Michael Mann Vindicated (Again) Over Climategate

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, was one of the central figures involved in the 'Climategate' controversy, which saw many private email conversations between researchers posted publicly. Now, an investigation (PDF) by the National Science Foundation has found "no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence." Phil Plait points out that other investigations have found similarly that claims of Mann's misconduct took his statements out of context. 'A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that's not true. The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used, but that's not scandalous at all; there's always some argument in science over methodology. The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn't a big deal, or else they would've been specific. The big point is that the data were not faked.'"

Comments

AGW

[polar red]

1:CO2 induces the greenhouse effect, TEST THIS YOURSELF.

    -->here is the wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

    -->and here are the youtube links showing HOW to do an experiment showing CO2 induces the greenhouse effect

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

2:Humans emit a LOT of CO2 (oil or coal + O2 + ... = energy + CO2 + soot + ...

1+2 = default position is AGW, you need to provide proof of NOT-AGW

Re:AGW

[kenboldt]

You've got science backwards. AGW is the hypothesis, natural variation is the null hypothesis.

Re:AGW

[NeutronCowboy]

1: CO2 doesn't absorb as much IR as generally accepted theory states.
2: Volcanoes emit more CO2 in one explosion than all of humanity in one year.

There. That was easy. I think understand why people like to post these statements. It's so easy, you get to feel so smug, you don't need to read actual research papers or do real research..... Man, being ignorant is kinda cool. Maybe I can even make money off of it... although that field is awfully crowded right now.

Re:AGW

[internerdj]

" Man, being ignorant is kinda cool. Maybe I can even make money off of it... although that field is awfully crowded right now." I suspect there may be some additional openings next year if you can hold out.

Re:AGW

[jdgeorge]

CO2 released by human activity far outpaces volcanic CO2 release. Looking for a citation for a claim helps people avoid saying things that are easily proven to be incorrect.

From the USGS article:
"....not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. "

Re:AGW

[geekoid]

"Volcanoes emit more CO2 in one explosion than all of humanity in one year."
in the off chance you weren't kidding:
Volcanoes 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year.
Human 69 Billion tonnes per year.

Fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times larger than maximum volcanic CO2 fluxes.

Re:AGW

[NeutronCowboy]

Because CO2 is part of a positive feedback loop for global temperatures. Once CO2 goes up, temperatures keep going up, regardless of why they went up in the first place. Another way to start the loop is to increase CO2 concentrations.

Capiche?

Re:AGW

[msauve]

Now run those experiments, comparing CO2 levels of 300 ppm and 400 ppm, instead of 400 ppm and 1,000,000 ppm, and tell us how much of a difference you measure/see.

Re:AGW

[Swarley]

1. Considering CO2's IR absorbance is extremely easy to test and the information is vital to the accuracy of medical equipment used all over the world, I'm guessing that you read this somewhere and never fact checked it. Provide some primary sources.

2. Humans produce 100 times as much CO2 per year as volcanic eruptions do. Volcanic eruptions have been shown over and over to usually result in net cooling of the climate from sulfer dioxide emissions.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

It's ironic because I consider ignorance to include reading shit off a blog and not looking for primary sources or fact checking, which coincidentally seems to be exactly what you did.

Re:AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, it's extremely easy to differentiate between inorganically sourced CO2 (volcanic) and organic. Organic CO2 will tend to have a bias against C-13, whereas volcanic will not.

Re:AGW

[Ichijo]

Another factor is that water vapor doesn't remain in to atmosphere very long...

Yes, it does. Clouds aren't made of water vapor, they're made of water droplets and frozen ice crystals.

The reason CO2 has such a big effect despite being less concentrated in the atmosphere than water vapor is because water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing, and the warming effect of CO2 kicks off the vicious cycle by inducing more water vapor into the air. (Remember, warm air holds more water vapor than cold air.)

Re:AGW

[lgw]

Further, if we're tlaking science we should stop using the term "greenhouse effect". A greenhouse works by stopping convection; its effect on IR radiation actually cools the inside.

The Earth's climate is mostly convection as well, with IR radiation from the surface a lesser form of surface cooling. As blackbody radiation goes with the forth power of temperature, and the upper atmosphere is pretty cold, it's not obvious why surface-emitted IR warming of the atmopshere would make make difference to surface temperatures. The underlying mechanism also isn't explained very well - though the current Wikipedia article at least takes a stab at it.

The "greenhouse effect" is in the same state that evolution was 20 or so years ago - the commonly available resources do such a poor job of explaining it that a bright skeptical mind comes away still skeptical. The talk.origins archive made huge strides in explaining evolution, and addressing arguments in great detail, but AGW proponents mostly just assert that disbelievers are ignorant rubes, which is no way to convince anyone of anything.

Re:AGW

[UnknowingFool]

2: Volcanoes emit more CO2 in one explosion than all of humanity in one year.

While this is possibly true (and I'm not saying it is or is not), it misses the point. The problem is balance, rate, and source. Without man made sources of CO2 the Earth ecosystem has to deal with naturally occurring CO2. If there are more producers than consumers of CO2, then ecosystems will shift over time to have more consumption of CO2. However man-made sources have increased it within the last 150 years. The rate of CO2 addition is far faster than ecosystems can consume.

As an analogue, take oil spills. Oil spills occur naturally and overall are probably larger than a single man-made one. Would you argue then that the BP's sudden spill of millions of gallons last year has no effect on the Gulf of Mexico?

Re:AGW

[geekoid]

That's because during the temporary elevated increase in CO there was a corresponding cover of earth with particulate matter.

We actually see that now with water vapor; but the amount of heat reflected due to increased water vapour is less then the heat trapped by long term CO2.

These event where MANUFACTURED. there was never wrong doing.

It IS fair to say CO2 is the prime culprit of climate change.

"And frankly, atmospheric science is exceedingly complicated. It isn't easily simplified. We don't fully understand it."
So? we don't fully understand the human body. Does that mean we don't do anything to help sick people until we do fully understand the body?

Re:AGW

[geekoid]

Here is the problem:

People who believe that drek, will read it and agree. And it will propagate.
SO it's important to note that, in fact, those statement are blatantly false. Not for the poster, but for the readers

Re:AGW

[jmorris42]

> Now run those experiments,

Yes, run the experiment..... oh yea, we can't because we don't have a couple of spare earths around.

So everyone runs computer models and expects us to believe the results of that instead. But I have seen some of what passes for climate modeling and it is pathetic. And it has NEVER produced a testable result. There are ZERO predictions made by a 'reputable' climate scientist from 10 or twenty years ago that matched reality 10 or twenty years later. No model can predict the weather a day in advance 100%, none can predict a week or a month out with much skill and by the time you move from weather to climate the skill is pretty close to random chance, i.e. zero skill. There are no models that any scientist would be willing to bet his life savings on to predict the climate a year, five years or ten years out. Yet they every one line up in front of Congress telling us that we MUST spend trillions because they have models of the next hundred years that they claim to have great confidence in... oh and by the way another billion in research grants would be nice thank you very much. In the end science is about testable, repeatable results and there are none in climate science yet.

AGW also isn't falsifiable so it isn't science yet, only faith. Don't believe me? Think I'm trolling? Then show me. Tell me how one puts AGW to a falsifiable test. And remember that such a test won't prove AGW if it passes but it has to be such that a fail would stick a fork in it. Think Michelson - Morley and classical physics.

And as for the NSF whitewashing Mann, what did anyone expect? The whole AGW industry, including the NSF, is so invested in Mann that to discredit him would end the gravy train for all of them. But after his hockey stick fraud anyone with eyes knows he is nothing but a scam and anyone who refuses to disown him is in on it. Anyone with half a clue can look at that and see it was so wrong it couldn't have been an honest mistake; it just doesn't pass the smell test. So non-scientists like myself look at all of the scientists who refuse to speak up and wonder if they are all just bottle washers and button sorters more interested in keeping the grant money flowing than seeking the Truth and kicking the infidels out of the Temple of Science. Science has no place for frauds and by covering up obvious fraud the reputation of all science suffers. The world is a complex and dangerous place and we really need to be able to trust scientists.

Re:AGW

[drsmack1]

The Holy Ghost is happening all around the globe, hence global.

"Yes, there is probably God's grace,"
No, there is definitely God's grace., and Yes it is definitely being drive bu his love for us.

It's not preposterous and that prophecy is happening, right the fuck now.
The American Moonbat rainbelt is shifting, there are towns and airports that have been completely over taken by the word of the lord.

Re:AGW

[geekoid]

Or they could just kill you... just sayin'.

Or maybe, just maybe, we should work to solve the problem? no. no, you can continue to make simple remarks for simple people.

The youtube video is completely out of context. I suggest you take you simple mind, and read about what was going on prior to that, and what that was about. Don't read too much, I wouldn't want your lips to get tired.

Re:AGW

[GooberToo]

The main problem is, we honestly have no clue what's going on. Anyone who says we have this all figured out is either an idiot or someone pandering for funding.

There is lots of contradictory data and that's ignoring the fact that some of the data is extremely suspect from the start. Hell, some of the data has several multiples more noise the then signal they hope to detect. When questioned, literally the official response is, "Shhhh....noise doesn't effect our signal." Which is, of course, a major WTF??!?

Seriously, should we learn more about it? Absolutely! Should we be wary of absolute claims? Absolutely! Again, we honestly have no idea what's going on. Some 20% of climatologists admit this. Some 80% of meteorologists admit this. Please note, meteorologists don't get their funding from "Climate change grants."

Re:AGW

[riverat1]

World total CO2 emissions by man kind: 29,888,121 metric tons (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

Read your source again. The 29,888,121 figure is thousands of metric tonnes or 29,888,121,000 written out fully.

That is opposed to more than 130,000,000 tonnes from volcanoes which means volcanic emissions are about 0.43% of human emissions. Actually the generally stated value is around 1% but getting precise figures for volcanic emissions is a bit difficult.

I agree though that the CO2 is pretty evenly distributed through the atmosphere once you leave the immediate vicinity of a source.

Re:AGW

[gnud]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Excerpt:
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

Re:AGW

[riverat1]

It's true as far as it goes. Each increment of CO2 is a bit less effective than the previous increment. That relationship is expressed in the term Climate Sensitivity which expresses the temperature increase expected for a doubling of CO2. The number is thought to be around 3 degrees C. So for example if you increased the CO2 level from 100 ppmv to 200 ppmv the temperature goes up by 3C, go from 200 ppmv to 400 ppmv, another 3C. But we're not anywhere close to the situation of the example in your cite where "Further coats of paint have no effect on light transmission, because all the light is already blocked". Venus with 965,000 ppmv might be there.

Re:AGW

[geekoid]

All his data is cherry picked, much of it is factually wrong, and he does NOT include natural cycles in is temperature projects and changes.

He is basically doing everything deniers accuse actual scientists of doing.
Ignoring is contact attack against Al Gore, and ignoring that Al Gores data was actualy backed by science, He fails to recognize that there is normal cycles, and the man made CO2 effect is on top of normal cycles. That is why 2010 was a record high even though the natural cycles would indicate it would be lower.

Quite frankly, I couldn't stomach finishing it. Another logical fallacy and I would of puked.

If you was presenting that at my kids school, I woulsd write a complete deconstruction.

However, his biggest fallacy is the 385 ppm is a small part of a million, therefor no worth worrying about.
It's complete nonsense.

Re:AGW

[cartman]

Nope, a greenhouse works by preventing convection. The article you linked says this, and not what you claimed.

You may not have read the entire article you linked. It starts off by saying: "If you've ever heard an explanation of how a greenhouse works, it was most likely based on the differing transparency of glass to solar and thermal infrared radiation", but then the article goes on to show how that explanation is incorrect.

Re:AGW

[Myopic]

I work at a weather company. We are very good at predicting the weather a day out. More than ten days and it slips into random territory.

Luckily for the climate scientists, that has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to predict the climate. You know how December is colder than July? That's climate. Trying to say we can't predict the climate is like saying that next December could be warmer than the following July. If you believe that, or if you pretend to believe that in order to make stupid points in internet forums, then you are a blockhead.

Re:AGW

[cartman]

In fact, even the genre's title is misleading. The Globe is not Warming. Yes, there is probably Climate Change, which may or may not be human activity driven, but the idea that the globe is warming and the net result is more deserts between the tropics (which seems to be the layman's view) is really rather preposterous and totally unjustifiable by facts.

The globe is warming on average. This point is virtually undisputed, and is verified by temperature readings all over the globe and by satellite IR readings.

Furthermore, deserts are expanding; this point is also undisputed.

The reason they're changing the name from "global warming" to "climate change" is because the globe is only warming on average. Many places will get cooler as a result of climate change, because of changing ocean currents. Lots of people misunderstood this point. People have said "well the winters are getting colder here--so much for global warming!" which means they misunderstood the notion of average global temperatures increasing.

Changing the name from "global warming" to "climate change" isn't an attempt to mislead people; it's an attempt to un-confuse them.

Re:AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

the tl;dr version of the above post, you know, for the lazy people:

1) "In the past a different set of predictions weren't accurate, and computer models have unknown uncertainty, so moving forward we should assume everything will be great forever no matter what we release into the atmosphere"
2) In which the the word "science" is used as if it were synonymous with "indisputable correct answer"
3) A very nice long list of insinuations, handwaving accusations, and conspiracy theories submitted to the reader based.

It is also worth noting here that there's a powerful but mysterious group "them" controlling the entire debate.

Re:AGW

[AK Marc]

Again, we honestly have no idea what's going on.

I personally find that the deniers are the ones who are the most "certain" in their claims. There are stated mechanisms that could cause global warming. They are being measured and tested. You complain about them being funded, but how else do we find out what's going on without funding those who claim to have the ability to show us, if only they had one more year...? People speaking against global warming find plenty of funding and don't even pretend to follow science in their denials. The best they can do is point to possible confounds and say things like "see, they didn't account for pollen that year, so their findings are wrong, thus proving the opposite." I agree we don't know and it seems mostly silly, but the worst offenders seem to be those who complain loudest about the other side being the worst offenders. The deniers argue from ignorance, "if we don't know how or why it is happening, then that's proof it isn't happening and we should stop funding anyone who says otherwise." and other such illogical irrelevancies.

Re:AGW

[MightyMartian]

No kidding. Wow! I can't predict when a particular atomic nucleus of radium decays, so therefore radioactive decay half-lifes must be bullshit!!

Do you ever get the feeling that some of the deniers around here are genuinely stupid people?

A little late

[GodfatherofSoul]

The "scientists are tricking us" motif is already well cemented in the minds of the GW deniers. Coming out with vindications this far from the initial story is like farting in the wind.

Re:A little late

[Sockatume]

If we assume cognative dissonance then it's safe to say that this will just be taken as additional proof that the establishment is self-serving/incompetent/oppressive.

Re:A little late

[kenboldt]

use of the term "deniers" is already well cemented in the minds of the warmers. Trying to convince them that we need to properly employ the scientific method is like farting in the wind.

Science is NEVER settled, it is only through questioning and skepticism that science can progress.

Re:A little late

[idontgno]

Trying to convince them that we need to properly employ the scientific method is like farting in the wind.

OMG, don't do that! Methane is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2! Fart into a bag and bury the bag deep in the earth! Fart sequestration!

Re:A little late

[rwa2]

Yeah, really, the best thing we can do at this point is sell them all of the oceanfront property.

Re:A little late

[hedwards]

No, but at some point the evidence is clear enough and compelling enough to take action on.The accuracy of the assumption that dumping huge amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is harmful is much better supported than the notion that we can dump whatever we like without consequence.

Had we taken heed 30 years ago and done something about it, the cost would have been substantially lower and ultimately if we were wrong it would be dirt cheap to go back to our old ways.

That being said, deniers need to come up with some actual credible science if they wish to engage in this debate.

Re:A little late

[interkin3tic]

Doubt in science has likely been around a lot longer than global warming.

Re:A little late

[MightyMartian]

This is nothing more than a clever restatement of epistemological nihilism. Basically restated it says, "Because we cannot produce a perfect theory, we can have no theory whose predictions we can have a high degree of certainty about,"

It's a moronic position when you consider that the same basic fact that no theory is complete applies to all theories, including theories like Newtonian mechanics and Quantum mechanics, both of which despite obvious missing pieces and flaws are among the most successful theories ever developed.

A theory does not need to be complete to have explanatory power. Maybe you should stop trying to defend oil company shills and inventing bullshit claims about how science works, and, you know, actually learn how science fucking works.

Re:A little late

[Raenex]

You have Phil Jones to blame. The graph he produced when talking about the "trick" was, in fact, deceitful, even if Mann's original graph wasn't. Phil Jones was also the one recorded in email saying that he'd rather delete data than release it, and also the one to ask other researchers to erase email.

I don't think there's a vast conspiracy among climate scientists, but the science was definitely politicized and oversold.

Re:A little late

[jmorris42]

> That being said, deniers need to come up with some actual credible science if they wish to engage in this debate.

Why? It is the warmers who want us to spend trillions and accept a greatly lowered standard of living because of their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and to date the warmers have none.

Computer models are not extraordinary evidence unless they can demonstrate an ability to predict the future with measurable skill. None yet exist. Show me the computer model run from ten years ago that its creators published that accurately predicted the general climate of eight of the last ten years. If it existed the media would be trumpeting the 'conclusive evidence' of AGW even though the climate in the last ten years hasn't actually warmed all that much. But I'd agree it was significant because it would have demonstrated that climate modeling could predict the future with some skill and that we might want to look at what that model said about years 11-50 if it got 1-10 pretty accurate.

Your team has several hurdles to get over.

1. First you must PROVE the climate is getting warmer. Not that hard.

2. Next you have to prove it will KEEP getting warmer, i.e. that it isn't a cyclical process at work. It has been much warmer than it is now in the not too distant past. The Romans grew grapes and exported wine from England when they ruled there.

3. Then you have to prove it is the fault of our CO2 releases and not deforestation and other alterations man is making to the planet.

4. Then you get to propose a solution, prove it will actually work and then justify the cost against the cost of mitigation. It might be less expensive to just relocate some coastal cities in a mile and enjoy the extra harvests from Canada and Siberia to feed our growing numbers.

So far you haven't nailed #1 with the kind of extraordinary evidence needed to justify the solutions being proposed. But as for me I'm stuck on #2. Without reliable modeling you can't even attempt to prove whether it is a runaway process vs a natural cycle. Then add in some pretty obvious cases of outright fraud and it is no sale. I believe in science, I don't believe in climate scientists because they don't throw out proven frauds like Mr. Hockey Stick.

Re:A little late

[jmorris42]

Agreed. It wouldn't settle the issue, but it would be a piece of actual evidence. As of now their side has zero evidence that passes the requirements to be called 'scientific evidence' and you need that and more to meet the 'extraordinary evidence' threshold.

So why don't these scientists put up or shut up? Get together and do your consensus thing (bah. that is politics, not science but whatever) and agree on the best model you can come up with. Publish a detailed prediction of the general climate with at least four seasons of each year and a at least hundred geographic locations. Predict whether the temp will be above or below average and by how many degrees. Agree in advance on a scoring system to judge an accuracy rating and at what accuracy level we will call it 'skilled.' Then we wait. Or we can spend the next decade in pointless argument because in case you guys missed the clue train public opinion has swung against you and your odds of getting your policy solutions in the middle of a worldwide recession are pretty much zilch anyway. So put this lost decade to work guys. Put up or shut up. Show me some SCIENCE.

Re:A little late

[sarhjinian]

The money scientists have "gobbled up" amounts to a rounding error on the balance sheets of the petrochemical industry. So, yeah, if we use the "follow the money" reputational test the scientists still come up looking better.

Re:A little late

[Myopic]

Science is never theoretically settled, but I'm bored by people pretending that suddenly tomorrow gravity could become a repulsive force, or electrons could suddenly double their mass.

No, dude, some science is settled. In fact, a lot of it is. AGW isn't quite one of those things, but it is above the threshold of reasonable denial, until a mountain of evidence appears to overturn it. Until then, there is only unreasonable denial.

Re:A little late

[Moryath]

The problem is that the "more overt effects" have to be measured generationally over decades, rather than instantaneously, and most of the public - especially those retards who keep voting Republican - have an attention span less than that of a goldfish these days.

Or as John Stewart has been saying lately in covering the Republican primaries and the media reactions... "Squirrel!"

Point out the long-term trend, and you get "but it was just cold yesterday" or "but we just had (insert record cold/hot day here)." Bah. Entire brain structures dedicated not to handling data and excising the bad from the good to avoid "garbage in, garbage out" but instead to deliberately destroying good data so that no matter what you put in, you get garbage out.

Re:A little late

[riverat1]

Name one useful prediction of AGW theory. Now tell me how many attempts have been made to falsify it. Hint: zero because such a test can't be devised and wouldn't be funded if it could. Such a test can't be devised because AGW makes no testable predictions.

How about this. If global warming is caused by the Sun heating up you would expect the stratosphere to heat up but if it's caused by increased greenhouse gases you expect the stratosphere to cool some. And in fact observations have shown that the stratosphere has cooled some.

Re:A little late

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a test can't be devised because AGW makes no testable predictions.

You're either completely ignorant, or you're an asshole (that's not an exclusive or). There are many easily testable predictions that come from AGW. If you strain your little brain hard enough, you might come up with an idea. Not having one? Let me help you. How about whether the planet warms as much or more than the theory predicts? How about if atmospheric CO2 and temperatures correlate into the future as predicted? Still can't think of any?

We need a wall between science and politics more than a wall between politics and religion.

Ok, before I thought you might be stupid, but now I know you are. What do you propose would be the benefits of science if government were prohibited from acting upon it? How do you propose this wall without enacting more laws that you conservative types hate so much?

One testable, repeatable result trumps any theory.

That's true, but that doesn't mean a contrary result is possible. You aren't going to find evidence that gravity is repulsive, or that protons are in fact negatively charged.

Re:A little late

[scot4875]

Maybe after all the money they've managed to gobble up then it would be a good idea for climate 'scientists' to actually formulate a theory approaching something even close to that?

No kidding. Did you hear about all of the huge bonuses that AGW scientists got last year, while we're in a global recession, no less? I hear that some of them were able to upgrade their Corollas to *Camrys,* and a few at the top even have Priuses now.

Some of them are so rich they don't even need to patch their tweed jackets with leather; they just buy new ones. Nothing but a bunch of fat cats, I tell you.

--Jeremy

Re:A little late

[bertok]

We need scientists to be believable to the general public.

What you're really asking for is for scientists to shut up and stop saying things the public doesn't want to hear, so why not just come straight out and say that?

We need a wall between science and politics more than a wall between politics and religion.

Close enough, never mind.

Re:A little late

[tgibbs]

Name one useful prediction of AGW theory. Now tell me how many attempts have been made to falsify it. Hint: zero because such a test can't be devised and wouldn't be funded if it could. Such a test can't be devised because AGW makes no testable predictions

Wrong

The science is settled. Bullshit, and anyone saying that can't be a scientist or care one whit about it. Science is always one result away from a revolution. One testable, repeatable result trumps any theory.

Sure, tomorrow we may find discover some object that is not affected by gravity, and have to switch to an "intelligent falling" theory. But it's not likely. So while there will almost invariably be some scientist, somewhere, willing to challenge any theory whatsoever (scientists being a contentious lot), some theories are about as close to settled as any science every gets. AGW certainly falls into that category, with over 95% of scientists actively publishing in the field agreeing that temperatures are rising as a result of human activity

Re:A little late

[wolfemi1]

True, one testable, repeatable result is all that is necessary to falsify something. What would you propose? Your definition of science is really really narrow. Is astronomy not science, because we can't perform experiments on black holes at the center of the galaxy? No, because we observe natural phenomena, make theories as to whether they would happen, and then test the implications of those theories by other observations. Just like with AGW.

Re:A little late

[tgibbs]

Except that scientists don't get to put much of that grant money into their pockets. Most scientists live fairly modestly, because their salaries are limited by university policy. And most of that grant money goes to pay graduate students and postdocs at about minimal wage (considering the hours they put in). The only important thing that grant money buys you is the ability to do more research--more long hours for modest pay. That's OK with scientists, because the enjoyment of discovering new truths about nature is pay enough. Of course, you have to believe that what you are doing is correct. Working long hours at modest wages to support a false theory is pretty much any scientist's definition of Hell.

If you are looking for people who are making the real big money, you'll find it in the pocket of petrocompany executives and big investors (who happen to also be the people who fund much of the global warming "skepticism'')

Re:A little late

[Alsee]

Science is NEVER settled

Correct.
The existence of atoms is merely a theory, one supported by enormous quantities of evidence.

it is only through questioning and skepticism that science can progress.

Correct. If and when contradictory evidence is found and some other theory better explains all of that evidence, then science will throw out atom theory.

The standard in science is basically the same standard used in the courtroom... sufficient evidence to establish a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anyone who doubts the existence of atoms, evolution, or global warming, is at best grossly uninformed, and most likely indoctrinated into some ideology distorting and blinding their perceptions to the point they lose contact with rational objective reality.

Trying to convince them that we need to properly employ the scientific method

Yeah right.... the Republican Presidential candidates and Tea Partiers and Creationists and Fox News anchors should teach scientists how to properly employ the scientific method.... because they obviously have far more experience and expertise in the the scientific method than.... you know.... actual scientists.

-

Re:A little late

[Raenex]

Data was withheld because of legal constraints.

The CCE review I linked to disputes this, as does the email from Jones himself which shows him using it as cover. The email was quoted in the review, and it is quite damning. He just didn't want McIntyre to critique it. The data was handed out to other researchers.

There was no intentional deceit over "hiding the decline" and mathematical "tricks". That is just bizarro land.

What's bizarro is that you can interpret "hide the decline" as anything but deceit. No, it's not "OMG global warming is all a fraud!!!", but the intent was to hide a discrepancy. And there's just no excuse for showing three separate graphs from different sources, largely based on proxies, and then blending in a single data set at the end to give you a consistent hockey stick.

Erasing email, and deleing data was /not/ done

You don't know this. The email that was leaked was from a backup server. What we do know is that Jones explicitly asked people to erase email.

but the actors involved were expressing immense frustration at people like you, who speak, but don't listen, and keep speaking for years and years about the same nonsense, without ever stopping to learn something.

See how you whitewash an explicit request do delete email? As for people like McIntyre, he found acknowledged faults in Mann's original paper. He's also responsible for correcting GISS temperature data. In short, you're doing exactly what you accuse others of. Maybe you should learn something yourself. Science isn't a priesthood.

The noise is 99% from the denialists

Also from alarmists too. Funny that I didn't hear climate scientists or the media calling out Al Gore for his ridiculous "Inconvenient Truth" presentation. There were also the alarmist "accidents" like the Himalayan glacier melt going into the IPCC report.

You should watch this talk so that you KNOW exactly what role you are playing in this affair.

I'm playing the "integrity in science" role. You're playing the "downplay serious issues for the sake of politics" role.

Re:The data is were!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Data" is a plural word. "Datum" is the singular form.

Re:The data is were!

[Samantha Wright]

Really. When you take one datum and put it together with another datum, you get data. Plural. You get this little detail of Latin grammar drilled into your forehead in first-year biology, and if you screw it up, it is graded more harshly than any other grammatical error.

Doesnt matter..

[drjones78]

By the time any of this hits the "skeptic" crowd, if at all, it will be sanitized and spun like all the other inquiries.

In other words, it will never be seen as evidence that Michael Mann isnt the perpetrator of the most sinister hoax/conspiracy in history to destroy conservatism and the US economy, it will be seen as evidence that the NSF is obviously corrupt - and any other issues they henceforth weigh in on will be seen as tainted.

One can't help but have a little terrifying respect for just how well the FUD machine can work.

This was a media manufactured

[geekoid]

issue from the beginning. It was never a big deal to be who work in scientific fields.

It's what happens when a 'news' channel is a arm of a specific ideological group.

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2?

[riverat1]

Or alternatively: What will it cost not to reduce CO2?

Infinite Recursion?

[Toe, The]

To over-simplify it: the evidence that the data was faked was itself faked.

So what's to stop the other side from coming back by saying that the analysis of the faked evidence of the faked data was in fact faked?

Fake this noise.

Re:Infinite Recursion?

[GameboyRMH]

Hahaha nice, I should try that, it would create a runaway reaction of infinite stupidity XD

It will either end with epic lulz or form a stupidity singularity that will consume the planet. Fun times, either way.

Re:Infinite Recursion?

[imric]

So stupidity singularity, then.

Re:Infinite Recursion?

[Daetrin]

Sooner or later one side or the other will remember to call "no fake-backs!"

Break It Down Now

[eldavojohn]

How do we reduce CO2? What will it cost to do it?

This is a fool's errand. Let's make this learning process more granular. Break it down into separate steps:

1. Confirm global warming is occuring.
2. Confirm that global warming is man-made.
3. Decide how best to counter this effect.

Given that climate scientists are constantly attacked by political witch hunts (and, no, there have been no formal charges of fraud against scientists claiming global warming is fake). The heart of the problem here is that the first two steps should be almost completely scientific endeavors free and devoid of any politics. Yes, the studies cost money but there's money to be had both ways (I would even say that there's more money to be had if your findings absolve polluters of any guilt).

Once everyone is at step two, we can proceed with the clusterfuck that is world politics. I recognize the core problem is that some politicians cobble it together and go back to step two or -- god forbid it -- step one and then attack those. Instead of recognizing that we've already made ground, we go back and people mire everything up with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." And then the witch hunts begin and we're not making any progress ... meanwhile the polluters are counting their money and protecting that profit margin by lobbying and funding "think tanks" and spreading lies.

Can we all just scientifically get to step two and then we'll go from there? The climate scientists are the experts. You're not suddenly compelled to rip apart the latest Computer Science study as an armchair computer scientists because you haven't studied it. Why are people suddenly compelled to call climate scientists -- who are basically the same figureheads in academia that computer scientists are -- into question? When did everyone get PhDs in climate science? Why wasn't I given one? And why are all the major journals publishing and defending global warming studies only to be ignored?

Re:Break It Down Now

[Kreigaffe]

There's been, in the past few years, evidence coming out that both ice core samples and tree ring samples are not NEARLY as reliable as we thought they were when it comes to recording the climate of the past -- in the case of ice core samples, it was discovered that there's gas migration, and that they are not the perfect records of the atmosphere of the past that we believed they were. in the case of the tree rings, it was discovered that sheep grazing nearby had a larger impact on the formation of rings in a tree than did the climate.

It's pretty fucking depressing that these things get you labeled a denier and a luddite if you point them out. It's not that AGW research is bumpkis, but AGW researchers and supporters have a fanatical devotion to their opinions and will run you out of town for pointing out flaws in the data they used to reach their conclusions. Fucking.. ridiculous. There is no room in their minds for someone who simply wants to improve knowledge and understanding -- to them it's all very clear, you are either with them or against them, toe the line or you are an enemy.

Pretty depressing. Both sides do it, but the AGW crowd should really know better. I don't expect a dirt farmer to have a rigorous scientific mind, but I do expect research scientists to be mature enough to admit that if the data they base conclusions upon is found to be less reliable than previously believed that their conclusions may also be less reliable than previously believed; I expect them to rigorously deconstruct fucking EVERYTHING to try and find flaws with their conclusions before presenting them as unquestionable fact.

Re:Oblig XKCD

[GreyLurk]

Insurance don't make a killing selling insurance polices that they know they're likely to pay out on. A more accurate measure would be whether costal flood insurance costs have been rising faster than other insurance premiums (Earthquake insurance might be a good reference point).

That at least would be proof that Insurance companies are including AGW models into their actuarial tables.

Not Surprising

[Layzej]

After the most recent exoneration, Fox was holding out on this NSF report as the last word on the issue: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/06/climate-gate-michael-mann/ They felt that the NSF was the "only independent government organization with the skill and tools to investigate effectively"

Their findings are not surprising. Mann's research has been replicated using different methods time and time again. Here are just a few examples:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/full/ngeo865.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.abstract

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JD012603.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044771.shtml

http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/9059018f4606597f20dc4965fa9c9104.html

no one argued that data was fake

[superwiz]

Only that the interpretation of the data was far fetched. That argument still stands. The "trick" that was the subject of the Climategate email was to splice 2 time series together and present them in the same context. In one of the contexts (presentation to the laymen) it was actually presented as one chart. What the conclusions of the "study" didn't mention is that one possible interpretation for discrepancy in the data is not an "error" (as they claimed) but that some of the variables in data collection were not accounted for. He was vindicated of the most brazen accusation. But the emails indicated the frame of mind of the scientists which is consistent with the accusation that they more than willing to overstate the certainty of their conclusions. What exacerbates this overstatement is their claim that peer-review is an adequate method for such fact finding. Peer review is only useful for repeatable experiments. Obviously, whether measurements are not repeatable. So peer review is wholly inadequate for this type of research. Fact finding based on non-repeatable events must be conducted through adversarial review. And that's precisely what they are trying to avoid.

Re:no one argued that data was fake

[Arlet]

Obviously, whether [sic] measurements are not repeatable.

The weather itself is not repeatable, but the measurements around the world to establish the proxy record of that temperature is perfectly repeatable. You can still examine trees, coral, drill holes, and so on. In fact, since Mann's work, it has been repeated several times, confirming his original graph.

Re:no one argued that data was fake

[Marble68]

Ok, I'm was geniuenly surprised and I'm probably to the last person on earth to hear about this.

Why does it take FOIA filings to get access to the documents related to Mann's paleoclimatology research? Are these relevant data or is someone just fishing? Does anybody know anything about this?

Why is it necessary that people sue each other about this? Considering how important and visible this is, wouldn't it be better to just put everything out there?

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/08/university-turns-over-some-mater.html?ref=hp

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2?

[ArsonSmith]

depends.
1) replacing 20 year old roof at $3000 every 20 years =~ $15,000 every 100 years.
2) replacing every 30 years $3000 + $1500 in additional damage =~ $13,500 every 100 years.
3) replace every 50 years and patch as needed $3000 +$3000 in patching over the years =~ $12,000 every 100 years.

citation:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cost+of+roof+repairs

Re:Still not sounding quite "settled"

[Arlet]

Since "the decline" he was talking about is clearly an error in the recent proxy record, hiding it would benefit the truth.

Of course, most of the deniers have no idea what is meant by "the decline", and they assume is has something to with the temperatures in the last decade or so.

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2?

[bunratty]

Improve energy efficiency. That doesn't cost money -- it saves money. It's a no-brainer.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions dramatically, we'll also need to begin to switch away from fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) to alternative energy sources such as nuclear, solar, biofuels, and so on. How much it costs to do it will depend on how much we can improve energy efficiency, what mixtures of energy sources we use, how much research and development we put into alternative energy sources so that the technologies can be scaled up economically, and many other factors.

One thing's for sure, though. Fossil fuels can't last forever, so it's not a matter of whether we reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it's when do we do it. We can influence the cost of doing it, but we'll have to do it regardless.

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2?

[Marble68]

Well, we know plants frigging *LOVE* the stuff... so if we don't we can probably anticipate higher crop yields. Which isn't a bad thing considering the population growth on the planet.
Curbing it will further restrict of things like vaccines, health-care, education, and advanced agricultural adoption in developing nations so that's a bad thing.

CO2 may be a greenhouse gas, but we animals sort of, you know, *exhale* the stuff.

Lots of people die and starve because they don't have access to GM crops and coal powered electricity. So Unless we know *with certainty* I'm not OK telling anyone they are expendable in the name of CO2 reduction. Who knows, if they were afforded the same 1st world luxuries we are currently using, one of them might invent the next affordable green tech.

As of right now, I don't see a way to get it done without developing nations paying an extremely heavy toll.

We are all anti-nuclear now (stupid, IMHO) after Japan. The technology doesn't exist for us to have a zero CO2 impact. At least, not one we can afford (even in the 1st world).

What really hurts this whole debate is the stupidity like trying to ban Chlorine, which just so happens to be on the periodic table. CO2 is plant food - we exhale it - *fish* exhale it - the planet belches it out - it occurs naturally. Combine that with the war on GM crops and the hard-core environmental movement folks' moral authority seems to be perched on mountain of human bones and reeks more of a fascist political ideology than trying to keep rivers clean.

Does industrialization increase CO2? Probably. But so do volcanoes.

And ultimately - we get into this whole "denier" vs "believer" debate with both sides trying to dismiss everything the other side says in its entirety. Which is abject stupidity, IMHO.

The "we must do something, anything because the toll of inaction will be too high" argument seems hollow and overtly reactionary. They said the oceans would rise by 2009. Now they say they have *NO FUCKING IDEA*. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

I've come to the conclusion that nobody really knows for sure. Data indicates something is happening and there could be a correlation with industrialization. But so far, the models created based on the presumption of the association keep breaking down and their predictions don't play out as expected.

Therefore, IMHO, this reaffirms that we can't predict the future. Making changes now seem sort of pointless in regards to CO2 because a) we don't have an affordable alternative and b) what alternatives we do have are "not allowed".

So What will it cost if we don't? You tell me.
Until we are able to accurately model what will happen, we're just shooting randomly and the costs are so incredible and the prediction accuracy is so poor, credibility alone doesn't justify it.

Re:Bring it on!

[NeutronCowboy]

Structures built on permafrost will have to be completely rebuilt once the permafrost goes. Permafrost is also sequestering significant amounts of methane. Don't knock the status quo until you have tried the alternatives.

George Carlin said it best...

[HotTuna]

"We're so self-important. So self-important! Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees; save the bees; save the whales; save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all, "Save the planet." WHAT? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet? I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. Tired! I'm tired of fucking Earth Day! I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists; these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me. Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference! The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles; hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors; worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages... And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet... the planet... the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE! We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet will be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance. "

Re:Reality Deniers

[Tsingi]

95% of the AC posts on this topic are crap science. Very few of the signed posts reflect this attitude, I think I noticed two.

I give up on answering them. Suffice to say that if you aren't going to put your name behind your comments, no one should give a shit what you say.

I suspect that most of these AC troll comments are from the same person, they certainly read the same.

Fast and loose with the truth

[microbox]

3%? Do you /really/ believe that?

Current estimates is about 392 ppm (as of 2011). It was 335 ppm in 1985. So that's at 17% increase in just 26 years.

I wonder how many "sceptics" will be fast and loose with the truth when responding to this article.

Re:Faux News admitted the Earth is getting warmer

[jfengel]

actually I don't know what excuse they're on these days, all of those have been disproven.

All of them. It doesn't really matter which, since the conclusion ("We don't have to do anything") is foregone, and the rest is just details. Disprove one and they'll switch to a different one, and when you disprove that they'll jump back to the first, hoping you've forgotten about it.

They're still stuck with explaining how they, an ignoramus who would have failed high school algebra if they hadn't cheated off the nerd in the next row, is somehow more informed about climate modeling than the scientists. That's where the Global Socialist Conspiracy comes in.

Re:Hey, Try to Answer the Questions Next Time ...

[Kreigaffe]

Here's my citation.

It's your post.

Simply pointing out that some of the data used as the basis for the AGW conclusions is not as reliable as was believed when those conclusions were formed was enough for you to paint me as "one of them", was enough for your hackles to stand on-end and for you to personally attack me.

I'm not saying the conclusions are wrong. I'm saying they may be less right than initially believed. That's how things FUCKING WORK, dude. Get off your high horse, you're every bit as devoted to not changing your views as any other fundamentalist whacko.

Based on what was known, the AGW conclusions were not incorrect. New things become known. Conclusions must be revisited and the impact that the newly-discovered data uncertainty has on those conclusions must be evaluated.

Oh, and here you go, asshole.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005E%26PSL.229..183I
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000GC000146.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/science/02obtree.html

None of that necessarily means AGW conclusions are wrong, but it does mean that the assumptions that were made to establish historical data points were not as reliable as was believed at the time they were made. I do not recall hearing about anyone revisiting their AGW conclusions to determine what effect this new uncertainty may have on those conclusions -- because any suggestion that they need to do so is taken as an attack on the AGW conclusions. It is not. It's simply good fucking science.

If tomorrow we discover that assumptions that we made and believed to be true which were used in calculating the speed of light may not have been as true as we believed them to be at the time, that does not mean we have the speed of light *wrong* but it DOES mean that we need to re-determine if our calculations of the speed of light are still correct. To simply assume so and attack any suggestion otherwise is not science, it's blind faith. Lashing out just like any other religious fundamentalist. It's embarrassing, and frustrating to be painted as some sort of monstrous denier of reason when your goal is to not destroy but IMPROVE knowledge and understanding and to evolve conclusions and ideas as new evidence presents itself.

Anonymous Coward Deniers are Numerous Today

[crunchygranola]

It is remarkable how many AGW deniers are posting here as Anonymous Coward today. I guess creating new sock puppet identities to shill for Big Oil and the anti-science right-wing is too obvious here, where their assigned number is a dead give-away.

Re:The real problem is openness

[jmorris42]

Yea, but at least he didn't accuse all of us deniers of being in the pay of the Koch brothers or the oil companies. So I guess that is progress. Personally I'm still waiting for my f'ing check from either of em.

The funniest bit is how he just ASSumes that regardless of the evidence the 'deniers' will just keep on denying, in other words his mind is already made up about both AGW and the motives of those who disagree. Exactly the sort of closed minded idiocy he projects onto his opponents.

I can be convinced. But I want a little actual evidence first. And I'd really prefer it come from people who have enough integrity to disassociate from known frauds like Mann. That hockey stick bit was over the top indefensible. TO simply erase both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period to make a better infographic is an assault on the truth that no scientist should be permitted to get away with remaining in the 'science club' after getting caught at.

Irresponsible

[microbox]

Why? It is the warmers who want us to spend trillions and accept a greatly lowered standard of living because of their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and to date the warmers have none.

Interesting that you quote Sagan, who accepted climate science. There was consensus in the community by 1979, according to a NAS. Deniers just make a crap shoot of already discredited claims, and constantly shifting the bars of evidence. They are called deniers, because nothing will satisfy them. They cannot even make a coherent argument against what scientist say. It is all about having their way, and so far they have succeeded.

Meanwhile, humanity is still engaged in a huge geographcial experiment. Talk about irresponsible.

Re:Break It Down Yourself

[Rising Ape]

Most of the research is being done with money from government grants, and grants have been (very much) selectively given to people known to be on the "AGW" side of the argument.

No, the money is given to people who have demonstrated competence in that scientific field. If that group strongly correlates with the group of people who think AGW is happening, what does that tell you?

Or, how about this: what incentive does a government have to want to fake evidence that global warming is human caused? The measures to deal with it are politically unpopular, so there are no votes in it. Not to mention all the lobbying from powerful industry groups. The motivations for faking evidence lie strongly on the "it's not happening" side - so the fact that the "it is happening" message has got through is impressive in itself.

Re:Vindicated? Er, not so much.

[Loser4Now]

Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action"

That's a far f*cking cry from exoneration.

Is #2 even true? My understanding is that the raw data is missing.

I'm confused. If I accuse you of murdering a girl in 1990, and the prosecutor lacks any direct evidence of misconduct and closes the investigation, does that mean that you're not exonerated? Does that perhaps imply that you DID in fact murder a girl in 1990, despite no direct evidence of misconduct?

As for any data missing, your understanding seems a bit shoddy at best. Citation Needed, please.

Re:Vindicated? Er, not so much.

[quantaman]

AFAIK #2 is true, some of the data couldn't be publicly released because of copyright issues, but that data didn't change the conclusions and could presumably be accessed by other researchers.

As for the rest.

The data is public.

The code is public.

The papers are public.

What else do you fracking need?

Lets be honest here. This isn't about the science of global warming, all the information necessary to debate the science of global warming is out there, it can, and has been debated publicly and openly, and for the most part the scientists all agree AGW is real.

So other than all the scientists simply making a giant honest mistake (which they're VERY adamant they're not doing) the only plausible scenario where AGW is wrong is if a few key scientists are skewing data to support AGW, and the rest of the field is just following them.

So what Climategate is about is showing that one of these key scientists is lying, the problem is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that, there were a couple suspicious looking references in the CRU emails, but those turned out to be a red herring as this inquiry found. And further claims of misconduct are vague because there's nothing to base them on when everything is in the open and can be reproduced, but skeptics want the investigation to continue to find any dirt on him so the public will think it's all a big fraud.

Really? What could Mann be hiding, that can't be discovered in the published research, that's actually relevant to the science of global warming?

Gas is the cleanest fuel source.

[Medievalist]

...nuclear is the ONLY technology that we have here and now that can replace coal and gas fired baseline power needs.

Oh, you're cheating. Don't shift the argument.

We need to replace power plants that release radiation and geologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere with power plants that use fuel produced from biologically sustainable sources. There's not a damn thing wrong with gas fired power plants, the problem is how we are feeding them.

Granted, coal plants have to go, but it's not fair to lump in gas plants with coal plants. In fact, it would be more accurate to lump nuclear plants in with coal plants, although that's also a kind of rhetorical cheating.

In the USA, we have more than enough cropland and sunlight to completely power our baseline with renewably produced methane gas that is already a part of the existing atmospheric carbon cycle, providing no change in the climate. Just harvesting the methane from all of the USA's municipal sewer systems would be a good start!

I don't want to fund oil companies that don't care if my children starve, I don't want to fund middle eastern terrorism, I don't want to fund militarized, centralized nuclear power production, I don't want to fund morally bankrupt, worker-abusing coal mining consortia, I don't want to increase the risk of my grandchildren contracting lung cancer, I don't want to fund creaky obsolete 1940s fission technology or even more obsolete 1800s petroleum technology. I want shiny 21st century biotech - gasoline-producing algae and rocket motor trees!

So sell me biologically produced methane gas, which I can access with existing infrastructure in my existing gas furnace, gas generator, gas stove, gas oven, gas dryer, etc. etc. with no dependence on foreign sources and I will be happy to pay you a fat profit - and it'll cost both of us far less than the cost of building, protecting and decommissioning nuclear power plants.

Easily tested

[overshoot]

The Earth's climate is mostly convection as well, with IR radiation from the surface a lesser form of surface cooling.

How does that warm air get cooled to space? Oh, wait -- radiation, right? So how much does air radiate, vs. how much does the surface radiate? (Bear in mind that the upper atmosphere is cold, and remember that T^4 rule.)

Let's test this: if the atmosphere radiates heat at night and sinks to cool the ground, the air will cool more rapidly than the ground does. If, on the other hand, the ground cools by radiation at night the ground will be colder than the air. On an autumn morning when you first see frost, is the air temperature higher or lower than the ground temperature?

Alternately, you can do what atmospheric physics students do: take a spectrograph of the night sky. Care to guess which wavelengths of IR are coming back (reradiated) from the night sky and which wavelengths are missing because the sky is transparent?

Finally, for another read of the same question (radiated wavelengths of the Earth's atmosphere) you can look at the readings from NASA satellites looking down on the Earth. Care to guess which wavelengths are missing (absorbed) vs. radiated? Care to compare to the spectrum looking up?

Re:Vindicated? Er, not so much.

[tgibbs]

Despite numerous allegations of flagrant misconduct, the NSF could not find even one that could be substantiated (just like all the previous investigations). The fundamental conclusions have been replicated over and over. The supposedly "missing" data was readily found. The statistical errors that were real turned out to be inconsequential with respect to the overall conclusions.

But because the NSF committee was unable to prove a negative, it's "a far f*cking cry from exoneration"?

Man, I hope I'm never accused of a crime with you on my jury.

Re:Vindicated? Er, not so much.

[Layzej]

2. The Subject's data is documented and available to researchers.

Is #2 even true? My understanding is that the raw data is missing.

That's because you get your information from disinformers. The data has always been available. The methods are described in the paper. The results have been replicated time and time again using different methods. They are very sound. This is how science works. Mann was a pioneer. His methods were improved upon in subsequent analysis - by Mann and others. That the initial study is not perfect is not a sign of misconduct. That his results turned out to be right indicates that he was on the right track.

Re:pH

[superwiz]

Acidification will only occur under the assumption that the CO2 is not uptaken through photosynthesis. If the temperature mildly increases and the supply of CO2 increases, wouldn't the algae population find itself in a more favorable environment?

Or at least, isn't it plausible to assume that the types of algae which do favor a warmer environment would have see their biomass increase? Changing eco system is not necessarily a "screwed up" eco system. There are cycles which depend on more than just changes of season. Has anyone studied if there is a long-term cycle of growth and contraction in the algae population? Do we know why the ice ages happen? What if warm periods cause slow increase in algae population which would uptake too much CO2 and cause global cooling (followed by slow decrease of algae population followed by release of CO2 and warming up)?

According to Al Gore Sun supplies as much energy (to the surface of the planet Earth) in 1 hour as humanity uses in 1 year. Isn't it more plausible that the natural activity (powered by the Sun) is more responsible for changes in weather patterns than the human activity. I mean, given that natural activity, according to this assertion, has 3-4 orders of magnitude more energy available to it...

Re:Break It Down Yourself

[CayceeDee]

On the other hand, there is the Petition Project (easy enough to find) that has signatures from over 30,000 people from the US alone, all with advanced degrees, 9,000 of them PhDs... and all of whom put their names to a petition saying that AGW is probably nonsense.

Incorrect. The Petition Project has been dismantled multiple times. Many of the signatories aren't scientist at all and some of them were even dead at the time they supposedly signed it. Having an advanced degree doesn't prove anything if the degree is in a field different from the area of research. I don't ask my local veterinarian for input in my engineering projects because he doesn't have a clue about engineering. In the same vein, I don't ask the local veterinarian about global warming. I ask the climate scientists. Simply having an expertise in one area does not give you automatic validity in another area.