Slashdot Mirror

I'm now falsifying the contents of your post, pay attention ;)

Original scientifically "correct" diagram, which is as you write, a diagram where datasets have been dropped and the point is still made:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138393!imageManager/4052145227.jpg

The _fraudulent_ version where the curves - now continuing up without being visibly cut off, having had their data changed etc - that was actually published:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138392!imageManager/1009061939.jpg

From (and please read through):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/

(Yes, I know .. _that_ site .. !)

I'm now falsifying the contents of your post, pay attention ;)

Original scientifically "correct" diagram, which is as you write, a diagram where datasets have been dropped and the point is still made:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138393!imageManager/4052145227.jpg

The _fraudulent_ version where the curves - now continuing up without being visibly cut off, having had their data changed etc - that was actually published:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138392!imageManager/1009061939.jpg

From (and please read through):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/

(Yes, I know .. _that_ site .. !)

And the source code was used for what exactly? To create a graph perporting to be something else presented to the world? Or perhaps it was one of many analyses used internally as part of an investigation? I've had a look at some of the code and it's not clear - but perhaps you know more?

The raw data you are referring to is tree ring data that is known to be a poor proxy for temperature for certain periods - to me the correction looks like nothing more than trying to plot a best estimate of temperature over timescales where it is known that proxy data is unreliable.

Though I feel the content of the leaked emails, code and data raise enough questions to warrant an investigation (http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/homepagenews/CRUreview), it does seem to me that there are some people who are keen to question the abundant evidence for climate change, but at the same time are perfectly willing to accept very inconclusive evidence to attack the CRU scientists.

I will, however, admit that the researchers should have noted the issues with the tree-ring data in question.

Good thing they did, then. Only ten years ago, mind you.

Seriously, this whole "climategate" debacle tends to run like this:

1- Deniers exhume some e-mail / piece of code which they don't understand, but assume is definite proof of evil scheming on the part of the great academic conspiracy ("Trick!" "Hide the decline!" OMGconspiracy send teh copz!!) .

2- Scientists post explanation, showing the deniers' allegations to be baseless (The "hidden" decline in tree ring growth was published a decade ago - see Nature link above; in this very publication, it was shown to diverge from the actual instrumental record after 1960; so for the post-1960 period we basically replace tree rings with the actual instrumental data, because we trust thermometers more than tree rings when the two fail to agree; we cited the relevant articles in the caption for the graph just to be sure).

3- Deniers completely ignore scientists' explanation, and keep fantasising about their glorious victory over evil scheming scientists. See GP for an illustration.

Rinse. Repeat.

To GP and all the folks who keep harping about this "VERY ARTIFICIAL" correction code: the code in question is a one-time code for temporarily re-calibrating the tree ring data. The reason, and the coefficients, are ultimately derived from the Nature article I linked to above. For an interesting hypothesis concerning the source of this code, see comment #147 and linked manuscript on this thread.

If you want to catch up with ClimateGate, start at WUWT ClimateGate. And if you're a programmer, read along with unfortunate Harry..."Botch after botch after botch".

You're a troll, my friend:

Here's a couple of millions that goes to about 10 guys to spread around. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/grants.htm. Do you know how much a gorgeous hooker costs in Siberia? I've had one for $75 - very pretty, very talented. You can't get the same talent for $3k in NY.

two websites which are used by conspiracy nuts

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

http://www.algore.com/

Actually it's very simple you have a flat sheet of plastic or waterproof material, then hang it up so that one corner is sloping down to some sort of collection media (ie a bottle) and then wait for the hopefully cool night. During the night the material will be cooler than the dew point of the air causing moisture to condense on the material. Once condensed the water will slowly flow down to the collection point. Normally you won't get much water but in some situations the amount collected could be the difference between life and death.

Here is another form of desert water collection that is very cheap if you are near areas which have fogs .

Yes, I was in a hurry this morning and did indeed miss your references.

These things happen. The trick is to not just assume the worst, and double check to see if you perhaps missed something...

Above, you cite your temperature data source as
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
but in the Wiki entry, the stated source of temperature data is
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/solanki2004-ssn.txt

Well yes, I was discussing the figure I linked first in my comment: the graph which demonstrates the lack of correlation between sunspots and the most recent warming, while showing the greater correlation in overall trend with CO2. That is, this one. You'll note that that temperature data is indeed from the CRU. This, of course also explains why the sunspot data is different, and also why I mention CO2 data. A perusal of all the figures I linked would probably have made this clear very quickly...

Along that line, there is no explanation as to how deuterium data relates to sunspots. Is it a linear relationship? How would a reader know?

Well, for that figure I would presume anyone actually curious about such details would manage to note that the delta-deuterium data is a proxy for temperature not sunspots, and to try a simple search on the relevant terms. They'll rapidly pull up things like this, which should get them started (and answer your question off the bat -- yes, it is a linear relationship). After all, that's how I learned any of this.

My point being that considering just the information that was presented, as I saw it, even WITH the two sources you referenced, does not exactly prove anything.

Well no, the second figure showing data for the last 10000 years simply shows that there is some general correlation between solar activity and sunspots (though it is imperfect). It was the first figure that counts: it shows that while there may have been good correlation historically, the current warming trend does not correlate at all well with sunpots, but instead correlates rather better than with CO2 -- exactly the opposite of your original claims.

Yes, I was in a hurry this morning and did indeed miss your references. (I am used to looking under "References", not "Data Sources".)

However, looking at it more thoroughly now, your graphs are anything but straightforward for the lay person to understand, largely from the lack of information on the page.

Above, you cite your temperature data source as
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
but in the Wiki entry, the stated source of temperature data is
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/solanki2004-ssn.txt
which data is originally from Jean Jouzel, from the Institut Pierre Simon Laplace in France. The former source does not reference the latter in any obvious way. So, which is it?

Similarly, above you cite
http://sidc.oma.be/
as your source for records of sunspot data, but on the Wiki page you cite the Solanki data
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/solanki2004-ssn.txt
and again, the source cited above does not appear to reference the data source you cited in the Wiki article in any obvious way.

I do not see any citation for source of your CO2 data anywhere on the Wiki page, even within "Data Sources". The only two sources are the ones I have just mentioned.

There is a reference to the Mauna Loa data on a different page, linked to by one of the "related images", but that is not the page you originally referenced.

My point being that considering just the information that was presented, as I saw it, even WITH the two sources you referenced, does not exactly prove anything.

Along that line, there is no explanation as to how deuterium data relates to sunspots. Is it a linear relationship? How would a reader know? If so, great, but if not the graph would have little meaning. Nowhere is there any explanation as to the kinds of relationship here.

In any case, I see where there could have been a mistake, pointing me at that page rather than the other one linked to within that page. But under the circumstances, I think it should be pretty obvious why I basically stated "Huh? This doesn't appear to mean anything." And in fact, as given, it didn't.

And this chart is made up of data that came from... where?

The data sources listed in the Data Sources section on the page.

I did not see ANY citations of sources on that Wikipedia page

You didn't look too hard. The sites from which the raw data was taken are all listed. A cursory inspection of those sites will provide the information you want. Since that seems to be too much work:

• Temperature data is from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. Among the papers on this dataset are:
  1. Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548
  2. Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199.
  3. Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
  4. Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407, doi:10.1029/2002JD002670
• The sunspot data is drawn from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center in Belgium. Among the many many papers published using these datasets are:
  1. Carbonell, M., Terradas, J., Olivier, R. and Ballester, J.L. The statistical significance of the North-South asymmetry of solar activity revisited, A&A, 476, p 951-957.
  2. Balthasar, H. Rotational periodicities in sunspot relative numbers, A&A, 471, p 281-287.
  3. Pishkalo, M. Reconstruction of the Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilts Using Sunspot Numbers, Solar Physics, 233, p 277-290
  4. Kunjaya, C., Radiman, I., Dupe Z., Herdiwidjaja, D., Hakim, M.I.
     On The Prediction of El Niño 2002 Based On the Peak Of Sunspot Number in 2000, Proceedings of the ISCS Symp. 2003: Solar Variability as an Input to the Earth's Environment, ESA SP-535.
  5. Rybak, J. Karlovsky, V.
     Mutual relations of the intermediate periodicities of the Wolf sunspot number, Proceedings of the ISCS Symp. 2003: Solar Variability as an Input to the Earth's Environment, ESA SP-535 p.145-148

  You can see this page for a full list.

• The CO2 data was drawn from two listed sources. The first is the Mauna Loa observatory, and the second is the Law Dome ice core project in Antarctica. Both data sets are available via the NOAA. Mauna Loa data is from the Earth Systems Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division. Among the papers using this data set are:
  1. C.D. Keeling, R.B. Bacastow, A.E. Bainbridge, C.A. Ekdahl, P.R. Guenther, and L.S. Waterman, Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, Tellus, vol. 28, 538-551, 1976.
  2. K.W. Thoning, P.P. Tans, and W.D. Komhyr, Atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory 2. Analysis of the NOAA GMCC data, 1974-1985, J. Geophys. Research, vol. 94, 8549-8565, 1989.

  The Law Dome data was taken from Word Data Center for Paleoclimatology Ice Core Gateway. Among the papers using this dataset are:

  1. Etheridge, D.M., G.I. Pearman, and F. de Silva. 1988. Atmospheric trace-gas variations as revealed by air trapped in an ice core from Law Dome, Antarctica. Ann. Glaciol.

I'm pulling it from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. They've been very meticulous about maintinaing and publishing their data sets. The basic FAQ on the dataset and collection methodology is here. Among the many papers published over the years on the methodology and estimation of uncertainty, there is at least this freely available, though you can check:

• Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199
• Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
• Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407

as well if you like (and have access to the respective journals).

The entire "this century is hotter then last" has been disproved back when they found errors in the calculations the US made.

Actually no. There were errors, and they did have an effect on which years were the hottest for the US, but had a much smaller (almost neglible effect) on the calculated global temperatures. And, of course, that is the NASA GISS dataset that you are speaking of. The datasets I'm referring to, HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3, from the UK, are quite independent in their processing of raw data, and did not contain the same errors.

In fact, I haven't heard claims like your making in over 4 years after they revised a bunch of shit found to of been faulty.

Really? He claimed:

1. The hottest 10yrs on record have occured in the last 12yrs.
2. Every year in the 21st century has been hotter than any year in the 20th century (exluding 1998).

which is actually a very reasonable claim. We can put it to the test easily enough. Here is the latest CRUTEM data, fully up to date, including 2008 data. According to the file format description, we find the average annual global anomaly (from the average temperature from 1961-1990 used as a base point) in the last column of every second row. Scan down. You'll find the the original poster is indeed correct in his claims.

Just because you are so certain, let's go with the dataset you're referring to: Hansen's GISTemp from NASA. Again, let's grab the latest data with the relevant corrections you are complaining about made: here (that's global averages for land and sea surface temperatures). Again, scan down and you'll see that, surprisingly enough, the original poster is still correct in his claims.

One of the wonderful things about the internet is that it actually puts a vast array of resources and data right at your fingertips, so you can actually go to the source data itself rather than relying on second and third hand reports. Apparently that was too much work for you. Hopefully, however, with the links laid out above, you can click through and verify for yourself that the data actually shows what it is claimed to show.

I'm pulling it from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. They've been very meticulous about maintinaing and publishing their data sets. The basic FAQ on the dataset and collection methodology is here. Among the many papers published over the years on the methodology and estimation of uncertainty, there is at least this freely available, though you can check:

• Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199
• Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
• Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407

as well if you like (and have access to the respective journals).

The entire "this century is hotter then last" has been disproved back when they found errors in the calculations the US made.

Actually no. There were errors, and they did have an effect on which years were the hottest for the US, but had a much smaller (almost neglible effect) on the calculated global temperatures. And, of course, that is the NASA GISS dataset that you are speaking of. The datasets I'm referring to, HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3, from the UK, are quite independent in their processing of raw data, and did not contain the same errors.

In fact, I haven't heard claims like your making in over 4 years after they revised a bunch of shit found to of been faulty.

Really? He claimed:

1. The hottest 10yrs on record have occured in the last 12yrs.
2. Every year in the 21st century has been hotter than any year in the 20th century (exluding 1998).

which is actually a very reasonable claim. We can put it to the test easily enough. Here is the latest CRUTEM data, fully up to date, including 2008 data. According to the file format description, we find the average annual global anomaly (from the average temperature from 1961-1990 used as a base point) in the last column of every second row. Scan down. You'll find the the original poster is indeed correct in his claims.

Just because you are so certain, let's go with the dataset you're referring to: Hansen's GISTemp from NASA. Again, let's grab the latest data with the relevant corrections you are complaining about made: here (that's global averages for land and sea surface temperatures). Again, scan down and you'll see that, surprisingly enough, the original poster is still correct in his claims.

One of the wonderful things about the internet is that it actually puts a vast array of resources and data right at your fingertips, so you can actually go to the source data itself rather than relying on second and third hand reports. Apparently that was too much work for you. Hopefully, however, with the links laid out above, you can click through and verify for yourself that the data actually shows what it is claimed to show.

I'm pulling it from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. They've been very meticulous about maintinaing and publishing their data sets. The basic FAQ on the dataset and collection methodology is here. Among the many papers published over the years on the methodology and estimation of uncertainty, there is at least this freely available, though you can check:

• Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199
• Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
• Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407

as well if you like (and have access to the respective journals).

The entire "this century is hotter then last" has been disproved back when they found errors in the calculations the US made.

Actually no. There were errors, and they did have an effect on which years were the hottest for the US, but had a much smaller (almost neglible effect) on the calculated global temperatures. And, of course, that is the NASA GISS dataset that you are speaking of. The datasets I'm referring to, HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3, from the UK, are quite independent in their processing of raw data, and did not contain the same errors.

In fact, I haven't heard claims like your making in over 4 years after they revised a bunch of shit found to of been faulty.

Really? He claimed:

1. The hottest 10yrs on record have occured in the last 12yrs.
2. Every year in the 21st century has been hotter than any year in the 20th century (exluding 1998).

which is actually a very reasonable claim. We can put it to the test easily enough. Here is the latest CRUTEM data, fully up to date, including 2008 data. According to the file format description, we find the average annual global anomaly (from the average temperature from 1961-1990 used as a base point) in the last column of every second row. Scan down. You'll find the the original poster is indeed correct in his claims.

Just because you are so certain, let's go with the dataset you're referring to: Hansen's GISTemp from NASA. Again, let's grab the latest data with the relevant corrections you are complaining about made: here (that's global averages for land and sea surface temperatures). Again, scan down and you'll see that, surprisingly enough, the original poster is still correct in his claims.

One of the wonderful things about the internet is that it actually puts a vast array of resources and data right at your fingertips, so you can actually go to the source data itself rather than relying on second and third hand reports. Apparently that was too much work for you. Hopefully, however, with the links laid out above, you can click through and verify for yourself that the data actually shows what it is claimed to show.

I'm pulling it from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. They've been very meticulous about maintinaing and publishing their data sets. The basic FAQ on the dataset and collection methodology is here. Among the many papers published over the years on the methodology and estimation of uncertainty, there is at least this freely available, though you can check:

• Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199
• Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
• Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407

as well if you like (and have access to the respective journals).

The entire "this century is hotter then last" has been disproved back when they found errors in the calculations the US made.

Actually no. There were errors, and they did have an effect on which years were the hottest for the US, but had a much smaller (almost neglible effect) on the calculated global temperatures. And, of course, that is the NASA GISS dataset that you are speaking of. The datasets I'm referring to, HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3, from the UK, are quite independent in their processing of raw data, and did not contain the same errors.

In fact, I haven't heard claims like your making in over 4 years after they revised a bunch of shit found to of been faulty.

Really? He claimed:

1. The hottest 10yrs on record have occured in the last 12yrs.
2. Every year in the 21st century has been hotter than any year in the 20th century (exluding 1998).

which is actually a very reasonable claim. We can put it to the test easily enough. Here is the latest CRUTEM data, fully up to date, including 2008 data. According to the file format description, we find the average annual global anomaly (from the average temperature from 1961-1990 used as a base point) in the last column of every second row. Scan down. You'll find the the original poster is indeed correct in his claims.

Just because you are so certain, let's go with the dataset you're referring to: Hansen's GISTemp from NASA. Again, let's grab the latest data with the relevant corrections you are complaining about made: here (that's global averages for land and sea surface temperatures). Again, scan down and you'll see that, surprisingly enough, the original poster is still correct in his claims.

One of the wonderful things about the internet is that it actually puts a vast array of resources and data right at your fingertips, so you can actually go to the source data itself rather than relying on second and third hand reports. Apparently that was too much work for you. Hopefully, however, with the links laid out above, you can click through and verify for yourself that the data actually shows what it is claimed to show.

I'm pulling it from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. They've been very meticulous about maintinaing and publishing their data sets. The basic FAQ on the dataset and collection methodology is here. Among the many papers published over the years on the methodology and estimation of uncertainty, there is at least this freely available, though you can check:

• Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199
• Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
• Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407

as well if you like (and have access to the respective journals).

The entire "this century is hotter then last" has been disproved back when they found errors in the calculations the US made.

Actually no. There were errors, and they did have an effect on which years were the hottest for the US, but had a much smaller (almost neglible effect) on the calculated global temperatures. And, of course, that is the NASA GISS dataset that you are speaking of. The datasets I'm referring to, HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3, from the UK, are quite independent in their processing of raw data, and did not contain the same errors.

In fact, I haven't heard claims like your making in over 4 years after they revised a bunch of shit found to of been faulty.

Really? He claimed:

1. The hottest 10yrs on record have occured in the last 12yrs.
2. Every year in the 21st century has been hotter than any year in the 20th century (exluding 1998).

which is actually a very reasonable claim. We can put it to the test easily enough. Here is the latest CRUTEM data, fully up to date, including 2008 data. According to the file format description, we find the average annual global anomaly (from the average temperature from 1961-1990 used as a base point) in the last column of every second row. Scan down. You'll find the the original poster is indeed correct in his claims.

Just because you are so certain, let's go with the dataset you're referring to: Hansen's GISTemp from NASA. Again, let's grab the latest data with the relevant corrections you are complaining about made: here (that's global averages for land and sea surface temperatures). Again, scan down and you'll see that, surprisingly enough, the original poster is still correct in his claims.

One of the wonderful things about the internet is that it actually puts a vast array of resources and data right at your fingertips, so you can actually go to the source data itself rather than relying on second and third hand reports. Apparently that was too much work for you. Hopefully, however, with the links laid out above, you can click through and verify for yourself that the data actually shows what it is claimed to show.

I'm pulling it from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. They've been very meticulous about maintinaing and publishing their data sets. The basic FAQ on the dataset and collection methodology is here. Among the many papers published over the years on the methodology and estimation of uncertainty, there is at least this freely available, though you can check:

• Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199
• Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
• Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407

as well if you like (and have access to the respective journals).

The entire "this century is hotter then last" has been disproved back when they found errors in the calculations the US made.

Actually no. There were errors, and they did have an effect on which years were the hottest for the US, but had a much smaller (almost neglible effect) on the calculated global temperatures. And, of course, that is the NASA GISS dataset that you are speaking of. The datasets I'm referring to, HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3, from the UK, are quite independent in their processing of raw data, and did not contain the same errors.

In fact, I haven't heard claims like your making in over 4 years after they revised a bunch of shit found to of been faulty.

Really? He claimed:

1. The hottest 10yrs on record have occured in the last 12yrs.
2. Every year in the 21st century has been hotter than any year in the 20th century (exluding 1998).

which is actually a very reasonable claim. We can put it to the test easily enough. Here is the latest CRUTEM data, fully up to date, including 2008 data. According to the file format description, we find the average annual global anomaly (from the average temperature from 1961-1990 used as a base point) in the last column of every second row. Scan down. You'll find the the original poster is indeed correct in his claims.

Just because you are so certain, let's go with the dataset you're referring to: Hansen's GISTemp from NASA. Again, let's grab the latest data with the relevant corrections you are complaining about made: here (that's global averages for land and sea surface temperatures). Again, scan down and you'll see that, surprisingly enough, the original poster is still correct in his claims.

One of the wonderful things about the internet is that it actually puts a vast array of resources and data right at your fingertips, so you can actually go to the source data itself rather than relying on second and third hand reports. Apparently that was too much work for you. Hopefully, however, with the links laid out above, you can click through and verify for yourself that the data actually shows what it is claimed to show.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

*Maybe* looking at something more than a few months is more valid when looking at long term trends like Global Warming trend???????? You know, a few weeks or months of cold doesn't mean "global cooling".

Also, the sun just started a new 11-year cycle this year. The solar output was marginally dropping for few years now and now it will increase. Cheers and enjoy more denying in spite of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm?list862664

This blog post seems to be a denier's primary point today.

Here's the Hadley Center's global temperature record. Each of the past 6 years of decreasing solar activity, the waning side of solar cycle 23, have been in the hottest 8 on the 158 year record.

Here's the Hadley Center's global temperature record. Each of the past 6 years of decreasing solar activity, the waning side of solar cycle 23, have been in the hottest 8 on the 158 year record.

Antarctic sea ice is at record high levels, while Antarctic land-based ice loss speeds up (full paper).

Local weather does not refute a global climate trend.

Global Temperature Record

When I went to the horrible damp spot on the plains of East Anglia it was called UEA.

Here's the actual release from the source, rather than a Network World recap.

I think he is rather pointing to the sparsity of the data, and the difficulty of interpolating it. One of the links you gave actually explains it quite clearly (this one).

On land, there are only 3000 temperature measurement stations around the world. In the 1950s, there were far fewer. Imagine interpolating the data between 3000 stations, based at random distances from each other. Further, imagine interpolating the data over time, with a growing number of stations. Then factor in the issues of cities growing up around the stations. Do you know which stations had cities grow around them? Do you know the exact effect a growing city has on the temperature? It is going to be different depending on the city (for example, in Arizona they sometimes have rubber in the pavement to reduce the temperature). Can you say that your calculations are correct to within one degree?

The problems are different on sea. They are mainly based on merchant ships taking voluntary measurements, and measurements in the southern hemisphere and away from main shipping lines is minimal. Does it matter? Maybe, maybe not, but nobody knows because we haven't measured the rest of the world.

And those are just the problems with measuring world temperature. Predicting the effect of an increase in carbon, predicting the effect of increased global temperature....what experimental evidence is there? Some computer models based on our limited knowledge, some experiments, and lots of theories. Look at the results of the computer model run by NASA for several years, ending in 1988, that predicted by now the world temperature would have risen by 6 degrees or more. Of course there were problems with the simulation, so we fixed them, ran another simulation, and this time our data is REALLY correct.

We aren't even sure what's behind something as clear El Niño, although there are some theories; if such simple and observable natural phenomenon is so poorly understood, how can we do any more than guess what the future of the world is? Anyone who claims certainty in these things should be treated with great skepticism. And that's what Dyson is doing.

The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading. - Freeman Dyson

The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70N. - NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html

I don't know enough about the human involvement part yet to disagree with him (though I've been looking into it, and the research is compelling enough to keep me reading). But I have pored over the numbers on the temperature record, and when he says it is inconclusive, he is mistaken. I think he has not looked at the data very thoroughly, and that this fact is quickly demonstrated by his inaccurate statement that the effect has been greatest in the arctic.

More data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo data.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading. - Freeman Dyson

The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70N. - NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html

I don't know enough about the human involvement part yet to disagree with him (though I've been looking into it, and the research is compelling enough to keep me reading). But I have pored over the numbers on the temperature record, and when he says it is inconclusive, he is mistaken. I think he has not looked at the data very thoroughly, and that this fact is quickly demonstrated by his inaccurate statement that the effect has been greatest in the arctic.

More data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo data.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

I'd love to see original scientific research on the question on global warming, but it seems that everyone with an opinion on global warming is merely a pundit for either the right or the left.

The NOAA and CRU are the two best sources I've found for the raw data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo data.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

I'd love to see original scientific research on the question on global warming, but it seems that everyone with an opinion on global warming is merely a pundit for either the right or the left.

The NOAA and CRU are the two best sources I've found for the raw data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo data.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

The correction is the US (lower 48 states even) temperature data only, so yes, the effects on data for global temperatures is fairly small. 1998 remains the hottest year on record globally. There is also the fact that this is the US (via NASA GISS) historical temperature record data, there's also the HadCRUT series from the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre, which is independently compiled, and shows much the same trends. It's also worth noting that the IPCC tends to use the HadCRUT data rather than GISS (as far as I am aware).

The first of my heresies says that all the fluff about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of twilight model experts and the crowd of diluted citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their models. Of course they say I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.

Cry me a river.

But I have studied their climate models and know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.

Show me the evidence.

The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That's why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

Ad hominem. And also, just plain wrong

There's no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global.

yes it is

I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.

Sorry, did anyone say that these issues were zero sum?

He also worked out a way to reverse global warming quite cheaply.

Possibly. It's a little more complicated than that.

I'm not even particularly opinionated on the issue of global warming, but this guy's said nothing, i repeat nothing in the above paragraph to contribute, other than his own opinion. THAT's why his first sentence is so defensive.

The number of sunspots has been near constant (on average) over the past 20 years, yet they are at the highest level in over 1000 years for the last 60 years "yet the average temperature of the earth has continued to increase". This shows the author doesn't understand lag times between applying extra energy input to the atmospheric system versus the time required for the large mass of the Earth's ecosystem to respond by warming land, sea and air to the point where average temperature changes can be measured.

Other factors can cause a temperature change - e.g. solar intensity variation. All the lag proves is that the previous temperature fluctuations were caused by solar intensity or other factors such as Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns. The solar intensity has been long-term decreasing over the past few cycles, and we are only year out from the last solar minima. However, the temperature is still increasing.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/06 mar_solarminimum.html
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/zurich.gi f
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years...I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

Is the planet warming at the moment? - we aren't sure, but probably yes. We have a fair bit of data about temperature variations, though interpretation and comparison is still a problem. The Southern Hemisphere, in particular, does not seem to be warming noticeably.

Is the planet warming at the moment? - we aren't sure, but probably yes. We have a fair bit of data about temperature variations, though interpretation and comparison is still a problem. The Southern Hemisphere, in particular, does not seem to be warming noticeably.

Your sea level source is over 10 years old. Speaking of old stuff. Try to find something more modern next time.

Maybe next time also see this graph from your page, and think, if such warming does have side effects?

Short-term changes in sea level like waves, tides, and storm surge mask the effects of rising sea levels. When the signal-to-noise ratio is that low, you end up with news articles stating that the island in question became uninhabitable 22 years ago.
 
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but compared to serious examination of long-term sea level trends, one island isn't a very useful measuring stick.
 

You're obsessed with the lower graph and its medieval warm period. The problem is, the graphs are looking at two separate things. The upper graph is estimating the global temperature, while the lower one is looking only at conditions in Europe. It's quite possible for one area to cool because an overall warming trend has changed local conditions. Even today, climatologists are speculating that global warming might leave Europe cooler by diverting warm ocean currents away.

Further, why are we even talking about the graphs from the Telegraph article? The graph I was referring to, the one you claimed had a suspicious norm, was this one. You remember how you claimed that they must be taking the average from some other, warmer set of data that they weren't telling us about? You stopped a half inch short of calling them a bunch of frauds. In fact they said exactly how they chose the zero line: by averaging the global temperature from 1960-1991. Had they been trying to make the same chart with devious intent, I would have used 1860-1960, to make sure there was as much red on the last half of the graph as possible.

But no, you had to go out of your way to divine all sorts of nefarious intentions. Then you got yourself confused and started talking about a completely different graph that stretched all the way back to 1000AD.

CO2 may have been a lagging indicator in past warmings. So what? Does that mean that CO2 concentration has no effect on global temperatures? Of course not. Nobody this side of Exxon is denying that. All it means is that dinosaurs and British peasants weren't burning coal and oil to power their automobiles. The initial temperature rise was caused by something else--perhaps increased sun output--and that released more CO2 into the atmosphere by melting ice and raising sea temperatures. What follows is a positive feedback loop, as increased CO2 and increased temperature feed back on each other, until a new equillibrium is reached.

Eight meters is the absolute, scientifically accurate figure you get when you calculate how far the sea will rise if you take all the ice currently locked up on the land of Greenland and Antarctica. You take the current rate of sea rise and project it out ad infinitum, and you're right: the situation sounds too gradual to worry about. But lots of carbon and methane live in that ice, both of which would accelerate the melting once it starts. I don't know how fast the ice will melt once it gets going, but there is little doubt in my mind that it will be much faster in the future than it has been in the past. Most important, even if it takes a thousand years to reach that endpoint instead of a hundred, that's still an evolutionary blink of an eye. Humans will adapt easily to such a change, but ecosystems will not.

So you can take your bwahaha-ing and shove it up your own rectum. While you may consider me misinformed and foolish, and I certainly consider you the same, I think I've been much more sympathetic to the notion that there is a reasonable human being on the other side of this conversation. Cut the attitude if you hope to convince me (or any potential readers) of anything.

That "global temperature is rising" graph shows that temperature was as far under what the graph identifies as the norm for the last hundred years as it currently has been (briefly) over it. Since they want that middle line to be the "norm", the graph requires a period of above-the-line to make the normal land where they claim it belongs by its placement in the graph. Since there were no extended instances of the temperature being even at the "norm" in the previous 130 years before 1990 or so, one wonders where the idea of the "norm" for the graph even came from — presumably, from a warmer set of temperature excursions they're (conveniently) not showing. Or else they made it up, which is worse, scientifically speaking, than just hiding it.

That is entirely aside from the fact that the "terrifying" temperature rise on the graph is a whopping .47 degrees C above the center, or, if you really want to get hysterical over nothing, a whole degree C of variability over 140 years. Ooooo.

The temperature extremes where I live (2300 ft elevation in Montana) swing from 110F in the summer to -50F in the winter; we survive both just fine. I look at your puny half degree C and frankly — I mock you. Oooo... water might rise... Oooo... its gonna get warmer... maybe a couple whole DEGREES! Christ, Martha, grab the kids and run for the hills before OUR FACES BURN RIGHT OFF AND OUR SUNGLASSES MELT!!!

We now return you to your regular hysterical environmentalist indulgence in the politically correct fear-mongering of the day.

Global temperature varied before man showed up. Global temperature is changing again now. Therefore, it cannot be a result of man's actions.

Let me just say that this is not stellar logic, and no one should be swayed by it.

Simple fact: CO2 concentrations have increased dramatically and at an accelerating rate.

Simple fact: Global temperature is rising.

Simple fact: The link between greenhouse gases and atmospheric temperatures has been known since the mid-1800's, and has never been credibly disputed. The mechanism showing how CO2 increases temperature has not been in dispute for a long time, so the whole "correlation != causation" argument is wearing pretty thin.

Simple fact: Humans pump about twenty billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Rush Limbaugh's denials to the contrary, this is vastly more than is produced by volcanos.

More worrying graphs. That sudden spike in graph 2, right when the automotive revolution took off? Very unlikely to be a coincidence.

If you truly believe that man is not changing the climate, and is incapable of doing so, then you are foolish. Oh, and weather isn't climate.

a) Is "global warming" really happening?

Unless you are being perversely skeptical, the answer to that is "yes". We have historical temperature records going back to 1850. You can read the FAQ for such datasets and download the data for yourself if you like, or read the articles detailing data collection, analysis, and uncertainties. There is an obvious upward trend.

Going back further requires use of proxy data such as tree rings, ice cores, coral data, glaciers, etc. There have been numerous different studies by different scientists collecting, and cross referencing such data to create historical temperature reconstructions. Here is a plot showing 10 different reconstructions by various authors. There is some variability, but the recent upward trend is again clear. Again, you can get the datasets yourself, and read more reports detailing how they are analysed. At about this point skeptics point to Greenland being green, or Wine growing in Europe in 1000AD, but I've discussed those before, so I won't go into detail again.

The result is that, to claim that the earth is not presently getting warmer requires either a belief that limate scientists are almost universally incompetent, or that they are colluding en masse in a grand conspiracy to falsify data and delude the public. Either of those options would seem, to me, to be a much greater leap of faith than simply assuming that the world is, indeed, getting warmer. As I said, it requires a rather perverse skepticism more on par with 9/11 conspiracy theorists like the maker of Loose Change.

b) If "global warming" is really happening, is it due to anything mankind is doing?

An interesting question. Certainly mankind is doing something: since 1850 atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen from around 280ppm to 385ppm. That's a significant change - in fact given atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the last 650,000 years (via ice core data) the current levels are 5.5 standard deviations from the mean; that's significant! Are humans responsible for this change? Certainly it correlates with the industrial revolution, but still... As it happens we can do isotope analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide, since isotope ratios for fossil fuels are different from thoses of the rest of the carbon cycle. It turns out that indeed, the sudden increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is from humans burning fossil fuels. Now a little basic physics and the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide is enough to tell us that we should expect greater atmospheric carbon dioxide to result in a warmer planet. It turns out that is indeed what we are seeing, and that it correlates well. There's more than just that however. Have a read through the chapter on attribution of the IPCC Third Assessment report. A wide variety of techniques are used to attempt to attribute the observed warming to various potential causes. The end result is that the IPCC found that while warming prior to 1950 could possibly be accounted for by other factors, including solar variation, warming since 1950 can only be reasonably accounted for via anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide. Feel f

Here's my problem with your statement, you ask me to provide cold hard facts that global warming isn't all it's cracked up to be. Well, I can do that with a dozen studies and web sites http://www.junkscience.com/, http://www.john-daly.com/, http://www.climateaudit.com/ are all quick and easy to pull off the top of my head.

In addition, it's recently been pointed out that there's no Nobel Prize waiting for the person who proves anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a crock, in fact it's like a death knell to your carreer to pursue global warming skepticism, even if you are totally right.

McIntyre and McKittrick, the two people who have (respectively) a PhD in Statistics and PhDs in Math and Geology were told that they had no qualifications to argue the quality of Mann's "Hockey Stick". This work was done by climate change scientists who had degrees in, hmmm, one has a PhD in Math and Geology (Mann) and the other has a degree in Statistics (the et. al. of the report.) McIntyre and McKittrick have received dozens of death threats from the AGW crowd, especially after they proved that Mann's equation would produce a hockey stick, even with totally random data.

The reason gravity, and relativity, and evolution haven't been "shot down" is very simple. They are falsifiable theories. It takes a single fact that lies outside their purview to devastate the theory. Gravity - at least Newton's version - was ruined by the fact that the planet Mercury was in the wrong place. Look up the Planet Vulcan sometime and see why Relativity knocked Newton out of the ballpark.

The current AGW debate is based on two facts. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by approximately 80PPM over the last 160 years, and during the last 140 years, there's been an increase in temperature of about 0.6 degrees C. However, there's a big caveat in these two pieces of data. It's called "Correlation does not imply causality." It's one of the first things any good statistician should be taught. However, it's plain that the climate scientists decided to jump on the bandwagon and scream "CO2 is wrecking the Earth!".

To "prove" this, they've turned to computer models of the atmosphere. These, they say, prove that global warming is real, yet even they admit that most of their models "go runaway" and have to be thrown out. I'm sorry, but if your model is so fragile that given the same inputs it can "go runaway", then the model isn't accurate. It's equivalent to tossing a coin. It's meaningless. Who decides what is a "runaway result". Climate Prediction even admits that they threw out any run of their model that showed cooling with an increase in CO2.

Even the most powerful simulator in the world, the NEC Earth Simulator, only works on 50 kilometer wide grids. They had never even seen a hurricane on their "simulated Earth" until two years ago, and even then, they didn't call it a hurricane, they called it a "hurricane precursor" known as a "curl" because the simulation wouldn't support the actual hurricane formation and flow. Now, hurricanes are responsible, annually, for 30-40% of the rainfall in portions of the Southern United States. Their model admittedly doesn't handle this, those areas never receive that rainfall, and precipitation is responsible for a large amount of ground-cooling in models, as well as hundreds of other effects that simply aren't modeled. And that's just one of a dozen things I could list that are wrong with computer models. I've had this argument before. (And it's dropped off my lis

"Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)." Now, you say 2005 had the hottest year on record, yet the official temperature record of the Climate Research Unit shows otherwise. He was pointing this out. Are you going to ignore the official temperature record of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia?

The 1990s were the warmest decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.58C above the 1961-90 mean. Nine of the ten warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past ten years (1995-2004). The only year in the last ten not among the warmest ten is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990).

This is possibly the worst piece of crap ever to come out from some Climate "Dissenter" - and that says a lot !

The guy (Prof. Bob Carter: remember this name !) says: "According to the University of East Anglia, temperatures did not increase between 1998 and 2005".

Now ask yourself a question: why did he pick this particular period ? Maybe it s because the UEA only studied climate between 1998 and 2005 ? So I went to the UEA Climate Research Unit website to see what it was all about.

Right there, smack in the middle of their homepage, there is a big graph that traces temprature variations over 130+ years. And guess what ? The curve is a big glaring hockey stick ! Before 1930: cold. 1930-1980: warm. 1980 onward: warmer.

The evil, deceptive, scheming little crook called Bob Carter (let me repeat his name again: Prof. Bob Carter from James Cook University, Queensland) picked up the year 1998 because it was the ONE year in the whole 130+ year record that was measured as hotter than 2005 ! He exploited the year-to-year variance and carefully ignored the fact that, according to his own source, warming had actually occured and that it was still occuring, even after 1998 !

I'm no climate scientist, I'm not making a point for or against man-made climate change. But this guy (PROF. BOB CARTER FROM JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY, QUEENSLAND) commited the ultimate scientific crime: bad faith. We're not talking about an excusable unconscious bias here. He will fully, knowingly selected his data to support his crackpotism. And now well-meaning-but-ignorant bloggers (oh, sorry, "independent journalists") will keep propagating his lies for decades to come. I bet you that from now on this monumental POS will be brought up in every subsequent /. discussion on climate change.

And people wonder why "climate dissenters" are getting a bad name in the scientific commnunity ?

>There really isn't any doubt that the Earth has warmed up over the last 25 years.

>> Uh, yes there is. You just haven't looked up the stats. We only contribute less than 0.5% of greenhouse gases according to official numbers, and global temperature hasn't risen since 1998 according to the official temperature record.

Uh, no there isn't. You just haven't looked up the stats.
go here http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
and here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

If you look at the graphs, you'll see it takes three steps forward , then two steps back, then 4 forward, etc It's clearly trending up. It's too soon to say it's levelling off.

Yes, because one data point invalidates a 140-year upward trend!

As someone else pointed out:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

I'm not saying that OMG GLOBAL WARMING IS GONNA DOOM US ALL! But I -do- think that humans are certainly affecting global temperatures to some degree, and the end results could be, ah, problematic.

On the home page of the Climate research Unit is an historical chart of global temperature. Look at it. It's clear that the year 1998 was cherry picked for comparison purposes.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/.

Another complaint is that in the article the mention of one degree warming does not mention that it is degrees celsius, which are larger than the system of measurement used in the US. Clearly another attempt to skew the debate.