Sifting Through "ClimateGate," Finding Very Little

By Chris Mooney | December 18, 2009 10:23 am

There is a really good piece up at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media that looks at the top five most prominent issues raised in “ClimateGate”, analyzes the relevant emails in context, and finds some concerns but not much wrong–with the notable exception of the suggestion that emails subject to a Freedom of Information request be deleted. The article’s author, Zeke Hausfather, concludes:

It is unfortunate, if perhaps not surprising, that the quotes from the e-mails that have gotten the most publicity from skeptics and in some media strongly distort the views and actions of the scientists in question, contributing to a perception of collusion to manipulate the climate data itself.

Nothing contained in the e-mails, however, suggests that global temperature records are particularly inaccurate or, worse, that they have been manipulated to show greater warming. The  certainly troubling conduct exposed in some of the e-mails has little bearing on the fundamental science that strongly indicates that the world is warming and that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

You should read the whole piece, for it clearly and soberly shows just how much this has been blown out of proportion.

Comments (77)

  1. V.O.R.

    For me the *real* tragedy of “Climategate” is the missed opportunity.

    What if CRU had sold access to it’s private e-mail archives? Preferably on a pay-per-min or subscription basis.

    When we’re talking about the media by far the most growth is in the Confirmation Bias sector. For some major *ka-ching* CRU wouldn’t have had to spend any time or money vetting or explaining the e-mails. So we’re not talking a significant drain on their resources: Just make them available if you’ve got the $ and let the anti-climate media-sphere supply all the spin and PR CRU could want. More than they could want, in fact.

    Of course CRU would have had to lawyer-up before-hand to lock down the IP, and get ready for serious copyright infringement. But I believe they’d consider self-funding lawsuits against prominent deniers worth the trouble.

    Sigh. To misquote Mailer: “The horror of the Twenty-First Century was not the size of each new event, but the paucity of its monetization. “

  2. John Kwok

    Chris,

    Thanks for posting this since it reaffirms an independent analysis by the Associated Press which reached the same conclusions. Unfortunately I don’t believe it will persuade climate change denialists.

  3. From that totally ethical climate scientist, Michael E. Mann, who would never collude to manipulate climate data:

    “I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…”

  4. “Finding not much wrong” in the rescued emails is as laughable as the tobacco scientists testifying before Congress that cigarettes are not dangerous.

    All you have to do is look out the window to realize that your man made global warming sky is falling scenario is dead.

  5. Rmoen

    The Climategate emails written by UN-contributing scientists underscore the need for the United States to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission. It defies common sense that we outsource our climate science to the UN then allow it to serve as both judge (IPCC) and advocate (Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen).

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

  6. a dood

    “Unfortunately I don’t believe it will persuade climate change denialists.”

    … John, believe me, we’re as frustrated with you as you are with us!

    AGW has simply not. been. proven. When you look at charts of climate changes over millions of years, our current warming barely registers.

  7. Recently Enlightened

    Mr. Mooney,

    Thank you for you and your commenters’ reporting on the issue surrounding climategate over the recent weeks. As someone who calls themself a skeptic but is more of a fence-sitter on the topic of anthropogenic climate change, I stumbled across your blog and posts randomly by way of Google.

    Thanks to the information seen here, I have been turned into a person who now fully accepts the role of humans in shaping our planet’s climate. What “turned” me were the insightful comments of climate change supporters on your blog, who seem to be very familiar with the science and are able to support their statements with scientific evidence. Conversely, many of the skeptics commenting on your blog appear to have no case, as they cannot back up their points with evidence when challenged and resort to childish arguing tactics instead. If what I’ve seen here are all that skeptics have going for them, they don’t have much of a case.

    Thank you for your reporting on this issue, and I hope you will keep it up in the future.

  8. Kampen

    The issue at stake is NOT climate change.

    The issue is human impact on climate change.

    People should try not to confuse the two issues.

  9. Unklar Klaar

    Politicians need to take note that the general public is not necessarily agreeing with or denying the ClimateGate situation. The general public is tired of the hair-splitting, bickering, name-calling, and threats that continue to spew forth from policitians like a CFC-laden aerosol can that’s been shot with 12-gauge buckshot.

  10. toasterhead

    6. a dood Says:
    December 18th, 2009 at 11:43 am

    AGW has simply not. been. proven.
    ________

    Neither has gravity. Your point?

  11. Steve Makar

    How can a Science based publication not be neutral on a question about research that is possibly biased. The proper stand should be “Lets see the Data”.

  12. I guess it’s not childish to manipulate data. That is at the very least unethical and at the most criminal.

    Even a child can look out the window and see that the earth is not warming up whether it is caused by sun spots or my SUV.

    If you were planning on making your living using scare tactics of a global meltdown I suggest considering another occupation.

  13. bilbo

    Such condemnation by Jose and Steve Makar! It’s amusing.

    Steve Makar: Most of the scientific world has “seen the data.” Perhaps you should go read up on it for yourself. No one’s hiding it from you…or anyone else. Willful ignorance is no excuse, buddy.

    Jose: So you’re a “the climate isn’t even changing” denialist. Nice. Tell me then, if the world is “not warming up” as you claim, how do you account for global signatures in species ranges shifting, sea ice/glacier loss, sea level rise, and rising temperature trends? I don’t want to hear a self-righteous lecture about causation – you said “the earth is not warming up whether it is caused by sun spots or my SUV.”

    Evidence, sir.

  14. John Kwok

    @ a dood –

    I just happen to be a registered Republican who studied paleoclimatology in college, and, to a lesser extent, graduate school. Based on what I have seen of the data, I would say that the case for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is quite persuasive as noted here:

    http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

    While I will concede that there is substantially more scientific data supporting the reality of biological evolution than there is for AGW, the data that exists for AGW is quite sound, contrary to increasingly inane claims from the likes of Moreno, Inhofe, and… surprise, surprise…. the Discovery Institute (the central “nexus” of Intelligent Design creationist thought… and if you doubt this, then take a look at http://www.discovery.org and http:/uncommondescent.com for proof that the Intelligent Design creationists are AGW denialists too).

  15. gallopingcamel

    I read the original article by Zeke Hausfather and drew quite different conclusions. Somehow Zeke had very little to say about the computer codes revealed in Climategate. These programs appear to be prima facie evidence of incompetence or even outright fraud. If these were used to manipulate data published under peer review, Climategate will become an unstoppable steamroller.

  16. Cam Winston

    “clearly and soberly shows just how much this has been blown out of proportion.”

    You win the irony award.

  17. Cam Winston

    No one’s hiding it from you…or anyone else.

    Especially if you don’t count the stuff that was discarded due to lack of storage. I hate it when benchmark data is thrown away. SETTLED!

  18. Seminatrix

    Mr. Mooney,

    Thank you for you and your commenters’ reporting on the issue surrounding climategate over the recent weeks. As someone who calls themself a skeptic but is more of a fence-sitter on the topic of anthropogenic climate change, I stumbled across your blog and posts randomly by way of Google.

    Thanks to the information seen here, I have been turned into a person who now fully accepts the role of humans in shaping our planet’s climate. What “turned” me were the insightful comments of climate change supporters on your blog, who seem to be very familiar with the science and are able to support their statements with scientific evidence. Conversely, many of the skeptics commenting on your blog appear to have no case, as they cannot back up their points with evidence when challenged and resort to childish arguing tactics instead. If what I’ve seen here are all that skeptics have going for them, they don’t have much of a case.

    Thank you for your reporting on this issue, and I hope you will keep it up in the future.

    I’m not a skeptic, but I’ve noticed the same thing: the skeptics here are wholly unable to support their arguments with anything outside of speculation.

    If RE is a real person, skeptics, you’re losing this battle….at least on the blog. Time to put up or shut up. Let’s see your evidence.

  19. I didn’t say the climate isn’t changing, I said it is getting cooler.

    It’s normal for species to move from one place to another in search of the proverbial grass is greener on the other side. It’s been going on for millions of years.

    The ground rises and falls as tectonic plates move under the planet’s surface. The older Hawaiian Islands are sinking as new islands are being formed.

    It gets reported when ice melts but there is no/little mention of it when it reforms.

    Probably the biggest damage caused by the alarmists is the legitimate effort to remove harmful pollutants from the air. When the EPA declared war on CO2 they set back the progress of the clean air movement 50 years.

    Since the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, why didn’t they declare water a pollutant? They had to go for number two CO2 because the name sounds like it is bad.

  20. Dana H.

    The most useful contribution of Climategate to science will be to force a re-examination of data, statistical algorithms, and code that were never inspected too critically, apart from the efforts of a few heroic individuals such as Steve McIntyre.

    The politics and science of climate today are rife with confirmation bias, among both the skeptics and the believers in catastrophic AGW. For those who don’t have a political axe to grind, but sincerely want to understand nature, an honest, open assessment of the data can only be a good thing.

  21. bilbo

    Then if “the Earth is cooling,” Jose, explain the 40% loss in sea ice and glacier melt in the past few decades. Third-grade physical science debunks your brand of silly, uninformed denialism there.

    And provide the empirical data showing that ‘tectonic plates’ are responsible for the observed global sea level rise, please. If you can show convincing data, I’ll agree with you – honest. But if you’re stating that off of “this is just what I think,” I’ll appropriately label you a fool.

    Now – your data please, denialist.

  22. SLC

    Re Jose

    1. The Northwest Passage was open to shipping for the first time since European explorers arrived in North America. That’s evidence of global warming. Glaciers in Bolivia are disappearing. Thats’ evidence of global warming.

    2. Mr. Joses’ claim that the climate is getting cooler is an example of the big lie. Josef Goebbels would be proud. This is based on the observation that 1998 temperatures have not been exceeded in any year (except possibly 2005) since then. However, why pick out 1998? If one picks out 1997, every year since then has been hotter, ergo global warming is proved by the same logic. Any statistician worth his salt would look at the result for 1998 and suspect that it is an outlier.

  23. If politician-funded scientists re-examine the data they will arrive at the same conclusions which is to promote whatever increases taxes and the size of government.

  24. bilbo

    The most useful contribution of Climategate to science will be to force a re-examination of data, statistical algorithms, and code that were never inspected too critically, apart from the efforts of a few heroic individuals such as Steve McIntyre.

    In other words, Dana H. the Carefully Worded Denialist just said the following:

    “I’ll ignore that the data and code survived both the rigorous test of completely anonymous grant review and peer-review at the level of publication and hurl a completely unfounded accusation – nay, a lie – about the nature of science.”

    Nice, Dana H. the Lying Denialist. Nice.

  25. So, by saying “anthropogenic emissions” that you could possibly save this research project that would of had all the free-citizens of the world to change the way we live our lives, when it is the big corporations and Industrialized world that are the main contributors.

    They faked tree-ring evidence, and now Al Gore’s Artic censors are showing arguably exaggerated stats.; and even suppression of pre-review. This is serious stuff for the scientific establishment.

    The Sun is heating the planet, and the politics of the World Climate Summit is just as dangerous. So, just relax, take a breath, and remember this is science. If something just doesn’t checkout, we reject it. Bruce Lee illustrated this philosophically as the metaphor, “absorb the useful, and reject the useless.”

    Hey you’re the one that wrote the book about scientific literacy, so it’s no wonder why we would have not seen this coming…

  26. Alexander

    Bilbo,

    Not sure about Jose, but I’m not a denialist and I don’t dispute the fact that Earth is warming at the moment. But I consider the AGW theory to be incorrect.

    As for the data – well, there are many people now looking at the data, and they often find very unexpected results. There seem to be problems with New Zealand data. There seem to be problems with Australian data. There is obvious bias and cherry-picking done by CRU with Russian data. I glimsed something about USA data as well but cannot attest for this.

    There are also datasets available from NASA and GHCN – but they seem to be extremely interbred with HadCRU (IIRC both NASA GISS and HadCRU are based on GHCN to a substantial degree). There’s also a Japanese dataset, but Japanese data demonstrates a flat warming trend throughout the second half of XIX and the entire XX century – which doesn’t correlate with the exponential scale of human activity growth during the period.

    Now tell me this. You are suggesting others to go and look for data. HAVE YOU GONE AND LOOKED? I’d be delighted to see at least one pro-AGW scientist present an analysis of the climate data comparable to those currently done by sceptics all over the world. Perhaps you know of at least one such research? If you do, could you provide a link? I would be glad to read it.

  27. Sure SLC, adjust the old data down and you can make the subsequent data appear to be up.

    Oh, and in the process be sure to destroy the old data.

  28. bilbo

    Re Jose

    1. The Northwest Passage was open to shipping for the first time since European explorers arrived in North America. That’s evidence of global warming. Glaciers in Bolivia are disappearing. Thats’ evidence of global warming.

    2. Mr. Joses’ claim that the climate is getting cooler is an example of the big lie. Josef Goebbels would be proud. This is based on the observation that 1998 temperatures have not been exceeded in any year (except possibly 2005) since then. However, why pick out 1998? If one picks out 1997, every year since then has been hotter, ergo global warming is proved by the same logic. Any statistician worth his salt would look at the result for 1998 and suspect that it is an outlier.

    Jose is quickly being outed as a lying denialist who cannot back up his accusations because, simply, they are lies.

    There are now two separate people calling for your evidence, Jose. Extraordinary claims must be backed up by extraordinary evidence.

    Let’s see it Jose.

    Now.

    Your evidence, please.

    I’m calling you out – show us your evidence, sir, or be deemed a liar.

  29. Seminatrix

    Jose’s question evasions are quickly providing proof that he is full of shit.

    Show us your evidence, Jose. Now you say that 1.) the Earth is cooling, and 2.) scientists have falsified climate data. Neither has been substantiated.

    Out with it, liar!

  30. bilbo

    They faked tree-ring evidence

    Proof, please. You gave us none.

    Al Gore’s Artic censors are showing arguably exaggerated stats

    Proof, please. you gave us none.

    even suppression of pre-review

    Proof, please. you gave us none.

    The Sun is heating the planet

    Proof, please. You gave us none.

    Anyone else see the trend? The unfounded accusations above, coupled with carefully-placed political references, appears we have another Liar for Industry on our hands here, folks.

  31. Bill S.

    Jose, you’re getting exposed here. DO something! Help yourself! You’re looking like a fool.

  32. bilbo

    Your evidence, Jose?

  33. gillt

    Jose: “If politician-funded scientists re-examine the data they will arrive at the same conclusions which is to promote whatever increases taxes and the size of government.”

    This is what happens when the politically motivated try and talk science.

  34. bilbo

    …and thus Jose’s true intentions for climate denial become apparent: climate change doesn’t agree with Jose’s political persuasion. He is the Politically-Motivated Denialist, or the Convenience Denialist.

    You’re done, Jose. You’ve been demolished.

  35. Bill S.

    I’m with gillt. Jose is a political pawn.

  36. Hey bilbo

    The classic symptom of a loser is to call the other person a name.

    You ask for the actual data when you know the data is kept secret. I contend you can look out the window and know if it is colder or not.

    This topic is about the rescued email and whether it has a negative impact. I don’t see how you can get caught altering data without having a negative impact.

    I suppose your only rebuttal is to name call, change the subject, distort the facts and deny, but you are going to need the practice so have at it.

  37. Jim

    J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

    He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035″.

    In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.

    “Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035,” the report said.

    It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.

    But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

    “The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350,” Mr Kotlyakov’s report said.

    Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and “misread 2350 as 2035″.

    “I do suggest that the glaciological community might consider advising the IPCC about ways to avoid such egregious errors as the 2035 versus 2350 confusion in the future,” says Mr Cogley.

  38. Ha ha, the name calling continues.

    When there is no logic left to argue, name calling is the ultimate rebuttal of the losers.

  39. Jim

    Dear Secretary-General,

    Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

    Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

    We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

    Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

    Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;

    Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;

    Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;

    Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;

    The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;

    Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;

    Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;

    Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;

    Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
    Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

    It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

    Signed by:

    Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
    Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
    Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
    J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
    Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand
    Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a “global temperature”, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
    Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Member, Science Advisory Board, ICSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
    Douglas W. Barr, BS (Meteorology, University of Chicago), BS and MS (Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota), Barr Engineering Co. (environmental issues and water resources), Minnesota, U.S.A.
    Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
    Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
    Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. (University of Freiburg), Biologist, Freiburg, Germany
    David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.
    M. I. Bhat, Professor & Head, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
    Ian R. Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences (retired), Ringkobing, Denmark
    Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, Editor – Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk), Hull, United Kingdom
    Atholl Sutherland Brown, PhD (Geology, Princeton University), Regional Geology, Tectonics and Mineral Deposits, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
    Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.
    James Buckee, D.Phil. (Oxon), focus on stellar atmospheres, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., Arctic Animal Behavioural Ecologist, wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada
    Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
    Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick, PhD, Geologist, dendrochronology (analyzing tree rings to determine past climate) lecturing, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas, U.S.A.
    George V. Chilingar, PhD, Member, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow President, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, U.S.A. Section, Emeritus Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
    Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Charles A. Clough, BS (Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), MS (Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University), former (to 2006) Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; now residing in Bel Air, Maryland, U.S.A.
    Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
    Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom
    Allan Cortese, meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service, retired computer professional, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
    Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom
    Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada
    Claude Culross, PhD (Organic Chemistry), retired, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.
    Joseph D’Aleo, BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin), Doctoral Studies (NYU), Executive Director – ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Fellow of the AMS, College Professor Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel, Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
    Chris R. de Freitas, PhD, Climate Scientist, School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
    Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
    James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas 1986, Earth/Climate Science), now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.
    David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
    James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England
    Robert W. Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A.
    Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.
    Per Engene, MSc, Biologist, Bø i Telemark, Norway, Co-author The Climate. Science and Politics (2009)
    Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
    David Evans, PhD (EE), MSc (Stat), MSc (EE), MA (Math), BE (EE), BSc, mathematician, carbon accountant and modeler, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak’, Scientific Advisory Panel member – Australian Climate Science Coalition, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Sören Floderus, PhD (Physical Geography (Uppsala University)), coastal-environment specialization, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Louis Fowler, BS (Mathematics), MA (Physics), 33 years in environmental measurements (Ambient Air Quality Measurements), Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
    Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
    Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Corbett, Oregon, U.S.A.
    R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa (Retired), U.S.A.
    David G. Gee, Professor of Geology (Emeritus), Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavagen 16, Uppsala, Sweden
    Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.
    Gerhard Gerlich, Dr.rer.nat. (Mathematical Physics: Magnetohydrodynamics) habil. (Real Measure Manifolds), Professor, Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, Co-author of “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, Int.J.Mod.Phys.,2009
    Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, ScAgr, Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, Tropical pasture research and land use management, Director científico de INTTAS, Loma Plata, Paraguay
    Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst and member of NIPCC, Lidingö, Sweden
    Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Thomas B. Gray, MS, Meteorology, Retired, USAF, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.
    Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand Climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
    William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
    Kenneth P. Green, M.Sc. (Biology, University of San Diego) and a Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
    Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), systems/software engineering, modeling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
    William Happer, PhD, Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics (research focus is interaction of light and matter, a key mechanism for global warming and cooling), Princeton University; Former Director, Office of Energy Research (now Office of Science), US Department of Energy (supervised climate change research), Member – National Academy of Sciences of the USA, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, American Philosophical Society; Princeton, NJ, USA.
    Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, Connecticut, U.S.A.
    Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.
    James A. Heimbach, Jr., BA Physics (Franklin and Marshall College), Master’s and PhD in Meteorology (Oklahoma University), Prof. Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences (University of North Carolina at Asheville), Springvale, Maine, U.S.A.
    Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
    Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
    Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.
    Albert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, DSc, professor of natural sciences, Senior Science Adviser of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, researcher on ice core CO2 records, Warsaw, Poland.
    Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range Resources, Air & Water Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Green River, Wyoming, U.S.A.
    Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist, Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
    Wibjörn Karlén, MSc (quaternary sciences), PhD (physical geography), Professor emeritus, Stockholm University, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Geografiska Annaler Ser. A, Uppsala, Sweden
    Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Extraordinary Research Associate; Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Tartu Observatory, Toravere, Estonia
    David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, Whakatane, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
    Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorologist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor “Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member “Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada
    Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
    William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia
    Gary Kubat, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), professional meteorologist last 18 years, O’Fallon, Illinois, U.S.A.
    Roar Larsen, Dr.ing.(PhD), Chief Scientist, SINTEF (Trondheim, Norway), Adjunct Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
    Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President – Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
    Edward Liebsch, BS (Earth Science & Chemistry), MS (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University), Senior Air Quality Scientist, HDR Inc., Maple Grove, MN, U.S.A.
    Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
    Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.
    Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
    Horst Malberg, PhD, former director of Institute of Meteorology, Free University of Berlin, Germany
    Björn Malmgren, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Marine Geology, Paleoclimate Science, Goteborg University, retired, Norrtälje, Sweden
    Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
    Asmunn Moene, PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
    Cdr. M. R. Morgan, PhD, FRMetS, climate consultant, former Director in marine meteorology policy and planning in DND Canada, NATO and World Meteorological Organization and later a research scientist in global climatology at Exeter University, UK, now residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
    Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
    Robert Neff, M.S. (Meteorology, St Louis University), Weather Officer, USAF; Contractor support to NASA Meteorology Satellites, Retired, Camp Springs, Maryland, U.S.A.
    John Nicol, PhD, Physics, (Retired) James Cook University, Chairman – Australian Climate Science Coalition, Brisbane, Australia
    Ingemar Nordin, PhD, professor in philosophy of science (including a focus on “Climate research, philosophical and sociological aspects of a politicised research area”), Linköpings University, Sweden.
    David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    James J. O’Brien, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida, U.S.A.
    Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations, Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
    Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., Professor Emeritus (School of Earth and Environment), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A., Australia
    Garth W. Paltridge, BSc Hons (Qld), MSc, PhD (Melb), DSc (Qld), Emeritus Professor, Honorary Research Fellow and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Visiting Fellow, RSBS, ANU, Canberra, ACT, Australia
    R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair – International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Alfred H. Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
    Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide; Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia
    Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign); Weather Forecasting, Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, the public broadcasting station of the University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.
    Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Professor (retired) Utrecht University, isotope and planetary geology, Past-President Royal Netherlands Society of Geology and Mining, former President of the Royal Geological and Mining Society of the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Tom Quirk, MSc (Melbourne), D Phil, MA (Oxford), SMP (Harvard), Member of the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Australian Climate Science Coalition, Member Board Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    George A. Reilly, PhD (Geology), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
    Robert G. Roper, PhD, DSc (University of Adelaide, South Australia), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
    Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, retired member board Netherlands Organization Applied Research TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands
    Curt Rose, BA, MA (University of Western Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University), Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies and Geography, Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
    Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), Principal Consultant – Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
    Clive Schaupmeyer, B.Sc., M.Sc., Professional Agrologist (awarded an Alberta “Distinguished Agrologist”), 40 years of weather and climate studies with respect to crops, Coaldale, Alberta, Canada
    Bruce Schwoegler, BS (Meteorology and Naval Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison), Chief Technology Officer, MySky Communications Inc, meteorologist, science writer and principal/co-founder of MySky, Lakeville, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
    John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
    Gary Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California, U.S.A.
    Thomas P. Sheahen, PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in renewable energy, research and publication (Applied Optics) in modeling and measurement of absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2, Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.
    Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist and chemist, Cobourg, Ontario, Canada
    L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor of Geography, specialising in Resource Management, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
    Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.
    Walter Starck, PhD (Biological Oceanography), marine biologist (specialization in coral reefs and fisheries), author, photographer, Townsville, Australia
    Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), member of American Chemical Society and life member of American Physical Society, Chair of “Global Warming – Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability”, International seminar meeting at KTH, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden
    Arlin Super, PhD (Meteorology), former Professor of Meteorology at Montana State University, retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
    George H. Taylor, B.A. (Mathematics, U.C. Santa Barbara), M.S. (Meteorology, University of Utah), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Applied Climate Services, LLC, Former State Climatologist (Oregon), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1998-2000), Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.
    Mitchell Taylor, PhD, Biologist (Polar Bear Specialist), Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada
    Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Arnhem, The Netherlands
    Frank Tipler, PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.
    Edward M. Tomlinson, MS (Meteorology), Ph.D. (Meteorology, University of Utah), President, Applied Weather Associates, LLC (leader in extreme rainfall storm analyses), 21 years US Air Force in meteorology (Air Weather Service), Monument, Colorado, U.S.A.
    Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dr.rer.nat. (Theoretical physics: Quantum Theory), Freelance Lecturer and Researcher in Physics and Applied Informatics, Hamburg, Germany. Co-author of “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Int.J.Mod.Phys. 2009
    Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD (Utrecht University), geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Christchurch, New Zealand
    A.J. (Tom) van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
    Gösta Walin, PhD in Theoretical physics, Professor emeritus in oceanography, Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
    Neil Waterhouse, PhD (Physics, Thermal, Precise Temperature Measurement), retired, National Research Council, Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Anthony Watts, 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio. In 1987, he founded ItWorks, which supplies custom weather stations, Internet servers, weather graphics content, and broadcast video equipment. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a Web site devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S., U.S.A.
    Charles L. Wax, PhD (physical geography: climatology, LSU), State Climatologist – Mississippi, past President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor, Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, U.S.A.
    James Weeg, BS (Geology), MS (Environmental Science), Professional Geologist/hydrologist, Advent Environmental Inc, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, U.S.A.
    Forese-Carlo Wezel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
    Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former adjunct professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
    David E. Wojick, PhD, PE, energy and environmental consultant, Technical Advisory Board member – Climate Science Coalition of America, Star Tannery, Virginia, U.S.A.
    Raphael Wust, PhD, Adj Sen. Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
    Stan Zlochen, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), USAF (retired), Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A.
    Dr. Bob Zybach, PhD (Oregon State University (OSU), Environmental Sciences Program), MAIS (OSU, Forest Ecology, Cultural Anthropology, Historical Archaeology), BS (OSU College of Forestry), President, NW Maps Co., Program Manager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project, Inc., Cottage Grove, Oregon, U.S.A.

  40. bilbo

    You ask for the actual data when you know the data is kept secret. I contend you can look out the window and know if it is colder or not.

    More proof that Jose is an ignoramus: he thinks that the weather outside his window today is climate.

  41. bilbo

    Jim,

    That appears to be the petition that turned out to have scientists’ names on it who did not actually sign it. In other words, its authors lied.

    Try again, please.

  42. bilbo

    When there is no logic left to argue, name calling is the ultimate rebuttal of the losers.

    Wait- we are arguing logic? You made a boneheaded statement, I challenged you to back it up with something substantial, and you couldn’t. You failed.

  43. Bill S.

    Jose, you had your chance to nail us all to the wall, and you blew it. If you can’t back up your outrageous claims with some evidence to substantiate it, the name calling is justified.

  44. I can back it up by looking out my window. Take your blinders off and maybe you can see it too.

    Just like the politicians gasped when they found out a few years later that they had been lied to and smoking tobacco wasn’t safe the same head in the sand mentality prevails on global warming today.

    I do not expect it to continue. People aren’t as stupid as you want them to be.

  45. bilbo

    First off, your “petition” originally listed the names of Dr. James Hansen and several others who, after threatening lawsuits since they were never even approached about the petition, had their names removed.

    Second off, you and your “petition” are lying. Embarrassingly, pathetically lying. How do I know? Consider the following claims (er, lies) from your petition. Each point in italics is something that you claim science has “utterly failed” in proving. Au contraire! Each cited article below italics provides proof of the points that you claim have not been investigated. I rise to your challenge, denialist liar!!!!

    Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries

    Mann et al. 1998, Bradley 1993, Houghton et al. 2001, Jones et al. 1992, Walther et al. 2002, Briffa et al. 2001, Parry 1989, Stuiver et al. 1996, Webb et al. 1992, Hansen et al. 1997, Pearson et al. 2000, Barnola et al. 2002, Huang et al. 2000, Lassen et al. 1995, Overpeck et al. 1997

    Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate

    Wigley 1997, Cramer et al. 2001, Pastor et al. 1989, Oechel et al. 1993, Cox et al. 1995, Cramer et al. 2004, Jones et al. 1997, Raich et al. 1993, Adams 1990, Meehl et al. 1996, Melillo et al. 1993, Caldeira et al. 2003, Davidson et al. 2006, Hansen et al. 1997, Madden et al. 1980 (yes, 1980!), Hughton et al. 1997, Manabe et al. 1993, Karl et al. 2003, Keeling et al. 1995, Tol 2005, Parmesan et al. 2003

    Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate

    This isn’t a goal of climate change research. Thus, it is a false assumption.

    Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities

    Church et al. 2001, Varekamp et al. 1995, IPCC 2001, Fairbanks et al. 1988, Meehl et al. 2005, Cabanes et al. 2001, Church and White 2006, Bosello 2007, Galbraith et al. 2002, Overpeck et al. 2006, Gornitz et al. 1997, Nichols et al. 1998, Cazenave et al. 2003, Davis et al. 2005, Lambeck et al. 2001, Neumann et al. 2000, Rignot et al. 2003, Warrick et al. 1993, Hughton et al. 2001, Milly et al. 2003, Parmesan et al. 2004, Hansen et al. 2007, Thomas et al. 2004, Douglas 2000, Dasgupta et al. 2009, Karl et al. 2005, Ellison 1998

    The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes

    Hay et al. 2002, Patz et al. 2005, Lindsay et al. 1999, Tanser et al. 2004, Bouma 1999, Bryan et al. 1996, Patz et al. 2003, Lieshout 2004, Epstein et al. 1998, Davis et al. 2009, Hay 2004, Patz and Olsen 2006

    Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;

    No climate science has attempted to quatitatively gauge this. Thus, it is a false assumption.

    Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;

    Gregory et al. 2004, Gordon et al. 2001, Church et al. 2002, Thompson et al. 2002, Velicogna and wehr 2006, Thompson et al. 2003, Maslanik et al. 2007, Johnston-Davies et al. 2008, Fraser et al. 1993, Stroeve et al. 2007, Chen et al. 2006, Rignot 2002, IPCC 2007, Holland et al. 2003, Thompson 2009, Quayle et al. 2002, Luthke et al. 2007, Stroever et al. 2008, Stroeve et al. 2009, Dyergerov et al. 2000, Walther et al. 2002, Hinzman et al. 2005, Kerr 2006

    Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;

    Parmesan et al. 2006, Parmesan and Yohe 2003, IPCC 2001, IPCC 2007, Jump et al. 2006, Smith et al. 2004, Davis and Shaw 2001, Agerman et al. 2007, Tol et al. 2000, Derocher et al. 2004, Slocum et al. 2005, Stirling et al. 2006, Ferguson et al. 2005, Kelly et al. 2000, Dyck et al. 2009, Simmonds et al. 2007, Ford et al. 2004, Obbard et al. 2006, Ford et al. 2006, Tynan et al. 2002

    Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency

    Mann et al. 2006, Berz et al. 2001, Dale et al. 2001, Michener et al. 2001, Easterling et al. 2000, Lugo et al. 2002, Pielke et al. 2007, Landsea et al. 2005, Hughes et al. 2003

    …and that’s just a small, tiny sampling. So, Jim the Denialist, tell us. Do you 1.) just ignore all those peer-reviewed, independent publications and pretend they don’t exist (ignorance is bliss!), or 2.) have you successfully debunked each and every one of them? If the answer is #2, let’s have your evidence!!! If you can post evidence to refute those studies, I shall become a climate skeptic myself.

    As it stands, however, you, sir, are lying about the state of the science. Now the onus is on you. Prove to us that you are not lying, denialist scum of the lowest order.

  46. gillt

    Jose: “I can back it up by looking out my window”

    This is most definitely not what a thinking person would say.

  47. bilbo

    can back it up by looking out my window

    Explain.

  48. Bill S.

    It’s official: Jose does not know the distinction between basic definitions of weather and climate.

    Thus, his arguments are bunk.

  49. John Kwok

    @ Jim –

    Of the names you list in that letter, the only one who would be considered credible is micropaleontologist and paleoclimatologist Bjorn Malmgren (Though I know of another noted paleoclimatologist – one of my college professors – Robley K. Matthews who is a strong skeptic of AGW.). Ask yourself why Malmgren is the only paleoclimatologist of any stature who signed that letter. If you give it some substantial thought, maybe you’ll stumble upon the realization that AGW is accepted as valid science by paleoclimatologists.

    Respectfully yours,

    John

  50. You can use jedi tricks to tell people that the earth is in meltdown but after awhile the trick wears off. You have to be completely oblivious to reality to claim that the rescued emails did not lessen the jedi trick.

  51. bilbo

    Perhaps you missed by last comment, Jose.

    I can back it up by looking out my window

    Explain. I got the felling you just called fundamental math “Jedi tricks.” Not a smart move, but a predictable one for you.

    Now, explain.

  52. bilbo,

    I cannot help you with your fellings.

    You can have perfect math but if you feed faulty numbers into it you get faulty results.

    Your jedi trick of changing the subject worked for a moment, but back to the point of this blog,

    The rescued emails are changing the substance of the proceedings in Copenhagen.

  53. Kate

    2. John Kwok Says:
    December 18th, 2009 at 10:55 am
    Chris,

    Thanks for posting this since it reaffirms an independent analysis by the Associated Press which reached the same conclusions. Unfortunately I don’t believe it will persuade climate change denialists.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Hey, John, Go ahead and Google Seth Borenstein, the writer for the Associated Press who was one of five to examine the “hacked” emails.

    How long can you hide, John?

    We aren’t going to be dissuaded unless you give us the proof.

  54. SLC

    Re Jose

    Obviously, Mr. Jose is totally incompetent to comment on this subject as his dismissal of the likelihood that 1998 is an outlier shows he knows nothing about statistics. Furthermore he failed to address the issue of the opening of the Northwest Passage to shipping in the summer of 2009. In that at least, he is consistent. I have posted that comment on at least 4 blogs on multiple threads and have yet to receive a cogent response from the deniers. Apparently, they believe that if they ignore it, it will go away. Ditto withs the reduction of glaciers in Bolivia.

  55. bilbo

    Amen, SLC. I love how Jose arrived in post #4 of this thread and proceeded to loudly tout in each successive post how one can debunk climate change by “simply looking out their window.”

    Then, when asked to clarify adn explain that point, he says “hey hey hey! We’re talking about Copenhagen here!!”

    That’s one of the least-disguised attempts at question dodging I’ve seen from a denialist yet. Classic! *snicker*

  56. bilbo

    I have posted that comment on at least 4 blogs on multiple threads and have yet to receive a cogent response from the deniers. Apparently, they believe that if they ignore it, it will go away. Ditto withs the reduction of glaciers in Bolivia.

    I’ve noticed the same trend. The denialists talk a big game, but when you challenge them, ask for clarification, and/or present them with cold, hard data that say the opposite of what they’re claiming, you get: i.) silence, or ii.) a shameless attempt at question evasion.

    For example, Barton was a very vocal skeptic on the blog here a few days ago until several of us started asking him to clarify his points and back them up with facts. As soon as that started, he left and hasn’t posted since.

    Two days ago a skeptic here was talking about how global temperatures were increasing but CO2 wasn’t a driver. When I asked him to back up that claim with evidence, he suddenly entered into a question dodge and began pulling up an obscure dataset where he had cherry-picked a decade out of several millenia and began saying that global temperatures were unequivocally cooling. When I pointed out that he totally contradicted himself (the Earth is warming one argument, then cooling the next), he seemed confused and went onto some other point. The fact that he destroyed his credibility with zero work on my part seemed to go totally over his head.

    This kind of thing happens with the skeptics here over and over and over and over again. I’ve yet ot see a single skeptic, and I mean a single one, back up their accusations about the science of climate change with anything. Until I see something to change my mind, the kind of people we’re
    dealing here seem to uninformed, half-witted people who simply like a controversy and who are wallowing in willful ignorance, unwilling to educate themselves about the very science they’re trying to dispute. I also think mmore than half of them are unwitting political pawns, simply reguritating what they’ve head their favorite radio host/blogger say. It’s pathetic, really.

  57. bilbo,

    You wouldn’t recognize a cogent answer if it splattered on your head.

    The liar scientists got caught and this has given a basis for real scientists to call their bluff.

    And yes SLC, it is pathetic. Science has been corrupted by the need to pay for the nice landscaping around the government funded research facilities.

    I don’t have to regurgitate what I heard on radio. All I had to do was read through some of the emails. I don’t know if I would call them a smoking gun or a mushroom cloud but they fall somewhere in between.

  58. bad Jim

    You can see the authoritarian mindset at work: “A few scientists lied, so the entire theory is wrong!” Creationists do the same thing, claiming “Darwin was a racist! Haeckel faked his drawings! Evolution is refuted!”

    The logic at work is not the one normally used in science, where errors are expected to occur and an argument from authority is considered invalid. To an authoritarian this is inconceivable because truth and authority are more or less identical. A corollary is that a scientific consensus from which the authoritarian dissents is proof of a conspiracy.

    Discussion is difficult when the participants have different logical standards.

    (This is not to say that the CRU scientists lied or that Darwin was racist, of course.)

  59. Dave McK

    The Bible has been peer reviewed by experts for over 2000 years and they all agree.

    The Pope didn’t shut down the Vatican when Darwin published Origin of the Species, and the doomsday cultists will carry on with another scary scenario once we dig out from the Gore Effect.

  60. Dave McK

    It is very easy to recognise a cargo cult scientologist. Here is the their entire repertoire:

    1) endless repetition, repeating the same messages over and over with different variations and combinations
    2. Disfiguration: discrediting the opposition with slander and crude parodies
    3. Unanimity: presenting your point of view as if every right headed person agrees with it while smearing those who doubt it using appeals of famous people, experts and so called consensus; hiding/ excluding others from the underlying basis / information of your position.
    4. Transfusion: manipulating the prevailing values of the public to your own advantage
    5. Simplification: reducing all facts into a comparison between ‘good and evil’ and ‘friends and enemies’

  61. Dave McK

    The emails and programmer’s notes reveal the vast context of ten years of intellectual corruption. They were not doing science- they were disgracing it.

    The globe has been getting warmer. That’s why you can plant corn in Iowa and wheat in Kansas and why Canadians frolic in the snow. The glaciers melted. I’ll have more of that, please.

    The IPCC will investigate itself.
    Already 1700 subjects (scientists) have been compelled to sign a loyalty oath affirming the outcome of it in advance of its completion, so you may be sure consensus will emerge in due course.

    Meanwhile, the world turns without their help or hindrance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/busy-man.html

    A confluence of interest.

  62. Dave McK

    The person who deserves the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism is Steve McIntyre at http://climateaudit.org/ where dissection of the details is being done. The trick was to HIDE.
    Is there a synonym for the word HIDE than means anything other than HIDE?

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html the apocalyptics were disgusting people for a long time over at IPCC. note Pielke in the old posts, too.

    If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn’t tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don’t believe the theory is right, does he?
    The UN served this to the children of the world:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9mjBUSDng
    This makes me very angry.

  63. Dave McK

    Well, the AP isn’t Woodward and Bernstein they are, eh?
    That might be due to the fact that Seth Bronstein is a buddy – read the emails to see.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_ap_asks_believers_to_give_the_all_clear#64865

    It’s easy enough to get the emails and the other files. A firsthand look will give you the right to draw a conclusion. There are 1073 text files, so it will take a while. Interestingly, I was unable to cherry pick anything that wasn’t about fudging, faking, supressing dissent, ousting editors, etc.
    It didn’t take thousands of scientists to conspire- it only took a handful to fake the data everybody else relied on.

  64. bad Jim

    These comment threads are tidy little laboratories for psychology. Mention the authoritarian personality and an authoritarian arrives to demonstrate. Likewise the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    The denialists are probably mostly unaware that they’re repeating arguments crafted by flacks working for the oil and coal companies, who have hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. It’s actually easier to deny that you’re doing the bidding of some of the wealthiest industries on the planet (since you’re not actually getting paid) than to deny climate change, which to the average individual is so slight as to be swamped by seasonal temperature swings.

    Although you’d think than anyone alleging a conspiracy would be asking which side stands to make the most money, they generally don’t. People would rather believe in ridiculous things like a cabal of shadowy Jewish international bankers (George Soros is spooky!) than things they’re actually familiar with, like Chevron or Exxon-Mobil.

  65. If you’re not a climate alarmist you must be working for or repeating the rantings of the evil oil companies. Or maybe the evil insurance companies are behind it. To solve these problems let’s advance government run institutions that will declare what facts are real and mandate solutions through higher taxes and more regulation.

    Then some day when the political party changes you will be mandated to go to church and come to Jesus. It doesn’t matter who you make the villain, it will all come back to haunt you if you continue down the road of corruption which is clearly in these emails.

  66. The Accuser

    It didn’t take too many posts for Jose to reveal his true motivations behind his climate denial: he’s a conspiracy theorist afraid the govt. it trying to institute a new world order (see post 66).

    That was predictable.

  67. Accuser,

    You must be a rocket scientist. You have figured out that I don’t like big government and high taxes. The existence of a huge Federal deficit is only an illusion promoted by conspiracy theorists. What is a mere $100 billion handed out by Hillary care each year to promote climate hysteria in developing countries?

    Now it doesn’t matter that the rescued emails provide a trail of corruption.

  68. Labrador

    I think it’s unfortunate that blogs like this always descend to name-calling *on both sides* instead of a balanced look at the evidence. bilbo’s demands for data while citing the very authors who have been completely discredited, using the process that has clearly been shown to be corrupt, is surprising. Is that really all you have, while demanding someone else bring data? Perhaps you should consider the burden of proof is on you.

    Jose, there are many more sources of very credible data sources that both discredit the analysis that bilbo is relying on, as well as do more to outline the multiple other factors at play in the climate. Why don’t you take some time to cite those, instead of simply providing short and less effective answers?

    For example, this link shows that the data bilbo relies on is suspect, and that bilbo might need to respond: http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

    And one more, here’s over 800 pages of a research summary, which you can read in the first eight page summary, which gives the kind of data I think bilbo is asking for. Problem is, I don’t think bilbo is the least bit interested in reading it. http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf

    Finally, with Pachauri and Gore, among many others, having been shown to have already made millions with a stance to make much more, the supposed Big Oil financial connections are a pretty weak argument. Those espousing AGW theories benefit immensely financially. Follow the money. You think Big Oil is a large industry? Wait until you see what Big Carbon in the form of carbon trading could become.

  69. Labrador,

    Thank you for your thoughtful response. The topic I am writing against is the downplaying of rescued emails known as Climategate.

    I am not here to prove or disprove global warming as much as to keep alive the existence of rescued emails that reveal a blatant corruption of science to achieve political goals.

    I have no doubt that Climategate had a major influence on the summit in Copenhagen. That in of itself is sufficient to debunk the thesis of this blog.

    In the wake of no legally binding agreement out of Copenhagen I expect to see lawsuits, Congressional inquiries, resignations, and a general skepticism of the rhetoric emanating from climate alarmists.

  70. John Kwok

    @ Laborador –

    The scientific data for anthropogenic global warming, while not nearly as robust or as persuasive as that for biological evolution, does exist and is quite credible, with or without ClimateGate.

    @ Jose –

    Those involved in ClimateGate were involved in arguing over conclusions made with “massaged” data, and I should observe that there are other instances where data has been “massaged” merely to improve its statistical robustness (In plain English to reduce the presence of outliers so that the major trend is more quickly recognized as the result of a suitable statistical test.). This happens in physics, chemistry as well as biology and other natural sciences. Were we to follow your logic to its inescapable conclusion, should we start throwing out the results of clinical trials, engineering stress tests, and other “practical” uses of scientific data simply because the data may have been “corrupted” due to data “massaging”?

  71. John Kwok

    This blog is about whether Climategate is an issue or a non-issue. How the data was “massaged” and what data was excluded because it didn’t support the desired results is going to be subjected to the legal process of discovery.

    Without Climategate I doubt that this issue would be receiving the amount of attention that it has now.

  72. John Kwok

    @ Jose –

    I stand by my contention – which I arrived independently of Chris Mooney’s – that ClimateGate is really “Much Ado About Nothing”. Since I do possess a background in biostatistics, I realize that what the climate scientists did with that data was legally permissible from both a legal and scientific perspective. Whether what they did was ethically valid, I will leave to someone else who is trained in ethics and the philosophy of science.

  73. Labrador

    John Kwok,

    Your background in biostatistics notwithstanding, I have heard no one on either side of this debate try and defend what the climate scientists have appeared to have done as being legally or scientifically correct. You say “legally permissible from both a legal and scientific perspective” which is an odd framing. Legal from a legal perspective, really? Seems redundant. The law requires full disclosure of the data, which they failed to do — of which laws do you speak?

    Legal from a scientific perspective? The two aren’t normally related to each other. From the scientific perspective, even those who favor the AGW side of the argument have admitted that the corruption of the peer review process as well as the withholding of data is not appropriate. Even they have called for removal of the scientists. The scientific method expects complete transparency which this group is on record as avoiding.

    I am not a statistician, or a scientist, but have been involved in running clinical trials businesses. What has happened here, had it been on a drug trial, would have long ago resulted in blacklisting by the FDA, if not worse.

  74. I suggest that there are several other emails that expliciitly show corruption!
    Here is a one sample of emails where data was requested and then denied because Phil didn’t want the researcher to “find something wrong with it” Suck it up Phil that is the foundation of true science. Allowing others to verify or falsify you work. You decide if Phil is hiding.

    Warwick Hughes to Phil Jones, September ‘04:

    Dear Phillip and Chris Folland (with your IPCC hat on),
Some days ago Chris I emailed to Tom Karl and you replied re the grid cells in north Siberia with no stations, yet carrying red circle grid point anomalies in the TAR Fig 2.9 global maps. I even sent a gif file map showing the grid cells barren of stations greyed out. You said this was due to interpolation and referred me to Phillip and procedures described in a submitted paper. In the last couple of days I have put up a page detailing shortcomings in your TAR Fig 2.9 maps in the north Siberian region, everything is specified there with diagrams and numbered grid points.
    [1] One issue is that two of the interpolated grid cells have larger anomalies than the parent cells !!!!?????
This must be explained.

    [2] Another serious issue is that obvious non-homogenous warming in Olenek and Verhojansk is being interpolated through to adjoining grid cells with no stations, like cancer.

    [3] The third serious issue is that the urbanization affected trend from the Irkutsk grid cell neare Lake Baikal, looks to be interpolated into its western neighbour.
    I am sure there are many other cases of this, 2 and 3 happening.
Best regards,
Warwick Hughes (I have sent this to CKF)

    Phil to Warwick, same email:
    Warwick,
I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web page. I see what boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot produce larger anomalies than neighbours (larger values in a single month). If you have found any of these I will investigate. If you are talking about larger trends then that is a different matter. Trends say in Fig 2.9 for the 1976-99 period require 16 years to have data and at least 10 months in each year. It is conceivable that at there are 24 years in this period that missing values in some boxes influence trend calculation. I would expect this to be random across the globe.
    Warwick,
Been away. Just checked my program and the interpolation shouldn’t produce larger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send me the cells, months and year of the two cells you’ve found ? If I have this I can check to see what has happened and answer (1). As for (2) and (3) we compared all stations with neighbours and these two stations did not have problems when the work was done (around 1985/6). I am not around much for the next 3 weeks but will be here most of this week and will try to answer (1) if I get more details. If you have the names of stations that you’ve compared Olenek and Verhojansk with I would appreciate that.

    Cheers
Phil

    Then later Phil Jones famously replied:

    Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …
    
Cheers Phil

    Following this there are several emails about how Phil and others discuss how to evade FOI requests. I can post those if anyone wants to read them. How can this be anything other than corruption of the very foundation of science requiring independent replication or results?!?! Shame on Yale for trying to sweep this under the rug.

  75. Daryl M

    I find it shocking that anyone could go through the climategate files and “find very little”.

    I found scientists selecting or rejecting data based on their preconceptions, software that modified data to produce a desired result (effectively falsification of results), corrupting the peer review process, strong-arming journals and editors to reject papers, and conspiring to withhold and/or destroy data to avoid Freedom of Information rules. I’m sure there are other things that could be added to the list.

    The behaviour exemplified in these emails and other files is diametrically the opposite of the scientific method, not to mention unethical and probably also illegal. What makes it even more significant is that these scientists are in a very influential position in the climate science community and also within the IPCC so their results have potentially massive economic ramifications.

    I consider what they have done to be nothing short of a breach of trust and a crime against humanity. The scientists in question should be stripped of their positions within their respective institutions and criminally charged.

    Additionally, the IPCC should be disbanded immediately.

    Just to be clear, I am a professional engineer. I do not believe the earth is flat or that it is only 4000 years old. I do not believe the lunar landings took place on a Hollywood set. I do not believe H1N1 is a conspiracy. What this comes down to for me is that climate scientists crossed the line and became advocates. Not only that, but they were played by politicians to support a predetermined conclusion that could be used to justify massive new bureaucracy and taxation. If you honestly believe in AGW and that I am a “denier”, all I can say is that if you don’t think politicians have a motive for putting global CO2 emission regulations into place, then who is the denier?

  76. JRR Canada

    Stopped buying Nature years ago.They took up advocating and ignoring science.No data means no science.The failure to publish source data and computer codes where used has been shameful.Nature failed the test of crediblity by allowing authors to publish,without archiving their data.To excuse the behaviour apparent in the emails,is to expose your own lack of ethics and failure to comprehend the ethos of science.To corrupt the beauty of the method is to have no science.All studies built upon or involving team IPCC is suspect,what evidence of unusual warming or CO2 as an agent there of remains?

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 »