substantiate your claims, as you were told to do in comment 83. Yet you have continued to post the same lies.

    >post the Wahl-Briffa emails

    Moving the goalposts. I do not have access to other peoples email and I have never claimed to have it.

  114. Paul in Sweden

    79. brad Says:
    October 10th, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Well, it seems the board owner is also against a discourse, as my latest posts have all been blocked.

    Have fun guys, but remember that to change things the science needs to be above reproach, the IPCC, GISS, and Climategate are not.

    Brad the owner of Bad Astronomy is Phil Plait, I am totally unaware of any censorship on this blog. Blog posts may from time to time be caught in the automated spam filter but if they are polite and void of profanity they will be published by Phil Plait. Phil plays fair however other than launching the bombs in the room Phil is pretty much hands off. As mentioned by a previous commenter, comments with links will go to moderation(as they do on many blogs). I suggest bypassing the spam filter by making your links inactive by placing a hyphen previous but contiguous to the link. The link will not be active when published but your comment will bypass moderation and all others can follow your link should they wish.

    Example:
    -http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/

    :)

  115. Dave R

    Nullius in Verba, 106:
    >if you put that into his code you’ll get a different result to his.

    Liar. The Muir Russel inquiry team was able to reproduce the CRU results, as explained in their report.

  116. Paul in Sweden

    113. Dave R Says:
    October 10th, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    Paul in Sweden, calling you a liar is absolutely correct. You have consistently failed to substantiate your claims, as you were told to do in comment 83. Yet you have continued to post the same lies.

    >post the Wahl-Briffa emails

    Moving the goalposts. I do not have access to other peoples email and I have never claimed to have it.

    You cannot see the forest for the trees. The emails regarding AR4 and Briffa that were asked to be deleted by Phil Jones are the goal post and it has not been moved.

    Of course you do not have access to the emails, neither do the the people who filed legal FOI requests. The emails(more specifically the email attachments) have not been provided.

    You and the University of East Anglia can prove that the email messages that were legally requested but not provided and asked by Phil Jones to be deleted are in fact not deleted by publishing them online.

  117. Dave R

    Paul in Sweden:
    >emails […] are the goal post

    Liar. My comment 83 asking you to substantiate your claim made no mention of any emails, and neither did the claim that I asked you to substantiate.

  118. Paul in Sweden

    99. Kris Says:
    October 10th, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    @82 Chris Winter:

    IBM PC/XT, introduced in 1983, shipped with a 10MB HDD; the retail price was $5000.
    _____

    I remember setting IBM XTs up as office servers back then…

  119. Nullius in Verba

    #115,

    That’s asking a different question.

    (And the sceptics had already reproduced and published those same calculations in exactly the same way half a dozen times previously. It was never the point under dispute.)

  120. Dave R

    >email messages that were legally requested

    Liar. Scientists are under no obligation to provide their private email messages to random internet conspiracy nuts using vexatious FOI requests.

  121. Paul in Sweden

    117. Dave R Says:
    October 10th, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Paul in Sweden:
    >emails […] are the goal post

    Liar. My comment 83 asking you to substantiate your claim made no mention of any emails, and neither did the claim that I asked you to substantiate.
    ————-
    End this stupid sub-topic already and prove that the emails were not deleted by publishing them. You want a citation? Ok I cite the void where the emails should be!

    “Scientists are under no obligation to provide their private email messages to random internet conspiracy nuts using vexatious FOI requests.”

    —–
    When they are IPCC chapter authors they are under obligations especially when they are working outside of the parameters of the IPCC regulations. That is why the Wahl-Briffa 2006 emails are important and were not provided and asked by Phil Jones to be deleted.

    Dave, you are clueless. Put your polar bear suit on so you can’t type on the keyboard for awhile.

  122. brad

    Daver.-

    Did you read the article? East Anglia admits it destroyed data, then says it was no big deal. Data should never be destroyed, and the East Anglia folks admit at least 5% of sites have no data and they threw alot more than that, as they threw out data that was repetitive as well. Wonder if they kept the data that showed the most warming, or not? We will never know…

  123. Dave R

    Nullius in Verba, 119:
    >That’s asking a different question.
    It’s precisely the question at issue: Can the analysis be reproduced from data that is available to anyone? The inquiry’s answer is clear: Yes it can.

    Your hair splitting is just a desperate attempt to bolster your lame conspiracy theories.

  124. Jeff

    “What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the [Climategate] e-mails were published?
    The truth is that they don’t expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none.”

    Ah ha! now people are waking up to what this world is really like. Whenever big interests are involved, and none are bigger than oil, etc., this will of course happen. Sensenbrenner works for big oil, case closed.

  125. Dave R

    brad:
    >East Anglia admits it destroyed data

    You’re a liar, brad. They did not keep *a copy* of data that they had obtained from third parties, under a contract which expressly stated that they must delete it after use. If you want that data you need to ask the people who own it. How many more times does this need to be explained?

  126. Dave R

    Paul in Sweden:
    >when they are working outside of the parameters of the IPCC regulations.

    State precisely which IPCC regulations you think they were working outside of, or explicitly withdraw the claim.

  127. Nullius in Verba

    #120,

    In this case, you are incorrect. FOIA law does indeed apply (as they well knew) and their refusal to comply was illegal (as confirmed by the UK authorities).

    #121,

    Paul, I expect the childish rudeness is intended to make you lose your temper, so you’ll say something in haste that they can pick up on. Don’t bite.

    #123,

    Incorrect again. If this was the case, then why would Phil claim that he couldn’t provide the data? Why not just refer the reader to the source?

    #125,

    Incorrect yet again! This is getting to be a habit, isn’t it?

    When asked, they were unable to produce any such contracts. Not even CRU has ever claimed they were required to delete it after use. I think you just made that bit up, yes?

  128. Utakata

    121 is named Dave…not Paul, Nullius @ 128.

    “Dave, you are clueless. Put your polar bear suit on so you can’t type on the keyboard for awhile.”

    Paul is the one being childish. Dave just wants the science. /shrug

  129. Dave R

    >Why not just refer the reader to the source?

    That was indeed explained to them. Despite knowing that they needed to get the data from its owners rather than from CRU, they “organised on a conspiracy website to send numerous vexatious requests for the data to CRU.

  130. Paul in Sweden

    “127. Nullius in Verba Says:
    October 10th, 2010 at 2:26 pm”

    I get what I give Nullius. My skin is not thin. No need to worry about me :)

    BTW: It is my understanding that the Virginia AG office received a copy of The Hockey Stick Illusion some time ago. Hope they have folks on board that understand the stat issues as well as you do Nullius. Cuccinelli’s CID is just the beginning, should the Virginia AG find cause to go ahead with a fraud charge after the CID there will be full and wide sweeping discovery which should have been done by anyone of the three UK inquires. Who would think an investigation would limit themselves to the whistleblower files and not go deeper and then who would have imagined that some of the actual investigations never even looked at the whistleblower FOIA files?

  131. Nullius in Verba

    #128,

    Do you have a different count? By my reading, the comment was by Paul, who was replying to Dave.

    #129,

    Oh, dear. You’re not having much success with this, are you?

    The numerous requests were not for data, but for the “contracts” that supposedly prevented the data being published. And as it turned out, the entire lot could have been handled in five minutes flat simply by publishing the list on the website – which turned out to be just three letters, none of which actually said what had been claimed.

    Also, they would have been happy with downloading the data from the owners so long as they were told who the owners were, which data series had been used, and when – the so-called “station list”.

    Here’s Phil discussing the matter prior to any FOIA requests being submitted.

    “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

    I expect you would too, wouldn’t you?

  132. Dave R

    Paul in Sweden:
    >should the Virginia AG find cause to go ahead with a fraud charge after the CID there will be full and wide sweeping discovery

    and then, finally the dastardly global conspiracy of socialist scientists will be unmasked, right?

  133. Dave R

    Nullius in Verba:
    >And as it turned out, the entire lot could have been handled

    As I’ve already explained to you, there is no need for anyone to comply with vexatious FOI requests.

  134. Katharine

    Brad:

    Stated again, you are a physicist. The mere fact that you possess a PhD is not enough to make you an authority on the topic. You have not been trained in the intricacies of climate.

    I do not trust your word against a climatologist’s, and to date I have not seen any trained climatologist make a substantial argument AGAINST global warming. Indeed, just about every global warming denialist I’ve come across has little to no understanding of actual climatological science nor of the fields that contain other evidence for it, such as ecology. Physics and chemistry are very much not enough to understand the complex dynamics of the biosphere; you are being reductionist to the point of both inaccuracy and arrogance.

    (I’m a biology undergrad, for reference. While I am no authority just yet in the field I choose to study, which is hardly related to global warming, I have some idea of the underlying, unifying principles of science, what truth is, and who to trust. I would trust a physicist more on matters of physics than a biologist, and I would trust a physician more on matters of clinical medicine than a geologist.)

  135. Katharine

    Also, apparently none of you have any clue how f*cked up Cuccinelli is.

    Kook-bag is the attorney general of my state.

    The man is beyond insane.

  136. Dave R

    BTW, those of you who think there was some sort of conspiracy involved in the Hadley/CRU’s use of the national met services data: Can you explain why their use of that data made no difference compared to the data sets that don’t use it?

  137. Nullius in Verba

    #134,

    Oh, I see why you’re confused, now. True. But of course, none of the ones you referred to were vexatious.

    Not even the British Government would introduce a freedom of information law in which you could ignore requests simply because you found them annoying. Fairly strict criteria have to be met before they can be judged so, and the CRU information officer never attempted it.

  138. Katharine

    In fact, I don’t trust a f*cking one of you unless your information comes from people who study this for a living.

  139. Dan

    You know what else is “bad science”?

    Not sharing your data.

    “Losing” your data.

    Trying to block publication of dissenting research.

    Their “vindication” was not approval of their methods, practices or personalities – it was just a conclusion that it doesn’t appear that they are total frauds.

  140. Katharine

    You know what else is “bad science”?

    Not sharing your data.

    “Losing” your data.

    Trying to block publication of dissenting research.

    Their “vindication” was not approval of their methods, practices or personalities – it was just a conclusion that it doesn’t appear that they are total frauds.

    I thought this crap was debunked. There’s an interview on the BBC about this. I’m too lazy and too pissed off to link it by now, but it’s an interview between the BBC and that dude from East Anglia.

    The fail and the stupid on this thread is staggering. There are even some people on my side of the argument who apparently are terrible arguers – I EXPECT stupid from the denialists, but when I see stupid going on from people who have the scientific facts right I just want to scream.

  141. Dave R

    Katharine, 135:
    >Brad: […] you are a physicist.

    That reminds me, we’re still waiting for brad to provide a link to his alleged research that he claims proves that global warming is not real. Personally I think he’s just a liar.

  142. Nullius in Verba

    #135,

    “I do not trust your word against a climatologist’s, and to date I have not seen any trained climatologist make a substantial argument AGAINST global warming.”

    You shouldn’t be trusting anyone’s word based on their claimed expertise. That would be Argument from Authority. Very anti-scientific.

    But out of curiosity, can you tell me what you thought of Richard Lindzen’s arguments? Or the recent Spencer and Braswell 2010 paper? Or Craig and Sherwood Idso’s work? Or Roger Pielke Snr? I assume you’ve seen them all, yes?

  143. Steve Metzler

    Please help me out here. Is there some explicit law dictating that government employees are never, ever allowed to delete a single e-mail? Because I know that my own in-box would be pretty freakin’ unwieldy by now if I hadn’t deleted an e-mail since the early 90’s. Or… is it only that the conspiracy theorists wish that to be the case?

    As for the raw temperature data the CRU had *copies of*… I read about it when ‘Climategate’ first broke. Seems the CRU moved offices in the late 80’s to much smaller premises, and they didn’t have room to store all those old tapes containing the raw data. Seeing as they couldn’t foresee that 25 years later people who had no desire at all to actually analyse the raw data would be requesting it just so they could make hollow noises about it… well, go get it from the original MET office sources like they did.

    And, of course, it’s all this allegedly ‘fudged’ data that is causing glaciers to retreat, (ex) permafrost to thaw, the arctic to be almost ice-free in summer, species migration patterns to change, and spring to come earlier every year.

  144. Dave R

    Nullius in Verba, 143:
    >can you tell me what you thought of Richard Lindzen’s arguments?

    It has been refuted in the peer-reviewed literature:

    >we show that LC09 is gravely flawed and its results are wrong on multiple fronts.

    But perhaps you can tell us what you think it has to do with this thread.

  145. brad

    Huh? I never said global warming was not real, in fact I never mentioned anything about whether global warming was real or not. I guess I don’t it, folks on here can lie about me and misconstrue my statements, but defending myself get blocked by the moderator.

    So you know, I believe global warming is real, the evidence around the reason for it is not…that is all I am saying. A rather moderate position actually, but too extreme for this board.

  146. Derecho64

    The deniers here are woefully ignorant of how meteorological data is collected and distributed.

    I wonder if any one of them can tell us how the process works. Brad? Paul in Sweden? Dan?

  147. Dave R

    Nullius in Verba, 143:
    >You shouldn’t be trusting anyone’s word based on their claimed expertise. That would be Argument from Authority. Very anti-scientific.

    An appeal to appropriate authority is not fallacious and is in fact the best argument that a layman can make.

    A fallacious appeal to authority is one like brad’s which appeals to an authority which is either fictitious or an outlier.

    >Lindzen […] Spencer and Braswell […] Craig and Sherwood Idso […] Roger Pielke Snr

    Another good example of the fallacious appeal to authority.

  148. Dave R

    brad, 147:
    >Huh? I never said global warming was not real, in fact I never mentioned anything about whether global warming was real or not.

    brad, 49:
    >Is global warming real? I thought so, until I did some research and found the science on both sides to be wanting…and yes, I do have a PH.D. from a top institution.

    Cite your peer-reviewed publications in which you published this alleged research showing that global warming is not real (or that “the evidence around the reason for it is not”, based on your moved goalposts) — or explicitly concede that you did no such thing.

  149. Dave R

    See brad, it helps to avoid telling lies, otherwise people will call you a liar.

  150. Brian137

    Brad,
    In post #3, you described yourself “as someone who has a Ph.D. and played the modern science grant-chasing game.

    How well did you fair in that game?

    In post #10, you said, “modern science is more about grant chasing and the politics of peer review than doing great science.

    Was that true of your own efforts?

    The fakery on the part of the oil companies is matched by the fakery on the part of the climate change folks

    Did you personally engage in fakery of science?

  151. brad

    Lets try some facts, the Arctic has low ice for the last several years, but the Antarctic is well above average for most of the year, why no coverage? The net amount of sea ice is realtively stable for decades, why no coverage? Why does the Arctic get all the news?

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    Also, lots of folks think islands will soon be underwater because of sea level rise, what does the data say? The data says the sea level is rising yearly at a few millimeters a year, about the thickness of the fabric on your clothing. It is also true that one quarter to one third of this rise is because of ground water use:

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg

    Further, we still have little understanding of tipping points and what causes them:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101006141558.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406133707.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm

    Finally, it is interesting that solar forcing has become nary an afterthought now that we need to increase the effect of carbon dioxide:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

    The point is not that global warming is not happening, the point is that we really do not have good models and we actually have little idea of what is going on and what is causing it. Thus, should we limit the forward movement of millions and billions of people and their increased level of living? Now, that said, we should decrease our dependence on forwign oil, again because our need is creating war and divisiveness.

  152. brad

    At 49 I was referring to AGW, not global warming generally. I agree that was a poor choice of words. I also do not claim that AGW is not real, just that the science around it is far from settled. See my post below which is the tip of the iceberg if you pay attnetion.

    I am a Ph.D. and J.D. and work as a patent attorney, I am not a physicist. I am also a good dem and likely have put more toward presidential nominations than most – and as an Iowan my Obama push long before he was popular here mighthave been helpful, but it might not have been, the point is, I am not an oil company, Glenn Beck watching, right wing nut and really do not appreciate being categorized as one.

  153. Dave R

    Due to moderated posts showing up, the post from brad that I quoted above has moved to 54 instead of 49.

  154. brad

    Brian 137-

    Hilarious! You attack me, and the mod posts it, and when I defend the mod won’t post it. I love you guys, very fair.

    As for me, I left science and went into law after finding a very important MIT prof, who is still very powerful, who took NIH money and pharma money to study the same exact thing, and leveraged the NIH money to get data to provide to the pharma. That kind of stuff is rampant in science today…

  155. Utakata

    Nullius @ 133:

    Oh dear, you’re not making much sense. Are you sure you’re addressing the right person again?

  156. brad

    Dave R.-

    Very helpful, oh great moderator, post my crap late and remove my ability to defend myself.

    I will return, but have work to do as I need to join a worldwide meeting.

  157. Dave R

    brad, 154:
    >I agree that was a poor choice of words.

    Lying about it was a pretty poor choice too.

    So, when are you going to provide a link to your research as you’ve been told to do several times now. Or were you lying about that too?

    BTW, the answers to your off topic talking points in #153 can be found here.

  158. Steve Metzler

    brad (#153) says:

    The point is not that global warming is not happening, the point is that we really do not have good models and we actually have little idea of what is going on and what is causing it.

    Rumour has it that Amazon will be having a special offer on ‘motorised goalpost movers’ up soon, so that all you folks that move goalposts around will have it that much easier. You won’t even have to lift a (virtual) finger. Ah, the wonders of modern technology.

  159. Dave R

    >You attack me, and the mod posts it, and when I defend the mod won’t post it.

    Watch out brad, those Black Helicopters are coming for you!

  160. Derecho64

    I see none of our resident deniers understands how meteorological data is collected and distributed. Ergo, that’s why they keep to the “data was destroyed” falsehood, because they don’t know any better.

  161. Brad

    Dave and the rest-

    When you want to talk about the real science give me a call, until then you can paint everyone that disagrees with you in a small, convenient box. The Tea Party and Glenn Beck are waiting for your money, make sure to join soon.

    When you understand that science IS about discussion and consensus building and really analyzing the data separate from bias and politicization, then we can talk. How is that real data on sea level rise, and the sea ice working for you? Nothing like facts, both sides in the AGW need some…

    IS global warming real? Probably, although the tropospheric temp data does not fully match the earth bound one. The Mann data does not match the only human created temp data from Europe. The Mann data does not match the MWP and LIA data that is shown not only in Europe but in Peruvian glaciers.

    You keep linking to nutball blogs and trying to paint me as crazy, I will keep linking to real science…and we can let anyone with open mind judge us.

  162. Brad

    Deroch-

    Why does the tropospheric data disagree with the land based data? Why does the “thermometer of the planet” – sea ice – show little net change? Why does the sea ice change not match the purported land based warming temporally? Why does the current IPCC use a model for solar forcing that is almost assuredly wrong? Why does the sea level rise data show little change, when there should be larger changes? Why does even the data from the last ten years show little warming?

  163. Brian137

    Brad,
    Perhaps my questions were a bit intrusive. If so, I apologize, but the questions I asked you were among those that occurred to me as I read your posts #3 and 10. Sometimes I wonder why people feel and believe as they do. My questions were aimed at probing your beliefs. Your comments in post #156, As…pharma, provided some background. Thank you.

  164. Derecho64

    How is meteorological data collected and distributed, Brad?

    Otherwise, you’re just goal-post moving and Gish galloping…

  165. Dave R

    brad, 165, 166:
    >You keep linking to nutball blogs

    You’re a liar, brad. I haven’t linked to any “nutball blogs”.

    >I will keep linking to real science

    You’re a liar, brad. I’ve asked you numerous times to link to the research you said you had done that proved that global warming was not real. You have not linked to it.

    >Why does Why does Why does Why does

    I’ve already told you where you can find the answers to your ignorant off-topic talking points. That link is in #159.

  166. Katharine

    You shouldn’t be trusting anyone’s word based on their claimed expertise. That would be Argument from Authority. Very anti-scientific.

    ‘Argument from authority’ is distinctly different than what you’re talking about.

    Argument from authority is ‘I have a PhD in this subject ergo I’m right’.

    I’m talking about ‘This person has a PhD in this subject ergo they’re more likely to be right’. Does not necessarily mean they are right, but it means they are more likely to be right.

    I tend to defer to people who have a clue what they’re talking about.

  167. Katharine

    I am a Ph.D. and J.D. and work as a patent attorney, I am not a physicist.

    What’s your PhD in?

  168. Katharine

    The ‘proof’ you chose to trot out, Brad, is very funny because it’s not proof.

    First of all, the first two links go back to 1979. It needs to be compared with cores that show data from further in the past.

    The Colorado link says nothing. What is the context of this data?

    The first two ScienceDaily links are about background climate change (i.e. what would happen were humans not affecting climate).

    The third one does not rule out human-caused climate change.

    Seriously, your argument is silly.

  169. Brad

    You are a liar Dave-
    >You keep linking to nutball blogs –

    Climate Science is as biased as any other blog out there.

    >I’ve asked you numerous times to link to the research you said you had done that proved that global warming was not real. You have not linked to it.

    This is rich, I said you have misconstrued my point, and I apologized for making it poorly. I think global warming is likely real in the last of the last decade, but the cause is not nailed down, and that the carbon dioxide based as the sole, or the largest cause, is far from proven. Answer the science and stop with the Gelnn Beck/Hannity approach to scientific discourse – shout me down but don’t deal with the facts.

    >I’ve already told you where you can find the answers to your ignorant off-topic talking points. That link is in #159.

    What? Speak English you nutbag. Get a fact and stop with “liar” crap and other spittle.

  170. Brad

    >The ‘proof’ you chose to trot out, Brad, is very funny because it’s not proof.

    No, it isn’t proof, because nothing has been proven. That is how science works Katherine, ever done any?

    >First of all, the first two links go back to 1979. It needs to be compared with cores that show data from further in the past.

    What are you talking about? Confusing apples and oranges intentionally or because you are lost and clueless? Two points, one is Mann’s argument that the last of the last century was the hottest on record – thus the 1979 data is perfectly relevant and represents the best data we have – satellites, ever heard of them? They changed climate science…

    As to ice core data, lets talk about the MWP, the LIA, and the tie to solar output that was well accepted until it became “inconvenient”.

    >The Colorado link says nothing. What is the context of this data?

    Read and learn, they track the ocean level for you, with your tax dollar. And their rate of rise just went from a 3.2mm rise per year to a 3.1.

    >The first two ScienceDaily links are about background climate change (i.e. what would happen were humans not affecting climate).

    What? Go read the scientific papers and get back to me, you are just wrong here. They show that the planet changes constantly and in unexpected ways, and that we still do not understand what drives these changes. I am still all for going back to the time when there was no oxygen, why can’t I pick that as a better time than now?

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101008121348.htm

    >The third one does not rule out human-caused climate change.

    Of course not, nor do I, but it sure shows that man-made climate change is far from proven and that is the point. Ever heard of nuance? Truth?

    >Seriously, your argument is silly.

    Seriously, your argument is so misguided as to show incompetence and lack of base knowledge.

  171. Chris Winter

    Nullius in Verba (#100) wrote: “The IBM 3480 18-track tape drive was introduced in 1984 and could store 200 MB of data per tape cartridge (4×5×1 inches). This capacity had doubled by 1986, and doubled again by 1991. (I have no idea if this is what they had, I just picked it from a list at random as an example.)”

    I have no idea what they had either. That was the whole point: No one posting here knows what data-processing equipment CRU has today, let alone back in the 1980s.

    Also, if you read my post #82 again, you’ll note that I acknowledged considerable progress in data storage capacity — although not with numbers. In fact, I was remembering a system from a university EE dept. back around 1966. I think it was an IBM 1620.

    To reiterate, I don’t think anyone here knows what DP equipment CRU had, or how limited their storage capacity was, at any given time.

  172. Dave R

    brad, 172:

    >You are a liar

    State specifically what in my post you are claiming was a lie — or explicitly withdraw the claim.

    >Climate Science is as biased as any other blog out there.

    What is that supposed to mean? Climate science is published in peer-reviewed science journals. This means that research that is wrong is likely to be refuted by other scientists, like the example in my comment #149.

    >but the cause is not nailed down

    The cause is nailed down well enough to know that we need to take serious action, according to virtually all the relevant experts and the world’s scientific organizations. The fact that an ignorant conspiracy nut like you claims to disagree with them counts for nothing.

    >>I’ve already told you where you can find the answers to your ignorant off-topic talking points. That link is in #159.

    >What? Speak English

    What part of that sentence did you not understand. I gave you a link in comment #159 that answers all the ignorant talking points you’ve been parroting in your last few comments. Go and read it and you might stand a chance of curing your ignorance.

  173. Dave R

    brad, 172:
    >stop with “liar” crap

    I called you a liar because you keep posting lies. For example you accused me of linking to “nutball blogs”. That was a blatant lie, and you acknowledged that it was a lie by refusing to substantiate the claim by stating which “nutball blog” I’m supposed to have linked to.

    Another example was your claim to have carried out research which proved that global warming is not real — or accepting your moved goalposts like I said I would in #150, that the attribution studies done by mainstream climate scientists are wrong. I’ve asked you numerous times, starting in comment 60 to either link to this alleged research or to concede that you’ve not done any such research. Your refusal to do either again shows that you are a liar.

  174. Brad

    Climate Science is a nutball blog and you linked to it. Do you just type or think first?

    I never moved a goalpost, changed a thought. You pigeonholed me incorrectly and think I am a oil company geologist. I moved no goal post, your perception of me changed and your brain cannot process a single shade of gray. I am not nuts, and my science is beeter than yours, and it shows your wrong. Your reaction is to scream louder – the TeaParty awaits you! You fit in perfectly.

    I have posted no lies, and my “lies” are actually backed up by the science science journals (see links above) and the best national labs. Yours are backed by spittle and “true believer” crap. Is God coming to save or are you awaiting Hale Bopp? I await neither and understand my position and yours, we are simply humans who are closely evolved to dogs and other mammals. My dog doesn’t understand climate change, you and I and the best minds on the planet do not either…

  175. Brad

    “Another example was your claim to have carried out research which proved that global warming is not real — or accepting your moved goalposts like I said I would in #150, that the attribution studies done by mainstream climate scientists are wrong. I’ve asked you numerous times, starting in comment 60 to either link to this alleged research or to concede that you’ve not done any such research. Your refusal to do either again shows that you are a liar.”

    I cannot allow you to play Glenn Beck. I never meant to say global warming was not real, I meant to say man-caused global warming was not proven. I said it many times, it matches with my statements prior to the one you have fixated on like a high school kid on a first crush. Get over it. Deal with the science and not my human error. Got any science? How long will it take the Maldives to go under with an ocean rising at 3.1 millimeters per year?

  176. Chris Winter

    Kris (#105) wrote: “Have you actually read what the Copenhagen conference was supposed to approve?”

    No. Maybe you could point me to that document?

    “The problem is that both decreasing CO2 per kWh and decreasing kWh per $ of GDP require large investments. And the Copenhagen treaty would have simply siphoned a large amount of money from the energy companies, thus ensuring that the necessary investments are never made. It could have succeeded in stifling the GDP growth, but then, the CO2 increase would still be exponential, only slower.”

    How large an amount of money? Without numbers, this sounds like a more sophisticated version of “Fighting global warming will destroy the economy.”

    I keep hearing that many companies are hoarding cash or using it to buy back stock and boost their share price. Meanwhile, AGW aside, we have a $2 trillion backlog of infrastructure projects. Google “infrastructure report card.”

    Just the money spent by energy interests on lobbying in Washington could make a big difference in less developed countries (LDCs) — for example, subsidizing the solar-charged electric lights that replace kerosene lanterns or candles.

    “There are several simpler ways of forcing energy companies to make the needed investments, but they never get the media time. I wonder why. (Notably, Hansen is of similar opinion. He proposes of a simple ban on construction of new coal-fired plants, instead of cap-and-trade).”

    A ban on new coal-fired plants sounds pretty draconian to me. I thought you opposed such harsh measures. And of course the coal barons, power plant operators and railroads would fight it. Right now it wouldn’t have a chance in Congress.

    To be clear, I remain convinced that the transition to clean energy can be managed without severe disruption, though not without discomfort. Whether it will be is a whole ‘nother question.

  177. Dave R

    >Climate Science is a nutball blog and you linked to it.

    You’re a liar, brad. I haven’t linked to any blog named “Climate Science”.

    >I moved no goal post

    You’re a liar, brad. Here are your words again:

    brad, 147:
    >Huh? I never said global warming was not real, in fact I never mentioned anything about whether global warming was real or not.

    brad, 54:
    >Is global warming real? I thought so, until I did some research and found the science on both sides to be wanting…and yes, I do have a PH.D. from a top institution.

    Cite your peer-reviewed publications in which you published this alleged research showing that global warming is not real (or that “the evidence around the reason for it is not”, based on your moved goalposts) — or explicitly concede that you did no such thing.

  178. Chris Winter

    Brad, Dave R — maybe you could dial it back a notch or two?

  179. Katharine

    Brad, regarding the ScienceDaily articles, I have read all of them and your reading comprehension is horrible. Neither of them say anything regarding human impact on global warming.

    Regarding the Colorado link, it is a graph. There is no citation stated. What is the context of this graph? What are the axes?

    Your arguments are lacking.

  180. Katharine

    >Is global warming real? I thought so, until I did some research and found the science on both sides to be wanting…and yes, I do have a PH.D. from a top institution.

    Cite your peer-reviewed publications in which you published this alleged research showing that global warming is not real (or that “the evidence around the reason for it is not”, based on your moved goalposts) — or explicitly concede that you did no such thing.

    I suspect Brad is talking about the fact that he Googled it on the interwebs and didn’t actually do any research on it.

  181. Dave R

    >You pigeonholed me incorrectly and think I am a oil company geologist.

    You’re a liar, brad. I never said anything about any oil geologist.

    >your perception of me changed

    My perception of you has not changed. From your first post that I saw I thought you were a liar and an idiot and I still think you’re a liar and an idiot.

    >my science is beeter than yours

    You’re a liar, brad. I’ve asked you numerous times to link to your alleged science and you’ve refused to do so.

    >my “lies” are actually backed up by the science science journals

    You’re a liar, brad. You are trying to dispute the science that is published in science journals. But you do not have any science with which to dispute it, only common myths and misconceptions.

    >Yours are backed by spittle and “true believer” crap.

    You’re a liar, brad. I am simply defending the position of mainstream science, as summarized in at the link above.

    >Is God coming to save or are you awaiting Hale Bopp?

    You’re a liar, brad. I haven’t mentioned either “god” or Hale-Bopp.

    >we are simply humans who are closely evolved to dogs

    Proper LOL.

    >understand climate change, you and I and the best minds on the planet do not

    The world’s climate scientists and scientific organizations understand it well enough to know that it is a serious problem and we need to take action on it.

  182. Dave R

    Katharine:
    >I suspect Brad is talking about the fact that he Googled it on the interwebs and didn’t actually do any research on it.

    Yes, I also suspect that he’s simply looked at a few wingnut conspiracy sites and was gullible enough to believe them.

    Chris Winter:
    >maybe you could dial it back a notch or two?

    My apologies for feeding the trolls so much — I’m off to bed now.

  183. ND

    brad,

    You seem to be avoiding the concerns over NYT article you linked to.

    You keep lecturing about science and that you have some sort of Ph.D but why should we take you seriously over scientists studying the climate.

  184. Kris sez, “And you are conveniently forgetting that the left wing has used the same findings to try to push a CO2 trading scheme, which would do nothing to actually reduce the CO2 emissions, while incurring large financial penalties. I thank FSM for Climategate, because it has at least stopped that idiocy from happening.”

    “And it’s the same left wing which constantly blocks the development of nuclear energy, which is the only viable way out of this mess. Take Germany for example, which is at the same time trying to reduce the CO2 emissions and replace its nuclear power plants with — wait for it — coal burners! All in the name of ecology. ”

    No, I’m not conveniently forgetting anything.

    I remember the Bush “Clean Air Act” that allows more pollution by trading points or whatever. So basically I don’t pollute in any measurable way but I get a set number of points. And I can sell those points to a major polluter so he can continue polluting and not be fined or have to do anything meaningful about it.

    The answer regardless of whether or not global warming is caused by man or FSM or bad karma or whatever is to pollute less. There is no up-side to pollution.

    I mean I feel really sorry for all those companies blasting out millions of tons of pollution into our environment when they have to cut into their profits to find ways to pollute less. My heart really bleeds for them.

    Next: You said, “”And it’s the same left wing which constantly blocks the development of nuclear energy, which is the only viable way out of this mess.”

    No it’s not. There is a lot we could do.

    1) Stop reproducing like rabbits. Our population would be ideal at around 1/3 what it is. No, nobody has to be eliminated. We just reproduce less until we hit that point and then maintain it.

    2) We (Americans) don’t HAVE to be the most gluttonous person ever to infest this planet. Yeah, if you’re really into your antique gas guzzler you can have it. But do we really need to consume as much as we do? We have more crap than anyone has ever had and yet we’re miserable. We don’t need to drown our sorrows and buy temporary respite by purchasing worthless plastic junk from Walmart.

    3) Invest in bike lanes and public transportation. I would love to bike to work but there is no reasonably safe route from where I live. It’s 25 miles each way which I would bike at least three times a week. Unfortunately, all I have are dual lane highways without even a shoulder to ride on and almost everybody in this area is jacked up on oxy or meth and driving a car.

    4) Get serious about our energy problems. In other words, stop paying lip-service to alternative energy sources and actually put real resources into getting it done. In my life time, solar panels could have become so efficient they could power a home easily just by putting them on the roof. Instead what we have are extremely inefficient panels that might power a TV and fridge and that’s about it. It’s ridiculous and it’s because nobody is really serious about it.

    Personally, I like the idea of wind farms but I doubt they’ll ever be viable on a wide scale. Same with water power because some of us don’t live anywhere near a real river. I’m not sure how far electricity can be sent but I think some distances would make it expensive and pointless.

    In any case, there are a lot of alternatives to nuclear power. And I think nuclear power would be fine if a couple of things. First, it has to be not-for-profit because any time profit is involved, safety is sacrificed if they can get away with it.

    Second, we need it to be pretty much bullet-proof.

    Lastly, we need a way to dispose of the waste. And I think that’s the biggest problem. The first thing I would think to do is put it in a rocket and shoot it to the sun. That might be a ridiculous idea but so is storing it or dumping it here on earth. There is no safe way to dispose of it on this planet. Basically all we can do is destroy someone else’s environment with it.

  185. Well, I’m very much with Katherine here. The people I trust are the ones who have the most expertise and it seems those people are very much convinced that global warming is happening.

    And I also agree with Katherine about “bad arguers”. There are people I just don’t want on my side because they do more to help the other side than to help mine.

    For example, if I were an actual conservative, there are a lot of people I would vote off the island – Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. Umm… I appreciate you trying, but seriously, you’re not helping. No, no, really… thank you. Yes, I appreciate all you’ve tried to do. Please STFU. Thanks.

  186. MadScientist

    “I am not a Denialist, I am a Skeptic!”

    Yeah, that line’s getting old. Of the thousands of illegitimately acquired and released emails the best the denialists could do was come up with a small number to quotemine. And yet some people still insist that there’s something being covered up. Well, there’s no accounting for the nuts – there are still flat-earthers, geocentrists, and crazies who believe that Zapruder must have had a rifle hidden in his tiny camera.

  187. Brad

    Dave-

    You are clearly insane – you linked to Real Climate. You are also fixated on a quote that makes you look like a child to the rest of the posters, the trolling is getting old – find some real science.

    As for me publishing proof that global warming is not real, I did not nor did I ever imply I did, so get off the Rush Limbaugh approach to discourse and move along. I am not a liar, but more importantly for you – you are not a thinker. You spew insults (which the board owner tacitly approved by posting your spittle and not my responses originally – think about that Phil) but few, if any, facts and you seemingly have no ability to find them.

    Phil and the board – I simply ask that you go to the original sources of the climate change models being used and determine for yourself what is happening, or not, and what is really proven. I think if you do you will start a blog called Bad Climate Science. Also, remember to not confuse the papers on the effects of climate change if it is real, and instead go to the real papers on the evidence for or against the model itself – e.g. what evidence do we have for the model. Mann’s model does some very interesting things, like gets rid of the Medieval Warm Period so this can be the hottest the known planet has ever been. This is particularly interesting to me as the MWP was established and found not based on core samples, but things people who were alive at the time actually wrote down. If the MWP was real, and the evidence is overwhelming that it was, then this is not the warmest the planet has ever been even in the recent past. If NASA models during the pre-global warming era are correct, then the Little Ice Age was tied to the Maunder Minimum and the sunspot low we are experiencing, and the sunspot high period we just passed through should be of interest. Go look for yourselves, don’t believe me, the links above and “Sciencedaily.com” might be useful in that quest for real data in a world of spin.

    As for denialist and skeptic, lets quit calling each other names and move forward with real data. That goes for our politics too, are you going to the Million Moderate March?

  188. Nigel Depledge

    Dirk (22) said:

    Nobody denies climate change.

    Which appeared immediately after this comment from Cladinator (21):

    When activists stop publishing climate change data and scientists start doing it, maybe then I will start to pay attention. Until then, you all seem far too arrogant to take seriously. Its all politics now but you goofy greenies are the only ones that refuse to admit it.
    Just get over it. The world isn’t going to end any time soon.

    So, Dirk, did you actually read the comment that immediately preceded yours?

  189. Steve Metzler

    Brad (#190) says:

    Mann’s model does some very interesting things, like gets rid of the Medieval Warm Period so this can be the hottest the known planet has ever been. This is particularly interesting to me as the MWP was established and found not based on core samples, but things people who were alive at the time actually wrote down. If the MWP was real, and the evidence is overwhelming that it was, then this is not the warmest the planet has ever been even in the recent past.

    Every post you make just digs a deeper hole for yourself, and proves that you have little real knowledge of how climate science, or in fact the scientific process itself, is carried out. All you keep doing is regurgitating the trope from denialist sites that has been debunked time and again, and you seem to have deluded yourself into thinking that these sites promulgate real science, when in fact they are demonstrably anti-science.

    For example, the ‘evidence’ you are offering to support the notion of a Medieval Warm Period is *anecdotal*. The real science (paleoclimatology) tells us that some areas of the planet, like Greenland, may have been warmer than average during that period, but that this did not apply *globally*. Likewise, the Little Ice Age appears to have been mostly confined to Northern Europe.

    Study after study has been done subsequent to MBH98 with different kinds of proxies, in peer reviewed journals, and they all produce a hockey stick:

    ‘Hockey sticks’ from diverse proxies

    And what’s wrong with linking to Real Climate? It’s run by practicing climate scientists who do their best to keep the politics out of it, and stick to the science. But for deniers, it’s really all about the politics.

  190. Nigel Depledge

    Paul in Sweden (48) said:

    Phil, I am a regular reader of your blog but I do not recall your ever mentioning specific “scientific” findings. Would you be so kind as to point out the specific scientific findings regarding CAGW that you have made or that you are willing to repeat in this thread?

    Well done, Paul, for supplying an example to go in the dictionary under “disingenuous”. Phil, being an astronomer, has not made any findings in climate science.

    However, if you care to look in the primary literature for climate research, you will find a lifetime’s-reading’s-worth of good-quality climate science, pretty nearly all of which indicates that global climate is warming and that this warming is a Bad Thing for our current way of life.

  191. Brad

    Sorry Steve Metzler, it is you who are quoting from websites and climate change true believers, while the real science actually strongly supports the MWP as do most of the proxies. You guys are terribly funny, you accuse me of exactly what you are doing – does that make you feel better? I know this is a normal political trick, and a weakness of the human mind, but those of us on the left are supposed to be the educated, thinking ones…

    MWP in California: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100318093300.htm

    Wetter years: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324184600.htm

    Since you do not seem to even have read your heroe’s papers, start here – here is Mann literally changing the name of the period, and downplaying it, so as to make us the warmest now: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173021.htm

    And here is the truth, namely we don’t understand: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100830094922.htm

    Here is a great paper on the recent NEEM work: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100804133448.htm

    And I am sure your next BS is that the Little Ice Age only happened in Europe (a normal meme for you anti-science true believers), that is wrong to:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230183843.htm

    Finally, laways remember that our esteemed scientists in the very recent past were saying we need to add coal black to the poles to stop the coming global cooling. A good search on Advanced Google Scholar during the period will find many books and papers, here is one from the lay press:

    http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

    Finally, lets quit attacking me and move on to the science – bricks and stones and bones and all that. Got any? Weren’t you surprised to find ice in Antarctica is increasing and the oceans are rising at the decreasing and stunning rate of 3.1 millimeters per year! WOW! Aren’t you anti-science folks surprised to know the planet was once almost oxygen free? Come on, don’t attack me, go better yourselves, whether you agree with me or not.

  192. Brad

    Nigel-

    I feel truly sorry for you, a guy who buys into the hype but seems unable to look at the data. Please do, the internet makes it easy.

    Google Scholar

    Science Daily

    Medline at NIH

    The peer reviewed literature is literally at your fingertips, use it.

    While you are at it, also go to the primary sources, again the web makes it easy.

    http://www.spaceweather.com
    Cryosphere Today
    Colorado’s Sea page where you can see the latest data on sea level rise

    Don’t be a ditto-head, think for yourself…

  193. Kris

    @179 Chris Winter:

    “Maybe you could point me to that document?”

    Please google “cop15 draft treaty”, get the PDF and read for yourself.

    “How large an amount of money? [would cap-n-trade eat]”

    EU ETS has traded anywhere between 3 and 33 EUR per ton of CO2, with 15-20 being the most common price. The U.S. currently emits 5.8Gt per year. If the market mechanism was applied to the whole emission (that was not supposed to happen initially, but it was the goal), you are looking at 150G$, i.e. $0.15 trillion per year. Roughly 1% of GDP. Assuming that the speculator… uh, market-driven price does not go crazy, of course.

    But, mind this: I have no problem with spending 1% of GDP on reducing a carbon footprint. I have a problem with spending 1% of GDP on a mechanism which invites financial speculation, while guaranteeing nothing. A simple government tax would have worked better here, as the government is accountable for what it does with tax money (at least in theory), while the financial market is not. An administrative ban on new coal plants would not really be that brutal: existing installations would continue to run until they reached the end of design life and would be gradually replaced by carbon-neutral (mostly nuclear) plants, spreading costs over many years.

    @187 CafeenMan:

    “There is a lot we could do. [besides going nuclear]”

    Not really. All the things you have listed are of course very good idea, but they at most buy you a couple of years of decrease in emissions. They amount to decreasing CO2 per $ of GDP, but it’s a one time gain, and since GDP is an exponential function, its increase will eat that saving in a couple of years anyway. The only way out is to break the CO2/GDP link. That basically requires moving transport to electric vehicles (most of it, anyway) and energy generation to nuclear (because renewables are too problematic), effectively achieving (close to) 0 CO2 per $ of GDP.

  194. Nigel Depledge

    Brad (54) said:

    . . . and yes, I do have a PH.D. from a top institution.

    That’s odd. All of the people I know who have a Ph.D. know how to spell “Ph.D.” (it has a lower-case “h”).

  195. Nigel Depledge

    Some commenters seem quite taken with the idea of replacing coal-fired power stations with nuclear ones, but I think there are a couple of problems that have not been addressed.

    Nuclear power stations use a lot of concrete, so there is a large start-up emission of CO2 associated with building one (larger than a more traditional power station, although I have never seen any figures on the amount of concrete used in offshore wind-farms, which I imagine would also be substantial). So they’re not carbon-neutral, they do come with some CO2 emissions.

    If we were to try and replace all of the fossil-fuel-fired power stations throughout Europe, North America, Asia and South America with nuclear (even over the next, say, 50 years), the world would rapidly run out of uranium ore from which to make fuel.

    Fission power might work as a stop-gap, but it’s not a long-term solution.

  196. Gamercow

    What I don’t understand is why the deniers are so against doing anything to improve or change our impact on the environment. Surely changing our habits as a human race would improve our lives, no? Less pollution, fewer kids with asthma, healthier people in general, more green space, why rail against these things?

  197. Nigel Depledge

    Brad (196) said:

    Nigel-

    I feel truly sorry for you, a guy who buys into the hype but seems unable to look at the data. Please do, the internet makes it easy.

    Google Scholar

    Science Daily

    Medline at NIH

    These are all digests of one form or another. What point were you trying to make?

    The peer reviewed literature is literally at your fingertips, use it.

    While you are at it, also go to the primary sources, again the web makes it easy.

    www-spaceweather-com

    Nothing to do with global climate here on Earth, really, except in the indirect sense.

    Cryosphere Today

    Which indicates what look like modest decreases in northern-hemisphere sea ice over the last 50 – 60 years, but makes no mention of the critical aspect of sea ice – its thickness.

    Colorado’s Sea page where you can see the latest data on sea level rise

    Actually, for sea level, I’m not sure Colorado is the best place in which to measure it. Since I live in the UK, where we have a national oceanographic centre that monitors sea level at 44 sites around the British coastline, I’ll take their information on it.

    Don’t be a ditto-head, think for yourself…

    To be brutally frank, I don’t have the time to come to grips with the detail of the primary literature. However, I do trust the climatology experts to be experts in their field (in the same way that I would expect them to trust me to be an expert when it comes to protein chemistry). However, I notice that you don’t mention New Scientist, even though I have found it to be a very reasonable source of digests from the primary literature.

    For example, a couple of years ago it was a New Scientist article that made me aware that, globally, glaciers have all retreated in the last 100 years except one (the glacier on Mt St Helens is an unusual case, because the eruption that occurred about 20 years ago set up conditions in which the glacier could grow).

    So, despite what you seem to be implying here, I do actually think for myself about these things. There are several collections of firmly-established facts:

    1) Global average annual temperature is rising and has been rising more rapidly in the last 40 years or so.
    2) Global concentration of CO2 is also rising, mostly as a consequence of human activities. Global concentrations of other greenhouse gases have also risen (some – the CFCs – are falling, but that is more than compensated for by the rise in levels of other gases).
    3) The greenhouse effect is firmly established, and is the only explanation for the very high surface temperature of the planet Venus.
    4) Globally, glaciers are either retreating or are flowing faster.
    5) Arctic sea ice is thinning.
    6) Sea level has been measured to have risen in the last 10 years or so.
    7) No natural cause has been found that can account for the recent increases in global mean temperature – it’s not the sun and it’s not volcanism.
    8 ) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we are left with the conclusion that human activity is causing the rise in temperature, and the accompanying changes in glaciers and sea ice and sea level.
    9) Even if the catastrophic scenarios turn out to be wrong, it would be far better for us if we were to switch to a power-generation economy based on renewable energy sources. Sooner or later the oil and coal will run out. Sooner or later the uranium ore will run out. If we are going to continue our energy-hungry habits, we need alternatives.

  198. Jeff

    it’s a pie fight. that is my theme on global warming, and wherever I read people, that is clear.

    Read Michael Mann “Dire Predictions” if you want SCIENCE!

    See, folks, this is how it works: whenever HIGH STAKES are involved to people, the logic, the science, are ultimately irrelevant: here’s why. If someone has a vested interest in “proving” something, I guarantee you, they will “prove” it, at least to this degree of rigor: first they’ll attack the science, if that doesn’t work, they’ll invent “pseudoscience” that’ll fool joesixpack but will fall apart upon further rigorous examination; and if that doesn’t work, they’ll just bang their shoes on the desk and create such a clamor that’ll it’ll keep all but the strong-stomached away.

  199. Shipy

    I am not an oil company, Glenn Beck watching, right wing nut and really do not appreciate being categorized as one.

    @Brad

    You are fighting against a pseudo-religion, and a political movement that has begun to reek of McCarthyism. They will demonize you as a heretic no matter how many times you clarify your position. It’s an utter lack of thought demonstrated by just about everyone these days.

    It’s either

    “What? You think government is out of control? You teabagging, Glenn Beck watcher! I’ll bet you love Sarah Palin. Back to your pigeon hole so that I may attack a stereotype rather than reality!”

    of

    “What? You like Obama? You socialist, hippy subversive! I’ll bet you love George Soros. Back to your pigeon hole so that I may attack a stereotype rather than reality!”

    And on and on. Science. Ciritical thought. Reason. All dead, dead, dead. Color it gray and decay.

    What’s funny is the folks who dride your physics PhD as unqualified are themselves probably not qualified to flip burgers.

  200. Kris

    @199. Nigel Depledge:

    “Nuclear power stations use a lot of concrete, so there is a large start-up emission of CO2 associated with building one ”

    A 1000MW coal power plant burns 10’000 tons of coal per day. How much concrete is that in CO2 equivalent?

    “the world would rapidly run out of uranium ore from which to make fuel”

    That problem has already been solved three times so far, by the invention of fuel reprocessing, generation 4 reactors and thorium fuel cycle.

  201. sophia8

    Not to steer everybody OT or anything, but…
    Has it ever been established who (or what) was behind the email hacking in the first place? Personally, I think that’s the most important part of the whole Climategate saga.

  202. Steve Metzler

    Brad (#195) says:

    Sorry Steve Metzler, it is you who are quoting from websites and climate change true believers…

    Says he using lingo straight out of the denialist dictionary. Yes, 98% of practicing climate scientists are ‘believers’, or whatever you want to call them, in Anthropogenic Global Warming. That is because they are experts in this particular field of research. So until other qualified scientists can produce reliable evidence to the contrary, in peer-reviewed journals, that CO2 is not a primary cause of the rapid global temperature increases we have seen since the industrial revolution, then I am going to continue to *believe* that pouring 28 billion metric tonnes of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere each year is going to have bad effects.

    It’s analogous to saying a person can eat all the fatty foods they want for year after year and it will have no ill effects on their health. In reality it does not work that way. There really is no such thing as a free lunch.

  203. Mike G

    “Weren’t you surprised to find ice in Antarctica is increasing and the oceans are rising at the decreasing and stunning rate of 3.1 millimeters per year! WOW! Aren’t you anti-science folks surprised to know the planet was once almost oxygen free?”

    No Brad, I don’t think any of us are surprised by these claims since each one of them is a tired old denialist talking point that’s been addressed numerous times. We’ve heard them all before and each one is as devoid of the essential context as it was when they were first made.

    How much was sea ice *expected* to decrease in Antarctica vs. what’s been seen. Are there any factors that might explain why the Arctic and Antarctic behave differently? (hint: One is land surrounded by ocean and the other is ocean surrounded by land. One has little multi-year sea ice, and the other *had* lots) How has terrestrial ice volume changed in the Antarctic?

    ….and with your revival of the zombie argument about global cooling you have completely jumped the shark

  204. Steve Metzler

    My irony meter nearly exploded several times today, both here and on other blogs. Let us not forget what Dr. Mann originally said, which is in fact the title of this thread:

    But the attacks against the science must stop. They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science.

    So what is the comments section full of? The usual anti-science canards that have been debunked so many times we’re sick of it, of course. Equating solid science with ‘belief’/religion. Pfft.

  205. Messier Tidy Upper

    @42. Bruce Says:

    Some things blamed on global warming:

    – Beer tastes different …

    Thankfully, I have and can disprove that one by personally conducted experimental evidence! ;-)

    [Raises can of beer, drinks some, notes it tastes the same, lowers can & praises the scientific method. Especially the bit about having to keep repeating the experiments for verification! ;-) ]

  206. Messier Tidy Upper

    @45. Kris asks :

    Where’s Al “CO2″ Gore?

    I think he was last seen otherwise occupied chasing girls in massage parlours or something like that! ;-)

    Being serious though, Al Gore and his many failings is actually an irrelevant distraction and a sideshow from the main issue here.

    Al Gore neither invented the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming nor did any actual science on it. I am no fan of his at all. Even those on the Political Left now seem to have given up on Gore and understand that his day is well and truly done.

    However, I do accept the consensus of a vast majority of climatologists who have trained and worked in the area all their lives and accumulated gargantuan mountains of evidence over many decades that do inform us about AGW.

    The politics and suggested solutions to AGW is murky and full of problems.* The science itself, not-so-much.

    Scientifically, the verdict is in – AGW has won its case there.

    Politically, the verdict is still very much in doubt with strong opposition to doing anything about it.

    Unfortunately the fact that action does need to be global in nature makes it unlikely anything will happen because international agreemnets are unlikely to be reached. One nation cannot do anything effective on its own.

    —-

    The dubious career & preachings of Al Gore is one of those problems because he is a divisive polarising figure who has made many mistakes and turned himself into a big distraction. It seems he is now getting out of the way and keeping quiet which is probably for the best.

  207. Messier Tidy Upper

    @77. Chris Winter : Thanks. :-)

  208. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ 177. Brad :

    Is God coming to save or are you awaiting Hale Bopp?

    Comet Hale-Bopp has an orbit of (now*) about 2,533 years and will return to the inner solar system around the year 4385.

    (Source : wikipedia’s Hale-Bopp page.)

    I wonder what things on Earth will be like on its next pass, whether the planet will still have ice caps, what the carbon dioxide levels will be & if we humans will still be around to greet it again or not .. ???

    God coming back or existing at all is another story entirely .. ;-)

    —-

    * Following a close-ish encounter with Jupiter and its gravity field approaching to within 0.77 AU back in April 1996.

  209. Solius

    Brad @ 177 wrote:

    You pigeonholed me incorrectly and think I am a oil company geologist.

    Whoa dude! Most petroleum geologists that I know accept AGW; in fact, most recognize that the catastrophic consequences will be much more severe, than described, when Peak Oil hits(if it ain’t here, now).

    In one of your posts, you mentioned China, India, and some other 3rd world countries- all of us will get off oil in the next century!

    Oil is what drove the population from 1 billion to 10 billion(mechanized industrial/agricultural output) in 200 years, and it is unsustainable. The recent release of classified documents from the DOE and the Bundeswher indicate that western governments recognize the very real possibility that the cacca is about to hit the fan.

  210. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ 195. Brad :

    Sorry Steve Metzler, it is you who are quoting from websites and climate change true believers, while the real science actually strongly supports the MWP as do most of the proxies.

    Really? :roll:

    See : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&p=029130BFDC78FA33

    which seems to show otherwise.

  211. Messier Tidy Upper

    @195. Brad :

    As the clip I’ve linked above (now awaiting moderation) shows, the historic, now outdated data showing the Medieval Warm Period was gathered by one guy in central England and shows a regional phenomena which many more wide-ranging climatological studies show wasn’t global in extent.

    The same videoclip also covers the “hockey Stick graph” debate – and more.

    In a nutshell – it wasn’t just tree rings and it wasn’t just Mike Mann. It’s not just a case of one “hockey stick” that one possibly, arguably, maybe, flawed study found – but rather there’s a whole “hockey team” of many studies based on many things by many scientists putting in many years of work.

    So even *if* Cuccinelli could find something wrong with Mann’s work – & that’s very doubtful – it wouldn’t mean AGW wasn’t happening, wasn’t caused by humans and wasn’t a major cause for real concern.

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 »