Slashdot Mirror

If he is not being paid to represent their postion then what, in your fevered imagination, are they paying him to do?

Let's listen to his side of the story:

Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around.

He also claims that he isn't actually paid by Heartland Institute.

I agree with the assessment about power and stress ponts, but bear in mind that we _are_ talking about small amounts of power.

One of the largest advantages of the toyota design is that you can use power modules and only fire up as many as are needed, which gets around the issue of piston engines only being most efficient around full load. That alone will improve the overall efficiency of the setup from the typical 5-15% to the 25-30% range.

There's another design I ran across a few years ago which has been tested in real world situations and works well, developing a lot of torque, but at cost of utterly hideous mechanical complexity (the crank is replaced with 2 counterrotating butterfly wheels and the connecting rod rides on top of them, rigidly attached to the piston)

All reciprocating stuff all has disadvantages though - primarily vibration. Fuel cells are more efficient and quiet but they require levels of fuel purity currently unavailable in portable applications.

At the other extreme from car engines, this is a good example of a slider crank: http://qualityjunkyard.com/200...

Wave disks (essentially an inverted whittle turbine) look interesting, but proabbly aren't practical and almost certainly won't achieve the claimed improvements. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Examine these charts and point to where there is any real evidence of weather extremes due to climate change or anything else.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/ref...

97% of the world's climate scientists, who are generally not paid very well, agree that global warming is real and a real danger to human existence.

I'm not going to address their pay scale, although all evidence points to them being paid far more than they should be, given the the shoddy quality of the "science" they produce.

One things for sure though: It's DEFINITELY NOT a 97% consensus. According to an actual survey (which was not the source of the bogus 97% claim) conducted by the American Meteorological Society, the real number is no more than 52%.

AGW is BS, and certainly NOT settled science.

No climate model of note considers CO2 to be the only variable of note. However variations in solar output are very well understood and no, they are not particularly significant at all. Yes, there is broad consensus on this.

Yet CO2 emissions have continued nonstop for the past 15 years while global temperatures remain essentially unchanged.

Something else is having a larger effect on global temperatures than CO2. Either CO2 is warming less than expected, or something weird is making all that heat vanish, which seems like rather magical thinking to me.

As I said, the current models include proper statistical modelling that lets us have a probability of being correct. They are getting quite accurate and the error bars are steadily going down. As I said, its not sigma-5 type stuff yet, but its certainly accurate enough to start making precautionary policy on.

Can you show me even one model from ten years ago that correctly predicted the temperatures of the past ten years?

I don't care how many models you have that "post-dict" correctly, i.e. if you give them the historical data they produce a curve that matches what was actually recorded for that period of history. I care about models that made predictions that came true.

Because from what I have read, the models from 15 years ago all predicted more warming than actually occurred. I gave you one link about this already; here's another two:

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/7360901-robert-wagner/1870791-climate-change-consensus-bubble-burst-by-the-facts-at-near-95-percent-confidence-level

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/03/new-paper-falsifies-climate-model.html

This is obsfucation based on the fact that the effects of CO2 are measured in kelvins, not celcius. Within the ranges of temperatures required to maintain human life however, the effect is extremely dramatic.

No, it is you who is obfuscating here. The claim is that CO2 is already doing about as much "greenhouse effect" as it can, that it is already blocking nearly 100% of the wavelengths that it blocks, and that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere have progressively smaller effects.

I gave you a link earlier, here's another:

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/ed-caryl-modtran-shows-co2-doubling-will-have-almost-no-effect-on-temperature/

Could you please provide a reference documenting the consensus position on how CO2 affects global warming?

We havent had 15 years of non-warming. That is a trope that is constantly repeated by denialists that has no basis in reality. In fact we've had significant warming. Please actually read scientific research on this matter instead of garbage from denialists.

And yet, you provide no link to support your position.

Here's another three links about the "pause" in global warming:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/observed-rate-of-global-warming-half-of.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/11/rss-global-temperature-data-no-global-warming-at-all-for-202-months/

[Global warming] might be [catastrophic]. It might not be. Try and not strawman

Anthony Watts of WattsUpWithThat compiled an interesting list of "Global Cooling" references all through the 1970's.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

I may be old, but my memory is still MOSTLY here.....

Well, when Dr. Benjamin Santer, winner of the McArthur award because of his findings related to AGW, sets 17 years as what is needed to determine the trend, don't be surprised when we reach that timeline with no warming and then take the good Doctor at his word - there is a pause in global warming, and we only need 17 years to make that determination.

James Hansen, noted pro-AGW, ex-NASA researcher disagrees with you. The pause is real. The data we have verifies it. The models do not. Which do we believe - the models or the data?

"And this is why we fail."

Yep. That's why you fail. We KNOW that the survey that reported a 97% consensus was, in fact, bogus. 75 or so cherry-picked responses out of a 10,000-person survey is not anything a responsible statistician would call valid. And the "expert" doesn't even try to defend it. He does a fine job of moving the goalposts, but he doesn't support the actual claim at all. Because, of course, he knows it's bogus. We also know, from the science, that there is no significant evidence that "climate change" has been increasing either the number or severity of extreme weather events. And so on. The real question here is why a politician is actually asking perfectly legitimate questions, but is being labeled stupid on Slashdot for doing so. This is the domain of ideologues, not science.

You forgot to mention Al Gore. Seriously, this post explains why we'll never be able to defeat politicians on the ground of scientific illiteracy.

"And this is why we fail."

Yep. That's why you fail.

We KNOW that the survey that reported a 97% consensus was, in fact, bogus.

75 or so cherry-picked responses out of a 10,000-person survey is not anything a responsible statistician would call valid.

And the "expert" doesn't even try to defend it. He does a fine job of moving the goalposts, but he doesn't support the actual claim at all. Because, of course, he knows it's bogus.

We also know, from the science, that there is no significant evidence that "climate change" has been increasing either the number or severity of extreme weather events. And so on.

The real question here is why a politician is actually asking perfectly legitimate questions, but is being labeled stupid on Slashdot for doing so.

This is the domain of ideologues, not science.

Well, sampling error and the migration of air through ice brings up a whole set of issues (the damping of CO2 swings, for example, hiding periods of dramatic change), but I don't think it applies to the issue of lag -> it's well established that there is a CO2 lag of 400-800 years in the ice core record, and although the resolution isn't near to what we have in the modern era, the onset of ice ages are fairly obvious exemplars. This post has some fairly nice graphs that illustrate some instances:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...

But here's the thing - I have no doubt that a clever person can come up with some ad hoc special pleading for this. Blame orbital precession or other milankovich cycles, or some unobserved solar driver, or some other unspecified natural variation, and you can preserve your central conceit. If I was a creationist, defending against the discovery of some transition fossil, I've got a similar defense - God decided to make the transition fossil to test our faith. If I was a Keynesian economist, defending against the failure of the Obama stimulus, I'd just defend by saying, "we didn't do enough stimulus".

Now, the argument against requiring falsification here is the Bayesian one - the assertion that we approach the truth through statistics, even if we don't apply the strictures of the scientific method to our process. However, the weakness of that approach is that correlation is not causality, and we threaten to fall victim to the drunk searching for his keys under the lamppost issue - if we "know" that CO2 is the driver, and only consider that (like only searching for the keys in the light), we'll never approach the truth outside the bounds of our self-imposed limitations.

To help those with comprehension difficulties....

No warming this millenium

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Remember, government gets to use all the money it taxes out of big oil, the Koch brothers, and the rest of us, to drive billions upon billions of dollars into the hands of charlatan "scientists" who are willing to toe the political line clamored for by their government masters.

When you want to talk science, cite and quote some necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW or CAGW. Until then, government bureaucrats are getting whatever they can make us pay for out of "scientists".

Now, if it continues like that for another ten-fifteen years, our models were wrong and you'll see me running in the street, celebrating.

Been there, done that.. If you're anything like the rest of the alarmist crowd, you'll just re-do the models, and claim you need another 15 years to falsify the new ones - which we should accept until they are proven wrong.

Wow. The Mod Squad has been all over this thread in force today.

No great surprise. If you don't have facts on your side, hush up those who do, eh?

Pardon the sarcasm but in this case it is well-deserved.

By the way: critics might find this data interesting.

Here is a link http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... that includes that one journalist you mentioned earlier, and a whole lot of his friends. I challenge you to find three articles in periodicals with comparable circulation to the NYT, Wash Post, Chicago Tribune, or even Science News between 1965 and 1975 which suggest global warming as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions into in the atmosphere. Now you can no longer say it was an isolated or fringe view from your position of smug ignorance - any such statement will now be a calculated lie. These articles all precede the notion of "nuclear winter" which was coined in 1983. You are the one who is trying to convince others that nuclear winter and these articles were mixed up when that is clearly an impossibility. So, I stand by my assessment of your veracity. Your personal attacks about my motives are both amusing and offer a somewhat disturbing view of your psyche.

Consider this essay when judging IPCC's credibility:
IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted Certainties Presented to Media, Public and Politicians, But Remained Silent
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

"I never know if you are lying or just confused. But what you say is not correct. Neither that there is any dispute, nor that you've ever pointed me to any page that says otherwise.

Confused or lying? Lying or confused? All in a single post."

Okay. On the outrageously infinitesimal probability that you have argued with me so frequently but missed the hundreds of links I have posted, here are just a few of them. First, about the physics. (If you are unfamiliar with how this relates to AGW, I suggest you look up some of the discussions of the physics of CO2-based AGW according to climate scientists, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law.)

No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.

Then, let's see... there are so many to choose from. I have 120 bookmarks of these from just the last couple of years... most of which I've linked to here. And more written down from years prior. Hey, here's one. About that "97% consensus". (Note here: this information did not come from Christopher Monckton, but he did write about it. The same points are available in more painstaking detail elsewhere. I linked to this same information from a different source a few days ago. The point being: don't try shooting the messenger. I'll just laugh at you. If you can refute the message, go ahead.)

"That's a 0.3% consensus, not 97%"

Because, you see, according to an actual survey of AMS members, it turns out that their opinion of AGW is actually based more on their "perception of consensus" (rather than science) and their "political ideology" (rather than science). Wow. I would never would have guessed that latter. Just kidding. I most certainly would have. But isn't that what you accused ME of? What a coincidence!

If you don't like reading about it on WUWT, here is a link so you can download the paper directly from the American Meteorological Society's own website.

How about some information regarding the actual CO2-based-warming climate models?

Hmm. How about: how IPCC has deliberately mislead the public.

And more of that: "IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted..."

Yet another reason bogus claims about expensive storms have been bogus...

How 114 out of 117 climate models studied exaggerated warming by a mean of over 100% (pdf). That one is from Nature.

No dispute? Hahahaha.

Wait... this wouldn't be complete (it isn't anyway, not by a long shot) without just a hint of the boatload of evidence that Steve Goddard has been compiling about dishonest temperature information being fed to us by our erstwhile "authorities" on the matter.

Well, hell. I could do this all day. So here's a list of more references you can read for yourself, all peer-reviewed. I'm not going to count them.

"I never know if you are lying or just confused. But what you say is not correct. Neither that there is any dispute, nor that you've ever pointed me to any page that says otherwise.

Confused or lying? Lying or confused? All in a single post."

Okay. On the outrageously infinitesimal probability that you have argued with me so frequently but missed the hundreds of links I have posted, here are just a few of them. First, about the physics. (If you are unfamiliar with how this relates to AGW, I suggest you look up some of the discussions of the physics of CO2-based AGW according to climate scientists, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law.)

No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.

Then, let's see... there are so many to choose from. I have 120 bookmarks of these from just the last couple of years... most of which I've linked to here. And more written down from years prior. Hey, here's one. About that "97% consensus". (Note here: this information did not come from Christopher Monckton, but he did write about it. The same points are available in more painstaking detail elsewhere. I linked to this same information from a different source a few days ago. The point being: don't try shooting the messenger. I'll just laugh at you. If you can refute the message, go ahead.)

"That's a 0.3% consensus, not 97%"

Because, you see, according to an actual survey of AMS members, it turns out that their opinion of AGW is actually based more on their "perception of consensus" (rather than science) and their "political ideology" (rather than science). Wow. I would never would have guessed that latter. Just kidding. I most certainly would have. But isn't that what you accused ME of? What a coincidence!

If you don't like reading about it on WUWT, here is a link so you can download the paper directly from the American Meteorological Society's own website.

How about some information regarding the actual CO2-based-warming climate models?

Hmm. How about: how IPCC has deliberately mislead the public.

And more of that: "IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted..."

Yet another reason bogus claims about expensive storms have been bogus...

How 114 out of 117 climate models studied exaggerated warming by a mean of over 100% (pdf). That one is from Nature.

No dispute? Hahahaha.

Wait... this wouldn't be complete (it isn't anyway, not by a long shot) without just a hint of the boatload of evidence that Steve Goddard has been compiling about dishonest temperature information being fed to us by our erstwhile "authorities" on the matter.

Well, hell. I could do this all day. So here's a list of more references you can read for yourself, all peer-reviewed. I'm not going to count them.

"I never know if you are lying or just confused. But what you say is not correct. Neither that there is any dispute, nor that you've ever pointed me to any page that says otherwise.

Confused or lying? Lying or confused? All in a single post."

Okay. On the outrageously infinitesimal probability that you have argued with me so frequently but missed the hundreds of links I have posted, here are just a few of them. First, about the physics. (If you are unfamiliar with how this relates to AGW, I suggest you look up some of the discussions of the physics of CO2-based AGW according to climate scientists, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law.)

No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.

Then, let's see... there are so many to choose from. I have 120 bookmarks of these from just the last couple of years... most of which I've linked to here. And more written down from years prior. Hey, here's one. About that "97% consensus". (Note here: this information did not come from Christopher Monckton, but he did write about it. The same points are available in more painstaking detail elsewhere. I linked to this same information from a different source a few days ago. The point being: don't try shooting the messenger. I'll just laugh at you. If you can refute the message, go ahead.)

"That's a 0.3% consensus, not 97%"

Because, you see, according to an actual survey of AMS members, it turns out that their opinion of AGW is actually based more on their "perception of consensus" (rather than science) and their "political ideology" (rather than science). Wow. I would never would have guessed that latter. Just kidding. I most certainly would have. But isn't that what you accused ME of? What a coincidence!

If you don't like reading about it on WUWT, here is a link so you can download the paper directly from the American Meteorological Society's own website.

How about some information regarding the actual CO2-based-warming climate models?

Hmm. How about: how IPCC has deliberately mislead the public.

And more of that: "IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted..."

Yet another reason bogus claims about expensive storms have been bogus...

How 114 out of 117 climate models studied exaggerated warming by a mean of over 100% (pdf). That one is from Nature.

No dispute? Hahahaha.

Wait... this wouldn't be complete (it isn't anyway, not by a long shot) without just a hint of the boatload of evidence that Steve Goddard has been compiling about dishonest temperature information being fed to us by our erstwhile "authorities" on the matter.

Well, hell. I could do this all day. So here's a list of more references you can read for yourself, all peer-reviewed. I'm not going to count them.

I'll respond to you and hope that your friends below manage to find it.

On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 7 months to 16 years and 8 months.
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since February 2001 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to July)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since April 1997 or 16 years, 4 months. (goes to July)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 8 months. (goes to July)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 8 months. (goes to July)
5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 16 years, 4 months. (goes to June) (The July anomaly is out, but it is not on WFT yet.)
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 7 months. (goes to July using version 5.5)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 8 months. (goes to July)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

There is an embarrassing (for you) graph at the link in case you have trouble with numbers.

I've shown you my data now you can show me yours and we'll see who is the moron, you moron.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...

"In written form, a Gish Gallop is most commonly observed as a long list of supposed facts or reasons, as a pamphlet or green ink web page, with a title that proudly boasts the number of reasons involved. The individual points must also be fairly terse, so that each point individually can be easy to refute because it simply proves nothing."

Your words:

"There about a few dozen things to cover in order to describe the tests for AGW."

You've boasted about a "few dozen things", and failed to even get your first one right :)

(A) is a decadal trend. Less than two decades doesn't make a trend.

If you want to move the bar to 20 years, fine - we've certainly observed rising CO2 and 20 years of statistically insignificant warming in some modern temperature records, and in the long term proxy records as well.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

"For UAH: Since November 1995: CI from -0.001 to 2.501
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.005 to 1.968
For Hadcrut4: Since August 1996: CI from -0.006 to 1.358
For Hadsst3: Since May 1993: CI from -0.002 to 1.768
For GISS: Since August 1997: CI from -0.030 to 1.326"

Your need to move the goalposts here is *classic* ad hoc special pleading, and if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that you'd be arguing that 25 years isn't enough once we hit that in the modern instrumental record.

Put simply, you have not established one whit of credibility here with your "precludes" statement - you've made an empty statement, since your preclusion, be it 20 years, or even 100 years, has been observed in the historical record, and your response to that is invariably an ad hoc special pleading.

Put another way, there is no "A" - properly and honestly stated, the only thing you can defend is this:

A) AGW does not preclude the absence of a warming trend - it is possible for it to be true no matter what temperature trend is observed over any period of time.

Unfortunately, since you haven't started forbidding observations, you haven't even begun the process of Popper's falsifiability :)

The count is thirty-nine now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at twelve for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

(A) AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend -- measured at a decadal time-scale.

Let's be more specific - AGW should preclude the absence of a warming trend if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase, at a decadal time-scale.

NOAA 2008 came close to this assertion, excluding 15 (or 17) year periods of statistically insignificant warming with rising CO2.

We've already *observed* this - http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Are we ready to assert AGW has been falsified now? Or do we come up with an ad hoc special pleading to protect the central conceit? From Popper:

"A clear appreciation of what may be gained (and lost) by con- ventionalist methods was expressed, a hundred years before Poincaré, by Black who wrote: ‘A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge.’1"

Do you agree that the world has seen warming at a decadal time-scale?

Do you agree that the world has seen an absence of warming at a decadal time-scale while CO2 has continued to increase?

The count is thirty-six now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at nine for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Interesting to note that the CMPI5 models are all over the map when it comes to climate sensitivity.

At what point is AGW and CAGW falsified? 1.5C/doubling? 1.6C/doubling?

I'm talking about modeling the movement of the isotopes. The assumption is that isotope ratios change over time due to specific causes - but that isn't always clear. For example:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...

"But if you examine the above equation, you will see that the C13 index that is reported can go down not only from decreasing C13 content, but also from an increasing C12 content (the other 98.9% of the CO2)."

"BOTTOM LINE: If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??"

While certainly our analysis of isotopes in the lab is pretty fool proof, our assumptions as to where and which isotopes come from and end up in the real world is based on some assumption that might not be justified.

How long do you think it'll take for you to bleed to death if I shoot you [... blah blah blah...]

Wow very dramatic. But pointless.

CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a greenhouse gas; no reasonable person disputes this. However, doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere does not double the energy trapped... in fact the extra effect of extra CO2 falls off logarithmically.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/

So we are already experiencing almost all of the effect we can from CO2, and adding more won't change much.

(Good thing too, as China and India are not going to cooperate with controlling CO2.)

So, my question for you: given the above, why should we make heroic efforts to restrict CO2 emissions?

30 years from now, most people will probably be driving electric cars and most buildings will probably have solar panels on the roofs. And I hope there will be lots of nuclear power plants and few coal ones. I predict that 30 years from now, CO2 emissions will have fallen drastically from current levels, without any heroic efforts to impose carbon credits and the like.

So, to return to your analogy, CO2 in the atmosphere is nothing like a bullet wound in my body. If you are going to claim that we need to take heroic measures to restrict CO2, you are going to need to provide extraordinary evidence to support this idea.

Cause I ain't buying it.

There are several datasets that show a long term warming trend.

Can you point me to one of those datasets, that shows warming over the last 17 years?

17 years is a clear attempt to cherry pick data as outlined in this Forbes article.

Nope. It's not cherry picking. Dr. Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore and UEA's CRU climate scientist explicitly stated that you need 17 years to identify a trend. That's a world-respected climatologist who's been unapologetic about his support for the AGW model. Well, we've surpassed his 17 year statement. Can we now identify a trend?

After all, Phil Jones, Richard Lindzen, and Pat Michaels (all noted climatologists from the pro-AGW side of things) have identified the trend starting about 17 years ago. So the trend does exist, and per a respected climatologist, it's plenty long to identify as an independent trend - separate the signal from the noise.

PS: in accordance with standard AGW-supporter techniques, you can only disagree with the 17 year claim if you, in fact, are a PhD climatologist. They are apparently the only ones who can speak authoritatively on issues related to climate. Otherwise you need to have credentialed climatologists who state that the trend does not exist, or that the 17 year period is not suitable for identifying climate trends.

But if you look at the data, it is not obvious how they got this result.

There are floods in Somerset, England? Funny; Somerset was bogland 1200 years ago, too.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

But they built dikes and drainage pumps. Which works fine, as long as you do routine maintenance on the pump system. Which they stopped doing....

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com...

So perhaps some flooding in Somerset isn't all THAT unexpected?

How about you actually study some real Paleoclimatology instead of pulling neo-liberal statements out of your ass?

The truth is, the earth, as a whole, is currently at about the lowest average temperature that can be inferred from the all sources of ancient data. Normally, we should be about 2-3 C higher, globally, given the historical record.

"Global Warming" is just a return to trend and should be expected whether humans are walking around or not.

The actual source code is this, from briffa_Sep98_d.pro http://wattsupwiththat.com/200... [wattsupwiththat.com] - you can decide for yourself whether this is "torture" or not, and whether this particular debate should be squelched:

Climate scientists are often accused of using misleading, uncorrected data : typically a blogger or forum reader writes that temperature datasets are invalid because of urban island heat effects, for one thing. But what actually happens is scientists discard such invalid data or apply a correction to it, when such effects are known. Enters "climategate" where a climate scientist uses corrected data not raw data, and he's reviled for doing so. Yes the correction is "artificial" and the published results are just an estimate, and it's just one piece of work that may make sense in a limited context and may be superseded by later, more accurate works.. because that's the nature of the work that could be done.

Really, random bloggers and lobbyists can chastise scientists for not using raw data in all times and contexts, but that shouldn't matter : the idea is nuts. Other times, the same people complain that the raw data is slanted. So which is it?

So you'll believe Mann's site. How about famed pro-AGW NASA scientist James Hansen who is on record as confirming the stall in temperatures? When the data doesn't fit the models nor the claim - it's the models and claims that fail, not the data. Perhaps Mann and Hansen need to have a little "chat"...

The actual source code is this, from briffa_Sep98_d.pro http://wattsupwiththat.com/200... - you can decide for yourself whether this is "torture" or not, and whether this particular debate should be squelched:

I really must disagree here. You can't infer anything worthwhile about the data just by reading some snippets of source code. If the analysis is convoluted and you don't trust it then the only way to "decide for yourself" is to analyse it for yourself. A bellicose blog ("arrogant programmer" and similar terms appear) doesn't count for much. A few lines of code don't tell you what the raw data look like, if the processing is reasonable based on the data, or if anything is being hidden. In this case, for instance, that code may be just a badly written attempt to produce a smoother curve.

Steyn didn't assert that Mann is a fraud, but rather that Mann "tortured" the data. You may recall that Principal Component Analysis was used on a limited and secretly-adjusted data set to come up with the alarming "hockey stick" chart.

I'm not sure about "alarming" - perhaps you've let your fear get the better of you. A good description would be "accurate" since the modelling accurately reflected what happened to the climate in the years succeeding.

It's pretty much indisputable that there was significant warming from like 1930-1996, but very little since then in spite of more or less linear increases in CO2 concentrations since like 1850.

And if we do not artificially split the period 1930-2013 into 2 chunks for no reason, we can see a clear interdecadal signal from CO2 induced warming - as predicted by Fourier, Arrhenius etc. If we artificially selected a region, say 1980-1996, we can see a significant warming trend somewhat above the long term trend predicted by GCM models, and then if we selected the period 1996-2013 we can see a definite warming trend, somewhat below the long term trend predict by GCM models. The data is so clear that the climate scientists were able to reduce the uncertainty (per AR5) of long term predictions of CO2 forced warming.

The actual source code is this, from briffa_Sep98_d.pro http://wattsupwiththat.com/200... [wattsupwiththat.com] - you can decide for yourself whether this is "torture" or not, and whether this particular debate should be squelched: ; ; 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 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!' yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

Looks pretty innocuous. Perhaps you either (a) Posted the wrong section of the model (b) Misunderstood the meaning of the comment "Apply a very artificial correction for decline" per the quite embarrassing mistakes made by some conspiracy theorists with respect to the word "decline" used in the CRU emails.

Steyn didn't assert that Mann is a fraud, but rather that Mann "tortured" the data. You may recall that Principal Component Analysis was used on a limited and secretly-adjusted data set to come up with the alarming "hockey stick" chart.

It's pretty much indisputable that there was significant warming from like 1930-1996, but very little since then in spite of more or less linear increases in CO2 concentrations since like 1850. The anthropogenic component of global warming is poorly understood, and the appropriate interventions even less so. But diverting taxpayer dollars so wealthy people can get a Tesla as their third or fourth auto is probably suboptimal.

The actual source code is this, from briffa_Sep98_d.pro http://wattsupwiththat.com/200... - you can decide for yourself whether this is "torture" or not, and whether this particular debate should be squelched:

;
; 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
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

I don't know your reference for saying that "the models are broken". In my understanding the models used e.g. in IPCC reports, are quite good.

It is completely unreasonable to dismiss them just because they are not perfect. The proper approach is to study the discrepancies, reason about their possible causes and estimate the effect of the errors on the question you are seeking to answer with the model.

Look at this

http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...

What I don't get is why they don't chuck out the models that are bad, keep the ones that are good and invent ones that are better. Right now it almost seems like they do the opposite - the ones that predict OMG! Runaway Global Warming! get loads of press time. And the ones that don't predict anything too drastic get largely ignored and the people that made them called evil deniers.

Actually that's what denier really means. If you think the world is warming slowly but it's no great problem like the satellite temperature measurements say you're an evil denier. In fact unless you support massive CO2 cuts now on the basis of the most alarmist model you're a denier. I.e. it's really an argument about policy, not whether you think the world will be 0.5 degree C or 1.0 degree C warmer in a hundred years time.

You can see that when geoengineering is brought up. The Royal Society did a study that showed that Sulphate aerosols for example could be used to effect "a reduction of solar input by about 2%" to "balance the effect on global mean temperature of a doubling of CO2" for "total annual cost at 10s of billion dollars". So we don't need to rely on the precautionary principle to tell us we need to cut our CO2 emissions to zero now just in case. We can go on as we are, monitor temperature and build ourselves a planetary thermostat quickly and cheaply if it becomes necessary. Of course the 'cut CO2 now' lobby hate this.

They also hate it when you point out that CO2 emissions in Europe and the US are trending down. China's CO2 emissions are increasing massively. If you want a global CO2 cut you'd need to get China to stop industrializing. Which they won't do

http://photos.mongabay.com/09/...

Or of course that the actual satellite measurements of temperature are undershooting all the models - you need to use the adjusted temperature measurements from ground stations. And the adjusted temperature measurements only do that because the past has been getting cooler. Those cavemen better watch out, pretty soon it will be below absolute zero when they are.

What this is really about is that you've got people who'd make a load of money if everyone was forced to by CO2 permits. It's pure rent seeking by them. Or people who know deep down we're all sinners for our materialistic lifestyle and want to force everyone into the modern equivalent of sackcloth and ashes to repent.

Also see this solar slump article by Anthony Watts

OOPS, I meant THIS solar slump article, not this solar slump article on Slashdot. Apologies to all who are trapped in a recursive loop.

I pick http://wattsupwiththat.com/, which by readership is bigger than almost anything else, including the non-skeptic sites. There's a whole range of theories there, from "(alleged) global warming is due to mismeasurement" to "global warming is due to a variety of causes. But why don't you post there and ask?

You sound like a fanatic, getting all hot under the collar like that.

Anyway, you're grasping at straws.

Venus is hot because it has an extremely dense atmosphere (as compared to Earth's) and because it is closer to the Sun. Very simply, more atmospheric molecules mean more matter to hold heat.

Saying that Venus is hot because that atmosphere happens to be largely composed of C02 is illogical. It's safe to say that any gas at that density would result in a hot Venus. We can't reliably measure (or even prove) the effect of radiative forcing on Earth, let alone other planets, and taken in context with other known, and far less theoretical principles at work, it remains a speculative factor at best.

On top of that, as far as I've seen, nobody has yet managed to prove much of anything (for or against AGW) in their "fucking" kitchens:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

http://galileomovement.com.au/blog/?p=25

Again: there are very interesting things going down right now in our solar system which are all interconnected. Perhaps it is time to calm down and enjoy the process of discovery. Comets indicate much! Belittling outstanding details in favor of high emotion and cleaving to propaganda doesn't help people reach an understanding of reality.

WTF are you talking about? It's the AGW crowd that is obsessed with carbon.

Suggest some other alternative not related to man that could be cause temps to rise and some moron on Slashdot calls you a "denailist".

Oh, BTW you must have missed this. Of course, Kool Aid drinkers such as yourself will first have a problem with the link because of the site and completely ignore the linked material, a sign of a partisan and sophomoric imbecile. Once you finally do figure out it's a link to Nature, where one of the Holy Gods of the Church of Global Warming admits to the pause, you will start blathering about unsupported and unreviewed theories, completely reversing previous insistence on peer reviewed material only.

But in the end, you are just a Slashdot lizard who's no different than the Face Painting Homers found in the cheap seats of the Football Stadium copying and pasting from this or that Blog run by non-scientists and pushing a political agenda. We could find the world covered by Glaciers and you'd still be prattling on about SUVs and Exxon.

If not for this, you'd be out burning down housing developments with the Sierra Club or in the forest crying for trees with the crazy ass Earth Firsters.

Maybe it makes you feel good to think that, but the AGW skeptical material I've read certainly doesn't match that characterization. Maybe the fluff posted in the comments section on YouTube or Fox News or MSNBC etc.

And of course, on Slashdot, where this argument and it's derivatives (e.g. referencing the medieval warm period or little ice age as evidence against CO2 induced warming) , is made multiple times in any discussion about climate here. Funny thing is, these remarks are never corrected by the more enlightened denialists. Why is it that you, recognising this fallacy for what it is (and more power to you for seeing that), don't step in and correct these erroneous arguments when they occur? Don't you see the damage this does to the credibility of the argument you think is true? Or do you think that fallacy can coexist comfortably with fact and help promote fact?

And also: If these arguments are not the true doctrine of denialism, what are the demonstrable facts that underpin your argument?

Am I wrong? Why don't you link to a post in one of the major climate skeptic websites that shows this "can be only one cause for anything" attitude you describe.

You ought to be aware that people in general are not going to know who or where these websites are, since it is not a matter of who but what -

(a) What (according to denialists) is the cause of the recent warming

(b) What are the independently verifiable observations that underpin this hypothesis?

Nevertheless: Here are 3 articles by denialist supremo Anthony Watts, who claims his site www.wattsupwithat.com is "the world's most read site on climate".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/18/remarkable-correlation-of-arctic-sea-ice-to-solar-cycle-length/

All 3 articles rely on the fallacy you say is not mainstream denialism.

Or maybe you're just making stuff up in an attempt to portray your opponents in debate as fools.

Is there actually debate?

Maybe it makes you feel good to think that, but the AGW skeptical material I've read certainly doesn't match that characterization. Maybe the fluff posted in the comments section on YouTube or Fox News or MSNBC etc.

And of course, on Slashdot, where this argument and it's derivatives (e.g. referencing the medieval warm period or little ice age as evidence against CO2 induced warming) , is made multiple times in any discussion about climate here. Funny thing is, these remarks are never corrected by the more enlightened denialists. Why is it that you, recognising this fallacy for what it is (and more power to you for seeing that), don't step in and correct these erroneous arguments when they occur? Don't you see the damage this does to the credibility of the argument you think is true? Or do you think that fallacy can coexist comfortably with fact and help promote fact?

And also: If these arguments are not the true doctrine of denialism, what are the demonstrable facts that underpin your argument?

Am I wrong? Why don't you link to a post in one of the major climate skeptic websites that shows this "can be only one cause for anything" attitude you describe.

You ought to be aware that people in general are not going to know who or where these websites are, since it is not a matter of who but what -

(a) What (according to denialists) is the cause of the recent warming

(b) What are the independently verifiable observations that underpin this hypothesis?

Nevertheless: Here are 3 articles by denialist supremo Anthony Watts, who claims his site www.wattsupwithat.com is "the world's most read site on climate".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/18/remarkable-correlation-of-arctic-sea-ice-to-solar-cycle-length/

All 3 articles rely on the fallacy you say is not mainstream denialism.

Or maybe you're just making stuff up in an attempt to portray your opponents in debate as fools.

Is there actually debate?

Maybe it makes you feel good to think that, but the AGW skeptical material I've read certainly doesn't match that characterization. Maybe the fluff posted in the comments section on YouTube or Fox News or MSNBC etc.

And of course, on Slashdot, where this argument and it's derivatives (e.g. referencing the medieval warm period or little ice age as evidence against CO2 induced warming) , is made multiple times in any discussion about climate here. Funny thing is, these remarks are never corrected by the more enlightened denialists. Why is it that you, recognising this fallacy for what it is (and more power to you for seeing that), don't step in and correct these erroneous arguments when they occur? Don't you see the damage this does to the credibility of the argument you think is true? Or do you think that fallacy can coexist comfortably with fact and help promote fact?

And also: If these arguments are not the true doctrine of denialism, what are the demonstrable facts that underpin your argument?

Am I wrong? Why don't you link to a post in one of the major climate skeptic websites that shows this "can be only one cause for anything" attitude you describe.

You ought to be aware that people in general are not going to know who or where these websites are, since it is not a matter of who but what -

(a) What (according to denialists) is the cause of the recent warming

(b) What are the independently verifiable observations that underpin this hypothesis?

Nevertheless: Here are 3 articles by denialist supremo Anthony Watts, who claims his site www.wattsupwithat.com is "the world's most read site on climate".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/18/remarkable-correlation-of-arctic-sea-ice-to-solar-cycle-length/

All 3 articles rely on the fallacy you say is not mainstream denialism.

Or maybe you're just making stuff up in an attempt to portray your opponents in debate as fools.

Is there actually debate?

We submitted these findings sequentially to Science Magazine, Nature, and Nature Climate Change. The editor of Science Magazine replied that the results were not of sufficient general interest, suggested we submit the work to a specialty journal, and declined to proceed with external scientific review. Nature also rejected the paper without external scientific review, for reasons that we considered spurious. Nature Climate Change initially rejected the paper, but after some discussion the paper was assigned to a senior editor and reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. Given the context of their comments, both reviewers appeared to be climate modelers.

With reference to analysis of Vostok series. Still, here's the Vostok temperature graph and here's the Greenland temperature graph. Do you see unprecedented present day warming, or do you see current temperatures being well within the range of natural variation?

With respect to the laws of Thermodynamics, climate sensitivity is low, as the IPCC are slowly admitting.

Back to Roy's statement, âoeBut I remain unconvinced by arguments that depend upon global deep ocean temperature changes being measured to an accuracy of hundredths or even thousandths of a degreeâ:

First consider that the ARGO floats have had "complete" coverage of the global oceans since 2007. The Earth's oceans and seas cover about 361 million square kilometers or 139 million square miles. There were 3566 ARGO floats in operation in March 2013. If the floats were spaced evenly, then each ARGO float is sampling the temperature at depth for a surface area of approximately 101,000 square kilometers or 39,000 square milesâ"or an area about the size of Iceland or the State of Kentucky.

Second, consider that the ARGO era is when the sampling is at its best, but before ARGO temperature sampling at depth was very poor. Refer to the following animation. Temperature sample maps at 1500 meters (6MB). There is little observational data at depths of 1500 meters prior to ARGO. In other words, we have little idea about the temperatures of the global oceans to depths of 2000 meters and their variability before ARGO.

Third, on top of that, consider that ARGO floats have been found to be unreliable, hence the need to constantly readjust their observations.

Do we have any idea about the variability of the temperatures and ocean heat content of the global oceans to depth? Simple answer: No.

Now, I'm aware that "Watts Up With That" is probably not your citation of choice, but this demonstrates two of the huge warning signs I'm seeing through a lot of climate science. Making conclusions from data that simply can't support the conclusion coupled with magically coming up with a conclusion that conveniently supports the more extreme AGW predictions.

And as to your comment on satellite data:

They leveraged satellite data to fill in the unobserved regions. They showed that this technique works quite well by testing it on areas where we do have direct measurements.

No, they need to show that it works well on the unobserved regions - because that's where the extraordinary claims are being made. I think there is a strong bias here correlating with the absence of observation. And since those regions are unobserved, my original statement holds - the research makes claims which aren't backed by actual evidence.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/the-met-office-responds-to-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/

The real truth is that there are enough people on this planet with the power and money to deny the undeniable, who think they can lead a full long happy life without having to worry about the consequences of global warming, as it will not be a problem for their generation, but the generations to follow. If you're not rich and in your mid to late 60's you're unwittingly allowing an older generation to completely hoodwink you.

[yawn] Bill Nye is jumping into an fight of squawking and feather-ruffling with no spurs on his toes. No clear victory is possible because the only referee who could call the plays and tally the score is God. Since God is strictly hands-off, there will be no thunderclap and deep booming voice to announce the winner.

Since Nye does not own a science theme park whose ticket sales could be bolstered by this event, he has already lost the debate.

Since Ham owns a theme park where it is fun to imagine Tyrannosaurus Rex as a vegan doggie being petted by a smiling cave woman in a sexy (loom-woven) tunic ... he has already won the debate.

Now if Bill Nye should instead choose to debate Christopher Monckton on anthropogenic climate change, the true nature of the CO2 as relates to the Greenhouse effect, and the applicability and veracity of long term computer models ... THAT would be a debate worthy of popcorn.

Meanwhile, the IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in the AR5 final draft.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/

"Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 C from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 C, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 C over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 C."

No fanfare. No mea culpa.

1. Antarctic Global Warming Expedition Ship Trapped in Sea Ice. You may have heard about the Russian vessel trapped 100 miles away from land in 10 feet thick ice in Antarctica and how three ice breakers have failed to rescue it. What you may not have heard is this ship is filled with Climate Scientists studying Global Warming. They are comparing data from 100 years ago when there was no sea ice in the same location.

2. Yachts Trapped in Sea Ice in the Arctic Last Summer. You probably didnt hear about all the yachts, sailboats, rowboats, and kayaks that got trapped by sea ice while trying to sail the fabled Northwest Passage. They were promised an ice free passage.

3. Global Sea Ice at Record Levels. Al Gore and John Kerry 5 years ago predicted that 2013 would be ice free in the arctic. You probably havent heard that the exact opposite came true. 2013 is currently at the second highest volume of sea ice ever recorded and will probably break the all time record before the season is over.

4. Half of Meteorologists Dont Believe in Global Warming. Nearly half of meteorologists and atmospheric science experts donâ(TM)t believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming, according to a survey by the American Meteorological Society.

5. Only 75 Climate Scientists Believe in Global Warming. You probably have heard ad nauseum that 97% percent of Climate Scientists believe in global warming. That stat was based on a study which counted only 75 of 77 Climate Scientists. Compared to the over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying they dont believe in Global Warming. Thats only 2.3 in 1,000 or .23% of scientists that actually believe in Global Warming.

6. NASA caught fudging historical temps to make it look like the globe is warming. By massively cooling the past in their recent graphs, NASA has exaggerated the amount of warming they report by nearly twice as much as they did 13 years ago.

7. Polar Bear Population at Record Levels. Since we've been keeping count the Polar Bear population is estimated at a record high of 20k to 25k. 5,000 are expected to be born around the New Year in Russia alone.

8. Obama Allows Wind Farms to Kill Eagles Without Penalties. Over 50 years ago the green movement started with the book Silent Spring which alleged that DDT was killing the Bald Eagle. Now we have come full circle by allowing wind power companies to kill eagles without penalty because its good for the planet.

9. The Oceans Arent Rising. Remember in 2009 when the officials of the Maldives held a press conference under water to show that their islands were sinking because of global warming. Well a new study do