Slashdot Mirror

"If you can show that the predicted warming is not happening"..

How about this:
NOAA Making Stuff Up And Contradicting Themselves

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/noaa-making-stuff-up-and-contradicting-themselves/

or this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/11/steig-on-antarctic-warming-rossby-wave-trains/

The data being used to support the theory is pure bullshit. But instead of objectively looking at the criticisms, you blindly roll along repeating the mantra.

Actually, it did make headlines in conservative circles ->

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100043200/third-climategate-report-imminent-expect-a-shortage-of-whitewash-in-stores-this-weekend/

BTW, did you *read* any of the whitewashes? Here's a decent guide to the detailed problems with them - feel free to expound on any details you happen to disagree with:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/15/mckitrick-understanding-the-climategate-inquiries/

Occasionally I think climatologists’ arguments are wrong (like RC.org and your stance towards Watts) ... [ShakaUVM]

... the temperature station project was worthwhile, and various (real) papers have credited Watts for his work. [ShakaUVM]

... both Watts and the Mc's have occasionally made actual contributions and been cited in the literature. [ShakaUVM]

I could copy and paste links from thread after thread where you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make even the smallest admission that Watts' empirical station survey had any work. I could post all of those links, and make you look stupid. Or I could just say it outright. Which I just did. [ShakaUVM]

Due to cognitive dissonance, most IDers would rather have their fingernails pulled out than talk about all the cases where they think the theory of evolution works just fine (similar to how Khayman had to be dragged kicking and screaming to finally admit that *maybe* there was some *small* benefit to AGW-denier Watts' station survey work) ... [ShakaUVM]

Again, my stance towards Watts is that he's convinced an army of crackpots that Real Climate is bullshitting about the temperature record despite the fact that he hasn't performed any original research to back up these libelous conspiracy

Ask her how she's been dealing with the banana radiation problem:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/going-bananas-over-radiation/

Is there some anti-science place you folks hangout and cook this crap up?

I'm guessing most of them come from here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/

But: who say's the ice is melting? Yes, there is less arctic ice than some years ago. What supporters of global warming somehow always omit is that the ice in Antarctica has increased by pretty much the same amount. We are seeing regional variations - for unknown reasons - that pretty much balance out.

I looked at his web site. He looks like a kinder, gentler climate denier, but still full of propaganda.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/24/inspector-general-finds-noaa-climategate-emails-warrant-further-investigation/#comment-607154

He made a big post quoting Senator Inhofe that there are still some emails that "warranted further investigation". That line was taken out of context, and one of his commenters added the next sentence to the quote, which totally changed the nature and tone.

“In our own review of all 1,073 CRU emails, we found eight emails which, in our judgment, warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity of particular NOAA scientists or NOAA’s data. As a result, we conducted interviews with the relevant NOAA scientists regarding these eight emails, and have summarized their responses and explanations in the enclosure.”

That's taken so badly out of context that this guy should look into getting a job at Fox News. The very next sentence of the quote disproves the entire allegation made by the headline.

Wow, that's quite a misrepresentation of Anthony Watts website. Pretty much the opposite of his conclusions, in fact.

Articles on his blog (which sometimes reads more like a scientific journal) show that rural stations often show no warming at all - at least, until they have been appropriately "adjusted" (using methods that are generally not released). Meanwhile, the increasing temperatures of urban stations are not adjusted to eliminate the Urban Heat Island effect. Large parts of the arctic and antarctic are presumed to be warming, even though there are no weather stations within hundreds or thousands of miles.

Is the climate warming? He would agree with you that the climate warmed through (plus or minus) the year 2000 so, but possibly has now entered a cooling phase. Articles on his blog also show that (a) over decades, there is a warming/cooling cycle that very closely follows solar cycles, (b) that the overall warming trend of the past 200 years predates any significant human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere, (c) the planet has in the past been warmer than today - in that sense, the recent warming is not "unprecedented", and finally (d) millions of years ago CO2 levels were much, much higher than today, so a higher CO2 level is also not unprecedented.

In short: the earth warms and cools. We do not understand all of the factors that influence these climate cycles, but CO2 is almost certainly not a precursor of increased temperatures. In any case, a warmer earth is in many ways preferable to a cooling earth. The entire panic about CO2 is politically driven, and many scientists have hooked their wagons to it, in order to get research funding.

My take is that Anthony Watts wants to present the objective truth - whatever that may be - and to discredit bad science and politically driven science.

Hardly cleared. Sounds like further investigation is needed (and will be performed).

The positive out of all of this is that the "skeptic" side is finally being heard instead of being completely ignored as heretical by the clergy of the Church of Global warming. There's way too much money to be made in all this carbon/green stuff for it ever to completely go away, but at least now we may be more inclined to focus on immediate and concrete issues rather than a wild goose chase.

I thought this was about the solar flares headed our way. Sorry the only link I could find, the news is too new I guess.

What a load of crap. CO2 is plant food. More CO2 makes it greener, less would obviously make it less so. Funny how the supposed Greens get this so backwards. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/ Of course seeing Greens take the side of a murderous tyrant would come as no surprise at all. :)

The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole

That doesn't compare the first half with the second, it compares the second with the entire period. Given the stasis/cooling from 1930 to 1950, it's hardly surprising that this is the case. It also choses 1906 as the starting point and 2005 as the end point. Why? Presumably it's been edited by William Connolley.

First, a bit about ice cores:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

You want to talk about climate? OK. Let's talk long time frames and entire Earth length scales. Where is global warming relative to normal climate changes we have seen as humanity? Tiny. What are you worried about again? Indeed, the temperature proxies say that what is going on now is not anomalous either in scale of speed (although you do need to look back a bit to see similar hockey pucks as now even if current hockey puck is real and not made up by fraudulent data adjustments).

This whole distinction between weather and climate is driving me nuts. Do _you_ know what you are talking about? You cannot talk about climate change meaningfully because we just do not have temperature records for long time scales and any predictions would have to be verified on ten thousand year time scales to be believable. So the alternative is to demonstrate extreme short time and length scale predictive power. The idea being that in a chaotic system errors propagate exponentially so if you have extreme local predictive power then your errors looking forward are likely to be limited at least for a few decades. And so it is natural to ask for precise weather prediction but not just that. I want to see weather prediction with decent accuracy over the entire Earth (large length scales) and decent but verifiable time scales (say a year). I have asked in a previous thread for weather predictions for the upcoming year with 0.1 degree accuracy for all existing weather station locations across the globe. You produce that, demonstrate perfect agreement between theory and measurement and I will start to look at your theories with some credibility. The alternative is to predict global climate for 10000 years ahead and then wait that long to test agreement. Then and only then could we meaningfully talk about making informed policy decisions on climate.

Actually, it's quite simple - ice extent and mass have more to do with ocean current flows, and the position of warm or cold water, rather than warm or cold air. This is a fairly simple refutation of the simplistic association with air temperature and ice mass. For more data, check:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

I was talking about the total energy in the ocean, which pretty much all comes from the atmosphere.

What rubbish! When you get sunburn, is that caused by the heat of the atmosphere, or is it caused by the radiation from the sun falling directly onto your skin?

No they don't, but feel free to add a link to a credible source to prove your point.

Credible source.

Global warming actually means stronger hurricanes

Right, which explains why the Global Accumulated Cyclone Energy index is the lowest in three decades.

Wait, what?

Maybe one of these days you warmistas will finally admit that you have no idea how man-made inputs ultimately affect the climate.

Wow. It takes balls to post a link whose primary support is a statement from the UK MET Office.

Yeah, they're really trustworthy.

NASA, GISS and James Hansen have been busted before (by amateurs) for being wrong several times :

Deja Vu All Over Again: Blogger Again Finds Error in NASA Climate Data

NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is one of the world's primary sources for climate data. GISS issues regular updates on world temperatures based on their analysis of temperature readings from thousands of monitoring stations over the globe.

GISS’ most recent data release originally reported last October as being extraordinarily warm-- a full 0.78C above normal. This would have made it the warmest October on record; a huge increase over the previous month's data.

Those results set off alarm bells with Steve McIntyre and his gang of Baker Street irregulars at Climateaudit.org. They noted that NASA's data didn't agree at all with the satellite temperature record, which showed October to be very mild, continuing the same trend of slight cooling that has persisted since 1998. So they dug a little deeper.

An alert reader on McIntyre's blog revealed that there was a very large problem. Looking at the actual readings from individual stations in Russia showed a curious anomaly. The locations had all been assigned the exact temperatures from a month earlier-- the much warmer month of September. Russia cools very rapidly in the fall months, so recycling the data from the earlier month had led to a massive temperature increase.

A few locations in Ireland were also found to be using September data..

Steve McIntyre informed GISS (run by Hansen) of the error by email. According to McIntyre, there was no response, but within "about an hour", GISS pulled down the erroneous data, citing a "mishap" and pointing the finger of blame upstream to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)."

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13410&red=y#366381

NOAA has been singled out for calling 2010 the warmest year using faulty data

NOAA’s Jan-Jun 2010 Warmest Ever: Missing Data, False Impressions

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/noaas-jan-jun-2010-warmest-ever-missing-data-false-impressions/

The skeptic blogs continuously catch NASA revising older temperatures down. 1998 has been the hottest year on record... Now 2005/2010 is? This article from a skeptic blog concedes that 2010 was hot, but the included graph shows 2005 no where hear 1998/2010. What is the point of mislabeling 2005? Does a 5 year gap lend more credence to AGW than a 12 year gap?

The Abuses within Wikipedia's controlling board are well documented. Challenges to their political views are simply not allowed.

Bashing Wikipedia partialness based on something from WUWT? Oh, the irony.

the fact that one of your edits have been shunned does not make it a less valid source.

Actually it does. Wikipedia was supposed to be the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but it has long since lost its neutrality.

Actually when you start with a patently obvious untenable premise (that anyone can edit an encyclopedia) it should come as no surprise that you will fall short of that goal.

The Abuses within Wikipedia's controlling board are well documented. Challenges to their political views are simply not allowed.

Wiki is a good resource, but it should never be a source.
You can start there. Just never end there.

The more controversial the subject, the less trustworthy Wiki is. And the more the gatekeepers abuse their powers.

And don't expect the Wikipedia "Mod Army" to treat your post (or mine) kindly.

Yeah, that William Connolley is such a great and knowledgeable guy.

Rather than trusting a political organization or whoever wrote that in Wikipedia, I prefer to look at the data myself.

The graph was prepared by Robert A. Rohde, as the page clearly states; the dozen data sources used are fully referenced, and the criteria for their selection are stated. I'm not sure how that makes it intrinsically less reliable than Willis Eschenbach's personal interpretation of some speleothem data, but let's continue nevertheless.

Rather than trusting a political organization or whoever wrote that in Wikipedia, I prefer to look at the data myself. A zip file containing speleotherm data has thoughtfully been provided here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/26/in-which-i-go-spelunking/ [wattsupwiththat.com]

When I click the link to the zip file I get a 403 Forbidden. Never mind, let's pass to Eschenbach's graph, since in any case you don't mention what conclusions you yourself drew from looking at the data. As you say, the graph does look very convincing, because Eschenbach has directly equated delta18O values with temperature -- not done in the Nature paper he cites, for the simple reason that delta18O is not solely dependent on temperature (if it were, palaeoclimatology would be a lot easier).

Entertainingly, the very source that Eschenbach links to in support of his conversion factor states clearly: "Because [delta]18O may be modified by temporal changes in the oceanic moisture source and/or storm track trajectories, it is not possible to calculate temperature changes precisely (15). On the basis of present-day spatial [delta]18O-temperature relations, the magnitude of [delta]18O variability around the mean is probably too large to ascribe to changes in air temperature alone." (my emphasis)

So, 200-odd words into Eschenbach's "investigation", his entire methodology has been invalidated by one of his own references. This, presumably, is why he chose to publish his work on "wattsupwiththat" rather than in a scientific journal.

Rather than trusting a political organization or whoever wrote that in Wikipedia, I prefer to look at the data myself. A zip file containing speleotherm data has thoughtfully been provided here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/26/in-which-i-go-spelunking/

When I look at his graph, it sure looks like it's getting colder to me.

In addition, the following paper makes it clear that the warming since 1800 is a "rebound" from the little ice age with a multi-decadal oscillation superposed, and that we have now entered a downward swing in said oscillation, yet the underlying linear "rebound" continues.

(PDF)
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=NS20101100004_10739704.pdf&paperID=3217

And this paper has an explanation for the power spectra of the temperature oscillations which fit the data better than CO2 based models:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4639

USA record lows outpace record highs 19 to 1 this week, 539 new snowfall records were also set.
The summary of new records of interest for the past week in the USA :
High Temperatures: 18
Lowest Max Temperatures: 278
Low Temperatures: 336
Snowfall: 539

The period we are in now is among the coldest of the last 10,500 years. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%E2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/ That can't make the warmists happy.

but the December temprature anomally [bom.gov.au] for SE Australia was still 1-2degC above normal

If the Australian record is anything like the train wreck of New Zealand records, I would very much doubt that your figures are at all accurate.

You mean this NOAA?

NOAA’s sea ice extent blunder
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/15/noaas-sea-ice-extent-blunder/

And just so you don't think I am just anti-NOAA, here they are being vindicated in some of their data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/spurious-sst-warming-revisited/

And here is NASA's GISS with an error:
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/giss

My point? You can't rely on ANY one source, and you need to allow for data "correction" from errors both intentional and accidental. But when the errors are "outed" not by the people that claim to be the "authorities" but only when they are caught, credibility is lost.
And as far as the climate vs weather thing goes, unfortunately there were some that used the warming weather of the 90s as proof of their climate theories, thus further eroding their credibility if they try to play the "climate isn't weather" card now.

"These extreme weather situations and events - which happen simultaneously around the world - are driven by events on the sun in our predicted Solar Lunar Action periods (SLAPs). This weather - and climate change - are entirely driven by Solar-Magnetic Lunar effects and are nothing to do with CO2. Heatwaves in Russia and floods in India/Pakistan and England happened in similar solar-magnetic-lunar states about 132 years prior to current/ recent episodes of similar solar-magnetic (6X22=132yrs) & eclipse (7x19=133) cycles. [NB China not same]

source of quote You can say what you want about Corbyn but his predictions have recently been way way better than the UK Met Office. In fact, the BBC is more than somewhat upset with the badness of the Met Office forecasts. BBC unhappy with Met Office

The biosphere expanded last century, but don't let facts stand in the way for some nice eco-gloom ;)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

Sahara desert shrinking, Sahel (a savannah) expanding:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

The raw data, in the climategate case, is not available:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

"In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”"

Yes, you can try to weasel out of that by saying that the original data still exists, somewhere unidentified in the ether, where it was originally collected from, but without knowing exactly what data was used as an input to the CRU dataset, it's like saying "the sand we used to build that sandcastle that got washed away is still somewhere on the beach" - good luck reconstructing that sandcastle with the exact same sand grains used the first time.

Even more alarming is the constant, unattributed adjustments that regularly happen to the other temperature records like GISS:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/

Some basic version control needs to be implemented for both the raw and adjusted data. If google does that, they'll be doing everyone a big favor.

These earthquakes are caused by global warming. Please mod me troll. Thanks very much.

I honestly wonder if people who resort to ad hominem attacks ever actually study the science or just repeat what they are told to believe. There was a time when "skeptic" was a GOOD thing in science. Remember how we're supposed to question assumptions, test those assumptions, and test them again to prove or disprove a theory? Come on, drop the "denier" tag and engage in real science discussions.

Try reading some of the more prominent opposition, such as Anthony Watts' Watts Up With That or Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit or Roger Pielke Sr.'s climate blog.

Are you aware that prominent AGW proponent Judith Curry has turned on her colleagues and is now questioning their findings? Of course they call her a heretic; she's not just parroting what they want her to say. Are you aware that sea ice is not retreating at all, but growing? Have you given any thought to wondering why the AGW community keeps needing to change the terminology? In the wake of decreasing temperatures and increasing snowstorms, it's no longer global warming but climate change. Now *any* weather event can be blamed on AGW, or is that AGC?

So to answer your question, yes, I'll believe you when we have freighters sailing the arctic. Then, just like the vikings, we can start farming Greenland again. In the meantime, I'll continue to watch the numbers and see how they don't add up. If you have any constructive proof, pay a visit to any of the skeptical blogs and have your say. You'll find that unlike AGW blogs, your comments will not be removed and people who attack you ad hominem will not be tolerated.

I honestly wonder if people who resort to ad hominem attacks ever actually study the science or just repeat what they are told to believe. There was a time when "skeptic" was a GOOD thing in science. Remember how we're supposed to question assumptions, test those assumptions, and test them again to prove or disprove a theory? Come on, drop the "denier" tag and engage in real science discussions.

Try reading some of the more prominent opposition, such as Anthony Watts' Watts Up With That or Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit or Roger Pielke Sr.'s climate blog.

Are you aware that prominent AGW proponent Judith Curry has turned on her colleagues and is now questioning their findings? Of course they call her a heretic; she's not just parroting what they want her to say. Are you aware that sea ice is not retreating at all, but growing? Have you given any thought to wondering why the AGW community keeps needing to change the terminology? In the wake of decreasing temperatures and increasing snowstorms, it's no longer global warming but climate change. Now *any* weather event can be blamed on AGW, or is that AGC?

So to answer your question, yes, I'll believe you when we have freighters sailing the arctic. Then, just like the vikings, we can start farming Greenland again. In the meantime, I'll continue to watch the numbers and see how they don't add up. If you have any constructive proof, pay a visit to any of the skeptical blogs and have your say. You'll find that unlike AGW blogs, your comments will not be removed and people who attack you ad hominem will not be tolerated.

I honestly wonder if people who resort to ad hominem attacks ever actually study the science or just repeat what they are told to believe. There was a time when "skeptic" was a GOOD thing in science. Remember how we're supposed to question assumptions, test those assumptions, and test them again to prove or disprove a theory? Come on, drop the "denier" tag and engage in real science discussions.

Try reading some of the more prominent opposition, such as Anthony Watts' Watts Up With That or Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit or Roger Pielke Sr.'s climate blog.

Are you aware that prominent AGW proponent Judith Curry has turned on her colleagues and is now questioning their findings? Of course they call her a heretic; she's not just parroting what they want her to say. Are you aware that sea ice is not retreating at all, but growing? Have you given any thought to wondering why the AGW community keeps needing to change the terminology? In the wake of decreasing temperatures and increasing snowstorms, it's no longer global warming but climate change. Now *any* weather event can be blamed on AGW, or is that AGC?

So to answer your question, yes, I'll believe you when we have freighters sailing the arctic. Then, just like the vikings, we can start farming Greenland again. In the meantime, I'll continue to watch the numbers and see how they don't add up. If you have any constructive proof, pay a visit to any of the skeptical blogs and have your say. You'll find that unlike AGW blogs, your comments will not be removed and people who attack you ad hominem will not be tolerated.

Article is locked.

(translation - Only the admin's whose pet project / particular ideological belief is this article can edit)

I know it seems that way but there are signs of change coming.

In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months.William Connolley, now “climate topic banned” at Wikipedia

So what was he banned for?

William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic
This uncivil and antagonistic behaviour has included refactoring of talk page comments by other users,(examples: [18], [19], [20]) to the point that he was formally prohibited from doing so. In the notice advising him that a consensus of 7 administrators had prohibited his refactoring of talk page posts, he inserted commentary within the post of the administrator leaving the notice on his talk page.
User:William M. Connolley has shown an unreasonable degree of Ownership over climate-related articles and unwillingness to work in a consensus environment.
William M. Connolley has shown Ownership
William M. Connolley is acknowledged to have expertise on the topic of climate change significantly beyond that of most Wikipedians; however, this also holds true for several other editors who regularly edit in this topic area. In this setting, User:William M. Connolley has shown an unreasonable degree of Ownership over climate-related articles and unwillingness to work in a consensus environment.
William M. Connolley BLP violations
William M. Connolley has repeatedly violated the biography of living persons policy. Violations have included inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject's notability, use of blogs as sources, inserting original research and opinion into articles, and removing reliably sourced positive comments about subjects. He has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements.
William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons
William M. Connolley has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.
William M. Connolley topic-banned
William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

Basically he doesn't play well with others, is rude to people who disagrees with him and most of the stuff that most of us have learned to not do by the time we got to kindergarten. So many people seem to be Narcissistic now and social media and wikipedia just gives them a new venues to bully others around.

That has not been demonstrated, but I trust that you sincerely believe so.

I agree it's not been demonstrated beyond doubt, but it has been demonstrated enough for me personally that there's a problem with the integrity of Climate Science, if not with individuals then with the establishments and institutions keen to continue receiving millions of pounds in grant funding from public bodies. That is to say, everyone is a Climate Scientist today given that in order to receive funding your proposal simply has to include "effects on climate". Doing so allows you to study the consequences for global sea level of Camels farting in the Australian outback. Was there ever a more idiotic waste of public money? And Scientists are complaining about cuts in funding!

With respect to what Physicists think about it, I find this resignation letter (from the APS) instructive. I post it below so you don't have to soil your browser cache with a visit to Watts.

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence--it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of i

Global warming not only doesn't exist, even the "movers and shakers" now realize it. We have come full cycle (and there are cycles) and are now in a cooling phase. Just like in the late 1970's, in the next several years, people will start to panic about global cooling.

Likely there is no conspiracy - incompetence is a sufficient explanation. Each generation has discover something to panic about, and no one pays attention to history: cold times around 1910, hot times around 1940, cold times around 1970, hot times around 2000, anyone starting to notice a pattern here?

Well, then, do a Google Image Search on Kiribati. And Tuvalu. You'll find pictures of beaches lined with dead palm trees. Those trees are dead because sea level rise raised the average salinity of the ground water they're rooted in. This is what they are "whining" about: our energy consumption is raising sea levels and making their islands uninhabitable.

I used to be on that bandwagon for a long time; the story made sense on the surface and independent research on the subject was very difficult to do. Measuring the behavior of the biosphere is not like researching most other subjects. Human history or astronomy or technology, where the observations and recordings are the sort of thing which are either set in amber or easily verified through observation, are far easier to research because the facts don't change in your hands. Biosphere measurements are hard to take because the whole thing is in a state of permanent flux, because we haven't been around taking measurements for long enough to know it very well, and because we are right in the middle of the thing we are trying to measure. It's hard to see.

But as the dust began to settle, it has become increasingly clear that there is a large scam in the works and that it is dependent upon the normal population being guilted into accepting totalitarian control. The end results being that the elite make even more money without there being any actual industrial carbon reductions. (Quite the trick!) People don't seem to realize that a "Carbon Tax" isn't some vague notion which affects only big companies and governments. Oh no! Carbon taxes are for you and me on the street level. We would have to pay an extra tax on virtually everything we do in our lives which can be traced back to energy consumption. A tax bonanza! Take a look into it to see what is being proposed.

This kind of story, (and note that Rockefeller is involved in this island thing. The Rockefellers are champions of population control and oligarchic power structures, so yeah, his showing up is an indicator of badness.)

And of course it's all based on bullshit. As has been already noted, this island situation doesn't just include shrinking islands but rather, growing ones as well...

One island, Funamanu, gained 0.44 hectares or nearly 30 percent of its previous area.

And the research showed similar trends in the Republic of Kiribati, where the three main urbanised islands also "grew" - Betio by 30 percent (36ha), Bairiki by 16.3 percent (5.8ha) and Nanikai by 12.5 percent (0.8ha).

Webb, an expert on coastal processes, told the New Scientist the trend was explained by the fact the islands mostly comprised coral debris eroded from encircling reefs and pushed up onto the islands by winds and waves.

The process was continuous, because the corals were alive, he said.

In effect the islands respond to changes in weather patterns and climate - Cyclone Bebe deposited 140ha of sediment on the eastern reef of Tuvalu in 1972, increasing the main island's area by 10 percent.

And while this article is critical of the base story, it still takes for granted that sea-levels are rising. I'm not convinced that this is A) even True, or B) if it IS true that it is due to ice pack melting; we've actually been seeing expansion of the ice packs in some areas. It has also been noted (quietly) that the planet has been spinning a little slower over the last few years, and that this is having a strong effect on the biosphere and the shapes of land masses and oceans.

There is no question that the weather hasn't been changing, but it has also been changing on the other planets in the solar system. And the Sun has been behaving oddly as well. There are theories as to what is going on, and they are more complex than the highly profitable Global Warming story. Just like real life, things are more complex than the simple black & white government brochure would lead us to believe.

Just some thoughts.

-FL

an explanation of how atolls rise with sea level.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/

Yes, I've read that paper, but Menne appears to not be an honest broker. Not only did he use the data that Watts stopped updating publicly (to avoid ad hoc analysis) but he apparently deliberately excluded Watts from the article process.

The fact that I saw a false premise in the first paragraph of the paper (reviewing it again just now) didn't improve my opinion of Menne et al.

I believe the "adjustment" process is fatally flawed (hence my "make stuff up" link in my prior post). Smearing the data around doesn't make it better (side note: my background includes physics simulations of rigorously tested data, so I have at least some experience with data quality like this), and when there simply isn't any data, fiddling with the gaussian isn't going to make the data appear.

On top of all this, NOAA and NCDC appear to have colluded to hammer out talking points regarding Watts' "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?"

Climate scientists simply cannot be trusted until all data and methodology are public and can be replicated by statisticians outside of the field.

Yes, I've read that paper, but Menne appears to not be an honest broker. Not only did he use the data that Watts stopped updating publicly (to avoid ad hoc analysis) but he apparently deliberately excluded Watts from the article process.

The fact that I saw a false premise in the first paragraph of the paper (reviewing it again just now) didn't improve my opinion of Menne et al.

I believe the "adjustment" process is fatally flawed (hence my "make stuff up" link in my prior post). Smearing the data around doesn't make it better (side note: my background includes physics simulations of rigorously tested data, so I have at least some experience with data quality like this), and when there simply isn't any data, fiddling with the gaussian isn't going to make the data appear.

On top of all this, NOAA and NCDC appear to have colluded to hammer out talking points regarding Watts' "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?"

Climate scientists simply cannot be trusted until all data and methodology are public and can be replicated by statisticians outside of the field.

I'm sorry, can you please explain to our readers what dowsing has to do with sea levels?

Mörner has actual observational records (photographs, sea level markers at docks etc) that disprove modelled sea level records*.

Where I'm from (Sweden, same as Mörner) you try to disprove the message, not the messenger. You should try it.

*) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/

No, they haven't moved them. Fully 90% of surface sensors are badly sited. That's the point of http://www.surfacestations.org/, to document the quality of the sensors.

Satellites take temperature measurements as well, but they have other issues. Well-sited surface sensors would be the best data we can get, and yet we don't even make the effort to site them properly.

Which makes me suspect a lot of the AGW scare. Another being what happens when they have no data and just make stuff up.

The sun's solar minimum is not caused by global warming, nor is the hottest decade on record caused by the sun's solar minimum.

No. The hottest decade on record is caused by putting your thermometers on blacktop, in the exhaust of an air conditioner, and adjusting older temperatures downward.

AWESOME, but it's not true, it's recovered much more since 2007 - the big scary alleged melt year - on the order of about 1 million sq. km. (that's kilometers, a unit of distance for you Americans, for you scifi fans that's klicks). We'll know more in a couple of months as the low point of the summer ends.

Don't believe me?

Here is the data. Note that it's really cold up there this year so it's bound to be another low melt year.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/sea-ice-page

Oh, and the ice that broke off of Greenland fractured off, it didn't melt off. It's called calving and it's been going on as long as there have been glaciers. It's a normal process. For some it's spooky. For others it's just what is so.

Oh, I just love this argument. It's based on the fact that arctic sea ice is declining to unprecedented levels according to studies using every piece of data and proxy data known, as documented in dozens of peer-reviewed studies, but at the same time, Antarctic ice is increasing, and at times, the combined average is higher than the previous combined average. Never mind that Antarctic sea ice increase is a *forecast* of AGW due to the increased snowfall and increase in flow rates of its glaciers, while Artic sea ice is declining, as expected.

No, Arctic sea ice cover is greater than 2007, not declining, as you expected. Do try to keep up.

Plankton prefer colder water

Actually, plankton are mostly limited by nutrients, not temperature.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/31/walking-the-plank-ton/

current desert areas are huge, have been productive in the ice ages.

I'd have to see some sort of citation for that. I know that agricultural practices can cause desertification, and the last ice age may have correlated with those agricultural practices, but you run into the contradiction of observation of the biodiversity in the tropics, the temperate zone, and the arctic/antarctic. The clear relationship between life and temperature is that the warmer it is, the more life you have. Granted, deserts can occur in the arctic and the tropics (remember, even cold areas can have very little precipitation), but these are local phenomena in a global pattern that shows warmth improves the ability of life to live.

Changing the temperature balance between two regions will definitely have an effect on weather. Simple thermodynamics tells you that.

Wait, wait - when we say we're going to "change the climate" on a global scale, that isn't an assertion that we know how, or if the temperature balance would change. It could has a positive effect on the weather, or a negative effect on the weather - in a stochastic system, you'll just never know.

That being said, I believe the common wisdom (although I don't have immediate reference at hand to back it up), is that the poles will warm much faster than anywhere else, leaving the tropics mostly alone. Changing the temperature balance so that there is less difference between areas on the earth seems like it would give more mild weather, since there isn't a large temperature gradient to cause all kinds of turbulence.

In regards to your hurricane hypothesis, look at the graph you cite:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/997f3b835c1606af6f4319b88795e48c.png

The trend is nearly flat going back over 100 years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/research-suggests-that-hurricane-forecasts-on-intensity-could-never-be-feasible/

"Although there has been a dramatic increase in the number of hurricanes occurring in the North Atlantic since mid-1990s when compared to the period starting in the 1970s, the distribution of hurricanes in the 1950s was similar to today’s activity level. Therefore, this increase cannot be explained solely on the basis of climate change."

Predictably enough, Anthony Watts is at it again ([1] [2]). Haven't looked too deeply into his claims, and I'm really not too tempted to do so either. So has anyone else looked at it? Any comments?