"Climategate" two years later

[thaumaturgy]

... sigh ...

"Guilty" is not a scientific term, but a legal term.

Well, that is a semantic point. Let's start with less charged terms.

When I publish a paper of course no one is expected to assume my observations are correct, so far we agree. BUT it is hardly common practice to assume that I've actively produced dishonest science until someone repeats my experiments.

Of course it is generally assumed in any endeavor when dealing with other people that at worst they have merely made an error. Not that they have partaken of fraudulent manipulation of their data.

The standard in science is "Proof". One is required to "Prove" one's assertions ... they didn't.

Can I play semantics like you do? I'll answer an astounding and resounding NO! Don't you know anything about science? Proof is never expected. Nothing is ever proven. That's for math. Mathematics has proofs.

Science has supporting evidence which indicates a more likely hypothesis is true.

If you read science (as in real science, not whatever you find on blogs) you might be lucky enough to see statistical analyses of data and more importantly inferential statistics. When you get to that level note the little "p-value" on graphs. It's never going to be absolutely 0.0000....0 Why? Because there's always error and the potential for error.

In science we rely on inferential statistics to tell us how likely we are to be making an error in assessing the "Null hypothesis".

But you see, I'm playing a "semantic game" here with you. You want to talk like a scientist and tell me all about science and you want to play semantic games with words? I can do that very well thank you.

But in the sense that you probably meant which is the non-technical sense (the same sense I meant by "guilty" in my post but you didn't let that pass), but in the spirit of showing you less pedantry than you did for me I'll let your informal verbiage pass in stating that yes: science does require one to support their assertions.

No one requires absolute "proof" but by "prove" I should at least support my contention. And it is further validated when others find similar results.

That has been done with climate science in regards to agw. In a very real sense this converges on the dreaded "consensus" you mentioned earlier.

If sufficient researchers find the same results over and over again as other researchers they tend to assume that they are onto a more likely hypothesis. Not that it is ever proven 100%, but that it is more likely.

Then the dreaded "consensus" happens. None of these scientists said "Oh I agree with the consensus, so now let me test the consensus to make sure it's right!"

That isn't how it works.

Unless you have evidence for your supposition that the CRU or Climategate scientists (even the ones from "Leeds" ) have done something fraudulent with the data I suggest you drop that claim. It is so far less likely than that they didn't fraudulently manipulate the data. But again, they needn't provide evidence that they didn't commit academic dishonesty. You would need to provide that.

As for the value of the science: well, it speaks for itself. When countless researchers across the globe keep coming to the same conclusion based on the data they are gathering and processing it indicates a strong likelihood that the hypothesis is correct.

Questions?

.

Yes! Can I ask you your experience in science? I'm curious because you speak "knowledgably" about what science requires and what it is and how these people have fallen so far afoul of it. I'm curious what your personal experience is in the sciences. (Don't worry, few skeptics on these boards will ever answer that question, I can count on one hand the number that actually have. So I won't mind if you simply ignore this question as well.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

LOL ... great argument, Nabobalis.

... you get to explain it.



I'll start though. SCIENCE: Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

.
​

I would recommend you not get your background in science from Wikipedia. It's a great place to start but when you start talking to real scientists you'll be left in the dust pretty quickly.

As Nabobolis pointed out, there is no necessity of "proof" in science, merely a preponderance of evidence.

I'm speaking technically at this point. So it would behoove you to discuss this as a scientist would.

Proof is unobtainable in the absolute. A preponderance of the evidence allows for the very real acquiescence of doubt, error, or bias. No empirical data set is free of error or potential for bias.

Scientists start by observing things and form an hypothesis.

Scientists then test this hypothesis by starting with the "Null Hypothesis". This is usually in the form of "No effect is seen". Then test against that. They collect data and run the statistics and analysis of the data.

Ultimately they have to decide whether the null hypothesis should be rejected or "fail to be rejected". This is an assessed usually based on a test of whether you are making a "Type I error" (rejecting a true null hypothesis, also called a "false positive") There's another type of error called a Type II error which is a "false negative" in which you fail to reject a false null hypothesis.

 

[Nabobalis]

I would recommend you not get your background in science from Wikipedia. It's a great place to start but when you start talking to real scientists you'll be left in the dust pretty quickly.

As Nabobolis pointed out, there is no necessity of "proof" in science, merely a preponderance of evidence.

I'm speaking technically at this point. So it would behoove you to discuss this as a scientist would.

Proof is unobtainable in the absolute. A preponderance of the evidence allows for the very real acquiescence of doubt, error, or bias. No empirical data set is free of error or potential for bias.

Scientists start by observing things and form an hypothesis.

Scientists then test this hypothesis by starting with the "Null Hypothesis". This is usually in the form of "No effect is seen". Then test against that. They collect data and run the statistics and analysis of the data.

Ultimately they have to decide whether the null hypothesis should be rejected or "fail to be rejected". This is an assessed usually based on a test of whether you are making a "Type I error" (rejecting a true null hypothesis, also called a "false positive") There's another type of error called a Type II error which is a "false negative" in which you fail to reject a false null hypothesis.

Couldn't explain it better myself

Still new at being a scientist ( if i can call myself that yet).

 

[NightHawkeye]

Couldn't explain it better myself

Still new at being a scientist ( if i can call myself that yet).

LOL ... but it would have been so beneficial to your education ... like that term paper you dreaded ... cuz you knew it was gonna bleed red ink.

.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Well, that is a semantic point. Let's start with less charged terms.

Speaking of charged terms ... glad ya found your way down off the ole high horse.

When I publish a paper of course no one is expected to assume my observations are correct, so far we agree. BUT it is hardly common practice to assume that I've actively produced dishonest science until someone repeats my experiments.

Exactly. Over-zealousness maybe among the younger crowd ... a profound degree of snobbery (my school's better than yours, ya know) ... but rarely so much as a hint of impropriety. Climategate damaged scientific credibility which will take years to recover from among the general public. Even many of East Anglia's supporters acknowledge that.

Can I play semantics like you do? I'll answer an astounding and resounding NO! Don't you know anything about science? Proof is never expected. Nothing is ever proven. That's for math. Mathematics has proofs.

Science has supporting evidence which indicates a more likely hypothesis is true.

LOL ... You used "guilty". I used "proof". Neither is a scientific term. Just trying to keep up with your semantics, Thaumaturgy.

If you read science (as in real science, not whatever you find on blogs) you might be lucky enough to see statistical analyses of data and more importantly inferential statistics. When you get to that level note the little "p-value" on graphs. It's never going to be absolutely 0.0000....0 Why? Because there's always error and the potential for error.

In science we rely on inferential statistics to tell us how likely we are to be making an error in assessing the "Null hypothesis".

In this instance, the time-varying data is more properly called a stochastic process: Stochastic process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In probability theory, a stochastic process (pronunciation: /stoʊˈkæstɪk/), or sometimes random process, is the counterpart to a deterministic process (or deterministic system). Instead of dealing with only one possible reality of how the process might develop under time (as is the case, for example, for solutions of an ordinary differential equation), in a stochastic or random process there is some indeterminacy described by probability distributions. This means that even if the initial condition (or starting point) is known, there are many possibilities the process might go to, but some paths may be more probable and others less so.
​

I know you hate Wikipedia, but it's a whole lot easier to copy and paste from Wikipedia than some of my graduate-level statistics texts ... though I actually have one at my desk still, even after all these years ...

But you see, I'm playing a "semantic game" here with you. You want to talk like a scientist and tell me all about science and you want to play semantic games with words? I can do that very well thank you.

Minor correction, Thaumaturgy, I'm just speaking in plain English here. Facts is facts ... don't matter who posts 'em here. Your credentials and a dollar bill might still get you a cup of coffee ... somewhere. I'm not a coffee drinker though, so I can't really vouch for coffee prices these days. YMMV, if ya know what I mean.

But in the sense that you probably meant which is the non-technical sense (the same sense I meant by "guilty" in my post but you didn't let that pass), but in the spirit of showing you less pedantry than you did for me I'll let your informal verbiage pass in stating that yes: science does require one to support their assertions.

... sigh ...

[NHE passes, too]

As for the value of the science: well, it speaks for itself. When countless researchers across the globe keep coming to the same conclusion based on the data they are gathering and processing it indicates a strong likelihood that the hypothesis is correct.

I once served on a civil jury dealing with, of all things, a breeding stallion which had allegedly been bred more than one hundred times without siring colts. During deliberations, I requested the breeding records and discovered that while that was indeed the number of inseminations, those inseminations had occurred only over "four" heat cycles. Hence, there were only four opportunities for pregnancy. Good thing I asked for the records, huh? Otherwise, the data seemed overwhelmingly in favor of the plaintiff.

I mean, what are the odds? The plaintiff's argument was that the stallion had been bred over a hundred times. Seems conclusive, right? Except the inseminations had occurred over exactly four heat cycles, hence only four opportunities for pregnancy.

I suppose we could do this in statistical terms to impress ourselves, and bore anyone else who might still be following this thread ... but that's really not necessary, Thaumaturgy. Bottom line is that the chance of a mare getting pregnant during any single heat cycle is less than 50% ... likely considerably less than 50% ... hence, one could suspect a problem with the stallion, but the data ain't even close to being conclusive.

That's the problem with "Global warming", too. The data ain't conclusive. It only took me about ten minutes to find the satellite data which suggests a trend of considerably less magnitude than the "climategate" data.

Yes! Can I ask you your experience in science? I'm curious because you speak "knowledgably" about what science requires and what it is and how these people have fallen so far afoul of it. I'm curious what your personal experience is in the sciences. (Don't worry, few skeptics on these boards will ever answer that question, I can count on one hand the number that actually have. So I won't mind if you simply ignore this question as well.)

LOL ... Is this like, "Show me yours and I'll show you mine, Thaumaturgy?

Go for it, Thaumaturgy ...

.

 

[rambot]

So, you agree with this statement:

The standard in science is "Proof". One is required to "Prove" one's assertions ... they didn't.
​

Just checking ... to see if reasonable discussion is possible.

.

Hint: Don't confuse "proof" with "Evidence". They are no the same.

That's the problem with "Global warming", too. The data ain't conclusive. It only took me about ten minutes to find the satellite data which suggests a trend of considerably less magnitude than the "climategate" data.

And I have the sneaking suspicion that after your 10 minutes of research, you have found the one particular set of data you were looking for and you now believe that you are now fully informed.

That said, I have a feeling 10 minutes is probably the total research time put in by skeptics on a typical 10 page thread here on CF.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Hint: Don't confuse "proof" with "Evidence". They are no the same.

LOL ... You haven't been paying attention to the last few posts, have ya?

And I have the sneaking suspicion that after your 10 minutes of research, you have found the one particular set of data you were looking for and you now believe that you are now fully informed.

That said, I have a feeling 10 minutes is probably the total research time put in by skeptics on a typical 10 page thread here on CF.

LOL^2 Sticks and stones will break my bones ...

But, on a more serious note. It matters not how much time a "scientist" commits to putting forth evidence. It matters even less how much time one commits to counter-arguments. All that matters is whether the evidence is sound. If the evidence is not sound, then the "scientist's" efforts were for naught.

.

 

[MattRose]

A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -- the official publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences -- found that out of 1,372 climate researchers under review, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change. It also concluded that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence" of the researchers unconvinced of man-made climate change are "substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

An earlier survey published in the 2009 issue of Eos -- a publication of the American Geophysical Union -- asked scientists from a wide range of disciplines (approximately 3,146): "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Approximately 82 percent of the surveyed scientists answered yes to this question. Of those climate change specialists surveyed, 97.4 percent answered yes.

That leaked series of emails didn't change many minds in the science field. Maybe we should leave it to the experts, although yesterday was colder than normal hmm....

On a side note, if my mare needs breeding I'll call you NightHawkEye.

 

[rambot]

LOL ... You haven't been paying attention to the last few posts, have ya?

nope.

LOL^2 Sticks and stones will break my bones ...

When you berate someone for having to do "a 10 minute google search" to support your own position and then seem to imply that that is all the effort that is required to disregard the thousands of papers contradicting your opinion, it doesn't exactly indicate a balanced and informed view.

But, on a more serious note. It matters not how much time a "scientist" commits to putting forth evidence. It matters even less how much time one commits to counter-arguments. All that matters is whether the evidence is sound. If the evidence is not sound, then the "scientist's" efforts were for naught.

I'm not saying that we need to have a timed discussion. I was merely pointing out that denialists on CF put in NO effort, nor provide any evidence to support their position.
That you have provided a single graph (without a link by the by...) does not necessarily suggest that a pat on the back and a "job well done!" is in order.

 

[thaumaturgy]

In this instance, the time-varying data is more properly called a stochastic process: Stochastic process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually "stochastic" would apply to any purely statistically defined result or data, but when you introduce time-varying what you really mean is probably time series analyses. This is a special type of statistical analysis because it contains some amount of autocorrelation in the data.

In a sense it renders statistical analyses a bit more tricky because many of the regular tests used to analyze stochastic processes are not truly "independent". It's a bit complex. If you want to do time-series analyses you will have go through a few additional steps.

I know you hate Wikipedia, but it's a whole lot easier to copy and paste from Wikipedia than some of my graduate-level statistics texts

your "graduate level stastics texts"? I'm impressed. So I'm curious why you didn't discuss time series analyses or ARIMA or other aspects in relation to autocorrelated data.

Minor correction, Thaumaturgy, I'm just speaking in plain English here. Facts is facts ... don't matter who posts 'em here. Your credentials and a dollar bill might still get you a cup of coffee ... somewhere. I'm not a coffee drinker though, so I can't really vouch for coffee prices these days. YMMV, if ya know what I mean.

For someone who relies on Wikipedia so much in preference to their graduate statistics texts I'm curious why you are dismissive of my background?

I suppose we could do this in statistical terms to impress ourselves, and bore anyone else

It always fascinates me when I attempt to bring in statistical discussion and the opposing party demurs so as not to "bore others".

Now I guess I will not get a chance to learn anything from one who is my superior in statistics yet again because they are afraid of boring others!

It is sad when I see one "hide their light under a bushel".

who might still be following this thread ... but that's really not necessary, Thaumaturgy.

Actually it is. But I "understand" you don't want to "bore" others with statistics and information.

Got it.

LOL ... Is this like, "Show me yours and I'll show you mine, Thaumaturgy?

Kind of like that. Because now I'm really intrigued! You work with graduate level statistics but will solemnly not discuss it in detail other than to reference Wikipedia.

I would dearly love to know your experience in science. I wonder what kind of research you would do such that the "easiest" resource of reference (Wikipedia) is your primary source, you seem to have no real knowledge of the basics (ie Leeds vs Norwich) and you are bit sloppy with your references (I explicitly asked for the article from which your posted graph was from, something that a real researcher would recognize as an oversight and correct quickly).

Go for it, Thaumaturgy ...

.

I am so dreadfully sorry if I've "bored" others by discussing detailed statistical concepts and underlying philosophical and logical underpinnings behind how science is done.

I don't know if I can honor your "decency" in avoiding detailed discussions so as to save the others feelings of "boredom".

Again, I "understand" your position.

 

[rambot]

Thaum.... more " " please! ;-)

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

as a lurker, Yes please Thaumaturgy and Nighthawkeye kindly go into the 'boring' details.

I appreciate it very much

 

[thaumaturgy]

When you berate someone for having to do "a 10 minute google search" to support your own position and then seem to imply that that is all the effort that is required to disregard the thousands of papers contradicting your opinion, it doesn't exactly indicate a balanced and informed view.

It is quite interesting that it took an anonymous poster on the intarwebs 10 minutes to completely destroy the cumulative work of thousands of scientists over the past 50 or so years.

But it is not uncommon in the "skeptoid" community to make this sort of claim: "Oh look what I just found on a blog that totally proves that the science of agw isn't perfectly absolute on one single number a billion significant digits, it must be that the whole thing is a complete mystery to all the scientists, ergo it can be ignored or simply refuted!"

It's part of the same type of debate Creationists use: fine one error or one point where the data is somewhat unclear and leverage that to make assumptions about the whole science.

What I find most fascinating is that the poster tells us about his graduate level statistics book. I'm curious if that statistics book would advise calculating a robust mean from one sample of the total population of the data.

That you have provided a single graph (without a link by the by...) does not necessarily suggest that a pat on the back and a "job well done!" is in order.

You know I actually like Skepticalscience.com but mainly because it provides links to the actual peer reviewed papers. I looked high and low through Skepticalscience and could not easily find that graph. I know it's there, I can see from the Properties of the graphic, but I can't find the article.

I asked Nighthawk to give me the link to the graph and it's accompanying discussion or better yet the peer reviewed paper the graph comes from and yet all he could do was take me to task for talking about my bona fides.

Guess it was more important to such a high level research scientist as him to "get a dig in" rather than substantively address a simple question that any researcher would realize was a rather important question.

But then I don't have any graduate level statistics books around me here.

 

[Touma]

OMigosh guys!!!! It is snowing here in VA...Before Halloween!!! What global warming?

 

[rambot]

You know I actually like Skepticalscience.com but mainly because it provides links to the actual peer reviewed papers. I looked high and low through Skepticalscience and could not easily find that graph. I know it's there, I can see from the Properties of the graphic, but I can't find the article.

I asked Nighthawk to give me the link to the graph and it's accompanying discussion or better yet the peer reviewed paper the graph comes from and yet all he could do was take me to task for talking about my bona fides.

Don't get me wrong, there are some very interesting skeptical science based sites... i mean, not many but there are a few.

I can't bother addressing those sites as they are, in fact, a bit past me. And I'm fully ready to say that there are detail based questions still up for debate but to question the whole theory on those seems a bit baby - bathwater.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It is quite interesting that it took an anonymous poster on the intarwebs 10 minutes to completely destroy the cumulative work of thousands of scientists over the past 50 or so years.

But it is not uncommon in the "skeptoid" community to make this sort of claim: "Oh look what I just found on a blog that totally proves that the science of agw isn't perfectly absolute on one single number a billion significant digits, it must be that the whole thing is a complete mystery to all the scientists, ergo it can be ignored or simply refuted!"

It's part of the same type of debate Creationists use: fine one error or one point where the data is somewhat unclear and leverage that to make assumptions about the whole science.

What I find most fascinating is that the poster tells us about his graduate level statistics book. I'm curious if that statistics book would advise calculating a robust mean from one sample of the total population of the data.



You know I actually like Skepticalscience.com but mainly because it provides links to the actual peer reviewed papers. I looked high and low through Skepticalscience and could not easily find that graph. I know it's there, I can see from the Properties of the graphic, but I can't find the article.

I asked Nighthawk to give me the link to the graph and it's accompanying discussion or better yet the peer reviewed paper the graph comes from and yet all he could do was take me to task for talking about my bona fides.

Guess it was more important to such a high level research scientist as him to "get a dig in" rather than substantively address a simple question that any researcher would realize was a rather important question.

But then I don't have any graduate level statistics books around me here.

ROTFL ... amazingly elaborate strawman, Thaumaturgy, interlaced with ad hominems. I'm impressed. Really.

I agreed with you that global warming exists ... yet you accuse me of saying otherwise. I point out that much greater climate changes have occurred during recorded history, and I am lambasted five different ways from Sunday, including being tarred and feathered as a creationist.

I'm sensing disingenuousness on your part, Thaumaturgy.. as if you don't want to have a discussion with me. Tell me it ain't so, Thaumaturgy.

.

 

[thaumaturgy]

ROTFL ... amazingly elaborate strawman, Thaumaturgy, interlaced with ad hominems. I'm impressed. Really.

I agreed with you that global warming exists ... yet you accuse me of saying otherwise. I point out that much greater climate changes have occurred during recorded history, and I am lambasted five different ways from Sunday, including being tarred and feathered as a creationist.

If you read closely (and for content) you'd note I did not claim you were a creationist.

It is a common theme between many skeptoids and creationists (there are others), but the fact that one uses a similar argument tactic does not mean one is a creationist.

Please, read closely. And for content.

But I'm quite fascinated. You believe global warming is happening, do you think there is a role for humanity?

I went looking back over your posts and noted this bit:

Of course, that brings into question the argument about burning of fossil fuels, huh, coal in particular during the nineteenth century? Oops ...

But, if we're gonna go there, then don't we really need to talk about why the earth was substantially warmer prior to 1550? I really don't think that had anything to do with manmade global warming ... but who knows? And what the heck was that bit about global cooling between 1950 and 1980?


Just stuff to think about ...

.

So I am somewhat curious what your actual stance is. I will admit I assumed from your phrasing here that you were "skeptical" that fossil fuel burning (ergo human activity) was related to current warming.

And when I read this:

That's the problem with "Global warming", too. The data ain't conclusive. It only took me about ten minutes to find the satellite data which suggests a trend of considerably less magnitude than the "climategate" data.

I will admit I assumed your putting "global warming" in quotations was an indication that while you agreed that there was warming you have spent a great deal of time casting aspersions on Hadley CRU and the other "Climategate-smeared scientists", so I rather assumed you had some serious differences with the fundamental concept.

So it seems maybe that I misinterpreted you. You just want to accuse scientists you have some quibbling disagreement over the magnitude of the effect of fraudulent activity? Is that all your point is?

Oh, yes, and I am well aware that the earth's climate has changed quite a bit in the past. That is why I explicitly discussed that point at length.

I'm sensing disingenuousness on your part, Thaumaturgy.. as if you don't want to have a discussion with me. Tell me it ain't so, Thaumaturgy.

I would have a discussion with you if your point were clear.

So far the only really clear points you have established are:

1. You had trouble with the fundamental details of "Climategate" (Leeds vs Norwich, at least you should know where CRU is located)

2. You think Climategate indicated some question of the objectivity of the Climategate scientists but that's not based on the science but rather interpersonal private conversations that were stolen and published.

3. You seem to have some questions around the cause of global warming and the trends, and you expressed some significant lack of knowledge of topics like the "mid century cooling" and its hypothesized causes which have been published now for a few years.

4. You talk a big game about what science is or isn't and rely almost exclusively for your points on Wikipedia (but you are quick to tell us all about the "graduate level statistics books" you have, yet you don't want to "bore" others by discussing inferential statistics as it relates to "proof" in science.

You want to discuss anything? I'll take your points on, as I have repeatedly. With detail citations, with detailed discussions and few citations that are limited to Wikipedia.

If you break out your "graduate level statistics books" we could all learn something. And I can break out my "graduate level earth science books" since my graduate work (MS and PhD) are in geology with focus on organic geochemistry, specifically coal chemistry for the PhD. So we can talk fossil fuels at length if you like. I use a lot of statistics but I'd like to learn more. So if you have some to teach put it out there and let everyone just "deal with it".

If you have something to teach, teach.

 

[rambot]

yeah! i'D LOVE to read some good book learningg.

 

[NightHawkeye]

So it seems maybe that I misinterpreted you.

Indeed, you did.

Oh, yes, and I am well aware that the earth's climate has changed quite a bit in the past. That is why I explicitly discussed that point at length.

Indeed, you did that as well ... with a lengthy list of qualifiers.

I would have a discussion with you if your point were clear.

LOL ... My points have been simple and clear. I showed satellite data inconsistent with terrestrially recorded data as plotted by East Anglia's CRU ... even told ya which pro-global warming website it came from. But since my ten minutes of effort wasn't enough, I've now spent another 15 minutes looking deeper.

I'll now offer you another chart showing the same trend from an anti-global warming website: Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Knock yourself out attacking his qualifications, Thaumaturgy, LOL. I notice he has a Ph. D. after his name. Is that important in this instance?

Oh wait ... here's a little info about him, from Wikipedia:

Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. Spencer suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming.
​

By golly, looks like this fella may know a little about satellites ... and temperature monitoring. Cool, huh?

The data chart above shows essentially the same slight warming as the chart I provided earlier. But the total amount of warming is less than half that of the "hockey stick" graphs, such as the one below from Wikipedia:

I think you'll like Dr Spencer's website. Here's some of what he says:

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
​

Truth has no agenda ...

.

 

[rambot]

Indeed, you did.


Indeed, you did that as well ... with a lengthy list of qualifiers.


LOL ... My points have been simple and clear. I showed satellite data inconsistent with terrestrially recorded data as plotted by East Anglia's CRU ... even told ya which pro-global warming website it came from. But since my ten minutes of effort wasn't enough, I've now spent another 15 minutes looking deeper.

I'll now offer you another chart showing the same trend from an anti-global warming website: Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Knock yourself out attacking his qualifications, Thaumaturgy, LOL. I notice he has a Ph. D. after his name. Is that important in this instance?

Oh wait ... here's a little info about him, from Wikipedia:

Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. Spencer suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming.
​

By golly, looks like this fella may know a little about satellites ... and temperature monitoring. Cool, huh?

The data chart above shows essentially the same slight warming as the chart I provided earlier. But the total amount of warming is less than half that of the "hockey stick" graphs, such as the one below from Wikipedia:

I think you'll like Dr Spencer's website. Here's some of what he says:

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
​

Truth has no agenda ...

.

I would like to point out in your first graph is that the running average of the lower atmosphere. I'm think that land/surface/water temperatures should be our primary concern as increases here will cause increase water evaporation which is a positive feedback for heat "trapper" (cannot think of the word...too late..time for bed).