Slashdot Mirror

https://climateaudit.org/2019/... be careful who you believe

Yes, I agree. I put that part in quotes because it's a famous statement from a climate "scientist" (Phil Jones) over 10 years ago.

“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Here are the current top fifteen climate science reasons for not disclosing data or code:

15. It’s on a diskette somewhere, but I don’t know where.
14. If we get a good climatic story from a chronology, we write a paper using it. That is our funded mission! The rejected data are set aside and not archived.
13. A source code request by a reviewer is unprecedented in the 28 years since I founded the journal.
12. It’s on our FTP site, but I’ve forgotten the location.
11. His research is published in the peer-reviewed literature which has passed muster with the editors of those journals and other scientists who have reviewed his manuscripts. You are free to your analysis of climate data and he is free to his.
10. With regard to the additional experimental results that you request, our view is that this goes beyond an obligation on the part of the authors.
9. It’s password protected.
8. It’s the property of the originating author.
7. It will be available after we publish an article.
6. We’re planning to publish another article.
5. As an ex- marine I refer to the concept of a few good men. A lesser amount of good data is better without a copious amount of poor data stirred in.
4. I’ve misplaced it.
3. 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.
2. Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in.
1. No reply

https://climateaudit.org/2005/...

First off, that's a horrible chart to be referencing, as it's a prediction output from a simple climate model. But let's look at it anyway. At 2000Gt of CO2, we have about 1.2C. double the output to 4000Gt (although I don't know if that will double the concentration in the atmosphere) and we get around 2.4C. Double that agian to 8000Gt, and that puts us up around the 4C mark. So even though this chart is talking about human CO2 output and not the concentration in the atmosphere, it is still giving us roughly 1.2C per doubling.

There are numerous sources for this value, including the IPCC. They give a value of 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2. You can derive the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and calculate the temperature increase.
References to 1.2C per doubling found using a quick google search:
http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/cli...
http://www.climate-skeptic.com...
https://judithcurry.com/2010/1...
https://climateaudit.org/2008/...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ri...

Ooh sounds like a conspiracy theory, do tell so it can be debunked.

Jones refused to release his data and his algorithms meaning it was impossible to vet and review his claims. Of course, Michael Mann (he who wanted to hide the decline in his own data) now states that we don't really need data because we can just see what happens. Data is irrelevant, anecdotal evidence is all that one needs.

The bit of video I saw showed Dr Spencer arguing against genetic randomness. Maybe he believes the only other possibility is Intelligent Design? I don't know. I haven't looked into it.

And I would absolutely not be surprised IF there was contradictory evidence to "genetic randomness" that is simply ignored or dismissed out of hand. Because that's how people behave, and how you are behaving when you ignore and dismiss all the evidence that shows Cooks paper is complete garbage, regardless of whether his results happen to be consistent with other papers. Integrity of method is more important than producing "correct" results.

But I know nothing about competing genetic randomness theories, so my lack of surprise has nothing to do with the actual science, in case you misunderstood. (I haven't looked into it.) But I won't be surprised if that doesn't stop you from trying to paint me as a "neo-creationist" or whatever. Because that's how people behave.

As to the graph I posted by Spencer, what if it's accurate? What then?? Will you become a creationist?

https://climateaudit.org/2016/...

The specific prediction of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that the Lower Tropical Troposphere (LTT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. We do not see this. In fact, the OPPOSITE is seen. Using the Scientific Method this means that the AGW hypothesis is not only not sustainable using the observed data (that is, reality) but it is falsified.

Bill Nye is refusing to use the Scientific Method. That means he is actually the ANTI-Science Guy. He is trying to bamboozle people with rhetoric and partial information, instead of telling the whole story and using the Scientific Method, which inexorably leads to the conclusion that the IPCC computer simulations do not model the effects of water vapor/clouds correctly (their Transient Climate Sensitivity estimates are a whopping factor of 4 out - worse even than the results I'm used to as a former astrophysicist). This means the warming we see is natural (which should be obvious, since it started 160 years ago when we were still using horses and mostly agrarian).

Ignore the rhetoric. Look at the observational data and compare with the predictions made by the AGW hypothesis. AGW is falsified. If this was normal science then people would have accepted they got the theory wrong, but since science has been hijacked by political "Lysenkosim" then we see persistent propaganda that denies the observed reality (kinda like that old man that wants to pretend to be a 6 year old girl).

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES ! Stop pretending he does. AGW is not supported by the data.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
http://docs.house.gov/meetings...
From https://climateaudit.org/2016/...

Do you want to be one of the people who pretends the naked Emperor has no clothes? is that the smart move? NO ! instead, stop listening to rhetoric from politicized Cultural Marxist Politically Correct flunkies like Bill Nye and look at the OBSERVATIONAL DATA - all of it!

If you disagree then that's cool, please give me your data and we can discuss it. In Science observational data is king. Too back Bill Nye is refusing to acknowledge this (or perhaps he is simply incompetent and doesn't know all the data).

The PAGES 2K study on "Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two milennia" seems to be the most comprehensive round up of the science. Here is a PDF copy of the paper. [nerc.ac.uk]

Thanks for posting data. The PAGES 2k study is analyzed and the techniques and proxies are pretty well independently analyzed here
http://climateaudit.org/2013/0...
http://climateaudit.org/2013/0...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Now I'm going to take the data in your Pages 2k report and ask you some questions about it:
1) True or false: Antarctica was MUCH warmer from 0 to ~1300 AD than it is today?
2) True or false: Europe war much warmer from 0 to 150 AD, and 725-750 Ad than it is today?
3) True or false: Asia was as warm in 1300 -1325 as it is today, and 40% of the data ia missing (so could have been warm when Europe and Antarctica were) ?
4) True or false: North America was VERY MUCH warmer from 700 - 1200 AD than it is dot, and over 50% of the data is missing ?
5) True or false: Australasia is warmest today, but was nearly as warm from 1225 -1275 AD, has 50% missing data, and is based on the cherry-picked Gergis data ?
6) True or false: South America was as warm as it is today from 1250 - 1325 AD, and 40% of its data is missing ?
7) True or false: Antarctica was VERY MUCH warmer from 150 - 1050 AD and 1150 - 1225 AD and 1675 - 1700 than today, with 7% of its data missing?
8) True or false: Statistically it was globally as warm in 0 - 250 AD (Roman Warm Period) and 850 - 950 AD as it is today ?
9) True or false: based on the GISP2 data it was much warmer before between 8000BC - 0 AD than it is today?
10) True or false: there was global cooling around 1700 and 1800 (with some apparently latitude based lag) ?
11) True or false: the global cooling is likely to be due to volcanic and solar effects?
12) True or false: the end of global cooling in 1825 cannot be due to humans but is probably due to changes in volcanic and solar effects?
13) True or false: the modern warming we see started in North Latitudes started before humans could have any impacts?
14) True or false: after cooling we expect warming ?
15) True or false: there is regional climatic variation and this is all natural ?
16) True or false: there have been periods of global climate variation (both warming and cooling) in the past and this has been all natural ?
17) True or false: even Michael Mann admits that the nearly two decades of 'Pause' is real ?
18) True or false: people who think politicians can control the climate are insane ?
19) True or false: water vapor is the dominant 'greenhouse gas' that controls the climate ?
20) True or false: the TCS and ECS due to water vapor is observed to be slightly negative and thus the CAGW theory is impossible ?
21) True or false: humans will run out of easily recoverable fossil fuels well before CO2-induced heating becomes dangerous ?

Of course I know about the Hockey Stick graph (which has been confirmed by more than a dozen similar studies done since it first came out). What does that have to do with your claim that Mann and others are saying there is no natural warming for the last 1000 or 2000 years? The Hockey Stick graph clearly shows that it was warmer 1000 years ago and was gradually cooling until the recent sharp uptick in temperatures.

The Hockey Stick is completely debunked. Its statistical analysis is invalid and has been comprehensively shot down by McIntyre et al. As "A Disgrace to the Profession" points out, hundreds of climate scientists refute the Hockey Stick analyses due to the overwhelming evidence of higher temperatures in the past

The PAGES 2K study on "Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two milennia" seems to be the most comprehensive round up of the science. Here is a PDF copy of the paper. [nerc.ac.uk]

Thanks for posting data. The PAGES 2k study is analyzed and the techniques and proxies are pretty well independently analyzed here
http://climateaudit.org/2013/0...
http://climateaudit.org/2013/0...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Now I'm going to take the data in your Pages 2k report and ask you some questions about it:
1) True or false: Antarctica was MUCH warmer from 0 to ~1300 AD than it is today?
2) True or false: Europe war much warmer from 0 to 150 AD, and 725-750 Ad than it is today?
3) True or false: Asia was as warm in 1300 -1325 as it is today, and 40% of the data ia missing (so could have been warm when Europe and Antarctica were) ?
4) True or false: North America was VERY MUCH warmer from 700 - 1200 AD than it is dot, and over 50% of the data is missing ?
5) True or false: Australasia is warmest today, but was nearly as warm from 1225 -1275 AD, has 50% missing data, and is based on the cherry-picked Gergis data ?
6) True or false: South America was as warm as it is today from 1250 - 1325 AD, and 40% of its data is missing ?
7) True or false: Antarctica was VERY MUCH warmer from 150 - 1050 AD and 1150 - 1225 AD and 1675 - 1700 than today, with 7% of its data missing?
8) True or false: Statistically it was globally as warm in 0 - 250 AD (Roman Warm Period) and 850 - 950 AD as it is today ?
9) True or false: based on the GISP2 data it was much warmer before between 8000BC - 0 AD than it is today?
10) True or false: there was global cooling around 1700 and 1800 (with some apparently latitude based lag) ?
11) True or false: the global cooling is likely to be due to volcanic and solar effects?
12) True or false: the end of global cooling in 1825 cannot be due to humans but is probably due to changes in volcanic and solar effects?
13) True or false: the modern warming we see started in North Latitudes started before humans could have any impacts?
14) True or false: after cooling we expect warming ?
15) True or false: there is regional climatic variation and this is all natural ?
16) True or false: there have been periods of global climate variation (both warming and cooling) in the past and this has been all natural ?
17) True or false: even Michael Mann admits that the nearly two decades of 'Pause' is real ?
18) True or false: people who think politicians can control the climate are insane ?
19) True or false: water vapor is the dominant 'greenhouse gas' that controls the climate ?
20) True or false: the TCS and ECS due to water vapor is observed to be slightly negative and thus the CAGW theory is impossible ?
21) True or false: humans will run out of easily recoverable fossil fuels well before CO2-induced heating becomes dangerous ?

Of course I know about the Hockey Stick graph (which has been confirmed by more than a dozen similar studies done since it first came out). What does that have to do with your claim that Mann and others are saying there is no natural warming for the last 1000 or 2000 years? The Hockey Stick graph clearly shows that it was warmer 1000 years ago and was gradually cooling until the recent sharp uptick in temperatures.

The Hockey Stick is completely debunked. Its statistical analysis is invalid and has been comprehensively shot down by McIntyre et al. As "A Disgrace to the Profession" points out, hundreds of climate scientists refute the Hockey Stick analyses due to the overwhelming evidence of higher temperatures in the past

Unlike you, science doesn't have agendas

How sweet. Also extremely naïve and a complete straw man. Science cannot have an agenda. It's a noun. However, people and institutions can have agendas which range from simply needing to pay their mortgage or gain tenure, to promoting a political position (activism). This is the basis of the complete misnomer that is the skepticalscience website. A real sceptic can be found here for example, or here. The former is the guy who debunked Michael Mann's statistical shenanigans that made the medieval warm period "disappear".

And Ted Cruz? He's a politician. Too slick by half. I doubt his authenticity. He has an agenda.

Lol - I'll cite the article if anyone is actually interested, but I enjoy the fact that you know what I want.

I knew what you meant because it's been brought up by other deniers and shot down repeatedly here already.

Well, once again we establish a proof point that as much as we want to believe certain things does not make them to be true. I was not making any assertions as to whether climate change was or wasn't real, so no need to get your warmist knickers in a twist, I was merely pointing out that there are other factors potentially involved and not all the world's ills are due to climate change.If that upsets you, then I would recommend focusing your attention on deterministic and binary logic problems, not poorly understood complex ones. For the record, here is one link to many articles that discuss the issue, with at least one estimate that suggests that groundwater usage has 3x the impact of icewater melt on global sea levels: https://www.documentcloud.org/.... Nonetheless, this case still very much to do with human activity, so interesting that you should have an issue with it, when it nominally supports your overall narrative. But if I must provide something to get your teeth into, here is a good article to get your heart racing if you are looking for certainty and consensus regarding ice in the antarctic: http://climateaudit.org/2015/1... Enjoy!

There are several ways we can use technology to promote effective climate action:

First, we need to put an immediate stop to the UAH and RSS satellite measurements of surface temperature, or at least publication of the results. None of our models is able to explain why the temperatures haven't continued to rise as precipitously as we expected after the 90's. The pause is an embarrassment. Ergo, the pause doesn't exist, and we don't want to hear any more about it. The science is settled, OK?

Second, we need to deal once and for all with this weird thing called "the internet", where people apparently are free to say things that we disagree with. A good start would be criminal and civil lawsuits against individuals who express skepticism of our climate agenda. This is already underway, as Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn for his aspersions about the hockey stick. And others have proposed using the RICO laws to shut down other speech that doesn't toe the line. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, if you please. We are all very serious scientists and public servants, and it's the other side who are corrupted by dirty money.

I think you have it backwards.

http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...

They are indeed scammers and charlatans.

http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...

At the very least, its being profited by those who know how to game the NSF grant system.

Like the author of the RICO letter.

http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...

I would agree.

Lets start with the main author of this letter.

http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...

We should first address the fraud perpetrated by the main author of this RICO letter.

http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...

Ah, but they are right.

http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...

At least, the main author of this letter has been part of a conspiracy to defraud tax payers money through NSF grants.

Seems the host and main author of the RICO20 letter has been playing fast and loose with NSF grant money.

http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...

Alternatively, climate scientists are getting real tired of being publicly maligned, and want some investigation to see if there's a massive conspiracy behind that.

I keep thinking about the cluelessness behind your statement. It's been four weeks and the letter in question has been pulled. Why? Maybe because the guy who was hosting the letter and who is the first signature on that latter, a Jagdish Shukla, realized he was going to be investigated as a result.

Roger Pielke Jr recently made the remarkable discovery that, in addition to his university salary from George Mason University (reported by Pielke as $250,000), Jagadish Shukla, the leader of the #RICO20, together with his wife, had received a further $500,000 more in 2014 alone from federal climate grants funnelled through a Shukla-controlled âoenon-profitâ (Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc.), yielding total income in 2014 of approximately $750,000.

Actually, the numbers are even worse than Pielke thought.

• Pielke had quoted Shuklaâ(TM)s 2013 university salary, but his university salary had increased more than 25% between 2013 and 2014: from $250,816 in 2013 to $314,000 in 2014.
• In addition, the âoenon-profitâ organization had also employed one of Shuklaâ(TM)s children (not reported, but say $90,000); and,
• IGES transferred $100,000 from its climate grants to a second corporation controlled by the Shukla family (the Institute for Global Education Equality of Opportunity and Prosperity, Inc.), which in turn transferred $100,000 to an educational charity in Shuklaâ(TM)s home town in India, doubtless a worthy charity, but one that Shukla could have supported from his own already generous stipend.

If the Pandora's box of RICO gets opened, it'll be interesting to see how many of the people who signed this particular letter will become RICO targets. (perhaps under the charge of conspiracy to defraud the public of tens of millions of dollars in research funding over a twenty year period?)

Five other George Mason employees were RICO20 signatories, four of whom are long-time Shukla associates: Dirmeyer, Straus, Paul Schopf and Barry Klinger. (Itâ(TM)s interesting that James Kinter didnâ(TM)t sign it.) The other George Mason RICO 20 signatory, Edward Maibach, is in some sort of climate communications and, together with Heidi Cullen, holds a $2,998,178 grant from NSF. Many of the other RICO20 signatories had previous associations with IGES. Kevin Trenberth and Mike Wallace had both been on its âoeScience Advisory Committeeâ in the past. Nearly all of the RICO20 signatories, including Trenbeth andWallace, attended a large symposium in April 2015 to honor Shukla â" see picture at link.

I recall when it was big news that a notorious Harvard professor, Willie Soon had received over a million dollars since 2001 to fund his research. Here, we have someone who has received tens of millions of dollars over a similar time period to fund his research and whose family has siphoned off somewhere around $600k in just 2014 from that funding. How come it's just fine when your side does it (despite being at least an order of magnitude larger in scale)?

There're reasons I think the current concern over AGW is in large part a scam. This easy money, which no one seems too concerned about, is a big reason why.

I'm sorry, you linked to the spin about the subject.

You do know John Cook runs SKS and he is Mann's best bud.

If you want to know what its all about, by the person who debunked it (you can believe him or not) this is what you need to read:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/1...

However, rather than this being a "single lapse of judgement", to my knowledge, there is NOT A SINGLE graphic in "peer reviewed literature" that shows the Briffa decline in a spaghetti graph comparison of temperature reconstructions.

I've done a quick inventory below (and other examples will come to mind) and re-examined the handling of the Briffa reconstruction in the spaghetti graph in each article. In 22 of the 28 diagrams listed below, the Briffa reconstruction has been truncated to hide-the-decline (following the practice of IPCC AR3 where Mann had been Lead Author.) As an alternative to showing the decline, Mann, in 1999, proposed that IPCC simply not show the Briffa reconstruction. This practice has been followed in 6 of the 28 listed below, including the influential 2006 NAS report and 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding (which used the diagram from the NAS report.) But remarkably, not a single one contains a graphic comparing the actual Briffa reconstruction to other reconstructions.

Since the Yamal controversy happened when you were in grade school, you can be forgiven for your ignorance

At their own risk, indeed. Many (not all I admit) sceptic scientists have been publishing good solid work "at their own risk", but there is no one there to protect them when they are bullied, harassed, rejected, fired.

The science is hard to get through some folks heads, even many scientists. Confirmation bias exists, on both sides of the debate.

You can take your hurt feelings about duplicity and personal attacks and look in a mirror. Read my first line.

Cherry picking is done all over the place. Especially in climate science and especially by the alarmist side of the debate.

Talking about money, how are those billions of dollars in grant money comparing to a few million dollars budget of sceptical organisations like the heartland institute?

"Passivity"... REALLY!?!?!?!?\
Alarmists and green organisations are DOWN RIGHT AGGRESSIVE. They always have been.
They call for no less than:

- The death penalty
- Jail time for people expressing their opinions
- Murder
- Exploding heads of those who dont tow the line (look at the propaganda video)

And you go and call this law suit the end of passivity? How you people look at yourselves in the mirror everyday shocks me.

You want to talk about lies and downright BAD scientific research, here is a recent example: http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...

I think Mann's problem with Steyn is that he said Mann "molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science," in an obvious allusion to the Jerry Sandusky case and that his science was fraudulent. Those are serious accusations against a scientist that could affect his future career if taken seriously.

Mann's a big fucking hypocrite then: http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...

Yes.
http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

I see that you don't bother to argue scientifically either. In those Climategate emails, Phil Jones, the former head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, admits to two crimes, obstructing a legitimate FOIA request and tax evasion for a payment to a colleague in Russia (though that would only be a crime in Russia not in the UK where Phil Jones resides). That's two more crimes than you'll find rummaging around in my emails.

Then there's the "Hiding the decline" remark and "Mike's Nature trick". While there's a lot of spin claiming the two aren't related, it remains that Jones reused a scientifically dubious method pioneered by his associate, Mann, and not only did this hide divergent tree ring data (which drops sharply downward after 1960), it also found its way into the next IPCC report.

I guess making stuff up wasn't enough of a betrayal of scientific principles for the author

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

Scroll down to McIntyre and McKitrick 2003* if you forgot how you can feed random noise into Mann's analysis system and have hockey sticks pop out.

I know this will sail past the zealots but when you just put your hands over your ears and shout obscenities everytime some has doubts about your message, people have a tendency to doubt you all the more.

*I also suggest McIntyres site http://climateaudit.org/ . He goes to great lengths to do statistical analysis of the data and usually publishes the source code he uses to do the work.

The problem here is that AGW supporters loved to toss Hurricanes out as "proof" of global warming AND evidence that GW makes Hurricanes worse. The problem is neither is factual, and neither is even remotely accurate. Making falsifiable claims is one reason why I don't listen to AGW proponents any longer. They are just Religious nutjobs, using quasi-science to foist their belief systems on to others. Here is more detailed and significant analysis that basically makes "hurricanes" a non-issue and why the AGW proponents should stop using hurricanes as "proof" of anything.

Here is a good outline of the problem :http://www.growth-dynamics.com/news/DEC27_04.htm

Here is an outline that proves my point ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Or here: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

Or here: http://climateaudit.org/2007/0...

Or here (pay attention to Fig 3-6) https://coaps.fsu.edu/papers/r...

It will be a while before the digging into the data can begin and folks can confirm the results but based on previous efforts, my guess is that the "record" will be seriously skewed. It used to be that in the world of climate getting accurate measurements and letting the data speak for itself was derigeur. More and more (especially in climatology) the process seeems to be to massage the data to ensure that it conforms to a preconcieved theory. That's confirmation bias, not science. For some history of this sort of manipulation with examples.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/8/11/nasa-rewrites-the-past.html

http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/

For the itellectually uncurious, the links will be ignored, and what's presented there shrugged off as akin to Holocaust denial. And in this way Science becomes a religious crusade instead of a methodology used to understand the natural world. Eisenhower's warnings are still spot on ~50 years later.

[logical fallacy (ad hominem) omitted]

It's not a logical fallacy or ad hominem to point out a blatant disregard for scientific principles. You can take this position, but you will be called on it.

I have seen the "skeptics" of climate change state that the independent investigations were, as you have said, "a whitewash" yet they've never provided a shred of credible evidence to support that statement.

That's a lie. I've outlined twice already what was done. I even said that "at least one report dinged him on the data withholding and the WMO graph". You have not refuted or even disputed any of it, but instead came back and tried to excuse it as standard science. Now you come belatedly and ask for new evidence, while refuting none of the old.

At this point the basic charges as I've outlined them aren't in dispute. What's left is personal judgment on the issue. I can point to a prominent scientist like Muller who were outraged by the issue, but I can't force somebody to change their mind who sees the same evidence and shows indifference because they're defending a political cause.

Prove it (let's just get this out of the way: blogs & op-eds do not count as evidence).

Right, you try to dismiss evidence out of hand, even though one of the biggest critics and one of the primary movers in this controversy, Steve McIntyre, details the vast majority of his work on his blog.

I think you've been consorting with Lewandowski and his minions too long.

Lonnie Thomson's missing ice core data, unarchived for 20+ yrs comes to mind, among many. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, it's a religion. The smart money is thinking more about the probable cold years after 2018.

Mannâ(TM)s science is mostly good and I certainly think that his papers have discussed most of the caveats. However his reconstruction failed certain statistics (canâ(TM)t remember if it was r2 or RE) and even his newest reconstruction doesnâ(TM)t validate past 1400 if you donâ(TM)t include disputed series (which I have no idea why heâ(TM)s including them at all). Lets make this clear. There is a hockey stick shape in the data, but the original hockey stick still used the wrong methods and these methods were defended over and over despite being wrong. Just because a better analysis (Wahl and Amman 2007) using the same data shows very little difference doesnâ(TM)t change the fact that the technique was wrong. PCA isnâ(TM)t the best choice anyways⦠but thatâ(TM)s irrelevant.

Similar things were seen in the emails and code from the "Climategate" leak.

There are privately spoken material misgivings about research here that don't find their way into the research or discussion of the research. There are privately spoken biases which are hidden from the public. Now, maybe the level of illegally created public exposure is unfair to climate research, but it is turning up a lot of unscientific bias for a particular interpretation of modern climate.

And I haven't even touched upon what I think is the real problem - who funds climate research and the huge bias towards climate change advocacy that funding creates.

Mannâ(TM)s science is mostly good and I certainly think that his papers have discussed most of the caveats. However his reconstruction failed certain statistics (canâ(TM)t remember if it was r2 or RE) and even his newest reconstruction doesnâ(TM)t validate past 1400 if you donâ(TM)t include disputed series (which I have no idea why heâ(TM)s including them at all). Lets make this clear. There is a hockey stick shape in the data, but the original hockey stick still used the wrong methods and these methods were defended over and over despite being wrong. Just because a better analysis (Wahl and Amman 2007) using the same data shows very little difference doesnâ(TM)t change the fact that the technique was wrong. PCA isnâ(TM)t the best choice anyways⦠but thatâ(TM)s irrelevant.

Similar things were seen in the emails and code from the "Climategate" leak.

There are privately spoken material misgivings about research here that don't find their way into the research or discussion of the research. There are privately spoken biases which are hidden from the public. Now, maybe the level of illegally created public exposure is unfair to climate research, but it is turning up a lot of unscientific bias for a particular interpretation of modern climate.

And I haven't even touched upon what I think is the real problem - who funds climate research and the huge bias towards climate change advocacy that funding creates.

10-15 years is too short a time-scale to make a reliable judgment

I think if you study the analysis at Lucia's and also Steve McIntrye's, you'll understand why it must be so.

Funny. The IPCC puts its certainty at 95%, which is somewhat confusing as it's unable to show any accounting for that figure.
It gets worse. The discrepancy between models and actual reality continues to grow. Surely this makes the science more uncertain, not less. Yet somehow the IPCC find themselves increasingly confident that they're right, even as everybody else becomes increasingly confident that the models they use are wrong. The whole thing is an absolute farce.

Your post is misleading: the 95% is the certainty that climate change is man-made. That has exactly fuck-all to do with how accurately can previously created models predict the rate of said climate change.

Those models, by the way, are being updated constantly, as we learn more about climate's behavior. Science isn't un-changing - quite the opposite! Science changes according to what is learned and what experiments show. Unlike religion, for instance.

Funny. The IPCC puts its certainty at 95%, which is somewhat confusing as it's unable to show any accounting for that figure. According to Professor Judith Curry, the figure is arrived at by getting a load of climate scientists into a room and asking them what their certainty is!

What did my physics professor always say? If you don't know how accurate your measurement is, you haven't made a measurement.

It gets worse. The discrepancy between models and actual reality continues to grow. Surely this makes the science more uncertain, not less. Yet somehow the IPCC find themselves increasingly confident that they're right, even as everybody else becomes increasingly confident that the models they use are wrong. The whole thing is an absolute farce.

I stopped reading or listening to the bastards years ago. It's a religion to people at this point. I've never seen a Christian or Muslim fundamentalist get as foaming at the mouth rabid as some of the climate fundamentalists do. It's shocking to see how the discussion as devolved into what it is now.

I literally have friends that think the world is going to end within the next 5-10 years thanks to Al Gore and Prince Charles running around the world screaming that the sky is falling.

Climate science right now is nothing more than the worlds newest fucking death cult. These fuckers are praying for the end of the world to happen to justify their "models" (or prophecies if you will). Makes me sick.

Funny. The IPCC puts its certainty at 95%, which is somewhat confusing as it's unable to show any accounting for that figure. According to Professor Judith Curry, the figure is arrived at by getting a load of climate scientists into a room and asking them what their certainty is!

What did my physics professor always say? If you don't know how accurate your measurement is, you haven't made a measurement.

It gets worse. The discrepancy between models and actual reality continues to grow. Surely this makes the science more uncertain, not less. Yet somehow the IPCC find themselves increasingly confident that they're right, even as everybody else becomes increasingly confident that the models they use are wrong. The whole thing is an absolute farce.

A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006.

Fascinating. I'm sure you'll explain that away as some kind of warming induced cooling, or other moronic hypothesis to keep your failing thesis alive. Please note that the last paper I read about Antarctic temperatures was by Steig et al. It got pole position in Nature (front cover too) but was shown to be complete and utter bollocks soon afterwards by O'Donnell et al. Of course as is normal in Climate Science, it wasn't retracted despite being shown to be rubbish. And you probably won't read about it on the euphemistically named Skeptical Science website.

For global warming alarmists to be correct about what we need to do, all of the following must be true.
1. The globe is warming.
2. The warming is caused by us.
3. There are not sufficient negative feedbacks to halt it.
4. The net effect is bad.
5. The proposed solution is better than leaving the status quo in place.

It's not dishonest to note problems with all of those points, even if for the sake of discussion you occasionally stipulate one of the other points as true. Each has problems. Note that I'm not claiming the skeptics are right on every point, only that it's not dishonest of them to note problems with each of the above steps.

1. Seems to be at a standstill. It appeared to be waming before, but almost all of the warming (USHCN at least, haven't double checked GHCN) was present in the adjustments not the raw data. Those adjustments can be questioned. My personal suspicion is that the mathematical model they use to adjust for Time of Observation bias magnifies the existing data. It's not a good sign that the successive iterations have had the warming in adjustments go up, while the rate of warming in raw data hasn't shifted significantly. Compare USHCNv2 to v3 sometime. If those adjustments need to be made according to the physics, than that's fine, but it still qualifies as deeply suspicious, and was a legitimate point of contention.

2. Really hard to establish, since we know non human variation has included periods of much greater and lower warmth and CO2 concentrations. Even establishing climate sensitivity is iffy, and the number has changed several times over the past couple of decades. Protestations to the contrary, the form of the equation they use for climate sensitivity is not well sourced.

3. Again, hard to establish. They net direction of water vapor isn't known for certain since more vapor -> more clouds, and clouds are cooling agents. It might not even be unidrectional. It could act as warming at some points, cooling at others. Gotta love chaotic systems. The recent unpredicted pause is evidence that there are negative feedbacks which have not been handled correctly or not included at all.

4. Well, take a look at the warmlist sometime and see if you can understand why this claim is not trusted. Almost all claims on this point don't even acknowledge the possible positive effects of warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the-winter-months/ is one example argument that warmer temps cause fewer deaths.

5. Lots of arguments can be found about adaptation being more effective than cutting CO2 emissions. Certainly more politically achievable in many countries. YMMV.

The equation those numbers are used in may not be as reliable as you think. http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/ It's a fuction they fit the data to, but no evidence that it makes useful predictions so far, especially given that they have to keep revising the numbers.

If Lewandowsky's fraud gets published in Psychological Science, then indeed, peer review is thoroughly broken. Presented as a bait and switch to an ethics panel, with no controls, faked data, and poor analysis, it's like having Science present an article on creationism.

http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/20/conspiracy-theorist-lewandowsky-tries-to-manufacture-doubt/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/23/more-deception-in-the-lewandowsky-data/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/11/17046/

If Lewandowsky's fraud gets published in Psychological Science, then indeed, peer review is thoroughly broken. Presented as a bait and switch to an ethics panel, with no controls, faked data, and poor analysis, it's like having Science present an article on creationism.

http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/20/conspiracy-theorist-lewandowsky-tries-to-manufacture-doubt/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/23/more-deception-in-the-lewandowsky-data/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/11/17046/

If Lewandowsky's fraud gets published in Psychological Science, then indeed, peer review is thoroughly broken. Presented as a bait and switch to an ethics panel, with no controls, faked data, and poor analysis, it's like having Science present an article on creationism.

http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/20/conspiracy-theorist-lewandowsky-tries-to-manufacture-doubt/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/23/more-deception-in-the-lewandowsky-data/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/11/17046/

(that model is now also called the southern oscillation index)

Thank you, that makes it more clear what you're talking about. Now, how you can go from the southern oscillation index (which, is a measurement of the strength of the Southern Oscillation, specifically computed from fluctuations in the surface air pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia), to a *model*, much less a model comparable to modern GCMs - that's a stretch.

I mean, at the best, you can claim to have found a relationship (a model) between surface air pressure in two different locations, and large ocean oscillation - as indeed there might be between say, a doubling of CO2 and temperature. But the direction of causality matters.

If we change the surface air pressure in Darwin and Tahiti, can we change the Southern Oscillation? Of course not. But you take it for granted that it is CO2 that drives temperature rather than the other way around.

  As for Stephen Lewandowsky, are you really going to cite him as a reference?

http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/18/lewandowskys-fake-correlation/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/20/conspiracy-theorist-lewandowsky-tries-to-manufacture-doubt/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/23/more-deception-in-the-lewandowsky-data/

Here's the FOI info that exposed Lewandowsky's fraud:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/10/lewandowsky-foi-substantial-last-minute-changes-to-project-waved-through-by-uwa-ethics-committee/

Lewandowsky is a perfect example of a motivated reasoner, who is intelligent and educated, who forces observations to fit his preconceived hypothesis :)

I stand by my claim - warmist climate "scientists" are nothing of the sort. They are modern day astrologers and charlatans, and Lewandowsky, despite his lack of any climate credentials, is one of their acolytes.

(that model is now also called the southern oscillation index)

Thank you, that makes it more clear what you're talking about. Now, how you can go from the southern oscillation index (which, is a measurement of the strength of the Southern Oscillation, specifically computed from fluctuations in the surface air pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia), to a *model*, much less a model comparable to modern GCMs - that's a stretch.

I mean, at the best, you can claim to have found a relationship (a model) between surface air pressure in two different locations, and large ocean oscillation - as indeed there might be between say, a doubling of CO2 and temperature. But the direction of causality matters.

If we change the surface air pressure in Darwin and Tahiti, can we change the Southern Oscillation? Of course not. But you take it for granted that it is CO2 that drives temperature rather than the other way around.

  As for Stephen Lewandowsky, are you really going to cite him as a reference?

http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/18/lewandowskys-fake-correlation/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/20/conspiracy-theorist-lewandowsky-tries-to-manufacture-doubt/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/23/more-deception-in-the-lewandowsky-data/

Here's the FOI info that exposed Lewandowsky's fraud:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/10/lewandowsky-foi-substantial-last-minute-changes-to-project-waved-through-by-uwa-ethics-committee/

Lewandowsky is a perfect example of a motivated reasoner, who is intelligent and educated, who forces observations to fit his preconceived hypothesis :)

I stand by my claim - warmist climate "scientists" are nothing of the sort. They are modern day astrologers and charlatans, and Lewandowsky, despite his lack of any climate credentials, is one of their acolytes.

(that model is now also called the southern oscillation index)

Thank you, that makes it more clear what you're talking about. Now, how you can go from the southern oscillation index (which, is a measurement of the strength of the Southern Oscillation, specifically computed from fluctuations in the surface air pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia), to a *model*, much less a model comparable to modern GCMs - that's a stretch.

I mean, at the best, you can claim to have found a relationship (a model) between surface air pressure in two different locations, and large ocean oscillation - as indeed there might be between say, a doubling of CO2 and temperature. But the direction of causality matters.

If we change the surface air pressure in Darwin and Tahiti, can we change the Southern Oscillation? Of course not. But you take it for granted that it is CO2 that drives temperature rather than the other way around.

  As for Stephen Lewandowsky, are you really going to cite him as a reference?

http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/18/lewandowskys-fake-correlation/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/20/conspiracy-theorist-lewandowsky-tries-to-manufacture-doubt/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/23/more-deception-in-the-lewandowsky-data/

Here's the FOI info that exposed Lewandowsky's fraud:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/10/lewandowsky-foi-substantial-last-minute-changes-to-project-waved-through-by-uwa-ethics-committee/

Lewandowsky is a perfect example of a motivated reasoner, who is intelligent and educated, who forces observations to fit his preconceived hypothesis :)

I stand by my claim - warmist climate "scientists" are nothing of the sort. They are modern day astrologers and charlatans, and Lewandowsky, despite his lack of any climate credentials, is one of their acolytes.

How the BBC described this meeting:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

Look at the list of participants. Try to find "the best scientific experts".

The CRU data has been available for a while now. What have the "deniers" done with it, exactly ?

Let's just replace "deniers" with "critics", and use as our exemplar Steve McIntyre:

http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/25/cru-refuses-foi-request-for-yamal-climategate-chronology/ :

"Probably no single issue damages the reputation of the climate science community more than the refusal to show the data that supports their work, even under an FOI request. The public believes that scientists who purport to be concerned about the future of the planet should not place their own financial interests, including future grants, ahead of this concern, particularly when their research has been done with public funds.

Recently I sent an FOI request to the University of East Anglia for a regional chronology combining Yamal, Polar Urals and shorter (presumably Schweingruber) chronologies referred to in Climategate email 1146252894.txt, as well as a request for even a simple list of sites used to make the chronology. This request is for data that is central to Climategate. Yamal was in controversy in the days prior to Climategate. I drew particular attention to this issue and this series in my own submission. Unfortunately, the "inquiries" avoided the issue.

Not only did East Anglia refuse my request for the regional chronology, they even refused to identify the sites. The University claimed that even identifying the sites would result in "financial harm" to the university though an adverse impact on their "ability to attract research funding"."

How about climateaudit.org?

http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/08/lewandowsky-scam/