Climate study gets pulled over plagiarism

Researchers shouldn't collaborate? That's pure idiocy. And that's the best that the naysayers can come up with to undermine the mass of evidence for global warming?

A desperate alarmist managed event - A storm in a teacup would be the best descriptive of this article and the events.
The premise remains the same. The UEA, Mann and company were caught with their pants down, on how and when they manipulated climate data as witnessed by the climategate emails and further proved by the crude/cooked very foolish whitewash enquirys by people who were friends and associates with vested interests in the promotion of the CAGW industry alternative energy companys and wind farms.
Along with truckloads of government MONEY in the way of grants to PROVE the AGW theory and not based on honest scientific inquiry.
On a last note the pathetic climate models to have all failed the reconstructed temperature reporting for the last 12+ years (Cooling/stable) in-spite of an increase in CO2?

Cont.. Is this what 100s of billions of grant dollars have brought us?
Shame on the whole lot of you CAGW crooks, you have cast a dark cloud over all scientists and set reputable science back for 30 years at least, but the bribe of 30 pieces of silver has always been too tempting, for those with a perpensity to twist with the wind for money and not for the search for truth!

dnatwork said.
Researchers shouldn't collaborate? That's pure idiocy. And that's the best that the naysayers can come up with to undermine the mass of evidence for global warming?

They should work to justify the science as long as their data can be readily proven and reconstructed by other scientist! That's not what happened it was an unprovable,unsupportable theory by any means possible, read the climategate emails for your self, why do you think skeptics are winning this battle? Environmentalist have become the own worst enemy with their fanaticism and the desire to stretch the truth!
The IPPC's so called evidence and study's are collapsing under the weight of the endless scandals and the climate isn't helping them.

ted208: Do you really think that what you said was true: "On a last note the pathetic climate models to have all failed the reconstructed temperature reporting for the last 12+ years (Cooling/stable) in-spite of an increase in CO2?"

How do you reconcile information like:

www.giss.nasa.gov...0110112/

Are you just in denial?

Most deniers actually recognize that the climate is warming - they just don't want to admit that CO2 or humans have anything to do with it. Only the most ignorant (I am using the term ignorant as a measure of knowledge not intelligence) believe the world is cooling. Please cite your references.

Wegman not only plagiarized much of his report but has been caught red handed using cherry picked simulation data and code provided to him from Global Warming Denialist Stephen McIntyre without attribution.

To make matters worse for Wegman, the database he selects from to draw his "conclusions" was cherry picked by McIntyre in his analysis to show how Principle Component analysis produced a false rise in temperatures, when in fact the data sets used to come to this "conclusion" were pre-selected from a random selection of data sets in order to produce the McIntyre's desired conclusion.

So in his Plagiarism, Wegman exposes himself as either ignorant of the methods used in his own paper, or knowingly complicit in the disingenuous analysis of McIntyre.

Wegman is attempting to avoid censure from his university by claiming that the plagiarism is the result of a student, but then he doesn't credit the work of the student in the paper either.

cont...

And it this isn't bad enough for Wegman, he presented this report to Congress at the request of Republican Denailists, so should it be found that he knowingly misrepresented the analysis, rather than just engaged in plagiarism, he could also be found in contempt of congress for knowingly misrepresenting his analysis to congress.

Wegman need not worry about his employment status though. When he is found guilty of contempt of congress and deceiving the American People he will undoubtedly be offered a job with a 6 figure salary from the Competitive Enterprise Institute or some other Right Wing Stink Tank that exist to spread lies and corporate propaganda.

Wow! This battle is getting serious!

I don't know about the rest of the globe, but we have been having unusually cool temperatures here.

Is there any truth to rumors that solar cycle #24 is unusually weak?

Will Mother Nature confirm or deny the global warming forecast of Al Gore et al.?

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

William Herschel first noted a ink between sunspots and agricultural production, and Richard Carrington quickly showed how unstable Earth's heat source is in September 1859 - when the Earth was totally engulfed by a solar eruption [1].

We now have a better understanding of the solar [2] and nuclear [3] processes that cause solar cycles and solar eruptions.

References:

1. Stuart Clark, "The Sun Kings: The Unexpected Tragedy of Richard Carrington and the Tale of How Modern Astronomy Began" [Princeton University Press, 2007] 211 pages

2. "Superfluidity in the solar Interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate," Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) 193-198.

http://arxiv.org/...501441v1

3. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Can we trust the 'Climategate' inquiry?

Almost all the members of the 'Climategate' inquiry are committed advocates of global warming

Lord Oxburgh is linked to major wind-farm and renewable-energy companies and he advises Climate Change Capital.

He is also a director and vice-chairman of private company Globe International Legislators Organization with a worldwide network to lobby governments to take more drastic action on climate change. They also push a cap-and trade-schemes.

Yes very impartial chair of the climategate whitewash inquiry with out mentioning the rest of the AGW panel members.

I believe the word would be A CHERRY PICKED preordained (nothing to see here) cosy little group, kind of like the climategate gang!

http://www.telegr...iry.html

Lord Oxburgh has been or still is associated with the following interests.
Honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association
Chairman of Falck Renewables
(wind energy firm)
Former advisor to Climate Change Capital
Former Chairman of D1 Oils, plc (biodiesel producer)

Globe International:

Oh, my! "Climate Gate" certainly proved that tens of thousands of scientists worldwide are in collusion and greedy for money and nothing else. Yet, demonstrated incompetence by the denial apologists can mean nothing but that the dishonest plagiarists (sucking on "guvmint" money) are being picked on by the bad scientists. Can you say hypocrisy?

The sad fact is that Al Gore, the UN's IPCC and an army of government-paid climatologists have no more control over Earth's climate than a flea has over steering the elephant it rides on.

Earth's heat source [1] is the unstable remains of a supernova [2-4] heated by neutron repulsion - the same energy source that produces violent super-flares in the core of the Crab Nebula [5].

They can bankrupt the US economy trying to control the Sun, but it won't work

1. "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun",
Energy & Environ 20, 131-144 (2009)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

2. "Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and
the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195, 208-209 (1977)

3. "Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the
Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis",
Nature 277, 615-620 (1979)

4. "Superfluidity in the solar Interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate," J. Fusion Energy 21 (2002) 193-198.

5. www.physorg.com/n...dog.html

I think this all just shows that science and politics aren't meant to mix. Once a scientist gets a motivation to prove something in particular, all bets are off as to the purity of the work. This goes for all of the folks involved on both sides of the inquiry.

Science is about understanding, not about proving anything. Truisms get us in trouble, but understanding allows us flexability.

You american hard-core right-wing denialists just arn't worth debating with anymore. Grow up.

Personally, I'm glad this paper got retracted. I'm tired of the alarmists having this shoddy work as a straw man to attack, and I'm tired of uninformed calmists mistaking this paper as a credible source. Misinformation doesn't help anybody. I don't know if there are any plans to republish, but all they need to do is properly credit the sources used and they can re-submit it. If they do that, I hope they correct some of the glaring errors first.

some of the points they made are valid but the errors just make the paper uncredible.

You american hard-core right-wing denialists just arn't worth debating with anymore

If insults are your best debate tactic then you would lose anyway.

to Thermodynamics:

You realize that the link you provided to GISS above is an article from Jim Hansen, don't you? Was that a deliberate joke, using Hansen to counter Wegman? If so, then that was a good one. I got a good chuckle and gave you a +5 for it. I don't mind Hansen too much though. He's better than Schmidt by a long shot.

If insults are your best debate tactic then you would lose anyway.

See, that's my problem. For you, its all only a matter of winning or loosing a debate on a points system. Reality, nuance, probabilistic risk don't even get considered.

I lived very aware of issues through the '70's and do not RECALL ever hearing even once about "Global Cooling". Now it MAY have been mentioned once or twice, peripherally, but definitely not at any level of general interest. That whole proposition (that "Climate Scientists swing wildly between predicting cooling then warming") was dreamed up by the coal industry.

"The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975 "
http://www.denisd...orld.htm

So, ryggesogn2, one article in an american popular news magazine? (I'm Canadian). Where's the globally edited scientific concensus documents? The United Nations panels? The expressions of concern from militaries, energy ministries, research organizations, government leaders?

Reality, nuance, probabilistic risk, facts and truth don't even get considered. Lawyers doing science sucks.

Lenny you said we weren't worth debating didn't you...so shut up and let the grown ups talk.

Nailed yah didn't I MM? Lawyer.

Nailed yah didn't I MM? Lawyer.

Nailed me? No you said we weren't worth debating. You then proceeded to do so. So are you being worthless, a liar, inconsistent, or stupid?

What I said was there's no use debating you on scientific facts, because your sort has no access to them.

What I said was there's no use debating you on scientific facts, because your sort has no access to them.

No in fact what you said was and I QUOTE:

You american hard-core right-wing denialists just arn't worth debating with anymore. Grow up.

You mentioned nothing about facts or access to them...

So we've established that at least you're a liar.

I lived very aware of issues through the '70's and do not RECALL ever hearing even once about "Global Cooling".

Yeah, I agree. The main topics of worry back then were litter (the Indian crying), forest fires (Smokey the bear), and overpopulation (UNICEF, etc) as far as I can recall.

probabilistic risk don't even get considered

And the side you support doesn't look at probabilistic gains, only loss. When you fail to weigh benefits on one side of the scale, then the scale will always tip to the cost side. There are benefits to providing cheap power to people, and those benefits may outweigh the costs of pollution. If you don't wish to even talk about it, then you are failing to engage in the facts of the debate.

because your sort has no access to them

I actually read and listen to sources from both sides, and often quote them. The left is no less guilty of being clueless than the right.

The left is no less guilty of being clueless than the right.

I'm not on the left, in fact have never voted other than Canada's Progressive Conservative party until their recent takeover by the neo-liberal economists. I presently vote for whomever best reflects the philosophy of some of history's best, including Jesus, Buddah. That DEFINITELY rules out the neo-liberal economics bunch, eg. Republicans.

I'm not on the left,

It all depends on where you're looking from. In this country yes most certainly and without doubt you're a leftist. In your own you're not. That's why the word "extremist" is a meaningless ad hom. It begs a question "Extreme to whom?".

CIAs global cooling files from the '70s.
http://omniclimat...itle.jpg
http://omniclimat...text.jpg

Progressive Conservative

What an oxymoronic term!

CIAs global cooling files from the '70s.
http://omniclimat...itle.jpg

Thank you for posting the CIA's files on the imagined danger of global cooling in the 1970s.

The greatest danger is not global cooling, or global warming.

The greatest danger is the misuse of government-funded science as a tool of government propaganda.

The threat of establishing a tyrannical government like that described by George Orwell in his book, "1984."

1984: www.online-litera...ll/1984/

Former President warned us of this danger to the very foundations of our free society on 17 January 1960:

Video: www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

Text: mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

The discussion has degraded but I do have to come back in on the issue of global cooling. I actually do recall the issue and the few popular news articles on it. It certainly doesn't surprise me that the CIA had a file considering they had files on everything including the Nazi and Russian excursions into the supernatural and mind control. They gather data on everything and anything and try to speculate on how it could affect the US. No surprise that they get it all wrong about 99% of the time. It was interesting to me that even in this blog there are people who still think the world is cooling. As ted208 said: "On a last note the pathetic climate models to have all failed the reconstructed temperature reporting for the last 12+ years (Cooling/stable) in-spite of an increase in CO2?" It is probably impossible to help someone with no background in science to understand how math is applied to help tease signal from noise. We are warming not cooling. Pay attention to detail.

The climate has been warming for the past 10,000+ years. Which is quite fortunate for those living above 42deg N lat.

The discussion has degraded but I do have to come back in on the issue of global cooling. I actually do recall the issue and the few popular news articles on it. It certainly doesn't surprise me that the CIA had a file considering they had files on everything including the Nazi and Russian excursions into the supernatural and mind control...

So what you're saying is that because the CIA gathers data on everything that there was in fact no climate scientists saying the Earth was going to cool in the 70s, or at least there is no credibility to such a claim?

Modernmystic: Yes, I am saying that there was NO credibility to the claim. This was another case of people confusing weather with climate.

Why has the earth been warming enough for 10,000+ years to melt the glaciers that covered half of the northern hemisphere?

Why has the earth been warming enough for 10,000+ years to melt the glaciers that covered half of the northern hemisphere?

Its called Milankovitch cycles, look it up. Cycles of several minor deviations in earths orbit accumulate about once every 110,000 years to initiate an ice age which lasts about 100,000 years, separated by warm periods (as now) of about 10 to 12,000 years. And the ice all melted about 10,000 years ago so no, the earth can't be said to have been "continuously warming" over the past 10,000 years. It happened relatively very abruptly. And no rational person disputes that we are "scheduled" to drop into another ice age "any century now", depending on what the effects might be of our stupid unknowing experiment to raise earth atmosphere's GHG loading higher than it has been in the past million years, no data or predictions done in advance.

Why has the earth been warming enough for 10,000+ years to melt the glaciers that covered half of the northern hemisphere?

Its called Milankovitch cycles, look it up. Cycles of several minor deviations in earths orbit accumulate about once every 110,000 years to initiate an ice age which lasts about 100,000 years, separated by warm periods (as now) of about 10 to 12,000 years. And the ice all melted about 10,000 years ago so no, the earth can't be said to have been "continuously warming" over the past 10,000 years. It happened relatively very abruptly.

You mean the SUN is the source of the warming? Wow!

I'd like to point out that the whole controversy over the paper is ridiculous.

First, plagarism is de facto collaboration without acknowledgement, which makes the paper's author a hypocrite. However, plagerism itself does not reduce the value of the info that is plagerized.

Regarding that...Wikipedia doesn't count as fact if you are past highschool...so if that's where this guy is plagerizing from...well, I have no reason to believe that he spent a lot of time thinking out his conclusions or checking them for factual accurateness.

and rygg - climate change science is based on deviation beyond what is caused by natural phenomena. you can agree or disagree on the correctness of the conclusions, but the science of climate is to take this into account and then see where we are. it is generally accepted that normal solar cycles, etc work on much larger timescales, with exceptions of immediate phenomena like volcanic eruptions or the maunder minimum.

You mean the SUN is the source of the warming? Wow!

That's a perfect example of an uninformed conclusion drawn from misunderstood information.

and rygg - climate change science is based on deviation beyond what is caused by natural phenomena. you can agree or disagree on the correctness of the conclusions, but the science of climate is to take this into account and then see where we are. it is generally accepted that normal solar cycles, etc work on much larger timescales, with exceptions of immediate phenomena like volcanic eruptions or the maunder minimum.

If you hadn't noticed there is an 11 year solar cycle and probably a few more. Maybe when the proper tools to measure the radiometric output of the earth and sun are in place, more detail will be revealed.

@rygg
11 year cycle. Duh. that is something that causes an immediate change, but no long term change. Even if climate scientists didn't account for it, the average over 6 decades of measurements (More if you trust older technology) would automatically render that point moot.

Scientists don't change their conclusion from the world is warming to the world is cooling every 5 and a half years. So logically, we can believe that this has been accounted for.

And if there are more factors at play that come into view and change things - so be it. I won't argue that - that is how science is done. But with what we know, global warming is a reasonable, but by no means forgone conclusion.

The Little Ice Age lasted about 50 decades. Does that count as a change in climate?

These are not all the factors, but they are the most major factors of the little ice age - there were three back to back solar minimums that directly correlate to the little ice age, the wolf minimum, the sporer minimum, and the maunder minimum. While we do not understand what causes solar maximums and minimums, we certainly know what their effects are on climate and are easily accounted for.

That is actually one piece of evidence for climate change, because we are coming off a solar maximum - The earth should be cooling (This is where they were worried about global cooling in the 60s), but it keeps getting warmer - instead of the temperature going down due to reduced solar activity (Like the anomolously long period of low sunspot activity we experienced the last 4 years) But the average temperature keeps going up - opposite of what has happened every other time.

I don't understand you rygg. This isn't the dark ages. We have a lot of knowledge of a lot of things. Do you think you can just throw something out and expect it to automatically support your point? I just googled little ice age for answers.

I don't think that the sky will fall because of climate change, and I am pretty certain that there is a lot of overblown stuff about it and that there are a lot of assumptions/uncertainties about climate change, but the more you argue with me, the more I see how easy it is to get pretty strong and relavent information against your view. I'm worried that you're going to convince me that I need to take climate change more seriously.

This makes much more sense:
http://www.eike-k..._534.pdf

Of course this puts the sun as the cause and not man. If the sun is the cause, 'progressives' loose power.
The IPCC is a political organization. ALL solutions to the climate change scare demand more govt control.
That is the primary reason I don't trust IPCC and there has been no first principle mechanism to demonstrate CO2 is the cause.

the more you argue with me

Is this supposed to frighten me?

This video is great. http://www.youtub...dfJ9PkRQ

Imagine thousands of these cycles interacting on, about, and within the earth.

How did I not expect this to be an arguement over socialism?

Is this supposed to frighten me?

No, I thought my sarcasm was clear.

no first principle mechanism to demonstrate CO2 is the cause...

I don't know what you're trying to say, but it's clearly provable that under ambient conditions, if you have a sealed jar of air and a sealed jar of CO2, the jar with CO2 will become warmer than the other jar quite quickly.

I don't know what you're trying to say, but it's clearly provable that under ambient conditions, if you have a sealed jar of air and a sealed jar of CO2, the jar with CO2 will become warmer than the other jar quite quickly.

Prove it.

A better test is to compare the difference between the high and low temperatures in dry deserts. When the humidity is very low, the delta is ~35-40 deg F. If what you claim is true, then that delta should be decreasing.

How did I not expect this to be an arguement over socialism?

When the 'solution' to AGW is more govt control over the world economy, why shouldn't the issue be raised?
If the technical solution was to increase the number of nuclear power plants, they may be able to make a better case.
This started in the 70s with the Club of Rome report, Limits to Growth. Is it a coincidence the 'solutions' are the same?

I don't know what you're trying to say, but it's clearly provable that under ambient conditions, if you have a sealed jar of air and a sealed jar of CO2, the jar with CO2 will become warmer than the other jar quite quickly.

Prove it.

prove to me that the sky is blue. Like I said before, you can dispute the extrapolations, but you're disputing the obvious. This experiment has been done many times, it's on wikipedia, youtube. You can do it yourself, using dry ice as the co2 source.

This is where i bow out of this conversation - It's a waste of my time to debate 7th grade science.

How does CO2 become warmer in a jar? Where does the energy come from?
Glass cuts off at 1.5 microns. How much energy is absorbed by CO2 <1.5 um?
If what you claim is true, then buildings should pump in more CO2 in the winter to keep rooms warmer. BTW, CO2 levels in our lab were measured to be double over atm in winter with only a few people in the room. Didn't notice much extra warming.
If the information about your experiment is so readily available, post a link.

I'm one of those "warmers" that many of the forum are attacking, mostly, because I know the physics involved. However, I have to step up here and correct the claim that CO2 in a jar will warm faster than a jar with air. That claim is false and just hurts the real science behind global warming.

The reality is (as much as it pains me ryg pointed out) the IR is cut-off by the glass and the surface to volume ratio is such that any heating is overwhelmed by re-radiation. This is a folk-tale arising from poorly controlled experiments.

However, that does not mean that CO2 does not contribute to global warming. The atmosphere and the earth are very different from a jar. I will leave it at that and let others look up the physics behind the effect (unless you need me to explain it again as I have done many times before in this forum).

@thermodynamics
rather what i've seen is that it will keep warmth more effectively than ambient air. The experiment I've seen is pretty convincing, but if there is another mechanism in place that causes this that is overlooked, or I have the details slightly off, then so be it - But I do suggest you look it up, because there is definitely an experiment that has CO2 in one container and air in another container, and the co2 filled container warms up faster.

So far the only theory I have seen is that that CO2 absorbs well at 15 um. Peak BB curve at 15 um is 193K.
Uncertainty in radiometry is significant. Too significant for me to accept it is a reason for 'progressives' to take over more of the world's economy.

Look at this: http://www.google...cad=rja, and note that there are more significant water bands than CO2.
But water vapor quite variable and difficult to model. CO2 is well mixed and known. Gee, let's blame it on CO2.

The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for natural forcing of past climate change on time scales of 50 to 1000 years" [1]

http://arxiv.org/...63v1.pdf

1. A.I. Shapiro, W.Schmutz, E.Rozanov, M.Schoell, M.Haberreiter, A.V.Shapiro, and S.Nyeki*, "A new approach to long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing," Astronomy & Astrophysics (24 Feb 2011)

* Physikalisch-Meteorologishes Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, 7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland

Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science ETH, Zurich, Switzerland

Institute for Astronomy ETH, Zurich, Switzerland

That_Guy: If the jar experiment is done with careful controls the temperature differences go away (or are too small to read). The major problem is that these experiments are done with heat lamps that are not calibrated and at slightly different distances. If you actually do the experiment you will find that if you have a difference in temperature and carefully swap the position of the jars (maintaining the spacing from the lamps)the jar temperatures swap. The issue is uncontrolled heating and rapid cooling due to the relatively large surface to volume ratio.

ryggesogn2: You have, obviously, never taken a radiative heat transfer course or your would know that CO2 has a number of different bands from water vapor and that bands are approximations of lines. So, even when bands overlap that does not mean that lines all do. Any mechanical engineer who understands radiative heat transfer has to take both CO2 and H2O into consideration when modeling flames.

Thermo, you can prove that CO2 and H20 at >400K and >=1atm have the same spectral properties at <=300K and <=1atm?

I don't want to call you wrong thermo, but I looked it up...

The experiment consists of air in one sealed container, the other has carbon dioxide. Using infrared light (which covers the 15 micrometer range, specifically the absorption peak at 14.5 micrometers). I believe rygg is right about it being plastic.

It can be done with a discrete infrared source, or using infrared radiated from the ground.

I also found your falsifiable experiment. It appears that you had your facts wrong. It was an experiment by angstrom (an early climate change denier) regarding the effect of co2 with moisture (Which also absorbes infrared). At moisture saturation (IE 100% humidity), excess co2 will minimally (~1%) reduce the overall amount of infrared absorbed. However the experiment was falsely applied to the atmosphere due to to CO2's primary affect being above the cloud level.

"Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.

Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods."
http://www.nap.ed...p;page=3
Just a reminder.

and you are absolutely correct. There is a level of uncertainty about the true magnitude of the effects and interactions of CO2 in the atmosphere, and one we'll really only know in retrospect - and while I believe that there is other supporting evidence that makes the case for some global warming to me, I can respectfully agree to disagree with someone who is not convinced due to some of the fuzziness in the outlook, and maintain that their opinion is valid as well.

It is certainly possible that CO2, methane, etc can cause global warming - backed up by facts - but the actual effect is subject to so many variables, and the numbers are so small compared to the sample size, that it's not unreasonable to question the overall effect.

Just don't throw BS my way, or deny the provable.

It is certainly possible that CO2, methane, etc can cause global warming - backed up by facts -

It is certainly possible that water vapor is what keeps the earth from radiating all its heat into space every night.

The coldest I have ever been in my life was standing out in the middle of the Mohave Desert on a clear winter's night. I had a parka and insulated coveralls and I had to take a warm shower when I came in to stop shivering.
With no cloud cover, heat radiates rapidly into space. CO2 had little effect.

BTW, ever wonder how water in a puddle or a dog's bowl can freeze at night even when the low temperature was well above freezing?

That is correct, CO2 does have a small effect, especially in small quantities. Climate change is about a change in temperature of only 1 or 2 percent.

15 degrees is not much more comfortable than 10 degrees.

A desperate alarmist managed event - A storm in a teacup would be the best descriptive of this article and the events.
The premise remains the same. The UEA, Mann and company were caught with their pants down, on how and when they manipulated climate data as witnessed by the climategate emails and further proved by the crude/cooked very foolish whitewash enquirys by people who were friends and associates with vested interests in the promotion of the CAGW industry alternative energy companys and wind farms.
Along with truckloads of government MONEY in the way of grants to PROVE the AGW theory and not based on honest scientific inquiry.
On a last note the pathetic climate models to have all failed the reconstructed temperature reporting for the last 12+ years (Cooling/stable) in-spite of an increase in CO2?

Why on earth would you believe that temps have been cooling or stable in the last 12+ years. You have data?

What I said was there's no use debating you on scientific facts, because your sort has no access to them.

No in fact what you said was and I QUOTE:

You american hard-core right-wing denialists just arn't worth debating with anymore. Grow up.

You mentioned nothing about facts or access to them...

So we've established that at least you're a liar.

I and many others note that you are failing to answer his quite legitimate question. How much does one or even half a dozen articles in popular magazines count? Really?

That is correct, CO2 does have a small effect, especially in small quantities.

CO2 is about .05% of the atm.

That is correct, CO2 does have a small effect, especially in small quantities.

CO2 is about .05% of the atm.

Yes, but N2, O2, and Ar (making up almost all of the rest of the atmosphere) are not absorbing strongly in the IR. For all intents and purposes you could strip away everything except water vapor and CO2 and have the same IR results. Are you one of those who does not understand radiative heat transfer or are you just tossing this meaningless factoid out to confuse things?

How much of the atm is H2O compared to CO2?

"As the shortwave energy (that in the visible and ultraviolet portion of the spectra) heats the surface,"
http://www.ncdc.n...ses.html

How does this happen?
I have never felt any heat from a visible laser and how does UV generate heat in materials?

From the same source:
"though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor."

ted208:

How do you reconcile information like:

http://www.giss.n...0110112/

Are you just in denial?

The report you referenced claiming 2010 as the warmest year ever comes from GISS, which has received much criticism for cooking and cherry-picking its data, among other offenses.

See http://wattsupwit...of-2010/ for a rebuttal using all the major climate datasets, including the one GISS used. No month of 2010 broke a record according to all but NOAA, (which listed three months which were ties). Factoring in the error bars, "2010 is statistically equivalent to 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 98". Most of 2010 was under the influence of El Nino, so its warmth in the early part of the year should be expected to be similar to 1998, which was the real record year on the basis of monthly records, and a tie for 2010 overall. If there had been an overall warming trend since '98, 2010 should have been warmer.

http://blog.chron...eaction/

Wegman's colleagues Jerry North and Tom Crowley (who don't agree with him on climate science) think he isn't being treated fairly in this matter, that he is honest and conscientious - his graduate student is the one responsible for the plagiarism.

"I liked him. I do not agree with some of his climate conclusions (cannot vouch for statistics), but after meeting him I just do not believe he is dishonest and such a fate could have happened to a lot of us ('there but for the grace of God go I'..)", said Crowley.

I and many others note that you are failing to answer his quite legitimate question. How much does one or even half a dozen articles in popular magazines count? Really?

No you and many others agree with his worldview and are attempting to defend his idiotic statement by diversion. The fact that every American has access to the internet and hence the very information he's saying we don't have access to is beyond ludicrous. He made an ad hom attack, he got called on it, tried to squirm his way out of it and you're trying to help him.

The interesting thing is that this is actually a very COMMON tactic when someone is lying to you or attempting deception.

Now did you have some legitimate point you were trying to make?

"Natures original peer-review process had let through an obviously flawed paper, and no professional climate scientist then disputed it - perhaps because of fear that doing so might harm their careers. As the title of Richard Beans new play - The Heretic - at the Royal Court hints, young scientists going into climate studies these days are a bit like young theologians in Elizabethan England. They quickly learn that funding and promotion dries up if you express heterodox views, or doubt the scripture. The scripture, in this case, being the assembled reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
http://www.specta...hs.thtml
Wegman was wrong?

That is correct, CO2 does have a small effect, especially in small quantities.

CO2 is about .05% of the atm.

You keep bringing this up, and it's still foolish.

Take a dose of arsenic or cyanide approximately equal to 0.05% of your body weight and let us know how that turns out for you.

Hahaha! A student copies & pastes from Wikipedia, and it's a "Congressional Report"? My God, we're ruled by idiots!!

You keep bringing this up, and it's still foolish.

Data supporting your theory is circumstantial and quite uncertain.

Professor Bob Carter published an interesting review in Quadrant Online on the evidence of global warming (23 May 2011):

www.quadrant.org....-slogans

omatur: Another good example of the same kind of known lies that have been told for decades by the tobacco industry. His reliance on the idea that those talking about the issues don't understand the difference between "carbon" and "carbon dioxide" "sic" shows that he has no technical ground to stand on and is trying to confuse those who are not technically proficient. I suppose this means that you don't recognize that when people talk about "carbon" they are talking about the carbon equivalent that produces the CO2. It makes sense to talk about carbon because that is the basis of the source (coal, petroleum, natural gas). I guess you just didn't know that when you pulled this poor excuse for a technical article. It is pretty much in the same category as your neutron repulsion mania. Try to pay attention to some of the technical data.

The following study published by the National Academy of Sciences is relevant here. The questions this information bring with it should be clear.

http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Notice the long term correlation between the proxies they show in the graphs in both the northern and southern hemispheres. 2000 years of correlation is strong evidence of something the IPCC isn't going to like. This study will never make it onto physorg, unless they hire new staff.

GSwift7: I don't think that anyone says that natural variability is not part of the present warming. In the abstract of the article you point us to they say:

"After the LIA, delta O^18, increased rapidly, particularly during the current warm period (CWP; A.D. 1900 to present), indicating a return to reduced SASM precipitation that was more abrupt and sustained than the onset of the MCA."

So, they are saying that the onset now is more abrupt and sustained than anywhere else in the record. This is not a smoking gun (as no study is a smoking gun), but it does indicate that what is taking place now is unusual and CO2 cannot be ruled out. Other studies point to human produced CO2 as being a component of this change.

How does this look negative for the idea that we are effecting the change in climate?

Also, doesn't this fly in the face of those who are claiming we are in a cooling period?

How does this look negative for the idea that we are effecting the change in climate?

MWP and little ice age were asserted to have occurred only in the northern hemisphere.

So, they are saying that the onset now is more abrupt and sustained than anywhere else in the record

..and that it began before the effects of man made co2, around 1900. You can see it on the graphs. If you are trying to visualize the man made effects, then you have to subtract the portion that began prior to the mid-1900's.

GSwift7: Don't forget the influence of land use. Around 1900 is a few decades after the beginning of the industrial age. At that time large scale land use was in full swing. Again, no one that I know of is saying CO2 is the complete answer to warming. However, it seems to be one contributor. How much is still being worked out. Again, the important issue here is that it shows that those claiming that we are cooling now are just wrong. We are warming and humans are, most likely, responsible for a good chunk of the warming due to our impact on the environment including CO2.

no one that I know of is saying CO2 is the complete answer to warming.

Eliminating CO2 with govt bans is the only solution being proposed and implemented to prevent impending doom.
Someone must be saying CO2 must be the complete answer.

ryggesogn2: You are not correct. Only fanatics are saying that CO2 is the only contributor. Similar to the fanatics that are saying CO2 has no effect. What most are saying is that CO2 is one of the contributors that we have control over. If you really paid attention to the technical information you would see that there are also proposals to control land use along with CO2 emissions. You are so focused on your agenda that you don't even know what is being claimed. CO2 is one of the proposed solutions and all that you seem to be able to understand. Apparently anything that you see as "a government control conspiracy" makes you pull out your tin-foil hat. I suppose you are one of those who believe that 911 was a government conspiracy.

Only fanatics are saying that CO2 is the only contributor.

Like the fanatics at the EPA?
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, "
"EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate."
"climate czar Carol Browner have said they would prefer Congress to take action but are prepared to move ahead in the absence of lawmakers crafting their own law."
http://online.wsj...287.html
It's not a conspiracy when the govt overtly declares its intent to control the world.

rygg: Take a deep breath. Thank you for making it clear that the EPA said: "EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate."

If you can understand what the word "contributing" means you will see that you have made my point. Greenhouse gases "contribute" to warming. That makes it clear that EPA is not saying that GHGs are the sole source of warming or even the major contributor. Do you need to take a remedial English class as well as remedial science?

That makes it clear that EPA is not saying that GHGs are the sole source of warming or even the major contributor.

That's not the way they are acting.
But that's typical to the govt is it not? Say one thing, do another.

"Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who is struggling in the polls as she seeks to introduce a carbon tax to place a price on industry's production of greenhouse gas emissions, seized on the report.

"We don't have time for false claims in this debate. The science is in, climate change is real," she said."
http://www.physor...firstCmt
The Aussies are acting as if their island will soon submerge.

GSwift7: Don't forget the influence of land use. Around 1900 is a few decades after the beginning of the industrial age. At that time large scale land use was in full swing

That's a big stretch, and that's not in agreement with any of the major authorities. If you have some kind of reference for the claim that human influence began that early, could you post it? If not, then you're just making stuff up to fit your agenda. Everywhere I can find, it's unanimously agreed that the signature of human influence on climate didn't show up till the mid 1900's.

Even Jim Hansen is now saying that the models have the forcings wrong by a big factor, like maybe double. That's what hansen said, not me. He's postulating aerosols as the fly in the ointment, but from what I can see, he's just guessing. If he was so sure about the aerosols then his model would have been correct in the first place, right? He used the word untenable to describe the uncertainty. Will physorg run that story? no.

"The secular, especially the anti-religious, left, enjoy these spectacles of religious foolishness. They seem to confirm for them not only how absurd these end-of-days predictions are, but how absurd religion is in general.

But the left should not laugh too loudly. The religious world has far fewer doomsday predictions than the left does. At least every few years, the secular-left frightens itself -- and tries to frighten everyone else -- about another doomsday scenario.

The most obvious current example is, of course, global warming. "
"There is one major difference between leftist and religious doomsday scenarios. The religious readily acknowledge that their doomsday scenario is built entirely on faith. The left, on the other hand, claims that its doomsday scenarios are entirely built on science."
http://www.realcl...8-2.html
And we see how science is corrupted.

Of course, the secular left is anyone who doesn't exactly agree with rygg.

@rygg - Why are you on this site? It is a science article site, but it seems to me, that 90% of the time, you extremely disagree with everything on here, how it is a socialist study/concept/whatever. Or how all the space articles are wrong because the earth is only 6000 years old...

I'm sure there's a tech/science section on foxnews.com. I mean, are you here with the specific intent to be a troll??

Sure this is a science site and science has been corrupted by the state.
The IPCC is a POLITICAL organization, not a scientific one.
ALL 'solutions' to global warming have been political: raise taxes, destroy economies, etc.
I bet 'that_guy' thinks he is a moderate, tolerant person. If so, why do you find my comments so objectionable?
Do you support more or less govt control? Do you support inherent, unalienable human rights or not? SH does not support that concept. These are first principles that are very important as they manifest into govt power and control.

and science has been corrupted by the state.

lol, you act like the State is some kind of living thing with a single will or purpose. The State is composed of regular people, just like you and me, doing the best they can to succeed in life (whatever that means to each of them). For some it means pushing an agenda. For some it means getting rich. The vast majority of what comprises the State are just low to mid level beauraucratic functionaries who surf the internet all day (deliberate oversimplification to make my point). They are neither inclined nor are they capable of performing some kind of villiany. Most corruption is personal rather than systemic. The apparent problems with science today are probably due more to the culture at Universities and big business, rather than anything government driven. The US government runs on opinion polls these days. If it is at fault, it's our fault.

Sure this is a science site and science has been corrupted by the state.
The IPCC is a POLITICAL organization, not a scientific one.
ALL 'solutions' to global warming have been political: raise taxes, destroy economies, etc.
I bet 'that_guy' thinks he is a moderate, tolerant person. If so, why do you find my comments so objectionable?
Do you support more or less govt control? Do you support inherent, unalienable human rights or not? SH does not support that concept. These are first principles that are very important as they manifest into govt power and control.

I honestly thought that my question was valid. There are sites that i find more or less objectionble, so i don't go to them. That doesn't mean i want to shut them down (Unless of course there is something extremely against the law in them of course) but I was wondering, why do you spend so much effort fighting everything on this site? Why bother? You know as well as I that you're not changing any minds.

why do you spend so much effort fighting everything on this site? Why bother? You know as well as I that you're not changing any minds

I can't speak for him, but I read and comment on all kinds of articles on this site. There are certain sections where the articles are particularly bad and others where the articles are always great. For example, the space exploration articles seem to be very good. On the other hand, the technology section is full of crappy info-mercials disguised as 'scientific announcements'; it's more of a trade show primer I think. Then the particle physics and chemistry sections tend to have announcements of new wonder-tech every day but they always leave out the parts where they should tell you how their invention will never really work in the real world because of some other factor. The climate section seems to have a lot of opinion mixed in with the articles and they only publish pro-AGW articles here. I favor the climate section because it's so poor.

In summary, I like to learn. Looking up all the correct facts when things are obviously not correct in an article leads me to read sites like NOAA/NCDC which I would probably never otherwise visit. It's fun playing detective and then laying out my 'evidence'. I think some of the other comtetators are like me, such as skeptic_heretic. We just enjoy the journey of exploration and learning. Discussion over the finer points is part of that discovery process. It's not about changing anybody's political stance for me. It's about trying to figure out if I understand things correctly and sorting out which of the things I've been told by different sources are truth, lie or opinion. Some people aren't very good critical thinkers. I hope I'm not in that bunch.

You know as well as I that you're not changing any minds.

How do you know?
Tea parties across the country keep growing.

the State is some kind of living thing with a single will or purpose.

The State does have a single purpose, more power. That is the way it is designed.
You are correct, voters need to change it, but not many 'progressives' here even think a problem exists. They are more worried about a possible 1" rise in sea level in 10 years and not worried about inflation or the collapse of the economy caused by socialist govt policies.
There have been many economists who have predicted the results of socialism: Bastiat, Mises, Hayek and many others. Their theories have been proven to be correct yet they are ridiculed by the 'progressive' 'science' type people here. Isn't the sign of quality science to predict an outcome and when the prediction is true, the theory is more credible?
1Samuel8: 10-20 is quite predictive.

The State does have a single purpose, more power. That is the way it is designed.
You are correct, voters need to change it, but not many 'progressives' here even think a problem exists.

I've always loved the old quote "the beauracracy needs to expand to meet the needs of the growing beauracracy". It's not a new problem. The world still exists though. Is there some reason that the fall of the US is bad for the human race in general? It'll happen eventually. Everything ends. Ignoring the problems isn't a socialist/leftist/democrat/green/whatever specific problem. Joe Q Lunchbox goes through his entire life oblivious to most of the things around him. That's the real problem, and it doesn't matter whether he's a Republican or a Democrat. The proletariate is blind and deaf. That leaves the aristocracy open to rule them. It's been that way for 1000's of years. Take religion as a good example.

@ gswift - It wasn't a general question - I agree with what you say about debating the facts in question, learning new things, finding the truth etc.

But even if I were generous and said that rygg can be open minded to any change or difference in opinion...obviously he's not open to the vast majority on this site.

So Rygg, tell me, why do you spend so much time and effort on tearing everything down on this site? What is it about Physorg.com that has you crying foul in every comment section? Why wouldn't you go to a political site where people are searching for political discourse, or a religion site - rather than a science site where everyone is concerned with the science involved, rather than the politicizing of the subject. No one is changing their minds because some TPer is trying to rip up the site.

But even if I were generous and said that rygg can be open minded to any change or difference in opinion...obviously he's not open to the vast majority on this site

lol, yeah.

There's a few other people besides Rygg who are exactly the same way, just with different political/religous views. If you look up the history of people who rate me 1/5 no matter what I say, you'll get a good idea who they are.

Yeah, I've seen the same. Both sides of the dark matter debate for example. There are few people on either side that are respectful about the other.

I always get bucketfuls of 1s when I say that the religious and non-religious shouldn't be insulting each other here (exception being innapropriate god/creation comments on comet articles and the like). Extreme religious people can be wrong about a lot of stuff, but the concept of god is not something that can be proved right or wrong.

The one thing they agree on is that they hate being called out on that.

GSwift7: You asked for a reference that human influence can be assigned back to about 1900. From AIP: "...with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900"

Link: http://www.aip.or...y12.html

You are welcome.

What is it about Physorg.com that has you crying foul in every comment section?

As many have said this is a science site. But it is a very sloppy science site.
Aren't scientists supposed to have standards, follow protocols, be precise with language?

the concept of god is not something that can be proved right or wrong.

Atheists should be included in your 'extreme religious people' definition as they are keep trying to prove the concept of God is wrong.

obviously he's not open to the vast majority on this site.

Open to what? 'that_guy' is not very open to the ideas of Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, Adam Smith, Locke, etc.

What is truly great about science is that one mind, one individual mind can develop a whole new way of looking at the universe and discover great new things. Yet 'guy' seems hung up on being accepted by the crowd. Why do you care what others think of you?
How many scientists have the courage of their convictions today? Or is consensus too demanding?

scientists are supposed to have standards, follow protocols, etc. However, I am under no illusion that journalists follow the same standards. I do not disagree that many articles here are written sloppily, but rarely are you the one who is able to point out the editorial fallacy.

as far as atheists being extremists, what kind of idiot are you? Just because they are atheist doesn't mean they try to prove god wrong, it just means that they don't believe in god.

If there is an article on one of those people and their philosophies, I would read it like I read the rest of the articles. I would be open minded, and if there are good logical factual points in said article, i will believe them, based on my own study. I agree with you once in a great while don't I? Because I have something called a 'mind' to think for myself.

What makes you think I'm looking to be accepted, when I comment on controversial stuff as well.

Cont

My motivation is that i'm fascinated with science stuff and I want to learn.

But I never see you post one supportive comment, or anything that shows you have any interest whatsoever in the article at hand, except maybe to say how it is 'socialist' or what not. And you post on A LOT of articles.

It seems that you have no interest in science and more interest in politics and religion, which coincide with an article here maybe 10% of the time.

Which brings me back to the original question: Why are you here? The rest of us aren't here to be popular (It's a freaking hardcore science site for christ's sake), we're here because this site caters to our interests. Obviously it's not catering to your interests.

My interest in the article at hand is to question the motivation of attacking Wegman.
Sounds like retaliation from the AGWites.
An act of a Congressman was required to have the NAS hold a hearing on Mann's hockey stick and hear dissenting views that were rejected by the gate-keeper publications.
The dissenters results were deemed valid. Wegman's analysis of the incestuous peer review process has been proven quite valid across many fields.
The way science operates today, who can trust the scientists? Do you care about that?

obviously that was not your motivation, because if you looked above, many people, including myself, questioned both sides of the circumstances. Your motivation was to come out and say everyone was wrong to believe in global warming theory and refute facts, rather than discuss the situation at hand. If I were to assume you were reasonable, I would assume that you would know that one discredited paper doesn't change a thing. And yes, in my mind this paper is discredited - not because he plagerized anything - but because he wrote a middle school level paper by copying and pasting wikipedia articles.

and still, my point stands, every article you comment on, which is a lot, you question someone's motivation, or call it socialism, or whatever your gripe of the day.

I've never seen you show actual interest in the science or technology part of any article here.

rygg: You make that_guy's point when you say:

"My interest in the article at hand is to question the motivation of attacking Wegman."

You are assuming that they are attacking Wegman instead of attacking the science and integrity of the paper. If you can make a statement that shows that the attack on the foundation of the paper was incorrect I think you would be making a positive contribution. If you see this as a personal attack on some person who has put together a coherent defensible article please show the science and show that the copied parts are original. That would go a long way toward giving you some credibility. Instead, you have made remarks about the people who did the study and have accused them of being atheist left wingers when you don't know any of them or what their beliefs are. When you bring religion into a technical discussion expect to be discounted.

No assumptions required.
Do some research and notice how excited the AGWites are on their blogs about Wegman.
BTW, why should legitimate climate 'scientists' need a web site to refute their critics? Their research is not sufficient?

If you don't like what I say, ignore me. I'll risk it.

One more point, I usually post sourced references to articles I agree with and that are pertinent. I source them to give them credit. And it exposes the 'progressives' to sources they probably don't read.

Another issue this story raises is the publish/perish dilemma, the increasing number of PhDs and the expanding number of journals to accommodate.

Tonight it was reported that the University of Virginia has been ordered to respect FOI (Freedom of Information) requests and to turn over the requested documents:

www.climateaudit....0001.pdf

It is my understanding that the requested documents concern the reports of global warming by Michael Mann and associates.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

"One member of the NAS panel (not Christy) told me, under the condition that I not reveal his identity, that we had effectively killed the enterprise of trying to reconstruct temperatures from lousy data and that it would take brand new data to resolve the questions something that he thought might take 20 years. "
"it should not be overlooked that the Wegman Report was vindicated on its hypothesis about peer review within the Mann clique. The Wegman Report (and Said et al 2008) hypothesized, but were unable to prove, that reviewers in the Mann clique had been reviewing other members of the same clique. Climategate provided the missing evidence, Climategate documents showed that clique member Phil Jones had reviewed papers by other members of the clique, including some of the articles most in controversy confirming what the Wegman Report had only hypothesized."
http://climateaud...othesis/

rygg: So, let me clear this up.

The Wegman report was done to confirm the analysis by McIntyre:

"The Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations have been interested in an independent verification of the critiques of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) [MBH98, MBH99] by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a, 2005b)..."

However, you now are pointing us to a page in climate audit that was written by McIntyre that says the report was right. Do you not see the circular argument here?

Even McIntyre sees that there was plagiarism and is now claiming that there are degrees to plagiarism: "I won't attempt to analyze the plagiarism issues today (I will return to this on another occasion), other than to say that some recent literature on the topic attempts to distinguish between degrees of plagiarism e.g. Bouville, Clarke and Loui."

I guess that is like a "minor" felony. Thanks for the link.

I guess that is like a "minor" felony. Thanks for the link.

The University of Virginia has 90 days to supply the documents that were requested under the Freedom of Information Act:

www.climateaudit....0001.pdf

After the documents have been examined, then the prosecutor may or may not file criminal charges.

Those interested in understanding the science (not politics) of Earth's constantly changing climate may appreciate a new paper by Geoff J. Sharp,

"Are Uranus & Neptune responsible for Solar Grand Minima and Solar Cycle Modulation?"

http://arxiv.org/...5303.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Thermo:

from the first paragraph of your source:

natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century

the full context of your quote:

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900

They are saying that 80% of the increase in co2 since the mid 1700's happened after 1900, not prior to 1900. That doesn't mean that any measurable effects were observed prior to the mid 1900's. That means that at 1900, only 20% of current man made co2 had been created. If you read the IPCC AR4, they make repeated references to the mid 20th century.

http://www.ipcc.c...ons.html

The trends near 1900 were not signifigantly different from natural variations.

On this page of the IPCC AR4 there's a really great graphic which shows estimates of temperature trends for different regions and global land ocean temps since 1900. On the graphs they include a blue shaded area wich is the estimated natural changes. Prior to the mid 1900's, notice that in most cases the blue and pink shading as well as the black line overlap in the early 20th century.

see figure SMP4:

http://www.ipcc.c...and.html

I can point to similar estimates at NASA, NOA, WMO, CRU, etc. if you like. Your above statement is not backed up by the link you provided to the AIP. Thanks, but try again. As far as I'm concerned, you still made that stuff up to support your agenda.

I guess that is like a "minor" felony. Thanks for the link.

So when 'climatologists' exaggerate, it's just a minor lie?

So when 'climatologists' exaggerate, it's just a minor lie?

Nah, it's just a technique to help you to see the trend you would not otherwise see.

The issue of failing to cite sources can be a big problem, besides just the plaigurism issue. In the case of the IPCC, better citation of sources might have avoided the Himalayan glacier issue, for example. Or, as you see with the above claims from Thermo, proper citation can invalidate a false claim and expose misquotes or out of context quotes. It's not often that I catch Thermo doing that twice in one thread. He's usually a lot more carefull with his information, and I'm not sure why he's so intent on maintaining that claim. Faith can blind people I guess.

Tonight it was reported that the University of Virginia has been ordered to respect FOI (Freedom of Information) requests and to turn over the requested documents:

http://www.climat...0001.pdf

It is my understanding that the requested documents concern the reports of global warming by Michael Mann and associates.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Here's additional information on the documents that the University of Virginia did not want the public to see:

http://www.atinst...5-11.pdf

- Oliver

Thermo:

ted208: Do you really think that what you said was true: "On a last note the pathetic climate models to have all failed the reconstructed temperature reporting for the last 12+ years (Cooling/stable) in-spite of an increase in CO2?"

How do you reconcile information like:

www.giss.nasa.gov...0110112/

Are you just in denial?

Try this paper from Jim Hansen, you know, one of the guys who knows more about the GISS model than anyone else on the planet:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140

from the abstract:

We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols

Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change

It's non-peer reviewed, so read at your own risk. Interresting though.

Oliver,

I especially like this part from the court order you posted to:

(4) order payment of the
Petitioners reasonable costs associated with the instant matter; and

My question is whether this is the final version that was signed by the judge, or was this a draft version submitted to the court by the petitioner. Need to verify whether that's the actual version the judge signed.

The tricky part of this is making sure private confidential stuff like payroll or healthcare is excluded, but also making sure they don't try to hide something damning.

GSwift7: I have no idea why you are choosing sentences out of the Hansen paper. The paper points out some issues with the models but it only reinforces the results. There is nothing wrong with someone finding technical fault with a model and pushing to get it fixed. However, the model is only being improved, not thrown out. You seem to think that the uncertainty in aerosols is some newly discovered secret. It is not. Everyone has known for a decade or more that aerosols and clouds are problems for all of the models. As are glaciers and ice caps. Those are all being worked on by a myriad of groups to make the approximations better. That is exactly the way every large model is improved. They are not thrown away when 95% of the model is based on well known fluid dynamics and heat transfer. Follow the progress over the past five years and you will see model refinements that reduce the error bars and still show the same trends.

GSwift7: You have pointed out that I am either cherry picking or misrepresenting the increase in temperature since 1900. You point out a figure that shows an upward trending curve in the models invoking forcing other than normal climate forces (figure SMP4). However, I am not sure if you read the whole article. At the bottom of the page they say:

"It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records."

The reason they say that is the deviation from natural climate and then the drop in temperature. They attribute the increase to human induced warming. (cont)

Continued for GSwift7: I am not sure why you are thinking I am misrepresenting the position that there is a human influence that started to show in the climate record early in the 20th century and not just in the second half of the century. I have given you two references (one is your own). I don't know how many you need to begin to see that there is a reason for the influence on climate beginning early in the century. If you need me to dig out more just let me know and I will. The foundation for the reasoning that the signal started then was that there had been significant land clearing that accelerated in the 1800s. It is reasonable that the signal would show up by the early 1900s. I did give you two references (again, one yours) that show that this is not a unique view. I am not sure why you are now refuting your own reference. Let me know what you want to see and I will dig it out as I always have before. Thanks for the reference.

Oliver,

I especially like this part from the court order . . .

GSwift7, the climate scandal is unfolding rapidly tonight, as leaders of the Western scientific community search for an escape from responsibility for using government-funded science as a tool of propaganda for an unholy alliance of world leaders led by Al Gore and the UN's IPCC.

See two new stories on Professor Curry's science blog:

1. "Freedom of Information"

http://judithcurr...rmation/

As noted there, the US National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society are up to their ears in this global climate scandal and will probably both have to be dismantled before the scandal ends.

Oliver K. Manuel

Continued:

2. "More Tornado Madness"

http://judithcurr...madness/

I have no idea why you are choosing sentences out of the Hansen paper. The paper points out some issues with the models but it only reinforces the results

No, it is saying that the results are correct due to offsetting errors. If one forcing is off (he suggests that it might be off by a factor of TWO), but the model gives a "correct" result, then some combination of other factors muct also be off in the opposite direction. That's exactly what he said. Not my words.

You seem to think that the uncertainty in aerosols is some newly discovered secret. It is not.

That's what I think? Not even close. Nice straw man there (not unusual for you).

Everyone has known for a decade or more that aerosols and clouds are problems for all of the models... and the rest of that post

Since the rest of that post is just you arguing against your own straw man, which doesn't reflect my view at all, I'll ignore it. You're saying the same things I often say here.

Let's be clear about what we're disputing here. I pointed to a study that shows pretty elegant evidence for natural variation being a larger part of warming in the 20th century than what the concensus says (a study from the pro-concensus National Academy of Science). You were saying that I'm wrong, although it wasn't me saying that, it was the group from NAS who said it. Now you are trying to argue they are wrong and that the effect they measured was manmade because of land use prior to 1900. Is that about right?

My post about Mann's article is a totally seperate issue. I was just resopnding to your claim about how accurate the models are by linking to a study from a model expert who says that the uncertanties are "untenable". His words, not mine. You can try to spin what he said, but don't argue with me about it. He said it, and he's the model guy.

I am not sure why you are thinking I am misrepresenting the position that there is a human influence that started to show in the climate record early in the 20th century and not just in the second half of the century

Because you are saying that the findings in the NAS paper can easily be explained by human influence. I am saying, as they are saying, that it's too much too soon for it to be caused by humans, and they show 2000 years of natural correlation to support natural causes for the observed change around 1900.

I did give you two references (again, one yours)

Neither one supports your claim that the NAS finding can be explained by human causes. The magnitude of human change in 1900 was too small and too late. Both of your references clearly show that.

Oliver,

I can't access judy's blog from behind this firewall, so I'll have to check it out later.

However, in regard to dismanteling the organizations: That just isn't how they do things. When there's a large enough scandal they just throw someone under the bus or someone voluntarily falls on the sword. Then the org in question will send out some kind of press release saying something like "we are going to do a 10 month review of our review process", or "we're going to pay a PR firm to put together an indepenent review for us" (I paraphrased there a bit, lol).

Oliver,
. . . However, in regard to dismanteling the organizations: That just isn't how they do things. When there's a large enough scandal they just throw someone under the bus or someone voluntarily falls on the sword.

Yes, I agree.

It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse the gradual (~50-year) transformation of government science into a tool of government propaganda.

The stakes are high, including the values of constitutional government, as Eisenhower noted ~50 years ago:

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded."

"It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society." - President Eisenhower, 17 January 1961

www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

Oliver,
. . . However, in regard to dismanteling the organizations: That just isn't how they do things. When there's a large enough scandal they just throw someone under the bus or someone voluntarily falls on the sword.

Yes, I agree.

It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse the gradual (~50-year) transformation of government science into a tool of government propaganda.

The stakes are high, including the values of constitutional government, as Eisenhower noted ~50 years ago:

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded."

"It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society." - President Eisenhower, 17 January 1961

www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

GSwift7: So I can better understand your points, let me try to elucidate what I see our disagreement to be:
1) I say that human land use prior to 1900, probably, had an effect on climate. You seem to disagree with this.

2) You appear to believe that Hansen has no faith in the present GCMs used to predict climate behavior because of his comment about aerosols.

3) You seem to believe that global warming taking place beginning in 1900 is completely explainable by natural variation.

4) You seem to think the plagiarism in the paper discussed here is OK.

5) You seem to think the science in the Wegman paper is correct.

At least I know I am on the right track with my comments due to the evaluations of 1 being given to me by omatur. I would be very concerned if he ever gave me a high score. :-)

"For decades, astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit."
"...Peter Foukal, an independent solar physicist with Heliophysics Inc. in Nahant, Massachusetts, ...."
http://news.scien...l?ref=hp
And this from an independent solar physicist. Imagine that.

1) I say that human land use prior to 1900, probably, had an effect on climate

The NAS paper suggests that a significant portion of change since 1900 is natural. Not all of it. They could be wrong.

2) You appear to believe that Hansen has no faith in the present GCMs

That's a gross exaggeration. You can read his paper just like I did. He's just saying that one or more parameter is poorly constrained which makes long term predictions questionable and that he thinks it should be a priority to fix that.

3) You seem to believe that global warming taking place beginning in 1900 is completely explainable by natural variation

No, one new paper that's had very little exposure time suggests that it's more natural than we might have thought. I linked to the report because I thought you would read it seriously, but you dismissed it based on a faulty premis.

4) You seem to think the plagiarism in the paper discussed here is OK

what? where?

5) You seem to think the science in the Wegman paper is correct

My first post in this thread:

Personally, I'm glad this paper got retracted. I'm tired of the alarmists having this shoddy work as a straw man to attack, and I'm tired of uninformed calmists mistaking this paper as a credible source. Misinformation doesn't help anybody

I would be very concerned if he ever gave me a high score

You are the one using straw man arguments and accusing me of saying things I never said. I would be shocked if you got anything higher than a 1 for such blatant errors. You should apologise to me, and to him, unless you can show me where I said all that stuff you just accused me of saying.

In his farewell address to the nation on 17 Jan 1961, Eisenhower specifically warned about two threats to our free society [1]:

a.) An industrial-military complex, and

b.) A federal scientific-technological elite.

1. President Eisenhowers farewell address (17 Jan 1961)

http://mcadams.po.../ike.htm

A friend suggested that corruption of government-funded science started soon after Eisenhowers speech and asked if fear of mutual destruction in nuclear warfare (e.g., the Cuban missile crisis) might have persuaded world leaders to stop uncontrolled development of competitive science to save their own lives?

I told him that I do not know.

Does anyone else have an opinion on reasons why government scientists hide or ignore experimental data [2] on the Suns

a.) Origin,
b.) Composition,
c.) Source of energy, and
d.) Influence on Earths changing climate ?

2. Neutron Repulsion, The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Does anyone else have an opinion on reasons why government scientists hide or ignore experimental data [2] on the Suns

Prove your assertion and perhaps the rest of us will be interested in it. Otherwise it's the fantasy forwarded by a daft old child abuser.

Prove your assertion . . .

a.) Experimental data from analysis of the photosphere and lunar soils show solar mass fractionation enriches lightweight isotopes and elements at the top of the photosphere.

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

"Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections", #1033, 36th LPSC (2005) http://arxiv.org/...412502v1

b.) Isotopes and elements in carbonaceous and iron meteorites retain heterogeneities from stellar nucleosynthesis.

"Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277, 615-620 (1979)

"Terrestial-type xenon in meteoritic troilite", Nature 299, 807-810 (1982)

c.) Isotopes and elements in Jupiter, Earth and Mars retain heterogeneities from stellar nucleosynthesis.

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

"Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", MPS 33, A97, 5011 (1998).

www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf

Etc,. etc.