The Real Trouble With "ClimateGate"

By Sheril Kirshenbaum | November 25, 2009 10:31 am

Chris is correct that ClimateGate is merely a nasty sideshow. However, the real trouble happens when people inevitably jump to whatever conclusion suits them best. This, I fear, will be most damaging–for all of science.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Culture, Media and Science
MORE ABOUT: climategate

Comments (70)

  1. Pete

    I agree. All the comments on Chris’s previous posts are testimony to that.

  2. Jon
  3. Yes, and nowGlenn Beck has made an issue of the fact that MSM has not covered “climategate.”

    It makes no difference to the Becks of the world as long as they can use the issue to bash anyone who is not drinking the koolaid tea.

  4. Artaban

    A “focus group study” from a liberal organization on their opponents. Can anyone say “bias”? The people who really scare me are those claiming objectivity. Bias is built into us. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that needed to take more psychology classes in college.

    As a sidenote, it’s interesting and amusing to see Jon and Wes “jumping to conclusions” right after Sheril warns about the danger of doing so…:)

  5. Mat C

    Yes, Chris is correct. If both of you do not continue to back the climate change hoax, your book sales will plummet.

  6. Mat C

    And people are not seeing what the want to see… they are seeing the truth for what it is. Scientists who drew conclusions first and then found the data they needed to both push an agenda and continue to compensate from their assertions.

  7. SLC

    It would certainly be enlightening if emails and other correspondence from shills like Mark Marano and phony think tanks like the George Marshall Foundation and the Heartland Institute were made public. I would be willing to bet that such an occurrence would cast far more opprobrium on the climate change deniers than climategate has on the scientific consensus.

  8. Wil

    Some of Dr. Jones’ e-mails openly and specifically admit to flat-out lieing about raw climate data, as well as about climate data that had been collated and processed. He also encouraged a number of other prominent climate scientists to do the same, even detailing the best ways to mathematically cheat. The way these things almost always work in the real world, is that Dr. Jones is probably just the tip of a very large iceberg.

    Dr. Jones was well aware that his climate center was the leading center, of only four in the world, that was entrusted with generating, maintaining, collating and disseminating raw climate data. Dr. Jones openly admits to destroying data, hiding data, cherry picking data, and dishonestly processing data, knowing that the U.N. and thousands of other scientists, organizations, and governments would be using his falsified raw data to make trends and to draw conclusions. He did this knowing that government policies in dozens of countries (at least) and the use of hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer’s money was at stake.

    Going forward, we can not know which stories about the climate and about global warming are true, which stories are wild exaggerations, and which stories are complete fabrications. Until all climate scientists, and their data and models, have been investigated and cleaned up, my default position will be to assume that every climate story or global warming story that I see in the MSM is a flat out lie.

  9. Jon

    Bias is built into us.

    Didn’t we just go through eight years of policymakers who had that approach: “there is no such thing as non-bias, so don’t even bother to try. Professional standards are for chumps.” So where did that take us?

  10. Junior

    I say stop supplying political articles and polls as evidence since they have extremely low credibility due to personal bias. We need to see real numbers and facts. One key fact is that lowering emissions over the next 30 years is only projected to decrease the Earth’s temperature by less than one degree F. Now, does it make sense to tax the hell out of individuals and businesses, which will harm short and long term economic growth, with a negligible change in temperature. Also, India and China put out nearly as much emissions as the US, but they’re not taking green initiatives because of the potential negative economic impact. For disclosure, I’m an avid skeptic of global warming claims since many studies are tainted by political agendas. I’d like to see more validated evidence that disproves a natural cycle since we know about historical cooling and warming trends more significant that our current state.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/New-study-debunks-global-warming-claims-8043388-52097707.html

  11. cernunnus

    It wouldn’t be a big deal, if it were not for the fact that the majority of climate data used by other researchers to draw their conclusions comes from this source. As it is, this casts doubt upon the conclusions of not only these researchers, but the results of those who used their data.

  12. Janus

    This story is much more damaging than those on the left are willing to admit. Facts don’t really matter in a battle for public perception. The global warming meme has taken a body blow.

  13. toasterhead

    8. Wil Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Until all climate scientists, and their data and models, have been investigated and cleaned up, my default position will be to assume that every climate story or global warming story that I see in the MSM is a flat out lie.
    _________

    Oh, please. Spare us the drama. This was your “default position” long before this manufactured scandal, and it will continue to be your “default position” even if all the scientists remotely connected with climate change are investigated. You’ll always find some convenient excuse to deny the science, no matter how often it’s verified.

  14. toasterhead

    11. cernunnus Says:
    November 25th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    It wouldn’t be a big deal, if it were not for the fact that the majority of climate data used by other researchers to draw their conclusions comes from this source.
    __________

    Which data sources, specifically?

  15. bilbo

    I’m quickly finding that when I ask for specifics from Silly Little Denialists, toasterhead, I never get any.

    It seems to be an inborn trait of denialism.

  16. bilbo

    “Didn’t we just go through eight years of policymakers who had that approach: “there is no such thing as non-bias, so don’t even bother to try. Professional standards are for chumps.” So where did that take us?”

    It took us straight to the nutbaggery that has been the denialist comments on this blog in the past 3 days, Jon. Lots of screaming, lots of conspiracy, but no one can provide you with specifics when asked.

  17. oh no..

    Please, anyone but bilbo.. no one can ever hope to argue with someone so all knowing.. His arguments and insults are so clear they cut straight to the heart of it all.

    “Silly Little Denialists”
    “..inborn trait of denialism”

    Heed my warnings. If this is how the man starts, there can be no questioning his authority on the issue.. whether you are for, against or just sitting on the fence. Please.. let a civil and rational debate commence (although he would have you think otherwise). I’m quietly hoping he will prove my point.. watch this..

    Bilbo? Have you calmed down yet? I’m sure you are an intelligent individual.. now can you use your gift to calmly & clearly debate this “non-issue” without snapping to personal smearing tactics & sweeping insults. I weakens your argument drastically.. even if what you say is 100% true.

    Feel free to quote and attack my first two paragraphs :)

  18. Some of Dr. Jones’ e-mails openly and specifically admit to flat-out lieing about raw climate data

    Erm … no. They don’t.

    This is why the reaction to this theft is so laughable. Precisely because there are no “smoking guns” in the 1,000+ emails, the denialists literally have to invent imaginary emails which would be smoking guns if they actually … existed.

    If anything, the publication of these stolen documents proves that the scientists involved have conducted their work impeccably.

  19. bilbo

    If you’re wanting a mature debate, oh no, I’m happy to oblige without personal attacks.

    If you’re only willing to debate using half-truths and a half-knowledge of the basic issue of climate change however (see: thinking that math is an evil tool used by scientists to distort minds, that climate science can be done in your home on Excel, that there are only a couple of papers that support AGW), then you’ll get ridiculed.

    The choice is yours.

  20. cernunnus

    Well, I’m not a denier of climate change, but I’m sceptical of anthrogenic climate change. I don’t feel that the many variables affecting global temperature have been well considered. As for this group’s influence, the article below sums it up well. I’m keeping an open mind — I feel that rhetoric and a rush for funding may have influenced researchers to ignore contradictory data. And it seems that this scandal bears that out. I also feel that we should strive for minimal impact as a society, but without data we can trust, how can any individual, industry or country make beneficial decisions? How can they have confidence that time, effort and capital are being spent effectively?

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10404533-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

  21. I don’t feel that the many variables affecting global temperature have been well considered.

    Such as ….. Which of the many variables do you think are being neglected?

    I feel that rhetoric and a rush for funding may have influenced researchers to ignore contradictory data.

    Such as …. Can you give us an example of this contradictory data climatologists are ignoring?

  22. Marion Delgado

    I’ll make the radical suggestion that the denialist commenters are intractable. If you feel negative emotions seeing their nonsense, either avoid them once you’ve got a handle on their nyms, or better, channel it into something that more obviously moves the public debate a little bit in the right direction.

  23. cernunnus

    Contradictory data? Really? Isn’t that what this thread is all about? I suggest you read the source documents that started this discussion.

  24. cernunnus

    And let’s turn it around. What untainted data can be presented supporting anthrogenic climate change?

  25. V.O.R.

    The problem, Marion, is that no one is speaking to them in their own language. I’d think our hosts, given their book, would realize that you need to adapt your message to suit your audience.

    Please observe:

    “Everyone knows the deniers are just POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. They have no actual science! This is a FACT. All the cherry picking in the world will not change this FACT. While it’s different in their own self-contained bubble-blogosphere, in the real-world CONTEXT and EVIDENCE matter. With their reaction to these relatively FEW e-mails their position is finally EXPOSED as what it has always been: A nutty CONSPIRACY theory. They’ll kick and scream, but in the end they’ll go the way of the flat earthers.”

    See? Outrageous, declarative statements. Heavy use of ALL-CAP, if you can master the technique.

    Ya just gotta know how to rap with the kidz, yo.

    I’m sure this’ll clear everything up. Though you may need to make a bunch of repetitive and redundant requests for information or “clarification” first. To get their attention.

  26. Read the Code

    The smoking gun is in the code that generates their figures. The programmer even labelled it “fudge factor.”

    n two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the “correction” is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the “adjustment” routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn’t kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I’m familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

    Here’s the “fudge factor” (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

  27. Toaster…

    Took me a couple seconds to google some proof…

    This guy only has 6 degrees and a PHD, too… Climate, like everything in the entire universe, is cyclical. The world is now cooling, that’s a fact. And if you weren’t lazy about it, it would take you about 5 minutes to google up your own proof.

    Cheers

  28. Contradictory data? Really? Isn’t that what this thread is all about? I suggest you read the source documents that started this discussion.

    I thought this thread was about jumping to conclusions? You’re telling me I have to read through 200 megabytes of hacked emails to puzzle out what you consider contradictory data? If the answer is so apparent, I’d expect you could give an example.

    Instead, I get the standard skeptic’s answer to the question. You’re troubled by something you can’t quite put your finger on, but you’re absolutely certain it brings into doubt 30 years of climate science by thousands of researchers.

    All we need to do to resolve your doubts is give you every email, every notebook, every iteration of every computer code (along with instructions on how to run it and annotations of known hacks and bugs), transcripts of every phone conversation climatologists have had in their professional lives, every byte of data ever recorded, along with the resignations of the researchers deemed suspect…

    And then you’ll do what, again?

  29. Mike

    I just had to come to this blog to see how the global warming creationists would spin this devastating story. Not surprisingly you’ve stuck to the dogma like other religious zealots.

    This is not a nail in the coffin – this is is a bucket of dirt beginning to cover it.

    I’m sure it hurts to put so much time and effort into something like this. You just want…make that need to hang on. But fellas, it’s time for a new cause — Save The Whales!

  30. And let’s turn it around. What untainted data can be presented supporting anthrogenic climate change?

    I’m guessing from the phrasing of the question that you consider all climate data “tainted”.

    But assuming you’re asking a serious question, the overwhelming majority of climate data is freely and openly available on the internet (no FOIA request necessary) and you can find it by Googling “climate data sources”.

    Virtually every study ever published can be found either online or at your nearest University.

  31. Mat C. must have the George C. Marshall Foundation confused with the George C. Marshall Institute. The Marshall Foundation is the keper of the flae. We protect and promote the legacy of George C. Marshall. Check http://www.marshallfoundation.org.

    The George C. Marshall Institute is the think tank at denies global warming, among other positions it holds. It’s a shame they must use the greatness of George Marshall for cover. When you know the differences our organizations, their name choice must surely ruin their credibility.

    Rick Drake

  32. bilbo

    “Virtually every study ever published can be found either online or at your nearest University.”

    An excellent point, Jinchi. All throughout the politcally-motivated barrage of stupidity that has been the now 400-plus denialist comments on the last few posts here, I’ve noticed a common thread amongst the Silly Little Denialists: they seem to be totally ignorant that not only published climate science but entire raw datasets are freely available to the public on the internet. And yet they rant about “secrecy” and “hiding data?”

    What world do they live in? It’s like I’m taking crazy pills…

  33. MartinM

    The smoking gun is in the code that generates their figures. The programmer even labelled it “fudge factor.”

    Believe it or not, there’s an even more blatant example:

    To overcome these problems, the decline is artificially removed from the calibrated tree-ring density series, for the purpose of making a final calibration. The removal is only temporary, because the final calibration is then applied to the unadjusted data set (i.e., without the decline artificially removed).

    This one was cunningly hidden in the peer-reviewed literature, where no AGW denier would ever think to look.

  34. cernunnus

    Well, since you insist on examples, start here:
    http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html

    And I’m not denying climate change. I’m saying I’m sceptical of anthrogenic climate change, for reasons described in this paper, and others. The controversy fueling this discussion casts doubt upon many of the models. Again, I’m not saying they will turn out to be wrong in the long run, but that they must be verified WITHOUT manipulated data. I also believe that many of the actions we may take in to alleviate anthrogenic climate change, may still be valuable for other reasons. Alternative energy sources to replace limited fossil fuels will serve us well in the long run, but may not really affect the climate cycle — or, when we know more, we may find that they may. My point is that we are making decisions based upon potentially incomplete models, which may have additionally been fed with bad data. The models’ results need to be verified without the questionable data, then the models themselves viewed more critically, examined in light of the certainty with which their conclusions are being presented, and the conclusions themselves shown to be presented in their enirety.

  35. Artaban

    From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center:

    “The average October [2009] temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data. For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record.”

    And the graph showing Jan-Oct 2009 Temperature (note that most of the map falls into the “Below Normal” and “Much Below Normal” categories:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=Divisionaltrank&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif

  36. Well, since you insist on examples, start here:

    Patrick Frank’s Skeptic article which you cite is one of a pair of editorials published together in a point-counterpoint style (Yes AGW exists / No it doesn’t). It’s opinion, not science, although it’s written in a sciency format.

    Who is Patrick Frank? We’re told he’s a Ph.D. chemist with more than 50 peer-reviewed articles, which is great I suppose, although we aren’t told what his research focus is and he makes no claim to have done any climate science. What he’s attempted to do here is an error propagation analysis on a pair of figures from the IPCC report. Among his conclusions:

    the present uncertainty limit in General Circulation Models is at least ±100 degrees per century, we are left in total ignorance about the temperature effect of increasing CO2.

    That should have sent up a red flag when you read it. Do the GCM’s really create swings of ±100 degrees when given different input? No, they don’t. Not even close.

    How does he get that result? He notes that climate models don’t perfectly predict cloud cover, states that this results in an uncertainty of 1.1 C in any year, then multiplies by 100 and claims that that is the uncertainty in the models themselves and concludes.

    When it comes to future climate, no one knows what they’re talking about.

    In other words, Patrick Frank thinks the entire field of climatologists are idiots.

    The Skeptic article has neither peer review, not comments, but fortunately you can see a pretty robust rebuttal and counterpoint between NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt and Pat Frank himself here. The argument starts when Frank arrives around comment 340 and continues on for dozens of entries (Frank shows up as a commenter. Gavin’s arguments are in green beginning as “Response”).

  37. bilbo

    Uh oh, Artaban. That sounds scary – almost like we’re in some sort of crazy cooling phase!!!

    but then you look at the whole world versus your cherry-picked single continent, and October becomes the sixth warmest on record rather than the 3rd coolest. (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report) Note that I also used the NOAA’s climate data center so that, if you choose the Silly Little Denialist tactic of attacking my data source, you’ll look like a Silly Little Hypocrite, as well.

    Oops, Artaban! What just happened?!

    You just got exposed as a Silly, Cherry-Picking, Lying Little Denialist, that’s what.

  38. bilbo

    …and then there’s this, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:

    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091103_Figure3.png

    Quoting their press release: October sea ice extent in the Arctic in 2009 is the 2nd lowest amount of sea ice on record. The record low ice extent this month is the first extended period of record minimum Arctic sea ice since 2007. The new record minimum suggests that the gains in ice seen over the past two years, touted by many as evidence that climate change was failing to materialize, were likely only a temporary fluctuation due to normal year-to-year variability in the weather, and that the long-term Arctic sea ice decline observed since the 1970s is continuing.

    But this is all just a hoax….

  39. Again, I’m not saying they will turn out to be wrong in the long run, but that they must be verified WITHOUT manipulated data.

    Again, what manipulated data? Even the Franks article doesn’t allege manipulated data, his claim is that we couldn’t predict the future climate even with perfect data.

    More to the point, are you assuming that all studies of climate include the same climate data? They don’t. You can easily find studies that don’t use any data in common and they still reach the same fundamental consensus – humans are driving a dramatic and rapid change in the Earth’s climate.

    My point is that we are making decisions based upon potentially incomplete models

    Models are always incomplete. Waiting for perfect knowledge before making a decision is a good way to end up dead.

  40. bilbo

    …and hawking about “incomplete models” is a denialist hallmark, and one that reveals how little they understand (or even attempt to understand) about science.

  41. cernunnus

    The potentially manipulated data is the data set we’re talking about regarding “Climategate,” which are included in the data sets used for the a great number of the climate models Either the dataset now needs to be verified or the models that have used run without it to verify their results based upon their current variables. I’m not assuming that all models use the same data, nor, necessarily, that they all use this data. But the oft-quoted studies and models DO. To know that we are seeing the results of clean data, we need verification of the data sets used. The models need not be incomplete, insofar as they COULD include all KNOWN variables. At present, we can’t make a solid, scientific case for CO2 driven climate change. We can only state that CO2 and temp have both risen — no direct causation a=has been shown. Periods of rising CO2 and dropping temperature have also not been reconciled with this assertion. Not saying it’s necessarily false, just that we can’t make that determination using scientific method, and therefore it has no solid data to back it up. We should absolutely move forward with initiatives that have benefits beyond CO2 reduction for our communities, but pursuing CO2 reduction as our ultimate or only goal is not indicated by the results at this time.

  42. MartinM

    …but then you look at the whole world versus your cherry-picked single continent, and October becomes the sixth warmest on record rather than the 3rd coolest.

    Good catch, but you’re treating him with more legitimacy than he deserves. Climate is a multi-decadal phenomenon; talking about trends over periods of less than a decade is meaningless, let alone highlighting a single month.

  43. bilbo

    Good point, Martin. I was simply going one rung better on the cherry-picking ladder. It is quite pleasing to see the “global cooling” and “the ice has stopped melting!!!” fluctuations ending and going back to the same old trends that confirm AGW and that the Silly Little Denialists will still deny…and have been denying for going on three decades.

    If I used the word “multidecadal” and talked about long-term trends with Artaban, though, I’d get accused of using “fancy words” to confuse “normal people” and get a homemade Excel plot of temperatures thrown in my face from Jim Somebody’s denialist blog.

    Then when I successfully picked it apart, Atraban would throw a vague hypothetical in my direction to deflect everyone from my dismissal of him, and then he’d bring up a new point.

  44. Artaban

    Bilbo,

    If you look at the two links I provided, they were for the month of October (North America) and the year-to-date for the continent. There is a massive amount of data available on the NOAA site, and I appreciate the info. The link at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/ (Global Climate at a Glance) was down for maintenance when I visited.

    You might want to avoid claiming omniscience and knowledge of the personal motivations or ideological positions of complete strangers. There are people out there that will consider credible data–and who may not simply have had the time to wade through the massive amount provided by the NOAA, especially on Thanksgiving break.

    You would be doing your chosen cause–and science in general–a favor if you were to take a more rational approach to things rather than lambasting everyone who dares to question you with inaccurate and insulting labels.

    You’ll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar (as is very apparent by the fact that several people in your camp have become disgusted enough with you to ask you to stop the ad hominem attacks and 3rd grade behavior). You’re actually doing the “denialists” a favor–who wants to be associated with someone so full of anger and contempt?

    There are not simply two positions in regard to this issue, as you seem to suggest. To say there are only two “sides” is a gross mischaracterization of the complexities involved in this issue. Even the AGW camp is split into divisions. The basic camps I see include (but by no means are limited to):

    1) Those who believe man has caused global warming (AGW).
    2) Those who believe warming is happening, but are skeptical that man is the cause.
    3) AGW believers that think we can do something to mitigate man’s influence on the environment.
    4) Those who believe it is unrealistic to think we can curb man’s influence, or the growing pollution of developing nations like India and China. Among this group, there are those who think the more rational approach is to adapt to the warming.
    5) Those who point out the Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, and that we were/are coming out of an ice age anyway.
    6) Global warming denialists.
    7) Global warming alarmists.

    Denialists and alarmists are quite alike in that they denounce anyone who is skeptical or opposed to their positions as “idiots” and enemies. They are so entrenched in their positions they brook no questions, and are immune to new data. Amusingly, in this regard, bilbo shares the traits he finds so intolerable among his hated “denialists”. Who’s the hypocrite, bilbo? :)

    7) AGW believers that differ vastly in their approach to solving the problem. For instance, Steven Chu, US Secretary of Energy, stated we could do more for the climate by replacing roofs and asphalt with white/lightly colored material (an albedo-based solution) than by eliminating all the cars in America. Others have suggested a space-based solution, and still others artificial devices to scrub the carbon from the air. There is certainly no “consensus” on how to deal with warming, even among those who think it’s our number 1 concern.
    8) Skeptics who favor acting responsibly to mitigate man’s effects on the environment, even if we aren’t the source of the change. Such skeptics think it’s a mistake to worry primarily about CO2, to the exclusion of multiple factors.

    I’d place myself in category #8. We may be causing the warming, but other factors may be primary or dominant (see my post on increased solar irradiance and albedo in one of the other threads). I’m frankly more concerned about methane (from the thawing Siberian permafrost, and adoption of Western, cow-based diets) than CO2. And there are other industrial processes that could serve to limit or enhance warming.

    One of the great tragedies in this whole thing is that you’ve dragged a beloved and honorable figure (Bilbo Baggins) through the mud with your seething rage and childishness. Don’t you have something better to do than personally respond to every other post?

    Man, it’s Thanksgiving weekend–get out and enjoy your family and friends rather than trolling these boards like a creature who’s had his “precious” stolen (that’s who you remind me of–Gollum would’ve been the better handle for you). Poor little bilbo…

  45. It’s nice to now confirm Artaban is not just a dupe, but a liar. Presenting U.S. temp. data as global data is not just cherry picking, it is lying. NOAA shows the continental U.S. as one just a few places on Earth for which 2009 was a cooler than normal year:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-land-sfc-mntp&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif

  46. Also, note on the graph the enormous (+4-5C) positive anomalies in Alaska and the Russian Arctic. It is the Arctic that is warming fastest.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-land-sfc-mntp&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif

  47. The potentially manipulated data is the data set we’re talking about regarding “Climategate”

    So, the data you’re talking about is the data you’re talking about?

    I can only assume that you believe that every bit of data archived by the research group at East Anglia has been falsified. You apparently believe this based on the fragments of emails released by the people who hacked the CRU, undoubtedly with the explicit intent of attacking climate science. (Because if you can’t believe an anonymous hacker, who can you believe?)

    You also apparently believe that all major studies of climate change are dependent on the East Anglia group for their data (or are co-conspirators in a fraud) including NASA and NOAA.

    At present, we can’t make a solid, scientific case for CO2 driven climate change. We can only state that CO2 and temp have both risen — no direct causation has been shown.

    This goes well beyond your claim that you’re just skeptical of anthrogenic climate change. Now you’re saying that you don’t event believe the fundamental physics behind global warming theory. Maybe you can clarify. Do you not believe that we can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, that we can measure it’s change over time, or that we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? And, if you don’t believe even the most basic aspect of the science, why bother verifying the data or the models?

  48. Artaban

    Welcome back Doug! Nice to see the blog’s favorite psychic is back. Judging souls and reading minds again, are we? Don’t quit your day job. While you’re trying to spin the NOAA data I posted as false proof that I’m “a liar”, why don’t you divine for all to see my age and weight?

    I never made any claim that the North American temperatures I showed were representative of the globe, as you claim. I clearly posted what they were, and thanked bilbo for the wider context when he posted it. And FYI, the Global Climate at a Glance is still down on the NOAA site, as of this posting.

    What the North American data forces us to question is what other variables (other than CO2) are in play or more dominant. Since NA accounts for 20-25% of manmade CO2, why is it the third coldest October on record, and the YTD temp so much below average? (If CO2 were dominant, it should be warmer not colder).

    It’s unsurprising to anyone that knows anything about aerosols and albedo that the Arctic is warming more quickly, but it’s wrong to assume it’s manmade CO2 causing that warming. Trying to treat the problem with the wrong cure will only set us back.

    From the 1970s onward, America and Europe enacted legislation to curtail industrial sulfate emissions, which have a net global cooling effect (so in a sense, the environmentalism of one generation contributed to the problem of the next).

    As I mentioned earlier, the Siberian permafrost trapped lots of methane, which is now being released. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. The Arctic ice reflected a substantial amount of sunlight, so of course the warming is going to start a positive feedback loop if a little warming occurs. Again, one of the many questions is, can we stop those natural processes (methane emission, ice albedo elimination), or would we be throwing good money after bad with CO2-based “interventions”.

    Since you mentioned the Arctic Warming, I thought you might find the following article interesting, as it marginalizes CO2 as the influence for such “Arctic anomalies”.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html

    “A new study, led by climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, used a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols.

    The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience.

    (My comment: This just emphasizes my point that we need to know how multiple/most of the climate variables are effecting us, instead of fixating on one, or we won’t be able to exert any sort of influence over the situation–indeed if we even can.) Back to the article:

    “We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide,” Shindell said. “If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we’re much better off looking at aerosols and ozone…

    “This is an important model study, RAISING LOTS OF QUESTIONS THAT WILL NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED (emphasis mine) with field research,” said Loretta Mickley, an atmospheric chemist from Harvard University…”

    Bilbo and Doug, when you start to quibble about this data, and dismiss the other science that needs to be done on climate change, take it up with the experts at NASA and Harvard. It’s their data, not mine.

  49. Since NA accounts for 20-25% of manmade CO2, why is it the third coldest October on record, and the YTD temp so much below average?

    1.) Because air moves.
    2.) Because climate is complicated.

    Why not repeat your experiment for any random year or month. Sometimes the US is hotter than average, sometimes colder. Climate change is about the long term global average not about whether this month or day or even year is the new record holder. The long term trend is the same everywhere. Your argument falls into the “global warming is a myth because it’s cold outside” category of denialism.

  50. bilbo

    Artaban,

    That was a long diatribe with a lot pejoratives but (predictably) with little to nothing to back them up. That’s the funny thing about pejoratives and accusations: they don’t hold water if you don’t try to back them up.

    You made this statement: We may be causing the warming, but other factors may be primary or dominant (see my post on increased solar irradiance and albedo in one of the other threads).

    Clear up the confusion surrounding just how well you udnerstand climate science for us by answering the following (I’ll bold it for you since a lot of folks here seem to be unable to answer my simple questions): do climate scientists account for albedo and solar irradiance when studying the effects of CO2 on our climate system?

    As I told JA on the other post, a failure to answer (or deflection) will strongly damage your credibility.

  51. bilbo

    Since NA accounts for 20-25% of manmade CO2, why is it the third coldest October on record

    Because it’s not. It’s the “third coldest October on record” for the continental U.S. alone. When you stop cherry-picking and look at the entire globe, it’s the sixth warmest October on record.

    And when you stop cherry-picking a single month, the long-term climate records show that the Earth as a whole is warming.

  52. bilbo

    Bilbo and Doug, when you start to quibble about this data, and dismiss the other science that needs to be done on climate change, take it up with the experts at NASA and Harvard. It’s their data, not mine.

    …says Artaban, who spent the 12 paragraphs preceding the quoted one above “quibbling” about the aforemnetioned data.

    Oh, the irony! And the hypocrisy!

  53. MartinM

    Since NA accounts for 20-25% of manmade CO2, why is it the third coldest October on record, and the YTD temp so much below average? (If CO2 were dominant, it should be warmer not colder).

    …oh, dear.

  54. bilbo

    It’s like talking to a concrete-block wall, isn’t it MartinM?

  55. MartinM

    I’ve never heard a wall say something quite that daft.

  56. Innocentious

    Okay look Cliamtegate is not something to ignore. If these emails had been about the Iraq war, from a financial institution, or any number of other sources the public would be looking for blood. Also it was not just the emails that should be troubling to people but the code. I am a computer programmer by trade and not having the raw data I cannot say exactly what the code was doing but I can tell you that the transformations they were using look highly suspect.

    Look in the end this is not going away. I am excited that this will allow a greater degree of transparency and we can get over the whole science is settled bit… Oh and for the record many places where they keep local temperatures for the past century show that many cities and places ( especially rural ones ) show absolutely 0 warming. None. Not one iota, a few even show cooling. I have made it a habit of actually stopping in some cities and going through old temperature data as Climatic Science is a hobby of mine. However when I see what the NOAA or the GISS says they clearly show warming occurring. Just noting this.

  57. Pat Frank

    Jinchi #37, you’ve completely misunderstood my Skeptic article. It’s also very clear you didn’t bother to read the Supporting Information document, which contains all the analysis supporting the article and which is freely available on the Skeptic web site.

    Here’s an important point about science for you, Jinchi. Who makes the analysis is irrelevant. Whether the analysis is correct, or wrong, is relevant. Your dismissal of the Skeptic article, based in ‘he’s not a climate scientist,’ is scientifically fatuous.

    “A Climate of Belief” [Skeptic 14(1)] was indeed peer-reviewed; first by all the scientists listed in the acknowledgments, second prior to publication by two climate scientists recruited by Michael Shermer, and third by the scientists on the web against whose criticisms I defended the article, including Gavin Schmidt on RealClimate. If you read that exchange through to the end, you’ll see my defense was successful. Gavin was reduced to claiming an asymptotic log plot was wrong because log(0) is undefined. In his mind, this apparently falsified the entire analysis. Go figure.

    The article showed inter alia that climate models make a minimal +/-10.1% error in cloud cover, resulting in a +/-2.7 W/m^2 error in cloud feedback. This error equals the entire excess forcing of 20th century human GHG’s. How are climate models supposed to demonstrate an effect that is already lost within a lower limit of uncertainty?

    The whole business of climate futures is an exercise in false precision, in which the IPCC and its supporters are tendentiously silent about the enormous unknowns.

    Further, Demetris Koutsoyiannis has published two papers, in the last couple of years, testing climate model predictions against the 20 years of the climate record they purportedly predicted. The result was that climate models are revealed to have no predictive value whatever. Free access to his papers is here: http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/864/ Climate models are entirely unreliable, and their predictions of both future global and regional climates, as well as concerning the effect of increased CO2 are without scientific standing.

  58. If these emails had been about the Iraq war, from a financial institution, or any number of other sources the public would be looking for blood.

    Here we go again.

    Exactly what email do you think was so outrageous that anyone would be looking for blood? Because so far, I’ve seen nothing alarming at all.

    I am a computer programmer by trade and not having the raw data I cannot say exactly what the code was doing but I can tell you that the transformations they were using look highly suspect.

    What code are you talking about? Have you tried looking for the raw data? Do you realize most of the raw data used by climatologists is online? And how can you say that the transformations look suspect if you don’t know what the code was doing?

  59. The news varies depending on the political views of the organization but some blogs and newspapers/television claim that this hack has revealed that human caused global warming has been faked. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is my opinion:

    To date, there has not been a single credible journal article that shows a natural cause for the modern day warming while also showing how record high greenhouse gas concentrations are not significant.

    NOT ONE.

    Do people really believe that the scientists at CRU are able to squelch every scientist on the planet who tried to publish a landmark anti-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true?

    If one throws out the HadCRU data and all papers by these folks, there is still a mountain of evidence for AGW.

    Do the rapidly melting ice sheets and glaciers have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

    Do the various climate models that show GHGs as the dominant forcing mechanism have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

    Do the GISS, UAH, RSS data have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy? Certainly Spencer and Christy (UAH crew and noted skeptics) would not align themselves with AGW and yet their satellite-derived measurements track reasonably with GISS, RSS, and HadCRU.

    Does the ocean read these emails and magically increase its heat content?

    Does the cooling stratosphere (even accounting for ozone loss) read the emails and join in on the hoax?

    Do the plants and animals read these emails and decide to die off and/or change their migratory habits so that they can support the conspiracy?

    I could go on ad infinitum.

    For quite a long time, we have known that a doubling of CO2 will warm the climate at least 1C and there is fairly good certainty that the resulting feedbacks will produce at least 2C additional warming with 3C more likely. We are also measuring CO2 increases of 2 ppm and climbing (except last year where there was a slight decrease due to the global recession) and we have levels that have not been seen in the past 15 million years.

    Are we to conclude that these emails deny all of this evidence?

    It is obvious that pre-Copenhagen, the tried and true method of “if one does not like the message then attack the messenger or redirect the conversation” practiced by Big Tobacco and now ExxonMobil and its front groups (Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc.) is alive and well.

    Scott A. Mandia – Professor, Meteorologist, Concerned Citizen
    http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/

  60. Here’s an important point about science for you, Jinchi. Who makes the analysis is irrelevant. Whether the analysis is correct, or wrong, is relevant. Your dismissal of the Skeptic article, based in ‘he’s not a climate scientist,’ is scientifically fatuous.

    Pat, the article leads with a description of you as a a Ph.D. chemist with more than 50 peer-reviewed articles. It’s the first thing we read when seeing the article. What it the purpose of that statement other than to establish your credentials as someone whose analysis is relevant? They wouldn’t have introduced the article in the same way if you’d been a plumber or even a heart surgeon.

    If you read that exchange through to the end, you’ll see my defense was successful.

    I did read the exchange through to the end, and your analysis was rebutted on a point by point basis. In fact far from dismissing your opinion, I linked to the RealClimate discussion instead of other rebuttals so that cernunnus or anybody else could follow the argument, including your own defense.

    This is where your article really annoyed me:

    A proper assessment of their physical reliability would include propagating all the parameter uncertainties through the GCMs, and then reporting the total uncertainty. I have looked in vain for such a study.

    Didn’t you start out by bragging about being a Ph.D. chemist with 50 peer reviewed publications? Doesn’t that suggest you’re qualified to do the study yourself? Why are you playing with toy models of what you think GCMs do instead of doing the analysis through the actual GCMs?

    No one seems to ever have directly assessed the total physical reliability of a GCM by propagating the parameter uncertainties through it. In the usual physical sciences, an analysis like this is required practice. But not in GCM science, apparently, and so the same people who express alarm about future warming disregard their own profound ignorance.

    And there you’ve just impugned the entire climate science community. Thousands of researchers, none of whom you apparently consider bright enough to perform a calculation that you can do on the back of an envelope in your spare time.

  61. slick

    This is about bias????? NO! This is about corruption of science. Quit crying abour republicans and read the fn file. …..Perversion of the “peer review” process, Aviodence of FOI requests including destruction of data; oh yea that little “harry read me” file showing beyond a doubt that cru’s temp data is worthless at best and quite likely fraudulent! Just who are the deniers??????????

  62. Wil

    I just read that the East Anglia University CRU will be releasing all of their climate data, and that a criminal investigation against Dr. Phil Jones has commenced regarding his flouting of the UK’s Freedom of Information Act.

    It is a shame that it has taken heavy international pressure as well as criminal investigators to make this happen, when the traditional scientific method and national law have required that the raw data and the processed data be released to the public, all along.

  63. Wil

    I also just read that the British government is supervising the formation of a committee to investigate the East Anglia University CRU, and that Prime Minister Brown is currently considering a petition to stop the CRU from all involvement in climate research work until the investigation has been completed, and corrective actions (if any) have been completed.

    It is nice to see them addressing this issue promptly and with level heads.

  64. Demetris Koutsoyiannis has published two papers, in the last couple of years, testing climate model predictions against the 20 years of the climate record they purportedly predicted. The result was that climate models are revealed to have no predictive value whatever.

    From the abstract:

    Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe.

    To summarize, Koutsoyiannis et al. took the measured temperature time series at 8 points on the globe and compared them to the results of individual GCM runs by interpolating the 4 nearest pixels to each station (that’s the time series for 32 pixels total). The climate science community specifically notes that the models are not predictive for anything smaller than continental scale and the results of the study are not only unsurprising, they are completely predictable. Koutsoyiannis et al. could have saved themselves some effort by simply comparing individual pixels across different model runs to make the same point (no data required).

    Climatologists don’t use the models to predict the temperature in, say, Detroit, and for you to claim that it also doesn’t predict the temperature in Paris, London and Beijing doesn’t prove that the GCMs have no predictive value for the globe as a whole. This is akin to scoffing that a yardstick with an accuracy of 1 inch is a useless tool for measuring a sandbox, because it can’t accurately measure the tiniest grains of sand.

    Neither you nor Koutsoyiannis et al. seem to be aware that it’s possible to have higher accuracy over the long term at large scales than over the short term at small scales, nor do you seem to understand that the uncertainty of a system of dependent variables is not identical to the compounded uncertainty of each of the individual variables. This is the reason that you scoff a the idea of ensemble averages and why you concluded that the uncertainty of GCMs is more than 100 degrees per century (despite the demonstrable fact that they don’t).

  65. Sorbet

    My problem is not with the existence of global warming and the contribution of man to it, since both have been shown to be highly probable with the extensive gathering of experimental data. My problem is with the predictive value of GW models since they are necessarily computer based, and computer based prediction in complex systems is fraught with problems; just think of the models used in finance and in drug design. For starters, how could you incorporate chaos and emergent phenomena in your models, a recurring problem. Plus, how would you know you haven’t overfit?

  66. Pat Frank

    Jinchi 65

    Demetris Koutsoyiannis has published two papers, in the last couple of years, testing climate model predictions against the 20 years of the climate record they purportedly predicted. The result was that climate models are revealed to have no predictive value whatever.

    From the abstract:
    Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe.

    To summarize, Koutsoyiannis et al. took the measured temperature time series at 8 points on the globe and compared them to the results of individual GCM runs by interpolating the 4 nearest pixels to each station (that’s the time series for 32 pixels total). The climate science community specifically notes that the models are not predictive for anything smaller than continental scale and the results of the study are not only unsurprising, they are completely predictable. Koutsoyiannis et al. could have saved themselves some effort by simply comparing individual pixels across different model runs to make the same point (no data required).

    Grid-points, not pixels Note in passing: it’s striking how climate modelers, and their non-scientist AGW supporters, claim that the models are accurate only at “continental scale,” in the face of criticism and then turn right around and warn about impending local droughts, desertification, floods, increased storm intensity, and so forth, when all of those events are on sub-continental scales — some of them on square mile scale. The alarmist opportunism is shameless.

    To your point, though, you show the same error as many GCM modelers when you suppose that intercomparison among models is the same experiment as comparison of models with observation. They are not the same. Models do not predict the outputs of other models. They predict the observables of future events. It is not a test of model validity to compare its output with that of another model. It is a test of model reliability to compare its output with the predicted observables.

    That’s what Koutsoyiannis, et al. did. The GCMs failed dismally, even though DK, ea., set up the experiment to maximize the likelihood of model accuracy.

    It’s also peculiar only to climate science to claim that a model is wrong at all levels except at large scales. We’re supposed to believe that a sum of errors leads to accuracy. Do you know of any other science where this is claimed true? Certainly not Chemistry.

    Climatologists don’t use the models to predict the temperature in, say, Detroit, and for you to claim that it also doesn’t predict the temperature in Paris, London and Beijing doesn’t prove that the GCMs have no predictive value for the globe as a whole.

    Climate modelers don’t restrict their predictions to global averages. They predict the ice at Pt. Barrow, for example, and in the northern straits, and around Antarctica, which predictions are the sum of grid-point precipitations. They predict future sea surface temperatures in contours, which are gradients of grid-point predictions. Likewise for contours of future land temperatures. Every futures climate prediction made by GCMs are gradients of local grid-point predictions. And so the GCMs do, indeed, “predict the temperature in Paris, London and Beijing,” but as grid points entering future climate topologies. And once again, you’d have everyone believe that a series of errors adds up to an accurate result.

    This is akin to scoffing that a yardstick with an accuracy of 1 inch is a useless tool for measuring a sandbox, because it can’t accurately measure the tiniest grains of sand.

    Incomplete analogy. It’s criticism of using a yardstick suffering from curvature of unknown extreme and distortion while insisting it’s straight.

    Neither you nor Koutsoyiannis et al. seem to be aware that it’s possible to have higher accuracy over the long term at large scales than over the short term at small scales,…

    Explain how the sum of errors in time and space leads to accurate outcomes.

    nor do you seem to understand that the uncertainty of a system of dependent variables is not identical to the compounded uncertainty of each of the individual variables.

    That’s not the point. Uncertainty in intermediate results propagate forward in step-wise calculations. Physical uncertainty propagation is completely ignored in time-step predictions of CO2-induced warming, and in predictions of all aspects of future climate.

    This is the reason that you scoff a the idea of ensemble averages…

    I don’t recall scoffing at ensemble averages. However, now that you’ve raised the point, ensembles from different climate models are almost worthless, because each model is constructed somewhat differently. That means their error manifolds will have different structures. The numerical standard deviation (SD) — the precision of the outputs — is therefore not very useful. A proper ensemble average is taken from multiple runs of the same model, so that the variance has meaning about model precision.

    Nevertheless, the IPCC and others continually show the numerical SDs of ensembles of multiple models, as though that showed the reliability of the projected result. It doesn’t. Not only is such a standard deviation physically meaningless, but even numerically it’s an almost useless measure of model variability.

    and why you concluded that the uncertainty of GCMs is more than 100 degrees per century (despite the demonstrable fact that they don’t).

    From the parenthetical of your sentence, it seems clear you’re supposing that the large uncertainty in prediction is the same as claiming that a GCM will predict a 100 degree excursion in 100 years. But that’s not what the uncertainty means at all. I was careful to explain the meaning in the Skeptic paper. It means that the prediction made by the model is far, far smaller than the uncertainty in the prediction. The analogy I used is that it’s like looking through a badly distorted lens and supposing that a large fuzzy blurry blob is a house with a cat in the window. I.e., a claim to resolve the cat, when one can’t even resolve that the blur is a house. GCM futures predictions are like that.

    The 2 C increase in temperature for year 2100 has a huge uncertainty. Except no one knows what it is, because no one has bothered to propagate the errors and uncertainties through the physical theory of the GCMs used to make the predictions. There’s an inconvenient truth for you.

  67. Pat Frank

    moderator, why haven’t you posted my reply to comment 61?

  68. zqa

    “Warming” IS occurring throughout the ENTIRE Galaxy, which is why all of the planets have changed colors in the last 5 years. People need to STOP confining their compartmentalized minds to their little box. Pay attention, look around. We have moved into a part of the universe of Higher Energy, which is causing the particles of EVERYTHING to increase in vibration, which Physicists HAVE already proven. This is also causing Solar Energy to compress, which is why the Sun looks so much different and brighter. The core of the Earth is slowing down, which is contributing to the degeneration of the Magnetic Field. Mainstream Science is IGNORANCE. Start looking into the work of Nassim Haramein and other such Physicists. MAN HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING, PERIOD.

    The mainstream Scientific mind is akin to ‘Monkey’-mindedness. Very left brained and thinks in a 1…..2…..3…..4 manner, incapable of big picture thinking. Like peck-typing on a keyboard when they have a touch screen, like staring at one corner of a picture instead of seeing the WHOLE picture. Pay attention to YOUR OWN Lives and what is coming forth from within You and You WILL Know what is occurring. Everything is Vibrating Energy, and the Energy IS increasing in Vibration, BECAUSE WE HAVE MOVED INTO AN AREA OF THE UNIVERSE OF HIGHER ENERGY. Look at the Atom, Look at the Solar System, Look at the Galaxy, and so on and so forth. IT IS LIKE A MANDLEBROT FRACTAL. All spinning, rotating and moving through the Universe. LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE. WE MUST STOP THINKING LIKE 1 2 3 4, A B C D E F G, that ignorant state of mind is killing us all.

    Zqa
    ~108~

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

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

About Sheril Kirshenbaum

Sheril Kirshenbaum is a research scientist with the Webber Energy Group at the University of Texas at Austin's Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy where she works on projects to enhance public understanding of energy issues as they relate to food, oceans, and culture. She is involved in conservation initiatives across levels of government, working to improve communication between scientists, policymakers, and the public. Sheril is the author of The Science of Kissing, which explores one of humanity's fondest pastimes. She also co-authored Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future with Chris Mooney, chosen by Library Journal as one of the Best Sci-Tech Books of 2009 and named by President Obama's science advisor John Holdren as his top recommended read. Sheril contributes to popular publications including Newsweek, The Washington Post, Discover Magazine, and The Nation, frequently covering topics that bridge science and society from climate change to genetically modified foods. Her writing is featured in the anthology The Best American Science Writing 2010. In 2006 Sheril served as a legislative Knauss science fellow on Capitol Hill with Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) where she was involved in energy, climate, and ocean policy. She also has experience working on pop radio and her work has been published in Science, Fisheries Bulletin, Oecologia, and Issues in Science and Technology. In 2007, she helped to found Science Debate; an initiative encouraging candidates to debate science research and innovation issues on the campaign trail. Previously, Sheril was a research associate at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment and has served as a Fellow with the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation at the American Museum of Natural History and as a Howard Hughes Research Fellow. She has contributed reports to The Nature Conservancy and provided assistance on international protected area projects. Sheril serves as a science advisor to NPR's Science Friday and its nonprofit partner, Science Friday Initiative. She also serves on the program committee for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). She speaks regularly around the country to audiences at universities, federal agencies, and museums and has been a guest on such programs as The Today Show and The Daily Rundown on MSNBC. Sheril is a graduate of Tufts University and holds two masters of science degrees in marine biology and marine policy from the University of Maine. She co-hosts The Intersection on Discover blogs with Chris Mooney and has contributed to DeSmogBlog, Talking Science, Wired Science and Seed. She was born in Suffern, New York and is also a musician. Sheril lives in Austin, Texas with her husband David Lowry. Interested in booking Sheril Kirshenbaum to speak at your next event? Contact Hachette Speakers Bureau 866.376.6591 info@hachettespeakersbureau.com For more information, visit her website or email Sheril at srkirshenbaum@yahoo.com.

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 »