Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Climate science goes under oath

Fred Singer, a global warming skeptic and a climate scientist with integrity, has a fine essay on Climategate fraud Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann's upcoming new book and on Mann's upcoming opportunity to testify under oath.

Oops. What happened to the Mediaeval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age?
The IPCC has lately flushed the Hockey Stick  graph down the memory hole.
It turns out that even random numbers fed into Mann's algorithm produce hockey sticks.

Excerpt from Singer's essay:

In reading Mann's original papers, I noticed something very strange: his temperature record (blue curve in the IPCC report) based on proxy data suddenly stops in 1978 and is joined smoothly to the thermometer record from weather stations (red curve), which shows a steep rise in temperature. By contrast, atmospheric temperatures measured from weather satellites show only insignificant warming between 1978 and 1997 -- as do the independent data from weather balloons around the world. 
Puzzled by this disparity, I e-mailed Mann (then at the U. of Virginia) and politely asked about his post-1978 proxy temperatures. All I got in return was a nasty reply -- which only served to confirm my suspicion that Mann was hiding the data because they disagreed with the widely accepted thermometer record, which had suggested the existence of global warming. I believe that this is the true meaning of the phrase "Mike's Nature trick," used in the leaked Climategate e-mails -- in conjunction with "hide the decline." It all suggests manipulation of crucial data. 
Naturally, I am anxious to learn if Mann's suppressed post-1978 data show a warming...

How to find out the truth?

Singer says 'not to worry':

... the American Tradition Institute is trying to extract Mann's e-mails from UVa, using the FOIA. Their chance for success is good -- particularly since not only does the university now admits that some 12,000 e-mails exist (previously claimed to have been deleted) -- but it has also released these e-mails to Michael Mann, even though he is no longer a faculty member.
As Tom Jackman reports (Wash Post, March 21):

The ATI case began quietly in January 2011, with a FOIA request to UVa for e-mails to and from Mann and 39 people, involving five grant programs. Seven months later, UVa produced almost 1,800 e-mails, but said it was withholding another 12,000, which they argued were not public record, or were exempt under Virginia FOIA law 2.2-3705.4(4). The case is scheduled for argument on April 16 in Manassas (in Prince William County, Virginia), in suburban Washington, DC. From there, the case will likely begin its ascent up the appeals court ladder and is poised to make law on how Virginia institutions may use FOIA to withhold from some and give to others. Not to mention create an international stink -- if Mann's e-mails show he has manipulated climate change data, an accusation for which he claims to have been cleared. 
As Jackman further reports, Mann said his shared interest, with UVa, in his e-mails means that the e-mails can be released to him, but not to climate skeptics. The American Tradition Institute, the conservative group hoping to show that climate change scientists like Mann manipulated their data, argues that UVa can't give the e-mails to one person and not another. By giving the e-mails to Mann, the university has waived any exemptions it's claiming from the state Freedom of Information Act, ATI's lawyer David Schnare argues. 
Schnare then cited a Virginia attorney general's opinion from 1983 that once a public body disseminates any record, "those records lose the exemption accorded by" FOIA. Federal case law appears to be clearer that "selective disclosure ... is offensive to the purposes underlying the FOIA and intolerable as a matter of policy." 
Meanwhile, a new angle has developed in Vancouver, BC. Canadian climatologist Tim Ball jokingly wrote that "Mann should not be at Penn State but in a State Pen[itentiary]." Mann then improvidently sued Ball for libel. But this now leaves Mann open for the pre-trial discovery process, including a deposition under oath. We shall see how this case develops. Tim Ball has many ways to make his case in his defense. I am hoping he will focus on the suppressed post-1978 data. It would be fitting if Mann's data are used to destroy the IPCC's case for AGW. 
One way or another, the truth will come out. And when it does, we will witness a major earthquake that will encompass IPCC scientists, politicians in America and Europe, and the U.N. Let's hope we don't have to wait too long for this to happen.
Ultimately, we're going to lift the lid and peer into the climate science bowl. The frauds can't flush it all. After all, you and I paid for all the stuff fed into the other end, and it belongs to us, all the way through.

Should be interesting. They wouldn't be covering up so much if it was nice in there. 


  1. Or maybe there is nothing to cover up. Mann has already been investigated by at least 3 panels and exonerated by each of them. This one looks like a fishing expedition: "Not to mention create an international stink -- if Mann's e-mails show he has manipulated climate change data, an accusation for which he claims to have been cleared." (Emphasis mine.)

    If Mann is so successful in getting off the hook, what are the possibilities? Either the previous investigators were incompetent, or they are in cahoots with him. Or maybe, just maybe, there is no there there.

    These attempts to silence scientists through prosecution are truly shameful.

    1. So Mann has nothing to fear by releasing all of his emails?

    2. We already have a precedent. His emails have been leaked. How much fraud have been found in them?

    3. What are you talking about? The Climategate emails? There's a ton of fraud there.

    4. BTW, oleg, have you seen the Medieval Warm Period lately. We seem to be missing it.

    5. Egnor: What are you talking about? The Climategate emails? There's a ton of fraud there.

      Again, you make a strong assertion and back it with exactly zero amount of evidence.

      This immediately generates some interesting questions. Can you point me to the that ton of fraud? If the fraud is so obvious, how come the three panels that investigated Mann have fully exonerated him? Does that mean they are in on the fraud? And finally, how's the new tinfoil hat?

  2. Comparing the two graphs posted above tells us little if anything.

    First, the Lamb graph does not have a labeled ordinate. With some digging around, I found that the MWP peaked at around +0.8 C, so that gives us some sense of scale. But without that tidbit, the graph is useless. Also, no error bars, which is annoying.

    Second, as far as I can tell from further digging, the Lamb graph is based on a paper and data published in 1965. The Mann graph contains data through 1999. Therefore the Lamb data is missing thirty years of data that contain two of the hottest decades on record, the 1980's and 1990's. The 2000's, which aren't in either graph, were hotter still.

    Third, the Mann data is based on Northern Hemisphere data. The Lamb data is based on UK data only. Apples meet oranges. But turns out if you included UK data temperatures from 1965 through 2000 you start to see, guess what, a hockey stick.

    If Singer's goal was to educate his readers he failed spectacularly. However if confusion was his goal then I can only say, mission accomplished.


    1. -L,

      Good answer. But it won't work with Michael. He's made up his mind, and refuses to be confused by data which confounds his preconceptions.

  3. AS I have often posited on this blog in the past, it was my study of history that led me to see the logical flaw in the AGW hypothesis long before the graphs, fraud, and deliberate attempts to twist statistics were all brought to light.
    I was interested in two specific periods and found the records/accounts of those periods at odds with each other when it came to weather and climate. Storms seemed to be much more prevalent in higher latitudes.
    Temperatures seemed much cooler in one period where it should have been warmer, and warmer where it is currently much cooler. The only explanation was a shift in climate. A rather quick and profound change at that. Like some sort of greater season.
    I found I was not alone in this conjecture, and soon began to find all sorts of past and ancient observations of these changes. Noted researchers, clergy, and men of learning who noted changes in weather, water levels, and seasonal extremes. In the cultures with ancient roots we find these traditions enshrined in pop culture and mythology.
    Among the most interesting of these former and more ancient artefacts of change, I found the oral traditions of certain Great Lakes tribes, as well as some of those of the Western and Central Mexican States.
    These are ancient traditions that clearly relate (and even correlate to a degree with South American, European, African, and Asian traditions) changes in climate that result in the movement and migrations of peoples.
    These sometimes cataclysmic events are played down by modern science as legend, or -when clearly proven and thus not easily dismissed - as a local event. Regardless of how uncomfortable these events are for people who hold deeply set beliefs that the processes of climactic and geoghraphic change is gradual / incremental - they exist.
    In some cases, such as the 'Medieval Warm' evidence is mounting that this was a global, or near globally felt change. Further, growing evidence of Co2 spikes during previous warming periods goes to show that warming often PRECEDES the increases in Co2 like we currently see.
    Does this mean we are having no effect at all? I do not claim to understand that completely. I don't think anyone really does.
    What did become apparent to me was that the folks claiming to have 'discovered' AGW - the threat of self annihilation through a Venusian run away greenhouse scenario - are doing a very old song and dance routine before the changes come.

    Like some craven Aztec priest faced with the certainty of a crop failure and an impending eclipse, these folks have decided to 'ride the wave' of panic rather than ease it.
    They will pretend they know just why the gods are angry, and just what tribute and whose blood will please the god-king.
    They know the eclipse will come and go, and they know the tribute is for them and their masters.
    They know it is they who picks who lives and dies.
    But they will seem like heroes to the terrified masses when the eclipse is gone. They will have, by means of correct prediction, seemed to have banished the evil with their magic.

    Gone are the feathered headdresses, in are the lab coats and tweed. Gone are the priests and God-kings, in are the 'scientific elite' and their political masters in the 'progressive' and 'globalist' movements.
    Tributes are taxes - taxes on the very compounds and by-products of LIFE.
    Sacrifices? You do the math.
    Abortions (population control), euthanasia(PC), easily avoided famines in heavily populated regions, genocides, ethnic 'cleansing'...It makes me sick.

    So... In short. I see no real argument for AGW.
    Nothing but hot air aimed at a falling sky.
    I see at best a bunch of cranks and quacks selling snake oil and at worst a power grab by a very cynical group within the elites.

  4. crusadeREX: Gone are the priests and God-kings, in are the 'scientific elite' and their political masters in the 'progressive' and 'globalist' movements.

    You seem to be familiar with the inner workings of science, crus. Did you actually spend time in academia or is this just your fantasy?

    I can't claim that I understand well how the military works. Maybe you should take a cue.

  5. "You seem to be familiar with the inner workings of science, crus."
    Yes. I have a good idea how some of the sciences operate and how the academe works in general.

    "Did you actually spend time in academia or is this just your fantasy?"
    Yes. Many years. Most in the field, but some teaching and doing seminars. classes, and helping with post grad studies etc.
    My current official capacity has me still rubbing shoulders with members of certain scientific cliques. I have many friends in the Academic world, and I still hold my letters.
    My Fantasy, on the other hand, has me far removed from the politics of the academic world and just as far removed from the rumblings of war.

    "I can't claim that I understand well how the military works."
    While it is complex, (me so punny!) you should really take the time to understand, at least approximately, how it works.
    It is, after all, the engine behind much of your beloved science. To understand one gives lends more to the other. 'Progress' and warfare are siblings.

    "Maybe you should take a cue."
    I am a soldier. Not a politician or academic, even if I sometimes come off like one. Perhaps I am bit jaded. Could be my wild youth.
    But, I do not read from tele-prompters or take cues.
    I do take orders from superiors, and common sense suggestions from subordinates and civilians.
    Are you suggesting I stand down, Oleg?
    On what common sense grounds?
    I see no real proof positive of human impact.
    The only evidence I see to that is correlative - not causal.
    I do, however, see evidence of repeated dishonesty and an exposed attempt to introduce deliberately falsified data into a debate that will effect hundreds of millions of souls.
    I am led by this latter fact to wonder why such a need to force these ideas through? What is so essential about the idea that we are heating up the globe?
    Why such desperation and lies and what kind of end-goal could justify them?
    Here, Oleg, a little military thinking goes a long way.

  6. crus: Are you suggesting I stand down, Oleg?
    On what common sense grounds?

    On the grounds that if you keep spewing this nonsense about "the 'scientific elite' and their political masters" then my keyboard will be ruined by coffee spilling out of my nose. Good enough reason? I think so.

  7. Oleg,

    "On the grounds that if you keep spewing this nonsense about "the 'scientific elite' and their political masters" then my keyboard will be ruined by coffee spilling out of my nose. "
    I know it is pretty potent stuff, but get a hold of yourself, man. Stop sticking your nose in your coffee!
    Drink with your mouth, for goodness sake.
    Gods balls man, what are you? A Galapagos Finch now? You'll ruin your sneer!

    "Good enough reason? I think so."
    No. No reason or rational of any sort present.
    Just derision a mocking derision of something you admit you do not understand in the least.
    Suggestion declined.

  8. Crus, if you are so sure of your theory of science, here is a question for you. I am a member of the "scientific elite." Who is my "political master?" Am I supposed to report to him? Send in my dues? Clue me in.

    1. Oleg, if you are a member of the scientific elite and you are not ashamed and embarrassed of your colleagues, if you are not outraged at the abandonment of the scientific method, you are as bad as they are.

      Real scientists don't cheat. Real scientists aren't afraid to expose their findings to critique because they know it can only make it stronger.

      Time to stand up for science. You must be one of those science hating liberals.


    2. oleg:

      Any scientist who defends the conduct of the CRU scientists has betrayed his profession.

      Do you hide data? Do you delete data that conflicts with your viewpoint? Do you conspire to rig peer review?

    3. Classic Egnor. Lots of insinuations. Not a shred of evidence to back them up. Just tired talking points from conservative pundits.

    4. "Do you hide data? Do you delete data that conflicts with your viewpoint? Do you conspire to rig peer review?"

      Oleg should say yes to all of the above. he thinks everything is on the up-and-up in the climate community, so that must mean that it's up to his level of academic ethics.

      You know, there are lots of books out there on the subject of climategate. They're on my list of things to read.

      I would suggest them to Oleg and Bachfiend who honestly seem not to have heard about the dishonesty in the emails--hiding the decline, fixing the peer review process, camouflaging their doubts. I think it has to do with the fact that lots of media outlets refused to cover this story, at least not in any depth. It was a "travesty", in the words of a certain scientist.



    5. JQ,

      Judging by the questions you raise, you do not know much about the emails. You've heard through the right-wing grapevine that they are damaging, but you do not know exactly in what sense.

      "Hide the decline," in particular, is a very silly talking point. The phrase does not refer to a decline in global temperatures, as many conservatives assume, but rather to an unreliable proxy: reconstruction of temperatures from tree ring growth in the Norther hemisphere yields a lower temperature than observed in recent years. This decline in no way affects the temperature record as temperatures were measured directly in this period. The decline remains hidden in plain sight: even the papers in question, where the tree-ring data were not used, referred to previously published papers in which the tree-ring data were discussed.

      This is a typical mud-slinging tactics adopted by conservative critics of climate science. Find a mole hill, make a mountain out of it and hope that this distraction will keep people's attention from the actual issues. That I find dishonest.

    6. Oleg,

      "Crus, if you are so sure of your theory of science, here is a question for you."
      It is more of a theory of history. The (most) scientists themselves are just players, some minor some major. Science itself has little to do with it. It is the current regent priesthood that lords over the disciplines of science that is at issue - not the actual scientific method.
      The driving ethics and motivations of the leaders of the field.

      "I am a member of the "scientific elite."
      I doubt it. Respected member of the scientific community, sure.
      But elite? No. The 'elect'? No way.
      I would say no, for two reasons.
      First you don't act/write like one of them. That leads me to the second set of traits you fail to demonstrate: Breeding. You don't seem to have the graces of a thoroughbred. The inherit cockiness, the sheer arrogance of purpose.
      No offence intended - I actually prefer your mannerisms to many of that ilk I worked with/for.

      "Who is my "political master?""
      If you are a member of the scientific elite, your masters are the people who currently run the complex...or the people who aspire/intend to do so one day.
      Which Borgia do you back or help? Only you can answer that.

      "Am I supposed to report to him?"
      Him? Who is 'he'?

      "Send in my dues?"
      No. Elites are generally paid/compensated very well for their work.
      They don't need your support.
      Besides, something you civilian types seem to have an issue understanding is power. I don't mean hybrid SUV's, solar, or booster cables.
      Real power. Personal, political, forceful power.
      For an elite, power is not the means to attain riches.
      The elite simply seeks power.
      It is the ends, not the means.
      The only real 'dues' are of a distinctively more Faustian nature.

      "Clue me in."

    7. Crus: If you are a member of the scientific elite, your masters are the people who currently run the complex...or the people who aspire/intend to do so one day.

      But who exactly runs "the complex?"

      Crus: Him? Who is 'he'?

      Exactly! Who is the master? Name names, Crus. Who is my master? LOL

  9. JQ, where does your knowledge of science come from? Wing Nut Daily?

    1. Nice comeback, Oleg.

      Are you trying to tell me that you don't see anything wrong with what they did?

      I know they probably didn't cover it in the publications that you read. It's called a news blackout. The New York Times refused to publish any of it, saying that they were "pilfered documents" that were "never meant" for public viewing.

      The New York Times has since published Sarah Palin's pilfered emails and the Wikileaks pilfered documents. They had already of course published the pilfered Pentagon Papers.

      I knew that you wouldn't have an answer for me.

    2. JQ,

      Oleg's problem is that he's a science hater.


    3. JQ, I am a scientist teaching and doing research at a major research university. I don't need to read the New York Times to know what's happening in science. I certainly know of cases of scientific fraud. I witnessed this story developing well before it hit the pages of the NYT. I unequivocally condemn it.

      But if you are trying to insinuate that a significant fraction of scientists are fraudsters, I don't buy it for a second. That is why I asked where your knowledge about science comes from. If indeed it comes from WND, you are not getting the story straight.

    4. Answer the question:

      Are you trying to tell me that you don't see anything wrong with what they did?

      I don't care to take a guess at how many scientists are fraudsters. I believe that this AGW nonsense does involve fraud at the core level, but the majority of people in the scientific community who claim to believe it do so because it's a matter of mere decency and because not believing in it can be hazardous to your career.

      Because if you're telling me that you see nothing fishy in these emails, that says a lot about YOUR ethics as a scientist. This is the standard at which you operate?


    5. I see nothing fishy in their emails. There, I said it.

      It is up to you now to explain what you see as fishy. Take a specific email and explain. You might want to do some background reading on the subject, preferably outside the right-wing echo chamber. Bradford Plumer's overview in the New Republic is a good starting point. They have links to more in-depth analyses by people closer to climate science.

      How Important Are Those Stolen Climate E-mails?
      Another Round With The CRU E-mails...

  10. Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
    Former IPCC Lead Author

    "A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
    method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
    global warming."

    The Torch

    1. The Torch,

      What exactly is ideological about AGW? It's the denialists who are ideological. At the risk of being accused of an ad hominem attack, many of the climate change skeptics have taken wrong contrarian positions. Lindzen for example has also denied that second hand cigarette smoke is dangerous.

      My concern about AGW is that we are entering completely unknown territory. We've never had a global human population of 7 billion before, and if we are lucky, we will only go to 9 billion by 2050. Currently, around 500 million are I adequately fed. One billion rely on oceanic fisheries for their protein, and oceanic fisheries are being successfully managed into collapse.

      Global energy production is 16 terawatts or 2,000 Watts for each and every person (equivalent to everyone having 20 100 Watt light globes burning 24 hours a day). For comparison, a human at rest is around 50 Watts, so doing a reasonable amount of work, average 100 Watts. In other words, each person has the 'equivalent' of having 20 slaves doing his work.

      About 1.5 billion have little access to energy, so we need to double energy supplies by 2050. Where's the energy going to come from? We currently use 90 million barrels of oil a day. A major oil field contains enough oil to supply the world for 7-10 days, so we need to be finding dozens each year just to stay in the same position we're now in. Coal is a polluting fuel, due to its content of toxic heavy metals such as mercury and uranium. Fracking uses a lot of water, which then is lost to agriculture.

      The denialists have taken the ideological position. AGW isn't happening, or it will be beneficial. We will solve the energy supply problem.

      I'm not so confident. The denialists are also ignoring the fact that the Earth is a large and complex system. Reversing adverse climate changes won't be easy (it will be worse than trying to steer the Titanic away from the iceberg).

      Ignoring AGW isn't doing nothing. It's doing something; it's taking an enormous bet that we will solve the enormous problems of energy, water and food supply, not to mention AGW.

    2. [My concern about AGW is that we are entering completely unknown territory.]

      No, bachfiend. AGW is well-trodden territory, just the latest in a century of scientific apocalypse scams. Eugenics, overpopulation, DDT hysteria, depletion of oil, global cooling, heterosexual aids, yada yada.

      Part of the reason so many people doubt your hysteria is that we remember all of the other science apocalypses.

    3. Michael,

      We are entering completely unknown territory. When before have we had 7 billion humans living on Earth at the same time? When before have we been so dependent on cheap abundant energy to keep our economy running, and need to double it by 2050, else it will become highly expensive? When before have we been using almost all the available land for agriculture (and turning some of it into housing land) and overfishing the oceans?

      Energy, water and food are absolute requirements. Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to solve how we get the increased amounts we will need.

      I disagree with your list of 'hysterias'. OK, eugenics was wrong, certainly premature, even now we don't understand genetics well enough to make eugenics possible. But, concern over DDT was right, overpopulation is a problem, oil won't run out - it will just become far too expensive to use, heterosexual AIDS does occur (what do you think happens in Africa?) - and advertising campaigns warning of it in the West possibly prevented it happening here too, global cooling wasn't really an immediate concern.

    4. Humanity has always faced challenges. Our challenges now are miniscule compared to the plagues of the 14th century, to the fall of the Roman Empire, to 20th century totalitarianism, etc.

      Our best chance to prevail is free markets and limited government that respects human rights.

      Scientific socialism is a recipe for tyranny and catastrophe.

    5. Michael,

      The fall of the Roman Empire and the Black Death of the 14th century were both partially due to climate change. What makes you think that we are now immune to climate change?

      The totalitarianism of the 20th century were the result of nationalism precipitating the Great War (leading to the collapse of Russia and the Bolshevik revolution) and uncontrolled capitalistic greed leading to the stock market crash, the Great Depression and Hitler.

      I respect human rights. You don't. I think that it's obscene for hedge fund managers (who don't produce anything useful) to be earning of the order of $100 million pa, as some do. I'd like a more egalitarian society, in which the disparity of income isn't as great.

      I'd also like a world in which where you are born doesn't play such a role in your future happiness. Americans and Australians were just lucky where they were born. Every human on Earth has a right to a fair share of the Earth's resources. And that includes future humans too.

    6. "The fall of the Roman Empire and the Black Death of the 14th century were both partially due to climate change."

      But obviously not anthropogenic climate change.

      That's been my argument all along. I don't argue that climate change doesn't exist. I argue that it has ALWAYS EXISTED, which is a very different assertion. There is no static climate which is why what's happening now is not out of the ordinary.

      The burden of proof is on the alarmists to demonstrate that the change we are seeing now is caused by humans. The evidence is weak.

  11. "Lindzen for example has also denied that second hand cigarette smoke is dangerous."

    That's cause it isn't.


    1. Joey,

      And your evidence that second hand cigarette smoke isn't dangerous?

      Please excuse my typo'. One sentence should have read that 500 million are currently INADEQUATELY fed.

    2. Bachfiend,

      I thought you were going away. I was hoping you were.

      You just asked me to prove a negative. This is a pattern with you. You think you're being quite reasonable to demand evidence. Sure, I demand evidence as well. Cut it's your snappy comeback to everything.

      Prove to me that cigarettes DON'T cause cancer! Boo-yah! Showed you!

      There are studies on both sides of this issue. Personally, I think that the anti-smoking movement is a moral crusade that fixes the science, much the same way as the global warming people. The "science" is created by people who have an agenda to push.

      Here's a study from the British Medical Journal. It studied 118094 people in California, of whom 35361 were never-smokers with a smoking spouse. They were followed from 1960 until 1998.


      "No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98"

      "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect."


    3. The point you were trying to make is that Lindzen is a kook. After all, he doesn't even believe that second hand smoke kills people!

      Well good for him. There's another junk science bandwagon he's not jumping on.

      Seriously, is that the best you've got? What exactly were you trying to prove that asinine remark? Do you think that his doubts about second hand smoke completely discredit him?

      His stock is rising with me.

    4. Sorry, that last comment was me, Joey.

    5. My wife grew up in a home with two smoking parents, which wasn't at all unusual for the time and place. My dad smoked, not my mom.

      We're fine.

      Here's Eric Holder in his "We must brainwash people against guns" speech.


      He compares guns to smoking. We should brainwash people against guns the same way we've done with smoking.

      “When I was growing up, people smoked all the time — I mean both my parents did. But over time, we changed the way in which people thought about smoking, and so now we have people who cower outside of buildings and kind of smoke in private and don’t want to admit it."


    6. Joey,

      I'm actually waiting for Michael to apologize for fabricating a quote from me. I don't expect he will be honest enough to do so. Anyway, I will stop looking at this blog at the end of the month. I'm curious to see how many threads he starts this month. So far, he's up to 126!

      Thank Gawd it's April not March or May.

      Apparently, Michael has realized that he will never achieve quality, so he's going for quantity ++++.

    7. Bach,
      Why don't you just admit you cannot get enough?
      Deal with your Egnorance addiction.
      But first you have to admit to it!
      One step at a time.

  12. "I'm not so confident. The denialists are also ignoring the fact that the Earth is a large and complex system."

    Not in the least. In fact, we "denialists" have argued the exactly that--that the Earth is a very complex system with all sorts of forces interacting. Consequently, anyone who tells you that there is no debate, the science is settled, is a huckster. There's plenty of debate, the science is not settled and there's plenty more to learn.

    There are a lot of people on the planet now. Got ya. That's not really a disputed fact. But what on earth does that have to do with the type of academic dishonesty we have seen in the climategate emails? Why are the scientists so unwillingly to show their work? Do we have to take their conclusions on faith?


    1. Joey,

      There was no fraud in the climate gate emails.

      Of course, we shouldn't take the word of climate scientists on faith. We should examine the science. I don't take much notice of global temperature graphs or reconstructions of past climate. To understand them, you need a lot of understanding of mathematics, statistics and computer science, which I don't have. If you have 300 temperature stations, assessing global temperature isn't just a matter of adding 300 numbers and taking the average. The weighing and statistics are just too much for me.

      I think AGW is true because we understand the physics of greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse gases, the global temperature would be -18C. Increasing greenhouse gases will cause increased retention of heat and hence increase warming.

      We also know that there are many tipping points, positive feedbacks, which will increase warming, such as melting of arctic ice and snow, reducing albedo, melting of arctic tundra, releasing methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas.

      And even if we manage to halt or even reverse the increase in the CO2 levels once the tipping points have been crossed, they will continue to cause warming.

      Lindzen argues that there are negative feedbacks, tending to cause cooling with increasing CO2 levels, such as his infrared iris. I don't find them convincing on my understanding of physics, and more importantly, none of his colleagues are convinced either.

    2. No fraud, huh?

      When a scientist admits in private emails that the case for his theory is weak, but expresses absolute confidence in public, I call that fraud.

      Kevin Trenberth, noted "scientist" and lead author of the Fourth Assessment report:

      "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

      This, from the private emails of the Fourth Report, which as you remember, was pretty unequivocal: climate change is real and it's man's fault. See, he says one thing in public, but in private he says that he can't account for the lack of warming.

      Trenberth complains about unseasonably cold winter in Boulder. Someone should tell him that weather is NOT climate (when it doesn't confirm the theory)! Or here's a tried an true one--We never said global warming, we said climate change!


  13. Questioning the (lack of) evidence for AGW sure gets some atheists all worked up!

    1. Pepe,

      It certainly does when the ignorant are disputing the evidence of AGW.

    2. I cannot dispute what does not exists!

    3. I should add that being an atheist is the most stupid worldview/philosophy/religion one can have!

    4. Pepe,

      No. Actually atheism is the most sensible worldview one can have. It takes the sensible view that this world, this life, are the only ones we will have, and there is no benevolent deity who is going to intervene if we screw up.

      If you don't think it's sensible, why don't you do a survey of your family, including for example your eldest son, who has more to lose from your head in the sand, denialist citing of your favorite website 'Plant Fossils of West Virginia' written by a coa mining engineer.

    5. ...the sensible view...

      Sensible? No, it's very short-sighted and idiotic! How can you believe that things can pop out into existence by themselves? As your Grand Guru Dawkins says:

      "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."

      More moronic than that, you die!

    6. Atheism is nonsense.
      It is the opposite of sensible.
      It was designed to be nonsense.
      It is a philosophical contrast for purposes of argument taken to a extreme absolute certainty.
      'What if the universe was just random?'
      'What if there was no God?'
      'What if morality and/or ethics were all relative and subjective?'
      All these lines of thought presume order/purpose, creation, and morality. They are merely contrasts or shadows of reality. Constructs based on a presumed frame. Anti-theory. Sense (reality) is contrasted with denial of those senses (nonsense).
      When the shadow becomes the reality, when this experiment in denial becomes a recognized and patronized 'world view' (a belief) in itself we see the beginnings of a problem; a problem that is akin to the lunatics running the asylum.
      The examination of the shadow has become an obsession and the shadow is all the observer sees or understands.

      While it is profound to consider how an otherwise intelligent person can consider this extreme pruning of their sensory reality a sort of 'freedom', it is perhaps even more disturbing to consider there are those brokers in power who see it as beneficial and allow (even promote) this to 'trend' among academics and the celebrity, and the chattering classes as a 'progressive' movement.
      The stupid itself is profound stuff, but the cynical manipulation of stupid is actually kind of spooky.

      In truth I see this new-atheism as just another big box belief. Mass marketed philosophical left overs, designed to enhance obedience and push a conformist, easily manipulated belief system.

  14. Bachfiend:

    Science must be done out in the open. It's not science if it isn't. That's why the real "anti-science" people are on your side.

    Here's Phil Jones, when asked to provide the data that was used to forumalte his now debunked hockey stick graph:

    "I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

    Some of the data he is not supposed to pass on to others? Not science.

    He won't pass it on, even if the WMO agrees? Not science.

    He has twenty-five or so years invested in this work. Um...so? Is this his baby? It's clear that he sees the theory as something that should be shielded from criticism, rather than exposed to it to make it stronger.

    Why should Jones make the data available to someone else when their only aim is to find something wrong with it? Absolutely, positively, not science. Finding something wrong with it is the scientific method!


    1. Obviously, Bachfiend hates science. He certainly doesn't care if it's violated on the way to a larger agenda.


  15. The science haters on this page (Bachfiend, Oleg) make me fear for the future of our country. We need to overhaul our science education if we're going to compete in the 21st century.

    Just...wow. Why do you hate science so much? Do tell!

    -The Zen Master

    1. Y'all,

      I don't hate science. I love it in fact.

      What the CRU does is take the raw data from a large number of weather stations to give an overall global and regional temperature. It's not a simple process. It requires complex statistical algorithms and powerful computers to do.

      Would you be able to understand what the raw data meant had it been released?

      Professor Muller et al has done the work for you and analyzed all the data using their own statistical methods and derived global temperature curves very similar to the others available. They've also released the raw data, so you can analyze it for yourself.

      The same applies to the preinstrument temperature curves. They are all based on proxy measures of temperature (eg O16/18 ratios in ice cores, tree ring width, lake sediments etc). All have considerable error bars.

      The reason why I think AGW is happening is because we have an extremely plausible mechanism. We know the physics of greenhouse gases - they trap heat from radiating into space - and without greenhouse gases, the Earth would have a temperature of -18C. No one doubts this. Increasing greenhouse gases WILL cause increased retention of heat and cause increased warming. Humans are increasing the level of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Therefore, humans are causing global warming.

      It's a straw man argument to insist that AGW means that there's no other factor influencing global temperature. There are other influences. The Sun has been in a relatively quiescent phase for at least 14 years, which would be expected to cause cooling. Emission of particulates from the industrialization of China and India recently would also be expected to lead to cooling.

      It's a fallacy to think that if you can cast doubt on the global temperature curves you can disprove AGW. You have to disprove the physics of greenhouse gases to do that.

  16. Can someone please explain to me why, when it comes to global warming, 9 times out of 10 it's conservatives/religious/republicans who are are adamant that it doesnt exist and its all some strange conspiracy by liberals/scientists/'elitists'?

    I'm serious here, not just starting another debate.

    1. Mulder:

      The answer is simple. We Christians already have our religion.

      Liberals/scientists/'elitists' are in search of a religion, and think they've found it with AGW.

      AGW is a religion.

    2. I thought evolution was our religion and Charles Darwin our prophet. No?

    3. No. Atheism is a non-prophet organization! :-)

  17. Oh come on. Can you give me a REAL answer?

    1. Oh come on. Can you give me a REAL answer?

      Just do some serious research and you will find that AGW is not a cut and dried case, far from it. You will surely find that it's more hoopla than serious science.

      (I am getting tired of spoon-feeding those that have problem using their most useful organ: the brain!)


    2. Mulder,

      Yes, Pepe is right. Just look at his most authoritative source, 'Plant Fossils of West Virginia', which he steers everyone to, written by that most erudite of climate scientists, Monte Hieb, a coal mining engineer.

      You won't be steered astray. Monte Hieb is completely impartial, and even gives a lot of useful information on his website about how coal is the ideal fuel of the future.

  18. "(I am getting tired of spoon-feeding those that have problem using their most useful organ: the brain!)"

    Again, you have no actual reply other than some half-handed insult.

    Sure i can look up climate change and all the technical info that comes with it. What I want to know is exactly what i asked in my previous post. Strangely enough, i cant seem to get an answer.

    Could it be that it plays no part in a biblical worldview? Is that why? I'm pretty sure the republican party denies it because then legislation would eventually restrict their precious corporations from further polluting the earth and atmosphere, hurting their constituency.