Checking The Footnotes

Are the Himalayan glaciers in full retreat?  Will global warming cause them to disappear by 2035?  Or is the IPCC basing that alarming factoid on a typographical error?

Charles Martin at Pajamas Media points us to the "typo" theory offered at Dr. Pielke's blog by Dr. Khandekar:

First, where did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?

According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!

So we have a raging debate about impending glacier melt-down because of sloppiness of some IPCC authors! Further, according to Kotlyakov, the present glacier area of some 500,000 km2 could shrink to 100,000 km2 and this could happen NOT in 2035 but in 2350, if the current rate of warming continues.

Well.  Surely we can double-check the relevant citations to find the foundation for this science, yes?  Uhh, maybe.  A warmist tried that exercise, as did I, with frustrating results.

 2007 IPCC report tells us (Chapter 10) that:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

Hmm, the IPCC is citing the World Wildlife Fund?  I assume they are generous with their grant money but I would think of them as an advocacy group rather than a scientific publication.  Let's press on!

Here is the WWF link; they tell us that:

As discussed in the thematic introduction to this regional status review, there is particular concern at the alarming rate of retreat of Himalayan glaciers. In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”.

The prediction that “glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global
warming” and that the flow of Himalayan rivers will “eventually diminish, resulting in
widespread water shortages” (New Scientist 1999; 1999, 2003)

Let's note that the WWF cites both the ICSI and the New Scientist.  "ICSI" is an acronym that proves scientists have a sense of humor.  Or they did - the group is now known as the "International Association of Cryospheric Sciences", or IACS, which hardly summons a smile.

Regardless - the only paper they have at their website from 1999 is this one by a Dr. Hasnain, devoted to Himalayan glaciers but making no mention of 2035 (or 2350) as sell-by dates.

But something certainly happened in 1999 - the ICSI had a July conference on glaciers at the University of Birmingham, which attracted press coverage.  Here is an account from the June 5 1999 New Scientist, which presumably inspired the WWF:

MELTING Himalayan glaciers are threatening to unleash a torrent of floods into mountain valleys, and ultimately dry up rivers across South Asia. A new study, due to be presented in July to the International Commission on Snow and Ice (ICSI), predicts that most of the glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming.

"All the glaciers in the middle Himalayas are retreating," says Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, the chief author of the ICSI report. A typical example is the Gangorti glacier at the head of the River Ganges, which is retreating at a rate of 30 metres per year. Hasnain's four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline.

So why is that not at the IACS website?  Different coverage suggests an answer (my emphasis):

A research study to be disclosed at an international meeting that opened at Birmingham University, will trigger fears of sea levels rising at a faster rate across the globe, swamping small island states like the Maldives and the Marshall Islands. The meltwaters of the Himalayas and the nearby Tibetan plateau make up two thirds of the flow of the Ganges and other rivers, such as the Indus and Brahmaputra, which are crucial for drinking water, livestock and irrigation. The melting glaciers will also increase the risk of dangerous floods, experts fear. One of the researchers involved, Syed Hasnain, of the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said studies indicate that the glaciers in the region could be gone by 2035. The Gangotri glacier, at the head of the Ganges, is receding at a rate of about 90ft a year.

Well.  Why does the IPCC cite the WWF and not the underlying study for the 2035 date?  Why does the IACS not have the underlying study on its website?  A possible answer to both questions is that Hasnain did not formally address that date question in the study he presented. 

Instead, in the course of Q&A with reporters or whomever he mentioned other studies, presumably the Kotlyakov study described by Dr. Khandekar, and muddled the dates.  The WWF relied on news reports, the IPCC chose to rely on the WWF (Willfully or not?  Make the call!) and here we are.  By way of support, the New Scientist piece dated as of June precedes the July presentation of the papers; the reporter may have seen a rough draft or simply chatted with Dr. Hasnain.

As to what Kotlyakov wrote, here we go, from a 1996 UNESCO report:

The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates— its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes.

From Nov 5 1999 we have the Christian Science Monitor; the Interpress Service had a story from May 13 which seemed to be a sneak preview of the upcoming Birmingham conference.  Both pick up on the 2035 date but give us no source.  Both also include this quote:

"Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world," according to a study by the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI). "If the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high."

I can't run that quote down to an original source.

If someone could find the paper cited by the WWF that would fortify the IPCC report from 2007.  Surely this is should be easy enough to verify, but I am out of ammunition.  Right now, all trails seem to lead to press reports, and the IPCC citation of a WWF paper ought to be a huge red flag.

Comments

[Old Lurker]

Not to worry, TM. They're on it:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Top White House science officials defended the validity of global warming research against repeated Republican attacks Wednesday that cited leaked e-mails from some climate researchers.
The e-mails from a British university's climate center were obtained by computer hackers and released last month. Climate change skeptics contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and suppressed data and stifled dissent.

At a Capitol Hill hearing, the president's science adviser and the chief of the agency in charge of climate research said the e-mails did nothing to undermine scientific consensus on climate change. Some Republicans said they showed a "culture of corruption" among scientists."

[DanG]

"The e-mails from a British university's climate center were obtained by computer hackers and released last month. Climate change skeptics contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and suppressed data and stifled dissent."

And they would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids.

Scooby-doo references aside, this is getting ridiculous. Seems to me the e-mails don't depend on "skeptics" to "contend" anything, they flat out show that the database used for much of the "science" behind climate change was virtually worthless. And as for whether hackers were behind the e-mail release I have doubts about that too.

How would a hacker know where to look for such damning detail? My office e-mail account handles thousands of messages every year. Over the time frame involved here, if someone was looking for trade secrets or something they would have to sift through all kinds of crap (forwarded jokes, messages to and from my wife and friends, the usual stuff you do with e-mail) to find the worthwhile messages. I think this was an inside job from a whistleblower who finally had enough.

[ROA]

I haven't been able to find the paper you referenced, but I did find the following which is very interesting. It claims that 50 percent of global warming is caused by non-CO2 pollutants.

Glaciers in the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau that feed the river systems of almost half the world's people are melting faster because of the effects of clouds of soot from diesel fumes and wood fires, according to scientists in India and China.

The results, to be announced this month in Kashmir, show for the first time that clouds of soot - made up of tiny particles of "black carbon" emitted from old diesel engines and from cooking with wood, crop waste or cow dung - are "unequivocally having an impact on glacial melting" in the Himalayas.

Scientists say that, while the threat of carbon dioxide to global warming has been accepted, soot from developing countries is a largely unappreciated cause of rising temperatures. Once the black carbon lands on glaciers, it absorbs sunlight that would otherwise be reflected by the snow, leading to melting. "This is a huge problem which we are ignoring," said Professor Syed Hasnain of the Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) in Delhi. "We are finding concentrations of black carbon in the Himalayas in what are supposed to be pristine, untouched environments."

The institute has set up two sensors in the Himalayas, one on the Kholai glacier that sits on the mountain range's western flank in Kashmir and the other flowing through the eastern reaches in Sikkim. Glaciers in this region feed most of the major rivers in Asia. The short-term result of substantial melting is severe flooding downstream.

Hasnain says India and China produce about a third of the world's black carbon, and both countries have been slow to act. "India is the worst. At least in China the state has moved to measure the problem. In Delhi no government agency has put any sensors on the ground. [Teri] is doing it by ourselves."

In August this year Yao Tandong, director of China's Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, projected "a 43% decrease in glacial area by 2070", adding that "more and more scientists have come to recognize the impact of black carbon in glacial melting".

Black carbon's role has only recently been recognized ��“ it was not mentioned as a factor in the United Nation's major 2007 report on climate change ��“ but this month the U.N. environment program called for cuts in black carbon output. In November it will publish a report stating that 50% of the emissions causing global warming are from non-CO2 pollutants.

Decreasing black carbon emissions should be a relatively cheap way to significantly curb global warming. Black carbon falls from the atmosphere after just a couple of weeks, and replacing primitive cooking stoves with modern versions that emit far less soot could quickly end the problem. Controlling traffic in the Himalayan region should help ease the harm done by emissions from diesel engines.

Both New Delhi and Beijing, say experts, have been reluctant to come forward with plans on black carbon because they do not want attention diverted from richer nations' responsibility to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

At a high-level forum on energy in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, rejected attempts to link black carbon to the efforts to reach an international agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Black carbon had no place in the Copenhagen negotiations towards a global pact on global warming, he said. "Black carbon is another issue. I know there is now a desire to bring the black carbon issue into the mainstream. I am simply not in favor of it."

LUN

[NK]

TM--

you really are the best. running down the back-up to this stuff for the rest of us is truly a public service.I started amateur climate study in 1976 when it was a section in my Physics I core requirement class. Back in the day global cooling was all the rage-- hey Newsweek had an article on it, so it had to be true! Things died down for a while until the North American heat wave in the summer of '80, then Jimmy Hansen at a 'thing' called the "Goddard Institute for Space Studies" at Columbia U. -- funded by NASA -- came up with his "tipping point" theory and Congressional testimony in 1988. Yep even back then Congressional Dems wanted carbon (i.e. BTU/Gasoline taxes).The rest is history. Billions of Dollars of grant money, the Enron Carbon Trading Scheme (and it is a SCHEME) and .2 degrees celius of warming later, here we are. You can't make this stuff up!

[Charlie (Colorado)]

You can call me "Charlie", Tom.

but you'ev pretty much replicated what I found.

Here's an interesting point: the WWF report mentioned it in this graf:

As discussed in the thematic introduction to this regional status review, there is particular concern at the alarming rate of retreat of Himalayan glaciers. In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high". Direct observation of a select few snout positions out of the thousands of Himalayan glaciers indicate that they have been in a general state of decline over, at least, the past 150 years.

Now, observe the next graf:

The prediction that "glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming" and that the flow of Himalayan rivers will "eventually diminish, resulting in widespread water shortages" (New Scientist 1999; 1999, 2003) is equally disturbing. In the context of India this spells bigger trouble for the 500 million inhabitants of the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra river basins, who rely on the perennial supply of melt-water from the Himalayas (Sharma 2001).

Notice that they cite New Scientist and Sharma's 2001 paper in parens. They don't indicate anything in the first graf.

The reason we can't find that article is that they didn't cite the damn thing.

So far, I haven't found anything that cites the 2035 date that doesn't eventually come back to either the WWF or New Scientist article.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Let it go without saying that if I had an undergrad student that had this central a fact for the argument with no citation, I would administer an appropriately-PC ass-kicking.

[Ignatz]

Here are three seperate pieces which shed some light on what is really happening over the whole region. Some of it cites the Indian scientists in Charlie's PJM article.

[Carlos]

Acording to Hasnain, as commented in the text, "A typical example is the Gangorti glacier at the head of the River Ganges, which is retreating at a rate of 30 metres per year.". It also says that "Hasnain's four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline. "

Given that this glacier is 30 km long, "at the present rate" it will take 1000 years to disappear. Assuming that the rate increases (what is usually assumed in this kind of predictions) I would guess that a 350 year period could be obtained, but 25 years corresponds to 40 times "the present rate".

Simply reading this and making that simple calculation, I guess that the blog is right and the "2035" prediction is just a typo.

And in fact most people tend to cite whatever study that says something without bothering to trace back the origin of the data (and it often happens that when you bother to do it, you discover a different value or, more often, a different context or meaning for that value)

[anduril]

So Boxer's reaction is: shoot the messengers.

[matt]

isn't traceability what it's all about in science?

And then those damn volcanoes come along and just mess the weather up all to hell. If they can't predict the weather in DC for Friday, what is to make us thing they're right about events 30 years out?

This is all about sloppy science in the Environmental Sciences for the past 40 years.

[matt]

and completely OT, but does anyone else find it astounding that it seems that Obama's social director is at the center of the gate crasher scandal and yet the Secret Service fell on their swords?

[Rocco]

Back in the day global cooling was all the rage

And after this warming hoax, how can we believe anything the scientific community proposes?

[centralcal]

Yeah, Matt, and she isn't going to show up for the hearing according to Baghdad Bob Gibbs, citing "executive privilege."

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

I think it astounding that the social director is refusing to testify, citing "executive privilege."

[anduril]

You've Come A Long Way, Bobby!

Let's hope he has better luck than Tiger.

[Neo]

He was caught in what social scientists call a cascade.

We like to think that people improve their judgment by putting their minds together, and sometimes they do. The studio audience at “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” usually votes for the right answer. But suppose, instead of the audience members voting silently in unison, they voted out loud one after another. And suppose the first person gets it wrong.

[Rick Ballard]

And after this warming hoax, how can we believe anything the scientific community proposes?

Rocco,

I tend to trust science where replication by independent researchers confirm the results obtained. I wouldn't trust a Climate Scientologist specializing in hiding data and shading results farther than .0000000000001 of an inch. I also wouldn't trust soothing words from a respected member of the NAS much more than twice that far, especially when it's revealed and admitted within hours that he really needed to buy a clue before opening his mouth.

Climate Scientology is a pretty ugly mixture of a quasi religious cult and politics with the aim of taxing air until we can't breathe. That's why the buffoon in the WH is such a big supporter. He just loves him some more taxes.

[Jim Miller]

FWIW, the snowfall on Mt Rainier has increased since the 1920s and 1930s. By volume, Mt. Rainier has about half of the glaciers of the Cascade volcanoes.

People often say that the glaciers here in the Pacific Northwest are shrinking -- and some are -- but the glaciers on Shasta are growing, the glacier on Mt. St Helens is growing (granted, a special case), and at least some of the glaciers on Mt. Rainier are growing.

(PS to Charlie (Colorado): I think you will like that snowfall graph. I was going to send it to you directly, but couldn't find your email address in a quick search.)

[Jane]

Boy now that is one heck of a made up privilege. Someone should contest that.

[anduril]

Has anyone linked to this, yet? Climategate- The "Harry Read Me" File? Gotta luv these lines:

“What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah- there is no ’supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )”

“You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes..."

“OH F— THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases.”

[centralcal]

Jane, Sara - someone is contesting it . . .

Rep. King, It's On

[Charlie (Colorado)]

And after this warming hoax, how can we believe anything the scientific community proposes?

The same way that you don't decide Tiger Woods' failings mean all marriage is irretrievably broken.

[centralcal]

my comment disappeared . . .

Jane, Sara, someone is contesting it.

Rep. King, It's On

[Extraneus]

larwyn got a hat tip from Ace, and Iowahawk is commenting manfully there on this topic.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Anduril, that would be the topic of my 24 November PJM piece.

[matt]

Bush used the same tactic when shielding Karl Rove from Congressional investigations, if you recall. Even then, it was questionable.

The difference is whether it is completely politically motivated or there is a legitimate underlying issue.In the Rove case, he was already being interviewed by Fitzgerald's office and it was simply a ruse to gain headlines.

To me, this time, it is about the good reputation of the Secret Service and uniformed protective service. There ain't no way no how that couple hoped a fence or scammed their way in. They were let in by someone having a word with someone.

This is just one more example of the Chicago style way Obama runs the Administration and the country.

Anyone for an AF 1 flyby?

[centralcal]

Matt, I am not sure I think the two (Rove v. Desiree Rogers) are comparable.

[Janet]

That Jon Stewart dumping on climategate video is making the rounds. I gotta say I am tired of giving him kudos for 1 or 2 funny lines while his whole show is mainly bashing conservatives. He even bashes Sen. Inhofe at the end of his spiel. God bless Sen. Inhofe for standing firm against this AGW nonsense when everyone else was blindly going along.

[centralcal]

Ditto what Janet said about Sen. Inhofe.

[Rick Ballard]

Iowahawk says:

But as is now becoming increasingly plain, y was constructed from an undocumented process that took raw ground station data and ran it through a black box that included smoothing, filtering, inference, manipulation, baling wire, glue and the juice of one whole lemon. This is what the CRU people are calling "valued added homogenized data." Or what normal people call "made up horseshit." It's also the temperature data that dozens, if not hundreds of AGW studies are based on.

He's missed a couple of important steps. Somewhere in the code there's an

IF date >1910 AND <1930 THEN subtract .2C from record

followed by

IF date >1978 AND <2015 THEN add .2C to record

That's the Hansen/Jones "adjustment algorithm" in a nutshell.

Jim M,

That's a very nice piece. I particularly liked "false precision" being used correctly. Are you quite sure that you're a journalist:)? You might enjoy E M Smith's blog. He's busy shredding the GHCN code and pointing out the add/subtract game I mention above.

[Pofarmer]

So, it's pretty obvious that somebody let the "party crashers" in. How did the "party crasher" meme get started? What's the big deal?

[MDr]

"... has cautiously concluded that it is premature to make a statement that the Himalayan glaciers are retreating abnormally because of global warming."

Is Dr. Khandekar in effect saying that the IPCC is making a premature prevarication?

[Extraneus]

And after this warming hoax, how can we believe anything the scientific community proposes?

As someone who used to be involved in a scientific community in which adversarial assessment was the accepted rule, which no one took as an affront, I'm torn as to whether this scandal calls all science into question. At any rate, the benefit of the doubt, especially on government funded research, is clearly not deserved and cannot be restored unless these people are all rooted out, exposed, and punished rather harshly. To an extent that would give serious pause to future scammers.

There's no way these fraudsters are isolated bad eggs. There are a lot of smart people out there who must have suspected, or even knew for sure, and didn't do anything but ride the gravy train. The whole edifice of "climate science" is now deserving of ridicule and scorn.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Just a data nodule, but some confirmation of the Shasta data: Last winter, the snowfall in my hometown, Erie, PA, was nearly 146 inches, only 3 inches short of the winter 2001-2002 record.

You don't have too many Erieites (or ex-Erieites) subscribing to the global warming scare.

[Jane]

Does Charlie have a single place where he is posting all his climate posts? I'm fighting with a jerk who says there was one incriminating email, that the entire scandal was based on. I can't argue it, but I could link to Charlie.

[Rick Ballard]

Jane,

Click on his name on any of the PJM articles and a page with all his pieces for PJM will pop up.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Jane, you can find all my PJM stuff here.

[Old Lurker]

Ext...ditto that.

Rick...nice Fortran code. Probably exactly what they did.

JR..."erieites"? Thought you moved to Atlanta to get out of the snow?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Oh, and Jane, that's talking point attempt #6 or 7, I've lost track — the "there's one email, taken out of context." I think the talking point answer is "so, you think subverting peer review, corrupting and misinterpreting the data, and committing multiple felonies is okay as long as the first hint was one email?"

[clarice]

Yes--and also look at this by Lord Monckton:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf>Climate scientology

[Old Lurker]

That's a great link, Clarice. Jump to the "What's to be done" conclusion at p38. Somebody posted it on JOM this morning but the site was jammed and it was hard to download. Seems much faster now.

[clarice]

Iowahawk is a business executive in Chicago but before that he was a hard science professor at a very prestigious univerosty. (And David Burge isn't his real name, either.)

[Jane]

Thanks guys. This is all way over my head but I'm dealing with the biggest climate dick I've ever met.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Thanks guys. This is all way over my head but I'm dealing with the biggest climate dick I've ever met.

And here I always heard size wasn't important.

All the PJM stuff, not just mine, can be found here.

[Extraneus]

Lord Monckton has been a voice in the wilderness for quite a while on this, and his pdf file is slick and very well done. He challenged L Ron Gore to a debate a few years ago, but Gore chickened out.

Btw, did anyone hear the 1992 Nightline debate on global warming between Gore and Rush Limbaugh? Rush ran some of it last week, and it was very entertaining. Rush was quite informed on the climate science claims, even then, and I thought he wiped the floor with Algore.

This was after the Earth In The Balance book and before Gore was the VP nominee.

[Extraneus]

Here's a transcript, and a fun retro pic of the debaters. Audio only available to 24/7 members.

[Extraneus]

ALGORE: We now face a global ecological crisis that is more serious than anything human civilization has ever faced

Heh. He had that line down even then.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

OL:

I did. but I can't help keeping up with all of the snow I'm now missing. I am definitely still in the "ex-Erieite" category -- at least for all months but June-August. There is a certain appeal to the Erie climate over Atlanta's during those months.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

So the Gore thing was 1992 — 17 years ago.

Did he happen to say anything about *when* the Catastrophe would come?

[Dave (in MA)]

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

Sure, you deniers keep pushing this nontroversy when the science is settled. Look at this WWF warming chart, which has NOT been debunked:

Fig. 1 WWF Pie chart

[Extraneus]

There was talk of us having 10 years, Charlie, which Algore didn't dispute, although he gave the rainforests "decades."

[Jim Miller]

Jane - You could get him one of these nifty coasters. You don't have to be great scientist to compare the predictions with the recent temperatures.

(Lucia has other items, with similar charts. And I should add that she, like me, thinks of herself as a "lukewarmist". Both of us have this odd idea that computer models that don't match real world data aren't especially useful for long-term predictions. But we don't reject the climate models all together.)

[Jim Miller]

Rick - Thanks. That was a fun post to do, and I was pleased with the way the graph came out. I may do a follow-up post or two, but like many others, I am definitely back-blogged.

(I've been reviewing stats from my grad school days, and learning a little of the R language so I can make decent charts.)

[Jane]

That's great Jim. Nice job. Sometimes around here I just feel, well, inferior as hell. (Then ----- comes along)

[Jack is Back!]

Copenhagen has not been kind to The Once and it won't again. He is so out of his depth but like every narcissist I have known does not believe that. Every time I see Axelrod and Gibbs, I wonder how the hell did we fall for this charade of competence and intellect?

P. T. Barnum is proud.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Please read this:

Feinstein & Durbin to Bloggers: No Shield For YOU!!

[Dave (in MA)]

JiB,
What you mean 'we', Kemo Sabe?

[matt]

central, that was my point. Now Rep. King has said the same thing. Executive privilege is a slippery slope nonetheless.

The summons to Rove was clearly meant as a street fighting political move, while there really is a question of judgment in the Rogers case. There's a cover up going on again.

Nonetheless, Bush did push executive privilege hard.

[Pofarmer]

Hey Jane.

I know what you are talking about. There is a poster on another blog who, I'm convinced, actually has let global warming take the place of religion. He can't be persuaded, can't be denied. He's still posting temperature graphs, oblivious to the fact that they are made using GISTEMP and HADCRUTs special sauce. I don't think you CAN convince some of these people.

[matt]

The Times (London) reports that James Hansen, the NASA ecokook who discovered global warming,is boycotting Copenhagen as a sham of a mockery of two shams. Gotta love it.

[JM Hanes]

Jim:

I wouldn't think of giving coasters to believers for Christmas either! Thanks for the reminder that McIntyre et all could use some financial support as well. Back in October, Lucia posted one of the best explanations of how hockey sticking works that I've run across -- something I really appreciated, as a total layman.

[clarice]

That is fun, matt..

[sbw]

Sara, we editorialized against the Shield Law. It's an opportunity for the Axelrods of the world to pull an Armitage and get away with it.

[Jane]

Po,

The guy I'm dealing with says he is a scientist and implies he is a climate scientist. I told him if he was smart he would lawyer up.

[MikeS]

If temperatures are not presently increasing though CO2 concentrations are, then some other factor is overriding any effect the increased CO2 has on the climate. That would mean that something else, other than CO2 is the prime driver of climate change.

Hmmm. I would have a hard time putting much faith in any climate expert who couldn't explain what that something else is.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Muchos abrazos, clarice, for your birthday!

(change of language to combat lack of html-ness)

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Hmmm. I would have a hard time putting much faith in any climate expert who couldn't explain what that something else is.

Mike, I don't think any "climate scientist" — I noticed that Pielke Sr carefully corrected that to "atmospheric scientist" in his bio for that interview — knows how to explain that. Some of them actually admit it.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Melinda, you want ç &ccedil; or Ç &Ccedil;.

Here's a great table of these things.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Chaco-

Newsbusters breaks out the fun at HuffPo, so you don't have to...

LUN.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Thanks Chaco, that's why I weinied out and dropped the Portuguese and went with another Iberian phrase used by my spouse's grandfather, the Latin one, not the Russian one (let's not talk about tempers please, that one might hear...)

[clarice]

Thanks, Mel. Jane, very funny!
What kind of guy calls himself a climate scientist and isn't driving a Ferrari?

[Melinda Romanoff]

and bookmarked, but I still have to learn the code, which is the only way I can remember the usage and the logic behind it.

Makes it stick, so to speak. I've programmed down to machine level, but it's been a long time. If I can get the keystroke logic, I'm all good. Just a matter of time, and I'm patient.

Thank you for the link, I'll keep it!

Did you get my map tool? LUN. It follows ships. Big ones. Like tankers and freighters, full AND empty.

[Pofarmer]

The guy I'm dealing with says he is a scientist and implies he is a climate scientist. I told him if he was smart he would lawyer up.

I've worked with scientists and researchers Jane. It takes all kinds, and some of them, frankly aren't all that bright. Some of them are good in their specialty, but otherwise? I had to get out of that world for my sanity.

[Joan of Argghh!]

2035 or 2350? Damn you, dyslexics! Your evil plan is wroking.

[DrJ]

Some of them are good in their specialty, but otherwise?

In German that is know as a "Fachidiot" -- a "subject idiot", or one who knows a lot about their area of specialization, but otherwise is without a clue.

The Goethe-Institut, in December 2006, claimed that it was the word that would most benefit the English language.

[JM Hanes]

Hi Joan! We met on the NRO cruise, and I'm delighted to see you again here.

[Ann]

This is so rich:

Barbara Boxer: “You call it Climategate — I Call it E-Mail-Theft-Gate” (Video)

Btw, someone needs to tell Bra Boxer not to wear such a heavy turtleneck to a sub committee on global warming. Ha!

Did she ever remark on the Democrat that hacked into Sarah Palin and her family's emails.

Yeah, I know Sarah Palin is the stupid one!

[bgates]

In German that is know as a "Fachidiot"....The Goethe-Institut, in December 2006, claimed that it was the word that would most benefit the English language.

We have that word, just with an 'n' after the 'h'.

[DrJ]

bgates, I assume that is a hard "c".

[bgates]

I assume that is a hard "c"

Depends on how much one has been drinking.

[Ignatz]

--We have that word, just with an 'n' after the 'h'--

Took me a minute but now I'm ROFL.

[clarice]

bgates is like that, ignatz..you've got to think quickly.

[Captain Hate]

Btw, someone needs to tell Bra Boxer not to wear such a heavy turtleneck to a sub committee on global warming. Ha!

Was the chimney-sweep outfit being cleaned?

[PD]

The same way that you don't decide Tiger Woods' failings mean all marriage is irretrievably broken.

Try telling that to sylvia.

[PD]

On second thought, don't.

[PD]

Did he happen to say anything about *when* the Catastrophe would come?

Well, yeah. In the future, sometime.

[JM Hanes]

After all the appropriate tautological testing, I'd like to submit a theory to this board for peer review:

HARRY_READ_ME.txt is the whistleblower

While the proposition cannot yet be falsified, I think it has the potential to transform the world of science as we know it.

[bunky]

Henninger is brilliant today.

[Pofarmer]

"Henninger is brilliant today"

I suppose if I knew where to find whatever this Henninger person wrote it would help to assess this supposed brilliance.

[Captain Hate]

LUN at your service Po

[clarice]

WSJ editorials, Po. He talks about hos this is a blow to science and how it reflects the fact that the post modernist dreck that's wrecked the rest of the academy has now taken over the hard sciences, too.

[clarice]

Whoever was the whistleblower,jmh, I find it odd that a few months ago Kim who argued all this day after day in thread after thread suddenly stopped posting under a single name (amking it harder to trace his/her poostings) and then vanished when the story exploded.

[Captain Hate]

The timing of that is unusual Clarice; plus in some back-and-forths it appeared she (he?) gave the concept of AGW slightly more credence than I did, which is easy to do because I consider it complete hokum.

[narciso]

Henninger, is always incisive and direct, if the likes of Dowd and Friedman can get Pulitzer's for their tripe, it stands to reason that he should. Of course, this is precisely the reason why he likely won't, unlike the Times Picayunem who got it for the terrible reporting they did during Katrina.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

2035 or 2350? Damn you, dyslexics! Your evil plan is wroking.

Winner.

Go add that comment to the PJ thread.

[anduril]

Obama's EPA directly implicated? Carlin at PJM today says broke long practice to use CRU/IPCC. Seems like a big deal to me.

[anduril]

Carlin: Climategate Will Now Hit the EPA is the link.

[Janet]

The WaPo insanity today - Page A8 top, 3 long columns, "As Emissions Increase, Carbon 'sinks' Get Clogged" by Juliet Eilperin (the reporter with the conflict of interest environmentalist husband).
and Page A13 bottom 1 short column, "Republicans Call for Halt to Climate Efforts" by the Los Angeles Times.

The hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil Washington Post is marching on, pretending there is no problem with AGW. Fools.

[daddy]

Geez,

I'm getting an Eco-kick out of Matt dealing with an Eco-kook and Jane dealing with an Eco-cock:)

[Janet]

JWF wonders if James Hansen is the leaker. LUN

...highly suspicious that none of the emails released incriminate him or his Goddard Institute.

Could it be?