Should This Blog Re-Teach Climate Science?

By Chris Mooney | December 21, 2009 11:03 am

Last week, in a post that drew over 200 comments, I asked where all the climate science “skeptics” who comment here so frequently were coming from. There were a vast array of different responses, but I was impressed by the fact that many of the “skeptics” seemed to have genuine doubts about the state of climate science, and seemed to be arriving here out of their interest in “ClimateGate”–which has made those doubts even stronger.

After many years of covering climate science as a journalist, I really don’t grasp well where they are coming from. They seem to be nitpicking around the edges of the big picture, mostly. But it almost calls for a review of the basics of climate science, the core reasons for why scientists are convinced humans are causing warming, and the consilience of evidence that makes this conclusion so strong.

Certainly it would be a lot of work to undertake, to lay all of that out. Plus, it would be work that has already been done by others–like the US EPA. I wonder, would trying to blog about this basic science be at all illuminating or useful? Or, perhaps I could offer refutations to the most standard “skeptic” claims? That, too, has been done over and over again, including by myself in various articles, and in my first book. Would doing it here be any different?

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Global Warming

Comments (233)

  1. Andrew30

    The base issue is that there has been no science derived from the realclimate/CRU enterprise since 1986. Any papers that have been written after that point are based on corrupted data that has been processed by computer models that are at best inaccurate. Any papers that derive support or cite a paper that used the realclimate/CRU are likewise not scientific.

    If you do undertake to try to explain the causal relationship between CO2 and the receding of the last ice age, you will also need to explain the Medieval Warming Period, not simply try to hide it. It did happen and it was global. If your explanation can include the global MWP and not rely on data directly or indirectly supplied by the realclimate/CRU enterprise after 1988 then it would be interesting to examine.

  2. Chris Mooney

    Andrew,
    These do not seem to me to be the main issues in climate science or the main reasons we are sure global warming is happening….or that it is human caused. If I did try to tackle this subject, this is not what I would emphasize.

  3. Somite

    I don’t think it would help. There are plenty of blogs that cover and teach climate change but the big problem is denialism. I have been debunking all denialist points in climate change threads in other forums (http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/72725-global-warming-unstoppable.html) but information doesn’t penetrate denialism.

    You know, strike that. Although denialism is in the minority I believe one of their most effective tools is how prolific they are. If you google climate change the first couple dozen hits are denialist blogs like climateaudit and wattsupwiththat! So the more blogs on the rational side the better.

    What we really need is to somehow communicate that information is not equal. Depending on its source there are degrees of reliability and factuality. Information and opinion in a blog is not equivalent to results and discussion in a peer-reviewed paper.

  4. Somite

    For example commenter No 1. Is not using information. He is using the opinion of denialist blogs as facts and invalidated the actual body of research. Perfect denialist example.

  5. I think what Somite says is important. The more science blogs that explain things or address the silliness of the “deniers,” the better, so having you go over things could only benefit.

    I do understand, however, that there are tons of other blogs that do it and it might be more effort on your part than it would be worth, but I’d read it… for what that’s worth. :-)

  6. Gus Snarp

    You can’t convince the die hard deniers, the people who generally comment on blogs. But there are other people reading blogs, and as Somite indicated, googling climate change and global warming. Those people really want to know the facts. Somite’s argument is correct, the more accurate information is out there, the better chance a Google search will find it. Furthermore, the internet hides old information. Everyone wants to know the latest, most popular thing, so an old statement that is still accurate is not likely to be found. In that case repeating it is worthwhile.

    I would lay out the basics and with each point also show why the claims of deniers are false. Doing this clearly and concisely would certainly be beneficial.

  7. bob

    Question: why don’t we accommodate the climate change skeptics?

    Also, you seem to be getting a little frustrated and annoyed, Chris. In fact, your last line sounds downright hopeless about the prospect of changing your opposition’s mind. Imagine feeling that way for decades, except about evolution (rather than climate change) and against creationists (rather than pseudo-skeptics). I wonder if you’d be as non-accommodating as the pro-evolution folks you criticize so strongly?

  8. Andrew30

    Chris;

    That is your opinion, and you are entitled to approach the subject in any way you choose.

    In my opinion it is the lack of the application of the scientific method that is at the center of the issue. I would propose that rather than try to jump in and explain human induced global warming you might first explain exactly what the scientific method is and then illustrate how the scientific method was followed, completely, in the development of the hypothesis of human induced global warming from 1984 to today.

    You will need to include the explanation of the theory, which must include all the predictions that have been made, the outcome of the predictions and the tests that could be undertaken to disprove the theory. Any synthetic models would also need to be shown to accurately predict the past and the future from the date the models and their supporting data were made public.

  9. Rachel

    I’d agree with Somite that denialism is difficult to fight, and that a lot of “skeptics” seem to have already chosen which (dubious) sources to trust. But frankly, I’d love to read the basics from you for my own reasons — as, I think, would a lot of laymen who read this blog because we’re Art History majors or whatever who think science is super neat. As a person whose practical scientific experience extends basically as far as “in ninth grade i made a cake shaped like a cell,” I have no more difficulty trusting in the consensus about climate change than I do in the efficacy/safety of vaccines — I know, guys, I’m totally SHEEPLE, BAA BAA — but it’d still be nice to have a primer.

    On the other hand, I could also read more books to get this information, so, you know! Do as you think best.

  10. John Kwok

    Chris,

    You might want to rely on the data posted over at http://www.realclimate.org
    and this website, which does a visually effective job of refuting climate change denialists:

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

    Those who remain skeptical of the reality of climate change need to address these issues:

    1) Range extensions of plants and animals – which were formerly restricted to tropical and subtropical zones, but, especially here in North America – into temperate zones.

    2) Substantial glacial melt and retreats observed for glaciers in Arctic and Antarctic regions and in mountains such as the Alps, for example. Nowhere in relatively recent recorded history have such dramatic examples of glacial melting and retreating have been observed.

    The issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not some radical leftist myth being presented by those who might be regarded as the “loony Left”, but instead on sound, relatively robust scientific research done by several generations of climatologists and paleoclimatologists (EDITORIAL NOTE: I am a registered Republican who regards himself as a conservative with strong libertarian biases. I was educated on many aspects of paleoclimatology as both a college and graduate school student.).

  11. Sean McCorkle

    Because the information interchange on the internet is so decentralized, I think the more information that is easily reached the better. The evolution-vs-creationism “debate” is a useful analog: The recent pre-Dover intelligent design flare-up both re-empowered the existing evolution sites, such as the Panda’s Thumb and NCSE, and also sparked a number of new blogs, science education groups and educational sites to counter the creationists. The creationists are still out there to be sure, but I think the bounty of easy-to-find pro-evolution resources helped turn back the tide to some degree.

    So, yes Chris, I definitely think you should blog again about this. Don’t worry about being redundant.

    And let me throw this out to you and the readers here, because I’m looking for this material myself:
    In addition to the EPA site you gave and this nice write-up at RealClimate.org, what are some good, one-stop-shopping type resources for detailed responses to “technical criticisms”of the climate change science. Talk.origins has a great resource for evoltion proponents in their Index to Creationist Claims. Is there any kind of comprehensive analog of this for climate science that folks can turn to?

  12. Andrew30

    John Kwok;
    It might be a different idea to simply skip the realclimate/CRU site that is funded by the Oil, Gas and Nuclear Power lobby and just go directly to the talking points used by the followers.

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm.php

    That way no independent thinking or analysis would be required, it would be much simpler.

  13. david schofield

    Sir,

    I have a background in physics, computer modelling, energy investment, research management and organisational behaviour. I’ve come recently to this particular debate – until now being happy to go with the consensus.

    After about 50 hours of secondary research and brushing off my old statistics notes I’m personally convinced that the data underpinning the IPCC reports is seriously impaired in matters of sampling, stewardship, processing and normalisation, and the weighting of data in the light of data quantity and reliability.

    I remain an AGW agnostic, but am ready to be persuaded.

    David S

  14. Sean McCorkle

    Let me also add: I’m starting to encounter more and more scientists/techs (not climate scientists) who are starting to question the AGW conclusion, especially since the CRU emails hack. The deniers are having an effect, even if that effect is only to confuse or discredit. Our target is not the deniers, but those they are trying to sway to their side.

  15. Peter

    I think, Chris, your approach to the whole question is wrong. You are looking for ways to convince ‘non-believers’ over to your side of ‘The Truth’. But that’s like trying to convert Atheists to Christianity.

    The problem is with your contention that the skeptics are “nitpicking around the edges”. Actually, the skeptics are hitting the centre of the argument and demanding proof. Skeptics are reading between the lines of the statements that scientists make. The big one is: “The recent increase in global temperatures cannot be explained by any natural process”. You accept that then therefore it must be man’s doing. A skeptic reads that sentence as “At this point we scientists are unable to identify a natural process that has caused the increase so we’re going to assume that man has done it”. I should remind you at this point that there is NO causal PROOF that CO2 affects the climate – just a coincidence that temperatures have gone up at the same time that CO2 has.

    What Climategate has added to the question is: “Are the temperatures actually rising or has someone just fiddled the numbers?”

  16. The debunking of common claims would be a huge help!

    I debate politics with friends quite often and there are some pretty adamant GW denialists amongst them. Trying to refute the claims they constantly come up with is extremely difficult. Now, it is easier to think up some crazy claim than it is to refute it but trying to research this online has been exceedingly difficult. Even for claims that I’ve heard refuted (say in Discover magazine or on NPR), finding good resources online has been a lot of frustration.

    I don’t expect to change the denalists’ minds but there are others that observe the debates that honestly don’t know, those are the ones we need to convince.

    Now, I don’t claim to be 100% convinced about climate change myself. But I’m pragmatic and I think there is enough evidence to warrant action. I also despise the misinformation tactics so often used by the Republican Party.

  17. J. Marie

    I do think it would be helpful, Chris. I can’t speak for scientists or those in related professions, but from the place of an interested basic human, at least a simple list of the ideas (and then links to where the details have been already worked out so you don’t have to do that) would be a great help!

  18. bob

    david schofield, why should anyone believe your claims, background, or research? More importantly, even if we assume that you’re not lying, why is your single workweek’s worth of research more impressive that a full-time climate scientist’s decades of research?

    And, if you’re going to appeal to conspiracy, as Andrew30 seems to be doing (poorly and confusedly), why should we trust you to be on the up-and-up while accusing climate scientists of being paid off by The Man?

  19. SLC

    Re John Kwok

    I have posted the information about the opening of the Northwest Passage on several threads on this blog and on various threads on other blogs. Thus far, I have yet to see a cogent response, other then maybe it was open during some period before European settlers arrived in North America. I think that it has to be recognized that the deniers are not interested in facts, any more then the evolution deniers are interested in facts. Many of them, like the odious Marc Morano, are nothing but paid shills for various vested interests like the energy companies, much like their predecessors were paid shills for the tobacco companies during the cigarette smoking/lung cancer debates. In fact, as Mr. Mooney pointed out in his first book, the energy companies have borrowed many of the tactics used by the tobacco companies in that previous debate.

  20. Paul W.

    Chris,

    I think it would be a good idea to do a series of posts laying out your views clearly, and addressing the common objections (and why they’re not valid).

    I think that’s a good idea for most “controversial” bloggers, allowing you to refer to a basic idea without defending it each time—just provide a link to one of 10 or 20 posts that addresses that topic.

    (I also wish PZ Myers would do that. One reason he gets quote-mined so much and so effectively is that he writes for an audience that mostly already understands and agrees with his point of view, and doesn’t often enough provide links to clear, focused statements of his opinions with explanations that disambiguate them. Given the loaded way that he writes, e.g., talking ambiguously about “religious people” without making it clear in each and every instance whether he means all “religious people,” or just many religious people, or even just too many, that’s asking for trouble.)

    I think it’s somewhat understandable that climate skeptics coming here don’t trust you—you are not mainly writing for them, and do tend to make dismissive ad hominem arguments and arguments from authority too often, rather than demonstrating that you actually understand the science in sufficient detail. (Which I am sure that you actually do, but that isn’t going to convince anybody on “the other side” who comes here.)

    I think it would be a worthy investment of your time to put the basic issues out there in digestible medium-sized pieces, in your own words. (Not all at once, but over time.) Those pieces can then refer to more extensive and hairily detailed discussions of the issues on other sites.

    That would also make your site more accessible to friendlies, who could get up to speed quicker and defend the science in the comments on your blog.

    I’m guessing you could do that relatively easily, mostly by extracting the basic discussions from old posts, removing the topical bits that spurred you to write them, and generalizing and spiffing them up a little.

    Here are a few issues I think it would be good to have basic posts about fairly soon, because they keep coming up, with links to more detailed stuff elsewhere:

    1. Why a few hundred parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is not negligible, as many skeptics think it is. (I made a stab at this recently with the explanation that there’s a lot of air, so a seemingly very small percentage is really a substantial amount, and making the analogy to a few buckets of ink in a swimming pool. I didn’t provide links to more thorough discussions, though.)

    2. Evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon, or not mostly, and how that doesn’t depend in particular on trusting one analysis such as Michael Mann’s.

    3. Water vapor feedback.

    And here’s a few more:

    0. A basic top-level post sketching the mechanisms of global warming, varied effects on climate, and the kinds of evidence. (With links off-site to particular topics, if you don’t have a good on-site post that lays it out.)

    4. Why variations in insolation are insufficient to explain what we’re observing.

    5. Evidence from the last few decades (receding icecaps and glaciers, species shifts) that make the warming more obviously real—and worse than expected—compared to what we knew a few decades ago.

    6. Explanations about the problem of carbon sinks filling up, or their rate of absorption being exceeded, and evidence that this is in fact happening (e.g., ocean acidificiation).

    7. Albedo feedback.

    8. Expected impacts… “slight” rises in sea level causing major problems in coastal regions, weather pattern shifts causing localized colder climates as well as warmer ones, shifts across national boundaries causing emigration/immigration political problems, etc.

    9. A “political” post about who’s who in climate science, and who’s not who. (Something like Lippard’s recent post analyzing the publication records of the top “consensus” folks vs. the top “deniers”.) Basically show just how numerous and reputable the agreers are, and how dubious the deniers are, and tracing back some of the think-tank propaganda to vested interests.

  21. Sean McCorkle

    peter @15

    I should remind you at this point that there is NO causal PROOF that CO2 affects the climate

    Because CO2 has a rather large absorption band at 15 microns, very close to the Planck maximum at 10 microns from a 300K emitter like the Earth, it HAS to force a temperature increase of some amount to balance the radiation output of the planet with the input from the Sun. Thats just simple physics, energy conservation etc.

    How can an increase in CO2 NOT cause a rise in temperature?

  22. Paul W.

    By the way, Chris, I think that one of the problems you’re having is that you’ve alienated a lot of your former readers/supporters over the New Atheism vs. accommodationism thing.

    From the New Atheist point of view, you’re a denier yourself when it comes to the evidence about religion from cognitive science and neuroscience, and the conflicts between science and almost all religion. By straw-manning and stonewalling about the New Atheism for years, you’ve driven away a lot of people who are very serious about science.

    Over at Pharyngula there are a lot more people than here who are willing and able to counter the deniers when they show up. That’s partly just that Pharyngula is more popular, so a similar percentage of knowledgeable and willing people makes a much larger number, but I think it’s also a failure on your part to practice what you preach—you’ve alienated your useful allies by continually (and unfairly) painting them as buttheads who alienate their useful allies.

  23. Andrew30

    Paul W;

    On point number 9, please do not forget to include the Sultanate of Oman in the list of ‘reputable agreers’. They are, after all, a sponsor of the realclimate/CRU enterprise.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    http://www.omanlng.com/

    Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a British Climate research business?

  24. Paul W.

    BTW, Chris, if you have old posts that do a good job what we’re talking about, just re-post them and put links in your sidebar, or post an index post with links to them, and put a very prominent link to that in your sidebar.

    Lots of science bloggers do that sort of thing.

    (You may be afraid that if you give too much good stuff away for free in a form that’s too easily accessible, that’ll cut into your book sales. Maybe so, but it would certainly make this a more useful blog, and I’d hope that that would indirectly increase your book sales.)

  25. Sven DiMilo

    the realclimate/CRU site that is funded by the Oil, Gas and Nuclear Power lobby

    WTF? Is this Opposite Day? Are you Homer Simpson?

    there is NO causal PROOF that CO2 affects the climate – just a coincidence that temperatures have gone up at the same time that CO2 has.

    *rolls eyes*
    Are you familiar with the scholarly field of Physics?
    Do these people not realize that the observation of increasing CO2 came first, and that global warming was originally a prediction from that observation?
    Let’s see, how could we test that prediction? In a, you know, scientific-methody sort of way?
    I know! We could run a planetary-scale experiment, in which we manipulate global CO2 and then measure average global surface temperature, tropospheric temperature, and stratospheric temperature as response variable. Of course, that would be a very risky and expensive experiment to run.

    wait…

  26. Paul W.

    BTW, here’s a link to The Lippard Blog’s recent post “Who are the climate change skeptics.”

    http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/12/who-are-climate-change-skeptics.html

    Here’s a few paragraphs from that post:

    One comparison I made was between the scientists of the IPCC and the scientists of the NIPCC, a group sponsored by The Heartland Institute. I compared the fourth-most-cited paper of the top 83 scientists of the former to the fourth-most-cited paper of all of the 2008 NIPCC participants, using Jim Prall’s excellent website of citation counts for climate scientists. Of the 619 scientists of the AR4 (2007) Working Group 1 on the physical science basis of climate change, the top 83 each have more than 200 citations to their fourth-most-cited paper. There are only thirteen climate skeptics with that level of citation, most of whom received those citations for papers having nothing to do with climate science, and none of whom were involved with the 2008 NIPCC report. (In 2009, William Gray, who is in that category, participated in a second NIPCC meeting, but I didn’t review that for my paper.)

    The top scientist of the 2008 NIPCC report with publications containing the word “climate,” the organizer and editor of the report, S. Fred Singer, has 31 citations to his fourth-most-cited paper. He’s a retired physics professor (Ph.D. earned in 1948) who is not only a skeptic about climate change but about the health effects of second-hand smoke, the link between CFCs and the ozone hole, and has received tobacco and oil company funding for his work. His name pops up frequently when it comes to attempts by corporations to block environmental regulation. There were 24 participants listed as authors on the 2008 NIPCC report, six of whom have no academic credentials or affiliations and no published academic work of relevance to the climate change debate (Dennis Avery, Christopher Monckton, Kenneth Haapala, Warren Anderson, Klaus Heiss, and Anton Uriarte). The top-cited scientist, Lubos Motl, has 150 citations for his fourth-most-cited paper, but he’s a theoretical physicist with no publications containing the word “climate.” The next guy after Singer, George Taylor, has an M.S. in meteorology and 25 citations for his fourth-most-cited paper. There are a few people on the list with relevant credentials, but none are top names in climate science. The majority with scientific credentials have little or no relevant expertise, like Fred Goldberg, with a Ph.D. in welding technology, and Tom Segalstad, a mineralogist with a Ph.D. in geology.

    It should be noted that the climate skeptics with the best credentials in climate science tend to be participants in the IPCC process, such as John R. Christy, who was a lead author on the Working Group 1 reports in 2001 and 2007. Robert Balling of ASU has also participated in the IPCC process, and despite being often regarded as a skeptic, agrees that there is global warming and that it has a human component, and told me that the IPCC report is the best place for the layman to find accurate information about climate science (see my summary of his recent talk at ASU).

  27. Andrew30

    Sven DiMilo;

    Check it out for yourself. The relaclimate/CRU enterprise if funded by the Oil, LNG and Nuclear Power lobby. It is a fact that has been hidden from you, there are others. The list of funders is at the bottom of the liked page on the history of the CRU.

    Yes, it is true. You may be being deceived.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

  28. a dood

    When climate scientists can produce a model that can closely predict temperature changes over 30-year periods — publicly, with no alterations to recorded data, and openly verifiable — then, and only then, will I consider their opinions on the influence of mankind’s activities on the Earth’s climate.

  29. Paul W.

    Andrew30,

    I’ve looked at that list of funders for CRU, and I don’t think it implies what you think it does. It looks fine to me.

    It is totally unsurprising that a climate research unit would do research commissioned by—among many organizations—oil companies, nuclear regulators, and their insurers.

    Companies and regulators are often required to do environmental impact statements, and to farm them out to less-partial organizations.

    If you looked at the list of organizations that’s funded my research over the last few decades, you could insinuate all sorts of things about my motives, none of which would be true, or remotely plausible on closer inspection.

    For example, a long time ago done research “for” an electronic gambling company, but only because that company was required by law to use a percentage of its state lottery profits to fund research on things with no clear relation to lotteries. They certainly didn’t find my results very useful for separating gullible people from their money, and if my research had actually been oriented toward that, I wouldn’t have taken the money—and probably would have gotten in trouble with my academic institution for doing so!

    I’ve also been funded by defense department money, but only because they fund fairly basic research in my field as well as applied R&D; I’ve never done anything close to developing weapons.

  30. John Kwok

    @ Andrew30 –

    The Medieval Warming Period was regional, affecting only the northern regions of North America and Western Europe.

    @ dood –

    Do you apply the same logic to the necessity of conservation biology and of the need to preserve as much – hopefully all – of the biodiversity that still exists here on Planet Earth?

  31. Thomas L

    Chris,

    It would, I think, be a good idea. However keep in mind many of us who have recently arrived at this debate actually come from pretty technical backgrounds, and part of what has upset us is what we see as “acceptable methodology” that would have gotten us fried in our respective fields. That is actually what has some of us “anoyed” for lack a=of a better word; it’s not just about “consensus” and the level of agreement.

    Maybe take one issue at a time with links to things of relevance (as mentioned by several, trying to find a coherent grouping of information on the “pro” side is pretty frustrating, pretty quickly. A lot of arguments on both sides are old and debunked, so just pointing “go here” may not be as productive as an actual appraisal of the newest information that makes going anywhere irrelevant…

    An example of that is the MWP, some of the “it was warmer” sites are way out of date on their info, and some of the “no it wasn’t” sites are just as out of date. To be current you need to address the ice core work (with the appropriate explanations of bands of uncertainty and ways in which even these have flaws), and the information culled from other areas of study and proxy work to come up with a current level of thinking on such.

    Keep in mind Peter’s point, while some may be about the edges, quite a bit is actually about the central claim in the hypothesis.

    SLC,

    Your Northwest Passage comment(s) were addressed by several in a thread a few days back. The responses were very cogent and would have taken you two seconds on a Google search to verify. Some of us know quite a bit about that, it has a long history. As to how open versus this year, that is very hard to say as without the satellite pictures no one would call it open now either. Without such aides the chances of successful navigation would be as close to zero as ever. Yet there were still two very high profile crossings in the mid part of the last century (one of which has only recently been declassified), and it was used for supply runs in the Second World War as well.

    Sven,

    Yes, but Co2 has also been substantially higher, so perhaps a “why it’s different now and will have a different impact” would be more appropriate. There has been a lot of work on positive feedback, but there is also significant negative feedback (otherwise the earth would have long ago gone one way or the other rather than staying generally in the life zone…). An explanation of where the idea of “tipping point” came from and why such is now when is has never been before would be a good topic as well

  32. Andrew30

    Paul W;

    If realclimate/CRU has been receiving funding from the Oil, Gas and Nuclear Power lobby all along then why would the realclimate/CRU people refer to anyone else that received funds from these same organizations as a ‘shill’?

    (Including comment number 19, right here, today, by SLC)

    Something to hide from the followers perhaps?

  33. It’s really no different than dealing with creationists. I would advise that, if you can use the rebuttal to raise some other interesting point, then do it. Otherwise, there are sites run by climatological experts do this, and life is too short to play intellectual whack-a-mole with denialists.

  34. Andrew30

    Paul W;

    One other thing. What kind of ‘environmental impact statements’ would the Sultanate of Oman, a Middle Eastern Kingdom, require from a British Climate Research business?

    Sorry, I just don’t buy into you proposition.

  35. Dougetit

    Did you ever think that it has been found that the data you base your beliefs on have been manipulated? Hello?

    And, ah yes.. You mean this EPA which CENSORS it’s own scientists?

    http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa

    Here is why you fail to recognize that you have been duped. You see, because ground/sea based thermometer data is more susceptible to scientists prostituting data and conclusions for fame, fortune or funding, in the field of a politicalized inexact science, (as we are finding out since climategate), even putting aside simple errors that can occur, there is no need for these datasets at all, at least not as a primary source.

    After all the satellite data is balloon checked regularly to be within 3 one hundredths (3/100) of a degree accuracy. So why the need for ground/sea thermometer data?

    If you were to linear straight line (with the function f(x) = a*x+b, where a and b are constants calculated so the line is the best fit to the point series. The trendline is calculated so the sum of squares (SSQ) S(yi-f(xi))^2), plot all of the thermometer datasets from January 1998 to November 2009, you would find an UPWARD warming trend.

    If you were to plot, (same as above), the satellite dataset, you would find that temperatures have trended DOWN with a DIFFERENCE from ground based data of about .33 C per decade. So why would we trust ground based data?

    This more than a decade cooling trend is eluded to in the EMAIL Oct. 12, 2009. From Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann and colleagues. “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,”…. None of their (21+) models had or could predict this.

    My point is that, in the absence of thermometer data, we would be left with only satellite data and the term “AGW” would likely not exist. This could have saved us billions of dollars on duplicate/wasted research of which could have been better spent on real environmental issues.

    Sorry.. just the scientific facts…

  36. Paul W.

    Andrew30,

    A lot depends on who exactly they get the money from, what for, and what strings are attached.

    If I’m hired to do an independent analysis, because somebody is legally required to hire me whether they like me and my analysis or not, that’s very different from me taking a job at a think tank to generate propaganda for them, where they hire me because they do like my style of analysis and with an agreement that the results will be favorable to them.

    Likewise, if I’m hired by a regulator or an insurer of company X, to see if what they’re doing is riskier or less beneificial than they say it is, then that’s an independent or adversarial relationship with company X, not being in bed with them.

    That is not being hired by an industrial lobby; rather the reverse—you’re being paid not to be in the pocket of the company or lobby in question.

    What political think tanks do is often a matter of being hired by a lobby to come up with analyses favorable to certain companies or industries.

    You evidently don’ t know how academia works, or don’t know how a lot of think tanks work. (A lot of think tanks are exactly fronts for lobbies that fund them.)

    That’s what a lot of think tanks are for—to give a veneer of academic respectability to lobbying efforts, and to confuse people about what’s good science vs. junk science.

    They hire third-rate scientists who are either willing to lie for money, or hand-picked for their oddball views that are congenial to that company.

    See Lippard’s post that I linked to above. Notice how much poorer the credentials of the NIPCC leaders are than those of the IPCC leaders. Note also that some of the prominent guys have a history of shilling for things like tobacco and creationism, and many have no relevant credentials at all.

    There’s a reason why the top science organizations around the world are on board with one and not the other. They look into such things, and can generally tell a respectable academic organization from a corporate lobby front.

  37. Yes, you need to re-teach climate science.

    However, don’t let the resident trolls determine the curriculum. They are not here to learn anything. They are here to vent, puff, and posture.

  38. Andrew30

    Paul W;

    You really need to work on your response; it is circular, dismissive, ad hominem and does not even begin to address the question:

    Why would a Middle Eastern Kingdom be funding a British Climate Research business?

    I suggest that you return to your leaders at the link below and try and work something out.

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

  39. bob

    Could you lay out your conspiracy theory for us, Andrew30? It doesn’t make any sense to me.

    I would think that a “Middle Eastern Kingdom” would want to hide evidence for global warming! If there’s no global warming, then there’s less incentive to stop using oil from Middle Eastern Kingdoms.

  40. EyeRon

    The integrity of the raw data is the fundamental issue. Unless and until the Climate Change global lobby can provide a full accounting of how temperature data was collected and what statistical manipulation they applied to it everyone else they claim is suspect.

    Here is a perfect illustration of the problem:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/

    It is simply illogical to assume that beginning in 1950 the “homogenized” data should not only stop correlating with the raw data but that the error correction should increase at a linear rate!

  41. Somite

    Post #40 is precisely the problem. Using cherrypicking and the misinterpretations of wattsupwiththat as argumentative facts.

  42. Andrew30

    Bob;

    I see no conspiracy, just business being business.

    It is not Oil in Oman, it is Liquefied Natural Gas.

    Oman has just completed a massive investment in LNG, and developed and installed new CO2 removal technology in their process; this lowers the carbon footprint of their gas. So using their gas to drive electricity generation will be less costly once CO2 is taxed. They have no problem with this whole thing, in fact they are funding it.

    Saudi Arabia, who have oil and not so much gas, are in a different position, they have a problem with this whole thing.

    Just an observation; a 4 degree rise in temperature in the Sultanate of Oman or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would change it from really hot to really hot.

    Maybe it is just good business.

    http://www.omanlng.com/

    Oman LNG L.L.C
    Formed: Set up by Royal Decree in February 1994.
    Location: Head office: Muscat; Plant: Qalhat near Sur (approx 340 km from Muscat)
    Products: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
    Shareholders: Government of Oman 51 %, Royal Dutch/Shell Group 30%, Total Elf Fina 5.54%, KOLNG 5%, Partex 2% Mitsubishi 2.77%, Mitsui 2.77%, ltochu 0.92%.

    A year after the formation Oman LNG L.L.C in 1994 we get this from the CRU, using the data and computer models that have still not been released.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    “This work culminated in 1995, when a team of researchers from American institutes and from CRU, using the computer simulations of climate change caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas…”

    Perhaps it was a coincidence.

    And Exxon buying XTO Energy Inc for 31 billion dollars, first purchase in 10 years, announced during the climate summit

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/exxon-deal-shakes-natural-gas-sector/article1400128/

    Again, a coincidence.

    http://intelligencepress.com/features/lng/
    Again, a coincidence.

    It is not about Oil or the environment; it is about Natural Gas and Nuclear Power.

  43. Michael Larkin

    AGW supporters are perceived by many as insufferably patronising. That doesn’t alter the truth or falsity of the hypothesis of man-made-CO2-induced-catastrophic-global-warming, but it does get up the noses of those who do not accept this hypothesis. No amount of positive spin is going to change the mind of someone who feels insulted. If the science is good, no spin is required.

    Speaking personally, and as a science graduate, I have spent hundreds of hours trawling through the science and it’s perfectly plain that it is very far from settled. Denialist schmialist: I’m an agnostic, and that’s because the evidence is not yet convincing either way.

    You have to really roll up your sleeves and get to grips with this stuff, and start off not having pre-decided the outcome. I can tell anyone reading this who hasn’t done that that they can’t possibly venture an informed opinion either way.

    Why is this discussion typically so heated? Why aren’t hordes of people arguing for or against, say, string theory? Why global warming, particularly? It’s because the stakes are high, whichever way it goes. One way, we’re all going to get fried. The other way, we’re going to waste trillions on a non-problem: even a fraction of which could have been spent to good effect on many other worthy environmental issues. We have to get it right, and so the evidence has to be rock solid. But it isn’t.

    Agnosticism is the only rational position on this issue. It doesn’t help when a number of pro-AGW scientists at the heart of the IPCC have been caught playing dirty pool. These aren’t just any old climatologists, but key personnel.

    Again, that doesn’t mean the science is wrong, but it does mean that it needs to be re-examined openly and transparently by scientists who start of with an open mind, and are prepared to go wherever the evidence leads them. This issue has become a matter of faith rather than science, even for some of the scientists, and whichever side they are on, they need to be excluded from any re-evaluation process. Like I said, if the data are good, if the methods used to manipulate it are sound, the supporters of AGW have nothing to fear. And if that’s not the case, then we should all breathe a sigh of relief and start concentrating on different environmental issues. Truth creates no losers.

    We should stop the use of pejoratives like “denier” and “alarmist”. Why would anyone want to stigmatise literally millions of people who are expressing an opinion either way about an as-yet-unproven theory? In recent times, we used to see this kind of behaviour directed at people of colour, and in less recent times, at people of a different religious sect. It is the very stuff of prejudice, and contains within it the seeds of violence and oppression. I despair of the humanity of those who feel the need to vilify those with a difference of opinion, be they pro- or anti-AGW. Shame on both of them.

  44. Dougetit

    43. @Michael Larkin

    You have expressed your feelings on this matter much better than I possibly could.

    Thanks for the insightful enlightenment.

  45. Jay

    Well said Michael Larkin.

  46. John Kwok

    @ Michael Larkin,

    Thanks for trying to inject some common sense into this discussion, though I would beg to differ with you regarding whether Anthropogenic Global Warming hasn’t been established. It has, and, if you doubt this, you might find work by University of Virgina professor emeritus of environmental sciences William F. Ruddiman quite relevant. He has contended that AGW actually started when Neolithic societies in the Middle East and elsewhere began widespread clearing of land for agricultural purposes:

    Ruddiman, W.F. and J.S. Thomson. 2001. The case for human causes of increased atmospheric CH4 over the last 5000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:1769-1777.

  47. Gus Snarp

    @Michael Larkin – I can safely ignore the bulk of what you have written since you claim to have spent “hundreds of hours trawling through the science”, but also say that “scientists at the heart of the IPCC have been caught playing dirty pool.”

    There is no proof of dirty pool in the hacked emails, which I assume you are referring to. Look it up, the claims made about those emails have all been soundly refuted. If you are that willing to instantly believe false claims about what exactly was meant by half a sentence in one email out of a long chain of emails, or by one line of code whose results have been commented out so they don’t even affect the program, then you are simply not credible on this.

  48. Artie

    Quote –

    “Plus, it would be work that has already been done by others–like the US EPA.”

    You may want to check your facts…

    The US EPA report itself states that they based their findings on the IPCC reports and CRU data.

    How is that considered independent research?

  49. david schofield

    To both friends and to those who have insulted me,

    The best way for Warmists to stop the landslide of technical opinion away from their case is to address the technical weaknesses in data integrity.

    Unless raw data, sampling approaches and normalising processes are transparent, nothing is left for the IPCC to defend.

    Perhaps DISCOVER could lead a campaign for data transparency and statistical rigour, rather that holding on to a monlithic editorial line as the tide comes in.

    Seasonal Greetings to all from here in an unusually snowy London.

    DavidS

  50. Anonymous Coward

    “Certainly it would be a lot of work to undertake, to lay all of that out. Plus, it would be work that has already been done by others–like the US EPA. I wonder, would trying to blog about this basic science be at all illuminating or useful? Or, perhaps I could offer refutations to the most standard “skeptic” claims? That, too, has been done over and over again, including by myself in various articles, and in my first book. Would doing it here be any different?”

    Um, no, what you have done is refuted ZERO claims, and reiterated old/boring/silly talking points.

    If you are a journalism, and do feel some obligation towards truth, then ACT like a journalist not like a AGW fluffer.

    Take apart some of the deeper claims and really dig into them. Take apart myths and talking points from both sides. Is McIntyre funded by Oil? Is the CRU funded by Oil? Is the CRU a bunch of Thatcherites with an agenda to attack the coal industry? Is the Wegman paper valid? Dig deep.

    Explain the history and science of the MWP, why it was there, and the history and science of why it went away.

    There are hundreds of people ready and able to fluff for AGW, why don’t you actually act like a journalist for once?

  51. John Kwok

    @ Michael Larkin –

    Two independent reviews by credible journalism agencies – one based at Yale University, the other, the Associated Press – find no evidence at all of the “dirty pool” you speak of. It is most regrettable that the e-mails were uncovered and leaked and that many global warming denialists – including many of my fellow Republicans but also many, many others – have seized upon the EastAnglia “ClimateGate” affair as though it was the “smoking gun” demosntrating how “corrupt” and “indecent” those scientists – who are in the majority – recognizing the validity of AGW are.

  52. Andrew30

    Gus Snarp;

    ‘…one line of code whose results have been commented out…’.

    That statement is not accurate: In the last version of the program “FOI2009/FOIA/documents/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro”, it is not commented out.

    You have been misinformed; you might want to check for yourself.

    For a satirical look at the climategate programming (hiding the decline):

    http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103

  53. Thomas L

    Gus,

    Um, sorry. There is in fact quite a bit coming out at the moment – context is being provided and other stories of stone walling research are popping up – so far it is less then “pretty”. While perhaps not directly refuting AGW, is does seem to put a bad light on the higher echelon. Rather than trumping a party line and being simply another talking head, why do you not take the prudent path and wait until such formal investigations as have begun are finished first prior to taking a stand either way?

    Michael,

    well said, I think that is an eloquent way to phrase what many of us feel.

  54. Frank

    I worked on a dam in Tajikistan in 2006, so when I got back and saw Al Gore’s movie blaming global warming for the Aral Sea drying up, I found the lie to be hysterical. The Soviets built dozens of major dams and diverted the water. The Soviets even dug an 850 mile canal across the Qara Qum desert to Ashgabot diverting the Amu Darya. The Soviets made a choice for agriculture and flush toilets and the people with the water are very happy for it.

    Al Gore tried to imply that glaciers have suddenly started melting. Give me a break, they have been melting since the middle of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. I have hiked up Franz Josef Glacier in New Zealand, and they have signs at intervals marking the melting of the glacier for hundreds of years.

    I saw the British documentary in 2006 which alleged that the Vostok ice core data had the temperature leading CO2 by 400 years on average. I found the Vostok data on the US government website and downloaded it myself so that I could make my own decision. The Brit documentary was right, the temps led CO2. I took the chart to Al Gore’s movie with me, and my fellow engineers at the showing agreed with me, Al Gore was intentionally misrepresenting the data. A year later I went back to the US government website to hunt for that chart, and it had been replaced with a chart which compressed the time scale and made the pen width fatter so that you could not discern the 400 year antithesis. Not to be cheated, I kept hunting until I found the original Vostok data, but in my search I discovered a UK website had manipulated the Vostok data by biasing the relative size and placement of the CO2 data downward with respect to the temperature data so that the CO2 would appear in front of the temperature curve at the bottom of the chart; cheeky devils!

    Having worked on dams in Tajikistan, I couldn’t figure out why everyone was so worried about he Himalayan glaciers melting, when it did not seem to be a problem in the mountains in Tajikistan, just West of the main Himalayan ranges. Oops, now in the past two weeks we find out it was a typo in the UN documents; it wasn’t the year 2035 cited in that seminal 1996 Russian document, it was the year 2350! I found that Russian document on the internet and read it; the Himalayan glacier melting was taken out of context, too.

    Common sense says that if you want good historical weather data, you ignore sites which have been encroached by civilization and subjected to “heat island” effects, in favor of rural sites. You certainly try to favor sites without discontinuities. Now the Russians are saying this past week that the CRU took the weather data that the Russians had provided, and ignored rural data and cherry picked urban and discontinuous data! The Russians should know, it was their data. I can read Russian, I have read the report, it is quite damning!

    I have read the leaked CRU computer code line by line, and it creates an array of data points that slopes upward within the code, then interpolates the actual climate data with respect to this rising slope; what’s up with that?!

    The bristlecone pine tree ting data has been discredited. Briffa’s Yamal Siberian larch tree rings appear compromised by a single tree in his sample, YAD061, which took off like a rocket for no discernable reason, when the rest of the trees flatlined. But now that flawed data set is moot, for now the Russians have looked at actual thermometer readings for that area of Siberia and concluded that none of the larch tree ring data corresponds with actual temperature readings. If the contemporary trees don’t match actual thermometers, how can fossil trees be an accurate proxy for temperature? Rural Russian temperature records simply don’t show global warming.

    We now have reports of compromised thermometer data from New Zealand and Darwin station Australia, tsk, tsk.

    We have historical data from the Vostok ice cores showing a 12°C swing in temperatures at regular 100,000 year intervals. We know of the many cycles of glaciation on this planet. We know Milankovitch cycles are an astronomical fact, as reliable as a calculation of when the next solar eclipse will be, they are not a theory. If Milankovitch cycles aren’t causing the periods of glaciation every 100,000 years, what is?

    We see solar flares light up our skys with incandescent northern lights. They induce so much current in the ground that electrical grids shut down because power transformers cores become saturated with DC current. This same current is flowing on every inch of the planet’s surface, and in the oceans, heating it. Historical records of short-term climate change seem to correlate with historical records of sunspots, but we are told to ignore this because it doesn’t fit the unproven CO2 theory.

    In the year 1010 the Nile froze. During the “little ice age” the Thames froze, and people were skating on the canals in Holland.
    On the scale of thousands of years, we are currently in one of the transient warm periods; frankly I would be more worried about the temperature dropping by 10°C since these warm periods are actually the exception to the rule!

  55. EyeRon

    “He has contended that AGW actually started when Neolithic societies in the Middle East and elsewhere began widespread clearing of land for agricultural purposes:”

    Well if that is a source of AGW we might as well all take a cyanide pill. Certainly man can turn off his lights and TV but he does have to eat!

  56. Dougetit

    51. @John Kwok

    And you are talking of course about the AP which only used temperature data, instead of satellite data to base their conclusion that there is no evidence of recent cooling?

    Is that un-bias reporting also?

  57. EyeRon

    Speaking of deniers I find it amusing that it is climate scientists who consistently deny requests to examine the raw temperature data.

    Phil Jones: 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.

    Does not this comment from Phil Jones sound familiar? Any request to independently examine the temperature data should be denied because it will might be used to criticize the “science”. This sure makes the “science” appear to be far less solid than what it is claimed to be.

  58. SLC

    Re Thomas L @ #31

    1. Would Mr. Thomas L. care to provide a link to the claim that ships passed through the Northwest Passage during the 2nd World War. When the Nautilus passed under the pole in the 1950s. the passage was closed. Furthermore, there have been numerous attempts to find the passage since Europeans arrived in North America and all, including the polar expedition by Commodore Peary in 1905 failed to find it.

    2. There was a Washington Post story 2 or three weeks ago which stated that ships had actually passed through during the summer of 2008 or 2009. I posted a link to that story previously, although I don’t recall if it was on this blog.

    Re Michael Larkin

    The reason why the controversy over string theory doesn’t evict the same reaction as the controversy over global warming is because the energy compaines aren’t spending millions of dollars on anti-string theory propaganda and Rupert Murdock isn’t filling his fascist news channel and his various newpapers with anti-string theory propaganda. As I said previously, Mr. Mooney has shown in his first book, “The Rethuglican War on Science,” that the energy companies have taken a page out of the tobacco companies playbook and funded phony “thinik tanks” like the Heartland Institute and the George Marshall Foundation to spread their propaganda. The Lippard link at #26 provides a good discription of these enterprises. One may also find good information on the sourcewatch web site on them.

    Re EyeRon

    Anthony Watts is a former weatherman and has not a jot or a tittle of expertise on climate, anymore then any other weatherman who appears on television. Weather and climate are two different subjects, as Mr. Mooney has pointed out. Watts is just another shill for the Heartland Institute.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

    Re Dougetit @ #35

    The Competitive Enterprise Institute is in business to propagandize against government regulation of any kind. Since combating global warming will undoubtedly require government regulation, it is not at all surprising that they would deny it is occurring. No self respecting scientist would believe anything that this organization says.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CEI

  59. bob

    Hold on, andrew, let me see if I understand what you’re basing this grand conspiracy theory on.

    You think global warming is a hoax based on a just-so tale you spun based on ONE research sponsor (out of dozens) at ONE research organization (out of hundreds/thousands). Seriously? It’s no wonder that the second link when you google “oman cru” is your “article” being discussed on Prison Planet. This is a connection worthy of Alex Jones, for sure. You desperately need to take a step back and think about how tenuous this “link” is.

    You know who else was in the list of acknowledgments you cherry-picked the Sultanate of Oman out of? Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre. You sheeple go ahead and believe that this is all about actual global warming or covert LNG conspiracies. I know the truth: it’s all about the beets. I can’t wait to laugh all the way to the bank as the BeetMasters take over the world.

  60. Jean

    Chris, I would find that very useful. I just read the book “Cool It!” by Bjorn Lomborg and imagine it can be demolished in 10 easy steps…if only I knew the steps. I’d appreciate a Climate Change 101 series.

  61. EyeRon

    SLC, why do you not address the substance of a question instead of attacking the questioner?

    Your response is just one more example of how “Climate Science” has become a religion and only those deemed worthy are allowed to enter the temple to further its study.

    We live in the 21st century, not the 14th! Science does not need gatekeepers, it needs transparency.

  62. Sven DiMilo

    Well if that is a source of AGW…

    Well, it is a source of AGW; methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and a lot of it comes from various agricultural practices. It’s just that now, it’s a less important source than CO2. A lot of which is also anthropogenic.
    Again, increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are an empirical observation. Global warming is a prediction from that observation. The degree of predicted global warming depends on various positive and negative feedbacks in the complex climate system.
    If the legitimate scientific arguments are about the importance of various feedbacks, then what can we do but try to model the various processes as best we can and try to make testable predictions?
    And then try to test those predictions with further observations of long-term trends in, for example, surface, tropospheric, and stratospheric temperatures, distributional ranges and phenology of plants and animals, frequency changes in weather patterns, etc.?

    That’s what the scientists are up to. No bullshit industry-sponsored secret conspiracy, no cabal of socialist crusaders, no UN-black-helicopter tinhat Illuminati crap. Not even any spinning and twisting to keep the Big Grant Money rolling in. It’s trying to find out seriously what’s going on and what that might mean for the future. Now, they are human scientists, so I do not discount the existence of ego, pride, emotion, envy, and even occasional stupidity in particular cases.

    But step back and look at the big picture. Look at enough of the available data, raw, processed, principle-componentized, whatever. Ask cui bono?

    At the very minimum, the current scientific bedrock starting place has to be that the basic prediction of global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has not been falsified. In fact, the vast majority of the relevant data seem to support the hypothesis. Strongly. So far.
    Much of the rest of the discussion is red herrings, and most of them based either in idealistic ignorance or propaganda from vested interests.

  63. SLC

    Re Thomnas L. @ #31

    Attached is a link to a Wikipedia article on the Northwest Passage. Although I stand corrected as to whether any ships have passed through there (apparently a few have), the Wikipedia article says the following.

    Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable.[4][5][6][7] However, the contested sovereignty claims over the waters may complicate future shipping through the region: The Canadian government considers the Northwestern Passages part of Canadian Internal Waters,[8] but various countries maintain they are an international strait or transit passage, allowing free and unencumbered passage.[9][10]

    I stand by my claim that the reduction of pack ice in the Northwest Passage is evidence of global warming.

  64. Dougetit

    SCL @ 58

    For your benifit, this link below is the actual Scientist’s report. Scroll down to the very bottom for the “Shut Up” email exchange. It was not paid for/produced/fabricated by the CEI.

    http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

  65. SLC
  66. Climate change education sites exist, but the links are hard to find because Google spots shill sites first.

    Somewhere out there there is a great site showing the relative proportions of ocean evaporation and water vapor released directly by humans. But in over an hour of searching, I could not find it.

    I also could not find the free front page of a peer-reviewed comment (an elsevier journal with “environment” in it is all that I recall) that pointed out a skeptical paper published in a journal had found anthropogenic emissions to be insignificant, because the sampling period was the entire 4.5 billion year history of the planet.

    So making the explanations and clarifications that already exist findable would probably be more productive than writing yet another one of your own.

  67. Andrew30

    Bob;

    By the way, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre is part of Rothamsted Research Centres.

    Food to ethanol:
    http://www.rothamsted.bbsrc.ac.uk/Research/Centres/PressReleases.php?PRID=59

    Ethanol produces less CO2 then gasoline does.

    http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/environment/

    That would provide a business interest to tax CO2, same reason, different business, make their fuel more cost competitive.

    Would you like to pick another business for the list?

  68. Dougetit

    SLC 65

    Now you use the science based wikipedia as a source? Maybe Jones, Mann and Briffa used it too?

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2009/12/19/leftist-green-party-member-exposed-using-wikipedia-preach-enviro-

  69. Gus Snarp

    @Thomas L – Because I have seen nothing out of the climate change denial camp that stood up to scrutiny. Because I have spent enough time getting an upper level degree in a research university to know how academia and science actually work. Because I have taken college level classes in climatology. Because I personally know climate scientists who are rigorous and brilliant. Because I have seen pictures of friends swimming in an entirely ice free section of the arctic ocean that is normally full of ice at that time of year. But mainly, because some times not deciding is the same as deciding in the negative. To say one is not sure God exists is to say one does not believe in God. To say one is not sure whether anthropogenic global warming exists is to say one does not believe it exists. I have seen no evidence for God. I have seen a lot of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

  70. bob

    Andrew, you have got to be kidding me. I came back here to write up a sarcastic comment linking beet farmers to the AGW conspiracy by way of biodiesel or ethanol, but you beat me to it. Except, you meant it. Bravo.

    I’d continue talking to you, but I’m clearly part of a massive government conspiracy, by your standards. The NIH funds my research, so clearly any findings I make related to the disease I’m studying are trumped-up nonsense to keep the gravy train rolling into my lab. Making up information about the disease I study is obviously a business interest to me. Hell, the disease probably doesn’t even really exist. Obviously, I buy into global warming out of professional conspiratorial courtesy.

    For anyone else who might read this and think “oh my heavens, look at that guy not addressing andrew’s points,” I have a quote for you from Thomas Jefferson.

    “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”

    Andrew’s hypothesis is not distinct from the notion that beet farmers are conspiring to raise the price of oil so that fuel from beets is more cost effective. Beets!

  71. Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor)

    I think the most useful thing for many people would be a graphical representation of the different topics, types of data, and debates—like an interactive outline or flow chart. The zoomed-out view would show the whole landscape of the major points in climate science. Then you could zoom into any of those major points to find greater granularity of info—what individual studies say, how different parts of the world are changing, what data are disputed, etc.

    I think having a visual presentation that can represent the info at different depths will be the most effective way for people to pick up the info they need.

  72. EyeRon

    GusSnarp: 69

    If Climate “Science” was only concerned with verifying the existence of a phenomenon no one other than those engaged in the research would care about it. It would be just another field of research like String Theory.

    But Climate Science became Climate Politics and the basis for pushing a global, socialist, agenda. At this point everyone has the right to demand accountability. If the goal is to apply the science to real world problems than the science has to be better understood and stand on its own. Hiding the science behind closed doors only makes one conclude it is vaporware.

  73. Andrew30

    Bob;

    If you have a different interpretation of the observable information, I would be interested in what that might be. I think I understand what transpired at realclimate/CRU, what I am trying to figure out is why and when it started.

    Do you have an explanation, or are you prepared to dismiss the possibility our of hand?

  74. EyeRon

    What is “normal”?

    No serious scientist would use the vernacular “normally full of ice at that time of year” when discussing the earth’s climate. There are times in the earth’s history when it was normal for Albany NY to be under 500 feet of ice. There are times in the earth’s history when it was normal for dinosaurs to roam Montana.

    Any Climate Change scientist willing to advance their best guess of what “normal” temperatures are?

    Anyone?

  75. SLC

    Re Dougetit @ #63

    1. One of the authors of the report, Carlin, is not a scientist but an economist.

    2. Mr. Mooney has already posted an article on this report, which has been totally discredited by real climate scientists, of which Carlin is not one. I stand by my comment that the Competitive Enterprise Institute is not to be believed. They posted a discredited report, just like other such discredited reports they have published on their web site to further their anti-regulation agenda.

    http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/dude-wheres-my-war-on-science/

  76. Andrew30

    Bob;
    A ‘massive government conspiracy’ is not required.

    This thing would not need thousands of scientists to be involved. All that was need was for one or two people in perhaps five or six countries to adjust the raw data (as has been demonstrated). Anyone using the data when making a comparison to CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into the data. The scientists would not be aware that they were being played. They would honestly think that their conclusions were correct. Only none of their predictions would ever be confirmed.

    All the papers that used the data, and all the papers that used those papers for support, would therefore be invalid. In the vast majority of the cases I would expect that the authors are without blame, they made no mistake. The mistake was encoded into the base data before they even started.

    Only the ones that actually were in control of the raw data and making the ‘adjustments’ needed to know of the exact requirements of the adjustment needed to seed the outcome into the data. When a scientist begins to say things like ‘the data must be wrong’, or ‘our monitoring is deficient’, perhaps they might not have been in on the ‘adjustments’ and they are likely frustrated because their model ‘works’ for the past and recent past. Think ‘We can’t explain the lack of warming’, perhaps the author of that email could not, but perhaps someone else could.

    A small group of motivated people, not a massive government conspiracy. Governments, like everyone else just received a lot of bad information.

  77. Dougetit

    Andrew30 @ 67

    It is debated that when considering the growing/production process, ethanol overall produces more Co2 than gasoline. It also takes food production acres out of use, driving up food prices. But what is worse is that the mere use of Ethanol increases pollution. This I don’t want!

    http://www.vx50.com/ipcc-report/a-hot-scandal-climate-science-cooked/

  78. Dougetit

    Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor) @ 71.

    I don’t have any problem with showing graphs on different points that have been researched here.. But I thought the debate concerns a single point. Does MAN, through Co2, have any significant warming impact on the climate?

  79. bob

    The “observable information” is that a handful of organizations funded research at CRU. One possible interpretation is that these organizations are interested in the climate. The other is that they’re all part of a cabal to take over the world via perpetuating a massive global warming hoax.

    If you’re going to believe the latter based on this scant “observable information,” then frankly you are a tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy-monger who isn’t worth talking to. If you are ready to propose a grand conspiracy theory based on “evidence” this meager, then no amount of discussion is going to persuade you. What could I possibly claim that you couldn’t write off as evidence of the conspiracy? Again, since you are so credulous when it comes to conspiracy theories, how could I possibly convince you that I’m not part of the conspiracy?

  80. Andrew30

    Dougetit;

    Re: “…Ethanol increases pollution. This I don’t want!”

    Neither do I, food should be for people.

    Sometimes though, people following an idea do not realize the full affect of their actions if they have not done their own investigation. Like the people that were marching in Copenhagen did not realize that they where marching in support of nuclear power. They did not know this of course, but that is what the plan on the table said. Look at which big technologies being pushed at the summit. I will give you a hint, it was not windmills.

  81. SLC

    Re Dougetit @ #68

    Well, Mr. Dougetits’ hero, Mr. Carlin cites an article by Roy Spencer in his report. Roy Spencer is a young earth creationist so, by Mr. Dougetits’ reasoning, that automatically discredits Carlins’ report without further analysis.

  82. Andrew30

    Bob;

    Re: “What could I possibly claim that you couldn’t write off as evidence of the conspiracy?”

    How about the original data, the models, the methods and the financial records from CRU?

    That would settle it. Easy.

  83. Adam

    @21: What are you trying to say in layman’s terms. Also can you answer #54 concerning ice core data.
    @25: How about something other than snark as proof. I ask you also to answer #54.
    @41. This is the tactic being used by those not convinced of AGW. You can either counter it or get out of the way. This is a debate. A blood and guts debate, but like any debate an argument has to be countered by showing how your argument position overcomes it. A cherry picked fact is still a cherry until it is buried by twigs and leaves.
    @ Chris. Michel Larkin, #43, is the voice of a lot of us who come to this blog to try to find the truth. This is where you should be devoting any energy you put into this debate.
    @49 and 51: Even if you disagree with the dirty pool contention of #43, his argument had more points than that.

  84. Louie

    Chris –

    I feel that you lack the objectivity to teach.
    What student would benefit from a teacher who holds that there ARE stupid questions?

    Also – Isn’t your degree in Journalism, or do you have an advanced degree in a relevant discipline of science?

  85. Thomas L

    SLC,

    Do a simple Google search on the ship “St. Roch”. Then do another one on the U.S. Navy’s Storis, Bramble and SPAR in September of 1957. You can further your research by checking out the Hudson Bay Company and how they regularly had ships navigate it to resupply its stores located in both the Western and Eastern Arctic during the 1940’s.

    Sorry, gave up on the MSM years ago.

  86. I think it’s a good idea, and I’ll tell you why, Chris: You’re a writer. There are plenty of sites that cover the material, but almost all of them are either poorly written or poorly organized or too techical for the layman. You, on the other hand, are neither an amateur blogger nor a scientist: You’re a professional science writer, which is exactly what’s needed. You have a knack for explaining complex science clearly.

    My main concern is that I think a blog is the wrong tool for this job. A dedicated, well-organized reference site would be much better. Overviews of the science + concise, easy to understand rebuttals of as much silliness as you can think of. Don’t skirt the uncertainties, but do correct misinformation. It could be great.

    (Ps: Get John Fleck to help. The two of you together could make a real contribution.)

  87. bob Says:

    What could I possibly claim that you couldn’t write off as evidence of the conspiracy?

    Nothing.

    Conspiracy theories cannot be refuted. Any contrary evidence is fake; any dissenter is part of the conspiracy. There is nothing you or anyone else can do, say, or show that will make the smallest dent in the armor. No argument will suffice. Conspiracy theories are unsinkable.

    I promise you that if you instantly produced “the original data, the models, the methods and the financial records from CRU” it wouldn’t make an iota of difference.

  88. Andy

    I dunno. This blog really seems to attract the lunatic fringe. Not sure there is a lot to be gained and there are so many hours in the day. Right?

    By the way, this story is very relevant to The Intersection if you haven’t seen it: http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/17/wegman-report-ghostwriter-revealed/

  89. Dougetit Says:

    For your benifit, this link below is the actual Scientist’s report.

    Carlin is no scientist, he’s an economist. He has a 50-year-old B.S. in physics, but his advanced degrees are in economics, and he has devoted his entire professional career to economics. He is employed by EPA as an economist, not as a scientist. His research papers have titles like “Marginal cost pricing of airport runway capacity”. He has no expertise in climate or any other physical science. He has done no research on climate or any other physical science. He was not part of the group that was writing the finding. His “paper” is essentially a mashup of blog posts, many of them written by others who, not coincidentally, are also not scientsts.

    A “paper” by one of the EPA lunch ladies would have been just as relevant and every bit as convincing.

  90. Dougetit

    SLC @ 81 said “Roy Spencer is a young earth creationist so, by Mr. Dougetits’ reasoning, that automatically discredits Carlins’ report without further analysis.”
    .
    Let’s think this through…. So…. Until you knew what your science teacher’s religion was, you wouldn’t believe anything they tried to teach you? Wouldn’t this tend to make one somewhat narrow minded? And what makes you think I’m a Mr.? (if that is what you are implying) Is this a religious debate or a science debate?

  91. Lab Lemming Says:

    Climate change education sites exist, but the links are hard to find because Google spots shill sites first.

    Oh, ain’t that the truth? It makes me insane sometimes. You do a search for something and the first three pages are all links to wattsupwiththat, climatedepot, newsbusters, ….

  92. Dougetit
  93. Thomas L

    Chris Dunford,

    Actually part of what is happening right now I found rather humorous is that over one Real climate they are asking for the code from Friis-Christensen, Lassen, and Henrik Svensmark. Quote:

    “But has anybody ever seen the details of the methods used, or the data? I believe that a full disclosure of their codes and data would really boost the confidence in their work, if they were sound”

    Now, isn’t this the same site that constantly tells everyone no one needs such as it is more productive to do the work from scratch on your own? That in fact there is no benefit in just reproducing someone else’s work and such arguments?

    Those of us who have no vested viewpoint and aren’t interested in a “who’s who” as much as we are in the basic science and methodology have been saying the same thing for awhile now.

    SLC,

    Sorry if that came out snarky, was in the middle of fixing an issue that two previous companies had failed on (which is sad as it wasn’t that complex an issue…) and zipped that up during a break.

  94. Dougetit

    Chris Dunford @ 88.

    Oh I see.. So just a simple case of kill/discredit the messenger takes care of that. Let mew ask you this: Does that also apply to lawmakers who vote on legislation concerning science (Cap and Trade) without being scientists?

    Well done.

  95. Sean McCorkle

    for Adam @ 83
    I’m not well versed in the ice core data, so I can’t really address that.

    (and apologies if this is too long for a comment)

    Before getting into the details of the CO2 its necessary to describe the radiation emission spectra of the Sun and the Earth.

    Warm objects emit electromagnetic radiation (infrared, light, etc) with a spectrum that was theoretically described in the 1900s. The theory – the Planck Law – quantitatively describes the amount of emission at each wavelength. This spectrum depends on the temperature of the object. This picture shows the shape for several temperatures (in K – measured above absolute zero). Two features are important – the wavelength of peak emission shifts to shorter wavelengths (i.e. infrared to visible to UV) as the temperature increases, (this is called the Wien Law) and the total emission (the area under the curve) greatly increases with temperature (the Stefan-Boltzmann law)

    The theory was worked out for perfect absorbers and emitters but works well in general for things like rocks, asteroids, stars and planets, etc. (especially The Wien and Stefan-Boltzmann law behavior)

    The Sun emits a Planck-like spectrum that peaks right in the visible, at 500 nm (green). It is quite hot. Something near room temperature, at 25C or 300K has maximum emission in the infrared, with a wavelength of 10 microns, or 1000 nm.

    If you place an object in space near the sun, it will absorb the sunlight and begin to warm up. As it warms, it will emit more and more radiation until its output radiation rate matches the rate of radiation it. This steady state balance is purely due to energy conservation; the total amount of energy never changes.

    If you block the incoming sunlight, the object will cool to a new steady state temperature. If you block the thermal radiation from the object, its temperature will rise and it will emit more and its peak wavelength
    will shift to shorter wavelengths.

    Gases can selectively block different wavelengths. Atoms and especially molecules in the gas phase will absorb electromagnetic radiation at specific wavelengths, causing absorption lines and bands. Two gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, water and CO2 (actually several more, but these two dominate)
    have strong absorption bands at wavelengths close to the peak emission of an object around 280 to 300 K, such as the Earth. They selectively block the Earth’s output radiation right where it peaks, around 10 microns. Because energy is conserved, the incoming sunlight heats the Earth to a higher temperature where it emits more energy (Stefan-Boltzmann law) and preferentially at shorter wavelengths (Wien law), to the point where the higher temperature radiation now balances with the incoming sunlight in spite of the absorption bands.

    If the amount of CO2 is increased, the same thing will necessarily happen again to conserve energy. The temperature will rise some more until the stronger and higher-wavelength output will equal the solar input.
    How can this not occur?

  96. moptop

    I say start from square one. Let’s hear it. But if you expect to change minds, you need to answer objections. I hear all the time about skeptical claims being “refuted”, but usually, it is nothing more than assurances that the skeptics are wrong.

    Or you could throw up your hands and watch your whole agenda to “save the planet” go down in flames.

    I will give you an example of how you will refuse to answer skeptic objections. Tell me how clouds are treated in climate models, and what is the scientific basis for that treatment. Remember that a one percent change in cloud cover over a year has the same effect as a doubling of CO2.

    NOBODY ANSWERS THIS QUESTION, AND MY MONEY IS ON YOU NOT ANSWERING IT EITHER. I could be wrong. Make a dent in skepticism, answer it. Should be simple.

  97. moptop

    “How can this not occur?”

    Nobody who make a serious attempt to understand the issue doubts what you say. The effect of a doubling of CO2 has been calculated to be about 1.2 C. The effect is logarithmic. Because of this, we have already seen the majority of the warming that will be caused due to the current rise toward a doubling.

    The argument is not over whether CO2 traps heat, the argument is over feedback. Does convection increase? This would short circuit a greenhouse effect. Are the feedbacks exclusively positive, as the alarmist maintain? Or are the feedbacks on balance negative, as the observations suggest? Because if the feedbacks balance out to a negative, any rise due to a doubling of CO2 will be well within the bounds of natural variability.

    NOT EXPECTING AN ANSWER HERE EITHER.

  98. Dougetit

    Uh oh… Now there’s WIKIgate or is this RealClimategate….

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745

  99. Dougetit

    moptop @ 97

    I hear you loud and clear… but I have one simpler than yours. Refer to my #35 above.
    When you plot the Satelite data, the trend shows over a decade of cooling. Not one of the Climate models anywhere near predicted this.. Might we re-consider reliability of computer modeling? Therby claims of future climate events? Nobody can answer that either!

  100. DCC

    “2. Andrew30 Says:
    December 21st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
    John Kwok;
    It might be a different idea to simply skip the realclimate/CRU site that is funded by the Oil, Gas and Nuclear Power lobby and just go directly to the talking points used by the followers. ”

    Whoo boy! That clinches it for me. You have not a clue about what’s going on. http://realclimate.org is not funded by industry. It’s the mouth organ of Michael Mann and his followers, a rather secretive attempt to spread the gospel of anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). You really have to dig to figure out who runs that site. It’s no more reliable than the IPCC reports.

  101. Dougetit Says:

    Oh I see.. So just a simple case of kill/discredit the messenger takes care of that.

    You said he was a scientist. He is not. He wrote a science recommendation to the United States Government, and he is not a scientist. That is entirely relevant.

  102. Andrew30

    Bob;

    You indicated that your research is related to the study of disease.

    What I see is:
    There are researchers that are working for interested parties that are paying them.
    They are publishing research that supports the interested party’s position.
    They are suppressing research that is contrary to the interested party’s positions.
    The interested party’s have a large financial interest in the outcome of the research.
    The researchers are providing the government with incomplete information.
    The interested parties are using the media to promote only the supporting information.

    And by making this observation I should be wearing a tin-foil hat?

    Perhaps if the company was Merck, the interested parties were the shareholders and the research subject was Vioxx I would not need the tin-foil hat.

    So what is the difference?

  103. Thomas L Says:

    Actually part of what is happening right now I found rather humorous is that over one Real climate they are asking for the code from Friis-Christensen, Lassen, and Henrik Svensmark. Quote:

    “But has anybody ever seen the details of the methods used, or the data? I believe that a full disclosure of their codes and data would really boost the confidence in their work, if they were sound”

    Now, isn’t this the same site that constantly tells everyone no one needs such as it is more productive to do the work from scratch on your own?

    I believe you missed the sarcasm in that post. They are, in essence, laughing: They tried to get data and methods used in a skeptical paper and were told to take a hike. They find this to be ironic. Me, too.

    Note the comments, e.g., “Oh, naughty!” and “I also want to see their emails….”

    Incidentally, RC has a page full of data source links:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

  104. Sean McCorkle

    moptop @ 97

    Does convection increase? This would short circuit a greenhouse effect.

    There is CO2 in the stratosphere, enough to produce bands which are quite pronounced. Even if convection somehow created an extreme condition where all the thermal radiation was produced at the top of the troposphere, an increase in CO2 would still result in greenhouse effect trapping and there will be a temperature increase – for all the same reasons I stated above.

    @96

    Remember that a one percent change in cloud cover over a year has the same effect as a doubling of CO2.

    Now this is something I’m interested in. When you say 1% change, do you mean that the reduction of water vapor reduces the 10 micron absorption (which it will) or that a 1% increase implies some increase in cloud cover which reflects away more of the sunlight?

  105. moptop Says:

    I hear all the time about skeptical claims being “refuted”, but usually, it is nothing more than assurances that the skeptics are wrong.

    In that case, you’re just not looking in the right places. There are good sites containing excellent refutations with solid, scientific explanations and the necessary links to original material. (But none, I think, that are done as well as Chris Mooney could do with a little help.)

  106. Andrew30

    DCC;
    I see realclimate and CRU as the same group of people. The people providing input to realclimate are from CRU et al. CRU receives funding is provided by Oil, Gas and Nuclear Power related companies.

    I have looked.

  107. DCC

    I am flabbergasted by the cluelessness of the people posting here, especially those who “believe” in AGW. I got a PhD in geology 30 years ago and have followed this debate closely ever since. I have YET to see any “scientific proof” that AGW is a significant feature of climate change. It certainly isn’t apparent from the geologic record. (Google paleocarbon.gif.)

    Please folks, read up on the scientific method – not the kind you experienced in a high school science fair, but the real stuff. It requires the honest disclosure of your data and methodology so that others can attempt to reproduce your results. If they can, you are probably right. If they can’t, you are almost certainly wrong. So far, no independent scientists have been allowed to review the data nor the methodology.

    While you are learning, check Karl Popper’s comments on falsifiability. The way this “science” is being practiced, it is neither reproducible nor falsifiable. Nor do the models predict what has happened in the past, nor are the born out by what happened later. Nor have the model undergone the most basic tests we generally may to verify that they do what they claim to do. Worse, computer programs are not falsifiable.

    If you want a primer on AGW, look at http://brneurosci.org/co2.html and pay special attention to Figures 4 and 5. Three other researchers came up with slightly different graphs (Google co2greenhouse-X4.png) but the result is essentially the same. That’s the basic science. It remains a mystery how the “concensus” comes up with their incredibly wild predictions, because they won’t tell us. All they do is say “trust us.”

  108. Andrew30

    Chris Dunford;

    RE: … it wouldn’t make an iota of difference.

    It would, it is what many people have been asking about for years. Removing the secrecy would go a long way in providing more observable information. It would help to clear all this up, you know, being able to reproduce the results using the data and methods of the original researcher. It’s part of that scientific method thing.

  109. DCC

    “106. Andrew30 Says:
    December 21st, 2009 at 10:33 pm

    DCC;
    I see realclimate and CRU as the same group of people. The people providing input to realclimate are from CRU et al. CRU receives funding is provided by Oil, Gas and Nuclear Power related companies.

    I have looked.”

    Where? That’s bologny. The great majority of their funding comes from the US DOE and the British government. It’s in the billions. Oil industry’s total climate-change contribution to all universities, including Stanford, is closer to $100,000. If industry funds were really the source, the radical left (AKA the MSM) would be screaming bloody murder.

    As for the nuclear industry, that’s laughable. If they have spent (wasted) any money, it sure doesn’t show in the results. Look at Al Gore’s ridiculous list of alternative energy sources. Notice anything missing?

  110. Andrew30

    DCC;

    That is what I said #8 and why I said there had been no science done at the CRU since 1986 in #1, data and models stop being available; asking again in #108. Nothing.

    Science is not a thing, it is a process. The CRU does not follow the process therefore they are not doing science.

  111. Dougetit

    Chris Dunford @ 101

    May I play semantics here? Is Roy Spencer not a Scientist? my point was that the report was not even forwarded because it didn’t agree with their beliefs. “I’m not forwarding your report” “your comments do not help the legal policy case for this decision“. Does this sound like they were really being open, transparent and un-bias to all aspects of the science. I think not.

  112. Andrew30

    DCC;
    DCC;

    The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page from their website:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    Note: the DOE you mention is the department of energy, not the department of the environment. The DOE controls and regulates the Nuclear Industry in the USA, the also run all of the Nuclear wepons reactor facilities.

    Nirex LTD are the nuclear waste disposal people in the UK, The the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate are what you would guess. Look at the list.

  113. John Kwok

    @ Frank (@ 54) –

    Thanks for mentioning Milankovitch cycles, since I studied that in college and graduate school (One of my college professors was a pioneer in updating Milankovitch cycles, having rediscovered Milankovitch’s work.). But your interpretation is wrong. You have not explained either of these disturbing trends:

    1) Rapid melting and retreat of polar and alpine glaciers in the polar regions and in many mountain ranges (Photographer James Balog and his team have done a great job documenting both in the Northern Hemisphere via financial support from National Geographic and technical assistance from Nikon.).

    2) Range expansions of formerly tropical and subtropical animals and plants into more temperate zones, especially here in North America.

    Both are clear-cut examples of strong circumstantial evidence pointing to anthropogenic global warming.

  114. John Kwok

    @ Thomas L –

    You’re missing SLC’s point. Until the voyage of the SS Manhattan in the late 1960s, no commercial ship made a successful COMPLETE transit of the Northwest Passage. Your examples don’t count since the ships in question did not complete a Northwest Passage voyage.

  115. Andrew30

    DCC:
    Re: Look at Al Gore’s ridiculous list of alternative energy sources..

    I have, but the major technologies on the table in Copenhagen were Nuclear Power and Liquefied Natural Gas. Not windmills and solar panels. However you can not get the green followers to march in support of Nuclear Power and Liquefied Natural Gas unless you don’t actually tell them the whole plan.

  116. Dougetit

    DCC @ 109

    Good post DCC… I think I’ll print and frame it.

    Breaking news on RealClimate.org

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745

  117. Dougetit

    I like this quote from William Connolley of Real Climate/Wikipedia

    Connolley said Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about.”

  118. AD

    I recently found out that a number of denialist memes come from the work of Richard Lindzen, a well known contrarian climatologist at MIT. If you want to know where these ideas the denialists have are coming from, and often they seem to be from left field, he is one source. I would guess the other prominent denialist scientists are other sources.

  119. bad Jim

    I don’t think the people who are hammering away at “Climategate” can be convinced. They appear to be authoritarians who use a different sort of logic than the rest of us. Those who claim to be skeptics because they’ve done the research themselves probably can’t be reached either; they’re either dishonest or victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect

    There are a few things that Chris could say which have been said elsewhere. For example, he could point out that “Climategate” doesn’t constitute a scientific scandal, that the tree ring discrepancies have been thoroughly discussed in the literature, that no original data was destroyed, and so forth.

    In general it might be worthwhile to discuss any issues which have received substantial news coverage. This doesn’t require an original essay in every case; just an excerpt and a link if someone elsewhere has covered it adequately, in traditional blog style.

    It probably isn’t necessary or worthwhile to provide an introduction to scientific thinking or basic climate science, however much in need of remedial instruction some of the commenters here appear to be.

  120. Dougetit Says:

    my point was that the report was not even forwarded because it didn’t agree with their beliefs.

    You really have no basis or evidence for making this statement. It’s simply an assertion without a foundation in anything you actually know.

    In fact, it is far more likely that the reason the report was not forwarded was that it contained nothing new or interesting. There was nothing in it that hadn’t already been hashed out a million times. It was a poorly written (Carlin admits that) mishmash of stuff that you can find on any of the sites like WUWT or climatedepot.

    Look, they had been working on this science finding for many months. At the last minute, they received this very badly written “paper,” containing nothing that they didn’t already know, from the economics department, from a non-scientist with no climate expertise whatsoever. Be realistic. What do you think they are going to do with something like that?

    The “rejection letter” was a bit brusque, I agree. I suspect they were pissed off. I would have been, too. What it really amounted to, at the end, was “Kindly stick to the job we’re paying you for. That’s economic analysis.”

  121. Thomas L

    Chris Dunford,

    What they do not provide is any explanation of the adjustments that are made so that statisticians can verify methodology, any code so that computer scientists can verify it actually does what they think it does or explanations of which sites were used and which were discarded – along with the reasons why.

    Try to get away with that in any other field and see how far you get.

  122. Thomas L

    So far what I have read and seen in “Climate Science” parallels far too closely what has been happening in economics, which is explained rather well here: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/economists-are-trained-ignore-real-world

    The argument over “oil funded blah blah blah” is also rather comical.

    I think many fail to realize just how huge Government funding is in this field, and how such inevitably corrupts the process.

  123. ZT

    Climategate revealed that much of the ‘science’ behind AGW is extremely weak. Weak but carefully positioned, messaged, and gamed by AGW proponents.

    This revelation removed the thin scientific veneer from the arcane field of climatology.

    Following the revelation, anyone who checked online (there was nothing substantive in the media, so people had to check online) saw the complete details of the hockey stick, hiding the decline, and eliminating the MWP laid bare. (One wonders why these facts (and these are facts) were not reported more widely in the media prior to climategate or subsequently).

    Anyway, by then – the cat was out of the bag.

    Discover has a choice: either report facts or parrot alarmist messages. Either be scientific journalists or become an irrelevance with little to do with real science, technology, or the future. What’s it to be ?

  124. bad Jim

    Apropos of nothing in particular, I wonder if there are any prominent climate change skeptics who also opposed the invasion of Iraq. There are certainly hawks who accept AGW, including the Moustache of Understanding, but I’m drawing a blank in the opposite quadrant.

  125. Dougetit

    @ Thomas L @ZT I agree Discover needs to abandon ship now before the lifeboats are all gone.

    Since the scandal has broken, CRU’s data collection methods and reporting is in question as well as their program code, (which is deplorable). All of their data is irrelevant and has been taken down from their web site. They‘re data bankrupt. The next shoe to drop will be when the intent to sue action against NOAA/NASA comes to fruition in January. That’s when the stuff will hit the fan. For now, AGW’s are trying to win the race with a three legged horse. Won’t happen.

    BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS! REAL CLIMATEGATE.org Check this out! Or maybe WIKIGATE?

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745

  126. Thomas L

    For those who keep arguing about the models, here is something that might help to explain why anything based on a computer model should be at most a beginning point – and one that should be analyzed with *harsh* critical testing against things in the real world, certainly not a “it says this is going to happen and we know it’s right” thing:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-perils-of-global-warming-models/

    One would have thought what has happened in the last couple years financially would have been a big clue about these things – all of that was because too many people put far too much faith in the wiz kids models. Models are only as good as the assumptions made when coding them, and the complexities of turning ideas into workable code are substantial. I don’t think most people realize just how many assumptions are made when coding something, and the constant need to patch you own computer should give everyone at least some idea how often the code is far more then “slightly” buggy. And that’s code coming out of some of the best software houses in the world who have all sorts of systems in place to catch bugs – imagine what is going on in code that doesn’t even get that level of cross checking and verification…

  127. Somite

    Jeebus! Were do all these deniers DO come from?

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

    Let me test the image tag here…

    [IMG]homepage.mac.com/alric/Climate/manysources.png[/IMG]

  128. Somite

    [IMG]http://homepage.mac.com/alric/Climate/manysources.png[/IMG]

  129. Stefan Jones

    Back in college the SF club kept a copy of Duane Gish’s “Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!” around.

    We kept it around to laugh at. Creationist cranks like Gish based their case on a few bits of bad data and bad decision making. Like: Pig tooth mistaken for tooth of human ancestor! Or: Piltdown man was a hoax and scientists believed it! Or: The Second Law of Thermodynamics says evolution can’t work!

    They ran with the same crap for years. They doted on these facts, lectured about them, used them in training seminars where creationists were groomed for membership on school board.

    To certain extent, it worked. Sophistry like that works well on layman who are leaning their way anyway. It sounds good at confrontational school board meetings. It makes for great political sound bytes.

    Ultimately, whether the arguments hold water or not matters less than their gotcha factor . . . how well they prop up the proponent’s sense of outrage and self-righteousness.

    And that’s what we’re dealing with here. Outraged, supremely confident people blustering and blowing hard.

  130. Thomas

    No you a hole we don’t want to be taught. We want you to make your methods and data freely available so people can check them because we don’t trust your “climate scientists” any further than we can throw them.

  131. Busiturtle

    Chris Mooney,

    I want to personally thank you for hosting this blog. By reading the comments and following the helpful links my understanding of climate science and the politics surrounding it has been greatly enriched.

    My personal feelings are very much in line with the views expressed by DCC. Science involves rigorous testing and measurement where a single “bad” result puts the entire theory in doubt. Climate science as practiced by the officially sponsored agencies has turned everything upside down. Skepticism is mocked and no matter how poorly the theory explains the observed world it is accepted as dogma. The rush to promote AGW as settled science should raise a red flag to any one with a health BS meter.

    I thought EyeRon raised an interesting question which so far no one has addressed. What is “normal” climate? Is it farming in Greenland? Or ice skating on the Thames?

    Lastly, if geo-engineering is such a bad solution who is prepared to tell the Dutch they ought to level their dikes and give their country back to the sea? Likewise for those of you studying at MIT and Harvard. How many of you live in apartments built on land reclaimed from the marshes of the Charles River? If this land was returned to its 17th century geography two-thirds of the city would be underwater.

  132. TomFP

    The mistake made by so many warmists is that it is the job of sceptics to present counter-theories to their own. It is not. What matters is whether AGW survives proper scrutiny, not whether those scrutinising it can do any better. It is up to the proponents of AGW to present their theories in the form of falsifiable argument. The Climategate emails and code reveal the excruciating efforts of the high priesthood of AGW to do just that, their continuing failure, and the lengths to which they did or were prepared to go to conceal their work, with all its inadequacies, from proper peer review.

    As ZT has hinted – but let me say plainly – they were assisted in this by a credulous, lazy, ill-educated and just plain stupid mainstream media, who failed not only to ask obvious questions, but who wilfully ignored or under-reported the brave efforts of McKittrick and others to do so, and their occasional successes, such as the debunking Mann’s hockey stick graph. badJim writes sneeringly that deniers (I can’t even be bothered with the “” any more) seem to use a different sort of logic to him and his kind. Indeed we do.

    For a start we cleave stubbornly to Occam’s Razor, that the simplest explanation for all the known data is preferable to other, more complex explanations.

    When we look at the Climategate emails, we say, sceptically, Falsus in Unum, Falsus in Omnes – “False in One, False in All” – what we know of some parts of the hockey team’s work ought to cast doubt on all of it.

    When we hear of “models” that predict disaster, we think of Popperian falsification, and demand, if we are competent, to see the models in reproducible form so that we can try them for ourselves, or if like most we are not competent, to see that others have had an unfettered opportunity to do so.

    When we learn that not only have the models upon the world was until recently being fitted up for a $45trillion hair shirt NOT been, as is for instance the case with the work of CERN, readily available for contemporaneous scrutiny, but that attempts, to extract them have been evaded, we draw the conclusion that their creators lack faith in them.

    When we learn that the hockey team’s evasion had succeeded to the point that FOI Acts were invoked, our suspicions of the scientists’ integrity deepen. When we learn that, in the case of CRU an FOI request had actually been rebuffed, those suspicions extend to the regulatory and executive authorities, whose policy platforms we notice have become unhealthily dependent upon widespread and uncritical acceptance of AGW.

    And when we read that to follow this line of reason means we are deluded idiots in the pay of Big Carbon, we pat our pockets, fail to find the cheque, and conclude that we must be on the right track.

  133. bad Jim

    This comments on this site have been swarmed, and it’s unlikely that better reporting or better education would help this claque. The casual reader might find enlightenment, though.

    It’s frustrating. You’d think that asking “Who’s got the biggest financial stake in this game?” would get some attention, but it seems that people would far rather believe in evil Jewish international bankers trading in carbon futures or penniless academics grasping for grants than in giant oil and coal companies buying public opinion.

  134. It’s never a good sign when the teacher says, “Well … what do you want me to teach you?”

  135. Busiturtle wrote: “How many of you live in apartments built on land reclaimed from the marshes of the Charles River? If this land was returned to its 17th century geography two-thirds of the city would be underwater.”

    The Back Bay of Boston was filled in. What on Earth does this have to to with global warming?

    Busiturtle wrote: “Science involves rigorous testing and measurement where a single “bad” result puts the entire theory in doubt.”

    This statement shows you are scientifically illiterate.

  136. TomFP

    Doug Watts I think what Busiturtle had in mind may have been “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

    But then Einstein of course was a scientific illiterate. I mean he came up with this, as well “A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” Pshaw, and piffle, what did a denier (of Newtonian orthodoxy) like Einstein know? Well, he knew enough to observe “Human beings must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it.”

    How we need him now…

  137. david schofield

    Chris,

    What is emerging is an opinion hockey stick. Until recently, 99.9% of the scientific minds capable of understanding the scientific and statistical challenges of climate science were busy building planes, running oil refineries, conducting drug trials and maintaining all the complex systems that we enjoy every day. The stakes have just got higher, with carbon rationing threatening to impoverish the developing world and disrupt world economic development.

    What is emerging is the true concensus amongst the technically literate population. Hence the increase in the quality and width of debate.

    I have noticed a distinct anti-science bias amongst the Fundamentalist Warmists. Responses to queries about data integrity, sampling and transparency are countered by personal attacks. Each time the Warming Lobby attacks someone with a rational informed question they set back the cause of climate science, and the forces of social progress.

    Please, as this debate rolls on, let us all keep our eyes on the ball, not the man/woman.

    David S

  138. Where did all these patriots come from?

  139. moptop

    Sean McCorkle,
    Atmospheric density in the stratosphere is so much less that any effect would be slight. But I am will to look at any paper you have that substantates your conjecture. Not about absorption, I don’t doubt any absorbtion effects of CO2 on LW radiation, but your specific point about the stratosphere.

    Second question: The effect is due to albedo.

    Chris Dunford,
    Thanks for the assurance that my points are refuted elsewhere when I suggested that there really aren’t that many refutaions out there, just assurances. By that I mean, thanks for the laugh. Where *do* these skeptics come from?

  140. Go ahead and do the work if you like. If you truly start with a ‘clean sheet’ and gather data, then lay it all out in a clear and understandable way, with sources linked and as much data as you can come up with, it may actually be useful. Keep in mind that there are plenty of signs on your blog that a person ‘needing’ to be persuaded about AGW could construe as problematic:

    1. Anyone with a Republican political bone in their body will take one look at your book “The Republican War on Science” and assume you are biased. If your book title was “The Political War on Science”, citing examples of both parties using science to their advantage, it would take more work to make that assumption.

    2. Someone who gets linked to your work who looks back to see the title of this post “…Re-Teach Climate Science” will likely be turned off by (at least perceived) arrogance on your part.

    In writing the post, any claims you make within the work would have to be very carefully worded because, as a journalist, you are not a recognized climate expert. Especially troublesome would be statements that you make similar to “S/he is not qualified to make such claims”

  141. ZT Says:

    … anyone who checked online … saw the complete details of … hiding the decline ….

    Let’s start with that one. Please answer these questions for me; none of the other “skeptics” I’ve asked have, so maybe you will:

    1. What decline is he talking about?

    2. Did global temperatures actually decline between 1961 and 1998, which is the time frame in question? Can you find anyone who argues that the global average temperature declined over that period?

    3. In the email, Jones said he used the “real temps to hide the decline”. Please explain how you can hide a real decline temperatures using real temperatures.

    4. In the paper he’s talking about, Jones described exactly what he had done. If he were actually hiding something, why would he do that? Is he just really bad at hiding things, or what?

    Thanks.

  142. Busiturtle Says:

    What is “normal” climate? Is it farming in Greenland? Or ice skating on the Thames?

    There is no “normal” climate. There is however, the climate around which our entire modern society has been built. It’s the climate in which our industrialized agriculture works, our major population centers are habitable, and Miami is six feet above sea level rather than six feet below it.

    Nobody says we can or should stop natural climate from changing. But natural climate change is much, much slower than AGW, so there is time for society to adapt. If the climate scientists are right, that won’t be the case here.

  143. moptop Says:

    Thanks for the assurance that my points are refuted elsewhere when I suggested that there really aren’t that many refutaions out there, just assurances. By that I mean, thanks for the laugh.

    You stated that all of the refutations consist simply of “trust us.” This is wrong. I pointed that out. I noted that there are good sites, with solid scientific information, that are very far from “trust us”. If you can’t be bothered to look, I can’t help that.

  144. SLC

    Re Dougetits

    1. Ms. Dougetits cites the Worldnutdaily web site as a source of scientific information. This web site is a strong supporter of the birther movement and anti-evolution propaganda. IIt is a site that caters to all manner of nuts and whackjobs. However, the fact that Ms. Dougetits considers it a source of factual information tells us everything we need to know about her. For those who have not heard of the Worldnutdaily web site, I suggest visiting Ed Braytons’ blog as he often cites some totally idiotic article from there for laughs (Mr. Brayton is a former standup comedian).

    2. The issue with Roy Spencer being a young earth creationist has to do with his evaluation of scientific evidence and nothing whatever to do with his religion, other then the fact that he allows his religious views to have precedence over his scientific judgment. In order to be a young earth creationist, one has to reject the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that points to an earth of age 4.6 billion years and instead accept the rantings of BCE goat herders. If Dr. Spencers’ scientific judgment is that poor relative to the age of the earth, then his judgment relative to global climate change is itself highly questionable. By the way, just for the information of Ms. Dougetits, my PhD thesis advisor was an old earth creationist (rather difficult to be a young earth creationist and an elementary particle physicist) and was a religious conservative.

    3. I notice that Ms. Dougetits didn’t respond to the citation of Chris Mooneys’ article on the totally discredited Carlin report. I wonder why?

  145. Andrew30

    Doug Watts;

    Re: Busiturtle wrote: “Science involves rigorous testing and measurement where a single “bad” result puts the entire theory in doubt.”

    This statement shows you are scientifically illiterate.

    Doug Watts, you are mistaken.

    ‘No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.’ Albert Einstein

  146. DCC

    “112. Andrew30 Says: …”

    That list is meaningless – it doesn’t show amounts of money. But if your argument is that the US Dept of Energy (there is no Dept of Environment – that’s called the EPA) funds nuclear research, therefore they support AGW, I’m amazed at the leap in logic. Who would you suggest do the funding? I will grant that not enough funding is being made to people trying to replicate the AGW findings, but isn’t that the basic issue when we discuss the scientific merits of the current situation?

  147. DCC

    “115. Andrew30 Says: … you can not get the green followers to march in support of Nuclear Power and Liquefied Natural Gas unless you don’t actually tell them the whole plan.”

    Oh no, more secrets! By the way, what were those protesters protesting in Copenhagen? Did you notice how the MSM never actually explained who they were? Well, I guess it’s just one more secret that the nasty oil companies are keeping.

    Obama supports nuclear? Nonsense. Haven’t you learned to understand double-speak yet?

  148. moptop

    I noted that there are good sites, with solid scientific information, that are very far from “trust us”. If you can’t be bothered to look, I can’t help that.” — Chris Dunford

    So the world may be destroyed, but you can’t be bothered to marshal a single argument yourself in an attempt, if not to change my mind, to show any open-minded person reading this thread that you have a point, and credibility on the subject?

    Don’t you have any sense of irony? You could redeem yourself, you could show me the scientific paper that says that sea level is going to rise by 12 feet so quickly that we can’t respond:

    Miami is six feet above sea level rather than six feet below it.

    Oh yeah, and the evidence that climate has not changed quickly in the past. That would be good too.

  149. Sean McCorkle

    moptop @ 140

    “Atmospheric density in the stratosphere is so much less that any effect would be slight. But I am will to look at any paper you have that substantates your conjecture. Not about absorption, I don’t doubt any absorbtion effects of CO2 on LW radiation, but your specific point about the stratosphere.”

    That may well be true that the effect would be small, although what I was considering was an unreasonably extreme case, in which all of the earths thermal emission originates at the top of the troposhere.

    “Second question: The effect is due to albedo.”

    Okay. So water vapor reflects some of the sunlight back out into space, so that will reduce the “input” side of the equation, and can reduce the planetary temperature. But water is also the major greenhouse gas, having much more of an effect on blocking the thermal emission than does CO2. The water bands bracketing the 10 micron peak are huge. We even experience this directly: cloudy nights are noticeably warmer than clear nights. This is my problem with the whole cloud-albedo issue – how can you reflect away sunlight without also trapping more heat at the same time? How can water result in a net loss at all?

  150. moptop

    Chris,
    If you want a detailed treatment of the decline, you can go to climateaudit, where the subject has been analyzed for 4 years. Here is a comprehensive, in-context treatmen of the subject. In answer to your questions:

    “1. What decline is he talking about?”

    Decline in tree ring widths. Of course, there was no increase in temps on the Yamal Peninsula since 1960, and the issue is “if the tree rings stopped tracking temps in 1960, how do we know that they tracked temps earlier? It seems like the correlation with temp may not be all that strong.

    “2. Did global temperatures actually decline between 1961 and 1998, which is the time frame in question? Can you find anyone who argues that the global average temperature declined over that period?”

    Utterly beside the point, and shows how stupid you really are. 1960 is sure a nice cherry picked date since it had been cooling since the forties at that time, remember the new ice age scares in the media at that time?

    “3. In the email, Jones said he used the “real temps to hide the decline”. Please explain how you can hide a real decline temperatures using real temperatures.’

    See point one. The divergence of tree rings with actual temps that was hidden shows that tree rings don’t really show what Jones claims they showed.

    “4. In the paper he’s talking about, Jones described exactly what he had done. If he were actually hiding something, why would he do that? Is he just really bad at hiding things, or what?”

    Here is an interesting quote from 2004:

    No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum [realclimate].

    Michael Mann

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

    You will have to scroll down a bit.

    BTW, anybody who is interested in the full context of “hide the decline”, including references to it in meetings and other contemporanious events should read this blog post:

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/12/daily-mail-special-investigation/

    Minimal speculation, maximal provided context.

  151. moptop

    Sean McCorkle,
    NASA does a pretty good job of explaining it here:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/

  152. DCC

    142. Chris Dunford Says:
    “3. In the email, Jones said he used the “real temps to hide the decline”. Please explain how you can hide a real decline temperatures using real temperatures.”

    First, his entire chart uses proxies that “prove” climate has been cooler for eons EXCEPT that he decides when the proxy data shows a decline, to omit it. He replaces it with a competely different kind of data you call “real temperatures.” Actually, they aren’t real in the normal sense of that word, they are surface station temperatures whose “reality” even they question. Else why would they throw out or adjust so many “odd” stations? And where are the stations they keep? Well, the former Soviet Union stopped measuring temperature at thousands of stations in Siberia when the USSR collapsed. Has anyone looked to see what effect that might have had? Shouldn’t we recalibrate the entire history by dropping those stations from all plots?

    A major problem with surface temperature measurements is “creeping civilization,” especially in the USA, where the “best” measurements are made. Until recently, nobody had surveyed those stations to see where they were actually located. Now, a survey by volunteers is almost complete. See http://surfacestations.org/ for details. The net of it is that over 80% of the stations have been compromised by nearby heat sources.

    Which is not to say that even those records are complete. Some have month-long gaps, others were never measured on weekends. So the data often was “corrected” by substituting an interpolation of nearby stations. It gets worser and worser. The poster child for ‘what the heck are they doing?’ is called Darwin Zero. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ for details.

    Mix in the added complication that more recent temperature measurements are from satellites and you have to ask – why were these points all plotted as though they came from the same source? We deserve better science. At least clearly plot them together showing overlapping periods. And when you “adjust” data, publish how and why.

  153. Andrew30

    DCC;

    Looks like they were defintly trying to get a piece of the ‘Keeping the nuclear option open’ project. But of course, this could not actually be possible, their followers would never allow it, they would revolt (if they knew)

    0925823304.txt

    From: Trevor Davies
    To: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk,j.palutikof@uea.ac.uk,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk,p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: CRU Board
    Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 09:08:24 +0100

    Mick,

    CONFIDENTIAL
    .
    .
    .
    I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research
    councils’ thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this
    document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source. NERC and
    EPSRC are signed up. ESRC are not yet. Given the EPSRC stake, it will
    certainly be be useful to get RAL etc involved. The funding might be
    2million per year. That might imply that the Councils favour multi-site,
    clusters, etc, but they stress they have no preconceptions.


    Recall from: 1073489714.txt ( Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:20:19 +0100) that ESRC and EPSRC are the ones with the £28 million

    The Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy programme (TSEC) is aimed at
    enabling the UK to access a secure, safe, diverse and reliable energy supply
    at competitive prices, while meeting the challenge of global warming. The
    Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC), Economic and
    Social Research Council (ESRC) and Natural Environment Research Council
    (NERC) jointly have funding of £28 million for the programme
    .
    .
    Consortia under the theme Nuclear Power – Keeping the nuclear option
    open

  154. Andrew30

    DCC;

    You must be right, they are definitly not looking at the Nuclear Power or Liquified Natural Gas option. This is of course impossible.

    0889554019.txt

    From: Anne JOHNSON
    To: …William Hare , Michael Hulme , … Robert Watson , John Weyant …
    Subject: new IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft
    Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:20:19 +0100

    Dear Colleagues:

    I am sending you a copy of Ged Davis’ IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft on
    storylines and scenarios. The text is appended below, but I am also
    attaching versions in MS Word and in Rich Text formats so that you can
    better view the graphics.
    .
    .
    .
    5.2 Scenarios
    Divided World is explored through a single scenario.
    5.21 Resource Availability
    .
    .
    High-income regions without indigenous oil and gas undergo a near-complete
    conversion to an energy economy based on nuclear or renewable based
    electricity and synthetic gases and liquids by 2050.

  155. Andrew30

    The location os some of recipients got snipped:

    William Hare is bhare@ams.greenpeace.org
    Michael Hulme is m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
    Robert Watson is rwatson@worldbank.org
    John Weyant is weyant@Leland.stanford.edu

    What uea.ac.uk and greenpeace.org and worldbank.org? That can’t be right.

  156. DCC

    Andrew30, I guess what you are showing is that these scientists are promiscuous, though not necessarily whores. They take money where they can get it. But they can’t possibly slant results to satisfy all of them, so the worst we can deduce is that the major funding sources are being favored. That’s government and therefore it’s the political objective, not the commercial potential that wins their favor.

    That doesn’t mean that warmists can’t make a lot of money in the commercial realm, among them Al Gore and Dr. Pachauri. But the very nature of our western society encourages investment in the “coming thing.” Anyone can make an honest buck in carbon trading with enough luck and effort. Beyond that, carbon trading schemes have already lost $7+ billion to fraud in the EU. So are those crooks funding UEA?

    “Follow the Money” is a quantitative adage. You can’t tar all contributors equally because they don’t contribute equally.

  157. Andrew30

    DCC;
    I agree. There are small players, medium players and big players. It is possible, even likely, that the situation evolved from a theory on CO2 (small players, 1988), then the Nuclear, LNG and Ethanol people (medium players, 1994) saw a business advantage and became involved, perhaps steering some research. The World Bank, Cap and Trade, Al Gore and Dr. Pachauri et al (big players, 1998), brought the real money, big media and hype to the situation and took complete control.

    At any rate I think that it is the money and the profit that has moved this thing along, not the environment. That is my whole point, the current situation is not about the environment, and has not been about the environment for a long, long time.

    I do not think I am seeing thing that could not possible be there. But I’ll keep my tin foil handy just in case.

  158. Adam

    @Bad Jim #120: Many of us are educated people with an interest in science but not professional scientists. We are trying to separate fact from fiction and piece the fact together. We are the ones who can be convinced but need some help from AGW proponents. Fox news and the rest of the skeptics (including deniers) try to convince us by pointing to counter facts that may dispute the AGW theory. They are winning the debate because they are explaining their position to people like me better. Unless you can convince the masses of AGW you will lose popular support. In order to do that you have to stop assuming we know climate science, ie Chris “re-teach climate science,” or that everyone who has questions is a denier. (I am not saying this is you. But, I have seen people like this on this blog.) Start with why CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And move on from there. Explore the other side’s counter arguments at each step and show me why your position still works. Show some credibility by explaining what is still not fully understood and what affect that has on the theory. . This is how you convince reasonable people. If AGW proponents did a better job of trying to win the debate then the skeptics would have les influence.

  159. Thomas L

    Because science is never settled and is never finished… “Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion”:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVP-4XVC4M5-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f16d0fd89651f3da2143b7aa4c85445c

    Very interesting peer reviewd paper… “new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed”.

  160. Dougetit

    Chris Denford @143

    “But natural climate change is much, much slower than AGW”

    There you go again! What proof do you have of this? Certainly it couldn’t be that the satellite temperature dataset, which has an accuracy of 1/100th degree show that global temperatures have been trending down for over a decade now. Is this the “MUCH MUCH” slower natural as apposed to AGW caused climate change that you refer to?

    Or do you base your opinion on the China temperature data manipulated to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on the New Zealand temperature dataset that was manipulated to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on the Russian temperature data that was manipulated to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on the Australian temperature data that was manipulated to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on the Switzerland temperature data that was manipulated to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion NASA/NOAA temperature data that was manipulated to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on the tree ring data which was manipulate to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on the “Made Up” data the CRU programmers engaged in to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on the science journals which intimidate dissenting reports to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on the IPCC who’s reports filter dissenting opinion from their reports to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on world sea temperatures that are NOT warming at catastrophic rates to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on world sea Ice and glaciers that are NOT melting at catastrophic rates to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on the 31,486 scientist, 9000 with PhDs who disagree with AGW to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on 75 % of Meteorologist who disagree with AGW to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on Wikipedia which made 5,400 edits to bolster AGW to support AGW?

    Or do base your opinion on the EPA that censored their own dissenting employee to support AGW?

    Or do you base your opinion on the fact that while Co2 increases, temperature has trended down for over a decade running to support AGW?

    Or do you base your opinion on the Polar Bear who’s population is NOT in decline but has double in recent years to support AGW?

    Or do you base your opinion on the over 79 billion the U.S. has spent to date in support of AGW?

    Or do you base your opinion on the mass media which is in lock step with AGW to support AGW?

    Or do you base your opinion on the unusual cooling trend in the past decade of the “Co2 King” USA to support AGW?

    Or do you base your opinion on the CRU dataset which is so corrupt that they had removed it from their web pages to support AGW?

    Or do you base your opinion on the CRU who’s head was forced to step down to support AGW?

    Or do you base your opinion on NASA/NOAA who have intent to sue action brought to release their raw data to support AGW?

    Or do you base your opinion on James Hansen of NASA who claimed that NY would be under water as early as 2008 to support AGW?

    Or do you base your opinion on the scientists’ consensus which is NOT at scientific term to support AGW?

    I could provide, and have in the past, posted links to support everything I have stated here and could go on and on with “much, much” more. I know your rebut will be an attempt to pick me apart line by line.. But I’m getting tired of defending real science when all you have to do is Google it for yourself. I’ll now leave that up to you. (hint.. start by googeling climategate)

    To Discover’s credit, unlike other blogs, I have NOT been censored from getting the truth out. For that I‘m extremely appreciative and is why I have returned here. But they need to get off this delusional un-scientific band wagon before it goes over the cliff.

    As Andrew30 said @ 147 “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Albert Einstein

    Here is another Einstein quote I will leave you with:

    Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein »

    Do U Get It?

  161. SLC

    Re Dougetit @ #163

    Ms. Dougetit, who thinks that the Worldnutdaily is a reliable source of information on anything, demonstrates the Gish Gallop, with a long list of lies, omissions, and distortions. Just to sum up, not a single assertion in Ms. Dougetits’ litany is true. Obviously, Ms. dougetit is a disciple of the late and unmented Josef Goebbels: if one is going to tell a lie, make it a big lie, tell it often, and tell it loudly and eventually people will come to believe it.

    And I point out that Ms. Dougetit still has not responded to the Chris Mooney article on the Carlin tome which I linked to earlier on and which she was trumpeting a number of comments ago.

  162. Andrew30

    Dougetit@163

    Since the start of the scientific method blackout at CRU in 1986 there have been other cutbacks. Due to the shortage of trained rebuttalists, they have introduced a self-serve rebuttal system.

    To use this new self-serve system simply go to the rebuttal site indicated below and cut and paste the rebuttal that most closely matches the topic of your informed statement into the next available comment window.

    For a more scientific rebuttal you may choose to add the phrase ‘Oh Yea!’ at the beginning and the phrase ‘So There!!!!!!’ at the end.

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

    Thank you for support realclimate/CRU during these trying times.

    Note to SLC@164, you forgot the ‘So There!!!!!!’ part of the scientific rebuttal.

  163. Dougetit

    @ SLC

    I’ve already pre-emptivley responded.. Same old same old… “Kill/Discredit the messanger”

    Do you have anything more original than that in your repertoire?

  164. Sad. Denialists are killing the small amount of dialogue in science that science blogging was trying to create. Scientists will go back to their labs, teaching to the ones who are willing to listen and learn, and denialists will finish talking amongst themselves. Society will certainly not be better.

  165. Dougetit

    Andrew30 @ 165

    Hey.. thanks for the heas up..

    I always wondered where the “Drones” were getting thier info.

    Thanks again! ;)

  166. Andrew30

    SLC@164

    “…if one is going to tell a lie, make it a big lie, tell it often, and tell it loudly and eventually people will come to believe it.”

    Don’t you mean Al Gore?
    Big, Gore.
    Often, Gore again.
    Loudly, definitely Gore.
    Eventually people will come to believe it.
    Yea, sounds like Al Gore on AGW.

  167. Andrew30

    Pascal Lapointe@167

    Science is a process, part of the process is the publication of the data, methods and models used by the original researcher so that skeptical researchers can examine the work, not just the output, and try to re-create or find flaws in the original work.

    Since this has not happened at CRU for a long time, nothing that CRU has done for a long time has been science. You may be blogging about something, but don’t delude yourself into thinking you are discussing science.

    Science is a method.

    Where is the data?
    Where is the source code for the models?
    Where are the descriptions of the procedures?

    What the CRU have been doing is pseudo-science, it is fiction.

  168. SLC

    Re Dongetit @ #166

    Ms. Dougetit has still not responded to the Mooney article on the Carlin report. Ms. Dongetit can run but she can’t hide.

    However, let’s respond to the lie about falling temperatures over the last 10 years. This is a textbook example of the big lie. It is based on the fact that the temperture in 1998 has not been exceeded, except possibly in 2005, since then. However, the choice of 1998 is completely arbitrary. With the same justification, one could choose 1997, in which case, every year since 1997 has been warmer then 1997. Any competent expert in probability theory would suspect that 1998 was an outlier. However, since Mr. Mooney already addressed that year on an earlier thread I see no need to discuss it further.

    The rest of Ms. Dougetits’ list consists of character assassination of climate scientists which she undoubtedly picked up from her favorite site, the Worldnutdaily.

  169. DCC

    “What the CRU have been doing is pseudo-science, it is fiction.”

    Actually, a better word is extortion, soon to be followed by a multitrillion-dollar protection racket.

  170. Sean McCorkle

    moptop@153:
    “NASA does a pretty good job of explaining it here:
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/

    Thank you. Thats a very nice non-technical writeup. If I understand correctly, when it comes to the radiative energy balance, the low stratus clouds increase the albedo (decrease the incoming sunlight) while more or less maintaining the same thermal emission, and the other cloud types are either a wash or aggravate the warming to some (small?) degree.

    So it is possible to counteract the trapping by increased CO2 by correspondingly increasing the amount of low stratus cloud coverage. I wonder, has that occurred?

    To counteract continued CO2 increase, it therefore seems necessary to continue increasing the stratus deck coverage. Eventually that will max out at 100%, no? Then, since the clouds themselves are warm radiators, if the CO2 continues to increase, we’re back to rising temperatures again, because the cloud albedo can’t increase further to compensate. Does that make sense?

  171. Dougetit

    SLC @ 171 I already did… see my #166

    SLC @ Your receptiveness is getting tiresome and was wondering whether your post even deserved a response. It’s hard to keep clean when you wrestle in the mud. My point in using 1998 is because this is when thermometer TREND began to diverge from satellite TREND at the rate now of over 1/3 degree C per decade. In other words as the EMAIL Oct. 12, 2009. From Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann and colleagues said,“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,”…. So what did they do about it? None of their models predicted this so they, in essence, MADE UP THE DATA. Can’t you see this?

    And, not to pop your balloon, but Wikigate is another news story that is being ignored/suppressed by the mass media. And as you like to embellish the word “denier“, I provide this link in which you will find that Wikipedia IN THEIR OWN WORDS have admitted has happened.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClimatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident&action=historysubmit&diff=331711452&oldid=331711409

    And in the future.. Is it possible to refrain from name calling in any of your posts? It doesn’t bolster your position. Thank you in advance.

  172. DCC

    No, your final conclusion is incorrect. The warming effect of CO2 is far from linear. It’s asymtotic and we are already quite near the flat portion. From my post #107:

    “… look at http://brneurosci.org/co2.html and pay special attention to Figures 4 and 5. Three other researchers came up with slightly different graphs (Google co2greenhouse-X4.png) but the result is essentially the same.” In other words, quadrupling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not produce twice the warming that doubling it does. And the amount, in either case, is far less than the “models” predict.

  173. Dougetit

    @ SLC

    More specifically, take a look at what William Connolley of real climate.org, who made over 5,400 pro-AGW edits to Wikipedia, says about the truth.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClimatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident&action=historysubmit&diff=331711452&oldid=331711409#The_Truth_does_NOT_matter

  174. moptop

    Sean,
    If a one percent increase in cloud cover equates to a doubling of CO2, we would need many many doublings of CO2 and, as DCC reports, we would be well into diminishing greenhouse returns on CO2 in the second doubling. There is not enough coal and oil to create this much CO2. Besides, if the Earth was covered in clouds, it would be a snowball.

    I am not trying to tell you what to think, but you have begun to think about this independently of being told what to think by one side. My point in bringing this up is that nobody on the AGW side or the skeptical side undertands the relationship of cloud cover to CO2 and temperature and water vapor content in the atmosphere. Nobody. Models can’t predict it. I issued an ALL CAPS challenge for anyone to explain it to me, and you see that, as ever, it is ignored.

  175. Dougetit

    @SLC

    Although Connolley was officially let go in September from Wikipedia, his “ghostly” influence is still rewriting climate history, even as we speak.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=William_M._Connolley

  176. moptop

    I hope you are joking Andrew.

  177. Sean McCorkle

    moptop@176

    (I should have added that I’m not trying to be a wise guy, rather I’m trying to understand for myself what the relevant terms are – and thanks for the pointers. )

    If a doubling of CO2 has been offset by a 1% increase in low cloud cover, that seems like an observable effect (via satellite albedo measurements or weather records or something). Has that been seen? It seems like these are questions better answered by observations rather than models.

    If the argument is that albedo-reducing low cloud formation increases with increasing temperature,
    effectively ameliorating CO2 increases, this also raises some questions for me. Cloud formation happens on a relatively fast timescale, and there are short-term (weeks, months, a year or two) fluctuations in the global temperature of a few degrees or so, so it seems like one should be able to look for cloud coverage correlation with global temperature on the shorter timescales to test the idea. Albedo changes on short time scales that correlate with short term (< a few years) temperature fluctuations ought to be within our capabilities to measure.

    The other thing that strikes me is that if average humidity increases with temperature, you need more than a 1% increase in low cloud cover to compensate, because water has more impact than CO2.

  178. Sean McCorkle

    sorry forgot to close off the italics after the 1st word more.

    Discover blogs needs a preview, dammit :)

  179. Sean McCorkle

    that should do it I hope.

  180. Andrew30

    moptop@180

    I was just testing the new system from realclimate/CRU (see: Andrew30@165).

    It was just a test of the new rebuttal system, not a real rebuttal. Sorry if it missed the mark, but the there was no answer that fit your question exactly. Perhaps that is why you have not received any other response to you original question.

    I will have to wait for someone else to think for me and write down the answer before I can give you a really good rebuttal.

    :-)

  181. Dougetit

    Andrew30 @ 184

    And that’s why they can’t explain the “lack of warming”

    Because……. PRESTO! It doesn’t exist! :)

  182. SLC

    Re dougetit @ #175

    1. Ms. dougetit still refuses to address the article by Chris Mooney about the Carlin report. Ms. dongetit was front and center in citing this report and its subsequent handling by the EPA but she is mysteriously unresponsive about commenting on Mr. Mooneys’ debunking article.

    2. The Wikipedia article was by its founder Jimmy Wales. The quote that Ms. dougetit cites is from Mr. Wales, not Mr. Connelly. Apparently, in addition to her total lack of knowledge of science, Ms. dougetit has a reading comprehension problem. However, let’s address Mr. Wales statement that Ms dougetit truncated, which, by the way, is an example of quote mining.

    As much as I hate to have a meta-discussion about the discussion, I keep hearing arguments from both sides about the Truth. I cannot emphasize this enough, the Truth does not matter. The Truth is a matter of opinion and like a@@holes, everyone has one. In an attempt to end the endless arguments about the Truth, years ago Wikipedia set up the rules to avoid this endless bickering. All that matters is what reliable sources say about the topic. If reliable sources say that climate change is real and primarily caused by mankind, then Wikipedia says climate change is real and primarily caused by mankind.

    Ms. dougetits is obviously unfamiliar with the philosophy of science. In science, there is no such thing as proof or truth. There is only evidence that supports a theory or evidence that falsifies it. No scientific theory in the history of science has ever been proven in the sense proof is understood in mathematics. Proof is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. As an example consider the theorem in plane geometry that two triangles are congruent of they have two sides and the included angle equal (or two angles and the included side equal). As to the question of truth, scientific theories are true to the extent that they represent observations. For instance, Newtons’ theory of gravity is true, provided that relativistic effects can be neglected. Newtons’ laws of motion are true provided that quantum mechanical effects can be neglected. The bottom line here is that Mr. Wales is saying that Wikipedia represents the scientific consensus and it is not a forum for discussing scientific controversies. As we sit here today, the scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and that it is caused, in part, by human activities, in particular, the burning of fossil fuels. Should that consensus change, Wikipedia will also undergo revisions to reflect that change.

    A perfect example of a consensus changing was the theory of continental drift. When first proposed by Alfred Wegener, the scientific consensus was negative, to say the least. However, as the evidence mounted and especially when the theory of plate tectonics was discovered, it became the scientific consensus. However, there were still holdouts, including the distinguished paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, one of the scientists most responsible for the evolutionary synthesis. I suspect that, even if the evidence for the theory of global warming continues to increase, there will still be holdouts (e.g. Prof. Richard Lindzen), just like there are holdouts for the theory that HIV is the primary cause of AIDS (e.g. Peter Duesberg) and that CFCs are responsible for ozone depletion (e.g. Fred Singer).

  183. Michael Larkin

    John Kwok:

    “I would beg to differ with you regarding whether Anthropogenic Global Warming hasn’t been established.”

    Please check how I defined AGW: “man-made-CO2-induced-catastrophic-global-warming”

    No one is denying that anthropogenic greenhouse gases might affect global temperatures to some degree. The key word is “catastrophic”. The jury is definitely still out on that.

    Gus sharp:

    “There is no proof of dirty pool in the hacked emails, which I assume you are referring to. Look it up, the claims made about those emails have all been soundly refuted.”

    Well, we’re just going to have to agree to differ about that.

    SLC:

    “The reason why the controversy over string theory doesn’t evict the same reaction as the controversy over global warming is because the energy compaines aren’t spending millions of dollars on anti-string theory propaganda and Rupert Murdock isn’t filling his fascist news channel and his various newpapers with anti-string theory propaganda.”

    Just to note, I am a politically centrist Brit. Those on both sides who base arguments on faith rather than science frequently make claims that the other is being funded by (insert a favourite bogeyman). I prefer to leave them to their ideological preferences and conspiracy theories.

    What does the scientific evidence say? Everything stands or falls by that. The truth is the truth, and that’s all I’m interested in. I’m not going to allow anyone, simply by making assertions that this or that is so, to divert me from the pursuit of truth, whatever it might be.

    I simply don’t know what the truth is yet. I have my doubts that anyone on this God’s earth knows what it is yet, but there are surely millions who have made their minds up one way or the other. I’m completely gobsmacked by that. It is so bizarre, so utterly surreal that in the 21st century people are structuring their apparent realities around matters of faith in an area of human endeavour that should have no relationship to faith. I think faith can sometimes be good and useful in spiritual matters, but these aren’t the province of conventional science.

    The first step towards wisdom is the admission of ignorance. Knowing what we don’t know is immensely useful to our evolution as human beings. Much of the argument is being carried out at the level of believing we know when we don’t. This shuts us off from the potential to discover what the real truth might be – after all, if we already think we know it, why bother exploring any further?

    Why is there “argument”? People who know they don’t know can have interesting and productive exchanges of ideas. And if perchance someone truly knows that s/he knows, then s/he is unlikely to argue.

    A parent doesn’t argue with a child who thinks that monsters live under the bed. A physicist doesn’t argue with a layperson who thinks the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect, nor a mathematician with someone who thinks a circle might be square-able. No: the parent shows the child there is nothing under the bed, the physicist and mathematician teach confidently and calmly what they know to be true.

    As soon as an argument comes into being, it usually signals that neither party is actually certain. Observe well those who know, and know that they know. They rarely loose their composure when under attack, real or perceived. This is why I think the Climategate emails are revealing. We see anything but a picture of quietly confident individuals. Sure, they could be right, but if they are, I don’t think they know it yet.

    With respect to AGW, nothing is stopping us being in the position of knowers: confident people who don’t argue and can begin to learn from one another. All it takes is the honest admission that we aren’t sure. Then we can come to know that we don’t know, and that brings the much-desired certainty we all want.

    Moreover, in certainty, there is a refreshing freedom to act appropriately and with commonsense.

  184. Dougetit

    SLC @ 186

    So this is the truth you speak of that is going on right now by William Connollley of Realclimate.org or just his ghost?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=William_M._Connolley

  185. SLC

    Re Dougetit # #197

    Ms. Dougetit incorrectly attributed a comment to Mr. Connolley that was made by Mr. Wales. Of course, she refuses to admit her mistake, just as she continues to refuse to address Mr. Mooneys’ article on the Carlin report. How about it Ms. Dongetit? It’s about time to make it or get off the pot.

  186. SLC

    I apologize for not getting rid of the html italics code.

  187. Dougetit

    SLC @ 190

    Ok, I admit my mistake… I gave wrong link to where the real credit was due.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=William_M._Connolley

    If you accept my/your belief that it doesn’t “cange the science”…..

    ;)

  188. Andrew30

    Michael Larkin@187

    RE: ‘energy compaines aren’t spending millions of dollars on anti-string theory’

    No, the Nuclear Power, Liquefied Natural Gas and Ethanol companies are spending millions on the unscientific CRU ‘research’ business (Note The CRU does not follow the scientific method), and even more on lobbying, advertising and the promotion of fear in general.

  189. Dougetit

    You feel better now?…

    just checking italics code….

  190. moptop

    “Look it up, the claims made about those emails have all been soundly refuted.”

    More assurances from anonymous blog commenters.

  191. John Kwok

    @ Michael Larkin –

    Maybe you ought to consult with eminent University of Virginia paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman, since he contends that we’ve have had AGW since Neolithic times:

    Ruddiman, W.F. and J.S. Thomson. 2001. The case for human causes of increased atmospheric CH4 over the last 5000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:1769-1777.

    Definitely, by your definition, we’ve had catastrophic AGW since the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th Century.

  192. fd

    What’s with the use of scare-quotes around the word skeptic?

    Is skeptic a bad word? I thought that science is, and scientists are, skeptical.

    A skeptical audience is unlikely to be swayed by arguments from someone who (subconsciously?) uses passive-aggressive language when describing that audience. The linguistic bias overpowers the message.

    Until you purge your vocabulary of terms such as denier, denialist, and the scare-quoted skeptic, you won’t convince a skeptical soul. Or is your goal not so much to convince anyone else as to reinforce your own viewpoint?

  193. Thomas L

    SLC,

    Here’s a pretty good explanation of why many of us have given up on the MSM (laughed when this came up after I had made my earlier comment), pay attention to the chart, and there are some great quotes and links (and this is good site to hang out in and learn – previous knowledge is a help, but as this subject, if you hang long enough you’ll learn, and while it is a no holds barred type of site, it’s also influential enough at this point that Goldman felt the need to respond directly to one of their posts…): http://www.zerohedge.com/article/real-reason-newspapers-are-losing-money-and-why-bailing-out-failing-newspapers-would-create-

    Also explains part of why so many of us are on the blog here and I guess seemed to have shown up out of nowhere to many who have been more involved – anyone who really wants to know what the heck is going on knows you’ll find out a lot more searching the web then you will trying to read the newspaper (or catching the evening news…).

    John Kwok,

    No I’m not missing SLC’s point, but I think you are missing both of ours – hershis (not sure which, doesn’t really matter either) was mistakenly “never made it”, and mine is yes it was, and even now it is still far too unpredictable to use for commercial passage – even though we now have satellite feeds, GPS and radar. And the U.S. Navy’s passage was assuredly all the way through. And remember local weather doesn’t say much of anything – especially in one year or two. Indications are it is recovering, we shall see which direction it goes from here. SLC is doing fine holding herhis own, though the factual level needs to be upped.

  194. Michael Larkin

    John Kwok:

    “Maybe you ought to consult with eminent University of Virginia paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman, since he contends that we’ve have had AGW since Neolithic times:

    “Ruddiman, W.F. and J.S. Thomson. 2001. The case for human causes of increased atmospheric CH4 over the last 5000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:1769-1777.

    “Definitely, by your definition, we’ve had catastrophic AGW since the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th Century.”

    Thank you for the reference, which I have been able to locate on the Web as a PDF file at:

    http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/paleoseminar/pdf/ruddiman01.pdf

    My definition, to reiterate, was:”“man-made-CO2-induced-catastrophic-global-warming”.

    This paper is about CH4 (methane) as a greenhouse gas, which it is, and any source of that from human activity may have some influence on global warming, just as for CO2.

    On scanning the paper, Ruddiman, using his own word, is venturing a “hypothesis”. His language is moderate, and he is not making catastrophic predictions. In his summary, he says:

    “How can our hypothesis be tested by future work? One challenging possibility would be to find reliable records of the area of rice farmed during recent centuries in historical archives in Asia. Another approach would be to find a chemical tracer that can distinguish rice-paddy CH4 from that emittedby natural wetlands.”

    This looks like reasonable science to me: Ruddiman is venturing a hypothesis and proposing a way it can be tested. He’s not claiming anything is settled. It’s perfectly possible that future work would disprove his hypothesis. The paper is dated 2001, so maybe the hypothesis has been tested since? I don’t know.

    In any case, it’s dealing with CH4, not CO2. So in what way does it support the definition I gave?

    Forgive me – it could be that English is not your first language. But it appears that you didn’t absorb my definition, and have answered a point about apples with one about pears.

  195. WestWright

    Cop was your WATERLOO! But my what a bunch of holier than thou pricks @ DiscoverRag. Keep up your insults towards skepticism and your false bravado about your oh so importance in educating the masses. We know what you are and it has nothing to do with education, science, the truth or facts. The jig is up and it is time for the AGW Catastrophy Tools to wake up and smell your frying bacon.

  196. John Kwok

    @ Michael Larkin –

    As I noted earlier in this thread, anyone skeptical of AGW needs to account for these phenomena:

    1) rapid melting and retreating of glaciers in polar and alpine regions (In the polar regions this is now being well-documented by photographer James Balog and his “Extreme Ice” project, funded by National Geographic, with technical assistance from Nikon.).

    2) range extensions of plants and animals formerly resident only of tropical and subtropical climates into more temperate zones, especially here in North America

    Both phenomena have been recognized only in the last few decades, and are, in themselves, ample evidence pointing to AGW as the likely culprit for both.

    @ Thomas L. –

    I think you’re the one who is confused. Both SLC and I are referring to commercial shipping, not travel by military warships engaged either in peacetime military duties or deep sea exploration.

  197. EyeRon

    Correlation is not causation

  198. Thomas L

    John Kwok,

    While perhaps not completely crossing the Northwest passage, to say it was not used for commercial purposes is stretching things: http://www.kitikmeotheritage.ca/Angulalk/hudsons/hudsons.htm

    There are other disciplines of study, the lack of any knowledge in any of them is telling…

  199. Andrew30

    John Kwok@200;

    RE: “Both phenomena have been recognized only in the last few decades, and are, in themselves, ample evidence pointing to AGW as the likely culprit for both.”

    If you take the ‘A’ out of the AGW I would agree.

    Where I live it was once completly covered by very, very thick ice, now it is not. It is still melting, so that would be GW, not AGW. Note, it will again someday be covered by ice again, then it will melt again….

  200. Andrew30


    EyeRon@201;
    Re: Correlation is not causation

    The countries with the most paved highways have the highest rate of heart disease.

    Therefore paved highways cause heart disease.

    QED.

  201. DCC

    The first dificulty with using correlation to show causation in the climate world is that close inspection shows that temperature increase or decrease always precedes CO2 increase or decrease, often by up to 800 years or more. At least for the last 400k years.
    http://mriou.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/co2-temp.jpg

    Climate researchers have tried to explain that with some flaky excuses, but the fact remains that temperature changes have not been initiated by CO2 increases. For an analysis of the doubletalk, see
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

    The second problem is that the geologic record shows virtually no relationship between temperature and CO2 content. http://www.carbonliberators.com/images/historicco2.gif

    Their answer to this may be that the effect of CO2 is only important for a very limited CO2 concentration range and temperature change – like the range we have today. But I confess I’ve never seen their answer. OK, what’s that range? Frankly I don’t see much correlation anywhere for more than a short period of time.

  202. DCC

    Cheer up – the Himalayan glaciers aren’t disappearing by 2035 after all.

    Around 1 December, an astonishing report surfaced about the claim, in IPPC Report AR4, that the Himilayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. Oops, somebody checked the “science.”

    Seems that there were a lot of mistakes in it. First, when the original references were checked, they were filtered through the World Wild Life Fund. They weren’t even original! Going back to the original, it was found they were not peer-reviewed; that’s a no-no by IPCC rules. The claim never should have been published. But even worse, the original data was not exactly utilized. In one instance, they calculated the rate of retreat by a glacier by dividing by 21 years when the actual data said 121 years! In another, they transposed the year, substituting 2035 for 2350!

    Folks, this isn’t science. It’s garbage. We need to can the lot of them and start over. They are not scientists, they are politicians.

    A recent review of the situation was in yesterday’s Houston Chronicle. http://tinyurl.com/yc5hzwl You can find the original references there.

    Isn’t it also a little strange that the details came out three weeks ago and the MSM has not let out a peep in the USA? The only major reports I can find with Google are the BBC and telegraph.co.uk.

  203. Michael Larkin

    John Kwok:

    “As I noted earlier in this thread, anyone skeptical of AGW needs to account for these phenomena: …”

    Well, my friend. As I noted, I am an agnostic. I don’t know whether or not AGW is occuring. You gave me one reference in support of it which when I looked it up failed to support it. Then you failed to respond to that point, and switched to something else, saying that anyone skeptical “needs to account” for unrelated points.

    I sense that you are simply parroting bits of information that AGW supporters generally attribute to AGW, and as there is an endless supply of those, anyone accounting adequately for any particular point would then be presented with another from the list.

    Pointless trying to establish a dialogue, really. But I did give it a shot…

  204. Thomas L

    Michael Larkin,

    I think Michael Gerson’s remarks in the Washington post sum it all up pretty well, “Climate scientists are clearly accustomed to deference. Theirs is a community coddled by global elites, extensively funded by governments, celebrated by Hollywood and honored with international prizes.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003159.html)

    Unfortunately most of what I have seen, in several forums, is the same as your results here, and the above quote is obviously just as relevant to the AGW supporters. When asked a question you are called a name. When presenting something taken as a given in another field you are called names and told you simply don’t understand. When you present recent work that calls previous ideas to task you are told they don’t matter… All with very little direction to any refuting material, instead one gets rather vague statements that “it’s in the peer review work” – except where and by who is not generally ever mentioned. I think most AGW supporters understand the science as little as those they accuse of knowing nothing.

    Occasionally there are those who admit a mistake, but they are the exception. Most have obviously never been seriously challenged about their thinking, they seem to be used to just hanging out with each other cheering themselves on. I think they fail to realize many of us showing up are not dense, very active (just in different areas) and understand what makes a good argument and a bad argument (I would wager most of us have to be able to do such to make a living…). Indeed in much of the work one would have to say the Co2 part of the argument amounts to “begging the question”, a fallacy of which they seem not to know…

    I, like you, am more agnostic about it than apposed; I’m even willing to support aspects of it (though not the alarmist extremes). I have found some good work here and there (with little help from those professing to know it all), but nothing comes that approaches the level of certainty I demand in my normal business dealings, let alone enough to rework the entire structure of civilization.

    I was really expecting better. Unless their methods improve the skeptical sites will continue to trounce them, and the public will continue to walk away from it as the requirements of making a living become ever more pressing (and trying to get a real answer out of any of the proponents becomes seen as a waste of time…). I will continue trying to learn, but they do make such a trial.

  205. Tembo

    Chris,

    Reading your post and reading a few of the comments posted makes me think of something John Stuart Mill wrote in “On Liberty” about persuasion, and how “Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument; but facts and arguments, to produce any effects on the mind, must be brought before it. Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning.”

    So, based on that and also on the current state of the debate on climate change (with some firmly convinced that it’s taking place, others firmly convinced that it’s not, and still others who are genuinely skeptical of it), it really might be a good idea to take some time to discuss some of the main points of it (as well as the science behind it), and maybe to address some of the more prominent objections to it.

  206. John Kwok

    @ Michael Larkin (@ 207) –

    Just plain common sense would tell you that both of these patterns are probably due to AGW. If they were independent of it, then they should have occurred prior to the mid 20th Century, BUT THEY DO NOT. Instead, these are both phenomena that have been well documented since 1950, NOT BEFORE.

    @ Thomas L. –

    I am correct with regards to the Northwest Passage, since it has not been used as a commercial thoroughfare for merchant ship traffic between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. While there are small portions that have been used for short distance trips, there hasn’t been any substantial usage of the entire passage for long distance travel between, for example, Northern Europe and Northern Asia or Northern North America and Northern Asia.

  207. John Kwok

    @ Michael L. –

    As a postscript to my previous comment, neither phenomena was seen by scientists prior to 1950. While one might excuse our relative ignorance of the polar regions, the same surely can’t be said for the tropical, subtropical and temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere, especially North America.

  208. DCC

    “10. John Kwok Says:
    Those who remain skeptical of the reality of climate change need to address these issues:

    “1) Range extensions of plants and animals – which were formerly restricted to tropical and subtropical zones, but, especially here in North America – into temperate zones.”

    There can be a lot of explanations for animal behavior, including the animals who did the study(s). For example, their primary predators (or diseases) have multiplied in the warmer areas and the remaining populations are compensating by moving away. If you will give a reference to the study you are talking about, I’ll have a better reply.

    “2) Substantial glacial melt and retreats observed for glaciers in Arctic and Antarctic regions and in mountains such as the Alps, for example. Nowhere in relatively recent recorded history have such dramatic examples of glacial melting and retreating have been observed.”

    Well, so they say in National Geographic. Have you read my post #206? Do you really think that the Alpine glaciers will be gone by 2050? Frankly, that sounds like poppycock.

    I am assuming that by “climate change” you meant anthropgenic global warming (AGW.) Remember that we are coming out of both the Little Ice Age (“ended” in 1850) and the last glaciation, so yes, the earth is warming. Neither of your issues is necessarily connected to AGW, just to general warming that everyone should agree is occurring. That’s just the point that we are in the cycles.

  209. John Kwok

    @ DCC –

    Sorry, but won’t comply with your request for my point #1, since you seem to miss the point that animals are migrating northward because the climate is getting warmer. Your suggestion that it is disease or predation is absurd since if that were true, you would see no net change (maybe even a decrease) in range size, since the populations would be “fleeing” from their resident subtropical and tropical habitats, not remaining in situ, even as other populations of the same species were moving northward.

    You are merely projecting to think that I agree with Al Gore’s absurd obervation – which he recanted – that all the Alpine glaciers (in the Alps) will be gone by 2050. Instead, I am merely reporting what has been an observed trend by climatologists, glaciologists, geologists and others in the past half century, and especially, in the past twenty five years.

  210. Thomas L

    John Kwok,

    Let me get this straight, you are calling three passages over two years (1 in 2008 and two in 2009) “substantial usage”? Sorry, don’t agree. I will agree that over the next few years, depending on future ice levels (and there are papers and reports indicating the ice sheet is in fact growing again) we shall see if such a statement as “substantial usage” ever become factual – and if it becomes risk free enough to be financially viable.

    While I see that the alarmist sights are making quite a big deal about it I suggest to you that it is highly overblown to say much of anything at it yet.

  211. DCC

    I said we all agree that climate is warming. Neither of your points is unique to AGW. Glaciers can dissapear for reasons other than CO2 and animals can migrate for a variety of non-CO2 reasons, too. So it’s getting warmer! So what? You have to show that it’s not simply what has been happening for 10,000 years.

  212. John Kwok

    @ DCC –

    You are forgetting the pace of warming is increasing at much more rapid pace in the past century than what we have seen so far in recorded history. That’s why both phenomena I describe are relevant AND DO POINT TO anthropogenic global warming as the most likely culprit.

    Just so that you know exactly where I am coming from, I am a former evolutionary biologist (an invertebrate paleobiologist), a Deist and a Conservative Repubiican with very strong Libertarian tendencies. I strongly believe that my fellow Republicans – and others – who reject anthropogenic global warming are greatly mistaken, allowing their own preconceived biases to filter out what several decades of excellent, often first-rate, climatological and paleoclimatological research have deduced from a multiple array of data sources. Do I think climate change research is as robust as modern evolutionary biology? I will concede that my answer is a firm “NO!”, however I do think that this research is fundamentally sound and does point to anthropogenic global warming.

  213. moptop

    “You are forgetting the pace of warming is increasing at much more rapid pace in the past century than what we have seen so far in recorded history.” DCC

    Uh, recorded temperature history doesn’t go back much or than the past century.

    “a Deist and a Conservative Repubiican with very strong Libertarian tendencies. I strongly believe that my fellow Republicans – and others – who reject anthropogenic global warming are greatly mistaken, allowing their own preconceived biases to filter out what several decades of excellent, often first-rate, climatological and paleoclimatological research have deduced from a multiple array of data sources.”

    I call BS. Republicans generally check their facts and support them in basic arguments. There are no “facts” in your argument, just assertions back by assurnaces. That style of argument along makes you a liberal. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you really are conservative, this would mean that you could point to some “first rate paleoclimatological research” that shows unprecidented warming. Maybe you could fix a mistake on my part, after all, you are a Republican, so I am inclined to believe you.

  214. DCC

    No, climate has never changed at a fixed rate (geologically speaking.) The Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age prove that. You can’t look at a short piece of the graph and say it’s significant, especially the recent portion which can’t even be believed.

    Refer to my post #145 and 107. Check my credentials. Look at more of the graph; there have been periods of rapidly increasing CO2 that have no apparent effect on temperature. Look at the basic science; even if CO2 were doubled, the effect is minimal. The guys at UEA and the IPCC have to pull all kinds of phenomena out of the air to come up with the ridiculous temperature forcasts they publish. Haven’t you even noticed that temps have trended down, not gone up for the last decade? Or did you “hide the decline?”

    You’re going to have to do more than wave your arms to make the claim that the small effect that CO2 has on temperature is making those two things happen.

  215. John Kwok

    DCC –

    Sorry, I’m not persuaded by your arguments, especially since the Little Ice Age was more of a regional phenomenon affecting the Northern Hemisphere only, especially the North Atlantic and the surrounding landmasses (North America, including Greenland, and Western Europe). Climate does vary, but I am referring to a statistical trend that would show little or no statistically significant deviations from what we would expect. If you want to wave credentials at me, then bear in mind that several of my undergraduate professors were key research personnel involved with CLIMAP.

  216. DCC

    PS: When will all this foolishness lead to the obvious conclusion that rational people made without even thinking about CO2? We need a full-court push to develop nuclear power stations in the USA. It’s technically feasible to build stations that consume virtually all of their fuel, not just the 1% we are used to, that do not leave a significant radioactive residue, and can easily be monitored to make sure they are not being used to make weapons-grade material.

    Instead, the fools who support reducing CO2 propose we spend trillions, break the economies of the developed nations, and impose sanctions that cannot possibly significantly reduce CO2. Why bother? Converting all electric power stations to nuclear will do a better job.

  217. Dougetit

    DCC @ 219

    Since the release by MET of the CRU code and supporting docs, the whole thing is tipping over. The “thing” is AGW

    We can all breath a sigh of relief. We are not going to drown or die from heatstroke. The penguins and polar bears will be safe.

  218. Thomas L

    John Kwok,

    It would seem that the pace of warming in recorded (or unrecorded) history is exactly what is in dispute. From what I have gathered (ice core data, other studies of MWP…), your take on it may or may not hold. What I think most agree on is it is complicated, and has huge bands of uncertainty connected to anything prior to about 100 years ago. Part of why everyone argues about the “hockey stick”, it appears to be a rather blatant attempt to support your type of argument rather than solid science. You also keep arguing about the arctic, Antarctic and glacier ice levels – yet you seem to have them all mixed up. The Arctic ice sheets declined for a decade – apparently ending in the last couple years, and now seem to be growing again. The Antarctic levels have been increasing rapidly, something none of the models can account for, and the glacier issue has turned out to be very complex – some are growing, some are shrinking.

    None of the ones in Greenland are as yet reduced to the levels seen during the MWP. Nature just released a study that says a substantial amount of the Arctic melt is actually the result of jet plane contrails (water vapor…). As for “faster than recorded history” – only if you ignore the work recently released about melt rates from the 1940’s. I strongly encourage you to research the issue more, you may be surprised how complicated it actually is.

    Read my post here http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/12/22/what-is-basic-climate-science-literacy/#comment-44060 for links, shouldn’t be hard to find, it’s right above another post from you. You also might want to do some more research on historic Co2 levels, and have a look at why ALL the data from measurements prior to the 1930’s have been canned (and if they were canned as “unreliable, why were temperature data kept?…) . Note as well that while ice core data is fascinating, there are technical issues with the data, not all of which is easy to correct for, maybe even impossible. ALL the work has bands of error in the papers – most of which get ignored in the popular repetitions presented to the public…

    As a biologist, do you find anything strange about this release on a study done in regards to shell creation in high Co2 environments this past month?: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162
    It seems to me the science part is “wow, we don’t seem to know nearly as much as we thought and we need to take another in-depth look at the whole process”. That AGW part seems thrown in there in order to ensure funding, or because such was used to obtain the funding for the study… One would think the research is important regardless of AGW, and could bring to light many interesting insights of pervious and possible future evolutionary trends.

    Would you accept the type of research being presented in this field in your own as “definitive proof”, or would you be requesting further investigations? Would you question why so many other aspects are being minimalized and ignored? Do you not find the constant shifts between “global warming” – oops, make that “climate change” as a result of “Co2” – oops I mean “GHGs”, or, well, “CFCs” – um, whatever – it’s man made! Type things bother you? Is this how science now works?

  219. DCC

    “220. Dougetit Says:
    Since the release by MET of the CRU code and supporting docs, the whole thing is tipping over. ”

    Reference?

  220. Dougetit

    DCC 221 Was locked out?

    Wasn’t what I thought it would be.. Only an update of erlier data with SH missing.

    http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977961511

    Someone here was asking how they could get away with it. This is a 30 year history of how they did.

    http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/history/2009.12.23_climategate_30_years_in_the_making_banner.pdf

  221. Jcerame

    OK, let me make it easy for you. Scientists prove the validity of their theories and models by using them to make predictions. If you, or anyone who believes that the relationship between CO2 and global temps is “settled science”, then predict the average global temperature for the next 5 years as a function of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you cannot do that, then don’t the models are simply inadequate, and should not be used to make policy.

  222. John Kwok

    @ moptop –

    If I’m a “liberal” then why do I despise President Obama and reject virtually all of his policies, beginning with healthcare reform?

    As for measuring temperatures prior to the 20th Century, it can be done by proxy measuring oxygen isotope concentrations in foraminiferal skeletons found in deep sea cores. I believe it can be done too with polar ice core data, and, to a lesser extent, even from tree ring data. Admittedly all of these will give relative results, not “absolute” temperature readings.

  223. John Kwok

    @ Thomas L. –

    Thanks for the links. Will take a look at them later over the weekend. As for that paper in Geology which you referred me to regarding how some marine metazoans are responding to excess carbon in the oceans, this advice from one of the study’s papers seems appropriate:

    “I wouldn’t make any predictions based on these results. What these results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail.”

    (BTW I do find this intriguing, but it’s merely an initial finding. But I can appreciate it as a former invertebrate paleobiologist.).

  224. DCC

    Postings here have an unusual timing. They appear to be time-stamped when the poster begins to compose them rather than when they are actually posted. Several times I have replied to a short comment with a short comment and found them adjacent only to later fined them separated by a long post.

    Don’t ask me how the blog knows when a post begins composition. Just don’t expect your responses to follow immediately after another’s post.

    I guess we can make a scientific test. I began this post about noon central on Christmas Day. I am submitting it at 12:27.

  225. DCC

    Hummmpfh. Must be that moderation is not necessarily in sequence.

  226. Thomas L

    DCC

    things get held in moderation – sometimes for awhile :)

    Merry Christmas everyone, hope it is a good day for all

  227. moptop

    John Kwok,
    As a “former paleobiologist,” I would have expected more than hand waving, but reference to a specific study, like the one that convinced you the current warming is unprecedented. That would be a good one. I would like to see it.

  228. DCC

    @219. John Kwok said:
    “DCC –
    Sorry, I’m not persuaded by your arguments, especially since the Little Ice Age was more of a regional phenomenon affecting the Northern Hemisphere only”

    I hope by now that you have determined that claim is simply false. It doesn’t even make sense. There is and always has been only a marginal difference in the average temperature of the two hemispheres. If anything, the northern is always warmer, likely because of the greater land mass.

    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20051027/ice.htm

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 »