Climate Change!

[RickG]

If you don't believe in climate change, just ask the people of West Liberty, Ky., I would say a lot of them believe it. They were hit IN THE SAME EXACT SPOTS by 2 different tornadoes 2 days apart in an area of Appalachia that rarely experiences tornadoes to start with. The states of Ky., Tn., In, Mo, etc., has been hammered extremely hard this week. This past winter in much of the country was almost non-existent, while much of Europe (not just the Scandanavian part) had sub-zero weather and bitter blizzards for weeks at a time.

The current warm winter is due to a positive Arctic Oscillation (AO), not global warming. Weather and climate are not the same.

 

[RickG]

Why do you equate tornadoes with climate change? Al Gore?

This is the falacy of climate change. By coining that term anything can be deemed climate change now. Of course the climate has cycles. Temps will naturally move up or down. What I am not convinced of is that man is contributing to the collapse of the ecology. That there is a phenomanon as Global Warming taking place today that is any more than natural occurrance. When I hear polititions like Rick Perry labeling those who are skeptical of Global Warming as racists, and others equating them to holocaust deniers, I begin to question motives, how much is political speak out for cash, and how much is actuall science. Add to that Climate gate, ausi gate and the faking of memos to demonize skeptics and I am sorry, I am skeptical.



Flags raise for me when people get unduly upset. When an anger arises beyond the effect of the issue, something else other than science is involved.

There is a difference between what climate change skeptics say climatologists say, and what climatologists actually say.

Specific weather events are not caused by global warming. Climate change is a trend, not an event. All climate scientists say is that a warming atmosphere can contribute to "more extreme" events, not "more" events.

 

[RickG]

I agree with you. What was normal 20 40 years ago isn't today. That is a very small slice of time geologically speaking. The climate was much warmer during the medieval warm period then today. I lay the whole thing out on my blog with numerous sources (30 I think) that show there is nothing to be alarmed about.

Strange, I didn't see anything on your cite that indicated anything about climate change. Please post a link. Concerning the 20 to 40 years ago comment, do you know the definition of climate and do you know why it was cooler, say 1940 to 1970s?

Nevertheless, you are entirely incorrect about the medieval period being warmer than today.

Global surface temperature reconstruction from Mann et al. (2008)

 

[idscience]

The peer review process is how good science gets published and bad science doesn't. It not censored in any way. The graphs I showed are not models. They are actual recorded data plotted on a graph. Giving citation only asks for you to give your source. There is nothing keeping you from posting your source as you did with the youtube video. As for climate science frauds by legitimate climate scientists, there have been none. Absolutely none at all. There have been accusations that prompted 5 official inquires where no wrong doing was found. Would you be refering to the East Anglican Univ. Climate unit where their server was hacked? Let's see now. Illegal break-in of a email server, illegally publishing "parts" of those emails and misrepresenting them. You see idscience, when you compare the entire email in context with the "quote mined" part you can see the deliberate misrepresentation. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Do you condone that kind of behavior? As for the IPCC, WG1, the work group that reviewed the science and published it are composed of 100% practicing climate scientists and absolutely no politicians.

Might I suggest learning something about a subject before blindly criticizing it.

Global warming skeptics make themselves look bad.

Your first chart for example is an "adjusted" chart" Code for fudged the numbers. On my blog I have the actual chart with the raw data. I believe that is the chart from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA). They have been caught manipulating their data just like the Brits.]/quote]

My first chart is linked from NASA's website. Are you accusing NASA of publishing fudged numbers. Perhaps you should look at the actual published numbers which can be obtained from NASA. And where did you get your numbers, couldn't possibly be from NASA as you claim because they are different. Here's some direct links to the data.

And what about the other graph. Its shows plots from the five major climate organizations, one of which I already pointed out is by Dr. Roy Spencer for whom I already showed his flawed paper. Even his graph supports the other four climate organizations that warming is occurring.

More baseless accusations based what appears to be ideology rather than a review and understanding of the actual science.

Instead making a lot of accusations that I know you can't back up, how about choosing a specific attribute why you think there is no global warming and let's discuss it, sticking to the topic and the science. You choose the specific topic; ex: It's the Sun, It's cooling, It's not CO2, etc...

You seem to be taking this personally. I am not attacking you just showing you why I don't believe the scientists who are saying the sky is falling.

Your charts are adjusted. They are smoothed over. Not the raw data. the chart I cited is the raw data and there is no rise in temperature.
The kangaroo court who aquited those in climate gate was a little one sided. Do some research into who was on the board. They were all "sky is falling" supporters. Remember the IPCC is a political organization not a scientific one.
Illegal breakin? Not that it makes any difference to the substance of the lies that were uncovered but, the papers were leaked, no server was hacked. That was a ploy to get the attention off the actual emails.


No censorship?

“The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.”

A report on Channel 7's news at 6pm this evening alleges that sea level data, showing rates of rise far lower than those projected, were censored to avoid conflicting with government policy on climate change.
Sea levels at Fort Denison are rising at only 1mm per year or less, flatly contradicting the apocalyptic projections of the state and federal governments. Doug Lord, a global warming believer and coastal manager at the climate change department until February 2010, said "Both papers were accepted and at the last minute both were withdrawn on instructions from the department."
Angus Gordon, a coastal engineer, accused the department of a cover-up, and of suppressing the data in order to support the federal government's position on climate change.

Thre is censorship everywhere, why, trillions of tax payer dollars at stake. Money is driving this bus. (in my humble opinion)

How about the irrational attacks on those who are skeptical of Global Warming? Just a little over the top. Here are some of the terms skeptics were called at the Bali conference.

Bali Exposes US, Canada And Australian Climate Racism,
Climate Terrorism, Climate Criminals And Climate Genocide

Al Gore continued his criticism of climate change skeptics in an interview with Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky on UStream, going as far as to compare them to the racists of the 20th century.

When did things change from scientists dissagree to everyone who doesn't agree with me is a denier? A criminal, a racist?

This type of rhetoric speaks very loudly of desperation and agenda.
Over 30,000 scientists world wide dismiss Global Warming as a threat or even an issue to life.

Again, this is just why I am a skeptic. I see there is evidence of the climate changing but I believe it is part of the natural cycle of the earth. Historical data show much warmer times than today. The scientists are basing their data at the end of a mini ice age. Of course the temps are going to rise, the starting point was already much lower than normal.

Any how, I think we have wrestled this one to the ground. I see your points, and I hope you see mine. I hope we can agree to disagree, and part opponents and not enemies.

 

[RickG]

You seem to be taking this personally. I am not attacking you just showing you why I don't believe the scientists who are saying the sky is falling.

They are not saying the sky is falling. Try looking at climate science projections and compare it with actual recorded data. Arctic ice mass loss is far exceeding best estimate scenarios. The same is true for sea level rise and CO2 emissions.

Observed global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production compared with IPCC emissions scenarios. The coloured area covers all scenarios used to project climate change by the IPCC (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Observed (red line) and modelled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km2, the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Your charts are adjusted. They are smoothed over. Not the raw data. the chart I cited is the raw data and there is no rise in temperature.

Graphs in any science are not plotted from raw data. They are done so through appropriate statical methods. If you would follow the NASA links I gave you and source the links they provide for data and methods for analyzing that data you would see there are no adjustments, unless you think a 5 year moving average is adjusting data. All of the data used by NASA if freely available along with software to process it. Nothing is being withheld.

The kangaroo court who aquited those in climate gate was a little one sided. Do some research into who was on the board. They were all "sky is falling" supporters. Remember the IPCC is a political organization not a scientific one.

Your use of derogatory comments reveal that you are only interested in your own ideological agenda rather than the science. I suggest you dispense with accusations of wrong doing without evidence. If you think you have supporting evidence, then present it.

Illegal breakin? Not that it makes any difference to the substance of the lies that were uncovered but, the papers were leaked, no server was hacked. That was a ploy to get the attention off the actual emails.

Name one lie and support the accusation.

Thre is censorship everywhere, why, trillions of tax payer dollars at stake. Money is driving this bus. (in my humble opinion)

There are no trillions of dollars given to climate science research. You made that up. And grant money given to academic research is acquired the same way in all areas of academic study, both scientific and non scientific.

How about the irrational attacks on those who are skeptical of Global Warming? Just a little over the top. Here are some of the terms skeptics were called at the Bali conference.

When did things change from scientists dissagree to everyone who doesn't agree with me is a denier? A criminal, a racist?

I believe you've got it backwards. Practicing climate scientists are making no such remarks. Conversely, a number of climate scientists have received death threats.

Death threats, intimidation and abuse: climate change scientist Michael E. Mann counts the cost of honesty | Science | The Observer

This type of rhetoric speaks very loudly of desperation and agenda.
Over 30,000 scientists world wide dismiss Global Warming as a threat or even an issue to life.

Yes, I'm aware of the Oregon petition. Something you may not know about it is that almost none of them have no experience or even background in climatology. In fact, many are connected with the social sciences.

Conversely, when you look at all the published science by climate scientists, well over 97% of them agree that global warming is anthropogenic and an problem for the future.

Anderegg 2010 And please follow thing Anderegg link. It is published research by the National Academy of Sciences.

Additionally:

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
• Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
• British Antarctic Survey
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Environmental Protection Agency
• European Federation of Geologists
• European Geosciences Union
• European Physical Society
• Federation of American Scientists
• Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
• Geological Society of America
• Geological Society of Australia
• International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
• International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Royal Meteorological Society
• Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
• Royal Society of Canada
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Academie des Sciences (France)
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
• Indian National Science Academy
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
• National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."​

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

• African Academy of Sciences
• Cameroon Academy of Sciences
• Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Kenya National Academy of Sciences
• Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
• Nigerian Academy of Sciences
• l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
• Uganda National Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Science of South Africa
• Tanzania Academy of Sciences
• Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
• Zambia Academy of Sciences
• Sudan Academy of Sciences

[/quote]Again, this is just why I am a skeptic. I see there is evidence of the climate changing but I believe it is part of the natural cycle of the earth. Historical data show much warmer times than today. The scientists are basing their data at the end of a mini ice age. Of course the temps are going to rise, the starting point was already much lower than normal.[/quote]


That would be great if it were a natural cycle, but thus far no one on either side of the debate has been able to show any natural cycle that is causing the current warming trend. Conversely, the physics of and effects of CO2 have been well know for over 150 years. The causes and effects are fairly well known and understood from what is found in the paleoclimate record and what has been directly observed. There are unknowns and uncertainty, but that is in the details, not the known facts.


Again, I ask you to dispense with the accusations and name calling and engage in specific scientific discussion.



What is causing the current warming.

 

[farmer joe]

This is out of my league, but with all the other stuff going on with cloud seeding , Haarp and tesla's idea's, its getting really hard to tell which side is right. It's even harder to tell whether any of it is natural or manmade. Whatever happened to people being truthful? It is amazing what money and power can do to them.The lie's are becoming so overwhelming, no one knows what the truth is anymore. I know I don't know the truth eitherway.

 

[idscience]

wow Rick, taking this a little persoan? It's a hoax buddy.

 

[RickG]

wow Rick, taking this a little persoan? It's a hoax buddy.

All I have seen posted by you is unsupported accusations with political and ideological overtones. You haven't presented a single thing showing any science.

This is a physical science forum. Discuss the science and present your evidence. This is not a political forum.

 

[RickG]

This is out of my league, but with all the other stuff going on with cloud seeding , Haarp and tesla's idea's, its getting really hard to tell which side is right. It's even harder to tell whether any of it is natural or manmade. Whatever happened to people being truthful? It is amazing what money and power can do to them.The lie's are becoming so overwhelming, no one knows what the truth is anymore. I know I don't know the truth eitherway.

None of that has any effect on climate change.

 

[idscience]

All I have seen posted by you is unsupported accusations with political and ideological overtones. You haven't presented a single thing showing any science.

This is a physical science forum. Discuss the science and present your evidence. This is not a political forum.

That is what all you guys say. I have listed lots of evidece. you show a chart and thats evidence. I show a chart and its not. Your in denile bubba.
this lays the whole farce out clearly.

what's up? do you have shares in Gore's companies?

CLIMATE OOOPS! « evolutionnointelligenceallowed

 

[Elendur]

That is what all you guys say. I have listed lots of evidece. you show a chart and thats evidence. I show a chart and its not. Your in denile bubba.
this lays the whole farce out clearly.

what's up? do you have shares in Gore's companies?

It's important to note who are funding and/or publishing the results of those studies. What several have written during this thread is "follow the money", think about it for a while why they would write that.

Done?

Take some information from less biased sources.

 

[RickG]

That is what all you guys say. I have listed lots of evidece. you show a chart and thats evidence. I show a chart and its not. Your in denile bubba.
this lays the whole farce out clearly.

Yes, it does lay it out quite clearly. I posted a NASA graph which is updated every month. I also gave you the link to it and the data for it as well as a plethora of other climate data. You have not posted a chart in this thread. Where is your data to show global warming is not occurring? We have all been waiting to see it.

 

[idscience]

Rick, you are sounding a little neurotic. You said you read my blog. It is all clearly stated there, so why are you asking me to reblog it all here. You won't understand it any better if I rewrite it all here if you didn't understand any of it on my blog.

You keep stating NASA, NASA. the charts are smoothed over, it is not raw data here is
Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens… – Telegraph Blogs

I have several links on my blog to fudging the numbers, leaving out sensor stations, hiding evidence of cooling, on and on. This is not the behavior of legitimate science. Not to mention the censorship of any scientists who disagreed the world was coming to an end.

You may recognize this from my blog.
“… challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013… According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.” (The Dailymail)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc&feature=fvst

 

[AV1611VET]

I have several links on my blog to fudging the numbers, leaving out sensor stations, hiding evidence of cooling, on and on.

Here is a doosey of a discussion between Glenn Morton and Thaumaturgy: 1

And here is Rick's rather unique assessment: 22

 

[idscience]

I don't understand how Co2 has become such a poison. it makes up less than 1 percent of the atmosphere yet it controls the fate of the earth. There are some maniacs who want to get rid of all the Co2. Wander how the tree huggers will like that.

Who cares that all the corn crops in America are being used for fuel now instead of food. Who cares that millions are dieing of starvation because of this fraud.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I don't understand how Co2 has become such a poison. it makes up less than 1 percent of the atmosphere yet it controls the fate of the earth. There are some maniacs who want to get rid of all the Co2. Wander how the tree huggers will like that.

Who cares that all the corn crops in America are being used for fuel now instead of food. Who cares that millions are dieing of starvation because of this fraud.

You are too funny.

Corn/product is in just about everything you eat. In fact, if you were to have your body assayed, you'd find that you are made up of corn.


Corn Allergen List - Corn Allergens

King Corn - Corn, It's What You're Made Out Of - YouTube

And if by "all the corn crops in America are being used for fuel now instead of food," you meant 30%, then you'd be right.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/11/us-usa-ethanol-corn-idUSN1149215820070611

 

[RickG]

Rick, you are sounding a little neurotic. You said you read my blog. It is all clearly stated there, so why are you asking me to reblog it all here. You won't understand it any better if I rewrite it all here if you didn't understand any of it on my blog.

You keep stating NASA, NASA. the charts are smoothed over, it is not raw data here is
Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens… – Telegraph Blogs

I have several links on my blog to fudging the numbers, leaving out sensor stations, hiding evidence of cooling, on and on. This is not the behavior of legitimate science. Not to mention the censorship of any scientists who disagreed the world was coming to an end.

You may recognize this from my blog.
“… challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013… According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.” (The Dailymail)

Nice cherry pick and quote mine.

1. 2007 was the lowest sea ice extent. You are purposely not looking at the trend.

2. More important than sea ice extent is sea ice mass, which is loosing more each year and not gaining it back.

3. No climate scientist or research unit has ever said Arctic sea at the North Pole ice will be gone by 2013. What they said was the Northwest passage could be ice free in the summer. That has already happened.

Here's a direct quote from the NSIDC:

"After a period of slow melt from late July through early August, Arctic ice extent is again declining at a brisk pace, but remains higher than for 2007, the record low year. Data also indicate continued thinning of the ice. With about a month left in the sea ice melt season, the amount of further ice loss will depend mostly on weather patterns."

"As of August 14, 2011, Arctic sea ice extent was 5.56 million square kilometers (2.15 million square miles), 2.11 million square kilometers (815,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for that day, and 220,000 square kilometers (84,900 square miles) above the extent on that day in 2007."

In climate science trends are used, not cherry picked dates. 2007 was an anomaly. You are deliberately misrepresenting what the NSIDC says about sea ice extent and sea ice mass. That is blatantly dishonest.

Source: NISDC August « 2011 « Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Source: NISDC August « 2011 « Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

July 2011 compared to previous years Average Arctic sea ice extent for July 2011 was the lowest for July in the satellite data record. The previous lowest year for July was 2007, which went on to break the record for the lowest ice extent at the end of the melt season. Including 2011 the linear trend for July now stands at -6.8% per decade. (source: Source: NISDC August « 2011 « Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis)


I hope you are proud of yourself for deliberately misrepresenting the data posted by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

 

[idscience]

Rick, your not convincing me dude. It's a farce. I don't believe anything those lyin zipperheads say now. Their cred is Looooooooooooooooooong Goooooooooooooone. They can make the data say what ever they want it to say.
They can't tell me tomorrows weather man, how can they have a clue about 10-50 years from now. The climate changes naturally. In fact, it had to be changed to climate change because is wasn't getting warmer. Global Warming had to go.
Now anything that happens is claimed climate change. Please!! It will change and I'm not worried about it, and I'm certainly not going to fund the united nations. I would rather waste my own money thank you.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't understand how Co2 has become such a poison. it makes up less than 1 percent of the atmosphere yet it controls the fate of the earth.

Sometimes things in small amounts can have a very large impact. Greenhouse gases are such things.

The Greenhouse effect is not really "controversial" at all and has been know since about the middle 19th century. The fact that CO2 and other greenhouse gases exist in small amounts in the atmosphere is hardly a problem for the hypothesis.

Remember, H2O is a strong greenhouse gas as well. However the real problem lies in how easily excess CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere and the answer to that is: not very. While an individual CO2 molecule may reside in the atmosphere only a short while, it will likely only come out by exchange with another CO2 molecule from the ocean, and in the end the net balance of CO2 doesn't drop.

H20 vapor, however, can come back out relatively quickly when it gets too high in concentration in the atmosphere.

CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas and it takes a long time to remove the excess. And it's not the only one in the atmosphere.

We know from looking at the geologic record how CO2 behaves in the earth's climate forcing from times long before humans had any impact. Now that humans have dumped sufficient carbon in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels to cause a measurable change in the isotopic composition of the atmospheric C exactly as one would expect from the addition of gigatons of fossil-fuel derived CO2 we kind of know what to expect. We have a good idea of the "climate sensitivity" of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, we know how much we're putting in.

So we kinda know how this game plays out.

There are some maniacs who want to get rid of all the Co2.

Do you know of any legitimate scientifically literate group that supports that ridiculous concept?

I don't. I've never heard anyone rationally suggest that as an ideal.

So if you find one nutjob who thinks that's a good idea you have the right to laugh at them.

CO2 is a natural part of the carbon cycle. What isn't natural is gigatons of CO2 from massive coal-fired powerplants and thousands and thousands of cars running around pumping it into the atmosphere.

Who cares that all the corn crops in America are being used for fuel now instead of food. Who cares that millions are dieing of starvation because of this fraud.

That's a false dichotomy. Anthropogenic Global Climate change is likely quite real and may very well end up in much, much worse catastrophe and using food crops for fuel is also a very bad idea.

So ignoring one to focus on the other means you just pick one way of harming people.

However, agw does have the wonderful added benefit of possibly causing untold irreversible damage to human civilization. Meanwhile we can just pass laws to keep people from diverting corn to ethanol for fuel.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The peer review process is censored.

I've been both peer reviewed and a peer reviewer, I think your assessment is flawed. Can you give us both an analysis showing systemic bias in peer review and throw in a few of your personal experiences with peer review.

Your charts are very interesting but are the result of faulty models.

What "models" are you referring to in regards to measured temperature ?

There are a number of ways that surface temperature station data is treated to ensure the data is made amenable to mapping over large "gridded averages" and to ensure that the data pass Quality tests and missing data is interpolated, but I am guessing you are conflating "climate models" with "measured temperature".

The scientists involved in the climate issue have been shown to be frauds.

THIS HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO BE THE CASE DESPITE MULTIPLE INVESTIGATIONS ON THE HEELS OF CLIMATEGATE.

Please stop passing this off as a "fact" unless you can back it up with a citation.

Otherwise you are propagating an untruth.

Climate change (formally global warming) has become a political issue.

Actually the science is not as controversial as some would like it to be and indeed the reason it has become "political" is because a bunch of scientific illiterates driven by greed and fear of having to moderate their appetites with regards to energy have turned it into another "Creationist" "teach the controversy" moment.

There really isn't that much controversy. When about 97% of the world's climatologists feel agw is likely real I'm curious how many would have to agree for it to be considered "not particularly controversial".

I know, just like the creationists it has to be absolute 100% unanimity.

Peter Gleick[/font]

. His crime, obtaining documents from the Hartland Institute by lying about who he was. Much of the narrative is about this lapse in judgement, but there is more. Among the boring budget documents was one climate strategy paper that allegedly revealed a sinister plot to dissuade K-12 teachers from teaching science. The problem was, it was a fake to make global warming skeptics look bad. Gleick sent the documents off anonymously to several journalists in hopes of restarting an issue where non exists anymore.

It is ironic that you want everyone to be fully aware of how Heartland Institute was bamboozled by Gleick, but you earlier made your comment that the climate scientsts were "shown to be frauds" when no such thing occurred.

So will you be equally sanguine when a couple years down the road agw proponents cite the Heartland document that may (or may not be) a forgery as "fact"?


Your first chart for example is an "adjusted" chart" Code for fudged the numbers. On my blog I have the actual chart with the raw data. I believe that is the chart from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA). They have been caught manipulating their data just like the Brits.[/quote]

You really should get more familiar with the "standard" graphs in this discussion. Not to mention the fact that Rick said explicitly this was from NASA.

So you accuse someone of manipulating data on a chart you don't even seem familiar with. Which is ironic because anyone who's been around this topic for more than a couple months can usually recognize the distinct red, black and green of the NASA graph. It's referenced so often!

When you can't get critical papers published, and you can't get raw data when requested or are told it as lost or deleted, you have to wander.
These guys have lost all their cred, and my respect.

Well, as I believe Rick has already pointed out, much of this data is freely available and has been for quite some time.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data

So when you get all the data, are you going to process it and find the errors? Yeah there's some data that has been lost over the years. But a lot of is freely available and has been for a looooong time. Some ever before the intarwebs.