"Unequivocal"?

The WaPo contributes to public mis-understanding of the global warming debate while covering the hacked emails story:

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes
Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward skeptics

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 22, 2009

Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming.

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world's climate -- nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal -- public debate persists.

The evidence that humans are changing the world's climate is "unequivocal"?  Cmon!

Here is the summary report.  What is described as "unequivocal" is the proposition that global warming is actually occurring (p. 2).  As to whether that warming is caused in part by human activity, well, that is viewed as "very likely", i.e., more than a 90% probability.  William Stevens of the Times managed to grasp these subtleties back in 2007:

Last week, in its first major report since 2001, the world’s most authoritative group of climate scientists issued its strongest statement yet on the relationship between global warming and human activity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years. In the panel’s parlance, this level of certainty is labeled “very likely.”

...The panel said last week that the fact of global warming itself could now be considered “unequivocal,” and certified that 11 of the last 12 years were among the 12 warmest on record worldwide. (The fact of the warming is one thing contrarians no longer deny.)

I happen to think that discussion over whether warming is happening or humans are contributing to it are merely way-stations on the road to the next debate posed by Bjorn Lomborg - even if the problem is real, do any of the proposed "solutions" pass any kind of cost-benefit analysis?

Comments

[Pofarmer]

I spent some time last night(too much) going through some of the threads and the actual emails over at Wattsupwiththat. These scientists were actively blocking skeptical papers, and pushing poor quality papers by their buddies through. I am hoping (fingers crossed) for a FLOOD of skeptical papers now that this is in the open.

[mefolkes]

Here in Minnesota we've been freezing our butts off the last few years. I find it hard to believe that the alarmists had the hard data to claim, two years ago, that eleven of the last twelve years were the warmest on record. Lest someone dismiss my doubts by shouting "only anecdotal evidence", there were ample reports of stagnant or cooling temps the last few years. Further, all statistics are merely the results of large and organized collections of "anecdotal evidence". I wish "the Goracle" would turn down the temperature half a degree in his mega-mansion this winter and donate the savings to my home heating bill. It would more than cover the bill, and he could go back to feeling smug about his cluelessness.

[Pagar]

"I am hoping (fingers crossed) for a FLOOD of skeptical papers now that this is in the open."

I'm hoping for a flood of police cars running back and forth from the government offices of the House and Senate, hauling the politicians and bureaucrats that have promoted this fraud for years, to jail. Dropping off one load, and spinning their tires out of the jail parking lot to get back and get another load.

[Jim Ryan]

I think that from an informed layman's perspective there is no evidence whatsoever for AGW. It's just not there; what there is has powerful arguments against it and fraud undermining it.

There may be a climate scientist somewhere who's in an evidential position to say the evidence for AGW is strong, maybe even conclusive. But he hasn't marshaled and published his paper yet. You'd know it if he had.

On the second question, whether there is strong evidence for GW, GW is too vague a concept for this question to be answerable. GW since Greenland was green? Since 1998? It's a vacuous question.

[Pofarmer]

I find it hard to believe that the alarmists had the hard data to claim, two years ago, that eleven of the last twelve years were the warmest on record.

The reason they can do that is because, as Watts has shown, James Hansen has been "adjusting" the temperature record, to the point now, that nobody knows if the original record actually exists anymore, at least not the version he uses. Most State records show the 1930's quite a bit hotter.

[Rick Ballard]

Charles Martin (Charlie Colorado) provides a truly excellent synopsis of the state of play at PJM. He has the links to the appropriate emails and makes a clear and concise case regarding the importance of what has been discovered to date.

As I mentioned yesterday, if "Climate Science" were a mining company peddling stock, the SEC would refer the matter to the DoJ for probable prosecution. AGW is a very heavily salted mine and all the 'gold' is actually pyrite.

[Cecil Turner]

The Post misses the point entirely in this piece. The issue is not whether the AGW true believers are "hostile" . . . it's whether or not they're cooking the books.

Takeaways from the e-mail exchange Eilperin missed:
• the "prestigious" IPCC report, far from being the "global consensus view," is run by the alarmists;
• the alarmists don't include contrarian views and "will keep them out somehow," even if they have to redefine the science to do so;
• the alarmists continue to treat their data as if it were a state secret;
• the indicators or "proxies" used to measure past temperatures are of questionable validity;
• the statistical treatment of those indicators is dubious;
• the documented use of statistical "trick[s]" to bolster their position (e.g., "hide the decline"); and here,
• pressuring journals to present only their side of the issue.

And, par for the course, alarmists have gotten to the mainstream coverage. So why is this treatment so slanted? Could there be any bias from the reporter? No, that's inconceivable:

Juliet Eilperin’s husband works on climate issues for the Center for American Progress, a global warming-alarmist activist group.

I particularly liked the quotes though. I also wonder if the guy who gave us (almost): "will no one rid me of this troublesome editor" views himself as a modern-day Henry. [Henry Jones? . . . no, don't go there]

[clarice]

I can't keep up with TM today--I'll post this in the comments at the WaPo.Others post the Telegraph and Charlie's articles please.
Let's swamp them.

[MikeS]

...the road to the next debate posed by Bjorn Lomborg...

Ahh yes. If AGW was real, there are a variety of thing we could do about it. Presumably we would do those things that benefited humans the most, but who knows?

[mefolkes]

Charles Johnson, over at LGF, continues to dismiss sceptics with venom and vitriol, as he continues his slide to "the Dark Side". I seldom visit his site any more, because I want to keep my blood pressure under control. Anyone with any objections to AGW or sentiment favorable to religion or Sarah Palin is anathema to Charles now.

With even some alarmists admitting, recently, that temperatures have not risen for a decade, it becomes harder to understand that claim of "eleven of twelve years" being the hottest on record from only two years ago.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

TM, the best part is that they're using the IPCC as their source. The line about "we'll keep pielke sr's stuff out if we have to redefine peer-review" was with reference to the IPCC AR4. These guys are the ones who *wrote* the IPCC report.

[laura]

Charlie,
I remember a few years ago, right after the Wegman report, McIntyre had some stats on the number of contacts between Mann, Jones, etc, etc. It became immediately apparent that all the main players were in close contact with one another. The inner circle was small and self-justifying.
After reading these emails it is hard to deny collusion at the very heart of the IPCC.

[clarice]

Cecil--I just blogged that Eilperin infor crediting you--don't know when oir if it;ll run but it's a great catch.

[Tom T.]

Note too that the Post is only running these stories on its website. The print edition had an entire global-warming section today, with no mention whatsoever of the CRU emails.

[clarice]

It's up

November 22, 2009
Today's Media Ethics Award goes to...
Clarice Feldman

A ridiculous piece today in the Washington Post by Juliet Eilperin about those who've drawn attention to the documents from the CRU lab in East Anglia which caught the principal architects of the AGW hype manipulating the data, the peer review process and defying its FOIA obligations.

The author of the piece calls the evidence of AGW "unequivocal," a characterization with which Tom Maguire takes issue:

What the paper fails to disclose is this:

Juliet Eilperin’s husband works on climate issues for the Center for American Progress, a global warming-alarmist activist group.

h/t:Cecil Turner

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html

[clarice]

At least 2 lefties we know married to WaPo reporters..is this a Gramscian thing?

[clarice]

TomT , I suspect the Outlook section where those articles appeared went to press a week ago. I think it's just really unfortunate timing for them.

[Barry Dauphin]

The proposed "solution" for AGW always ends up with the whole world being turned into Cuba.

[Cecil Turner]

These guys are the ones who *wrote* the IPCC report.

Yep, they make the consensus . . . even if they have to manufacture it. BTW, nice work, ChaCo. Shoulda read your piece first; I could've saved myself some typing by just referencing it.

Thanks Clarice, but I just googled Eilperin after headshaking over her obtuse propaganda. She has other AGW articles out there with similar politically-based dogma throughout.

[clarice]

I've also emailed the Post's ombudsman to raise the conflict question with him. Others may want to, too. It's an outrage.

[hit and run]

clarice:
I suspect the Outlook section where those articles appeared went to press a week ago. I think it's just really unfortunate timing for them.

It's the same as the Al Gore effect.

Gaia has a rather spiteful sense of humor.

[clarice]

Yes she does..(You know that's the name of my cat, don't you?)

[hit and run]

Yes,Gaia is a pussy.

[Porchlight]

At least 2 lefties we know married to WaPo reporters..is this a Gramscian thing?

Yes. Yes, it is.

[clarice]

*THWACK*

[hit and run]

Meeeeeow!

[sylvia]

First of all measuring the temperature of the earth is not exactly an exact science. Kind of hard to establish an exact global temp, especially when we are talking about the fluctuation of less than only one degree or so on the area as large as the earth's surface. And also, I remember reading some reports that the hottest years on record were in the 1930's. Remember the dustbowls? Yet somehow that report never gets any play.

Second of all, obviously humans are contributing to warming. If I lit a candle now, I would be contributing to warming. But how much are we contributing? Like I wrote before, the greatest increase in CO2 the world will ever have, must have happened from say 1910 to 1970, after the advent of electricty and cars.

Has the sky fallen since then? Some people here could almost remember before those years. Or their parents could. The world seems pretty much the same since those times. So where's the armageddon so far? If we hadn't had it yet, why would we have it in the future? I think we should believe our eyes, not Al Gore.

There's obviously something wrong with this alarmist's picture. And I am glad the establishment is starting to not be able to hide anymore.

[sylvia]

On the other hand, I thought of one reason that the earth has not increased in temperature for 10 years that would lend a little support to warmists. It is that the world has reached a plateau in terms of modernization.

We are about as modern as we will ever be. Amost everyone who needs electricty or a car or ac has it already. And if they don't have it by now, they probably ain't gonna it later.

And since the population is increasing mostly in areas where they don't have the modernization, the CO2 level is stabilizing.

[sylvia]

that's, "aint gonna GET it", above.

[Randy Rager]

CO2 levels actually lag warming trends by about 800 years, so they are at best a result of past warming, not a cause of present or future warming.

[sylvia]

Just did a google and saw this below. So yes, even NASA says the 1930's has the hottest years. Why isn't anyone talking about that?

"He finally publishes it here, stating that NASA made a correction not only on their own web page, attributing the discovery to McIntyre, but NASA also issued a corrected set of temperature anomaly data which you can see here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Steve McIntyre posted this data from NASA's newly published data set from Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) These numbers represent deviation from the mean temperature calculated from temperature measurement stations throughout the USA.

According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)"

[Pofarmer]

We are about as modern as we will ever be. Amost everyone who needs electricty or a car or ac has it already. And if they don't have it by now, they probably ain't gonna it later.

Oh, HELL NO. There's this thing called progress, brought on by prosperity, that is short circuited by socialism. Just look at the advancing quality of life in India and China. We ain't nowhere near done with progress. At least you better hope not.

[Fen]

"I've also emailed the Post's ombudsman to raise the conflict question with him"

I searched the WaPo site for a feedback venue that didn't require registration. No luck. Gee, Pravda sure has insulated itself from the proles.

Whats the email for the Post ombudsman? Because this WaPo piece is something Winston would have written for NICE.

[Poole]

Once I believed in AGW. I am now a skeptic.

What changed my mind was the "hockey stick" graph that did not show the medieval warming period. When confronted with bad data, one has to doubt the source of the data and any conclusions derived therefrom.

False historical climate data could have an affect on history and archeology. Why did certain civilizations collapse? If the AGW apostles prevails, then the reasons for wars, pestilence, upheaval and mass migrations will be wrongly interpreted. Wrong conclusions about human history could lead us to make bad decisions in the future.

[Janet]

From the archives LUN - WaPo reporter Dana Priest married to William Goodfellow of Center for International Policy...got idiot Joe Wilson/Plame speaking engagements.

[Janet]

[email protected]

His name is Andrew Alexander.

[DudeG]

Is it just me, or does the general tone of that article make it sound like the global warming scientists are victims of some vicious campaign by the skeptics? Seems like there is so much else that is juicier to focus on (the inability to dispute McIntyre, the blacklisting of a science journal, and the conspiracy to delete emails from an FOI request). Maybe I've got my liberal media blinders on, but the tone of that article didn't seem to treat this as the scandal it seems to be. The tone is "of course there is warming but those in the trenches trying to prove that have such a hard battle just to be heard", when in fact it is the skeptics who are the victims of such a campaign.

[sylvia]

I don't know Pofarmer. I think even in rural towns in China and India they have electricty. They might not all have cars, but they live a more urban dense lifestyle, with less need for cars, and like I said, if they haven't felt inspired to get a car yet, they probably won't later. And in places where they don't have electricty, like certain parts of Africa, I stick by my idea tht they probably won't get it either. If anything, progress seems to be going backward in some of those places. So short of smaller changes, it all seems to be stablilizing to me.

[Pofarmer]

If anything, progress seems to be going backward in some of those places.

Well, jumpin' gee whilikers, why could that be?

[Janet]

LUN is an article from Newsbusters telling about Juliet Eilperin and her husband Andrew Light who does work for Center for American Progress on climate issues.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

some stats on the number of contacts between Mann, Jones, etc, etc.

That's actually in the Wegman report: they did a formal social-network analysis of the citations to see how independent the independent peer review really is.

Rick, Cecil, Clarice, et al thank you for the kind words.

[Pofarmer]

Take a quick look -here

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

I won't agree with their conclusions, but the numbers are interesting.

[Pagar]

"who needs electricty or a car or ac has it already."

Wonder what car sales will be the 1st years Cubans are free to purchase a car?

[hit and run]

Sylvia:
I think even in rural towns in China ... they live a more urban dense lifestyle

[Et Al]

Rick, Cecil, Clarice, et al thank you for the kind words.

You're welcome.

[Syl]

Isn't anybody worried that Climate Audit STILL is down? I'm beginning to think there is something fishy about it's being disappeared.

All the documentation of the arguments over the years with these clowns is there. All the analysis of Mann's and Briffa's work not to mention the other papers that have been scrutinized.

AND the documentation of FOI requests.

there's something fishy going on here.

[CrypticGuise]

Anyone bothering to read and educated themselves on AGW has known for years this has been a Hoax begun in the UK and perpetrated on the World by the GREEN Scientific Clergy, errr Scientists.

The Religion of Environmentalism is a Belief System sustained by the lying left wingnuts in the "Scientific Community", the United Nations, the EU Enviro Claque, Green Mullah Al Gore and his sycophantic acolytes of IGNORANCE.

Perhaps, the school teachers and schools in the United States will call an Assembly and announce the TRUTH to our propogandized students from K-12 that "AGW has been and is a Hoax based on faulty data and lies from the GREEN Left Scientific Klingons, Al Gore and the true GREEN Believers."

"Oh, and never mind, the Polar Bears are OK and the Oceans are not going to rise twenty feet and drown all of us." Good News! They can send the kiddies home with a note to Mom and Dad. They'll be relieved also.

[clarice]

Syl, let's hope they've backups of everything..and that they were unprepared for the volume of visitors.

[glenda]

Thanks to clarice for the blog at AT--lead me back to JOM(as usual) to get the "facts"
It really is mind-boggling how these leftists have the media/public-do-good organizations fronting their agendas. Like Cecil said, if anyone just googles, you can edit this carp yourselves!
And Charlie, PJM, should of posted your article immediately and could have scooped all the others jumping on the "hoax bandwagon"
I wonder how the ombudsman will handle all our "personal disclosure" complaints? I guess like they do when their paper prints state secrets that endanger America and it's
citizens......

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Syl:

Isn't anybody worried that Climate Audit STILL is down? I'm beginning to think there is something fishy about it's being disappeared.

Use http://camirror.wordpress.com/. The stone knives and bearskins of Steve's owned server can't handle the load.

BTW, I'm trying to reach you by email; if my address for you (at gmail) isn't good any longer, could you write me at chasrmartin at the same place?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Oh dammit. That's what I get for rushing.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Is it just me, or does the general tone of that article make it sound like the global warming scientists are victims of some vicious campaign by the skeptics?

No, it's not just you. But expect this to break down. I've been talking to my scientist friends on this and they're livid.

[Porchlight]

Syl,

I was worried last night, but then I got in about 3 am and was able to read with no problem. The first post on the page is an apology for the server being slow. They're just getting slammed, I think.

It's a real treat when you do get in...I should have copied the thread I was reading about "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline." Great stuff.

[Porchlight]

Thanks, Charlie, I forgot about the CA mirror site...

[Fresh Air]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years.

This is, quite simply, a lie. Since they can't put an upper and lower bound on any of their measurement errors, they cannot say with any precision what the likelihood of their models being correct are.

Further, the word "dominant" is a ridiculous overstatement given the massive uncertainty of the historical data, the unknown error rate of temperature stations (especially in urban areas), and the terrible predictive performance of the models during the past decade.

In fact, the whole passage attributing warming to man, as opposed to natural factors was a late insertion into the IPCC summary by Warming Zealots.

From a group e-mail discussing IPCC language:

The second question reflects the uncertainty in the response of the climate system to a given change in forcing. In the last century both the variations in forcing and the variations in response have been measured with some detail, yet there remains uncertainty about the contribution of natural variability to the observed temperature fluctuations. In both cases, investigation is hampered by the fact that estimates of global mean temperature based on reliable direct measurements
are only available from 1856 onwards.

From Anthony Lupo's (Univ. of Missouri) review of the IPCC summary:

In light of the second assessment which concluded that “....the balance of the evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate....”, the balance of the evidence suggests that the findings of the third assessment will be just as strong or stronger. I believe that sentiment is too strong given the uncertainties and gaps that still exist in our knowledge regarding climate change issues.

If you go through the e-mails in detail you will see a continual effort by a cadre of zealots to push the human cause and downplay the natural cause. At the same time, they have sought to overstate their data quality and understate their massive inconsistencies.

This whole thing is a pack of rubbish ginned up by probably fewer than 50 "scientists," who are not in fact practicing science, but are practicing leftwing politics.

[Syl]

"Syl, let's hope they've backups of everything..and that they were unprepared for the volume of visitors."

Well, sure, but we've all seen sites go down due to heavy traffic and they're never out THIS long. If it was a hardware issue, then, maybe yeah. But it would have to be a hardware issue *caused* by traffic, kinda strange. Or a co-incidence.

This is very convenient for certain desparate people who claimed they didn't call the police for 4 days.

I'm not normally a paranoid person, and I hope that's what this is, but I still think something smells fishy about this.

[Pofarmer]

Univ of MO meteorologists have been consistently skeptical. In fact, Pat Guinan, head of the meteorology dept there, is one who originally put me on the skeptic path, I ought to email and thank him, and also get his feelings about this.

[Ralph]

Sylvia,

China and India have a HUGE way to go in terms of catchup with the Western World.

To cite just one example, in 1998, I was involved with a new technology for producing soda ash (a major constituent of common glass) and one of the firms we discussed the project with was St. Gobain, the French glass maker (largest in the world, at least at the time).

St. Gobain pointed out that, at the time, India had just two "flat glass plants" (plants producing window glass and other forms of sheet glass), whereas if India were as industrialized as the West, it would have had 27 glass plants. It was obviously a huge potential market, and would present a huge increase in CO2 emissions.

Similar conditions exist throughout the Third World.

[hit and run]

Charlie:
Oh dammit. That's what I get for rushing.

I really,really miss Larwyn here.

But we may be approaching the point where we start referring to such things as "Chacoing" the thread.

Pass it on.

[clarice]

charlie I posted about the mirror site on AT--You should on PM.

[glasater]

Found this knock down drag out fight over at comments in this WSJ article:

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor.

It started out being a rather puff piece but in the comment section folks got serious in their disagreements.

Barrie Harrop is an Australian and defender of AGW. He is rebuked at every turn.
One of the better exchanges I've read.

[Jane]

Charlie,

I have "kind words" too. Most notably that I could actually understand what you were saying and it didn't make my eyes glaze over which much of the GW stuff often does.

[Syl]

Charlie

"The stone knives and bearskins of Steve's owned server can't handle the load."

Okay, I'll put my paranoia aside.

Sent ya mail.

[Thomas Young]

If AGW science has been so jiggered, what other science is also jiggered? Where money is involved, which scientist are truly believable. how many cures for dread diseases being researched actually already exist in the laboratories. you want to talk conspiracy theories...

[VekTor]

An attempt to end the non-stop italics.

[MayBee]

They've answered.

[VekTor]

An attempt to end the non-stop italics.

[MayBee]

They've answered.

[Wintoon]

Time for a group of politicians and "scientists" in a perp walk.

[Rick Ballard]

"If AGW science has been so jiggered, what other science is also jiggered?"

No need to go to "hidden cures". Just spend a few minutes contemplating the change from "strongly recommend mammograms and PAP smears every year" (scare the crap out women) to last week's Emily Litella moment.

That sincere looking fellow in the lab coat cashs a pay check. Pay attention to who writes it.

[Neo]

Some background on the main goals of "peer review".

It's probably not what you thought.

[jvon]

"certified that 11 of the last 12 years were among the 12 warmest on record worldwide."

...wasn't this later found to be in error? I've heard that global temperatures have been DECLINING since 1998.

I'd love for scientists to study long-term climate trends and try to draw conclusions on what is happening based on scientific method. Unfortunately, that is not what I've been seeing, and I am not surprised by anything in the leaked emails.

[jimmyk]

The proposed "solution" for AGW always ends up with the whole world being turned into Cuba.

I kind of like Cuba's climate. Or is that not what you meant?

I don't like the term "hacked e-mails." It seems more and more likely that this was an inside job. A better term would be "leaked e-mails." The MSM no doubt prefers "hacked" because it diverts attention to the alleged crime of the hacker, as opposed to the content of the e-mails.

[hit and run]

Heh,Maybee,I love this from your link:

It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this.

That is obivious. Obviously self-referential,as they will do everything they can to generate a sufficient amount of noise to drown out the real story.

Go,NOISE! Keep coming,NOISE! We need more NOISE! All NOISE! All NOISE should be going!

[boris]

So what kind of a noise annoys an oyster?

[bad]

digestive noises...?

[Daniel]

I would like to introduce what I think are facts into this discussion.
Carbon dioxide is a weak "greenhouse gas" which is emitted into the atmosphere by animals, fires, energy sources, consumed by vegetation (which absorbs it from the atmosphere) and much of which is absorbed into the oceans.
By itself, carbon dioxide could give rise to warming of the earth's surface, but not by a catastrophic amount.
Some scientists constructed complex computer models which predict catastrophic global warming, and it happening quickly without drastic intervention.
These models are based on the following claims and assumptions:
1. The earth's temperature at present is at an all time high.
2. The earth's atmosphere contains a fundamental instability, so that the relatively small amount of temperature rise coming from carbon dioxide will trigger a runaway rise in temperature coming from the effects of this rise on water vapor clouds etc.

The claim that we need to take drastic steps to stop global warming is based on the predictions of these models which rely on these claims.

Many climate scientists believe that the earth has been much warmer than it is today, and that the first claim is nowhere near correct. If so, life on earth would have been snuffed out long ago by the instability if the second claim were true.

Some point out that even when Greenland was green, the earth must have been warmer than it is today.

Others note that in their analysis of historic patterns they find that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere occurred after increases in temperature, so they could hardly have been their cause.

The proponents of the theory of catastrophic global warming claim that temperature patterns resemble a "hockey stick" shape, with recent temperatures rising rapidly already, presumably signalling the beginning of the end for us.

The fact that apparently there has been cooling since 1998 is highly embarrassing to the "hockey stick" notion, and it is this embarrassment that the authors of that concept have been endeavoring to explain away.

But the weakest aspect of the argument for the existence of a danger of catastrophic global warming is the second assumption, that increase in temperature from the present values will trigger a runaway heating from other greenhouse effects, namely from water vapor.

There is no empirical evidence for such an assumption. In fact, there are recent papers which claim that the evidence is that increases in temperature tend to increase rather than decrease global emission of heat so that there is negative feedback to global heating rather than the positive feedback required for instability.

That for the last hundred and fifty years the earth has warmed somewhat is true. That some of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions may be true. That this threatens catastrophe is extremely dubious. In fact, it is currently expected by most experts (based on sunspot patterns which for odd reasons seem to affect our weather) that earth temperatures will cool over the next few years.

[NaSa]

I don't know Pofarmer. I think even in rural towns in China and India they have electricty. They might not all have cars, but they live a more urban dense lifestyle, with less need for cars, and like I said, if they haven't felt inspired to get a car yet, they probably won't later.

Sylvia, you couldnt be more wrong - We NEED ELECTRICITY rather badly (i am from India) - and rural villagers dont give a damn about cars when they dont have basic needs such as electricity and running water.

Most of India's electricity comes from coal- we are trying to diversify a little bit to nuclear power (you may or may not have heard about the civilian nuclear deal that we signed last year with the US)

The last ten years have seen a lot of growth in China and India - predominantly fuelled by coal powered industry. This alone should give a lot of pause when the records show that the world has had cooler temperatures in the last decade.. I mean if all this dirty coal is warming the planet up, how in hell did the "global temperatures" drop during a decade when China and India grew a lot ??

The only way would have been possible was for Western nations to balance out India and China emissions with limiting their own... How unlikely was that when until last year the global economy was doing pretty well ?

[NaSa]

I don't know Pofarmer. I think even in rural towns in China and India they have electricty. They might not all have cars, but they live a more urban dense lifestyle, with less need for cars, and like I said, if they haven't felt inspired to get a car yet, they probably won't later.

Sylvia, you couldnt be more wrong - We NEED ELECTRICITY rather badly (i am from India) - and rural villagers dont give a damn about cars when they dont have basic needs such as electricity and running water.

Most of India's electricity comes from coal- we are trying to diversify a little bit to nuclear power (you may or may not have heard about the civilian nuclear deal that we signed last year with the US)

The last ten years have seen a lot of growth in China and India - predominantly fuelled by coal powered industry. This alone should give a lot of pause when the records show that the world has had cooler temperatures in the last decade.. I mean if all this dirty coal is warming the planet up, how in hell did the "global temperatures" drop during a decade when China and India grew a lot ??

The only way would have been possible was for Western nations to balance out India and China emissions with limiting their own... How unlikely was that when until last year the global economy was doing pretty well ?

[Fresh Air]

what other science is also jiggered?

"Secondhand" smoke, for one. Pretty much anything the Surgeon General is on about, is probably skewed to a significant degree.

Folks, we are being duped by an axis of NGOs, university "scientists" and government bodies. From the bans on DDT to smoking and now, exhaling carbon dioxide, we are being lied to systematically. The lies are being covered up with massively coordinated advertising and publicity campaigns designed to create inexorable momentum in the direction of the Lying Statists. We can no longer accept this behavior. The ends do not justify the means. And the zealots are not well-intentioned.

[JEM]

It's not unfair for her to claim that the IPCC report called AGW 'unequivocal'.

The problem is that the IPCC report was crooked as a three-dollar bill.

[Orson]

As an environmental scientist working in the belly of the beast, Boulder, Colorado (ie, where many federal labs devoted to weather and climate research are located), the situation is much worse than what Tom describes.

For the 90% "certainty"claim, there are no scientific data to support this. It is pure political propaganda. It appears in the "Summary for Policy Makers" and is backed up nowhere by the science sections. It is there to coverup- the lack of any definitive science. Can you say "prostitution," anyone?

MITs atmospheric physicist correctly observes that the field of climate science is corrupt (See his lecture and Q&A given in Washington, DC, late October here
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/cooler-heads-richard-lindzen-on-cap-and.html)

There are, however a number of falsifications of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. For example, IPCC co-chair, Dr Susan Solomon, says there will be more record high temperatures because of added CO2.

But a look at high temperature records by state proves otherwise.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/hightempchart.jpg

Studies of other long-range and well-kept records in the peer reviewed literature come up with similarly deflating "evidence.

Corruption? Now, with this cache, Lindzen's claim is there for all to see. If they choose not to, it is because we are not talking science but religious belief -- just as Ian Plimer - the Australian geologist and author of "Heaven and Earth; Global Warming: The missing Science" - says.

[Orson]

That's "MITs atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen" -
sorry. My haste

[clarice]

Stickaround, Orson, I have a feeling will be welcoing your expertise and thoughts on this for some time.

[sylvia]

Okay, ha ha, let me rephrase on rural and urban. Perhaps it might make more sense if I say even towns away from the largest cities in India and China still have a dense living arrangement, making the need for cars less urgent.

And of course places like India and China will develop more, but my theory is that the most of it, in terms of carbon emissions, has been done already. Most people have some access to electricity and at least public transportation. What's left to develop is a fraction of what has already been done.

And I posit that the poor areas, the ones who don't have it by now, still might not get it for a long time. It's have or have not unfortunately.

[Ann]

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.-Andrew Revkin

NYTimes: We Won't Publish "Statements that Were Never Intended for the Public Eye."

[motionview]

Anyone here develop software for a living? Please take a look at HARRY_READ_ME.TXT from the documents. They are just trying things and if it looks right they go with it. No formal validation, no discernible formal software development processes, multiple instances of slightly hand modified data sets strewn hither and yon, difficulty re-creating published graphs. You couldn't get a blood glucose monitor on the market with this quality of software; we're betting the global economy on it?

[Smilin' Jack]

Dad always said they'd find a way to tax the air we breathe.

The War on Prosperity continues...

[Captain Hate]

NYTimes: We Won't Publish "Statements that Were Never Intended for the Public Eye."

Like the Pentagon Papers?

[Pofarmer]

Real Climate just can't help themselves.

no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data,

Look, Dingleberries, thats EXACTLY what there is.

[clarice]

You forgot the rest of the Revkin quote:..."Unless they are national security secrets or matters that otherwise don't personally embarrass me by revealing I was a patsy for some scientific scamsters."

[jimmyk]

I think we honest skeptics have to be a bit careful about how we critique the AGW "science." The key question is whether there is a long-term trend upward in temperature due to human production of greenhouse gasses. When we point out against this that lots of other things cause temperature to move around, we can't then make a big deal about the fact that it's cooled since 1998, much less that it's really cold outside today, or whatever. That's just easy for the pro-AGW side to sweep aside.

The real weakness in their argument is in the historical data--the huge amount of uncertainty around historical trends, the data massaging they do to get the hockey stick results without acknowledging it and the uncertainty. There is just nothing like the certainty they claim. But since this is about long-term trends, I don't see how anything that's happened in the last ten years is meaningful.

[Pofarmer]

"I don't see how anything that's happened in the last ten years is meaningful."

Because, at some points trends change?

[Fresh Air]

Jimmyk--

The last 100 years are but a cup of water in the ocean of time. No one has, nor will, be able to show a meaningful trend with such a short time frame. The whole project is cocked up from the get-go.

[Strawman Cometh]

Like an SNL or Onion sendup, an ad on CNN is extolling us to save the planet by signing up on their site to turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen.

[Pofarmer]

"I don't see how anything that's happened in the last ten years is meaningful."

Because, at some points trends change?

[bad]

Speaking of SNL, Insty has a video from last night's show.

I'm waiting for the fact check...

[boris]

'I think we honest skeptics have to be a bit careful about how we critique the AGW "science." '

This is less about the science than the political corruption. Don't you suppose the laboratories that have been engaged in this scam might be rather paraniod about who has access to their labs, files, and computers.

Wouldn't you expect skeptics who are scientists or work on products for scientists are aware that being open with reasonable doubts could damage their opportunities.

Clearly they have been hiding stuff. Clearly they have been paranoid. That gives them very reasonable motive to avoid or shun anyone who might blow their cover.

[Rob Crawford]

The proposed "solution" for AGW always ends up with the whole world being turned into Cuba.

That's not the whole story. The proposed solutions for all ecological disasters end up with the whole world being turned into Cuba.

[hit and run]

Sylvia:
Okay, ha ha

I wish I had half your ability to deliver the ha has.

Congrats on that.