Slashdot Mirror

Except it's not 97%, read the actual paper instead of the summary. And the others are producing evidence, and aren't on the payroll of major financial interests.
Other than that, it's just like what you said.

The "science" behind this ridiculous "97% of all non-corrupt, progressive scientists agree" paper is even worse than the "science" arguing for AGW in the first place:

Note this excerpt from Anthony Wattts' blog on Cook's more-than-a-little-suspect claims:

Now, Cook has upped the ante, allowing the average person to help participate in the lie and make it their own, as Brandon Schollenberger observes, Cook has launched a new “Consensus project” to make even more certain the public gets his message:

        The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:

        that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).

      If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:

        Reject AGW 0.7% (78)

        Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.

It’s gobsmacking. But, I see this as a good thing, because like the lies of presidential politics, eventually this will all come tumbling down.

(Emphasis added by /. poster)

Yup, "The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The most important thing to do is actually spot-check references. This is so poorly and rarely done that you will very quickly sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to arguments about climate change. (And pretty much anything else.) Sure it takes time, but you learn a *lot* by following how people argue.

It is not too difficult to separate the signal from the noise, but you have to eschew black and white thinking. There are plenty of "earth-is-holy" nutcases out there who desperately believe in AGW, and have no friggin' clue about anything other than their spirit guide. But those people do not work in universities.

If you are interested in seeing some detailed analysis on "skeptic" arguments, then I recommend Peter Hadfield's excellent 5 video series on Monckton: Monckton Bumkin. Sure he makes fun of Monckton, but you'll see why if you actually watch some Monckton videos and then try and trace the arguments. Monckton walked away from a direct conversation with Peter Hadfield on Monckton responds to Potholer54 on the "skeptic" website WUWT.

If you are interested in how information flows through society, then Naomi Oreskes has an excellent book on the disinformation campaign: Merchants of Doubt. It is a little too detailed for a light read, but the details are stomach churning in their audacity.

Getting to the core of the scientific issues is more work. I'm working on a phd, and have a long background in math, modeling, and also some understanding of scientific culture. That type of experience doesn't just fall in your lap. skepticalscience does a good job.

Sorry if I have to talk to you like you're babies...
The "science" is obvious and settled to you, so you want to treat anyone that has doubts as babies. Golf clap for you, drooling-dog. Have you met Kenji?

The standing ovation was inappropriate. At the low partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 would not precipitate at -78C. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/results-lab-experiment-regarding-co2-snow-in-antarctica-at-113%C2%B0f-80-5%C2%B0c-not-possible/

Sorry, the "only at night" was from another source.
Here you go.

There exists a theory that the increase in temperature forces dissolved CO2 in the ocean out of solution.

Where is it supposed to go, right back into the atmosphere?

Obviously, the theory is that a rise in temperature of the oceans is the source of the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way round. Have you really never heard of that theory?

To be fair there is a counter to the theory.

It is worth noting that the total amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean is about 50 times greater than the total amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC’s climate science panel has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, 'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
Has Global Warming Stalled?

Even IPCC head Pachauri admits no warming for 17 years. So what warming are they talking about? 17 years is not a small amount of time. It's 0 change for 1/5 of a century. Given that it's also the most recent fifth, I don't know how they can forecast anything. The OP report says over the "last 60 years", what they mean is 60 years ago for 43 years, ignoring the most recent 17. I don't know how anyone can have any confidence in that trend line when it stops 2/3 through the period.

Yes, a lot of good technical points, which Lewandowsky summarily dismissed as conspiracy against him :)

Even more fun:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/lewandowskys-latest-smear-paper-gets-pulled-from-the-journal-website/

Despite whatever tone you might critique from McIntyre, his takedown of Lewandowsky is clearly fact based - even if people decide to dismiss it because of their own conspiracy ideation, doesn't mean it isn't an accurate portrayal of Lewandowsky's fraud :)

The data shows that temperature rises *precede* CO2 rises. We would expect it the other way around if human-released CO2 was causing the rise, but the data shows the *opposite*. Citation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/

Until recently I believed the human-induced global warning narrative. On closer inspection of the data there are several aspects that need to be examined:

• * is the World is warmer than it has been for the last two thousand years?
• * is the warning of the last three hundreds years (which is undeniable) human induced?
• * why are scientists who use the Scientific Method and go against the narrative being vilified? and
• * global climate models

Global temperature increase data: The data shows that global warming is correct at least since the 17th Century (when there was a 'mini-ice age', possibly due to volcanic activity). This is undeniable. However, if you go back to data from two thousand years ago it appears that the climate is actually cooler than it was two thousand years ago. Please look at the data (and note that the trend is a very slight cooling over 2000 years):
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-climate-northern-europe-reconstructed-years.html

Human induced warming: The narrative given to us is that human activity in the form of burning fossil fuels has caused the supposed warming. If this was the case then we would examine the data and expect to see a carbon dioxide rise (CO2) from humans burning fossil fuels and then the temperature would rise as a result. In fact we see the opposite, we see that the CO2 rise *follows* the temperature rise, not precedes it. This means there is something wrong with the narrative that human-induced CO2 emission is causing global warming because the data does not support this. Here's the data
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/

Global warming models: Much of the global warming information is based on 'extrapolations' (projections) of short-term trends. Looking over the last hundred or two hundred years and projecting will result in temperature rise estimates that are alarming. Looking at the long-term data results in projections that are far less alarming (which this Slashdot thread is talking about; and I am also trying to inform you about). The other thing about models is that they are iterative and are subject to all sorts of instabilities. From what I know some of the models also were rather crude in the fact they didn't take into account many significant effects, like the eccentricity of our orbit etc, which results in periodic changes in solar radiation levels. Having a model is always better than no model - but that doesn't mean the model you have corresponds to reality, it only corresponds to our best guess. I know, as a astrophysicist turned IT guy used to make scientific models all the time - they are tricky beasts and most people (even those graduate students making them) don't always understand their limitations very well.

Vilification of scientists: scientists who where skeptical of the data are being vilified. Their careers are being destroyed and they are ridiculed for saying, "Hey, the data suggests something else than the human-induced global warming narrative" despite this being not only consistent with, but *required by* the Scientific Method. These scientists are labelled by the media as "climate change deniers" when in fact they agree with recent climate warming, disagree that human-released CO2 as the primary agent for the warming, and disagree that the climate has gotten warmer over the last two thousand years. All of these positions are supported by the data (as far as I can see). The media is especially bad at mocking the scientists who "don't follow the (Liberal) Party Line" despite the courage of those scientists to not cave in (which would be easier) and follow the scientific evidence as they see it. The US mainstream media

AH BEST. The original paper was rejected by the journal JGR Atmospheres but finally they have passed "peer review". The BRAND NEW heretofore unheard of Journal Geoinformatics and Geostatistics will now feature the BEST paper. Yes ladies and gentlemen, issue 1 volume 1 will have this study as its centrepiece.

In other earth shattering news - NOAA has discovered that the further away from the structures you put the thermometer, the recorded night time temperatures are colder. This is known as the "theory of duh" in physics circles, but required experimental verification by climate scientists.

There is still much science to be done and much politics to extricate from climate science

Isnt this the group that was funded by the Koch brothers and hand picked with denialist?

Muller was rather more of a skeptic than a denialist.

I'm not aware of David and Charle's Koch specific opinions on the BEST results, but in the denialist blogosphere, Muller and BEST went from white knights to treacherous scum overnight. Compare Anthony Watt's comments before the announcements:

I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing ... I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.

and after:

And still, he hasn’t published anything and his papers have not passed peer review, but the political apparatchik wants to showcase the incomplete and rushed, non quality controlled, error riddled BEST science as if it were factual enough to kill off “denialism” worldwide. That’s political desperation in my opinion.

Isnt this the group that was funded by the Koch brothers and hand picked with denialist?

Muller was rather more of a skeptic than a denialist.

I'm not aware of David and Charle's Koch specific opinions on the BEST results, but in the denialist blogosphere, Muller and BEST went from white knights to treacherous scum overnight. Compare Anthony Watt's comments before the announcements:

I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing ... I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.

and after:

And still, he hasn’t published anything and his papers have not passed peer review, but the political apparatchik wants to showcase the incomplete and rushed, non quality controlled, error riddled BEST science as if it were factual enough to kill off “denialism” worldwide. That’s political desperation in my opinion.

"Don't count on it. My understanding is that it won't be that much different than the previous one and many of the differences will show worse effects than before."

Probably not, if they base it on the scientific papers that have already been chosen for the report. Examples:

Recent paper from Ken Briffa and T. Melvin of University of East Anglia shows a Medieval Warm Period again... and no hockey stick. (Remember that UAE and CRU were the same folks Michael Mann was working with.)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/

(Yes, people can complain if they like that it's the WUWT site... but it's BRIFFA's paper!)

Another AR5 reviewer (Forrest M. Mims, a man I respect), speaks out about what he saw in the AR5 draft paper:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

(Also the WUWT site... but he's an actual IPCC reviewer. I would ask people to read his words, and not argue about irrelevancies like where they were published.)

And so on. There are also statements in the draft AR5 report that hurricanes and other such storms (annual cyclonic activity) is NOT expected to go up significantly as a result of global warming. That is a significant departure from IPCC's earlier claims.

This isn't definitive, of course, but this and other information strongly hint that the AR5 report -- if it reports the science accurately, which remains to be seen -- will be greatly toned down from what we have seen from them before.

"Don't count on it. My understanding is that it won't be that much different than the previous one and many of the differences will show worse effects than before."

Probably not, if they base it on the scientific papers that have already been chosen for the report. Examples:

Recent paper from Ken Briffa and T. Melvin of University of East Anglia shows a Medieval Warm Period again... and no hockey stick. (Remember that UAE and CRU were the same folks Michael Mann was working with.)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/

(Yes, people can complain if they like that it's the WUWT site... but it's BRIFFA's paper!)

Another AR5 reviewer (Forrest M. Mims, a man I respect), speaks out about what he saw in the AR5 draft paper:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

(Also the WUWT site... but he's an actual IPCC reviewer. I would ask people to read his words, and not argue about irrelevancies like where they were published.)

And so on. There are also statements in the draft AR5 report that hurricanes and other such storms (annual cyclonic activity) is NOT expected to go up significantly as a result of global warming. That is a significant departure from IPCC's earlier claims.

This isn't definitive, of course, but this and other information strongly hint that the AR5 report -- if it reports the science accurately, which remains to be seen -- will be greatly toned down from what we have seen from them before.

We've had a bunch of climate related stories on /. lately. My theory is that when IPCC AR5 comes out officially, the jig will be up. The alarmists are having to make hay while they still can.

For the blessed few who haven't been following the climate wars, IPCC AR5 is the United Nations latest report on global warming. It has several important findings including that shown in Figure 1.4 . The global climate has warmed less than all the IPCC's previous projections. They also conclude that the global temperature will warm about an additional degree in the 21st century. Dry places will get slightly drier. Wet places will get slightly wetter. Extreme weather events will not be more extreme or more frequent. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been cancelled.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

And look at what's actually happening:

... a large scale, natural experiment in Papua New Guinea. There are several places at the eastern end of that country where carbon dioxide is continuously bubbling up through healthy looking coral reef, with fish swimming around and all that that implies.

Remember when scientists would discard theories when their predictions were wrong? Good times....

"Globally, five countries this year set heat records, but none set cold records."

"Jim River, AK closed in on the all time record coldest temperature of -80ÂF set in 1971, which is not only the Alaska all-time record, but the record for the entire United States. Unfortunately, it seems the battery died in the weather station just at the critical moment."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/30/bitter-cold-records-broken-in-alaska-all-time-coldest-record-nearly-broken-but-murphys-law-intervenes/

LOS ANGELES -- Southern Californians awoke Thursday to record cold with sub-freezing temperatures in the mountains and deserts, but forecasters said a slight warming trend was on the way.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/20/5066818/s-calif-winds-ease-as-cold-temps.html

Winter cold record broken in Kuusamo
http://yle.fi/uutiset/winter_cold_record_broken_in_kuusamo/6424159 ...

Oh, I didn't even see the precious references to "97% of climatologists" survey!

Quick guess - how many climatologists was that, *actually* surveyed?

Less than 100? Less than 1000? Less than 10,000?

Oh, and for bonus points, how many responses to the survey were thrown away?

Less than 100? Less than 1000? Less than 10,000?

The argument from the authority of the "97%" falls apart when you actually look at the *real* data:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

you need to demonstrate why adding CO2 to the air will not cause the temperature to go up. That's all there is to it. You're arguing with basic physics.

Let's focus on that for a second. You cannot simply assert that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas; humans emit CO2; therefore we must do everything in our power to stabilize CO2 levels". You can plug in *any* greenhouse gas into that hypothesis, and be just as silly. Shall we stabilize H2O levels worldwide?

This is a clear example of a trivial, and useless falsification. Yes, if CO2 didn't exist, or had spectral properties even .01% off of our calculations, then GCMs modeled with that are obviously false, and therefore AGW is false. But the simple existence of CO2 and its spectral properties does not imply humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

But even if we take a look at your trivial example, CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in the past (the expansion of animal life, volcanism, ocean outgassing), but the temperature has not gone up (note the lag of CO2 to temperature in ice core records). "Oh, but there was X, Y, Z at work!", you'll say...once again, using an ad hoc special pleading to preserve your central conceit.

You need to do a better job than saying "basic physics means that my complex and fragile hypothesis must be true".

there is no known mechanism that would result in the Earth NOT warming when we add CO2 to the atmosphere.

Sure there are - heck, AGW alarmists talk about soot and particulate matter "hiding" the warming all the time, and let's not forget we've got ENSO/PDO/ADO, cloud albedo, or even solar variations (besides simply TSI).

97% of the picture is hidden in the oceans, where all the evidence strongly indicates heat is accumulating.

Ah, the "missing heat" argument...one that unfortunately has not been observed :)

Look, you want to talk basic physics, look at the heat capacity of the oceans vs. the atmosphere: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/energy-content-the-heat-is-on-atmosphere-vs-ocean/

Now, do you really think the atmosphere can drive the oceans? Certainly, cloud cover (varying albedo) can have an effect by blocking or allowing radiation from hitting the oceans, but simple atmospheric temperature? Try heating a pot of water with a thin layer of air, and tell me just how hot you need the atmosphere to move the oceans :)

You have no idea what a 2C temperature change will do.

Sure we do, we can measure what happened between the bottom of the little ice age and today. However, if you want to assert that I have no idea what the *next* 2C of temperature change will do, you should humbly note that neither do you :)

Why should we destroy our economy on the basis of something you have no idea about?

the area in which I live has seen more than a 1C increase since 1970.

There is no reason for you to believe that such a change wouldn't have happened if humans didn't emit CO2. Frankly, it's much more likely that your 1C of increase is a matter of UHI, which although certainly human driven, has nothing to do with emissions.

But that being said, please, be specific about what catastrophe has happened in your area because of this change! Has the area completely depopulated? Have all the animals and plants died? Have hurricanes and tornadoes ravaged through at a higher rate than before? Exactly what are you afraid of an early spring or mild winter? Has some local tit-mouse population crashed?

Maybe if we understand the severity of the effects you've observed in your locality, you can make the case that we "must act now"...

2C will cause a fairly large amount o

No leg pulling, I honestly didn't understand what model you were referring to. I had originally thought you had intended to cite the model of "CO2 causes global warming" ala Arrhenius, but then you moved to El Nino/La Nina.

My apologies if I haven't been clear - "climate science" as you're using it surely encompasses more than simply the unfalsifiable religion of AGW, and I inappropriately used it as a shorthand (much in the way people use "global warming" as a shorthand for "anthropogenic global warming". I understand where my argument became ambiguous, and apologize for not being clearer.

Yes, knowing whether or not *this* year is an El Nino/La Nina gives us some useful, actionable information, and it was true climate scientists who found that pattern, even though it defies any medium or long term prediction. However, every last "climate scientist" plugging the catastrophic AGW trope has been completely worthless for two reasons:

1) no falsifiable hypothesis. The El Nino/La Nina scientists (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/11/el-nino-southern-oscillation-myth-2-a-new-myth-enso-balances-out-to-zero-over-the-long-term/), have not been promoting any sort of non-falsifiable "omg, you must do X, Y, and Z, no matter what we observe";

2) no regional specificity. Humans (and all other life forms for that matter), never experience global average temperature. The so-called "climate science" GCMs have no regional skill, and despite their incredible complication, cannot provide anything nearly as useful as "we've recognized we're in this phase of ENSO, so we predict these general regional conditions".

So, with the understanding now that there is indeed *real* climate science out there, and that the GCM modelers promoting AGW are, on the other hand, charlatans, frauds and climate pseudo-scientists, and that it is *this* unfalsifiable aspect that is related to astrology, have I clearly communicated my argument?

How about NOAA's estimate of sea level rise between 8 inches and 6.6 feet? I feel pretty confident that the actual change will be in that range.

Here is the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/ Another link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-2nd-quarter-2012/ Global warming is just a hoax!

Um, no there isn't:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

As pointed out, a single outlying year (even if we accept the dubious anecdotes from SS) doesn't show a trend.

Farmers, ski lift operators etc can experience it over decades.

And aren't. What does that tell you?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

decade on decade cooling *is* climate

decade on decade staying the same *is* climate

there is no statistical trend in extreme weather events that correlates to human CO2 emissions, or heck, even to global CO2 levels in general. In fact, cyclonic activity has *dropped* (which, if you read some AGW papers, is expected because the temperature gradient between the poles and equator is reduced...of course others expect more cyclonic activity, so no matter what happens, someone can pull a paper out and say "see, global warming!").

As for record breaking, check this out: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/

Exactly *which one* doesn't it explain?

Or, more to the point, what observations do you believe would falsify the novel idea that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global climate change?

Food for thought: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/

What is the issue is how we deal with it. Why does the World Bank insist of making sooo much money out of this? They are robbing the poor countries blind with interested in the name of progress already, so while everyone is shouting warming of not, their agenda is not being recognised by many.

I liked this perspective: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/when-bankers-turn-climatologists

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/ This 97%? please.

According to whom? As far as I know, there's no way to measure sea level to that degree of accuracy, taking into account all of the variable factors. NASA JPL admits to “spurious” errors in current satellite based sea level and ice altimetry. That is to say, the lack of a stable reference frame. Worse for the catastrophists, a paper in GRL shows there to be a 60 oscillation in the majority of long tide records.

According to whom? As far as I know, there's no way to measure sea level to that degree of accuracy, taking into account all of the variable factors. NASA JPL admits to “spurious” errors in current satellite based sea level and ice altimetry. That is to say, the lack of a stable reference frame. Worse for the catastrophists, a paper in GRL shows there to be a 60 oscillation in the majority of long tide records.

They took a decision that there was no case to be made for having always to 'balance' the reporting of mainstream science with opposing views, most of which are not represented in the scientific literature anyway. In the same way that a natural history programme should not have to balance each mention of evolution with a creationist argument.

No they actually took the stance that they would no longer be impartial in these matters as per the advice of their secret panel of experts

As expected, the BBC has won its legal battle against blogger Tony Newbery. Newbery wanted the list of “scientific experts” who attended a BBC seminar at which, according to the BBC Trust, they convinced the broadcaster to abandon impartiality and take a firmly warmist position when reporting climate change.
When the Beeb refused to divulge who these people were and who they worked for, Newbery took the corporation to an information tribunal. Now the names and affiliations of the 28 people who decided the Beeb climate stance – acknowledged by the Corporation to include various non-scientists such as NGO people, activists etc – will remain a secret.The Secret 28 Who Made BBC ‘Green’ Will Not Be Named

and while the Beeb won by arguing that they weren't subject to FOI requests in this matter, they failed by publishing the list of the secret conclave's participants on their website and then removing it; which meant that a search of the internet way-back machine revieled

The list from: January 26th 2006, BBC Television Centre, London

Specialists:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures catriona@tightropepictures.com

BBC Television Centre, London (cont

I still feel that you completely missed the boat, Phil.

I agree that what MOST people are talking about (comments in the code, etc.) are really no big deal. It is the other emails that concern me... like the ones that show deliberate (and very probably illegal) failure to honor FOI requests and so on. Also, emails that indicate that the data used was improperly handled. Take this exchange, for example (I posted this same link on your other blog entry):

THAT exchange is completely IN context, showing both sides. Yet it indicates that either they used improper data in their calculations, or possibly that they simply are not aware of what data they did use (which amounts to pretty much the same thing). What it does show, pretty clearly and in context, is that they made a mess of this whole study. Add to that the missing data (whether it was done on purpose or not), and what you have is BAD SCIENCE, completely aside from any conspiracy theories.

I am not crying conspiracy, and I don't give the slightest damn about this politics of this whole thing. But you are ignoring the real, demonstrable goofs that these people made... some very big goofs that call their whole set of data into serious question. And when you look at all the OTHER studies done that rely on this very same data... what you have is a travesty and a tragedy. [Lonny Eachus, 2009-12-04]

These are very serious accusations, Lonny. And they're all based on this WUWT article by Willis Eschenbach:

"One of the claims in this hacked CRU email saga goes something like 'Well, the scientists acted like jerks, but that doesn't affect the results, it's still warming.' I got intrigued by one of the hacked CRU emails, from the Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth to Professor Wibjorn Karlen. In it, Professor Karlen asked some very pointed questions about the CRU and IPCC results. He got incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers. ... Professor Karlen was quite correct. The claims made by the CRU, and repeated in the IPCC document, were false. Karlen was looking at the evidence. ... Now, I have not taken a stand on whether the machinations of the CRU extended to actually altering the global temperature figures. It seems quite clear from Professor Karlen's observations, however, that they have gotten it very wrong in at least the Fennoscandian region. Since this region has very good records and a lot of them, this does not bode well for the rest of the globe ..."

Even if the methodologies used to establish the base data were sound, there is no doubt that it was later used improperly and irresponsibly. For months now, in these blog posts of Phil's, I have asked anybody - ANYBODY - to refute what is on this page: When Results Go Bad. I have had no takers. Not one. Anybody care to take a shot at it now? [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-01]

Sure, why not? The next day, Zeke Hausfather wrote When results aren't bad which shows that Prof. Karlen, Eschenbach and Eachus based their accusations on a misunderstanding of the geographical region represented in the IPCC's time series. The first link in Zeke's article leads to Lonny's comment.

I see. The "actual experts in the field all have research that shows the same thing"? Interesting! I would be very interested to see some evidence for that claim! Wait... d

I still feel that you completely missed the boat, Phil.

I agree that what MOST people are talking about (comments in the code, etc.) are really no big deal. It is the other emails that concern me... like the ones that show deliberate (and very probably illegal) failure to honor FOI requests and so on. Also, emails that indicate that the data used was improperly handled. Take this exchange, for example (I posted this same link on your other blog entry):

THAT exchange is completely IN context, showing both sides. Yet it indicates that either they used improper data in their calculations, or possibly that they simply are not aware of what data they did use (which amounts to pretty much the same thing). What it does show, pretty clearly and in context, is that they made a mess of this whole study. Add to that the missing data (whether it was done on purpose or not), and what you have is BAD SCIENCE, completely aside from any conspiracy theories.

I am not crying conspiracy, and I don't give the slightest damn about this politics of this whole thing. But you are ignoring the real, demonstrable goofs that these people made... some very big goofs that call their whole set of data into serious question. And when you look at all the OTHER studies done that rely on this very same data... what you have is a travesty and a tragedy. [Lonny Eachus, 2009-12-04]

These are very serious accusations, Lonny. And they're all based on this WUWT article by Willis Eschenbach:

"One of the claims in this hacked CRU email saga goes something like 'Well, the scientists acted like jerks, but that doesn't affect the results, it's still warming.' I got intrigued by one of the hacked CRU emails, from the Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth to Professor Wibjorn Karlen. In it, Professor Karlen asked some very pointed questions about the CRU and IPCC results. He got incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers. ... Professor Karlen was quite correct. The claims made by the CRU, and repeated in the IPCC document, were false. Karlen was looking at the evidence. ... Now, I have not taken a stand on whether the machinations of the CRU extended to actually altering the global temperature figures. It seems quite clear from Professor Karlen's observations, however, that they have gotten it very wrong in at least the Fennoscandian region. Since this region has very good records and a lot of them, this does not bode well for the rest of the globe ..."

Even if the methodologies used to establish the base data were sound, there is no doubt that it was later used improperly and irresponsibly. For months now, in these blog posts of Phil's, I have asked anybody - ANYBODY - to refute what is on this page: When Results Go Bad. I have had no takers. Not one. Anybody care to take a shot at it now? [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-01]

Sure, why not? The next day, Zeke Hausfather wrote When results aren't bad which shows that Prof. Karlen, Eschenbach and Eachus based their accusations on a misunderstanding of the geographical region represented in the IPCC's time series. The first link in Zeke's article leads to Lonny's comment.

I see. The "actual experts in the field all have research that shows the same thing"? Interesting! I would be very interested to see some evidence for that claim! Wait... d

I still feel that you completely missed the boat, Phil.

I agree that what MOST people are talking about (comments in the code, etc.) are really no big deal. It is the other emails that concern me... like the ones that show deliberate (and very probably illegal) failure to honor FOI requests and so on. Also, emails that indicate that the data used was improperly handled. Take this exchange, for example (I posted this same link on your other blog entry):

THAT exchange is completely IN context, showing both sides. Yet it indicates that either they used improper data in their calculations, or possibly that they simply are not aware of what data they did use (which amounts to pretty much the same thing). What it does show, pretty clearly and in context, is that they made a mess of this whole study. Add to that the missing data (whether it was done on purpose or not), and what you have is BAD SCIENCE, completely aside from any conspiracy theories.

I am not crying conspiracy, and I don't give the slightest damn about this politics of this whole thing. But you are ignoring the real, demonstrable goofs that these people made... some very big goofs that call their whole set of data into serious question. And when you look at all the OTHER studies done that rely on this very same data... what you have is a travesty and a tragedy. [Lonny Eachus, 2009-12-04]

These are very serious accusations, Lonny. And they're all based on this WUWT article by Willis Eschenbach:

"One of the claims in this hacked CRU email saga goes something like 'Well, the scientists acted like jerks, but that doesn't affect the results, it's still warming.' I got intrigued by one of the hacked CRU emails, from the Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth to Professor Wibjorn Karlen. In it, Professor Karlen asked some very pointed questions about the CRU and IPCC results. He got incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers. ... Professor Karlen was quite correct. The claims made by the CRU, and repeated in the IPCC document, were false. Karlen was looking at the evidence. ... Now, I have not taken a stand on whether the machinations of the CRU extended to actually altering the global temperature figures. It seems quite clear from Professor Karlen's observations, however, that they have gotten it very wrong in at least the Fennoscandian region. Since this region has very good records and a lot of them, this does not bode well for the rest of the globe ..."

Even if the methodologies used to establish the base data were sound, there is no doubt that it was later used improperly and irresponsibly. For months now, in these blog posts of Phil's, I have asked anybody - ANYBODY - to refute what is on this page: When Results Go Bad. I have had no takers. Not one. Anybody care to take a shot at it now? [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-01]

Sure, why not? The next day, Zeke Hausfather wrote When results aren't bad which shows that Prof. Karlen, Eschenbach and Eachus based their accusations on a misunderstanding of the geographical region represented in the IPCC's time series. The first link in Zeke's article leads to Lonny's comment.

I see. The "actual experts in the field all have research that shows the same thing"? Interesting! I would be very interested to see some evidence for that claim! Wait... d

What happens when you take 2 plastic water bottles and add some Co2 to one of them and just simply cap the other one and set them out in the sun. Is the Co2 doped bottle warmer? Does it trap more heat?

There is no measurable difference in temperatures between the two bottles; even building greenhouses, one out of IR transparent glazing and the other out of IR absorbing glass will show no difference between the two. It's unfortunate that the name "Greenhouse Gas" caught on so firmly because of the common misconception about how greenhouses really work. Even Al Gore's Climate 101 had to post a fabricated "experiment" to demonstrate the CO2 greenhouse in a bottle.

Well, you're correct that the data is there. However, it doesn't tend to actually say what certain paleoclimatologists or activists would have you believe...

"They use ice core data to determine temperatures and atmospheric composition."

Correct, but they also find that CO2 rises after temperature, not before, with a lag time of at least a couple of centuries. What's interesting is that right now CO2 is rising first, which means that there are very interesting questions about the degree to which this impacts warming.

"They have calibrated those readings based on the few hundred years of written records available."

The problem is that prior to the Little Ice Age, they tend to ignore those records. The current alarmist claim is that we are in an unprecedented period of warming. The historical reality is that while the rise of CO2 prior to temperature is pretty unprecedented, the levels of warming are not. We've been this warm and warmer before, in both the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods.

How do we know this? Because the economies of the time were barter economies, and therefore the tax records were tracking goods rather than money. We actually have detailed records of what was grown where, when, and frequently how well. We have archaeological evidence and records of old vineyards at altitudes that cannot support vineyards today. We have Medieval deep water ports in Scandinavia that are not deep water ports today (the water level hasn't risen back to high enough). And then there are the hundreds of peer-reviewed proxy studies that indicate a Medieval Warm Period at least as warm as the present, if not warmer. Don't take my word for it - the Medieval Warm Period Project has been collecting and listing them: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Now, all that said, this says nothing about what the impact of man-made CO2 has on the atmosphere - we are in a warm period, and we are contributing greenhouse gases to it. Some of the latest research out of NASA suggests that the actual sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is under 2 degrees: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

And, we also have the empirical evidence of Linzden and Choi, who did some of the first long-term research on actual solar warmth coming in vs. warmth going back out in comparison to CO2. They found that the empirical evidence suggested a warming of around 1 degree: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/

When you actually look at the journals (which is what I try to do - when I delve into this stuff, I prefer the websites that aggregate research papers), you see far less consensus and far more active discussion. The problem is that "Our climate is changing, we're in a warm period, and we are going to need to adjust and ensure that we're not creating problems" does not read nearly as well as "Our climate is changing, it's unprecedented, and we're all going to die!"

If you haven't guessed, I'm a skeptic on this, but this means my opinion on the matter is always changeable - I go where the evidence points me. I take empirical data over computer models always, and I'm trained to look at historical trends. And, it drives me crazy when people misrepresent the history, derive the wrong conclusions from it (the history tends to indicate that we as a species do better during the warm periods, not worse), and drown out the critical research and its findings with declarations of apocalypse.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63C (58.23F). This is 0.63C (1.13F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.

Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing....

Maps and the full article are here.

Is that the discredited NOAA figures http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2 ?

Well, "primary production increase" => google.com = about 134,000,000 results (0.27 seconds)

The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA satellite data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year. Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause

or if you want original sources

Recent climatic changes have enhanced plant growth in northern mid-latitudes and high latitudes. However, a comprehensive analysis of the impact of global climatic changes on vegetation productivity has not before been expressed in the context of variable limiting factors to plant growth. We present a global investigation of vegetation responses to climatic changes by analyzing 18 years (1982 to 1999) of both climatic data and satellite observations of vegetation activity. Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation. Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999

Oh who wrote that paper? " Ramakrishna R. Nemani1,*,, Charles D. Keeling2, Hirofumi Hashimoto1,3, William M. Jolly1, Stephen C. Piper2 Compton J. Tucker4, Ranga B. Myneni5, Steven W. Running1
Yes, I suspect your BS meter is running true. There seems to be a discontinuity between what Dr. Running said in 2003 about primary production and what he's saying in 2012.

97% of climatologists? You mean that tired old trope based on a survey of 76 people? Apologies in advance for the WUWT reference, but he's got you dead to rights:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/02/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-sample-size-79/

The theory of evolution is falsifiable (find a modern rabbit in the precambrian).

The theory of an expanding universe is falsifiable (find a blue shift, instead of a red shift).

Even the moon landing is falsifiable (point your laser at the mirror they left from earth).

What is your possible falsification for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Oh, that's right, you don't have one, and can't quote anyone who does :)

Of course, what should we care about the scientific method when we can determine truth simply by polling :)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/08/replication-of-lewandowsky-survey/

I wonder how the survey will turn out when not done by shoddy scientists :)

Some US rockets are transported on rails.

The old Titan IV had the rocket assembled in one building then moved to one of two pads on two sets of rails. The rails had a switch to go to two different pads. Then a building moved over the rocket to integrate the payload. They did this because they did lots of DOD payloads. This way you could have a crew of rocket techs with one level of clearance assemble the rocket. Then at the pad have the NRO people with very high clearance have access to the payload.
http://spaceflightnow.com/titan/b39/031006rollout.html

The Atlas V uses a refurbished pad and still uses the same set of rails.
http://www.wired4space.com/launch-sites/cape-canaveral-afs/atlas-v-with-muos-1-rolls-out-to-the-lc-41-launch-pad

Space X horizontally integrates and rides out on rails.

The Delta IV has it's core stage roll out horizontally and is lifted vertical onto a fixed pad with a roll away building.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/19/new-goes-p-weather-satellite-getting-prepped-for-launch/

One of the reasons in the old days large US rockets were assembled vertically was because they weren't strong enough to be lifted horizontally when integrated. Most of these structures are very strong in the axial direction but can't take large radial loads.

Also the shuttle SRB's are VERY heavy at about 1 million pounds each. These require a large pad hence a large transporter.

Additional information on this train wreck of a paper: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/stephan-lewandowskys-slow-motion-social-science-train-wreck/

"This right here should be enough for a retraction from the Journal. If different surveys were sent to different bloggers, and no mention of it was made in the paper or justified in the methodology, then this amounts to purposely biased data from the beginning. UWA may also find grounds for academic misconduct if Lewandowsky purposefully sent different sets of questions based on the type of blog he was inviting.

And then we have the fact that Lewandowsky was discussing preliminary results at a seminar, while the surveys were still open and he had not heard back from the skeptic blogs yet, such as the follow up invitation to Steve McIntyre. Having an open discussion of the survey is highly irregular, because attendees/viewers are free to take the survey, possibly biasing the results."

Yet another warmist attempt to educate the masses, regardless of the data.

The paper is based on an amalgamation of several different surveys, that weren't sent to the people he claimed they were sent to - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/07/lewandowsky-thinks-failure-to-get-or-find-email-is-conspiracy-theory/

The fact of the matter is that the paper did *not* observe what it claims to observe, and was so shoddy and filled with methodological errors, it shouldn't have gotten past the first glance of peer review.

A black stain, once again, on the soul of warmists.

This study seems much worse than that... he claims to have invited skeptical blogs to participate, but nobody can find where those invitations went. And several versions of questions have been identified, so comparing the collected data would be difficult. As well as some of the conspiracy claims seem very weak.

Paging Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky - show your climate survey invitation RSVP's

Stephan Lewandowsky's slow motion Psychological Science train wreck

This study seems much worse than that... he claims to have invited skeptical blogs to participate, but nobody can find where those invitations went. And several versions of questions have been identified, so comparing the collected data would be difficult. As well as some of the conspiracy claims seem very weak.

Paging Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky - show your climate survey invitation RSVP's

Stephan Lewandowsky's slow motion Psychological Science train wreck

Um, where's the regional specificity there? Hansen pretty much said "the world is warming" (pretty obvious coming out of a little ice age), had huge error bars, and actually, *none* of his model sensitivities got it right. Now, perhaps what he meant was "if we see this, it means that our model sensitivity should be X", but that presupposes the model is correct. He's finding a fudge factor there, not making a prediction :)

Assuming Hansen got better over time, here's his 1988 predictions:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/