Slashdot Mirror

It's fuckwits like you that are destroying the planet whilst chortling with pride at your ignorance and arrogance. And you wonder why even in the UK, America society is regarded as a basket case.

Ubelievable, I spent two hours answering this crap, and then firefox closed the wrong tab and it all went poof.

That's a very valid criticism of the climate models of around 1985. Slab oceans are not used in state-of-the-art climate models.

Climateprediction.net uses a slab model of the ocean and will until at least revision three (they are on revision one now). NEC's Earth Simulator got it's first "non-shallow" ocean model in the 2003-2004 timeframe, but it is still at over twice the spatial resolution as the atmosphere is calculated. These are only the two most cited and "modern" models. NASA has a model that does the ocean, or the atmosphere, but not both at once. Your statement is *wholly* false. I had citations for both of these, but 10 seconds on Google will find the NEC Earth Simulator Annual Report for 2003, and Climate Prediction makes no secret of their model's shortcomings on their science page.

Well, nature set things up that way too. It's been known since the 1890s.

But Arrhenius was wrong. This paper is cited prominently by IPCC, and is off by a factor of some 1800%.

um, ever hear of an equation of state?

That would be fine if they included all states, but they don't. Why? It's too complicated to solve. The main items are Pressure, Density, Volume, and Temperature. NEC's Earth Simulator solves for Pressure and Temperature, and ignores the density and volume. Their own paper says the problem is just "too hard" so they treat air as an "incompressible medium". Yikes. The paper I have on this is by the authors of the algorithm. It is, however, located on a laptop at work, and thus inaccessable. It came from the Internet and "Google" is your friend.

Unfortunately, you show no signs of knowing what computer models are in use, why, or how they relate to the science.

Hmm, 20 years in the Computer Science industry, check. Several years working on massively parallel environment simulation models, check. Access to Physicists, Meterologists, Aerodynamic Engineers (the fluid dynamics gurus), and Oceanologists, check. Just because I typed the original message as I was trying to run out the door, doesn't make me what you think I am. Tell me, what is your knowledge of thermal transfer between discrete interhaline countercurrents? How about "meddies"? Do you know their cause, and the effect they have on deep ocean salinity transit? Heck, I'll throw you an easy one, why is ClimatePrediction's "Gravitic Wave" model of precipitation and cloud formation 180 degrees out of sync with actual oragraphic precipitation and formation?

And as for your precious computer models, here's a score card so far. My favorite is the model that says the Medieval Optimum never happened. Damn the History Books, full speed ahead.

Where? The Mars matter is addressed here.

Ahhh, I knew "RealClimate" would make it in here sooner or later. This is one of their better rants: Glacial Melting on Mars = Regional Variation -- Glacial Melting on Earth = Global Warming.

It's right up there with their near hysterical explanation of the historical lag between CO2 levels and warming trends where they claim that it's because the first warming isn't CO2, but then the CO2 causes the rest of the warming. The fact that histrically CO2 increase is a symptom of rising temperatures and not a cause. My favorite line in the comments is "Wow! Are you really saying that we have no idea what starts to warm up our world from an ice age but know with near certainty what has caused the warming of the last three decades? But go ahead, I get a good laugh out of it. If you want, post a note asking what the "Hockey Stick" looks like without the near-treeline Bristlecone Pines included. See if your comment get's censored... something they're notoriou

With each damning new report and every shred if indicting evidence that indeed the earth is entering into massive warming because of human activity So you now have proof that's it's HUMAN (code word for U.S.A.) it doing it? Then how do you explain the warming that is also taking place on MARS?? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html [space.com]

I explain it as people looking for any excuse to justify their wasteful SUV.

As to the science, there is no evidence to warrant the conclusion there is global warming on Mars.

Criton is an author, not a scientist... The way to refute science is to conduct an experiment or a study that finds data that contradicts the current data. He has done no such studies/experiment and produced no data to back his position that 'scientists don't know, so we shouldn't worry'.

He should be writing op-ed pieces for a newspaper instead of testifying before the Senate.

Aarrrghhh! More ignorant right-wing drivel. You global-warming denier loons are as bad as creationists! The short atmospheric residence time of water vapor makes water vapor a *feedback* element, *not* a forcing element with regard to global warming.

Got that, loon? FEEDBACK. NOT forcing. Global warming is not initiated by water vapor; it is *magnified* by it. In the absence of an outside forcing factor (like anthropocentric CO2 emissions, water vapor will *not* cause global warming.

For those who have the attention-span necessary to handle some technical material, there's a good article that discusses the role of water vapor in global warming at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

That's a very valid criticism of the climate models of around 1985. Slab oceans are not used in state-of-the-art climate models.

modelers set up the model so that CO2 holds more heat in the model

Well, nature set things up that way too. It's been known since the 1890s.

do they just solve for two of the three (pressure and temperature, but not volume)

um, ever hear of an equation of state?

I can go on for hours about how completely inaccurate these models are.

You are very creative indeed. Unfortunately, you show no signs of knowing what computer models are in use, why, or how they relate to the science.

we have data that all of the inner planets are now heating up.

Where? The Mars matter is addressed here.

Trillions of dollars and Millions of lives will be lost if the "we should take action just in case" crowd wins.

I don't know why you are only interested in the risks on one side.

We have no hard evidence to support anthropogenic global warming theories.

Hope this helps

What an utter load of lies and deception. These issues are known about, and have been carefully tackled many, many times. To state these goes beyond mere ignorance, to deliberate attempts to mislead the public.

Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

That's because the satellites were taking an average of several layers, the weather balloons weren't accounting for improvements in radiation shielding technology and so on. Adjusted, they now fully match the results we have.

Myth 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

Not according to the actual data. The proportional increase in carbon dioxide is huge, by all available data. And yes, ALL of that increase is due to human activity, because for example measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in the sea shows that the sea is actively absorbing CO2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

This is a strawman. Hell, the most common greenhouse gas is probably Nitrogen. Anything has a greenhouse effect. The issue is whether the gas is a cause of climate change or not. Water, despite it's significance, isn't. Changes in water concentration in the atmosphere is rapidly evened out - we call it rain. But it never rains carbon dioxide. The action of water is as a positive multiplier for global warming - warming increases the level of equilibrium of water in the atmosphere, which makes CO2 a more significant effect, not less.

Don't listen to these 'friends of science'. They are lying to you.

This is addressed at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Oh gawwddd, not this recycled right-wing drivel again.......

(From http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192#more-19 2)

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth...

Why this is irrelevant

RealClimate is not a credible source. It's run by an environmentalist lobbying group

The RealClimate people claim otherwise, saying that the registrant just provides them hosting. Looking at the contributor bios I don't see any reason to doubt that.

RealClimate is not a credible source. It's run by an environmentalist lobbying group

The RealClimate people claim otherwise, saying that the registrant just provides them hosting. Looking at the contributor bios I don't see any reason to doubt that.

According to this article, they currently think the main effect of global warming will be stronger hurricanes, not more hurricanes.

Of course, that's the current theory. If it turns out that we consistently get more, we'll end up with some new theories. Global warming is a big uncontrolled experiment, so it's hard to say. That's pretty sloppy science; I say we should have waited until we had two planets so we could try this side by side. And really, 20 or 30 would be better, so we could get a good statistical sample.

1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

Wake up =)

How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?

I agree with you with the intention of your post, but you wrong about Global Warning. It's not because people are using GW as propaganda(on both sides of the political spectrum) that it is not happening. The fact is, Global Warming is happening. We have countless REAL scientific evidence of that and there is very little doubt in the climatology community that GW is happening. For a non-political source, check out http://www.realclimate.org/.

Now, all the political activists that tries to spin it to their advantage, that's what you should worry about. The alarmists are not the scientists, the alarmists or naysayers are the political activists.

The scientists are there to make the observations and care about the science. They tell us that yeah, GW is happening. That's pretty much it. Anything that follows is mostly political or policy based.

So, deforestation, land use and land coverage aren't our fault? I wonder whose fault it is.

Local to regional land surface processes related to land cover/land use change represent an important first-order forcing of climate variability. Changes in land cover due to urbanization, agriculture, and engineering projects have important consequences for vegetation, soil moisture, sensible and latent heat fluxes, air temperature, precipitation, atmospheric circulation, the distribution of frozen ground (in high latitude/altitude regions), etc. In areas where rapid and extensive alterations to the land surface have occurred, such as China, parts of North America and Europe, high-latitude areas, as well as many other regions, the analogous land surface processes can have
widespread climatic and environmental consequences.

Hell, he's posting articles that are attributing the problems much more directly to humans than on http://www.realclimate.org/ , which, contrary to your comment, I find to be pretty good as it tries to stay away from politics and economics, focusing on the science itself. Hardly alarmist IMHO. All in all, I find both sources complementary.

However, YMMV.

The fact remains: Global Warming is happening. There are very strong indications that we are responsible, but in what capacity and what are the political/economical consequences of such a thing? That's something else. The core problem still remains: there is global warming. That has direct consequences on the fauna and flora of Earth. Whether we are responsible or not, there is still a problem and it's not by still dumping tons of CO2 that it's going to go away.

Well, if you ask the experts, you know, climatology scientists, there is little doubt about global warming. Now, what it means, or the political/economical repercussions, is something else, but we do have the technology and enough evidence and proof that global warming is happening. Not much doubt there when you look only at the science, not the propaganda(from both sides of the political/economical spectrum might I add.)

Will GW means the "fall of civilization" as we know it or such things? Who knows for sure. One thing is sure, science tells us that GW is happening, it's up to us to find out what it means for us, our children and the planet.

You might be interested in reading http://www.realclimate.org/ , a pretty good site dealing with the SCIENCE and not with politics and economics run by prominent climatology scientists tired of being labeled as charlantans, scapegoats or scaremongers.

Not all scientists agree that anthropogenic climate forcings are the primary cause of global warming. And hey, this guy is director of the American Association of State Climatologists and he's peer reviewed. He also resigned Bush's panel on climate change because no one else wanted to listen to a dissenting opinion, they were too up in arms about global warming alarmism like this dude

Nobody is saying that hurricane frequency is climbing because of human induced climate change; that's a subtle question and it could go either way.

It's a pretty simple argument, though, to suggest that when they do form, they will be able to grow to an increased extent, because they have more thermal energy to draw upon. Recent evidence at least starts to show this observationally.

see the most recent posting on realclimate for more.

" Despite your depressing analysis, things are not getting worse"

Whether the other poster was correct or not your anaylsis that things are not getting worse is incorrect. I think if nothing else the size of the Yearly Ozone hole over tha Antarctic is one of the solid pieces of evidence that that is true.

Some links to back up the connection of Hurricane and global warming (not making judgement of who is politically responible for the situation but if we don't act soon politialy/globally ,Kyoto is a start, we will find that we have to move to high ground everwhere.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hrd_sub/dynamics.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181#more-18 1

I like New Scientist but put more faith in Nature and Science. There are also some good narrow focus ".org's" out there such as RealClimate

I also like the Gaurdian. From TFA, "What did you think of this article? Mail your responses to life@guardian.co.uk and include your name and address."

I think every slashdotter who agrees with TFA sentiments should take a couple of minutes to write and suggest that they promote the author to "science editor" (if they have one?). Be sure to include any relevant qualifications (eg:B.Sc, Dr, etc) in your title.

Yes, one question is whether you believe their statement about editorial control.

>Whether "intelligent design" or "global warming", science is being used as a tool of politics - which is something it is not and never should be.

You can't do this by reading the mainstream press, but on the web you can disentangle scientific information from politics by reading what climatologists think. That site draws a sharp line between political questions (should we ratify the Kyoto treaty?) and scientific questions (why do ice ages end before CO2 levels go up?).

Here's a nice analysis of the dubious claims made by Crichton in his speeches and in the footnotes of his novel State of Fear.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

Participants is another thing. The quality of the conversation has certainly declined. However, I like to reply to a few of the more arrogantly wrong ones as a public service. (Not that this applies to this question!)

I'll reply to a well-posed question too in the rare event I come across one. I've seen a couple of other informed posters on these threads as well.

The best climate discussion site these days is realclimate, which is moderated.

Michael Tobis, Ph.D. (Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, U. Wisconsin - Madison 1996)

Well actually ozone depletion and climate change are interconnected. Temperature levels in the Arctic and Antarctic are an essential component in how much ozone depletion there is. There is an interesting article about this at Real Climate. The recipe for ozone depletion is CFC's, specific temperature ranges, sunlight, and especially temperatures when the mix is first exposed to sunlight in the spring, which in Antarctica is September.

Ozone depletion will go up and down depending on temperature so climate change will effect it, though I'm hazy on whether global warming would make the problem better or worse.

One has to wonder, and does anybody know, have China and India banned CFC's yet, both in law and if in law do they enforce it. If they haven't and as fast as their economies are growing they could almost single handedly undo all the work done in the the U.S. and Europe to eliminate CFC's leaking in to the atmosphere.

i think my first comment mysteriously dissapeared when i tired to close windows media player (ahh damn you windows and your "usability") Anyway, now that I have established myself as a total slashdot nerd let's get down to the business of global warming. When the naturally occuring storm research first hit it did so before this years remarkable number of hurricanes hit. Remember that New Orleans isn't the first place to flood this year, in fact Taiwain his too and possibly worst. Secondly, recent papers have linked storm severity to heating in the troposhere. Hence the number of hurricanes and typhoons this year does now exceed natural records and the severity of the storms has been on the rise for 30 years. If we rebuild New Orleans (and I think we should) we need to do it A. with wetlands being restored B. with some level of sustianability in mind and C. while we're at it let's throw in some japanese style traffic lights and spruce the place up with lots of tech junk. In fact if you could install one leap-frogging aspect of technology in neo-orleans what would it be? small-world traffic theory? solar rooves? bio-gas reactors?

anyway, info on storms and global warming here dude:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=173#more-17 3

now we just have to wait on McIntyre and McMcurty or whatever their names are to rebut all this research and we have another fine "debate" on our hands similar to ID and stem-cells. Viva la press!!!

peace,
A

this has been brought up by now I'm sure, but while hurricane patterns haven;t changed the severity of the storms has been tied to global warming. i.e. it's getting hotter, the storms are getting bigger and more severe.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=173#more-17 3

now someone just needs to point the McMyntre and McClinkin or whatever their names at climate audit's rebuttal to all of this and bamn we have another "controversy" to keep people from intelligetly discussing ideas regarding global warming for another 10 or so years. is it just me or does it seem like many of the contrverieses these days (stem-cells, ID, etc) are rather amazning in their controversy in the public media, but not in the realm of verifiable research?

This particular hurricane cannot of course be specifically blamed on global warning.

• NHC's 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook.

  This confluence of optimal ocean and atmosphere conditions has been known to produce increased tropical storm activity in multi-decadal (approximately 20-30 year) cycles. Because of this, NOAA expects a continuation of above-normal seasons for another decade or perhaps longer. NOAA's research shows that this reoccurring cycle is the dominant climate factor that controls Atlantic hurricane activity. Any potentially weak signal associated with longer-term climate change appears to be a minor factor.

• Storms and Climate Change. Attempts to find such linkages are very controversial.
• Storms and Global Warming II. Same here. A weak signal related to intensity is currently undergoing peer review.

This particular hurricane cannot of course be specifically blamed on global warning.

• NHC's 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook.

  This confluence of optimal ocean and atmosphere conditions has been known to produce increased tropical storm activity in multi-decadal (approximately 20-30 year) cycles. Because of this, NOAA expects a continuation of above-normal seasons for another decade or perhaps longer. NOAA's research shows that this reoccurring cycle is the dominant climate factor that controls Atlantic hurricane activity. Any potentially weak signal associated with longer-term climate change appears to be a minor factor.

• Storms and Climate Change. Attempts to find such linkages are very controversial.
• Storms and Global Warming II. Same here. A weak signal related to intensity is currently undergoing peer review.

Has anyon read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? It isn't a very well written novel, but the data that he presented were pretty interesting.

The site at http://realclimate.org/ is great for keeping somewhat current with the hot stories in the field...

This particular hurricane cannot of course be specifically blamed on global warning.

However, one of the most consistent predicitions of modelling over the last decade and a half has been the expectation of an increase in the frequency and strength of extreme weather events.

So we can say that this hurrican is not inconsistent with predicted climate change.

As near as the best science can tell (hence the "consensus"), the Sun is not causing the observed levels of global warming. For a full discussion, check out this link.

... in other words, that "global warming is real."

(opposite of when the planet was getting cooler in the 50's through 60's and causing the global cooling panic)

this is a bit of a myth.

I have no trouble accepting that carbon emissions could cause warming, however the evidence isn't there yet.

The only evidence we can have is historical data, which fits quite nicely into our current climate models -- models in which human greenhouse gas emmissions are a significant (though obviously not the only) forcing on global climate.

That might be because that is in fact the consesnus of a majority of published peer reviewed papers in the ltterature.

It's pretty clear that the evidence is there - if you have an open mind.

I have no trouble accepting that carbon emissions could cause warming, however the evidence isn't there yet.

Just what would you require as evidence - a personal note from God? I can list some of the studies indicating a link, but I honestly doubt I could ever convince you...

I have several friends in climatology, geology and astronomy who shake their heads everytime a new panic prediction is released.

And I have many friends in geology and climatology, and I am an astronomer, and I have to say that while the "panic announcements" may not be very likely, I think some of them are more likely than the scenarios presented by the contrarians. Case in point - the West Antarctic ice sheet may not melt this decade, but some time in the next century (given no limits on CO2) it will melt. When it does, that's 10 meters of sea level rise right there. I'll probably be dead, but my children might not be.

They're scientists who see multiple cause for global warming, man being only one of them.

Man being the one we can control, and the largest one, at the present time.

The "better something than nothing" crowd loses traction with me when it comes to Kyoto. It's just a bad plan.

No, be honest. You just spent most of your post arguing against human responsibility for GW; you can't seriously claim that you just have a problem with how Kyoto implements greenhouse reductions, and that you'd support some other mechanism. I didn't hear you say "GW is real, but we should go with voluntary reductions" or something to that effect. You claim that GW is either due to natural causes, or just not real.

Ooo look out for the evil space bacteria!

Try this for some real sciencey stuff, easy on the fiction.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

A detailed rebuttal.

And Crichton is not a climatologist. He's an anthropologist. A degree in anthropology doesn't exactly equip you to make assessments about computer climate models, does it?

More than a little. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

More than a little. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

I do not know any of the scientists, politicians or lobbyists involved and admit I had trouble last week when trying to sort out who was who. So far in my other posts to this particular story, your post is one of very few that offers some sort of reference in the form of links.

However a pending article in "Geophysical Review" and an existing article in "Energy and Environment" does not mean you know what you are talking about. Especially when compared to the numerous contra peer-reviewed publications appearing in Nature, Science and quite frankly every scientific journal I can think off, plus the backing of Nobel Prize winners as in this Letter to Congressman Barton. (Third paragraph has the meat).

OTOH: Nature rejected McIntyre's paper that used essentially the same argument as you are now using.

What you are telling me is that all these scientists are wrong because they don't have a clue how to calculate a moving average.

In the keeping with the scientific spirit, I am willing to assume you are a budding Eienstien, you are right and they are all "so wrong". Your brilliant insight would destroy the "hockey stick".

Hmmm, was that a hypothisis? Why yes I think it was! Now what does a scientist do with a hypothisis, why disproves it off course!

My assumption, (and therfore the hypothisis), doesn't take much to break. Like I said, I don't know Mann, McIntyre or you from a bar of soap, nor am I a climatologist. I put my faith in the billions of dollars the US and others have invested in a proven peer-reviewed process that has produced overwhelming evidence that our CO2 emmisions are an "imminent threat" to civilization.

Oh, fuck it, beam me up scotty they refuse to listen.

"I've read this article before. I tried to find a copy of it with google scholar. I recommend everyone shut their faces until they read the article."

I read the WSJ article and it was rubbish, the WSJ is a newspaper not a scientific journal. You wont find any peer-reviewed paper from the people Barton is quoting. Thier argument has already been discredited (see link below), that is why they make these kind of attacks via newspapers.

"As a scientist, it sickens me.....I would love to see a good astrophysicist's paper on cyclic variation in the earths average temperature. Or maybe a well done statistical analysis."

I hold a BSc. but I am not a climate scientist, it sickens me that a "scientist" cannot do simple research before telling others to "shut thier faces", kinda ignores the "republic of science" don't you think? The Mann paper can be found here, along with many other quality papers including some that address sunspots, etc. The most authoritive review of the science is found in the IPCC report "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis", here.. Even GWB cautiously endorsed the IPCC conclusions at the recent G8 meeting (is hell getting colder?).

"Investigating changes in the earth's climate is important. I just don't like secular religions (actually, I just don't like religion) propped up by "science"."

Can't agree more, realclimate.org is apolitical and is open to all scientists and laymen. Maybe you should write to Congressman Barton and ask him to keep his well known anti-warming religion to himself and offer something constructive. To quote Mann and the other climate scientists in the link above ...

"The real question we are faced with is not whether humans are changing climate. The science on this is clear, and decades of research have culminated in a scientific consensus on this point. The real question now is what we need to do about it. A Congressional committee concerned with energy could be - and indeed should be - a key player in exploring policy options to deal with the global warming threat. We hope that after studying the responses by the scientists, they will make a start."

Well, the information has been released, so make of it what you will.

More importantly, though, these scientists' findings agree with the vast majority of all studies that have been done on the subject. If you're suggesting they're biased, then (1) you seem to also be suggesting that all those other scientists are similarly biased, and (2) you can feel free to repeat their experiments yourself.

the surface of the earth is warmer and [that] an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem

Priceless.

"incorrect assumptions and mathematics made in the prediction models."

Here is Mann's and the other scientists responses to Barton, please point out where he went wrong or at least offer a link to back up your bullshit (err, I mean statements). Oh and here is a dummies guide to the hockey stick that you might find useful.

"I had Mann (RTFA) for a class when I was in school"

To be kind, I think you are mistaken about his identity, I trully doubt he has taught at your level recently. He was certainly not "lambasted" and his work still stands. His paper was cited and the graph reproduced in the recent IPCC report.

"incorrect assumptions and mathematics made in the prediction models."

Here is Mann's and the other scientists responses to Barton, please point out where he went wrong or at least offer a link to back up your bullshit (err, I mean statements). Oh and here is a dummies guide to the hockey stick that you might find useful.

"I had Mann (RTFA) for a class when I was in school"

To be kind, I think you are mistaken about his identity, I trully doubt he has taught at your level recently. He was certainly not "lambasted" and his work still stands. His paper was cited and the graph reproduced in the recent IPCC report.

"The source has now been released."

The source was never "hidded" it's been in the public domain for years, There is a link to it on this page.

From the above link- "...A Congressional committee concerned with energy could be - and indeed should be - a key player in exploring policy options to deal with the global warming threat. We hope that after studying the responses by the scientists, they will make a start."

"No more than an open source advocate would expect."

Not everyone who programs a computer is a scientist, nor does the skill of programming imply they understand the scientific method. The data and method are what is important, any competent programmer should be able to implement the experiment with a bit of help from a SME. In fact it adds weight to the conclusions if two different code implementations come up with the same conclusion. The conclusion of the "hockey stick" paper are much stronger than this, yet it only forms part of the evidence, it is not a "smoking gun". Global warming does not have a simplistic "smoking gun", neither does cancer, stroke, heart attack, terrorisim, blah, blah, blah. Imperfect knowlage does not mean no knowlage.

The "hockey stick graph" with a recent uptick in temperatures was discredited when peers demonstrated that feeding even white noise or parallel downward sloping lines into the researchers' plotting program as temperature data produced graphs with a large uptick at the end.

Could you cite a reference on that because I've never heard any such thing. Not even the current round of complaints about the paper are making such dramatic claims. Rather the current claims seem to be centering on how certain proxy data was generated for some of the more distanct historical periods.

For some other papers that found similar results try here which lists several in the references, as well as providing some charts giving and overview of how the different studies compare.

Jedidiah.

Actually, part of the interest by Congress is in results from federally funded studies, so part of the interest is from its own funding.

• The Congressional letters are available in PDF format.
• The replies from some people are available.
• The scientists explained some things, but it seems odd that the source code does not match the data, so the program can not simply be run as is.
• Although the program calculated R2 statistics they were not published along with an explanation of why they were not important so others would learn from their wisdom.
• The Barton questions about statistics were not answered.