Slashdot Mirror

Forget the emails. All they show is a few very prestigious climate scientists "hiding behind" intellectual property rights, refusing to adhere to FOIA rules (both of these normally anathema to /.ers), deleteing data and emails that might be incrimintory, revealing that they have manipulated peer review by keeping skeptical papers out, even to the point of changing the definition of peer review, refusing to release their data, caliming a peer reviewed article = 'settled science', exulting in the death of skeptics, attempting (successfully) to get editors they don't like fired. Just normal boys will beboys stuff. Nothing to see here> Move along.

But this is /. How about looking at the code? Like here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/ or how about a little sympathy for a programmer, Harry. See what he has to say: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt or look here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

Or how about daling with teh mathematics of it all: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html

So forget the emails; look at the code. Then come back here and say, with a straight face, that the data has not been manipulated.

Forget the emails. All they show is a few very prestigious climate scientists "hiding behind" intellectual property rights, refusing to adhere to FOIA rules (both of these normally anathema to /.ers), deleteing data and emails that might be incrimintory, revealing that they have manipulated peer review by keeping skeptical papers out, even to the point of changing the definition of peer review, refusing to release their data, caliming a peer reviewed article = 'settled science', exulting in the death of skeptics, attempting (successfully) to get editors they don't like fired. Just normal boys will beboys stuff. Nothing to see here> Move along.

But this is /. How about looking at the code? Like here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/ or how about a little sympathy for a programmer, Harry. See what he has to say: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt or look here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

Or how about daling with teh mathematics of it all: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html

So forget the emails; look at the code. Then come back here and say, with a straight face, that the data has not been manipulated.

You're wrong. The data after 1960 wasn't merely omitted. The desired higher temperatures were added after 1960, the higher values were averaged with the real data, and the higher average was shown as the result. The end of the graph was shown with an upward swing rather than the actual decline. "Hide the decline", indeed.

The review must not have been that thorough.

Wasn't it so inconsiderate of those trees to change the way the respond to temperature?

I wonder why they don't include other tree ring data or the Finnish data? Instead, they used bogus data.

And "they" continue to hide other data.

Of course I know the standard responses...I'm not a climate scientist so what do I know anything, Nature is "Dr. Jones Peer Reviewed", everyone else is paid by Exxon, blah blah blah.

Fact is that this issue is now beyond science and is being fought in the public forum. Anyone who would have the world cripple itself economically needs to be 150% above board with all their data and methods. No hiding behind anything. Anyone with a reasonable background in science should be able to take their models apart, thoroughly understand what they are doing and why and be able to replicate their work, from the friggen hunk of wood to the final graph. Hire more people to fulfill FOI request if that's what it takes.

If necessary, they should set aside a few months a year to do nothing but assist others in understanding their methods (never mind that if any other scientist had to help others replicate their work, it would be seen as a sign of fraud). Too important and busy to do that? Bullshit. Given what want everyone to do, they have an OBLIGATION to do that.

And lastly...I'm sorry but if the friggin tree ring data is not valid for assessing temperature after 1960, then it is not valid assessing temperature before 1960.

Wasn't it so inconsiderate of those trees to change the way the respond to temperature?

I wonder why they don't include other tree ring data or the Finnish data? Instead, they used bogus data.

And "they" continue to hide other data.

Of course I know the standard responses...I'm not a climate scientist so what do I know anything, Nature is "Dr. Jones Peer Reviewed", everyone else is paid by Exxon, blah blah blah.

Fact is that this issue is now beyond science and is being fought in the public forum. Anyone who would have the world cripple itself economically needs to be 150% above board with all their data and methods. No hiding behind anything. Anyone with a reasonable background in science should be able to take their models apart, thoroughly understand what they are doing and why and be able to replicate their work, from the friggen hunk of wood to the final graph. Hire more people to fulfill FOI request if that's what it takes.

If necessary, they should set aside a few months a year to do nothing but assist others in understanding their methods (never mind that if any other scientist had to help others replicate their work, it would be seen as a sign of fraud). Too important and busy to do that? Bullshit. Given what want everyone to do, they have an OBLIGATION to do that.

And lastly...I'm sorry but if the friggin tree ring data is not valid for assessing temperature after 1960, then it is not valid assessing temperature before 1960.

The leaked archive was a cherry-picked portion of the email. Which for me begged the question of where the person who leaked it possibly came up with the time and resources to go through the GBs of data and pick out all the bits that made the researchers look bad.

There had been previous cases where CRU employees put data in unprotected FTP directories (open FTP server) while either working on it or intending to send it to colleagues at other institutions.

Many have begun to think that the zip archive FOI2009.zip was prepared internally by CRU in response to Steve McIntyre’s FOI requests ... and then downloaded by someone. After all, people had already found interesting stuff on their public server ...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/the-crutape-letters%C2%AE-an-alternate-explanation/

it is normal to try and correct it based on your understanding of what might have gone wrong. And you call that a "trick".

Well, since the code is out - what's your opinion of using an array of made-up numbers with which to interpolate the real readings - causing that which you want to claim?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

1 ;
2 ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3 ;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

It is politics, though. People are interpreting emails in their preferred context.

But there is a problem with your (endlessly echoed) assertion that somehow, these emails are all just part of the normal process of science and we need not worry.

They didn't just released emails, they released code... code that other people get to examine now. You know, like how real science works.

And lets look at just one of many juicy examples from The Code:

;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

You can't very well take that out of context. Code like that has no call directing people to make choices involving billions of dollars.

Look through the code for other equally unbelievable issues with the process that produced the data we were assured was "irrefutable". I have been coding for decades now and magic constants like this warming fudge-factor are almost always a sign something is horribly, horribly broken and wrong.

Bing did have 'climategate' as the top suggestion until today. In fact, just typing 'cli' would have netted you climategate as the top suggestion on Bing until today. Yes, it's disappeared completely today. See here and here for more details.

Do no evil, huh? At least MS isn't making any pretences...

Bing did have 'climategate' as the top suggestion until today. In fact, just typing 'cli' would have netted you climategate as the top suggestion on Bing until today. Yes, it's disappeared completely today. See here and here for more details.

Do no evil, huh? At least MS isn't making any pretences...

Before you go defending them too much, read this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%E2%80%A6/

If this is really how the CRU crew did business then no one has any reason to defend them. They're as bad as any oil company could ever be.

Here's what proof of misrepresentation looks like ... statement something like "to make it look like is true even though we have no indication it might be."

That sounds like reasonable proof, yes. So you would be meaning, proof like

"shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures"?

Or maybe proof like

"Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline that affects tree-ring density records)"?

How about this apparently completely incontrevertible proof?

"NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be, which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is"

All quotes from source code.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/

The facts do speak for themselves.

From the "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file of the CRU emails, in the words of the CRU's own programmer, with page numbers annotated: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/

- "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)

- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)

- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles ... This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)

- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)

- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)

- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)

- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)

- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)

- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)

- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)

- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)

- "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).

- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)

In fact, part of the information allegedly taken from these researchers is source code, and it's revealing. It helps reveal the significance of an e-mail about a "trick" done with the data.

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

Let's look at the entire paragraph from the Wikipedia article that you partially quoted (even though I'm not fan of using Wikipedia as evidence):

On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."[12] Watts issued a rebuttal in which he asserted that the preliminary analysis excluded new data on quality of surface stations, and criticized the use of homogenized data from the stations, which in his view accounts for the creation of two nearly identical graphs.[13][14]

The emphasis on homogenized is mine. I strongly recommend reading his rebuttal, especially the portion describing how this homogenizing process leads to basically comparing old data with old data.

How can you be a good scientist without being able to trace your data all the way from its source? How can your results be valid if they are not reproducible?

There is more information that you should be aware of. Read about the attempts of one man to independently verify the CRU findings. They consistently obstruct him, even after he resorts to the FOIA. And now we know why. It's not just because they thought he was just making trouble for them: it's because the raw data is an impossible mess. The CRU staff knew that and it didn't bother them in the slightest because they were getting the results they expected.

Bad, bad science. Pons and Fleischmann. Condemn the bad science. I agree with George Monbiot: credibility is lost and resignations are needed.

Let's have some light shone on the temperature data and how it is collected:
From Surfacestations.org[pdf], a project to survey all 1221 of the climate-monitoring stations in the U.S.:

During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

And let's not forget the international methods of survey.

Phil Jones wrote that he had “just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” What Jones meant by "hiding the decline" is being increasingly discovered in the code and related comments. * See evidence in: The Code at Bishop Hill's blog eg the programmer noting: ""***** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********" * From the programming file "briffa_sep98_d.pro": "; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! ; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor" etc. * See: Climategate: hide the decline – codified at WattsUpWithThat.com * See discussion at Climate Audit Mirror The Harry Read_Me File * Links to current articles can be found at: Climatedepot.com The emails are searchable at: Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Having read that story, I saw no evidence that they lied or changed number

Here you go. Found in comments in the Mann code:

"shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

That's not just evidence, that's actual proof.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065

Having read that story, I saw no evidence that they lied or changed number.

Here you go. Found in comments in the Mann code:

"shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

Yep, that's lying.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065

In short, because 10 years ago was the peak of the 'super El Nino' heat wave event.

This site has a neat analysis by a guy who is a critic of the status quo climate change science. It shows fairly unequivocally that the last 10 years has been fairly steady. Note the typical time scale used by climate scientists for measuring trends is usually 30 years, not 10.

Don't forget to look at the first graph showing the last 150 odd years and the undisputed fact that warming is happening over a long term scale.

And we know it's not an increase in solar output causing the warming we've observed.

Sorry, we do not know that. The conclusion that it cannot be because of the sun is based on space-based measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI). These found a fairly stable 1365 W/m^2 (see for example here). But these measurements are wrong! Why? Because the EUV and X-ray part of the solar spectrum is not included.

Take for example ACRIMSAT. It is sensitive only down to 200 nm and as such it wholly misses out on the EUV and X-Ray bands. Moreover, to properly observe the whole x-ray flux you have to capture a fairly wide field of view that includes the corona as this X-ray image of the sun shows.

The trick is just a word used in a private mail to indicate a nice method. It is not meant to indicate faking.

Except that 'trick' came with a purpose:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Excuse me if I'm dubious of your assertion. The author of the email didn't even have an explanation for this phrasing.

Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your assurance seems naive.

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

When you read a large number of the e-mails, it becomes clearer and clearer just how much their data must be massaged and adjusted in order to reach the results they have. I don't say that their adjustments are good or bad, simply that the mere making of so many free-hand adjustments reduces the possibility that their conclusions are in fact correct. It's very hard to tell, without digging into the raw data which they won't release, how much of the claimed warming is really real, and how much shows up only because of the assumptions and conclusions and adjustments they have chosen to use.

In this article http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/mcintyre-and-lindzen-to-appear-on-finnish-tv-documentary-transcript/ You can see how Keith Briffa refused to let anyone examine his data. The files that were released have email from Keith Briffa taking about keeping data secret.

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

They are hiding behind alleged confidentiality agreements they supposedly have with scientists who, according to them, provided some of the data. But they won't even so much as identify, as best I can tell today, those scientists, so that the data could be requested from them directly. Scientists who refuse to release raw data when serious questions are raised about their conclusions are not real scientists, and their work is entitled to no credibility whatsoever. As for due time, the House has passed an enormous "cap and trade" bill based on the conclusions of the global warming scare crowd... these scientists who refuse to release their data. I've got no problem waiting for more research... so long as we don't enact massive tax increases and other major interference in the economy while we wait. They are the ones demanding immediate action, however, so they have no right to say "let's wait for more data and more research" before releasing the data which they claim supports their fatalistic conclusions.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the global warming BS and the political hijacking. In the latest carnation under the scare of the end of the world, governments are doing your point #1, they (the UN) are claiming to have the fix for global warming which enables your seconds point (point #2) and there is already talk of point number #3 with the entire "but if china doesn't do anything, our efforts will be useless"

Here are some links to the stuff in the UN climate control treaty whihc is expected to be adopted in December at the Copenhagen meeting. Here is a biased but accurate look at what is in line for us. The treaty also is reported to require nations to give up sovereignty to the UN and make a court within the UN binding on the citizens of any nation. This means that the UN, not your own government, or the government of some nation you have never been to, could enact laws and hold you accountable to them without you ever knowing of their existence until they come after you. Here is a leaked draft copy of the thing.

Outside of the giving or paying third world countries or the signing away your own countries sovereignty there is a lot more to be troubled with in it. It basically requires people to downgrade their lifestyles and pay taxes to the UN or other countries that are oppressed by dictators or corrupt governments that do more to harm the citizens then any global warming could do in their life time.

Even more unfortunately, the earth is losing vegetation daily, to human influences. The Amazon, for example, is on the verge of collapse (and may already be past the tipping point. Experts disagree.)

Other than being completely opposite of true, you make a good point.

You'll have to pry my suv & pets from my cold dead hand you damn dirty stinking extreme environ-MENTAL-ist human!

First off it's just a means for the author to get sales for his works of fiction, for fiction it will surely turn out to be.

Actually I have a van but still...

They hypothesis of global warming was renamed climate change since the counter evidence kept pointing out too many flaws in AGW. "You are entitled to your own interpretation, but not to your own facts". The facts of AGW simply don't support their hypothesis. The Null Hypothesis put up against AGW is that it's simply Nature at work and that has yet to be proven wrong by anything from the AGW camp while the keystones of the AGW hypothesis are regularly falsified. The more I look into the details of the AGW hypothesis claims the less it seems plausible or possible position to hold.

Save our pets from the maws and jaws of the AGW Pet Eating Hordes! They're pet eating zombies! What's next? Soylent Green is People as a means of saving the Earth from our own AGW mythology?

In a hundred years people will wonder how primitive and gullible we were to accept the intentionally exaggerated claims of AGW folks (like Al Exaggeration is Needed to Get Action Gore, hockey stick reprimanded by his peers Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen of GISS Nasa who failed in his forecasts of 20 years ago that NYC would be underwater by now, the IPCC and many others).

I prefer to review the actual factual evidence and come to reasonable supportable conclusions.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/25/bob-carter-with-a-down-under-view-of-climate-science

The parent made a bunch of strong claims, without any data reference or argument to back them up. He contradicts the findings of EPOCA, BIOACID and the Royal Society in the UK, the NERC and various other organisations directly tasked with evaluating the situation. Moreover he claims these organisations essentially lie in order to get research money, without as much as a shred of evidence to back up his claims, and this is moderated insightful?

Sure, the appeal to authority is one route you can take; indeed people like you always do that when you want to close down any debate. I don't know if you're aware of Professor Wegman's criticism of the Peer Review process in Climate Science? If not, I think you should read it. Or perhaps you'd prefer an expert opinion on the predictive capabilities of Computer Models? I don't know about you, but I raised an eyebrow when I found out Briffa's "hockey stick" turned out to have been generated from a whole 12 tree cores, or that the recent UN report stating that 300,000 people have died already due to "Climate Change" was a complete load of bollocks? Perhaps the American Chemical Society recently in uproar over it's Chairman's uncritical endorsement of "Global Warming" doesn't make you think twice? Or what about the EPA in the US suppressing a report from one of its own scientists? Does that make you feel uneasy at all?

So, follow the money. Who's going to benefit from Cap and Trade? Who's already benefiting from Carbon Offsetting? Hmmmmmmm.

Call me a heretic, if you like. I'm in good company.

Now calculate how many gallons of water will be added to the ocean when the ice on top of Alaska and Greenland finishes melting. A small delta can be extremely relevant.

It is only going to be relevant if the ice on top of Alaska and Greenland is actually going to melt substantially. Please do show us some credible data to that effect.

In the mean time, let me show you some data on Antarctica, which holds 90% of the world's land ice and as such is the most interesting place to look at when it comes to anticipating sea level rise or fall: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/antarcticas-ice-story-has-been-put-on-ice/. Guess what, Antarctica has been fattening up with ice of recent, and the global warming alarmists try to hide the data.

When quoting on a debated subject, always make sure you're using the most current information. That quote and investigation has been falsified. Oddly enough, NOAA scientists don't seem to know much statistics ;) While they claim they use the data from those 70 stations, in reality they apply a modification algorithm to it first. It's like wanting to compare apples and oranges, but starts out by genetically modifying the apples into oranges and then act surprised when oranges actually are like other oranges! :)

You'll find the info at the end here, after all the rants about the video:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/

You should try verifying that graph scientifically. Some have, with interesting results.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/23/taking-a-bite-out-of-climate-data/

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure all the data is a big conspiracy made by the windmill makers ;)

My rebuttal was to the claim of "cooling the last 10 years". I freely admit I rely on the data our dear scientists gather for me, but so did the poster of that claim.

You should try verifying that graph scientifically. Some have, with interesting results.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/23/taking-a-bite-out-of-climate-data/

Antarctica as a whole isn't warming unless you deal in dubious statistical models. The west Antarctica peninsula has been warming though, and that's where the hyperbole comes from.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/20/steig-et-al-antarctica-warming-paper-process-is-finally-replicated-and-dealt-a-blow-to-robustness/

That has likely more to do with natural shifting of the polar current around Antarctica than anything else. Changes in current location affects weather at the peninsula without affecting the rest of the continent.

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/fahan_mi_shipwrecks/infohut/acc.htm

I guess part of the confusion lies in that we use a different meaning for "global warming". What I mean is an increase in the average global atmospheric temperature, something which can have many causes. I think you mean something more narrow: anthropogenic greenhouse-gas driven global warming.

Then look at the solar output over the last 50 years.

That cannot be done. We do not have that data. A lot of the solar output is in the EUV. It has only recently started to be measured: http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/missions/SEH-3/SEH-3.html. However, within the context of that limited data you may discern a tentative correlation between the recent decrease in global temperature, the current occurrence of noctilucent clouds, and this graph: http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/sem_data/SEM%20Data%20Graphs/SEM_1996-2009.jpg

Obviously, there are more factors to be considered. For example, that the decrease in global temperatures started a bit earlier than the maximum in that graph is likely because 1997-1998 were El Niño years.

Also, given how politicized climate science has become, I do not have much confidence in the accuracy of the global temperature data sets being foisted on us: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/24/uk-met-office-and-dr-phil-jones-pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain/

Not unique, no. The USS Skate (578) went to the North Pole in 1958 and in 1959, and the Arctic ice cap was small then. Both ice caps periodically wax and wane. not just annually, but over longer periods of time.

This "North West Passage" won't last for more than a few years, enjoy it while we can.

except the melting was part of a normal cycle which is now over, and the ice is now expanding again. This summer will see the least ice lost to melting in a long time. Didn't any of you people hear about the kayaker last year who wanted to kayak to the ice free north pole only to be forced to turn back thousands of km from his target due to the ice not disappearing like all the climate priests had foretold?

except the melting was part of a normal cycle which is now over, and the ice is now expanding again. This summer will see the least ice lost to melting in a long time. Didn't any of you people hear about the kayaker last year who wanted to kayak to the ice free north pole only to be forced to turn back thousands of km from his target due to the ice not disappearing like all the climate priests had foretold?

And if you look at the Slashdot summary, you'll see that the links to ClimateAudit claim to be direct links but when you click on them they morph into the proxied URLs. Does Slashdot have some magical javascript click stuff?

The best way for a climate scientist to get fame and money today would be to disprove global warming

Interesting hypothesis, but I'd claim that it's falsified. On the contrary, the money is in supporting AGW.

ExxonâMobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skepticsâ"less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one fiveâthousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

source: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

(via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/climate-science-follow-the-money/ )

What? Huh?

The money is in good science; if you don't do good science, you don't get money. Hell, most people who do good science can't get money.

Those that manage to get money from NSF don't get MONEY; they get what amount to a living wage. And they get that money regardless of what conclusions they reach. And NSF pays out before conclusions are reached. So, my claim stands; there is no explicit money in supporting AGW, but fame and fortune awaits that scientist that can disprove it. Don't hold your breath.

PS- that small amount of money that Exxon gives to public science is drastically outweighed by what the spent privately on research. Exxon is currently offering around $80k/y (plus benefits) for research scientists, starting, for a person with an MS. A _PhD_ in academia will be lucky to make that after 20 years hard work. Those PhD's could leverage amazing, paradigm changing work into book deals and the public talk circuit. Except, they're generally not motivated by money; they just want to do good science.

The best way for a climate scientist to get fame and money today would be to disprove global warming

Interesting hypothesis, but I'd claim that it's falsified. On the contrary, the money is in supporting AGW.

ExxonâMobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skepticsâ"less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one fiveâthousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

source: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

(via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/climate-science-follow-the-money/ )

From his blog: "For all of our UK readers, now is the time for all good citizens to come to the aid of their country (and science). The Met Office refuses to release data and methodology for their HadCRUT global temperature dataset after being asked repeatedly. Without the data and procedures there is no possibility of replication, and without replication the Hadley climate data is not scientifically valid. This isnâ(TM)t just a skeptic issue, mind you, others have just a keen an interest in proving the data. What is so bizarre is this. The FOI request by Steve McIntyre to the Met Office was for a copy of the data sent to Peter Webster. If the restrictions on the data hold for Steve McIntyre, why did they not prevent release of the data to Webster? When asked by Warwick Hughes for this data, Dr. Jones famously replied: Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

I apologise for mixing up ACs (although I can understand you, simply talking about AGW-related subjects using non-religious words causes "troll" and "flamebait" moderations). As to the rest of your post above, it does not contain anything new and you're just repeating your (sorry) lack of knowledge on the subject.

(You might want to go back and see what you've actually linked to btw)

1) GISTEMP source and algorithms are not open. Feel free to contact people tracking this if you still believe otherwise.

2) The CRN123 study you believe you've cited contained factual errors.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/05/pielk-sr-responds-to-ncdcs-talking-points-about-surfacesations-org/

http://climatesci.org/2009/05/12/comments-on-the-new-paper-the-united-states-historical-climatology-network-monthly-temperature-data-%E2%80%93-version-2-by-menne-et-al-2009/

I think we need to wait for the surfacestations.org project's paper, soon to be released, for a conclusion on this subject.

3) Buckets of water. Ice. Hot. Scientist, feet.

4) Umm no. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/giss-for-june-way-out-there/

Why is it important for you to disregard facts when it comes to the subject of AGW?

I apologise for mixing up ACs (although I can understand you, simply talking about AGW-related subjects using non-religious words causes "troll" and "flamebait" moderations). As to the rest of your post above, it does not contain anything new and you're just repeating your (sorry) lack of knowledge on the subject.

(You might want to go back and see what you've actually linked to btw)

1) GISTEMP source and algorithms are not open. Feel free to contact people tracking this if you still believe otherwise.

2) The CRN123 study you believe you've cited contained factual errors.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/05/pielk-sr-responds-to-ncdcs-talking-points-about-surfacesations-org/

http://climatesci.org/2009/05/12/comments-on-the-new-paper-the-united-states-historical-climatology-network-monthly-temperature-data-%E2%80%93-version-2-by-menne-et-al-2009/

I think we need to wait for the surfacestations.org project's paper, soon to be released, for a conclusion on this subject.

3) Buckets of water. Ice. Hot. Scientist, feet.

4) Umm no. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/giss-for-june-way-out-there/

Why is it important for you to disregard facts when it comes to the subject of AGW?

Try that again, now with real data instead of Hansen's pet project (closed source, closed algorithm) temperature data modifications.

I'd suggest using UAH. Surface stations are a joke due to no one (until now) checking their surroundings and thus the induced UHI effect.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/

Your post is typical of a significant minority of slashdotters who are being mislead by a looby group that make the MAFIAA look like amatures, the urban ledgends you are repeating in your post were created by the heartland institute who are associated with the CEI and other anti-science front groups via the Cooler heads coalition.

Their associated web sites are too numerous to list but two of them that are quoted with depressing regularity on slashdot are icecap (owned and operated by HI) and WUWT, (Watts is a regular attraction at the HI's "climate confrences").

Being Swedish I have no idea why you brought up "right wing", but then again no one outside the US seem to understand why americans bring up left/right in every debate you ever partake in.

In any case;

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

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/an-australian-look-at-ushcn-20th-century-trend-is-largely-if-not-entirely-an-artefact-arising-from-the-%E2%80%9Ccorrections%E2%80%9D/

Don't be discouraged by the articles being on a blog, everything is well sourced if you for weird reasons don't believe their graphs from the raw data.

With regards to peer review, I think you'll like this article:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/18/note-to-ncdc-climate-report-authors-try-using-the-telephone-next-time/