James Hansen on the Warmest Year Brouhaha

Jamie writes "In response to earlier reports, Dr. James Hansen, top climate scientist with NASA, has issued a statement on the recent global warming data correction. He points out 'the effect on global temperature was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.' In a second email he shows maps of U.S. temperatures relative to the world in 1934 and 1998, explains why the error occurred (it was not, as reported, a 'Y2K bug') and, in response to errors by 'Fox, Washington Times, and their like,' attacks the 'deceit' of those who 'are not stupid [but] seek to create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story.'"

Comments

The bigger issue

[MyLongNickName]

The bigger issue is the cloak of secrecy around the data and the algorithms used to generate the outputs. I do not understand why all data wouldn't be publicly available. Is there one place to go to see the data used to make the dire predictions I hear all over the place? I generally accept global warming as a fact, but when I see the amount of contortions one person had to go through to figure out there was a problem in the first place, I start to get suspicious.

Re:The bigger issue

[morgan_greywolf]

The bigger issue is the cloak of secrecy around the data and the algorithms used to generate the outputs. I do not understand why all data wouldn't be publicly available. Is there one place to go to see the data used to make the dire predictions I hear all over the place? I generally accept global warming as a fact, but when I see the amount of contortions one person had to go through to figure out there was a problem in the first place, I start to get suspicious. Yes. Check out the Publications section of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s Web site.

According to this article in Scientific American ($), they've come to the conclusion with 80% certainty that global climate change is not only real, but is caused by human activities. They're new 2007 assessment report isn't on the website yet, but it is discussed in SciAm, so it should be there shortly, I believe. Methodologies are discussed pretty well in the SciAm piece.

Re:The bigger issue

[Christianson]

No direct experience with the data in question, or indeed any climatological data at all, but this isn't really an uncommon case in science. People collect and store their own data. The full extent of raw data is often massive, it's often poorly indexed, and there is no such thing as a consistent storage format. Practically speaking, this means that whenever you want to get someone else's data, you have to get in touch with someone who would have collected it, ask them to filter out the part of the data you want, and then send it to you with an explanation of how to make sense of it. It might seem like secrecy, but it's mostly a product of best use of time. Scientists get grant money by analyzing data and publishing the results, not spending the effort to make the raw data publicly available.

Re:The bigger issue

[morgan_greywolf]

Oops.

Link to the SciAm piece.

Re:The bigger issue

[NickFortune]

Scientists get grant money by analyzing data and publishing the results, not spending the effort to make the raw data publicly available.

mmm... maybe that needs to change. Given the current tendency towards knee jerk FUD in some quarters, the only way we're ever going to be able to settle debates like this one is if the data can be subjected to widespread peer review.

Re:The bigger issue

[Coryoth]

The bigger issue is the cloak of secrecy around the data and the algorithms used to generate the outputs. I do not understand why all data wouldn't be publicly available. Well for startes the data is available. Full gridded data can be found here, along with appropriate fortran code to extract individual months of years. Gridded data for individual years can be found here. Original source data for individual stations can be accessed from here. Detailed accounts of the adjustments for urban heat island effects and compilation procedures used can be found in the papers listed in the references here. Most of those papers (i.e. those by GISS staff) are freely available in the GISS publications database. You did actually look to see if the data and detailed accounts of the methods were available, right?

Re:The bigger issue

[Evilest Doer]

Given the current tendency towards knee jerk FUD in some quarters, the only way we're ever going to be able to settle debates like this one is if the data can be subjected to widespread peer review.

I wish I could share your optimism, but widespread peer review won't change anything. The problem is due to people who know nothing or very little (which is often worse than nothing) about the sciences. If the raw data is publicly available, it will give the people who want to deny basic science more ammunition for their inane babblings. They won't in reality know the first thing they are talking about, but it will impress the people who want to believe the world is only 6000 years old, or we never went to the moon, or their is no global warming, and so on.

Re:The bigger issue

[Intron]

Did you look at the graph? The error wasn't in anybody's favor. It was negligable.

The overall shape of the graph is the same - a 0.8 degree rise in average temperature over the last century with increasing slope.

I was in the Bahamas last year measuring water temperature, beach erosion and doing population counts to provide data on why coral is dying off all over the world. Its a complex topic but one of the leading culprits is ocean warming. Coral is adapted to a narrow range. Once the coral reefs are gone, which will be soon, say goodbye to fish diversity and sandy beaches.

I live in New England, the recent scare is over West Nile virus. According to the CDC, over 15,000 people in the U.S. have tested positive for WNV infection since 1999 and over 500 have died.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that a small change in temperature won't have a significant effect.

Re:The bigger issue

[ajs]

they've come to the conclusion with 80% certainty that global climate change is not only real, but is caused by human activities. That's a bit of a mis-statement. The computer models used generate results that conform to that hypothesis with an 80% margin for error. The idea that we're 80% certain that the models are correct is not supported by anything I've read.

As some scientists have pointed out, there's substantial concern about these models and how accurate they can be in the first place. What we know is this: some of the Earth is undergoing substantial climate change (always true, but this is exceptional), and much of the change is in the direction of warming (the arctic and antarctic regions, especially). We also know that CO2 levels have risen. The problem is that correlating those two factors requires that we understand the climate on a macroscopic level, which, sadly, we do not. We have models that predict past activity, but they have so far failed to accurately predict future activity accurately. Dyson suggests a naive model ("no change") would be more accurate that the models we use. That's been hotly debated, and I'm willing to believe that he might have gone a bit overboard there.

Still, the fact of the matter is that we're uncertain about a great many things, and until we are certain, we should be careful about what we insist is "fact".

Re:The bigger issue

[Coryoth]

I think it is their duty to fully disclose the raw data and the methods used to arrive at the final result. The raw data, and the papers giving detailed descriptions of methods used to arrive at the final result. Have fun.

Re:The bigger issue

[Coryoth]

Hmm, the evidence is pretty strong that more CO2 leads to higher tempuratures. If C02 was a symptom, please explain what you think would release more C02 as the tempurature rises. The usual cause is ocean arming leading to outgassing of CO2 (warmer water can hold less CO2). Historically this has worked with Milankovitch cycles to provide a feeback to the small orbital variations with the released CO2 causing yet more warming, and providing the strong glacial/interglacial cycle we see over the lst million years or so. Of course the GPP is wrog in claiming that CO2 is a symptom of warmer temperatures. It is both a symptom and a cause, at least in theory. In practice, in this particular case we can do isotope analysis of atmospheric CO2 and determine the source of the current increase in CO2 (burned fossil fuels have different isotope ratios). The result is that the current dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic -- it's us doing it. In the past CO2 increased and provided a powerful amplifier for changes that were initially spurred by orbital variation. Now we have CO2 increasing for other reasons, but continuing to provide the same warming effects it has historically.

Re:The bigger issue

[hador_nyc]

I was in the Bahamas last year measuring water temperature, beach erosion and doing population counts to provide data on why coral is dying off all over the world. Its a complex topic but one of the leading culprits is ocean warming. Coral is adapted to a narrow range. Once the coral reefs are gone, which will be soon, say goodbye to fish diversity and sandy beaches.

I've heard this before, and I'd like to ask you an honest question. Coral has been around for a long time; according to this link on wikipedia, over 500 million years. Average global climate temperature has been both significantly warmer and cooler in that time. My question is why would warming be the thing that's hurting them? I am not a biologist, nor an expert in this in any way; you are; that's why I'm asking you. To me, and again I'm a radar engineer, it seems more likely that the thing that's different now, and hurting them is us; runoff from our farms; the increased nitrogen and fertilizer in the water, or some other group of chemicals we're putting into the environment. Even CO2, as in the form of making the oceans more acidic, doesn't seem to me to be the problem; since again that too has been higher in coral's history.

Also, beach erosion; how is that bad at all; except for the idiots who build houses or hotels on beaches? Isn't that simply a natural process? I think beaches communities should reverse development, and build back the dunes between the towns and the water. Screw the beach front hotels; it's bad for the environment, and we can still enjoy the beach without having a house or hotel on it!

As for your comment about west nile virus, hell, we had malaria here too; but back before you or I were born, we defeated it. DDT being a big help there; amongst other things. West Nile is not a biggie. If we can stop malaria in Cuba and the South, we can stop it here when it gets warmer. People can adapt.

Re:The bigger issue

[Ambitwistor]

It's at a minimum interesting that there were reports in the 1920s of widespread arctic ice melting, It wouldn't be surprising if there were, since there was warming in the 1920s. What is your point?

followed in the 1970s by a "Global Cooling" scare. Which was mostly media driven hype (here). Of course, there was some cooling from 1940 to 1970, but again, what is your point? Neither that nor the above contradict the reality of the global warming trend.

This recent revision of which was the warmest year in US history casts even more doubt. "The warmest year in US history" is utterly irrelevant to any warming trend and the two top years were statistically tied both before and after the revision.

Looking further back into history, there has been historical warming in Greenland that exceeds the current trend, well before human produced greenhouse gasses could have been a factor. Yes, we know that climate change has occurred in the past, and there have been large, rapid changes in Greenland temperatures associated with, for instance, the shutdown/restart of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. However, that doesn't change the evidence that the current warming is not largely due to such natural events.

Further, they are modeling inherently chaotic systems which we have trouble forecasting only a week into the future. Hubris, anyone? Give me a break. Yes, it's impossible to forecast the weather more than a couple weeks in the future, due to chaos. But you can forecast the climate, which is a temporal and spatial average of all possible weather events, out much farther. The ability of climate models to do this has been demonstrated in hindcasting and out-of-sample validation experiments.

Re:The bigger issue

[dbrutus]

A professional statistician (which is what McIntyre is) might not be able to check the underlying science but he might be better than the original climate scientist in applying cutting edge statistical analysis because that's *his* expertise.

An awful lot of science is multi-disciplinary that way, with data gathered for one field but bits and pieces of other fields being brought in to make sense of it. And those bits and pieces tend to be outdated. Economists, for example, regularly shake their heads at the economic analysis applied by political scientists. Mathematicians and evelotionary biologists have some similar friction.

So while the problem of analysis of data exists, there are plenty of cases where eyes from outside the specialty would do a lot of good. We should be very happy to see that sort of professional knowledge silo breakdown. Some people are less than happy.

Re:The bigger issue

[Intron]

1. fewer people dying of cold.

Worldwide, malaria is a leading cause of death. Freezing deaths are negligable.

2. easier/quicker ocean navigation due to new polar routes

You don't mention the accompanying sea level rise and coastal flooding which is a somewhat more serious effect.

3. less road/bridge corrosion due to less salt usage

and less need for roads and bridges with a lower population.

4. coral reefs can be planted in new areas that haven't had them before

Corals are highly adapted to conditions of nutrients, temperature and salinity so this may not work out real well.

5. New agricultural lands in Asia and N. America will open up that should be a net positive on food balance

Where? Agricultural land needs soil. Soil exists where plants have been growing for a long time. Sand and rock are not arable.

Re:The bigger issue

[Ambitwistor]

As with most of that site's content, you're only telling part of the story.

1) Global plant biomass up 6% since the 1970s due to more CO2, and longer growing seasons. A big win on dozens of fronts, but two bear particular mention:

Plant biomass can go up as a whole, but the effect of CO2 fertilization is strongly limited by water and nutrient availability, which in many regions will go down. Longer growing seasons do not occur everywhere, but only in places that don't get too hot or too dry.

3) Increased crop yields, contributing to making the famines that used to regularly afflict India, China, etc. a thing of the past.

Increased crop yields have far more to do with agricultural practices than CO2 fertilization or climate change. Furthermore, even when crop yield goes up, nutritional content often goes down: the planets are bigger but not as good for you.

4) Decreased mortality. Deaths increase from a one degree drop in temperature at around four times the rate of a one degree rise in temperature.

That contradicts other studies I've read, but now I have to do some hunting for them.

5) Extra calamari! Squids get bigger and grow faster in warmer oceans.

Ocean acidification, ecosystem stress, forced migration ...

6) Fewer typhoons/hurricanes/etc., due to increase in wind shear making them less likely to form.

The studies I've read indicate that hurricane numbers stay constant or increase, not decrease, and that hurricane strength may increase.

7) Better beer! There's no water more pure than that from melting ice caps.

Strangely enough, the positive vastly outweighs the negative. Really? Then why do leading economists like Nordhaus find net economic damage from warming? Even Tol, who's in the "small warming is good" camp agrees that we need to mitigate our emissions to avoid large warming.

Your one sided story neglects all the other negative impacts of climate change (sea level rise, drought, flooding, heat waves, abrupt threshold responses in the climate system), etc., and also neglects the difference between the climate change which has occurred so far, and the much larger change which is predicted to occur in the future.

Re:The bigger issue

[piotrr]

Speed.

Corals are slow, human pollution is fast.

If climate change is slow enough, corals will die off at one end and expand at the other, essentially moving as the niche is displaced. If the change is very fast, say two degrees per 100 years or so, the coral won't be able to catch up with the displacement of its niche.

Business as usual

[arivanov]

Fox and Co think that the world consist only of USA, news at 10.

They have looked solely at the USA graphs and completely ignored the world ones which are the ones that look really scary. They have also declared the problem with the USA data analysis to be a flaw in the data for the whole world.

Is anyone surprised? I am not...

Re:Business as usual

[faloi]

I know it's hip to hate Fox News... But the actual article describes the people denying global warming is man made as a "fringe group" and includes quotes from British researchers pointing out that it really doesn't matter on a global scale.

Re:Business as usual

[ajs]

Fox and Co think that the world consist only of USA, news at 10. My problem with the debate (and this isn't new... it's at least 2 decades old) is that every time some conservative politician or news outlet waves some piece of information around (usually misunderstanding it badly), we immediately seek to use that to discredit the person or group who produced or publicized the information.

We desperately need to remember that scientists and politicians have an intersection, but the vast majority of them don't have anything to do with each other. A scientist who seeks to prove Einstein wrong isn't some Einstein-hating nutjob (typically). In fact, they're performing the most valuable task that the scientific method sets forth: seeking to disprove. By attempting and failing, we learn more about the value of a theory. By attempting and succeeding, we learn more about the theory's weaknesses, and often improve upon it.

Let's not start marching toward those scientists who seek flaws in global climate change research with pitchforks and torches (or rather, let's stop doing so), and instead seek to pressure the media and politicians into supporting them and their less skeptical peers without confusing the issue by politicizing results too early. We need even more funding than we have for those who seek to assail the consensus, not because we think it will fall, but because that's what the scientific method demands. Anything less is not science, it's just politics in a lab coat.

Honestly...

[Otter]

This had seemed like pretty much a non-issue all along. If anything it's Hansen's "second, more impassioned email" that diminishes his credibility as a sober, objective scientist just reporting his data. At least in my field, scientists don't issue corrections like:

Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water.

Re:Honestly...

[TubeSteak]

If someone makes a deceitful argument, I would hope they would be exposed as a liar, not simply contradicted. He also makes a cogent political and religious argument in the same section of his letter.

I am puzzled by views expressed by some conservatives, views usually expressed in vehement unpleasant ways in e-mails that I have been bombarded by in the past several days. ... It is puzzling, because it seems to me that conservatives should be the first ones standing up for preserving Creation, and for the rights of the young and the unborn. That is the basic intergenerational issue in global warming and the headlong use of fossil fuels: the present generation is, in effect, ripping off future generations.

Is it possible that conservatives have been too quick to support the captains of industry? The basic problem is that national religious conservative leadership has focused exclusively on issues like "the rights of the young and the unborn" and the gay 'agenda'.

Those (in leadership positions) who desire to shift away from political gay/abortion/Jesus activism and towards things like helping the poor and conserving the environment are mostly told to STFU & get back on message. "They" don't want to split the consideral political capital that's built up behind the religious conservative bloc.

Religion has always influenced politics, but IMO, in the last 30 years, politics has been corrupting religion.

A solution to all of this FUD...

[_14k4]

Release the data, all of it, openly. NOAA data is available, for a fee to download I think, and so should all of the other data. I don't mean "should" as in "legislated", I mean "should" as in "should" or, "it would be nice."

If all of the data were released in this fashion, in one central "trusted" place, one could assume that as more and more analysts take a gander - themes will appear and more and more of the graphs could be trusted.

Not global warming. Global climate change.

[MMC Monster]

Why do we still call it global warming? It's global climate change. Some areas will get warmer. Some areas will get cooler. Some areas will be under water.

The nice thing about it is that the majority of us will live to see the changes. We are in for some interesting times over the next 30-50 years. :-)

Re:Immediate action??

[Hijacked Public]

I Tap, Rack, Bang.

Re:Then will someone explain to me...

[marx]

The temperature in the US has little effect on the global mean value of the temperature (the US is only 2% of the area of the Earth). But the US is one of the top (or the top) polluter of greenhouse gases. That's why there's criticism, the US's share of the pollution is a lot larger than its share of land area or population.

Usufruct

[necro81]

Ok, I admit, I had to look this one up:

Usufruct is the legal right to derive profit or benefit from the property of others. It comes from the latin roots for "use" and "fruits," in the sense that you are using the fruits of someone else's labor.

Wikipedia
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
a legal Dictionary

In the case of Hansen's second email, he is, I think, using it to describe how captains of industry are benefitting from the global warming nay-sayers' spin on this correction. He also uses it in the sense that successive generations have a right and claim to the enjoy the Earth, so we'd better take care of it, even as we benefit from it.

Re:Usufruct

[djmurdoch]

Usufruct is the legal right to derive profit or benefit from the property of others.

You left out the most important part: "as long as the property is not damaged." He's saying we have a right to use the Earth, but we don't have a right to damage it.

Re:Yes, credibility is the issue

[jamie]

In fact, Media Matters has never received funding from progressive philanthropist George Soros.

See how easy that was?

Re:Not global warming. Global climate change.

[Russ Nelson]

I'm sure that the next hundred years will be much less "interesting" than the previous hundred years, which saw the violent deaths of 250,000,000 people.

Isn't this the expected response

[lightsaber777]

He's a scientist with an ego... which most scientists have and is a danger and possibly a barrier to objectivity. Being corrected and somewhat mocked for his mistake is, I'm sure, embarrassing and a shot to his ego. Of course, if he had simply released his findings instead of using them as a platform to promote his theories of climate change, I'm quite sure the response to the mistake would not have been so negative. The fact that they trumpeted the first findings and quietly released the second makes one wonder about the real reason for releasing them in the first place. Do real scientists keep things to themselves if their experiments don't fit with their original hypothesis? Do they tweak experiments until they come up with the intended outcome? That's not science... that's politics.

Re:Isn't this the expected response

[Ambitwistor]

The fact that they trumpeted the first findings and quietly released the second makes one wonder about the real reason for releasing them in the first place. Actually, Hansen is on record back in 1998 as stating that 1934 was the warmest year. Since then, 1998 and 1934 have ping-ponged back and forth in the NASA data as "warmest year" as various minor adjustments have been made, and NASA hasn't made much of it. As far as I can tell, it was NOAA, not NASA, which played up 1998 (or 2005, or whatever the record of the moment is) as the "warmest year".

Re:"Global" Warming

[jamie]

The maps he shows are global. You didn't RTFA.

typical mud-slinging

[br00tus]

I have not paid much attention to the story, the reporting I heard kept mentioning the warmest year was 1934 and what we've been hearing from the people with the "global warming agenda" (whatever that is, everyone has to wear Birkenstocks?) was false. Of course they somehow neglected to mention that only the figures for the US were off, and only for the past seven years.

More understandably, they neglected to mention that May 1934 was some of the worst weather to hit the US for a long time, and it wiped out the agriculture of many states, it was called the "Dust Bowl". And it was caused by agriculture concerns that had no concern whatsoever for the environment. So they are pointing back to an earlier environmental disaster.

Re:typical mud-slinging

[ElrondHubbard]

What Hansen considers the really significant distortion in the 1934-vs.-1998 comparison is this: while the absolute temperature difference between the two years (for the U.S.) was negligible, the U.S. was much warmer than the rest of the world in 1934, whereas in 1998 it was close to the global average. You can see this if you go back and read the PDF http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074. pdf of Hansen's second e-mail, and especially take a look at Figure 2 on page three. In 1934, the U.S. is a red spot surrounded by cooler areas, whereas in 1998 it's glowing red all over. Of course, the colour codes for a difference against baseline, not absolute temperature, but the difference is clear: 1934 temperatures in the U.S. were anomalously warm vs. the rest of the world, whereas in 1998 they were much more typical.

Re:Cerial

[vidarh]

And you're illustrating exactly why he is outraged: The errors affected the US. The effect on the data for the global temperatures was so small as to be dwarfed by the overall margin of error for the data, but the media completely ignored that, and ignored that it changes nothing with respects to long term trends and overall global warming.

Re:.001 degree?

[squiretalen]

Of course he is trying to save face, but what he said was accurate. The hottest year in the US changed to 1934, from 1998, and the Global Temperature changed only 0.001 (C).

Someone drank the whole pitcher of kool-aid

[benhocking]

Although I love your Church references, the scientists did admit their mistake. They're not blaming the news organizations for reporting their error, they're blaming them for distorting their error. Understand the difference? Some news outlets pretended like this changed the whole "the 9 hottest years on record happened in the last decade" fact, when it did not. Prior to the change 1934 was the second hottest year in the US on record, and after the change it was the hottest year. Prior to the change several of the hottest years in the US on record were during the dust bowl, and after the change this is still true. The changes had no impact on which years were the hottest on a global scale, so the "9 hottest years" fact is still true. Do you understand how the right-wing media that you evidently get your talking points from distorted the truth now?

Re:Someone drank the whole pitcher of kool-aid

[rronda]

The issue of educating the press about how to communicate science works both ways. I wonder if people complain that much about the press coverage when 1998 was presented as the hottest year on record in the US, I wonder if the argument of the small area of the continental US was used in that case to explain the little significance that the US record has for the global temperature. That means that the "9 hottest years"-record that you are referring to is negligibly important for global temperature when the temperatures considered are only the US ones! I believe that a reasonable scientific stance is one of skepticism. No scientist is able to predict what the climate will be under climate change conditions. That would require for someone to know all inner workings of climate, and the magnitude and direction of all the feedbacks that models attempt to simulate. Of course the error in the data processing does not change the science of climate change. But that means that it leaves the state of the science of climate change exactly as it was before, that is one of uncertainty. And this is not what James Hansen is being teaching us for the last few years.

Re:Someone drank the whole pitcher of kool-aid

[dbrutus]

The real problem is that this error had to be found out by reverse engineering because climate scientists have a bad habit of not releasing their code and data. We're told that they use a list of high quality temperature sensing stations and discouraged from actually checking. Then when somebody actually does go out and check, we find a significant fraction of them are just awful, hopelessly compromised by local heat island effects. Fixing those problems will only increase the accuracy of predictions and data quality but instead of welcoming it, we had an abortive attempt to take the station list locations private for "privacy reasons" after being public for decades.

Data quality is a major issue with global warming. If the numbers aren't right, we don't really know what's going on. This is just one more case of obfuscation hiding error and the AGW proponents falling back to the nearest trench line and adopting the same shoddy tactics of delay, deny, and obfuscate on data quality issues.

This is not how real science is done and that's why so many people who know and love the scientific method and its fruits have a growing unease about the whole AGW enterprise. Can you blame them?

The US is reputed to have one of the best temp sensor networks in the world and I believe has the only organized effort to go to original sources and check stations. Yet instead of calling for a review of all the data and figuring out, for real, how bad the problem is, what we get is a political effort to firewall the contamination and an implied "let's not bother" checking the rest. Real science is "trust but verify". Climate science seems to have a strain of something else going on.

Re:Not global warming. Global climate change.

[rhakka]

Aren't you cute. The population has grown and at some point resources simply won't stretch far enough for all of us.

What exactly do you think is going to happen then? We'll all sit down, sing Kumbaya, and work out a peaceable solution, with the rich folk voluntarily slashing their standard of living so we can all subsist?

I think it would be pretty hard to say that unless we make some serious changes in the way we do things, 250m violent deaths will be the "good old days". Assuming we don't completely destroy ourselves while fighting over water, energy, and food.

I hope you're right, but I don't see the basis for your optimism.

Warming on other planets

[benhocking]

Compare two hypotheses: (1) Global warming is primarily caused by the sun, cosmic rays, or some other external factor. (2) Global warming is primarily caused by humans. (Yes, there are other possible hypotheses.)

If hypothesis 1 is right, you would expect most of the planets to be showing warming over any small period of time. If hypothesis 2 is right, you would expect approximately half of the other planets to be showing warming (and the other half to be showing cooling). Unfortunately, with 7 other planets, it's hard to rely on the law of large numbers to distinguish between these two hypotheses. (If you got 5 heads out of 7 coin flips, would you assume the coin was biased? The only thing you could say for certain was that heads weren't on both sides of the coin.) Of course, we don't even have data from all 7 of the other planets for a small period of time.

Global warming theories aren't based merely on the correlation between increased CO2 and increased temperature. They're based on fundamental science and complicated models. The fundamental science has been known for over 100 years - complicated models weren't necessary for that. The complicated models are necessary to determine the scope of the greenhouse gas phenomenon (feedback cycles, etc., are non-linear and hence can be very difficult to predict with detail). These models have actually done a pretty good job, and they're getting better. Some people are actually saying now, "In 20 years, this warming will be over, and then the scientists will see how wrong they are." Some people were saying that 20 years ago, too.

So wait...

[SIIHP]

You're advocating "security through obscurity" for scientific data?

Really?

Because you think the downside of allowing the data to be easily available is worse that making sure it's accurate through peer review?

And that makes sense to you?

What kind of reasoning must one engage in to believe the idea that widespread peer review is not desirable because some nutters will misuse the data? THEY DO THAT ANYWAY.

Meanwhile, situations like this occur because the data is not easily available for review.

I simply don't understand how anything you said makes sense, or is in any way insightful.