Slashdot Mirror

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/

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/

He claims that tempratures have been trending downwards for the past 11yrs - this can be debunked by a simple google search and is laughable to anyone who has looked at the temprate records.

If you look at the temperature anomalies he's cited, they are indeed trending downwards since 2000. Of course, being a warmist, you'll be quite used to placing the trend line at the start date most likely to produce an alarming upwards movement. He says, "Global temperatures have declined (Figure 1a) - extending the current run of time with a statistically robust lack of global temperature rise to eight years (Figure 1b), with some people arguing that it can be traced back for 12 years (Figure 1c)." I don't think your debunking, unless you're relying on GISS (or as it's otherwise known the graph of Urban Heat Island and Dodgy Sensor Placement effects).

He blathers on about sunspots and cosmic rays - a theory born from a book by a self-agrandising author and completely unsupported in the litrature, debunked in detail by yours trully here.

The book review (The Chilling Stars) you're happily posting, indeed proudly posting, is by none other than Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate! If you think that he is an unbiased reviewer, then you're as stupid as you say the sceptics are. Schmidt is an activist, heavily involved in anti-CO2 propaganda. He uncritically accepts almost all studies that show increasing warming/co2 relationships, even when they are statistical nonsense. If he fails with what seems to be a fairly simple critical analysis of a paper like this, I don't see how you can call him an expert, or take on trust that his views are, as he claims, purely based on the Science.

He complains the last IPCC report is 3 years old and thus out of date

Again, you've pointed everyone to RealClimate, the warmists armchair propaganda website. In general, what Carlin says is correct however. The great bulk of the dodgy statistical methods cited by Governments, is from IPCC 2007. Further, Carlin points out that it's unlikely predictions made in that report will turn out to be correct. What a shock!

He claims that the 1998 temprature spike cannot be explained - maybe it's a mystery to him but yet another simple google search shows it's well known that the 1998 spike was due to El Nino.

No he doesn't. He provides a good disussion of the PDO and AMO.

I stopped there because my head was about to explode.

It's terribly hard to read through something you don't agree with, isn't it? I wonder what else you're missing out on through not being able to stomach contrary opinions to your own. Your certainty and faith in the `consensus view' is truly frightening.

show me a correlation between solar activity and temperature that's stronger than the correlation between CO2 and temperature

Ok:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/

(There are updates to these theories if you follow the sourced links)

AGW is based on a hypothesis. Models have been built on that same hypothesis. All predictions based on those same models have failed. If the models are closely coupled to the hypothesis, proper use of the scientific method forces us to discard the hypothesis and formulate one that has a better fit to observed data.

The reason that's not currently being made is purely political.

It's worse than the "representatives" merely trying to rush through a tyrannical vote. The EPA decided what they wanted to report about climate, rushed a report out, and ignored - nay, stifled - opposing information. CARBONGATE - Global Warming Study Censored by EPA

When someone tells you that greenhouse gases "must be reduced" ask the following question: "What evidence is there that methane and CO2 control anything, let alone the temperature at the earth's surface?"

Until someone can come up with a measurable, falsifiable method for pointing directly at methane and CO2 as the drivers of the planet's temperature, it is insane to try to change our output of these gases

Instead of breeding cows that produce more milk, we invest money in attempting to reduce their very natural output of methane. Doing so will eventually bankrupt the West, allowing the East to triumph both culturally and economically.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is literally suicidal. If your ultimate concern is the reduction of greenhouse gases, please consider a large 10 gallon plastic bag over your head, with a good bit of duct tape to prevent your personal emissions from escaping. You will very quickly cease to "pollute" the atmosphere with that plant-vital gas, CO2.

You may also thereby contribute to the coming ice age, directly attributable to the current lack of sunspots.

And miss out on the Brazilian ice wine?

Thanks.

I do apply the highest standards that I can to all claims from any source on any topic. As a person committed to minimal belief and maximum tested knowledge in as many areas of life as possible I take it quite seriously.

Unfortunately what is clear is that "climate science", ahem, isn't as hard a science as we are lead to believe nor is it as "settled" as we are lead to believe. Physics has one up on climate science in many regards.

There are many problems with climate science: bad data, limited data, inferred data, statistically - ahem magically - corrected data, bad data collection sites, bad science by scientists, refusals to provide data and programs, political agendas, .... the list goes on and on and on and on.... like the energizer bunny.... (no I don't work for Duracell ;-).

I won't repeat what others are more capable of reporting in depth: http://climateaudit.org/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/ - two excellent sites that work to provide an audit and rational analysis of what is going on in the science and in the actual world. Oh and http://surfacestations.org/ - when you can't trust the sources of the raw data (if you can even get that) how can you trust any conclusions drawn from said data?

I'm not an expert by any means. In fact I'm quite ignorant of much of the climate science science but I'm learning step by step. It's a complicated field with many flaws and whacked out conclusions drawn seemingly from extreme disaster scenarios and good and bad hollywood movies.

I am a computer scientist and as such I do know about simulations. I've written some. I also know about cellular automata and how they can generate their own randomness within their systems. As Wolfram has demonstrated with a number of proofs Nature is a universal computing system that not only includes continuous systems but also discrete cellular automata like systems. It's highly likely that weather and climate systems are systems that generate their own randomness from within their own systems. This means that they can never be simulated with any accuracy. This means that the only way to know how those "natural computations" are going to end up is to watch them run to their conclusions. This means that all computer models for climate are bogus in regard to their ability to predict the future. That is an inherent flaw not due to a lack of human ingenuity but due to a fundamental aspect of Nature. The fundamental notion that "the map is not the territory" has been violated by the climate scientists running simulations WHEN they BELIEVE in their simulations and WHEN they distort the raw input data with statistical games that alter the data so much that fundamentally alter the trends visibly. (See this blink comparator: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/28/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-87-grilling-in-the-cornhusker-state/). Is statistically massaged data that misrepresents scientific fraud? That is a good question that is being investigated and is part of the reason that the likes of Dr. Mann (of hockey stick fame) are so defensive. They don't like their work being scrutinized in depth. Dr. Mann has already been admonished by the NAS.

However, it turns out that there are many such questions with climate science which looks like it's in a big need of a serious revamping of it's peer review process. Also if the claims are as dire as the likes of Gore predict or even 1/50th as bad then it's extremely important that we OPEN the Climate Science to maximal scrutiny by people of all fields to vet it and find the flaws and frauds and correct these mistakes and transgressions and to improve our knowledge of climate science and really find out what is occurring on planet Earth in the dynamic Sol-Earth-Moon-solar-system syste

Thanks.

I do apply the highest standards that I can to all claims from any source on any topic. As a person committed to minimal belief and maximum tested knowledge in as many areas of life as possible I take it quite seriously.

Unfortunately what is clear is that "climate science", ahem, isn't as hard a science as we are lead to believe nor is it as "settled" as we are lead to believe. Physics has one up on climate science in many regards.

There are many problems with climate science: bad data, limited data, inferred data, statistically - ahem magically - corrected data, bad data collection sites, bad science by scientists, refusals to provide data and programs, political agendas, .... the list goes on and on and on and on.... like the energizer bunny.... (no I don't work for Duracell ;-).

I won't repeat what others are more capable of reporting in depth: http://climateaudit.org/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/ - two excellent sites that work to provide an audit and rational analysis of what is going on in the science and in the actual world. Oh and http://surfacestations.org/ - when you can't trust the sources of the raw data (if you can even get that) how can you trust any conclusions drawn from said data?

I'm not an expert by any means. In fact I'm quite ignorant of much of the climate science science but I'm learning step by step. It's a complicated field with many flaws and whacked out conclusions drawn seemingly from extreme disaster scenarios and good and bad hollywood movies.

I am a computer scientist and as such I do know about simulations. I've written some. I also know about cellular automata and how they can generate their own randomness within their systems. As Wolfram has demonstrated with a number of proofs Nature is a universal computing system that not only includes continuous systems but also discrete cellular automata like systems. It's highly likely that weather and climate systems are systems that generate their own randomness from within their own systems. This means that they can never be simulated with any accuracy. This means that the only way to know how those "natural computations" are going to end up is to watch them run to their conclusions. This means that all computer models for climate are bogus in regard to their ability to predict the future. That is an inherent flaw not due to a lack of human ingenuity but due to a fundamental aspect of Nature. The fundamental notion that "the map is not the territory" has been violated by the climate scientists running simulations WHEN they BELIEVE in their simulations and WHEN they distort the raw input data with statistical games that alter the data so much that fundamentally alter the trends visibly. (See this blink comparator: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/28/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-87-grilling-in-the-cornhusker-state/). Is statistically massaged data that misrepresents scientific fraud? That is a good question that is being investigated and is part of the reason that the likes of Dr. Mann (of hockey stick fame) are so defensive. They don't like their work being scrutinized in depth. Dr. Mann has already been admonished by the NAS.

However, it turns out that there are many such questions with climate science which looks like it's in a big need of a serious revamping of it's peer review process. Also if the claims are as dire as the likes of Gore predict or even 1/50th as bad then it's extremely important that we OPEN the Climate Science to maximal scrutiny by people of all fields to vet it and find the flaws and frauds and correct these mistakes and transgressions and to improve our knowledge of climate science and really find out what is occurring on planet Earth in the dynamic Sol-Earth-Moon-solar-system syste

NO I'm not a skeptical person with regards to the CLAIMS of science! I'm a scientist that DEMANDS PROOF OF ANY AND ALL scientific CLAIMS! When I see claims that are unsupportable given the counter evidence then it's very difficult to accept those claims. I need actual evidence not political propaganda pretending to be science. The claims of the AGW Hypothesis are very much like the claims of Young Earth Creationists, all the counter evidence is dismissed. As you'll see the AGW hypothesis has been disproven now, at least enough to require HARD EVIDENCE beyond refute before it can be taken seriously.

Of course I know as most people do that a white surface reflects more heat off of a surface than a black surface does. You shouldn't insult people like that.

Your experiment is lacking in finesse to reproduce the effect with enough confidence to know for sure that it models reflection off the Earth's surface and through the atmosphere.

Well there is a chance that you might be right about the reflection of the radiation back into space, I'll grant you that. I'll have to study the materials you pointed me to in depth.

"I guess that you think of yourself as being a "skeptical" person with regards to the claims of science."

No not at all. I am a scientist.

It's clear that what Chu has been saying has little relevant science to back it up as it's mostly political nonsense designed to bring in more political control systems under the pretense of the faulty AWG Hypothesis which has now been disproven (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/24/disproving-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-problem/).

However, it's been calculated that only ~1.5% of the surface of the Earth cities or towns and even if everything in every town and city was painted a perfect reflecting color that's simply not enough to correct the increasing temp of Earth.

Besides your and the others are proceeding on a false assumption that humans have caused global warming and even on the faulty assumption that global warming is a bad thing! It's not. In fact our human civilizations have benefited tremendously from warmer temperatures in the past than it is now. The ice core records from Greenland show that it's been much warmer than it is now for thousands of years about 8,000 years ago. Then during the roman age about ~4,000 years ago through ~2,000 years ago the temperature started deceasing by about 2.5c but they still didn't reach the recent bottom as there was the medieval warm period where it got warmer. It wasn't until ~140 years ago that the temperature of earth reached bottom in what is know as the little ice age. The temp has been climbing since way before man started driving cars and emitting C02 (an essential plant nutrient). See the video here: http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/proofs-against-anthropogenic-global-warming/ . The point is that the Mann hockey stick graph distorts the facts by not looking at the last 10,000 year record and by the use of statistical games and bizarre weirdness in his temperature proxy data selection policy that it's essentially useless except to promote lies that we are doomed.

I'm not a skeptic for skeptics sake. I'm simply not one to take anything on belief. I will take correction when I make mistakes. If it turns out that you are right about the reflected light staying the same (that would imply a perfect reflective surface that doesn't alter the frequency nor absorb too many photons) then I'll admit I'm wrong.

To think that AWG is "proven" is folly. In fact the counter evidence is tremendous and damningly so.

Oh, now you come out with claims that I have monetary motives in stating my opinions! How typical of the nut jobs. No I don't make any money. Have you seen my web site, http://w

Of course I know as most people do that a white surface reflects more heat off of a surface than a black surface does. Dah!

Your experiment is lacking in finesse to reproduce the effect with enough confidence to know for sure that it models reflection off the Earth's surface and through the atmosphere.

Well there is a chance that you might be right about the reflection of the radiation back into space, I'll grant you that. I'll have to study the materials you pointed me to in depth.

"I guess that you think of yourself as being a "skeptical" person with regards to the claims of science."

No not at all. I am a scientist.

It's clear that what Chu has been saying has little relevant science to back it up as it's mostly political nonsense designed to bring in more political control systems under the pretense of the faulty AWG Hypothesis which has now been disproven (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/24/disproving-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-problem/).

However, it's been calculated that only ~1.5% of the surface of the Earth cities or towns and even if everything in every town and city was painted a perfect reflecting color that's simply not enough to correct the increasing temp of Earth.

Besides your and the others are proceeding on a false assumption that humans have caused global warming and even on the faulty assumption that global warming is a bad thing! It's not. In fact our human civilizations have benefited tremendously from warmer temperatures in the past than it is now. The ice core records from Greenland show that it's been much warmer than it is now for thousands of years about 8,000 years ago. Then during the roman age about ~4,000 years ago through ~2,000 years ago the temperature started deceasing by about 2.5c but they still didn't reach the recent bottom as there was the medieval warm period where it got warmer. It wasn't until ~140 years ago that the temperature of earth reached bottom in what is know as the little ice age. The temp has been climbing since way before man started driving cars and emitting C02 (an essential plant nutrient). See the video here: http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/proofs-against-anthropogenic-global-warming/ . The point is that the Mann hockey stick graph distorts the facts by not looking at the last 10,000 year record and by the use of statistical games and bizarre weirdness in his temperature proxy data selection policy that it's essentially useless except to promote lies that we are doomed.

I'm not a skeptic for skeptics sake. I'm simply not one to take anything on belief. I will take correction when I make mistakes. If it turns out that you are right about the reflected light staying the same (that would imply a perfect reflective surface that doesn't alter the frequency nor absorb too many photons) then I'll admit I'm wrong.

To think that AWG is "proven" is folly. In fact the counter evidence is tremendous and damningly so.

Oh, now you come out with claims that I have monetary motives in stating my opinions! How typical of the nut jobs. No I don't make any money. Have you seen my web site, http://www.pathstoknowledge.net/ which is all about science and debunking the gooey mind poo that gets spit at us all from all directions? Not a single advertisement! No, I'm simply a humble human being who doesn't like stupidity being shoveled at him from government dummies with their agenda of control. I also ask questions and find out the answers.

Objective reality is my guide not belief, not faith, not some hidden agenda. My only agenda is living a healthy and happy life and learning as much about objective reality as possible and to share that knowledge. I work in the computer field doing computer science so yeah I'm not as much a

Besides the AGW hypothesis hasn't been proven yet. In fact it's heading the opposite direction: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/24/disproving-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-problem/

The author, Leonard Weinstein, is of course not a climatologist.

Also, he appears to support AGW but says that the effects are not enough to worry about.

AWG has replaced being environmentally responsible as it's the latest buzz word for social control and now it would seem government control of our lives at every level. Quite pernicious.

No, you're just paranoid.

Confusing it with the nonsense of AWG makes no sense.

If it's nonsense why are you referencing Leonard Weinstein, who as per above actually supports AGW but disagrees about its extent and importance?

That's funny, polarization, good one... however I'm not confused at all about the AGW hypothesis nor about the green house gas theory in particular.

Trust me in the winter spring and fall in Canada, even the relatively warm cities like Vancouver, heat is a serious problem in the winter.

A one shoe fits all scenarios for reducing energy consumption, such as magic white paint, won't help us. It's just bad science to think that magically painting every darn thang white is going to do much.

Besides the AGW hypothesis hasn't been proven yet. In fact it's heading the opposite direction: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/24/disproving-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-problem/ .

In buildings that require air conditioning put up SOLAR PANELS to offset some or all of the cost of cooling the buildings.

It is a well know fact that white buildings reflect heat from the sun. This is a fact that humans have taken advantage of for thousands of years if not more. Confusing it with the nonsense of AWG makes no sense.

It does make a lot of sense to reduce the energy consumption of every building. In Canada this has been encouraged for decades to save energy! We also add insulation to keep heat in during the cold times and heat out during the hot, and we design our residential and industrial roofs to have good heat venting.

AWG has replaced being environmentally responsible as it's the latest buzz word for social control and now it would seem government control of our lives at every level. Quite pernicious.

Chu is simply spouting political propaganda disguised as science when it's bad science to mix unrelated notions.

If Chu simply said that we should check to see if it makes sense for any particular building to have a coat of white paint as part of it's energy management that would have been fine. To mix in the AGWH just tarnishes his reputation as a scientist and moves him squarely into the Belief Stricken AGW crowd who are on a political terrorforming campaign to alter our planet's atmosphere.

We in Canada want it to get warmer. Thanks very much for not adjusting the planet's thermostat downwards.

Yes, warmer. Not everywhere, but certainly not where we've been led to believe.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/13/arctic-non-warming-since-1958/

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/13/the-skeptic-that-wasnt/

Over at SUNY-Albany, possible research fraud has been pointed out. The investigation has taken a long time and included a situation where the complainant was asked to comment on a report which he wasn't given a copy of because the complainant is not part of the report, with several regulations being ignored and misapplied to achieve that. It's not clear whether one person, several people, or the school administration is most involved in this mess. At least it might save some tax money if the whole school loses the ability to get related funding.

1) correct

2) some, and some are delayed (trade winds, ocean currents, heat redistribution)

3) see 2 - then the correlation is incredibly high ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/ )

4) absolutely no. on the contrary, the correlation for CO2 models and observed climate over the last decade are next to nil

5) Percentages of percentages

6) absolutely no

7) absolutely no

The ice shelves in that quote are ~10Kyrs old and have all collapsed in recent years, except for the Wilkins shelf which is collapsing as we speak.

Well great - since that's likely due to massive ice buildup on the continent. You know, calving glaciers are a sign of them growing, not shrinking.

"According to the University of Illinois, Antarctic sea ice area is nearly 30% above normal and the anomaly has reached 1,000,000 km2. You could almost fit Texas and California (or 250 Rhode Islands) inside Antarcticaâ(TM)s excess sea ice."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/08/polar-ice-worries-north-and-south/

Here's a chart of the global hurricane index. It's the lowest it has been in the last 30 years!.
That is probably because the globe's ocean heatcontent is dropping

CO2 is helping to warm our planet, sending us into destruction

Your kidding right?

The End is Nigh! The End is Nigh! NOT!!! NOT!!!.

You're being irresponsible shouting wolf or fire when there is nothing to see. Move along already.

Clearly the evidence for C02 as a poison and agent of global warming has been utterly debunked by now: here at Watts Up With That on a daily basis and the goring the science fiction spun by Gore and the ice age and making sense of data here and the spinning alarmists and generally Paths To Knowledge dot Net climate science category. Most importantly don't forget Unsetteling Foundations of Climate Science by Dr. Lindzen. Then there is Climate Audit dot org that regularly excoriates the so called climate science.

C02 as THE cause of Global Warming is nothing more than a lame correlation, there are a number of other correlations that are much better. Also C02 levels can be much higher without harm as it was in the many millions of years of Earth's history when the levels where 10 times higher than now!!! Life lived and evolved just fine under ~4,000 ppm of C02 in the atmosphere.

And if you think that the science is settled then you are NOT a scientist and you DO NOT support the scientific method or the process of science education where people who are ignorant of the science ask questions to learn: see Richard Feynman on Scientific Investigation here. Besides almost all Canadians that I ask want it to be 5c to 10c warmer up here as that will open up the Northern areas, which are a plenty, for development and farming opportunities! We're tired of 90% of us living within 200 miles of the USA border! We're tired of our igloos, we want actual homes!

And apart from that, the oceans are not rising at the moment, and even more damning, the heat content of the oceans over the last few years has dropped. You can find the links on this site. It will definitely turn out that the sun is a larger driver of climate than has been proposed by many, and we will all notice that in the coming years, because the sun is currently entering pretty much a state of hibernation (especially magnetically).

I suppose that the IPCC with only 20% of it's members having something to do with climate is anything more trustworthy?

Oh look another global warming advocate who isn't trained in climate science... For example Al Gore a &^%^%$*O politician who made his living sucking up to anyone with a vote. Or look, Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC - trained initially as a railway engineer.

Get off your BS high horse about the science being settled and forget about climate scientists agreeing. Remember, there was concensus that phrenology could predict who was likely to be a criminal. The concensus was wrong. There was scientific concensus that Kepler and Gallaleo were wrong too. The concensus was wrong they were right.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/william-schlesinger-on-ipcc-something-on-the-order-of-20-percent-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate/#more-5697

They are dealing with the very real effects of ricing sea levels NOW

I'm sorry, what rising sea levels?

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

Maybe you and Dr. Happer are just among those who don't believe CFSs and such had anything to do with ozone depletion

Which, of course, would be true.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-responsible-for-the-antarctic-ozone-hole/

CO2 levels have never been so high as they are now throughout recorded history

... in reality, they've been more than a magnitude higher.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html

We emit more than ten times the CO2 emitted by volcanoes on average ... but what about the oceans?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/24/study-hemispheric-co2-timing-suggests-that-annual-increases-may-be-coming-from-a-global-or-equatorial-source/

...that this sensor net will have more care in its placement then the existing sensors do. Their poor placement and maintenance are why you can't trust the ground numbers the Warmites love so much at all.

According to the NSIDC, Arctic ice extent is almost back to the 1979-2000 mean (within 1 standard deviation), so I'm not too sure what all the fuss is about. Exclusive: "Scientists go on long walk".

Polar Ice Trends

As for the observed temprature change being too small to affect large scale environmental change this is a silly argument that is easily debunked by observing Artic sea ice, it's like saying a teaspoon of sugar in your tank can't possibly do any harm to your engine

What are you doing on a site for nerds? You should know that our friends the Mythbusters have busted this whole sugar in tank myth. This myth probably has the same level of validity as all those hysterical AGW claims.
P.S. Did you all know the sun is going into a magnetically very quiet period? We will know within a few years if the sun is the more important climate driver or CO2. For more information have a look at Watts Up With That.

âoeWeâ(TM)ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads wonâ(TM)t cut trees downâ¦â

We all benefit if policy is based on reality, rather than bad science or bad data. We all lose if our money is wasted based on bad science. And the policy should make everything public, as you don't know which data will affect you (and you might not be able to get the data you need for your project).

Recently outsiders have spotted bad data at Antarctica and arctic ice mistakes.

• http://wattsupwiththat.com/
• http://www.climateaudit.org/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/18/nsidc-satellite-sea-ice-sensor-has-catastrophic-failure-data-faulty-for-the-last-45-days/ has all details, including a polite discussion about what this means.

Sorry but our usual puerile slashdot comments will typically be blackholed on that site.

This has a great discussion too: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/

You are right that vested interests are being carefully defended. So much so that very little of what is commonly accepted as truth actually is so. This includes your belief in the truth of global warming. The essence of it is simply this: the sun is a rather more dynamic system in terms of energy output than it is being given credit for. Hence periods of global warming and cooling happen. The greenhouse effect has a relatively minor impact.

Of course, some research on your part is required to verify the truth of my claim: sometimes, you just have to dig. This is a good place to start: http://wattsupwiththat.com/. Supposing that what I say is true, it is reasonable for you to wonder why global warming is being sold so vigorously. What do vested interests have to gain by doing so?

Carbon credits is one way they aim to gain. And induced fear of climate disaster makes people accept policies and taxes they otherwise would not. But there is a more subtle gain: using global warming and the "green" world view it is embedded in as a means of selling people on a belief system of scarcity. You see, if people believe that something is scarce, they accept that the corresponding resources are withheld from them or have a high price.

Here is a list of things that are being made to appear scarce, but are not really so, or are artificially induced to be so: land, water, energy, food, oil, diamonds, and even gold.

Yes? Your point being?

Mine's that the PDO has now shifted from it's warm phase, which together with other ocean currents have been driving the rise in temperature since ~1980, and temperatures are on their way back down again. You know, there's absolutely nothing special about the climate we've had the last 10-15 years compared to many other times in human history - including the 1930s.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/PDO.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/

Try this summary. The simulations begin with the assumption that CO2 hangs around for thousands of years, so of course they show that happens. The simulations also are based upon CO2 levels higher than we have now, so the summary's claim of stopping immediately is not part of the study.

Doesn't anyone watch Penn and Teller? They already covered it.

because we know what the planet was like before we started adding those gases in the first place

Umm, no, not really. You see, there's absolutely no causal relationship between "those gasses" and the what the "planet was like". A good recent example can be found here:

This is a review from CO2Science.com of an interesting paper looking at Oxygen 18 records in water driven cave formations (stalactite, stalagmite or flowstone) than span a 4000 year period. [New Zealand]

For both the ENI and WSI Î18O records master speleothem histories, their warmest periods fall within the AD 900-1100 time interval, which is also where the peak warmth of a large portion of the temperature records found in our Medieval Warm Period

(There's previously been a claim from the AGW crowd that the MWP "didn't exist" or if it existed it was strictly a north atlantic affair. That has now been disproven - scientifically)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/03/4000-year-o18-histories-of-new-zealands-north-and-south-islands/

Ice shelves are melting. The Northwest Passage is open. That's not disputable. *Something* is driving rapid warming right now, and that means rapid climate change, and rapid change means trauma.

The ice-sheets are growing at the moment, although the "adjusters" do have a nasty habit of making it disapear.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/13/something-is-rotten-in-norway-500000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight

The Northwest passage has been open before (first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903-1906), so that's not really "evidence" of man-made climate change. Although of course, as I've posted already, there is evidence that man does influence climate, but perhaps not in ways you might associate with anything catastrophic for the species:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217190433.htm

I don't know about you, but I think this whole theory of CO2 based Global Warming is looking a little threadbare right now.

Science isn't making shit up...

Don't think so? GW "data" is laced with examples of manipulation. The most recent is the July 2008 CO2 readings from Mauna Loa. It seems that the folks "maintaining" the Mauna Loa CO2 data has been caught "Hansenizing" it all the way back to 1974 to ELIMINATE a CO2 reversal. The GW folks are all about using "adjusted" data to support their agenda, Thankfully, the military doesn't buy into their schemes and use REAL temperature data in their guidance equations, otherwise their accuracy might falter from being able to hit a 1 sq meter target to missing by a mile. Here is the data showing the CO2 manipulation, from the posting by Dee Norris.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/04/mauna-loa-co2-january-to-july-trend-goes-negative-first-time-in-history/

Dee Norris (19:08:01) :

it would seem, contrary to earlier claims that NOAA only adjusted the recent year, that the dataset back to mid-1974 has been adjusted. I will resist using the term Hansenized until I hear back from Dr Tans.

Here is a comparison of the new and old mean values:

Mauna Loa CO2 Adjustments on Aug 4th 2008
# decimal new old
Year Month date mean mean Change
1958 3 1958.208 315.71 315.71 0
1958 4 1958.292 317.45 317.45 0 .... snipped for brevity ... .... check URL for total listing ...
2008 6 2008.458 387.87 387.99 0.12
2008 7 2008.542 385.6 384.93 -0.67

Dee Norris (20:05:35) :

I did a quick plot of the differences between the old and new means.

          http://tinyurl.com/6qb3sg

Other than July 2008, the change seems to radiate out from 1994, each oscillation growing larger as time progresses in either direction.

I look forward to NOAA explaining the justification for this sort of adjustment.

This is just one of many examples of data cooking by GW believers. With their GW as a hammer they see everything else as a nail. Earth warming? Proof of GW! Earth cooling? Proof of GW! Drought? Proof of GW. Unusual rain and floods? Proof of GW.

To the GW Faithful EVERY change "proves" GW. This attitude moves them from the area of science to that of Faith. When you can't falsify your hypothesis then your hypothesis is a Faith.

They're not. They're growing again. All websites stating that a) glaciers are growing and b) ice caps were larger than they were last year at this time.

Of course, you'll probably just say that this is because you're driving a hybrid and it fits your convienent model of "climate change" perfectly. Climate change? It's been changing forever. Hello, "Ice Age" anyone? Trust me, there were no moto-cars back when the mammoth wandered the frozen tundra. Funny how Global Warming enthusiasts are trying to call it "climate change" now. What? You worried you might be wrong or something? Sounds like a PR stunt to cover your ass. "No, no, no. It's climate change! That includes cooling! See, it's what we're always saying!". yeah right!

Enjoy that kool-aid do you?

That's silly. Turning off your server will save money, not the planet. If you want to save the planet, find another problem to worry about, like protecting satellites from kooky regimes, the below-replacement birthrate, or the increase in drug-resistant disease strains. There are huge problems in the world, but 'climate change' isn't one we can do anything about. If you want to find out about climate change (2008 was freezing cold!), look at the sky. We had fewer sunspots this cycle than in the last century, according to some reports.

You'll never hear an Al Gore follower mention it but the Earth has actually been on a cooling cycle for the last two years. Maybe we should be starting to look at schemes to increase planetary warming. This could be especially worrisome if sunspot cycle 24 continues to be unusually weak.

this article seems to give a good idea of what happens when sun spots are too low for too long, and what this has lead to in the past. There is only one other place on the images that looks like today: the lead up to the Dalton Minimum

I mangled the link.

I follow this blog which gives regular reports on the sun.

The problem is all up until yesterday-ish had been short lived, less than 24-hour sunspots at a latitude consistent with the previous solar cycle. (There seems to be a pattern where spots begin and progress to during the cycle's life cycle.)

However to really understand just how quet the sun is, look at this animated graphic

Many, many people are predicting another mini-ice age as a result. Check out this article for a wavelet image of sun spot numbers. The only other part of the chart that looks like today is the Dalton Minimum.

I follow this blog which gives regular reports on the sun.

The problem is all up until yesterday-ish had been short lived, less than 24-hour sunspots at a latitude consistent with the previous solar cycle. (There seems to be a pattern where spots begin and progress to during the cycle's life cycle.)

However to really understand just how quet the sun is, look at this animated graphic

Many, many people are predicting another mini-ice age as a result. Check out this article for a wavelet image of sun spot numbers. The only other part of the chart that looks like today is the Dalton Minimum.

When a prediction is not supported by observation, the hypothesis behind the prediction should be abandoned and a new one should be put in its place. It's called science. That's not what's happening with the "climate change" nonsense though.

World temperatures have been going down for ten years now, while CO2 levels have kept going up:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/08/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-jumps-in-august/

Bonus: The biosphere loves the increase in CO2:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

Bonus2: Arctic sea ice extent growing rapidly:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/09/sea-ice-extent-recovering-quickly/

When a prediction is not supported by observation, the hypothesis behind the prediction should be abandoned and a new one should be put in its place. It's called science. That's not what's happening with the "climate change" nonsense though.

World temperatures have been going down for ten years now, while CO2 levels have kept going up:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/08/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-jumps-in-august/

Bonus: The biosphere loves the increase in CO2:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

Bonus2: Arctic sea ice extent growing rapidly:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/09/sea-ice-extent-recovering-quickly/

When a prediction is not supported by observation, the hypothesis behind the prediction should be abandoned and a new one should be put in its place. It's called science. That's not what's happening with the "climate change" nonsense though.

World temperatures have been going down for ten years now, while CO2 levels have kept going up:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/08/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-jumps-in-august/

Bonus: The biosphere loves the increase in CO2:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

Bonus2: Arctic sea ice extent growing rapidly:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/09/sea-ice-extent-recovering-quickly/

Question: If this was your boss, would you try to publish an AGW sceptic paper?

(I say try, because some who do get them refused without explanation)

"James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists [sic], will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/22/jim-hansen-calls-for-energy-company-execs-to-be-jailed/

I like science. The AGW frenzy isn't about science any longer though, it has become religion/cult. You're not allowed to be sceptic.

Shiny epicycles.

Yes you're guessing correctly, but there seems to be very little to reply to in your post. Anyway, the PDO doesn't cause global temperature trends, but it has most likely influenced north american temperatures ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/26/nasa-jpl-heatwaves-its-the-asphalt-not-the-atmosphere/ ). Repeating myself - the so called global warming was really northern hemisphere warming, and has stopped (and is currently likely declining).

Now let's go find the best matching hypothesis for that data. CO2 isn't it - there's nothing in the climate models predicting a levelling of and the start of a decline while CO2 levels have continued to rise. It seems there might be a better match when looking at solar activity - possibly with ocean currents as secondary effects that need to be taken into account when looking for that elusive "perfect match".

Stop treating AGW as a religion.