The Right Wins the Frame Game in "ClimateGate"

By Chris Mooney | December 7, 2009 12:10 pm

Every time I post about ClimateGate, it seems, Sheril brings me back down a few notches by pointing out that even if this scandal does not change the science of climate change one whit, it nevertheless has major implications for public opinion and the framing of the issue. Indeed, in the public arena, “ClimateGate” hurts badly the cause of curtailing our greenhouse gas emissions, thanks to the way the incident has been spun and used, quite effectively, to suggest that the science of climate is all bogus.

I really don’t disagree with Sheril’s points; rather, I would add the following to them. Back when Bush was president and in power, I and others gained immense momentum by demonstrating–including through internal emails and the like–how the administration and the fossil fuel industry had conspired to undermine the legitimate science of climate change. As Matthew Nisbet would have put it, we therefore successfully exploited a “political wrongdoing” type of framing of the issue; The Republican War on Science helped to crystallize this message.

What’s so insidious about “ClimateGate,” in this sense, is that now the tables have been completely turned. I don’t believe the new charges are nearly as outrageous as the old charges were; I certainly don’t think they support the ridiculous claims about the bankruptcy of climate science they’ve been used to support. But nevertheless, I understand well the power of generating outrage by crusading against those in power and suggesting their malfeasance, wrongdoing, and corruption. Despite the invalidity of their position, you have to credit the Moranos of the world with a brilliant tactical move–and right now, I just can’t say how bad the damage is going to be. All signs at the moment point to massive.

I’ll be saying much more about this tactical side of “ClimateGate” in the coming days.

Comments (284)

  1. Sorbet

    Morano is owned by Andrew Watson. Hear especially his parting line.

  2. ehmoran

    However,

    In 1890’s, Arrhenius built upon Fourier’s assessment of atmospheric properties plotting CO2 and temperature data collected in industrialized England. Arrhenius’ plots and calculations related CO2 and ambient temperatures. Callendar (1930’s) extended the analysis using long term observations from 200 stations reiterating the relation between CO2 and climate warming. Keeling (1950’s) began collecting atmospheric CO2 samples at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii which is the most complete record.

    USGS reports all volcanic activity produces nearly 200-million tons CO2 annually; although much less than human activity production. Mauna Loa, near the Observatory and the world’s most active volcano, had major eruptions in 1950, 1975, and 1984. Atmospheric CO2 levels measured at volcanoes indicate the degree of activity and estimated heat flow from one volcano are reported at140-mW/m2. Correlating CO2 and temperatures data collected near active volcanoes should be significant but not show a cause and effect relation; however, correlating world-wide data significantly shows CO2 lagging temperature by approximately two years. Arrhenius and Callendar analysis similarly could be significantly biased owing to urban heat-island effects and extensive coal burning at the time, as CO2 is an abundant byproduct of burning.

    Apparently, no laboratory control experiment to date, such as in a biodome, has shown CO2 levels influencing ambient temperatures. Tyndall (1861) measured the absorptive characteristics of CO2 followed by more precise measurements by Burch (1970). Absorbance is a measure of the quantity of light (energy) absorbed by a sample (CO2 molecule) and the amount of absorbed energy can be represented as specific heat of a substance. Specific heat of CO2 ranges from 0.791-kJ/kgK at 0-degrees F to 0.871-kJ/kgK at 125-degrees F and average atmospheric concentrations are 0.0306-percent. As revealed, the specific heat of CO2 increases as ambient temperatures increase showing CO2 likely is an ambient temperature buffer.

    The atmosphere contains from 4-percent water vapor in the troposphere to 40-percent near the surface. Specific heat of water vapor relatively remains constant at 1.996-kJ/kgK. Water absorbs energy (heat) and evaporates to water vapor. During condensation (precipitation), latent heat is released to the atmosphere thus increasing ambient temperatures. Water vapor holds the majority of atmospheric heat and regulates climate and temperature more than any compound. Historically, however, water vapor characteristics as related to climate were much less appreciated, but investigations concerning the significance water vapor plays in global climate-dynamics are just beginning.

    Energy not stored in the atmosphere is released into space through radiation. Re-radiation is the emission of previously absorbed radiation by molecules. Specific heat of water vapor and CO2 molecules shows that water vapor reradiates significantly more energy back to the surface and this case further is justified by quantities of each compound. Thus, this synopsis and other publications suggest that minute variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations likely results in an insignificant affect on climate; whereas water vapor likely is the significant factor. Nevertheless, this argument easily could be rectified with an appropriate biodome-type control experiment.

  3. SLC

    Looking at pictures of Morano, for the denialists to call Al Gore fat is rather like the kettle calling the pot blacki.

  4. Rmoen

    Can we all agree that the Climategate emails underscore the need for the United States to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission. The emails tell me the USA must quit outsourcing its climate science to the United Nations. It defies common sense that we allow the UN to both judge (IPCC) and advocate (Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen).

    – Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

  5. Dave McK

    So, when is Discover, the science magazine, going to reveal that CO2 causes sunspots?
    The EPA is about to declare your breath a toxic waste.
    I have to admit that your present article certainly is toxic and a waste.
    I can’t wait to see your Piltdown Science on co2 and Mann made global warming.
    I hope it brings out the militias, quite frankly.

  6. John

    Surprise we would rather look into the data.. How it was collected and compiled.. You guys want (need) to step away from the science part of this scandal and pull it into the political (where your power rests)..

    You talk of damage? Is that to the tweaked studies or the propaganda behind it? We have a number of investigations going on.. Yet your mind is set that you can be nothing but correct.. I wonder as time goes by and more facts get dragged out into the light if you will change your mind on just where the damage occured..

  7. BigPhil25

    Most of these people can not predict the weather for next week never mind what the earth will be like in 50 years.

    There data is fudged and they are fraudsters.

  8. MartinM

    Surprise we would rather look into the data.. How it was collected and compiled.

    GISTEMP data and source code has been available for some time. Get to work.

  9. dean

    Sorbet

    fap. fap. fap.

  10. MartinM

    Most of these people can not predict the weather for next week never mind what the earth will be like in 50 years.

    So you don’t know the difference between weather and climate. Congratulations, you’re officially too ignorant to hold an opinion on this subject.

    There data is fudged and they are fraudsters.

    Prove it.

  11. ehmoran

    @9. MartinM

    However, “Climate is the long term average of weather observations”!

  12. Peter

    “Despite the invalidity of their position…”

    It is really impossible that scientists, all with grants for research into global warming, might tend to bend the numbers ever so slightly to keep the grant money coming?

    Are you really so absolutely blinded by your strongly held beliefs that you cannot even consider the possibility that you’ve been lied to?

    This issue, long ago, left the relm of science and entered that of politics, media and environmentalism. Is it not true that both sides can be less than totally honest?

  13. MartinM

    However, “Climate is the long term average of weather observations”!

    And?

  14. MartinM

    It is really impossible that scientists, all with grants for research into global warming, might tend to bend the numbers ever so slightly to keep the grant money coming?

    What, all of them? You’re talking about conspiracy on a massive scale. Got any evidence to back that up?

  15. ehmoran

    @12. MartinM,

    Well, you personally attacked BigPhil25 for making a completely correct statement?

    What’s up the personal insults, your response had nothing to do with his statement?

  16. MartinM

    Well, you personally attacked BigPhil25 for making a completely correct statement?

    It wasn’t correct. That we can’t do short-range weather forecasting beyond a certain limit has no bearing on whether we can do long-term climate forecasting.

  17. ehmoran

    Until there’s a major volcanic eruption…..

  18. Lauri

    One of those emails from a prominent American science admitted (to her climate-change-believing buddy) that she had absolutely NO proof for her belief that human-produced CO2 was destroying the environment, but that she KNEW it was true.

    I would note that as a Bible-believing Christian, I apparently have more evidence for believing in God than this scientist admits to having for believing in her “faith”. Yet I get treated with derision while I’m supposed to respect her “science”. Let’s compare our respective religions and see which one has more evidence for it.

    This discussion has always been about ideology and has never been based on serious science. There is some evidence of warming … on all the planets in the inner solar system, which suggests a sun-caused phenomenon. There is also evidence of cooling in some areas of the earth. There’s also been a great deal of hyperbole. The 2000 were not the warmest years in a hundred years — the 1930s were (and the records exist to prove it!). The Vikkings farmed in southern Greenland about 1000 years ago. It’s all unfarmable ice floes today. If man-made CO2 is the only possible cause of global warming, why was it so warm back when the population of the world was about 1-10th of what it is today and the only carbon-producing technology was the camp fire?

    These people remind me of small children who assume they cause everything in their environment because they are, in their own minds, imbued with god-like power. And like small children, when their dirty deeds are discovered, they move heaven and earth (or at least the china cabinet) to cover it up.

  19. MartinM

    That falls pretty firmly under the heading of short-term variation.

  20. Phil

    The atmospheric content of CO2 is .038%. It is ludcirous to suggest that we should institute a massive transfer of wealth, a taxing scheme and promote hysteria over such an insignificant change in our atmosphere. The emails were not hacked. They were released by a whistleblower who has done a great service to the people of the United States.

  21. KDB

    I realize this is a ‘blog’ site…so snarkiness is to be expected…

    the key points here are that there is definitely enough dissension amongs climate scientists about this process and how data was ‘managed’ to warrant a clear, transparent and open evaluation of the data, the process and what is published as ‘results’…

    Whether or not the science ‘was good’, the truth will out.

    Which makes me wonder why the Warmists are so dead set against the Deniers being allowed to look at the data in an open/honest fashion?

    Could it be that what has been achieved as a political concensus may indeed not be built on solid, scientific, mathematical foundation?

    I’d think the Warmists would be at the front line DEMANDING that all this be made public/transparent…to prove it…

  22. Judy Cross

    Beside the fact that they cooked the books, CO2 as a climate change can’t be proven. This is no longer a scientific issue. It is an issue of whether we want world government by the same group that has brought us to the edge with real pollution…like depleted uranium blowing in the wind.

    The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To

    From Cube Antics, by Robert Greiner

    I’m coming to you today as a scientist and engineer with an agnostic stand on global warming.

    If you don’t know anything about “Climategate” (does anyone else hate that name?) Go ahead and read up on it before you check out this post, I’ll wait.

    Back? Let’s get started.

    First, let’s get this out of the way: Emails prove nothing. Sure, you can look like an unethical asshole who may have committed a felony using government funded money; but all email is, is talk, and talk is cheap.

    Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

    NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
    see the code at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

  23. Neil Ferguson

    Evidence: the satellite reported temperature changes are much lower than those from the “adjusted” surface measured temperatures from a dwindling number of approved (“Not cherry-picked, we swear!”) gauges. Evidence: MWP invisibilated by a single (“No, no, not cherry-picked!”) tree. Evidence: late tree-ring data that disagrees with surface temperatures suppressed (“It would just confuse the hicks!”). Data withheld. Methodologies hidden. Arrogance. Malice. Venality. Duplicity. (“Move on folks. Nothing to see here, except us heroes saving the planet from humanity!”)

  24. ehmoran

    @16. MartinM,

    Right, so when average-annual global temperatures drop nearly 2 degrees, like Pinatubo caused in 1991, pretty much throws the models off.

    When scientists extend the formula of 4th degree polynomial fitted to data within a certain range, the predictive numbers are not remotely reliable. This is what Climate Models use. Apparently, most professional modelers know this, except those predicting future climate….

  25. MartinM

    Right, so when average-annual global temperatures drop nearly 2 degrees, like Pinatubo caused in 1991, pretty much throws the models off.

    Temporarily. Short-term variation will always occur, but it would take a secular trend in volcanic activity to alter long-term climatic forecasts.

    When scientists extend the formula of 4th degree polynomial fitted to data within a certain range, the predictive numbers are not remotely reliable. This is what Climate Models use.

    I would love to see you support that claim.

  26. Michael Lewis

    Never in my 30 year career as an engineer/”scientist” have I been so embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with the scientific profession.
    Wise up people, AGWembarrassed to science is very suspect – based on inaccurate temperature measurement, shoddy statistical analysis, and greatly simplified modeling programs. And worse yet, the so-called “solutions” to global warming are absolutely not reality-based engineering. Plus, I’m not convinced whatsoever by the current science that global warming is a bad thing at all. Sure beats the heck out of global cooling, which was what were were all afraid of back in the seventies.
    An old and experienced engineer’s take – this is all about politics, power and money. And mostly devoid of sound engineering and science.

  27. MartinM

    The atmospheric content of CO2 is .038%. It is ludcirous to suggest that we should institute a massive transfer of wealth, a taxing scheme and promote hysteria over such an insignificant change in our atmosphere.

    The change in atmospheric content of CO2 is what matters, not the absolute value.

  28. ehmoran

    @25. MartinM,

    Look at “fudge factor” model code…..

  29. MartinM

    Which makes me wonder why the Warmists are so dead set against the Deniers being allowed to look at the data in an open/honest fashion?

    The data’s already out there. Get to it. What are you waiting for?

  30. catbaum

    Alright, this is what I have been talking about since the “green” movement came into being. First, we do not have enough historical data to extrapolate future climate. It would be like someone trying to draw a conclusion on your entire life from one day in your life. Second, all we currently have are correlations because global climate is affected by all countries’s activities. Not only that but add in differences in volcanic activity, solar activity (increased sun spots usually mean less activity since those are cool spots), and hurricanes which stir up carbon dioxide content from the ocean rivaling anything we can do and it makes it very difficult to tell.

  31. ehmoran

    @28. MartinM Says:

    Please comment on “Comment #2″?

  32. MartinM

    Evidence: the satellite reported temperature changes are much lower than those from the “adjusted” surface measured temperatures from a dwindling number of approved (”Not cherry-picked, we swear!”) gauges.

    Really?

  33. MartinM

    Look at “fudge factor” model code…..

    I’ve seen it. Did you have a specific criticism in mind?

    The article Judy quoted comes from here, incidentally. I’d advise reading part 2, and the comments, before you decide how seriously to take the initial charges.

  34. Neil Ferguson

    Thank you for agreeing with the rest of my points. ;)

  35. ehmoran

    @32. MartinM

    Actually, surface temperatures are used to calibrate interpreted satellite temperature data,

    Once calibrated, band 6 LandSat Satellite data can indicate temperature changes of 0.5 degrees C.

  36. KDB

    Not so simple MartinM…I am ‘getting to it’…but at the same time, I believe it most definitely critical to review the actual data and permutations, mathematical proofs, that it was subjected to in order to arrive at ‘current’ conclusions.

    Now, what is wrong with this?

    I can make any statement I wish…say it’s based on data…not be willing to show it to you..tell you that ‘you too’ can generate the data…and then say, when you come up with an alternate answer that you’re just wrong. And how dare you be so stupid as to not know what/how to do this?

    The key here is in ‘checking the work’ in addition to looking over the data.

  37. Jeffery D. Kooistra

    Martin M. said: “That we can’t do short-range weather forecasting beyond a certain limit has no bearing on whether we can do long-term climate forecasting.”

    Martin, the statement implies that the fluid dynamic equations that ultimately govern weather do not govern climate. This is nonsense.

    In your own words: “Congratulations, you’re officially too ignorant to hold an opinion on this subject.”

  38. plain tired

    “Leaked e-mails from climate skeptic’s shows apparent data manipulation, conspiracy to block contradictor information, and deleting raw data”.

    Ask yourself this question, how would YOU react after reading this headline. Then being told to “Trust us”, well whatever, I have to go cash my 4 trillion-dollar check.

  39. ehmoran

    @33. MartinM,

    I love to get my hands on the complete model code.

    Where can I get the entire working model code?

  40. MartinM

    Please comment on “Comment #2″?

    Sure. Water vapour essentially acts as a feedback, rather than a forcing. Increasing the atmosphere’s CO2 content is easy; you just have to release it in sufficient quantities. Try to add more H2O and it just gets rained out. This is why CO2 is a major driver of climate change, while H2O merely acts to amplify changes.

  41. John M

    Original Post: “I don’t believe the new charges are nearly as outrageous as the old charges were; I certainly don’t think they support the ridiculous claims about the bankruptcy of climate science they’ve been used to support.”

    As a formally trained and working social scientist I am very familiar with the issues Climategate has exposed about academic research. These include the political infighting and bias of peer review, the respect given to elder scientists (especially grant recipients) when their work is poor, and the typical sloppiness of research samples and software (which constantly change). I’ve seen it all myself first hand and in uncomfortable detail.

    Prior to Climategate I was in the “don’t know enough to disagree with the mainstream” camp about climate change. What this event has done is convinced me that the professionals working in the field don’t know nearly as much as they claim. They are attempting to model a profoundly complex system and simply cannot expect to have all the answers. However, in most fields that attempt complex modeling the scientists are painfully honest about their limitations and the unknowns. It becomes profoundly difficult to make predictions and interpret research when only 4 variables are involved, let alone something as complex as the global climate system.

    What I’ve read since has convinced me that climate change deniers are full of it, but they are not the primary concern. The bigger issue that that honest and informed skeptics have clearly (beyond any doubt from the leaked e-mails) been pushed out of the discussion. This is always and completely wrong for anyone claiming to be a scientist, for the discussion is then a product of ideology and politics. The skeptics have been painted as lunatics and deniers, which they clearly are not, and may well have been prevented from conducting well-funded research into alternative explanations about the causes and severity of climate change.

    The heart of Climategate is that the “pure, honest academics” were found out to never be anything close to pure and honest. In all likelihood they were equally as biased as the energy companies and polluters. While anyone with exposure to graduate school surely knows this, simple-minded politicians like simple-minded black or white answers. Bush said “No No” about climate change while Gore and Obama say “Yes Yes.” The best answer is probably “Human caused climate change is a potentially serious concern so keep a close eye on it.” The best answer is not to run ahead with a bunch of “the case is closed” policy decisions. The private actions of the strongest advocates have demonstrated this.

  42. MartinM

    Thank you for agreeing with the rest of my points.

    I’m not about to address every single thing everyone throws out. But, for the record:

    Evidence: MWP invisibilated by a single (”No, no, not cherry-picked!”) tree.

    Cite?

    Evidence: late tree-ring data that disagrees with surface temperatures suppressed (”It would just confuse the hicks!”).

    If by ‘suppressed,’ you mean ‘published in the peer-reviewed literature,’ sure.

  43. MartinM

    Actually, surface temperatures are used to calibrate interpreted satellite temperature data,

    The trends still match, which is the important point.

  44. ehmoran

    @38. MartinM

    “Try to add more H2O and it just gets rained out”.

    Depends on temperature and pressure. Also, as temperature increases, so does the specific heat of CO2, its a buffer. How does CO2 loose specific heat?

  45. MartinM

    Not so simple MartinM…I am ‘getting to it’…but at the same time, I believe it most definitely critical to review the actual data and permutations, mathematical proofs, that it was subjected to in order to arrive at ‘current’ conclusions.

    Now, what is wrong with this?

    It’s not actually necessary. When you have several groups coming up with the same results, you have two options; either they’re right, or there’s a GLOBAL ENVIROFASCIST CONSPIRACY!!!

    In science, ‘replication’ doesn’t mean ‘doing exactly the same thing in exactly the same way.’ There’s no point to that unless you suspect fraud. And there’s no reason to suspect fraud unless you can show that the results are suspect. Can you?

  46. ehmoran

    @43. MartinMm

    Well, with a 0.5 degree C precision, not very precise to use satellite data when so-called climate people expound less than a 1 degree C rise in globally averaged temps……

  47. MartinM

    Martin, the statement implies that the fluid dynamic equations that ultimately govern weather do not govern climate. This is nonsense.</blockquote.

    Yes, it's nonsense. It's also nothing to do with what I said. I can't predict what the next three rolls of a fair die will produce, but I can predict the long-term average. Guess the laws of probability that govern each roll don't govern the average.

    Or, alternatively, you're quite obviously wrong.

  48. MartinM

    Ask yourself this question, how would YOU react after reading this headline.

    Well, first I’d try to ascertain if the headline was actually true.

  49. Bill Yarber

    The warming over the past 250 years can be represented by a sine cure and a linear trend of approximately 0.5 deg C/century. The sine curve has aan approx 30 year warming and a 30 year cooling phase, very closely matched to he PDO. Variations with the warming and cooling phase closely match the ENSO phases – El Nino or La Nina.

    If you base your warming curve from 1975 to 2000, which corresponds to a positive or warm PDO, you get a very large rate of warming. Howevwer, if you start at the beginning of the cycle, about 1945 and go to 2000, you will see a warming trend of, you guessed it, about 0.5 deg C/century. The Earth cooled from 1945 to 1975, that is why many of these same climate scientise where screaming the we were headed for the next Ice Age.

    People, the Earth has warmed over the past 250 years, but AGW is a hoax. CLimategast shows that the key scientists driving the IPCC were cooking the results. AGW has become a religion and its primary intent is a global government and the greater control of the people of the world, taking away freedoms just like the church did 500 years ago. Please wake up!

  50. MartinM

    I love to get my hands on the complete model code

    Try the GISS website. They’ve got data, the code used to produce their temperature series, and the code for their climate model. And, of course, their series is a good match for HadCRUT. Therefore, if CRU’s series has been faked, it would seem that GISS’s series has been too.

  51. ehmoran

    @45. MartinM,

    Which one of the following would you like to use?

    Replication:

    Process by which an object, person, place or idea may be copied mimicked or reproduced.

    The access to a replicated entity is typically uniform with access to a single, non-replicated entity. The replication itself should be transparent to an external user. Also, in a failure scenario, a failover of replicas is hidden as much as possible.

    reproduce or make an exact copy of; “replicate the cell”; “copy the genetic information”

    the repetition of an experiment in order to test the validity of its conclusion; “scientists will not believe an experimental result until they have seen at least one replication”

    Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently.

    In engineering, science, and statistics, replication is the repetition of an experimental condition so that the variability associated with the phenomenon can be estimated. ASTM, in standard E1847, defines replication as “the repetition of the set of all the treatment combinations to be compared in an experiment. Each of the repetitions is called a replicate.
    Replication is not the same as repeated measurements of the same item: they are dealt with differently in statistical experimental design and data analysis. For proper sampling, a process or batch of products should be in reasonable statistical control; inherent random variation is present but variation due to assignable (special) causes is not. Evaluation or testing of a single item does not allow for item-to-item variation and may not represent the batch or process. Replication is needed to account for this variation among items and treatments.

  52. mitchel44

    GISTEMP code is out there, try here for someone putting the effort into figuring out how the code fits together, pretty amazing stuff, http://chiefio.wordpress.com/

    Real science marchs on, Woods Hole just released a paper that shows that ocean “acidification” won’t have quite the horrible effects that are painted all over media, http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162

    And it seems that some tree types like the increased CO2 also, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/uow-ggc120109.php

    Still a lot to learn…

  53. ehmoran

    @49. MartinM,

    Negative, I want the Climate Modeling Code……..

    Where can I get that?

  54. MartinM

    Depends on temperature and pressure.

    Yes. That’s what makes it a feedback.

    Also, as temperature increases, so does the specific heat of CO2, its a buffer.

    Exactly how large a ‘buffer’ under the circumstances we’re dealing with?

  55. MartinM

    Which one of the following would you like to use?

    The scientific one, oddly enough, which matches what I said. Though I’d caution against using dictionaries to define scientific terms.

  56. ehmoran

    @53. MartinM,

    Previously:

    “Apparently, no laboratory control experiment to date, such as in a biodome, has shown CO2 levels influencing ambient temperatures. Tyndall (1861) measured the absorptive characteristics of CO2 followed by more precise measurements by Burch (1970). Absorbance is a measure of the quantity of light (energy) absorbed by a sample (CO2 molecule) and the amount of absorbed energy can be represented as specific heat of a substance. Specific heat of CO2 ranges from 0.791-kJ/kgK at 0-degrees F to 0.871-kJ/kgK at 125-degrees F and average atmospheric concentrations are 0.0306-percent. As revealed, the specific heat of CO2 increases as ambient temperatures increase showing CO2 likely is an ambient temperature buffer”.

    And, how does CO2 loose specific heat?

  57. MartinM

    Negative, I want the Climate Modeling Code……..

    Where can I get that?

    Exactly where I said. GISS ModelE, data and full source code.

  58. Neil Ferguson

    Re satellite temperatures: “The trends still match, which is the important point.” Spencer and Christy might disagree with you. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

  59. ehmoran

    @55. MartinM,

    Yeh, lord help us if we use something that’s already been agreed upon traditionally.

    So, we’ll just make new definition til they match our argument?

    How about we redefine what a human being is: a human being is defined as a living organism which understands death and is within the ages of 3 to 70 years old.

  60. ehmoran

    @57. MartinM,

    So, this is the code for the models discussed in the emails?

  61. Chad

    Perhaps DISCOVER should do a story on this: http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/Scientific-Link-to-Autism-Identified-61602-1/
    Instead of being the bitch for “pop science”, maybe the magazine should do something revolutionary and question conclusions, similar to what Galileo did when “everyone else” believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything else revolved around it.

    This magazine is a joke – and so is the author of this blog.

  62. The Saudi delegation to Copenhagen just used SwiftHack to claim there’s no link whatsoever between humans and climate.

    Of course, there’s no vested interest here whatsoever, and the timing of the hack itself is completely coincidental. I mean, srsly.

  63. ehmoran

    @62. Brian D

    Well, Brian, eventually, all truth is revealed.

    Looks like some people got sick and tired of waiting 3o years for the FOI info.

    But, when you find public data on a public server, that info is legally usable?

  64. Can we all agree that the Climategate emails underscore the need for the United States to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission.

    No.

  65. Passerby

    Here’s my problem with climate change. I am willing to agree that there is a huge difference in the consequences of a 0.6 degree compared to a 1 degree temperature increase.

    Are we really to believe that these climate change models can predict the difference between 0.6 and 1 and that this is not within their margin of error? Are we to believe that the results of modeling a system as complex as the climate are accurate to within 0.5 degrees?

    I remember Carl Sagan saying something about skepticism.

  66. ehmoran

    @64. Jinchi,

    “Can we all agree that the Climategate emails underscore the need for the United States to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission.

    No.”

    Yes, this ensures sovereignty, each coutry has its own adjenda, and they should. And the The majority of US citizens is a world leader in morals, priciples, (at least is was) and donations to other countries in need. Just that they want more of what you’ve got……

    China and India say, “Yeh, we’ll conform to whatever you say in the future”. They’ll leave us hanging.

  67. Despite the invalidity of their position, you have to credit the Moranos of the world with a brilliant tactical move

    Not really. They’ve got the easier game to play. Denialists need no facts to back up their statements, they be consistent and they don’t need to waste time doing research. They don’t have to make the same argument as other denialists and they don’t have to make the same argument as they themselves made the day before. This has been known for a long time which is why we’ve got the old saying:

    “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”

    Truth does better over the long term, though.

  68. Sorbet

    I think a commenter earlier made a good point, that there’s a potential conflict of interest with the UN acting both as the convener of the Kyoto commission and the IPCC report steward. It might actually be a good idea to have some independent commissions and make SURE they don’t get filled with extremists and deniers.

  69. MartinM

    GISTEMP code is out there, try here for someone putting the effort into figuring out how the code fits together, pretty amazing stuff, http://chiefio.wordpress.com/

    Apparently written by someone who doesn’t understand how averaging works. Brilliant.

  70. ehmoran

    @67. Jinchi,

    Explain to me one false statement made in “Comment #2″?

  71. C

    All you obvious republicans make me laugh…it’s science people, not politics. Hundreds of thousands of scientist around the world are not involved in a global conspiracy…take off the tin foil hats and stop listening to Rush Limbough and actually do some research.

    Regardless of what it’s implications mean for the future, MAN putting tons and tons of green house gas into the atmosphere will not bode well for our planet. All you selfish short sighted republicans need to stop thinking with your wallets and stop thinking with your brains. Its really pathetic some of the things you people are throwing out there as “dis proof” of man made climate change. The only ones who have any proof in any direction are those that believe in man made global warming.

  72. ehmoran

    @69. MartinM,

    I can promise you that anyone dealing, modeling, and predicting markets fairly well is way above all others….

  73. MartinM

    Previously

    Yes, I saw it the first time. If you think this buffer effect is significant, let’s see your calculations.

  74. MartinM

    Re satellite temperatures: “The trends still match, which is the important point.” Spencer and Christy might disagree with you. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    The graph you linked to is one of the three series I linked to earlier, showing that the trends do indeed match. Did you have a point?

  75. MartinM

    Yeh, lord help us if we use something that’s already been agreed upon traditionally.

    So, we’ll just make new definition til they match our argument?

    I didn’t make a new defintion.

  76. MartinM

    So, this is the code for the models discussed in the emails?

    It’s the code for one of the models used for AR4, along with the code for GISTEMP.

  77. MartinM

    Perhaps DISCOVER should do a story on this: http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/Scientific-Link-to-Autism-Identified-61602-1/

    This appears to be gibberish. And that’s putting it politely.

  78. ehmoran

    @72. MartinM,

    “If you think this buffer effect is significant, let’s see your calculations.”

    You’d think that after spending $1 billion on this subject, someone would have recognized this and that info would be published?

  79. ehmoran

    @75. MartinM,

    “one of the models”

    No, where’s all the code…….

  80. AGW=Al Gore's Wealth

    Mr. Mooney, you are digging deeper and deeper. Your own credibility is being hurt by this huge scandal, and you are only spinning and trying to save face. It won’t work; we are not as dumb as you think. A good start for you might be to retract your book “Republican War on Science” and devote some of your efforts to investigate how Al Gore et al. are raking in profits hand over fist through the AGW scam.

  81. Mike Proms

    Science has been mortally wounded, and a cabal of uppity weathermen did it.

  82. Musing Lew

    AGW zealots have my sympathy. I don’t believe that ever before in history has a cult been so totally debunked of validity as the ten year reign of “global warming” gia worship. I understand its hard for these morons to give up on their altar of man is evil but eventually they will be exposed as the pathetic turds they are.
    Look at how they try and twist science to match their ideology and then when caught with their little breeches around their knees make an absurd attempt at labeling the rest of us as ignorant. Such is the way for mentally impaired progressives and their movement.

  83. John Greer

    Suppose that – in fulfillment of skeptics’ wildest dreams – it turned out that the whole case for anthropogenic climate change turned out to be a fraud. Suppose Mann admitted the hockey stick was a hoax, and that Al Gore returned his Nobel Prize, admitting that the whole carbon credit thing was a scam for him and his buddies to get rich. Would the “believers” walk away and exert their energies some where else? Put another way, wouldn’t it actually be a good thing for the planet, and all the people living on it, if this all did turn out to be a fraud? Seems to me like the “believers” are hoping for climate disaster. To what end, I don’t know, but it seems to me like they’re busier throwing rocks at the Moranos, Pielkes, Lindzens and McIntyres of the world, instead of evaluating the validity of the claims.

  84. ehmoran

    @75. MartinM,

    Well Martin, I must admit that I used the same HadCRU data when I found this:

    “Relations between Earth’s magnetic intensity and climatic temperatures were suggested and investigated during the 1970′s and early 1980′s. The strong statistical correlation was dismissed owing to no explanation for the process. However, research shows that the intensity of a material’s magnetic field changes as the material’s temperature changes, thus suggesting that the Earth’s core temperature varies. Additional and more complete global-scale datasets and advanced analytical techniques indicate that global and, to a lesser degree, continental average annual temperatures respond significantly to secular variations of core- generated magnetic intensity. Simple polynomial-regression techniques show that globally-averaged secular variations predict and explain 79-percent of the variability in global average-annual temperatures 7-years in the future; thus suggesting another or additional process contributing to climate change. “

  85. Sorbet

    Despite the invalidity of their position, you have to credit the Moranos of the world with a brilliant tactical move

    I am not sure you can say that, unless you are willing to say that most of their moves until now have been tactically brilliant.

    If you want to call anything tactically brilliant, then it was the initiative to successfully hack those emails right before before this crucial meeting in the first place. And unfortunately it worked.

  86. ehmoran

    @80. Sorbet,

    As previously said:

    “Looks like some people got sick and tired of waiting 3o years for the FOI info.

    But, when you find public data on a public server, that info is legally usable?”

  87. So we get 78 comments by what – 4 people? At least two of whom are FAR MORE interested in ad hominem attacks then actual debate? Kind of puts a lie to the notion that “deniers” really ARE interested in debate and skepticism.

    Please, go home, you are giving us all a headache.

    Oh, and the Climate Crisis is very real, and has been something that sceintists and the U.S. Government have been concerned with since the Johnson Administration.

  88. MartinM

    I can promise you that anyone dealing, modeling, and predicting markets fairly well is way above all others….

    *shrug*

    He still can’t average.

  89. Barry

    “Fellow scientists, I am proudly standing here to humbly say.
    I assure you, and I mean it – Now, who says I don’t speak out as plain as day?
    And, fellow scientists, I’m for progress and the flag – long may it fly.
    We’re all poor boys, come to greatness. So, it follows that we cannot tell a lie.

    Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t -
    I’ve come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
    cut a little swathe and lead the people on.

    Now my good friends, it behooves me to be solemn and declare,
    I’m for goodness and for profit and for living clean and saying daily accommodationist prayer.
    And now my good friends, you can sleep nights, I’ll continue to stand tall.
    You can trust me, for I promise, I shall keep a watchful eye upon ya’all.

    Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t-
    I’ve come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
    cut a little swathe and lead the people on.

    Now these emails, I have read them, and I’ve seen what they contain – oh yes.
    But of course, there’s different meanings, so what they’re really saying I can only guess.
    And now these emails, they’re a blemish on the face our great cause.
    I am taking certain steps here, someone some where’s gonna have to cleanse these cyber flaws.

    Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t-
    I’ve come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
    cut a little swathe and lead the people on.

    Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep…

    And, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step…

    Cut a little swathe and lead the people on.”

    Source: (modified from, “The Texas Side Step”, in the musical – The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mNDHTfdn1A

  90. MartinM

    You’d think that after spending $1 billion on this subject, someone would have recognized this and that info would be published?

    I’ll take that as a ‘no’ on showing your work, then.

  91. MartinM

    No, where’s all the code…….

    And that, in a nutshell, is why no one should take the deniers seriously. There’s enough data and code out there to keep anyone busy for a very long time, but you’d rather keep asking for more than actually do some work.

  92. ehmoran

    My biggest question is:

    Surface temperature stations were far and few between at the fist part of the century, unlike today. Different glass has been used since thermometers were invented thus adding further bias.

    Creating yearly grids and adding new stations each year to a reinterpreted global grid would make each grid not of the same sample set thus showing bias. And since most new stations are in urban areas, that bias would include affects of the urban-heat-island effect.

    I would like to know how they confronted this issue. That’s why I want the code?

  93. MartinM

    I understand its hard for these morons to give up on their altar of man is evil but eventually they will be exposed as the pathetic turds they are.

    Says the guy who brought…oh, yes, precisely nothing of substance. Get back to us when you have something to say.

  94. ehmoran

    @90. MartinM,

    Just like to see the code, I could get a better night’s sleep……

  95. MartinM

    However, research shows that the intensity of a material’s magnetic field changes as the material’s temperature changes, thus suggesting that the Earth’s core temperature varies.

    Not really, since one wouldn’t expect the Earth’s magnetic field intensity to be a constant even in the absence of temperature variations. But hey, if you’ve got a model, write it up.

  96. MartinM

    Looks like some people got sick and tired of waiting 3o years for the FOI info.

    I don’t think the UK had an FOI act thirty years ago. The one we have now doesn’t require replies to frivolous requests, either.

  97. MartinM

    Just like to see the code, I could get a better night’s sleep……

    And that’s a ‘no’ on doing anything useful with the code you can already see, I take it.

  98. Brandon

    @55.Martin_M

    “The scientific one, oddly enough, which matches what I said. Though I’d caution against using dictionaries to define scientific terms.”

    Hmmm… so I guess I should just ask any 3 scientists for their definitions and they will all match?

    That would lead me to conclude that you are saying that there are no set definitions for scientific terms, as one can not use a dictionary to define them. Which would further lead me to conclude that scientists then skew their definitions in order to manipulate data (right or wrong) that could nullify or verify their own pre-conceived notions?

    I mean, since you are saying that there are no set, written definitions, then scientific method is not defined as well?

    It’s time for scientists to report what they know and what they don’t. Just like “meteorologists” (aka tarot card readers) can’t predict the weather-it’s really just the “modeling” computers spitting out 20-30 different models with the weatherwonk just deciding which ones to report-scientists should really stop trying to tell us what “might” be causing things and shut up until they KNOW what is going on. But then, without their crazy extrapolations that have about as much basis in reality as the loch ness monster to get people all worked up, how would they pay for it?

    It’s about money, notoriety, prestige, and power. A lot of scientists now-a-days are trying too hard to be like rockstars. Just my opinion.

    As far as climate change goes, I’m ignorant of the fact of whether or not humans are causing the Earth to warm up or if it’s part of the natural cycle of the Earth. Just 30 years ago, climatologists (if they called themselves that then-it’s just a buzzword these days I think) were telling us that we were on the verge of the next ice age, so I don’t understand if they were right then, or if they are right now. Sounds to me like I’m not the only one confused by the mixed signals every 20-30 years when the “data” should have stayed the same the whole time.

    Data-it’s either absolute, or it’s BS.

  99. ehmoran

    Not a complicate and extensive computer model, expect if you call a simple linear equation a model (which theoretically is a model)……

    “since one wouldn’t expect the Earth’s magnetic field intensity to be a constant”

    Redundantly said.

    This is why super magnets need cooling, so the material doesn’t loose it’s magnetic properties.

  100. ehmoran

    I’ll repeat,

    My biggest question is:

    Surface temperature stations were far and few between at the fist part of the century, unlike today. Different glass has been used since thermometers were invented thus adding further bias.

    Creating yearly grids and adding new stations each year to a reinterpreted global grid would make each grid not of the same sample set thus showing bias. And since most new stations are in urban areas, that bias would include affects of the urban-heat-island effect.

    I would like to know how they confronted this issue. That’s why I want the code?

  101. ehmoran

    And, magnetic fields and intensity of the Sun indicate the level of the Sun’s activity……

  102. MartinM

    You’re talking about several very different things here.

  103. ehmoran

    I’m waiting for a previous post “Comment #91″.

    What several different things?

  104. ehmoran

    Comment #91 and #97 are the same……

  105. You’re absolutely right ClimateGate doesn’t change the science a whit . It was junk before , and this just reveals some of the watermelons’ mendacity keeping real science from being done .

    It should be trivial to point me to the quantitative physics determining global mean temperature , because it’s basically 19th century stuff ( which Arrhenius got wrong ) and is , like the temperature of a volume of gas , much simpler than understanding the chaotic motions within the gas . We are about 9c warmer than a gray body in our orbit and our temperature has changed less than 0.3% in a century . A common sense graph by MIT’s Richard Lindzen puts that in perspective versus Boston’s April climate : http://cosy.com/Science/Lindzenlineplot800.gif .

    As Joe Bastardi of Accuweather points out , it is illogical that the gas which is half the respiratory cycle of life would be its death . This is all about global tyranny based on as gross distortions and lies as 20th century marxism brilliantly using the tactics promoted by Lenin .

  106. Bob

    Skepticism is a good thing.

    When I was in college over thirty years ago an economics professor gave us a list of energy sources such as oil and natural gas; metals such as gold, iron, copper, nickel, etc; and numerous minerals and then gave us the dates the experts expected these to run out. These supposed experts are probably all dead now and none of their predictions came true.

    Also when I was in college there was a book that was required reading in some classes called, “The Population Bomb” that warned of the mass starvation of humans in 1970′s and 1980s due to overpopulation and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Again the experts were wrong and those dire predictions never came true.

    Remember the impending Y2K disaster. The experts were wrong and Y2k was a non event.

    Enron. I looked at their financials and could not understand why anyone would invest in companies like them. But the so called experts said they were the company of the future. Again the experts were wrong.

    Dotcom. I sat in meeetings with Fortune 100 companies and heard how great the dotcom world would be and saw these companies invest millions. Again the experts were wrong.

    The housing bubble. Tell me again why any financial instituion would give a no money down, interest only loan to someone that doesn’t qualify for a loan to begin with? Again the experts were wrong.

    Biofuels are the future. The ethanol industry has been supported with tax incentives for over 20 years and it still can’t survive without it. Biodiesel is worse. The industry collapsed last year and many of the ethanol firms went bankrupt because the government created artificial demand. Again the experts were wrong.

    So now the experts say there is man made Global Warming and there is a scientific concensus. Says who? The small group of scientists that control the data and peer review each others papers. They are trying to tell us that a trace gas, CO2 is going to cause runaway Global warming if humans don’t stop burning fossil fuels. A gas that is essential to all life. A gas that has been significantly higher many times during the course of the world’s history and runaway global warming never happened but its going to happen this time because humans are involved. None of the GWer’s predictions have come true. There is no proof of GWing. But there are computer models that say their will be GWing and there have been billions of dollars on research on what will happen if there is GWing. We are supposed to believe in GWing even though we now know some of the most prominent GW scientists were wrong (hockey stick graph) and lied (tree ring data and Climategate).

    In my experience if you become a lemming you usually end up going over a cliff.

    Skepticism is a good thing.

  107. ehmoran

    @97. MartinM

    “The one we have now doesn’t require replies to frivolous requests, either”.

    So who decides that, the public paid for the data, then the public should be able to see what they paid for. Right?

    So you don’t request a work order with written statements from the mechanic when you pay for repairs to your car?

  108. ehmoran

    @97. MartinM,

    “And that’s a ‘no’ on doing anything useful with the code you can already see, I take it”.

    Just want the original code……

  109. MartinM

    It’s about money, notoriety, prestige, and power. A lot of scientists now-a-days are trying too hard to be like rockstars. Just my opinion.

    Yeah, Phil Jones is beating the chicks away with a stick.

    And yet, oddly, that was the least ridiculous part of your comment.

  110. Blackjack Mcgee

    The changes in global climate have nothing to do with CO2, unless the lightning and thunder god drives a big ole SUV in the sky, i.e., did it occur to any of you that we are reliving history? The climate has always changed, and aside from attempts to hide an ice age here, and a warming period there, everyone knows that. If the threat were as serious as they would have us believe, these scientists should be shot for not openly sharing their data with anyone who wanted to look at it. Would these scientists really hide legitimate data for selfish reasons when the future of the balance hangs in the balance? Why manipulate the data and fudge results with skewed models if the science is so good? If the science is good science, how come CRU and NASA have avoided every attempt to obtain said data? Something indeed stinks in Denmark! Future generations will laugh at us and this debacle as we do those who generations ago shrunk in fear at the booming anger of the powerful Thunder God!

    RELEASE ALL THE DATA IMMEADIATELY. SCIENTISTS WHO DO NOT, MAY END UP BEING THE TARGET OF THE VERY WITCH HUNT THEY STARTED TO SILENCE CONTRARY BELIEFS.

  111. MartinM

    Surface temperature stations were far and few between at the fist part of the century, unlike today. Different glass has been used since thermometers were invented thus adding further bias.

    Creating yearly grids and adding new stations each year to a reinterpreted global grid would make each grid not of the same sample set thus showing bias. And since most new stations are in urban areas, that bias would include affects of the urban-heat-island effect.

    I would like to know how they confronted this issue. That’s why I want the code?

    Oh, so you do want the code that generates the temperature series, not just the models. Take a look at GISTEMP, then.

  112. MartinM

    What several different things?

    The magnetic fields of a simple magnet, the Earth’s core, and the Sun.

  113. MartinM

    It should be trivial to point me to the quantitative physics determining global mean temperature , because it’s basically 19th century stuff ( which Arrhenius got wrong ) and is , like the temperature of a volume of gas , much simpler than understanding the chaotic motions within the gas .

    See, for example, any entry level climate physics text.

    We are about 9c warmer than a gray body in our orbit and our temperature has changed less than 0.3% in a century . A common sense graph by MIT’s Richard Lindzen puts that in perspective versus Boston’s April climate : http://cosy.com/Science/Lindzenlineplot800.gif .

    Hate to break it to you, but common sense has a bad track record when going up against science.

    As Joe Bastardi of Accuweather points out , it is illogical that the gas which is half the respiratory cycle of life would be its death .

    Um…no. No, it isn’t. At all.

    Not that anyone’s talking about the death of all life.

  114. ehmoran

    @109. MartinM,

    Magnetic fields are all the same regardless where they comes from……

    Electromagnet theory by Maxwell, better realized by Tesla, and better explained by Feynman…..

  115. MartinM

    So who decides that, the public paid for the data, then the public should be able to see what they paid for. Right?

    That’s up to the FOI office, which apparently decided that the 50+ requests that CRU received in the space of 5 days were indeed frivolous. Can’t imagine why.

    Incidentally, Steve McIntyre didn’t pay for the data, given that he’s not actually from the UK.

  116. Neil Ferguson

    “The graph you linked to is one of the three series I linked to earlier, showing that the trends do indeed match. Did you have a point?” My point was that Spencer and Christy might disagree with you.

  117. MartinM

    Magnetic fields are all the same regardless where they comes from….

    But not the mechanisms by which they’re generated, which will make rather a significant difference to your model. You can’t just replace an MHD simulation with a lump of iron.

  118. ehmoran

    @110. MartinM

    “Hate to break it to you, but common sense has a bad track record when going up against science.”

    Common sense was explained in Comment #2.

  119. MartinM

    My point was that Spencer and Christy might disagree with you.

    Well, if there’s an actual argument there, let’s see it. I’ve already posted a link to the data; what do you (or they) have to say about it?

  120. MartinM

    Common sense was explained in Comment #2

    And apparently drew you to conclusions inconsistent with basic climatology. You’re kind of proving my point here.

  121. The sky is falling charlatans were very good at presenting their play station analyses of climate. Contrary to the lies they spew through fudged data, the truth is that coal is the greenest fuel on the planet. What is green about solar, windmills, nuclear power? Nothing, absolutely nothing! The so-called greenies want to take oxygen and food away from their own kind and make a lot of money doing it and at the same time charge us more for fuel.

    Lisa Jackson’s next appointment should be to iime at the nearest prison. She suppressed an internal report completed by the EPA that debunks global warming from CO2. Yet she presents a congered up CO2 endangerment finding. Jefferson once said, if the people are afraid of the government you have tyranny (it is here with us now), but if the government is afraid of the people you will have liberty!

    Stand up America, don’t let them get away with this scam anymore, hold these charlatans accountable!!!!!!

  122. ehmoran

    @114. MartinM,

    Intensity comes from the same source. The problem is where the heat comes from: an internal or external source……….

  123. ehmoran

    Don’t worry about this conversation anymore.

    The EPA just made excess biological respiration illegal…….

  124. The sky is falling charlatans were very good at presenting their play station analyses of climate. Contrary to the lies they spew through fudged data, the truth is that coal is the greenest fuel on the planet. What is green about solar, windmills, nuclear power? Nothing, absolutely nothing! The so-called greenies want to take oxygen and food away from their own kind and make a lot of money doing it and at the same time charge us more for fuel.

    Lisa Jackson’s next appointment should be to time at the nearest prison. She suppressed an internal report completed by the EPA that debunks global warming from CO2. Yet she presents a congered up CO2 endangerment finding. Jefferson once said, if the people are afraid of the government you have tyranny (it is here with us now), but if the government is afraid of the people you will have liberty!

    Stand up America, don’t let them get away with this scam anymore, hold these charlatans accountable!!!!!!

  125. ehmoran

    @117. MartinM,

    “conclusions inconsistent with basic climatology”

    So what you’re saying is climate scientists have a different set of physical laws than those said in Comment #2?

  126. MartinM

    Intensity comes from the same source

    We’re still not talking about systems which are interchangeable.

  127. MartinM

    So what you’re saying is climate scientists have a different set of physical laws than those said in Comment #2?

    No. I’m saying that physical law doesn’t support your conclusion that ‘minute variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations likely results in an insignificant affect on climate,’ assuming that you count the current observed changes as ‘minute.’ Feel free to do the calculations and prove me wrong, though. If you can actually overturn basic climatology, there’s probably a Nobel in it for you.

  128. ehmoran

    @121. MartinM,

    Please explain?

  129. TTT

    Mooney, would you PLEASE stop referring to this in the context of “framing,” already? There is no way to adequately “frame a response” when you are the victim of a sophisticated cybercrime. How can you “frame” the cleanup after having your identity stolen? You can’t–it’s an easy crime with a difficult, slow, frustrating path to recovery. The criminal always “wins.” There is no good response available to the scientists here, so please stop acting like they just haven’t taken it yet.

    What I wish you would do instead–and what you’d truly help a lot by doing–is to speak as loudly and widely as possible in any forum you can access about the truth of this case. About how there was no falsification or deletion of data, no corruption of the peer-review process, and no weakening of the actual evidence for mainstream global warming theory. Post a 15-part series about THAT on Intersection, instead of focusing on the usual Wingnut Voltron attack pattern. Lobby as hard as you can to make it the front page of Discover–and talk to every other company affiliated with Discover in any ownership or interest-related manner.

  130. Brandon

    @108.MartinM,
    “Yeah, Phil Jones is beating the chicks away with a stick.

    And yet, oddly, that was the least ridiculous part of your comment.”

    Really? A scientist’s standing isn’t about who gets published where and how much grant money they can bring in? Fame and notoriety aren’t part of the scientific culture of credibility? What fantasy world do you live in? Your non-answer attests to the truthfulness of this comment.

    Also, the non-rebuttal on your ridiculous comment about definitions of scientific terms just speaks to your sickening level of overconfidence in your own intelligence. As if people of non-scientific minded pursuits are somehow beneath you and could never understand that there are no set definitions?

    You make a completely stupid comment on warning people not to use dictionaries to define scientific terms and I called you out on it. Where, o sage of knowledge, should I find the definitions to scientific terms, then?

  131. MartinM

    Stand up America, don’t let them get away with this scam anymore, hold these charlatans accountable!!!!!!

    You know, if I were a denier, I’d be a little worried by how many of the folk on my side were utter loons.

  132. ehmoran

    @126. TTT,

    No matter what is said, the emails show impropriety in this field of scientific endeavor.

  133. ehmoran

    @126. TTT,

    Several USGS scientists lost their jobs for similar actions, but they actually never did any manipulation.

    Why should we hold these scientists to a different standard?

    Is it that we’re all created equal, just that some are more equal than others?

  134. MartinM

    Really? A scientist’s standing isn’t about who gets published where and how much grant money they can bring in? Fame and notoriety aren’t part of the scientific culture of credibility?

    No more than anyone else.

    Oh noes! Everyone is faking everything!!!

    What fantasy world do you live in?

    Academia.

    Also, the non-rebuttal on your ridiculous comment about definitions of scientific terms just speaks to your sickening level of overconfidence in your own intelligence. As if people of non-scientific minded pursuits are somehow beneath you and could never understand that there are no set definitions?

    I never said there are no set definitions. That was your own asinine conclusion.

    You make a completely stupid comment on warning people not to use dictionaries to define scientific terms and I called you out on it. Where, o sage of knowledge, should I find the definitions to scientific terms, then?

    You could try a scientific dictionary, but an entry-level textbook is probably a better bet.

  135. ehmoran

    @132. MartinM,

    “”You know, if I were a denier, I’d be a little worried by how many of the folk on my side were utter loons.”

    Pretty much like the G20 and WTO protesters……

  136. MartinM

    About how there was no falsification or deletion of data, no corruption of the peer-review process, and no weakening of the actual evidence for mainstream global warming theory.

    That would seem to be the pertinent message, wouldn’t it?

  137. MartinM

    Several USGS scientists lost their jobs for similar actions, but they actually never did any manipulation.

    Why should we hold these scientists to a different standard?

    Well, for one thing, there’s no evidence of any illegitimate manipulation in this case.

  138. ehmoran

    @137. MartinM,

    “Well, for one thing there’s no evidence of any illegitimate manipulation in this case.”

    Doesn’t matter, same exact incident and activity……

  139. Neil Ferguson

    “I’m not about to address every single thing everyone throws out. But, for the record:

    Evidence: MWP invisibilated by a single (”No, no, not cherry-picked!”) tree.

    Cite?”

    If by “Cite” you mean peer-reviewed published articles, I can’t seem to find any that aren’t written, editted, or refereed by Michael Mann, for some reason. If you’re asking for websites that extensively discuss these and other issues skeptically with acceptable rigor and wingnuttery levels, the fact that you have to ask suggests to me that you are an advocate, not a scholar. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I am not the person to argue the merits, though. I will continue to probe for some sign amongst advocates of intellectual humility in the context of a barely understood very large, very complex, nonlinear chaotic system.

  140. MartinM

    What, people were fired for nothing?

  141. MartinM

    If you’re asking for websites that extensively discuss these and other issues skeptically with acceptable rigor and wingnuttery levels, the fact that you have to ask suggests to me that you are an advocate, not a scholar.

    That’s a ‘no’ on backing up your claim, then.

    OK.

  142. @ MartinM ,

    See, for example, any entry level climate physics text.

    Bull . The Wikipedia pages on Black Body radiation and Stefan-Boltzmann for instance wrongly have earth absorbing as a gray body and emitting as a black body and then goes off into verbal hand waving . That’s a common “cold earth” starting point and distorts the issue from the get-go . I said “quantitative” . Give me which allows me to calculate the temperature of , eg , a pure CO2 gas ball in our orbit .

    common sense has a bad track record when going up against science.

    Bull . Science is refined common sense . Did you even look at Lindzen’s graph ?

    Um…no. No, it isn’t. At all.
    Not that anyone’s talking about the death of all life.

    You catastrophists act like it is . The undeniable FACT is that at these levels plants LOVE the additional CO2 and the few percent of the planetary budget we are restoring to the biosphere is provably greening the planet .

  143. ehmoran

    @141. MartinM,

    Several years ago, big headlines, maybe search for USGS Scientists at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site…..

    I was acquainted with these scientists. From my personal conclusions, they were covering their buts from politics by using emails……

    But they were let go for doing the same as these climate scientists……

  144. MartinM

    Bull . The Wikipedia

    Ooh! Science-y!

    pages on Black Body radiation and Stefan-Boltzmann for instance wrongly have earth absorbing as a gray body and emitting as a black body and then goes off into verbal hand waving . That’s a common “cold earth” starting point and distorts the issue from the get-go .

    Idealised model is idealised. Shocking!

    I said “quantitative” . Give me which allows me to calculate the temperature of , eg , a pure CO2 gas ball in our orbit .

    Yes, I’ll get right on calculating the temperature of an unphysical system.

    Bull . Science is refined common sense .

    In which case you’re missing the refinement.

    Did you even look at Lindzen’s graph ?

    Yes. Unimpressive.

    You catastrophists act like it is .

    Kindly point to a single thing I’ve said to support that.

    No, didn’t think so.

    The undeniable FACT is that at these levels plants LOVE the additional CO2 and the few percent of the planetary budget we are restoring to the biosphere is provably greening the planet .

    And if it has one positive effect, it can’t possibly be bad!

  145. MartinM

    But they were let go for doing the same as these climate scientists……

    Actually, from what I’ve found, it looks as though they actually falsified stuff. Unlike the folk at CRU.

  146. ehmoran

    @128. MartinM,

    “prove me wrong”

    If some scientists would have taken part of the the nearly $1 Billion spent on this subject and performed an simple and appropriate biodome study….

    The issue would be resolved………

  147. MartinM

    Alternatively, we could just go with basic physics.

  148. @ MartinM

    While I do see Glen Beck as kind of a flake , I appreciate more and more the title of his book “Arguing with Idiots” .

  149. ehmoran

    @146. MartinM,

    They had to change the computer code to get what the politicians wanted?

    That’s why they talked about that openly over a government monitored email…….

  150. Anonymous Coward

    The problem with ClimateGate is that it leaves reasonable, ordinary people with lots of reason to doubt the scientists. Combine that now with the profligate waste at Copenhagen, 140 private jets, with NO attempts to take even the minimal teleconferencing that we’ve seen at GLOBAL ROCK CONCERTS. Add to that news of Goldman-Sachs wanting in on cap-and-trade and it all seems like another ripoff of the taxpayers of the world to the already rich and powerful.

    The shame of ClimateGate is that 99% of it was self-inflicted by the arrogance and unprofessionalism of the CRU. Even way way way back in 1997 they knew to document their code, backup their sources, and that there was no such thing as a private email on taxpayer paid for system.

    Your blame on the right is misplaced. Your disappointment and blame should be with the arrogant unprofessionalism expressed by the CRU.

  151. ehmoran

    @148. MartinM,

    Wrong, we still know very little about the Earth, never mind climate…..

    Since climate change has been going on for 4.6 billion years, humans have only experienced a microcosm of climate scenarios…..

    When you talking about something of this magnitude, complete science needs to be performed, instead of conjecture. I just pointed out the basic physics.

    You see, we still disagree. Wouldn’t have happened by spending, say, $500,000 for a contolled biodome experiment, since there are many biodomes already….

  152. ehmoran

    I spent about $150 to measure ET from a Black Spruce. I came up with an appropriate value of water transpired and did a tugor pressure eperiment at the same time….

    SO, these scientists couldn’t do something similar?

  153. Harman Smith

    I don’t see how the damage over these e-mails would be massive… it seems to me that whoever wanted to think AGW is not real will continue to think it is not real, and ClimateGate may reinforce this belief. People who genuinely think critically, I think, will know that this incident does not change things. The only thing I have seen is that it has really brought out the crazies. (Any blog post about ClimateGate will result in getting a staggering amount of hits & replies.) Very often do I see people who mention ClimateGate, also mention how the globe is “cooling”. Suggesting the earth is cooling at this point is as crazy as suggesting 9/11 was an inside job, the President wasn’t born in the US, etc.

    I also see more and more often how deniers/coolers are suggesting there is a conspiracy going on simply because the name has changed from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’. What? It’s just a word… if you say something very often, you may want to have some more words to describe it. It’s still global warming. A linguist might know more about this than I do, but as far as I know, Climate Change is used more often just because it rolls off the tongue better.

  154. ehmoran

    @112 MartinM,

    “Take a look at GISTEM”

    Yep, they did exactly what I thought, they created grids with a different sample set then compared them…..

  155. Harman Smith

    This is what I was talking about… http://us.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/07/global.warming.poll/index.html

    According to this CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, belief in GW and AGW has been slowly and steadily declining (among Republicans). It suggests that ClimateGate didn’t have much of an impact, if any.

  156. ehmoran

    I’m tired, this blog site will go broke if it had to purchase carbon credit derivatives….

    Continue without me at this point……

  157. Blackjack Mcgee

    Harman Smith wrote: “People who genuinely think critically, I think, will know that this incident does not change things.”

    What??? If they altered/manufactured the climate data at CRU, and wrote a program to produce a specific result, “this incident” will change everything. It could be a complete game changer in fact. “Critical thinking” is not a buzz word to throw around in posts. Critical Thinking is the identification and evaluation of evidence to guide decision making. If the evidence is skewed, and you continue to believe it, then you are not thinking critically my friend. Next time, you may want to consider spending some time “thinking” before you post at all.

  158. MartinM

    Your blame on the right is misplaced. Your disappointment and blame should be with the arrogant unprofessionalism expressed by the CRU.

    Right, never mind all the people lying about what those wicked, wicked folk at CRU actually did.

  159. MartinM

    You see, we still disagree. Wouldn’t have happened by spending, say, $500,000 for a contolled biodome experiment, since there are many biodomes already….

    No biodome experiment is going to come close to reproducing the atmosphere. The best you could do is simulate a simple, idealised model. For which I refer you back to climate physics 101. Such an experiment falls very firmly into the ‘huge waste of time and money’ category.

  160. MartinM

    If they altered/manufactured the climate data at CRU, and wrote a program to produce a specific result, “this incident” will change everything.

    But they didn’t. So it shouldn’t.

  161. Neil Ferguson

    ” If you’re asking for websites that extensively discuss these and other issues skeptically with acceptable rigor and wingnuttery levels, the fact that you have to ask suggests to me that you are an advocate, not a scholar.

    That’s a ‘no’ on backing up your claim, then.

    OK.”

    Right. That’s what I meant when I said “I am not the person to argue the merits, though.” I’m not qualified to argue the science. But thanks for admitting the implications of my points.

  162. MartinM

    If by ‘admitting the implications,’ you mean ‘rebutting two and showing that you couldn’t support the third,’ sure.

  163. kdb

    ‘In science, ‘replication’ doesn’t mean ‘doing exactly the same thing in exactly the same way.’ There’s no point to that unless you suspect fraud. And there’s no reason to suspect fraud unless you can show that the results are suspect. Can you?’

    Martin, there’s enough ‘hanging in the balance’ that what you call ‘pointless’ I call necessary…and there’s enough ‘going on’ here politically that should ‘force’ a very meticulous and detailed review.

    Fact, I’m surprised that the ‘three independent’ groups aren’t calling for this ‘view’ to validate what they’ve done. I’d think they’d want the world to ‘see it all’ given the super-critical nature of what is before us…IFF APG driven catastrophes are actually real or really come to pass.

    That these folks are being ‘slightly’ disengenous certainly should raise at least one red flag…

  164. Saint PartlyCloudy

    Love this excerpt:

    “What’s so insidious about “ClimateGate,” in this sense, is that now the tables have been completely turned. I don’t believe the new charges are nearly as outrageous as the old charges were”

    Apparently CRU scientists blatantly and deceitfully falsifying science and destroying the evidence is not nearly as objectionable as Energy industry trying to open our eyes to it.

    And this is really the crux of the whole debate. People’s need to believe and be validated and be “part of the movement” is of far greater significance than the facts that tell us if there is or isn’t a movement at all. And this of course is exactly what you’d expect from people with BAs in Communications attempting to get their puny minds around such formidible scientific subject matter.

    Back in the real world, we know this. The data called into question by these e-mails is the basis for much of the prevalent peer-reviewed literature, most of the UN summaries and doomsday predictions, and the alarmist beliefs of most alarmist believers. Furthermore the RAW data has been purged meaning that even a more open or transparent reassessment of the data is not possible. So according to scientific method, the current accepted theory of Global Warming, is invalid, insignificant, and cannot be salvaged, redeemed or absolved. But clearly this won’t slow down the AGW religious fundamentalists even a single step.

    With the data corrupted and facts nonexistent, those still clinging to AGW alarmism do so solely on faith now. Congratulations to them, they have officially started a new religion…

  165. Mark

    >>It is really impossible that scientists, all with grants for research into global warming, might tend to bend the numbers ever so slightly to keep the grant money coming?

    >What, all of them? You’re talking about conspiracy on a massive scale. Got any evidence to back that up?

    Just because a lot of people think something is apparently happening, doesn’t mean it is happening, nor does it mean that they don’t influence each other towards a goal. There is clear evidence of groupthink (enforcement of a belief, suppression of dissent, fudging of data) in the Climategate emails.

    You’re toast.

  166. ehmoran

    @160. MartinM,

    “No biodome experiment is going to come close to reproducing the atmosphere….”

    What a cop out, then you’re admitting scientists know very little about climate if they can’t use today’s technology to recreate our atmosphere.

    Amazing, they do that with underwater biodomes…..

  167. bilbo

    Wow. The idiots have come out of the woodwork for another round of Basic Science Amateur Hour, haven’t they?

    Or I guess you could call it “Half-educated Morons Pick Terms out of Science Textbooks and Pretend they Have a Climate Science Degree Hour” instead.

    Really? You guys don’t think climate scientists had the difference between weather and climate down before climate change ever became an issue? Really? Alright, then. Idiots aweigh….

  168. Patrick

    INternal CRU emails in a NUMBER of places directly contradict the very public certainties stated by the same scientist. Chris Mooney is a flak and a shill for claiming this is about framing when in fact the scientists through their own words and actions did this to themselves.

    http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html

    “series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.”


    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). ”


    I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. (…) I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian.

    “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.”

    “Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.”

  169. Patrick

    #161, several data alterations were recorded in the emails and the data files…

    http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html

  170. ehmoran

    Computer programmers assessment and comments:

    “On Nov 20th, we learned that the GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS was a HOAX all along. Here is the most damaging evidence. “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″ For most of us who don’t understand what that is, its the line of computer code that was used to generate the hockey stick graphic used by Al Gore in his Oscar winning movie. The recorded temperatures that occurred from 1904 through 1994 were lowered by *0.75 for no other reason than to make those years seem cooler. That’s how you get a warming trend from 1994 through 1999. Although this computer code was illegally obtained from the Climate Research Unit by hackers, the information is real and Global Warming is a FRAUD. Worse yet, this fraudulent data is the basis for the climate crises predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    Posted by: UglyinLA | November 25, 2009 at 02:33 PM”

  171. Patrick

    #159: “Right, never mind all the people lying about what those wicked, wicked folk at CRU actually did.”

    Nobody’s lying about what Jones, Mann et all did, they are merely reading the emails and going “Whoa! This is not right!”

    If you read Bishop Hill’s “caspar and the Jesus paper” article, you will understand what dishonesty was behind the below Jones email from 2006:

    http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html

    “You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn’t changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.”

  172. TB

    I have to say: Bravo MartinM

    I followed his links. Practically the first paragraph says:

    “These webpages provide data products obtained from climate simulations using ModelE of the GISS global climate model. A detailed description of this model, including access to source code, is available from the ModelE software homepage.”

    Follow the link provided and you get: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

    Where it says quite clearly “This code can be freely downloaded (as a 1.2 MB gzip-ed tar file) from modelE1.tar.gz.”

    and

    “F90 Code Viewer

    The source code corresponding to the basic configuration of ModelE1 can be seen in it’s entirety using the f90t0html software package. This allows you to jump around the code in a very intuitive graphical interface. Feel free to notify us of any errors you might find!”

    Anyone who has doubts, all the tools you need can be downloaded, used and/or examined. Go to it.

  173. ehmoran

    @169. TB,

    I want the modeling code referred to in Comment #167.

  174. ehmoran

    Just ask the Apollo 13 astronauts how hot their capsule became when CO2 increased…

  175. Mitch Cumstein

    Patrick is right. No matter what case anyone is making in any post, CENSORSHIP tells the real story.

    I submitted 2 posts on the topic today. Was # 165 when I posted it. No profanity, no ad hominem attacks, just made the point that the data called into question by these e-mails is verifiably compromised, and the raw data having been purged, cannot rescue the situation for either side. As such, and by pure scientific definition, the theory is invalid, and all claims made from this data (ie two UN Assessment Reports, and all the assertions of the contributing scientists) were now invalid. But apparently the raw, unfettered scientific facts are not suitable for this board. Neither of my two posts ever posted.

    It seems this board is expressly reserved for MartinM’s ridiculous and evasive pseudoscience assertions and personal insults lobbed at anyone presenting a question he can’t answer. As if we don’t already know that MartinM is actually Chris Mooney, schill of schills, in disguise. Who else possessed of a survivable IQ would be so adamant in defending the borderline-retarded, wishfully-scientific ramblings of a douche with a BA in Communications. Get a life Mooney. A journalist resorting to censorship because he can’t hold his own in an adult conversation. What a complete and total loser…

  176. Brian Too

    I propose that the political Right has made a political blunder. By suggesting that the East Anglia issue “proves” that climate change is false, they have made an error of logic.

    First, there has been no investigation. We have lots of self-appointed citizen activists, many with explicit climate change denying credentials, making conclusions. There is a conflict of interest there.

    Second, assume the worst. The East Anglia scandal is all true. This would then be an academic scandal and does not by itself prove that climate change is false. While it would prove academic misconduct it would not disprove climate change.

    Third, for a “Law and Order” movement, the Right is surprisingly untroubled by the unlawful nature of how this evidence was obtained. In fact I’ve never heard anyone from the Right even acknowledge that this evidence was gained via crime. Why not? And how do we know that the evidence was unaltered by the criminals? We do not know this.

    Fourth. I’ll make a bet. In 20 years climate change will be accepted by all except the most lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists. This is the same crowd who cling to the notion that we never went to the Moon and it was all done on a Hollywood movie set. The poles are melting; there’s satellite footage; you can see it with your own eyes. Low lying areas see more and more flooding (Venice, Tuvalu, London, Vancouver, Rotterdam, Calcutta).

    Fifth, I’ll make another bet. All those climate change deniers, they’ll still be denying. One way or another. They’ll deny that it’s happening even then, or they’ll deny that they held those opinions now, or they’ll deny that their belief structure was based upon a pre-existing ideology that never had anything to do with evidence, or facts, or science. Or they’ll blame the Left for “making them deny”. Or something else equally irresponsible, childish and absurd.

    I have no time for it. Maybe your world ends tomorrow in the Rapture but I intend to have a long, productive life and I intend to leave the world in a better state than I entered it.

  177. TB

    @ 169. ehmoran:

    What difference does it make?

    Logically, if the software you’re targeting has been cooked then the stuff available for free must have been too.

    So, why don’t you show us where the dishonesty lies in that software that’s available for free? Go ahead, I’d be interested to see.

  178. TB

    @ 170. ehmoran Says:

    “Just ask the Apollo 13 astronauts how hot their capsule became when CO2 increased…”

    You’re seriously comparing a cramped space capsule to the atmosphere of an entire planet?

  179. ehmoran

    @172. TB,

    Mann stated that his computer modeling code was intellectual property and his lawyers told him he didn’t need to release the code.

    I would like to see that Climate Model Code?

    The same code as posted in “Comment #167″ but the complete model code.

  180. ehmoran

    @173. TB,

    “You’re seriously comparing a cramped space capsule to the atmosphere of an entire planet?”

    With all that CO2, the temperature should have increased substantially?

    This is what the whole discussion is about?

  181. ehmoran

    @173. TB,

    Watch this BBC video

    Here is the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394168.stm
    (obtained December 6, 2009).

  182. ehmoran

    @177. Brian,

    Brian, I don’t think anyone would disagree that climate change is occurring, just that climate change has been happening for nearly 4.6 Billion years.

    And I’m not quite sure if humans caused that?

  183. ehmoran

    From Comment #174:

    The model code I referred to moved to Comment #171

  184. bilbo

    With all that CO2, the temperature should have increased substantially?

    This is what the whole discussion is about?

    Sigh. A basic physical science class would do you wonders, ehmoran. They probably offer them cheap at your local community college.

  185. bilbo

    I’ll make a bet. In 20 years climate change will be accepted by all except the most lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists.

    Jackpot, Brian Too. Many of the climate change skeptics have also been acid rain, tobacco, ozone hole, and DDT skeptics in their day (especially a lot of the “big” skeptics you hear quoted on blogs). In each and every single case, the science has won out because, eventually, all of those “lies” and “hysteria” supposedly made up by money-grubbing scientists out to destroy America become so visible that we can’t pretend they don’t exist anymore.

    But you’re also right about another point: after bringing this up in the last few days, I’ve had more than a handful of climate skeptics tell me they still think that acid rain, tobacco effects, the ozone hole, and DDT were made up by liberal, money-grubbing scientists.

    You can’t argue with a kitchen table, after all.

  186. ehmoran

    @185. bilbo,

    “A basic physical science class would do you wonders, ehmoran.”

    Pretty much, this BBC propaganda video said exactly what I said.

    Here is the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394168.stm
    (obtained December 6, 2009).

  187. ehmoran

    @185. bilbo,

    Watch the video in Comment #182…..

  188. ehmoran

    bilbo,

    Do you just spit in the wind to see where it lands?

    Cause that seems the only intellectual type conversation you capable of holding….

  189. ehmoran

    Now I remember why I no longer by this Magazine……….

  190. V.O.R.

    @ bilbo, re: CO2
    “Sigh. A basic physical science class would do you wonders, ehmoran. They probably
    offer them cheap at your local community college.”

    If CO2 were any kind of heating agent then how could tubs of dry ice be cold?

    Explain that with your precious science!!!

  191. bilbo

    Pretty much, this BBC propaganda video said exactly what I said.

    ’cause if you read it/saw it in the media, it has to be true!

  192. ehmoran

    @191. bilbo,

    That’s the type of hype and propaganda the media and AGW is using…..

    This is your ouwn people putting this crap out…

    And you wonder why anyone with any level of intelligence questions this hypothesis of AGW?

  193. MartinM

    Martin, there’s enough ‘hanging in the balance’ that what you call ‘pointless’ I call necessary…and there’s enough ‘going on’ here politically that should ‘force’ a very meticulous and detailed review.

    I don’t particularly care what you call necessary. CRU is a very small part of the climatology community, and everyone’s coming to the same conclusions they are. Ergo, no fraud, or a global conspiracy of unprecedented scale. Take your pick.

  194. bilbo

    I’ll give it you, ehmoran, you’ve got the denialist deflection gag down pat:

    ehmoran: “A is not true!”

    Levelheaded person: (posts evidence to show that, yes, in fact, A is true)

    ehmoran: “But what about B?!”

    Levelheaded person: “You were asking about A.”

    ehmoran: “HA! Just as I suspected: you know nothing about B!”

    Levelheaded person: “Why are we talking about B? You asked about A.”

    ehmoran: “I refer you to my post #165 about Z.”

    Levelheaded person: “What are you talking about? You made a claim about A. I showed that your claim was false with evidence.”

    ehmoran: “haHA! Now you cannot respond about B OR Z!! You know nothing!”

    Levelheaded person: (posts quoted blog post of ehmoran denying the truth of A)

    ehmoran: “I never said that! In fact, of course I know that A is true! How dare you take my words out of context?! (enter into self-righteous rant using the words “sir” and “reprehensible” a lot).

    Levelheaded person: “You’re an idiot.”

    ehmoran: (enter into lecture about tone, insinuating that because of the use of the word idiot, Levelheaded person’s stance on A cannot be trusted) Conclude with: “…and besides, you never responded about B or Z. You said nothing. Nothing! NOTHING!!!! (note that use of all-caps appears) How can we trust you about A if you know NOTHING about B or Z.”

    Levelheaded person: B and Z have nothing to do with A, but ok… (posts evidence about B and Z)

    ehmoran: “But what about A?!”

    Levelheaded person: (Shoots self in face)

  195. MartinM

    Apparently CRU scientists blatantly and deceitfully falsifying science and destroying the evidence is not nearly as objectionable as Energy industry trying to open our eyes to it.

    Had that actually happened, you might have a point. Care to support your rhetoric with some facts?

  196. bilbo

    That’s the type of hype and propaganda the media and AGW is using…..

    This is your ouwn people putting this crap out…

    And you wonder why anyone with any level of intelligence questions this hypothesis of AGW?

    Climate scientists control the programming and opinions of the BBC? Do explain! This is some conspiracy!!!

  197. MartinM

    What a cop out, then you’re admitting scientists know very little about climate if they can’t use today’s technology to recreate our atmosphere.

    Seriously. Read an entry-level climate physics text. You’re wasting my time and yours with this idiocy.

  198. MartinM

    Just because a lot of people think something is apparently happening, doesn’t mean it is happening, nor does it mean that they don’t influence each other towards a goal. There is clear evidence of groupthink (enforcement of a belief, suppression of dissent, fudging of data) in the Climategate emails.

    You’re toast.

    I’m not the one trying to wave away thousands of man-hours of research because of some things a few people said in some emails.

  199. MartinM

    INternal CRU emails in a NUMBER of places directly contradict the very public certainties stated by the same scientist. Chris Mooney is a flak and a shill for claiming this is about framing when in fact the scientists through their own words and actions did this to themselves.

    Oh, look, a bunch of out-of-context quotes. Well, that’s me convinced. What’s your next trick, disproving evolution by quote-mining Darwin?

  200. Anthony McCarthy

    A good part of the success of the green house gas industry is due to the utter corruption of the media in the United States and, at least, the rest of the English speaking world. They were pushing the oil-coal industry line before those e-mails were stolen.

    You want to fix that, there isn’t any way to do it without keeping the media from selling itself to the highest bidder. And, yes, that means regulation.

  201. Bill Yarber

    Phillip H

    You said: Oh, and the Climate Crisis is very real, and has been something that sceintists and the U.S. Government have been concerned with since the Johnson Administration.

    Are you really that stupid? The Johnson administration was concerned with Vietnam and riots against the war. If they were concerned about climate change it would have been a coming ice age because the Earth cooled some 1.3 dec C from 1934 to the early 60′s. You obviously don’t know crap about your climate history. There is no climate crisis. The has been warming since we emerged from the little ice age some 250 years ago. Prior to the LIA, temperatures were higher in the Midieval Warm Period when they were growing grapes and making wine in Britian and the Vikings had settlement on Greenland and Newfoundland. Grapes can no longer be grown in the UK and the Vikings abandoned Newfoundland with the advent of the LIA. FOr GOD’s sake, read your history and think a little!

  202. MartinM

    For most of us who don’t understand what that is, its the line of computer code that was used to generate the hockey stick graphic used by Al Gore in his Oscar winning movie. The recorded temperatures that occurred from 1904 through 1994 were lowered by *0.75 for no other reason than to make those years seem cooler. That’s how you get a warming trend from 1994 through 1999.

    This is complete and utter nonsense. The code excerpt quoted didn’t produce the hockey stick; rather, it made some adjustments to an MXD time-series. It doesn’t lower all temperatures between 1904 and 1994. It stops at 1994 because the data stopped there.

    There are more coherent criticisms of this particular piece of code, which are also wrong. This one isn’t just wrong, it’s utterly incompetent.

  203. ehmoran

    @V197. MartinM,

    Son, I’ve got more science and physics text book sitting next to me than you likely could find at your local library.

    So don’t give me that…….

  204. MartinM

    …just made the point that the data called into question by these e-mails is verifiably compromised, and the raw data having been purged, cannot rescue the situation for either side.

    No raw data has been deleted.

    As such, and by pure scientific definition, the theory is invalid, and all claims made from this data (ie two UN Assessment Reports, and all the assertions of the contributing scientists) were now invalid.

    Oddly enough, the IPCC base their reports on more than just the CRU.

    It seems this board is expressly reserved for MartinM’s ridiculous and evasive pseudoscience assertions and personal insults lobbed at anyone presenting a question he can’t answer.

    Heh. Let’s have some substance out of you, then.

    As if we don’t already know that MartinM is actually Chris Mooney, schill of schills, in disguise.

    If only. At least that way I’d be getting paid for this.

  205. Bill Yarber

    Martin M

    Who are you and who do you work for? You have not discused one climate “fact” but have attacked everyone who says something about these emails. Come clean about your true identity and purpose on this blog.

    For the record, I am a retired AeroSpace Engineer with 30 years of ex[perience in industrial process control, sensors and actuators. I understand that positive feedback systems are inherently unstabls, unlike the Earth’s climate. Over the past 2 million years, The Earth has fluctuated from +4 deg F to -9 deg F from current temperatures. I have never worked for any petroleum or energy company.

  206. MartinM

    Son, I’ve got more science and physics text book sitting next to me than you likely could find at your local library.

    Any on climate physics? Tried reading one?

  207. MartinM

    Who are you and who do you work for? You have not discused one climate “fact” but have attacked everyone who says something about these emails.

    That’s a barefaced lie. I’ve discussed more substance here today than all of the deniers put together.

    Come clean about your true identity and purpose on this blog.

    I’m a) bored, and b) ill, and consequently have far too much time on my hands today. I also have a degree in mathematical physics, and a background in programming.

    Of course, who I am is irrelevant. It’s what I say that matters. Address it if you can. Otherwise, all you have is innuendo.

  208. ehmoran

    @204. MartinM,

    Lets talk publications?

    Mine are all other the internet. And yours?

    And which fact or concept about climate would you like to discuss?

  209. MartinM

    If you really want to play the credentials game, I’m afraid the IPCC has you beat.

    And let’s start with the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect. You say that “minute variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations likely results in an insignificant affect on climate.” I’d like you to define ‘minute,’ and tell me if you think the observed increases over the past century or so qualify.

  210. Sean

    Do yourself a favor and Search: Newsweek April 28th 1975
    Satalite data collected to demonstrate the surface temperature changes!
    And read exactly “Glodal Warming” from research by the top scientists from the most prestegious institutions of the day. These were the professors, bosses, friends and mentors of todays climate scientists. Read how they pleaded back then with stories if the dire consequences if all wasn’t done to stop climate change within a decade- mass starvation, social dislocation and distress, destruction of ecosystems and much more just around the corner.
    Great read.
    Nothing changes.

  211. ehmoran

    205. MartinM

    “I’m a) bored, and b) ill, and consequently have far too much time on my hands today.”

    Sounds like you need to quit this paying job and find a real job doing Science?

  212. John Greer

    MartinM, could you please comment on post # 83? I’m curious to know, at what point would you abandon the concept of anthropogenic climate change? Also, you seem to have so much invested beyond scientific inquiry. Doesn’t some of the information gleaned from the CRU bother you? Doesn’t it bother you that there’s a line of code with “fudge factor” in the comment section? Doesn’t it bother you that a scientist calls the inability of models to match data a “travesty”?

  213. ehmoran

    @207. MartinM,

    Just do the biodome study and we’ll resolve this issue……

  214. MartinM

    Sounds like you need to quit this paying job and find a real job doing Science?

    I already have one, thanks.

  215. MartinM

    MartinM, could you please comment on post # 83?

    If AGW turned out to be false, I’d be delighted. I’m not at all confident in the ability of the world’s governments to actually fix this.

    I’m curious to know, at what point would you abandon the concept of anthropogenic climate change?

    When the evidence is against it.

    Also, you seem to have so much invested beyond scientific inquiry.

    Do I? I’ll admit to being annoyed, but that seems perfectly natural to me, under the circumstances. Scepticism is awesome, but science has an entry price; you have to know what you’re talking about. When people who don’t know what they’re talking about start spouting nonsense I get irate. Same with creationists, homeopaths, and all the rest.

    Doesn’t some of the information gleaned from the CRU bother you?

    Yes. Attempts to delete e-mails that may be subject to FOI requests don’t sit well with me; if that turns out to be an accurate representation of what happened there, I’ll be seriously disappointed in those involved. I also don’t think very highly of jokes about the death of a fellow human being.

    But as to the science? No. I’ve seen nothing from any of this that is relevant.

    Doesn’t it bother you that there’s a line of code with “fudge factor” in the comment section?

    No, because I know what it does. Do you?

    Doesn’t it bother you that a scientist calls the inability of models to match data a “travesty”?

    No. Trenberth’s opinion was not shared by the others he was talking to, and he’s made his opinion clear in the peer-reviewed literature, which is exactly the right place for it. That’s science.

  216. MartinM

    Just do the biodome study and we’ll resolve this issue……

    Not much point asking me what I want to discuss if you’re just going to wave it away.

    OK, here’s an easy one. Post #84. What order polynomial did you use?

  217. ehmoran

    I’ve been here for 13 hours, I work for myself, and I’m tired…….

    Third degree polynomial but not extended to predict into the furture

  218. ehmoran

    Last comment:

    Required viewing: see movie “IDIOCRACY”……….

    Just fix the ECOMONY……

  219. John Greer

    MartinM
    Thanks for the candid comment #212. No, I don’t know what the “fudge factor” does. I’ve seen a portion of the code, but I’m not a programmer. My understanding is that it artificially skews data to show higher temps later in the 20th century. I’d appreciate information you can give as to the correct function / interpretation of the code.

  220. Max

    You’re right, Chris. ClimateGate does not change the science one whit—it’s as crappy as ever. And there was indeed no actual science involved in Jones’ attempt to “hide the decline,” only a pathetic fraud to preserve another hockey-stick temperature “reconstruction.”

    Does all this serve to discredit AGW alarmism? Absolutely, because without the holy hockey sticks, the recent warming is neither “unequivocal” nor “unprecedented,” and the creepy, self-righteous confab in Carbonhagen is revealed as Fellini-esque farce.

  221. “But as to the science? No. I’ve seen nothing from any of this that is relevant.”
    —————————————-
    Martin M.
    I see two things (among others) relevant to the science in the climategate emails
    1) The “hide the decline” which is damning for the hockey stick : tree rings which can’t reproduce temperatures from 1960 onwards are claimed to reproduce the temperatures of the last 1000 years ! Science or statistics can’t justify such feat, even if its defenders are claiming they can (they know it’s indefensible because they hide the decline otherwise inclusion of such inconvenient tree rings would have no credibility). Without the hockey stick, climate models can’t backcast the past 1000 years and the case for anthropogenic attribution for “unprecedented” climate change is inexistent (look at fig 9.4,chap9 of the AR4, WG1 ! modellers NEED the hockey stick ! I’m a modeller).

    2) The resistance to disclose raw data for no valid reason (Jones has sent already data to Peter Webster so the non-disclosure agreement excuse is moot). Independant replication is a cornerstone of science. If you don’t see “anything relevant to the science” in deliberate attempts to resist disclosure of data and method, then you’re in denial.

  222. Just ask the Apollo 13 astronauts how hot their capsule became when CO2 increased…

    With all that CO2, the temperature should have increased substantially?

    Aside from the absurd leap in logic regarding CO2, you’re aware that they had to shut off all power to their heaters, aren’t you?

  223. The “hide the decline” which is damning for the hockey stick

    Here we go again.

    1.) The “hockey stick” figure is not dependent on tree ring data. It’s a compilation of multiple independent sources of information including ice cores, boreholes, speleothems, lake sediments, coral growth patterns, instrumental records and of course tree rings. Throw out the tree ring data and the result is the same.

    they know it’s indefensible because they hide the decline otherwise inclusion of such inconvenient tree rings would have no credibility

    2.) Scientists haven’t tried to hide anything. You can find at least a half dozen versions of the “hockey stick” figure in the scientific literature including in Nature, Science and the IPCC reports. One version of the figure, which was a derivative of multiple published reports simplified for a general audience has been criticized. The rest quite clearly show the data separately including the decline in the Northern Hemisphere tree ring proxy.

    3.) In fact the decline that you think they are hiding is the specific focus of numerous papers including Briffa’s titled Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes, which are cited in the captions of the figures denialists are in an uproar about.

    4.) I don’t suppose you’ve noticed the error bars associated with the “hockey stick” figures.

    So basically, scientists are being accused of indefensible conduct for including full data sets into their calculations, discussing errors and uncertainties in the proxy data, and explicitly noting the decline in the very figure captions as well as in the text. The very reason skeptics have jumped on this point is because climatologists have told them, this is an area we don’t understand yet.

    Had scientists wanted to hide inconvenient data, they would have simply not used it at all.

  224. Tim

    Chris M: “Despite the invalidity of their position, you have to credit the Moranos of the world with a brilliant tactical move”

    Oh, so it’s a “brilliant tactical move”? And it’s actually you who invented this “brilliant tactical move” first? Wow, you are a genius!

    Get real. It is as straightforward a reaction as it gets, it doesn’t require any thinking or planning at all, it’s nothing but voicing ones emotional reaction to a possible high-profile fraud.

  225. John Kwok

    Much to my dismay, even a first-rate conservative radio talk show host like John Batchelor (who, to his credit, usually tries to present both sides, and has consistently one of the best radio talk shows in the country), has concluded that scientists have “cooked the data” with regards to climate change and anthropogenic global warming. I hope I am not the only Conservative Republican who disagrees with that view, recognizing that the science in support of anthropogenic global warming is quite robust.

  226. Mitch Cumstein

    Pretty obvious at this point that MartinM is Chris Mooney.

    I called him out for it amidst a rash of rude posts, and they immediately stopped. After a pause, he quotes my comment with a snippy one liner, and when I didn’t respond, he sees the coast is clear and goes back to making his bankrupt arguments. Note how his responses say things like “pick up a physics book” but all of his arguments read like notes from a CRU statistician. Fag, if ANYONE ACTUALLY PRESENTED SOME PHYSICS this debate would have never started. But given the fact that ALL THERE IS IS COOKED STATISTICS, Global Warming is neither science nor reality.

    MartinMooney, feel free to provide one single argument for AGW rooted in physics, and not statistics and maybe we’ll take you seriously. But there isn’t one. And that’s why its so funny that you so adamantly defend a joke position like a fool, hilariously spewing poison at people so much smarter than you who know better. It’s kind of embarrassing to watch a grown adult have a public temper tantrum like yours, but not surprising in the least…

  227. -The very reason skeptics have jumped on this point is because climatologists have told them, this is an area we don’t understand yet.

    That’s the cardinal problem. Skeptics always jump on any uncertainty that scientists may voice and use it to declare the whole enterprise bankrupt. The creationists have used this strategy for years. It’s a standard ploy that however remarkably never seems to get old and go away. They don’t understand, or more probably ignore, the fact that this is the way science has always progressed and it rarely invalidates the basics.

    I can only wonder with amusement what would have happened if the development of quantum theory in the 1920s, with all the problems in understanding it and framing it in ordinary language, had been an issue of great political importance. The “skeptics” would have gone bananas over it.

  228. Mitch Cumstein

    Wavefunction, literally the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

    If a scientist is uncertain about is conclustions he shouldn’t be making them. If his work involves uncertainty that skeptics can easily debunk then it is worthless. Maybe this doesn’t jive in your world of participation trophies and “holiday celebrations” but the science world is not, and never will be PC. It is the last place where YOU MUST BEAR THE BURDEN OR ACCEPT FAILURE. The CRU scientists tried to skirt this reality and are now suffering the shame for it. This is not about “creationist tactics”, its about the hard rules that govern the scientific method that they tried to cheat. And they are now owning the embarrassment deserved by all scientific cheaters: their work has become a complete joke! Good. Because it is.

    And for the record, the world would be a better place if someone had crapped on Quantum theory in the 20′s. Quantum physics is the same kind of junkscience, only operable under its predefined set of boundary conditions. That is not science, it is garbage. Not surprisingly Quantum mechanics has led to nothing of any use to anyone that classical physics couldn’t have provided. Just a bunk of junk papers cluttering up journals.

    “The speed of light is the speed limit for the universe”…sure, tell that to the matter we regularly see being ejected from supernovas at many multiples of C.

    Stop repeating other people’s bankrupt arguments…

  229. Wavefunction

    Mitch Cumstein, only Wolfgang Pauli’s response is apt for your ignorant vomit about quantum theory. You are Not Even Wrong.

    Go, dribble your pathetic blatherings someplace else and stop messing up this blog with ad hominem and pathetic invective. After your juvenile pronouncements, I don’t believe you have the minimal IQ necessary to cough up some actual data to back up the personal attacks so don’t even try.

    You know what else is junk science and garbage? Antibiotics!

  230. Wavefunction

    Hmm, seems like we have a quantum mechanics denier on our hands! We had the AGW, evolution and spherical earth deniers but I have to say this is a first!

    How long do we wait before you deny the germ theory of disease?

  231. V.O.R.

    “Wavefunction, literally the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. ”

    What about my dry ice post? How many posts, btw, does one have to make to become Chris Mooney? I’m thinking about going for a share of his book royalties.

    I’ve noticed that argumentative (for good or ill) posters are often accused of being sockpuppets. I guess there aren’t as many opinionated, frequent posters on the internet as it seems. Good news.

    Mitch is right about Q. physics. I’ve gotten physicists to privately admit neutrinos are actually about 5 feet across and cause spontaneous human combustion. This is why the LHC keeps breaking.

  232. Wavefunction

    Correct. I have even gotten physicists to admit that Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg and Dirac were all part of a gigantic fascist quantum conspiracy for world domination, and that things based on quantum mechanics such as the laser, computer, semiconductors, superconductors, CCDs and even chemical bonding should be uninvented, if not downright banned.

    Personally I think banning the carbon-carbon double bond is a stellar idea.

  233. Josie Smith

    Indeed Chris,

    Science wins. You loose. And don’t forget, history will record your position too. So enjoy the little glow you still have because the game is ’bout up. Science, Nature, Discover, and all the other low rent pseudo-science magazines have a lot to answer for.

    Enjoy,

    Josie

  234. Patrick

    “I propose that the political Right has made a political blunder. By suggesting that the East Anglia issue “proves” that climate change is false, they have made an error of logic.”

    I propose that you are arguing at a strawman. The argument is not that all of AGW is false, the argument has been that there has been a systematic attempt to OVERSTATE every negative and danger wrt to the impact of CO2. What the CRU emails ‘prove’ is that the skeptics were right about the ‘hockey stick team’ hiding data and attempting to narrow the peer-reviewed papers to only the science that agreed with them – agenda driven science! Its not good science. And that bad science has produced models and estimates that exaggerate the harm of CO2 and fail to inform people of the real uncertainties in the science (eg we have no clue how much negative feedback is in the clouds, and models incorrectly pretend its a positive feedback).

    Show us the CRU unadjusted temperature data for the last 150 years. No wait, Hadley is already reviewing it but says they wont be done until 2012.

    We wont really know what we can trust unless and until there are independet reviews of data and science.

  235. John Dailey

    Even if the Catastrophists are applying correct scientific principles, there are several issues that undermine the need for stringent CO2 restrictions. First, the underlying data is suspect because the CRU lied about its existence after it had been destroyed. (Someone requested it. CRU said it wouldn’t release it because the requester was not an academic. Then Pielke Jr. requested it and was told it did not exist.) There is no good reason to lie about the existence of data unless fraudulent activities are taking place. Therefore, CRU’s fraudulent handling of the data calls into question its data and that of other research institutions that were worked closely with it. Second, much of the climate research is agenda driven (Humbert– want to protect my grandchildren’s future.) This calls into question the objectivity of the data that is selected — Catastrophists have only found 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit warming in the last 150 years– this data is easily fudged. Three, even if there is AGW warming, the most logical response is to rely on technology to ameliorate it. Julian Simon has proved that human knowledge outpaces scarcity, and in the 50 to 100-year time frame that is relevant here, it will provide solutions to any problems caused by CO2.

    JD

    There is the additional issue o

  236. Patrick

    “Here we go again.

    1.) The “hockey stick” figure is not dependent on tree ring data.”

    False. MBH98 was dependent, in particular on bristlecones.

    ” It’s a compilation of multiple independent sources of information including ice cores, boreholes, speleothems, lake sediments, coral growth patterns, instrumental records and of course tree rings. Throw out the tree ring data and the result is the same.”

    False. There are differences in every reconstruction. The latest proxies show that – voila – the MWP and LIA are back, the magnitude depending on which set(s) you emphasize.

    It’s telling that the most suspect and dubious sets are precisely the ones that were most helpful in making the ‘hockey stick’ more pronounced.

    A chart that shows the difference it made to correct the dubious reconstructions:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/hockey_crected.jpg

  237. Patrick

    “I also see more and more often how deniers/coolers are suggesting there is a conspiracy going on simply because the name has changed from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’. What? It’s just a word”

    The global temperature is lower now than in 1998. The marketing / PR for this had to change the name to avoid the obvious problem of having a name that would contradict reality.

    The weather and climate has *always* changed, from ice ages to the change from yesterday to today. “climate change” is impossible to deny, but pretending that man could stop it is impossible to live up to.

  238. Patrick

    “Scientists haven’t tried to hide anything.”

    Then send us the CRU raw temp data and their adjustments used in their 1850-2009 temp records. And send us the data that McIntyre requested from Jone etal.

    You cant? Wait a sec…

  239. Patrick

    “Personally I think banning the carbon-carbon double bond is a stellar idea.”

    Please. The idiots who want to ban CO2 might get some even crazier ideas … I’m just afraid they will come after dihydrogen monoxide next.

  240. MartinM

    My understanding is that it artificially skews data to show higher temps later in the 20th century. I’d appreciate information you can give as to the correct function / interpretation of the code.

    First thing’s first, let’s take a look at the whole thing. There are two variants floating around, version d and version e. It’s worth noting that what version d produces is a graph with both the raw data and the artificially skewed version plotted, with the corrected version clearly labelled ‘corrected.’ Version e plots only the corrected version.

    Neither version does anything to raw temperature data. They both work on tree-ring data, which is used as a temperature proxy. There are many different tree-ring series, which all give similar results, for the most part. The exception is over the past few decades; since around 1960, some proxies (mostly high altitude ones) have failed to reflect the rising temperatures recorded by direct means, and instead show a downwards trend. Since this affects only some series, it’s known as the divergence problem; many papers have been published discussing it. Since the tree-ring proxies track each other pretty well prior to 1960, and since there are proxies other than tree-rings which produce the same results, the generally accepted explanation is that some factor, probably anthropogenic in origin, is limiting the temperature response of these proxies.

    So, what this code appears to do is artificially correct the declining proxy series to more closely match the observed temperatures. The allegation against CRU is that they’re trying to hide something by doing this; however, as I mentioned earlier, the decline of these series is already described in the peer-reviewed literature, and has been for quite some time. So it’s hard to see how exactly this could be intended to hide anything. And, in fact, the purpose of this adjustment has also been described publically, in a paper, albeit <a href="http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:q9oMbzZJrIEJ:www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/papepages/pwosborn_summertemppatt_submit2gpc.pdf"an unpublished one.

    Before you can use a proxy to reconstruct past data, you first need to know, for example, what tree-ring width corresponds to what temperature; you need to calibrate it, by comparing the proxies to the measured temperatures over the period for which you have both. The purpose of the adjustment was simply to ensure that the decline wasn’t adversely affecting the calibration process. From page 12 of the paper:

    The second calibration step was introduced to allow for this possibility (i.e., that the use of high-pass filters prior to calibration may have resulted in underestimated calibration coefficients): the MXD data were (temporarily) adjusted to artificially remove the decline, then the calibration coefficients were determined using unfiltered data and applied to the unadjusted MXD data to generate the reconstruction.

    In other words, they explicitly stated that they had altered the data, and explained why.

    That’s not fraud, just good science.

  241. MartinM

    Apparently, I fail at links today. The ‘version e’ link in my previous comment has an extra ‘ rel=’ – just remove that to make it work. The sentence ending ‘in a paper, albeit’ should continue ‘albeit an unpublished one,’ and link to this paper:

    http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:q9oMbzZJrIEJ:www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/papepages/pwosborn_summertemppatt_submit2gpc.pdf

  242. MartinM

    Pretty obvious at this point that MartinM is Chris Mooney.

    Pretty obvious you’re a homophobic loon.

    MartinMooney, feel free to provide one single argument for AGW rooted in physics, and not statistics and maybe we’ll take you seriously.

    Sure. Increased CO2 traps radiation. This is 19th Century physics, you know. I’d have thought you might have picked that up, if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about.

  243. MartinM

    First, the underlying data is suspect because the CRU lied about its existence after it had been destroyed.

    What data has been destroyed? Be specific. Show your work.

  244. MartinM

    False. MBH98 was dependent, in particular on bristlecones.

    There are many hockey sticks. You clearly know that already, since you talk of multiple reconstructions yourself.

    False. There are differences in every reconstruction.

    Of course there are. But they all tell the same story.

    It’s telling that the most suspect and dubious sets are precisely the ones that were most helpful in making the ‘hockey stick’ more pronounced.

    A chart that shows the difference it made to correct the dubious reconstructions:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/hockey_crected.jpg

    Heh. Is that McIntyre’s ‘alternative’ PCA? The one that reproduces Mann’s work, if only you correct McI’s obvious mistakes?

  245. MartinM

    The global temperature is lower now than in 1998.

    Yeah, it’s called short-term variation. If you think that’s an argument, you’re another who is too ignorant to have an opinion.

  246. MartinM

    Then send us the CRU raw temp data and their adjustments used in their 1850-2009 temp records.

    Why don’t you start off with GISTEMP, for which both data and source are available, and which reproduces HadCRUT? Couldn’t be because you don’t actually have any meaningful criticisms to make, so you’d rather go with innuendo? The guys at CRU could be getting a three-year-old child to draw their data with crayons, and it won’t matter one bit, if you can’t show that there’s something wrong with GISTEMP. So get to it. Time to put up or shut up.

  247. Josie Smith

    Dr. Martin M. writes,

    “If you think that’s an argument, you’re another who is too ignorant to have an opinion.”

    Ooooh. Another scientific refutation. Perhaps that will make it into the next IPCC report?

  248. John Dailey

    Martin # 244

    “First, the underlying data is suspect because the CRU lied about its existence after it had been destroyed.

    What data has been destroyed? Be specific. Show your work.”

    The CRU stated in response to Pielke Jr.:

    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.

    See link:
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-original-data.html

    I know you will argue that it doesn’t matter et cet. — but if that is the case, why did the CRU lie about the data when it was originally requested?

    JD

  249. Sundevil

    “the legitimate science of climate change”

    And it’s legitimate how, exactly? Can you show me other examples of ‘settled’ science where the researchers dishonestly fudge results? If so, is this a legitimate exercise. How can anyone respect the output of climate models when they are clearly flawed and now we see that they have been manipulated as well. If it’s so obvious, release the source code for all models and let’s compare them to see what ‘fudge factors’ are being used. The consistent failure to disclose these rather simple computer models speaks volumes about the dishonesty permeating the so-called legitimate science of climate change.

  250. Jim Watson

    Claiming that the CRU documents don’t “change the science of climate change” is like whistling past the graveyard.

    AGW is crashing hard and if journals like Science and Nature want to restore their credibility they need to start figuring out how to dig their way out of this colossal hole they’ve dug for themselves.

    A good start would be to retire the aging enviro-activists on their editorial boards who steered their publications right off a cliff.

  251. Harry D

    All of the AGW believers will be standing in line when Al Gore starts passing out the Cool-Aid.

  252. Josie Smith

    By the way Chris,

    Your title

    The Right Wins the Frame Game in “ClimateGate”

    suggests you are a shill for socialism under the guise of science.

  253. Josie Smith

    The doesn’t know when to quit digging Martin M writes

    “Why don’t you start off with GISTEMP, for which both data and source are available”

    Sure, here GIStemp is shown to be the massage cooked cr@p that it is: http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-would-you-like-your-climate-trends.html

  254. J.S

    The doesn’t know when to quit digging Martin M writes
    “Why don’t you start off with GISTEMP, for which both data and source are available”
    Sure, here GIStemp is shown to be the massage cooked cr@p that it is: http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-would-you-like-your-climate-trends.html

  255. ehmoran

    Hurricane Expert Rips Climate Fears: ‘There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination’

    Climategate Revelations ‘are but the tip of a giant iceberg’

    Tuesday, December 08, 2009 –Climate Depot

    The following commentary is from Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU).

    Puncturing the Climate Balloon

    by Bill Gray

    December 8, 2009

    Had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.

    There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.

    Rising levels of CO_2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be. There has yet to be a honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO_2 ‘s influence on global temperature. The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO_2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.

    The last century’s global warming of about 1 degree F is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation. These ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the globe’s temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and into a generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global climate of the Medieval Period. We can do nothing but adapt to such long period natural temperature changes.

    The recent ‘ClimateGate’ revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public.

    The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO_2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO_2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.

    The Cap-and-Trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA’s just announced decision to treat CO_2 as a pollutant represents a grave threat to the industrial world’s continued economic development. We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country’s sovereignty.

  256. ehmoran

    And:

    For all those speaking of conspiracies:

    “A Coup d’état is a Conspiracy when squashed, but becomes a Reality when accomplished……”

  257. ehmoran

    And,

    Someone said the HadCRU global data is raw and available…

    Well, I’d like to know how they got those thermometers so evenly spaced in the oceans?

    And the grid cells are quite bigger than cells in from a Satellite image, so their smoothed data, not Raw Data…….

  258. Brian Too

    @ehmoran, #183,

    I have said it before and I’ll keep saying it. Whether humans cause the warming is a minor secondary issue. Lots of people obsess about the anthropological issues (if, how much, when, and so on) and I say it doesn’t matter, or it certainly doesn’t matter much.

    We have just 3, count’em, 3 major questions to deal with:

    1). Is the planet warming?

    2). Should we try to intervene?

    2). What, if anything, can we do about it?

    I’ve listed them in order of priority too.

  259. ehmoran

    #260. Brian Too,

    1). Is the planet warming? If natural, should man interfere, that natural evolution thing

    2). Should we try to intervene? See number one

    2). What, if anything, can we do about it? At what cost to humanity? Warming results in increased growing degree days, more fertile land becomes available in northern regions with increased precipitation, although a slight increase in desert sizes is the downside, maybe that’s the answer to the Malthusian dilemma?

  260. Murray

    And now the dirty data drafters have been at it in Australia… Have a look at what the temp data records at Darwin look like after the ”fudge” factors have been applied…

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_how_one_human_caused_darwin_to_warm/

  261. ehmoran

    #260. Brian Too,

    Remember that great and wonderful flood control of the Mississippi. Flood control now produces a 100 to 500 year flood every couple of years?

    Flooding significantly would be less severe if humans would not have been so arrogant as to think they could control nature…..

  262. ehmoran

    @262. Murray,

    Great, three samples, also all influenced by the urban-heat-island effect….

  263. John Greer

    MartinM
    In #216, you answered the question I asked in #213, “Doesn’t it bother you that a scientist calls the inability of models to match data a “travesty”?” with this: “No. Trenberth’s opinion was not shared by the others he was talking to, and he’s made his opinion clear in the peer-reviewed literature, which is exactly the right place for it. That’s science.” You’re doing some spinning here, not science. The point is that the models were not matching reality, not whether or not people wanted to agree on the word “travesty” to describe the models’ deficiencies. Faulty models are a problem because we’re always being told how accurate they are. The last two years have been a dreadful disappointment for AGW proponents with regard to hurricane predictions for the USA. 2008 and 2009 had below average activity. If the models can’t get two years of hurricane predictions right, why should we believe long term predictions? Don’t give us the line about the difference between weather and climate. At the root of the models for hurricane and climate prection is an understanding of energy transfer in the atmosphere. If they can’t get hurricane predictions right two years in a row, forget selling their long-term expertise.

    In #241 you were explaining tree ring proxies and you wrote: “Since the tree-ring proxies track each other pretty well prior to 1960, and since there are proxies other than tree-rings which produce the same results, the generally accepted explanation is that some factor, probably anthropogenic in origin, is limiting the temperature response of these proxies.” Let me get this straight. They couldn’t explain the data, so they made some assumptions about what caused the data to be wrong, then manipulated the data to make them look right, then, since they now obtained the answer they wanted and – voila! – our hypothesis is right! That’s not science – it’s called “dry-labbing”. Why couldn’t they just let the data stand on their own, and say, “we don’t know why this is happening”, rather than making assumptions to fit their preconceived notions?

    In #215 You answered the following comment, “Sounds like you need to quit this paying job and find a real job doing Science?”, with this: “I already have one, thanks.” If you don’t mind saying, what is the science job that you do?

    Finally, in #243 you replied to an earlier poster with: “Pretty obvious you’re a homophobic loon.” What in the world is that about?

    AGW proponents keep telling us that even if all the CRU data are wrong, it doesn’t matter because there are so many independent lines of evidence, years of independent research etc. However, CRU and it’s main players, including the gang at RealClimate, have huge sway over policy, and public opinion, because media outlets rely so heavily on their pronouncemnts. So, if CRU goes down, I think the game is over.

    By the way, it looks more and more like the CRU data were leaked, not hacked. And Australia’s got problems with data (Anthony Watts). I think that by the time this is all over, AGW will be discarded, and you’ll “be delighted”, as you mentioned in an earlier comment.

  264. VJay912

    One would only hope the “fossil fuel” industry conspired with Bush or whoever to keep their business alive. My God, these eco-whackos would have us living in the stone age if they had their way. And I don’t necessarily believe anybody “conspired” but rather simply defended their right to stay in business.

    You can believe whatever you want. But when you start pointing your legislative finger at me and other innocent free people then HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. Keep it in the classroom, keep it in the Popular Science magazines. Don’t tell me I’m to blame for anything. The earth is 4 billion years old. It’s gone through warmer and colder periods constantly. Our paltry amount of time spent on here is inconsequential. You can’t even fathom the hundreds of millions of years the earth has been here. You can’t.

    Think about it.

  265. bilbo

    By the way, it looks more and more like the CRU data were leaked, not hacked

    I keep hearing this point regurgitated by the Silly Little Denialists (I know, ehmoran, I know…boo hoo, I called you a name) like the contents of a frat boy’s beer bong, but I’ve never seen any proof. Does anyone have any, or is this just the spin that makes the whole story sound more legit and avoid it being, y’know, a highly illegal crime?

  266. John Greer

    Hi Bilbo,
    No smoking gun proof yet, I suppose, but here’s an interesting article, regarding hacked vs leaked. My understanding is that CRU never reported any security problems. Looking forward to your proof that this was a hack. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked/

  267. MartinM

    Science wins. You loose. And don’t forget, history will record your position too. So enjoy the little glow you still have because the game is ’bout up. Science, Nature, Discover, and all the other low rent pseudo-science magazines have a lot to answer for.

    By the way Chris,

    Your title

    The Right Wins the Frame Game in “ClimateGate”

    suggests you are a shill for socialism under the guise of science.

    Ooooh. Another scientific refutation.

  268. MartinM

    The CRU stated in response to Pielke Jr.:

    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.

    In other words, no data was destroyed. CRU simply didn’t maintain a copy of other people’s data.

    I know you will argue that it doesn’t matter et cet. — but if that is the case, why did the CRU lie about the data when it was originally requested?

    You’ll have to be more specific, I’m afraid. To what lie are you referring?

  269. MartinM

    Sure, here GIStemp is shown to be the massage cooked cr@p that it is: http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-would-you-like-your-climate-trends.html

    ‘I don’t like the results homogenisation produces, therefore it’s wrong’ is not actually an argument. If you, or anyone else, think there’s something wrong with GISS’s process, you need to actually show it.

  270. MartinM

    You’re doing some spinning here, not science. The point is that the models were not matching reality, not whether or not people wanted to agree on the word “travesty” to describe the models’ deficiencies.

    No, that’s not the point at all. Trenberth, like pretty much everyone else, accepts the recent trends as natural variation on top of a long-term warming trend. The ‘travesty’ is not that the models don’t reproduce every little detail of that variation; no one expects them to. The travesty is that our current observing system can’t pin down exactly what is causing the current variation. If you read the original e-mail in which Trenberth made his comment, you’ll see that he references a paper he wrote which is available online. That’ll explain his position far better than I could.

    If the models can’t get two years of hurricane predictions right, why should we believe long term predictions? Don’t give us the line about the difference between weather and climate. At the root of the models for hurricane and climate prection is an understanding of energy transfer in the atmosphere. If they can’t get hurricane predictions right two years in a row, forget selling their long-term expertise.

    I’m afraid I’m going to give you that line anyway. The simple fact is that long-term trends are predictable even when short-term behaviour isn’t. That isn’t up for debate; it’s just a simple fact of statistics. It’s also intuitively obvious, even when it comes to weather and climate. I can’t tell you what the weather will be like in London on the 1st of June, 2050. But I can give you a reasonable idea of how it will be different to the weather in London on the 1st of January, 2050.

    Let me get this straight. They couldn’t explain the data, so they made some assumptions about what caused the data to be wrong, then manipulated the data to make them look right, then, since they now obtained the answer they wanted and – voila! – our hypothesis is right!

    No, that’s not what I said at all. The alteration to the data was strictly temporary, for the purposes of determining whether or not the divergence was adversely affecting their calibration.

    If you don’t mind saying, what is the science job that you do?

    I do mind, I’m afraid. I will say, however, that I’m not a climatologist, nor in any way connected to climatology. My background is a mix of mathematical physics, engineering, and software development. I have briefly studied climate physics and modelling, but I’ve never done any research in that area, nor ever held a position which depends at all on climate change, or climatology in general. I originally became interested in the subject about a decade ago; at which point I was firmly in the sceptics’ camp, incidentally. I still have my concerns about some of the proposals for mitigation, but that’s another story.

    Finally, in #243 you replied to an earlier poster with: “Pretty obvious you’re a homophobic loon.” What in the world is that about?

    ‘Loon,’ because of his paranoid insistence that I am Chris Mooney. ‘Homophobic’ because he called me a fag, and I don’t imagine he was talking about cigarettes.

    AGW proponents keep telling us that even if all the CRU data are wrong, it doesn’t matter because there are so many independent lines of evidence, years of independent research etc. However, CRU and it’s main players, including the gang at RealClimate, have huge sway over policy, and public opinion, because media outlets rely so heavily on their pronouncemnts. So, if CRU goes down, I think the game is over.</blockquote.

    It may work out that way, due to the PR consequences. It shouldn't.

    By the way, it looks more and more like the CRU data were leaked, not hacked. And Australia’s got problems with data (Anthony Watts). I think that by the time this is all over, AGW will be discarded, and you’ll “be delighted”, as you mentioned in an earlier comment.

    I took a quick look at the article on the Australia data. Some of the points in it were just plain wrong – Daly Waters pub is not the closest station to Darwin Airport with data going back to 1941, for example. Some are irrelevant – the pre-1941 data is quite obviously skewed, unless you happen to believe that the average temperature of the area suddenly shifted down by about 1 degC right at the time station zero was a) moved and b) fitted with a Stevenson screen. The rest is basically just a complaint that, surely, the homogenisation algorithm must be wrong because…well, it just must, apparently.

    Incidentally, it’s nice to have a civil, in-depth conversation with someone for a change, so thanks for that.

  271. MartinM

    Looking forward to your proof that this was a hack.

    Well, the realclimate server was hacked and a copy uploaded. That’s certainly suggestive.

  272. ehmoran

    JUST DO THE BIODOME STUDY…….

  273. John Dailey

    #271 Martin

    You are truly stupid. Destroying data provided by others is clearly the destruction of data. If you are too stupid to see the lie, I am not going to waste my time with you. I urge you and other Catastrophists to keep making such sophomoric arguments. It is the reason that Catastrophists can’t win debates and helps the case of climate realists. You have no practical idea of how the world works and will be laughed out of any serious discussions on ethics or climate.

    JD

  274. Josie Smith

    Chris said, “‘I don’t like the results homogenisation produces, therefore it’s wrong’ is not actually an argument. If you, or anyone else, think there’s something wrong with GISS’s process, you need to actually show it.”

    Uh, yeah. That was the point. Read the web site pointed to where, uh, yeah, it is actually shown what is wrong with the process. The argument wasn’t that “I don’t like the results of homogenisation”. It’s that the sites which have so far been reversed by backing out the original raw data, have shown that the temperatures from the 1960′s on are biased to create the hockey stick charts you AGW proponents love to publish. Everywhere you look the biases are hockey stick shaped. I am sure that means nothing to you and I am sure you will say this is no argument. Good luck to you and Fenton Communications Chris.

  275. Marcus

    To SLC. That’s Al Gore? I thought it was a picture of Johnny Cash.

  276. Rich Wright

    Tide station data is available from seaports around the world. In many places the normal, modest rise in sea level has slowed or even reversed. All of the tide stations along California show a decline in sea level since the 1990s.

    If there was some unusual level of melting occurring all over the world, it would seem reasonable that the sea level rise would accelerate. However, the real data shows the opposite. How does the global warming hypothesis explain the slowing is sea level rise?

    It would appear the most likely reason for the modest decline is simply that the Pacific Ocean has cooled a bit, and the cooler water has contracted slightly.

    Why doesn’t Discover Magazine do an article about the sea level trend at the San Francisco tide station? The ocean rose about 7 inches during the 20th century, and has declined slightly in the 21st century.

  277. John (Ivan) Kerigan

    Thank you, Mr. Vladimir Putin.

  278. John Greer

    Hi Martin, (If you’re still checking this thread….)
    Thanks for your comment #273.

    Of course you can predict the relative difference in temperatures between London in January vs London in June, 2050. I think that’s a poor analogy. I’d be impressed if you could predict the difference between the temperatures in London in January 2050 and January 2075. That would convince me that there is some merit to the models. Trenberth’s email seems to indicate that he conflates weather with climate, just like a lot of people do. For someone who should know the difference, he sure spends a lot of time talking about the unseasonably cold weather in Denver! How come no one called him out for confusing weather and climate?

    You say that “the RealClimate server was hacked and a copy uploaded. That’s certainly suggestive.” Don’t divert attention from how the documents were released. The issue is: was this an inside job (whistleblower?) or an external hack (trying to disrupt Copenhagen?). CRU hasn’t said they were hacked, have they? Never did hear back from Bilbo (#268). I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt – the article I linked is pretty long. On the other hand, maybe he just likes to throw grenades, call people names, and get out quick.

    In comment 241 I think you meant “high LATITUDE”, right? In any case, the problem just seems like so much hand waving to me. If the tree rings aren’t doing what you expected them to do, then go look for testable explanations. But you said yourself that they made an assumption that the divergence was influenced by anthropogenic causes. How convenient! Are the scientists involved really that arrogant to say, “Well we KNOW this is all caused by humans, so lets’s just assume…” In any other science you’d back up and say, “Hey gang, there’s something we have to look at here…” The assumption of anthropogenic cause for the divergence forces the desired conclusion. I have not worked my way throught these two posts, but you might find them interesting:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html You’ll have to resist the knee-jerk reaction when you see the “AmericanThinker” name. Marc Sheppard is an engineer, and I think he knows his way around a lot of this statistical stuff.

    A couple other points.
    CO2 is a bad actor when it comes to compressor and heat exchanger design, when you have large concentrations of CO2. However, most engineering calculations don’t consider the effects of components making up less then 0.1% of the gas composition. For example, air cooled heat exchangers are designed without any regard to the effect of the CO2 in the air. And heat exchanger users are not reporting improper cooling because of that lack of regard for CO2. CO2 can be a bad actor in some cases, but it’s not magic. Yes, I realize the atmosphere/ocean system is vastly more complex than a heat exchanger, but I think we’re giving CO2 too much credit. For a thorough look at the physics of CO2, check out “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, by Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, at http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161. And it’s peer reviewed, so it has to be right! Yes, some of the boys at RealClimate tried to smear the paper, but the authors hit them back pretty hard (can’t find the links now).

    Finally, I’ve enjoyed this civil exchange with you as well. I have a lot to learn on this subject – mainly statistics, I think. I get really tired of the labels and name calling on both sides. But the “denier” label is so old and, frankly, disgusting. To lump every skeptic in the same moral camp as the Holocaust deniers is repugnant. Also, do Gore and other AGW proponents really believe everyone who doesn’t believe in AGW is paid by Exxon? Really? – all 141 signers of the letter linked by EHMORAN a couple days ago? By the way, I wish I could find the paper now – I hate when I don’t save things in favorites! – but one of the papers used to justify putting polar bears on the endangered list was funded by…wait for it… ConocoPhillips! (If I remember right – it might have been another major oil co.). Anyway, it would be nice if AGW proponents would admit that maybe some people really are skeptical because they’re simply not convinced. I get tired hearing about how hot it’s getting, then reading things like Anthony Watts’ surveys showing the ridiculous locations of weather stations (next to parking lots, near air conditioning vents, etc). Also, if the scientists are so rigorous, and really hold each other to account, why was it that Hansen dragged his feet so long when McIntyre exposed the bias in data gathered after 2000? And why did it take non-climatologists to expose the fact that – was it Russia? – didn’t have temperature data for October 2008, so they just used September’s data, making October 2008 look unusually hot? If the Chris Mooneys of the world want to blame the stupidity of citizenry for not going along with AGW, maybe they should remember Einstein’s (I think) line about – “If you can’t explain it to your grandmother, you don’t understand it”. Kind of gets back to “science by hand waving.” Anyway, I try to interact on these posts according to Matthew 7:12 – “do unto others…”, and Proverbs 15:1 “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” I hope I’ve done that with you. Thanks again.

  279. Harpo

    Martin M. Comment 25

    You love Jospeh Fourier. Well he came up with Fourier series. All Electrical Engineers are taught about it.

    I’m not sure I agree with 4 degrees of freedom being able to fit any curve but 6 definitely will, and fourier proved it mathematically. I have used it to great effect throughout my career. IT IS A FACT. It’s great for interpolation. The problem is that these climate modellers are trying to extrapolate the data. It doesn’t work and the observational data shows that a Ouija Board would do a better job at predicting climate than these climate models.

    The degrees of freedom are commonly called Harmonics. A linear supersition of harmonics can produce any curve you like. Fourier proved it mathematically. The more harmonics, the better the fit. Prove Fourier wrong before you go off with your big ignorant mouth and trying to belittle other people who are clearly smarter than you.

    Martin, you’re just an AGW schill. Give up. The game is lost. Your criminal fraud mates at CRU have blown it. You don’t know anything useful about science, physics or mathematics. I can tell. You are an amatuer trying to pretend that you are a pro.

  280. John Greer

    I found the polar bear report I mentioned in #282. Take this link, go to the acknowledgements and check out some of the sponsors – big, bad, mean oil companies, BP, ConocoPhilips and evil incarnate, ExxonMobil.
    http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1337/pdf/ofr20061337.pdf

    Then go see what bad oil company (wait, that’s redundant isn’t it?) ConocoPhillips has on their site.
    http://www.conocophillipsalaska.com/environmental/Polar%20Bear%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

    Let’s stop with the nonsense about oil company conspiracies, shall we?

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 Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by Salon.com and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs. For a longer bio and contact information, see here.

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 »