It was hotter a million years ago.
So what?!?!?!
This whole issue is boring me to death, even considering how much leftists has humiliated themselves with it...

Rewriting history, thats not important is it?

Wow! It looks like they've found that missing 1/2 degree!!!

Does this mean that Al Gore has to give back the $100 million he reportedly earned flogging AIT ??

I see where NEWSREEK is trying to make the skeptics look like their uner the pay of certian buisnesses just like any left-wing liberal news rag but this is the news rag that brought up the fake story of the flushed koran FLUSH NEWSREEK

"I see where NEWSREEK is trying to make the skeptics look like their uner the pay of certian buisnesses just like any left-wing liberal news rag..."
What's wrong with Newsweek stating the truth? Don't you like facts?

Sir, is this the Newsweek article your talking about?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/

It's quite an interesting article, I look forward to hearing an insightful and responsive reply from you about the article in question.

As you can tell, I dislike to preview when I write...

Am I correct in saying that the adjusted numbers above do not take into account the poorly located stations - stations that have had their temperature reading integrity compromised by the encroachment of air-conditioning radiators and concrete or paved surfaces, etc. placed within close proximity of them in recent years (i.e. within the last 30 years)?

If so then it is quite possible that the years 1990, 1998, 1999, and 2006 should fall even further.

Something that I haven't heard discussed is the possibility that operator bias is impacting the readings in recent years now that Global Warming is in vogue. Are all of the stations collecting data now using electronic readers or are some (or many) of them still being read manually - i.e. with the human eye as I used to do it 20 years ago. It the latter method is still used then I think quite likely that the readers are favourably disposed to AGW theories and thus are likely to read 'high' (i.e. round up rather than down) when looking at the mercury miniscus.

Get bent, alby. Really. Once you're done your undergrad work you'll have a few years before mandatory retirement when you hope and dream you can make a few bucks off of global warming.

It's the truth. Don't you like facts?

Not so fast.
First of all this data is based on air temperatures taken on only 2% of the earth’s surface. Secondly, there is no doubt the 30s was a warm decade, but the numbers that are being quoted are made up of the relative average annual temps compared with the average of past recorded temps. Under these conditions it's not difficult to get the 1934 results showing an average temp increase of 1.24 deg average when of the previous 53 years of recorded temperatures, 32 of those years or 60% were below average. One only needs to look at the 5-year mean of .44 deg to see that 1934 wasn't anything exceptional.
The data used as stated above is nothing more than the usual cherry picking the data to acquire a desired outcome. Under these conditions, the warming becomes hidden in the averages, and even though it is being hidden, the warming is still there.
When we take a look at the years subsequent to 1934, we see that only 28 of those 72 years or 38% were below average temps. In the past 30 years we see that average below normal temps number drops to only 30%. It’s the decrease in below normal temp and the increase in above normal temp anomalies that indicate the earth is warming. What we need to look at is the global absolute average annual temperatures compared with historical global absolute average annual temperature readings to see the problem.
However these people try to cloud the issue by attempting to skew the facts, they can’t hide what is really happening to the earth. They can’t cloud issues like early springs or melting glaciers. Rising sea levels or more frequent el Ninos can’t be hidden in numbers. It’s real people, get used to it, the earth is warming up.

Get ready. The North Korean-style PR firm, employed by David Suzuki, which runs the absurd website, Desmogblog.com, will shrilly announce that they have "debunked" this story in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...

Take that you Global Warming denierafieralists.

The earth has had two ice ages....I assume we are still warming up from those and whatever else happened millions of years ago.

The BS that humans are causing the warming is based on self-centered human arrogance and apparently, incompetence on the part of government funded climate researchers.

Pollution and global climate change are two completely different issues. Is there too much pollution?, of course. Is the climate changing up and down and all around on the mother ship, sure. It always has and always will. Can we do a dam thing about it except hang on for the ride, I doubt it.

"Get bent, alby. Really. Once you're done your undergrad work you'll have a few years before mandatory retirement when you hope and dream you can make a few bucks off of global warming.

It's the truth. Don't you like facts?

Posted by: Yukon Gold at August 9, 2007 1:41 AM"

I'll have about 20 years to work, but really seeing that global warming is a fact, what is wrong with making it your livelihood by helping people to go green? If you know it's happening why not make money of of it? It's not a crime to make money off of global warming, but there is a big problem with investing large sums of cash trying to convince people a threat doesn't exist, when it does in order to get rich.

Did you catch this link?
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinktank.htm

If any conclusion at all can be drawn from the whole "global warming" fiasco, it's that jumping to conclusions based on limited or disputed data and ignoring scientific method in favor of ideological or moral fervor leads to ridicule and/or disaster. Reason and skepticism first.

I'me skeptical about this whole reason thing.

Syncro

Hey SDA'ers, what's it like being the willing victims of the denial machine? After all, the link between corporate funding and the anti-global warming punditry is real and well-documented. Nobody involved likes to talk about it, but they don't actually deny it either.

So, ExxonMobil pays scientists $10,000 to "discover" contrarian research evidence, which you then reflexively and uncritically gobble up like sheep. Don't you ever ask yourselves, "Hey, I wonder what ExxonMobil might have to gain from clouding the global warming issue in paralyzing uncertainty"?

How can you be so sure that you're on the side of truth? Because you always like what you hear from them? Shouldn't that tell you something?

Let the ad hominem replies begin!

Kinsella,your are pathetic.

h.ryan., your spelling sucks.

"If you know it's happening why not make money of of it? It's not a crime to make money off of global warming, but there is a big problem with investing large sums of cash trying to convince people a threat doesn't exist, when it does in order to get rich" At least the truth has spewed from the moonbat's keyboard. All of his posturing and diatribe is due to naked self interest. Any objectivity you might have had, is completely gone. Do us all a favor, and scoot over to the leftoid, pencil necked, trough wallower blogs.

kingstontard, so now you don't believe in free enterprise, entrepreneurship, (ethical) capitalism, etc.? What kind of conservative are you? What's your problem with, say, these kids?

Commerce based on lies is, well, you know, FRAUD!

Yeah, kingstontard, founding a company that helps provide clients with "green, alternative engineering solutions in an effort to make buildings more eco-friendly and energy efficient" is such a fraud. Because making energy consumption more efficient is a lie in that, what, it's not physically possible? Not a good idea in itself?

Saving money on energy is good. Lying about global warming is bad. I have spent over 20 grand in the last 3 years updating my buildings. It was done for financial reasons, with no government subsidies. Naked self interest, but in my case, without the trough wallowing.

Global Warming:

Fake, but true.

"So, ExxonMobil pays scientists $10,000 to "discover" contrarian research evidence"

So 10 grand can motivate a scientist to through away their scientific objectivity, and bow to the almight dollar, but the MILLIONS of dollars spent each year on global warming research can't?!

Ummmmmm...Smoke. Go check out fruitflies site and see who some of that foundation's sponsors are. Guess "Big Oil" wants it both ways!!

First of all this data is based on air temperatures taken on only 2% of the earth’s surface.

In the past 30 years we see that average below normal temps number drops to only 30%. It’s the decrease in below normal temp and the increase in above normal temp anomalies that indicate the earth is warming.

Err albatros39a make up your mind if the temps are too high the earth is warming and if they are low it's only 2%????

:)

And these above average years how many of them are near asphalt or air conditioners.

Fact is no one measures 100% of the earth because no one sits 100k west of Vancouver island measuring the temperature.

Satellite's do but somehow they were AWOL last time the IPCC went around shilling for handouts.

And Smoke, as you said at 4:37 AM "Let the ad hominem replies begin!" then 2 posts later you say "h.ryan., your spelling sucks.

Posted by: Smoke at August 9, 2007 5:51 AM "

Ummmmm....forgetting the "and Mirrors" after your nick?

Hmmmmmm back to the future part 2.

The climate record is rescued from leftbot revisionist propagandists and re established to conform with the general historic record.

I wondered how the heatwave/drought of the 30s that wiped out midwest farmers, suddenly took a back seat to the mid 80s heat wave which I lived through and obviously missed. ;-)

Well, Justthinkin, h.ryan. did in fact make a spelling error in his/her 4-word personal attack reply to my comment, so my reply isn't without merit.

Did you notice that immediately after I wrote "Let the ad hominem replies begin," h.ryan. called me pathetic? Did I call that or what?

Justthinkin: Ummmmmm...Smoke. Go check out fruitflies site and see who some of that foundation's sponsors are. Guess "Big Oil" wants it both ways!!

Corporations thrive by pursuing self-interests. Given current realities in which environmental issues are near the top of everyone's policy agendas, it's no surprise that they're hedging their bets, playing both fields, investing some money in alternative energy tech, green-washing, etc. It's not the corporate money that's a problem, it's what the recipient then does with it.

Think of it this way. Say Kate accepted a bag of cash from the LPC, and then tomorrow a post appeared on SDA musing on whether Dion might not be so bad after all. Doesn't look good, does it? Now say Kate accepted a bag of cash from the LPC, and then continued to say what she's been saying all along, that Dion would make a crap PM. Now doesn't that suggest integrity of one's convictions?

Ditto with taking Big Oil money and then saying that climate change is a sham and that the status quo is tickety-boo? Doesn't look good either, does it? But taking Bil Oil money and then continuing to say what you've been saying for the past two or three decades (even back when environmentalism was on nobody's radar), that Big Oil is a major contributor to the problem and must fundamentally change its core business practises? Doesn't that also suggest integrity of one's convictions?

"So, ExxonMobil pays scientists $10,000 to "discover" contrarian research evidence, which you then reflexively and uncritically gobble up like sheep."

The research evidence cited in this post is provided by GISS.

In the future, please read the posts before commenting on them.

Kudos to Steve for checking the data. Also, kudos to Hansen and the GISS team for accepting the correction and posting it so quickly.

WOW . . Global Cooling Hits California

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

DrWright: You said "Satellite's do but somehow they were AWOL last time the IPCC went around shilling for handouts."

This is not correct. The IPCC does use and reference the satellite data.

Regards,
John

Kate: The research evidence cited in this post is provided by GISS.

Ahh, but the subsequent interpretation of its significance (and the inevitable hyperbolic spin among bloggers -- "I knew it! Proof that climate change is a complete scam!!! I hate Gore! This is huge--HUUUUUUGGGE--I tells ya!!!") are not. Look for this to be rehashed without proper context at, say, the next FCPP-sponsored climate change conference.

It will be dimsissed as technical and small adjustment that doesnt effect the larger message of GW and the underlying cause of CO2

Thats how it will be spun....embrace and minimize.

There will be a quick reaction to this as well, as befits a well organized political machine, which at the end of the day all of this is.

They will find a proxy, not the putative leader, to go out and attack. It wont even be Hansen, who will play good cop on this, as it was his mistake.

This is high stakes my friends. This on its own does nothing other than force the AGW crowd to another plank. At some point someone will notice that they really are unable to make predictions that come true, use wonky data and are constatntly adjusting models.

At some point this will come crashing down. It may be the Chinese and Indians who do it. Previously they had incentive to agree because it would slow down US progress but now that theya re to be included, they will join the skeptic crowd in a big way.

Quite frankly the Chinese and Indians should work on pollution not CO2.

"Corporations thrive by pursuing self-interests"

Um - Smokey, sweetie - The Fruit Fly Guy and the Failed Presidential Candidate both have made MILLIONS off idiots like you who somehow think that what is happening today had NEVER happened before.

So who is pursuing their self-interests.

When you finally grow up and realize that you have been taken hook, line and sinker - come back and discuss things intelligently. Until then go blow "smoke" with all the other idiots who think that somehow the Climate, George Bush and Stephan Harper are the cause of all the bad in the world.

albatross - might I suggest, as you are working your way through your undergrad degree, that you take a course in logic and critical thinking. You need to know the difference between 'all' and 'some', and various informal fallacies such as false analogies.

Smoke - no-one is denying the reality of climate change. The universe and our planet are not static but dynamic and our planet has seen massive climate changes, including phases of cooling and warming. What many of us deny is AGW.

Such reductionism is 'bad science'. Furthermore, when the data base is so readily confronted and critiqued, one must come to the conclusion that the data base is insufficient and open to debate.

In my view, AGW is utterly and totally invalid as science; it exists in the West for two basic reasons. The first is the existencein the West and only in the West, of the cultural notion of 'human sin and guilt' that makes man responsible for evil. The second is the intellectual sophistry of the left of the West, filling smokey cafe-safe rants on the nirvana of communism, socialism.

So, the West has embraced AGW, a utopian idealogy that is grounded in this notion of human sin, coloured by an emotional threat of an apocalyptic finale, unless one recants, renounces one's sin - and, heh - moves into socialism and away from the Evil Satan of Private Big Business Corporations.

The script of AGW is so 'cheesy', it fits right in with a Hollywood thriller - and, Al Gore's Oscar shows this to us.

Pollution is a different issue - and, we can do a great deal to deal with pollution. It is, however, an uphill battle, as a great deal of pollution rests with the individual - and when one sees the litter left by all our 'climate caring population' as they wander through the streets or go to their climate conferences - one is aware of this dichotomy between 'idea' and 'action'.

But AGW? It's a Hollywood movie, not fact.

So Smoke....you ARE admitting you are Kinsella in drag...."Did you notice that immediately after I wrote "Let the ad hominem replies begin," h.ryan. called me pathetic? Did I call that or what?

Posted by: Smoke at August 9, 2007 8:47 AM "

If that's the case,you are more than pathetic. Afraid to use your true name here? Most of us here(not all I will admit) only tend to ad hominem when attacked. Why don't you go ask Cherniak why he figures the French is an ethinicity,instead of somebody from that country? Facts? What facts?

Smoke,

The government is pro-AGW. So does that mean the work of anyone who takes grant money from the government is biased and invalid?

Of course you don't think so. If the bias is yours, you don't think it biased.

Suzuki and Gore both have oil funding. Does that invalidate everything they say?

Of course you don't thinks so. You only accuse other of bias when they don't agree with you.

If money renders research invalid, you can throw out all research.

If oil money in particular is a problem, why do you put stock in Gore and Suzuki?

You seem not to see the hypocrisy of your stance and your attacks.

Further, the BS line you pulled out of your backside about all the "deniers" (and that's an ad hominem attack itself) all being the in the pocket of big oil and that being "fact" that is "well documented" is horsesh**.

What is well documented is the attacks from propagandist liars who slander anyone who dares question the cult's sacred global warming teachings. That many of the people who have been accused of being in the pocket of big oil have come out and said that they've never taken money from big oil doesn't seem to change the minds of zealots and liars. They continue their lies and continue their slander even though they know damn well that not all scientists who disagree with the cult are minions of Karl Rove and Exxon.

What IS well documented is the attacks, harassment, firings and academic oppression (including not hiring, denying tenure, denying grant money, etc.) to anyone who doesn't tow the GW party line. That a small percentage of GW sceptics resort to taking oil money to continue their research says more about the broken peer review system with it's dogmatic demands for conformity than it does about the scientists. It also says a lot about the bias and validity of the people who are pro-GW. The government funded scientists MUST be pro-GW or they lose their funding. But that doesn't bias their research. Right hypocrites? Oh, no! If government funding is only available to those who agree with the cult, that isn't proof of bias but proof the "system is working" in the minds of logically challenged leftards.

When the pro-GW set gets their heads out of their backsides and finally concedes that they were frauds and liars and propagandists and not scientists, I hope they go to jail for that fraud. Taking public money and lying to get it is a crime.

albatross:

Seems like you've missed the point.

"The data used as stated above is nothing more than the usual cherry picking the data to acquire a desired outcome."

If you actually read the post, you would notice the fact that data used to 'prove' global warming has had to be changed because of the audit of surface stations that don't meet the GISS requirements being included. If you go have a look at surfacestations.com you'll see all sorts of USHCN stations that are mounted over top charcoal barbecues, next to buildings, in asphalt parking lots and next to air conditioning compressors. What you should be getting out of the post is that another leg under the AGW argument is being knocked out because the air temperature data is being skewed by unscientific measurements.

"However these people try to cloud the issue by attempting to skew the facts, they can’t hide what is really happening to the earth. They can’t cloud issues like early springs or melting glaciers. Rising sea levels or more frequent el Ninos can’t be hidden in numbers. It’s real people, get used to it, the earth is warming up."

On this, perhaps you haven't been reading the news of late. The IPCC itself has admitted that the sea is not rising as much as they thought it would previously. If you dig a little deeper, all of your arguments have been recently refuted. The glaciers aren't melting as much as thought, Kilimanjaro glacier is melting because of local deforestation. Seems like the science is once again not backing up the AGW argument once again. Other evidence suggests that the heating and cooling of the earth has more to do with the solar cycles than it does carbon dioxide. Imagine that, the sun heating the earth, since Mars, Jupiter, Saturn all seem to have warming trends and have no coal fired power or SUVs perhaps the science isn't as settled as the global warming crowd is saying it is!

So universities, government, etc tend to fund pro GW scientists, and will pressure deniers. Oil companies are funding scientists both claiming, and denying CO2 GW.

Does this mean that evil corporations are more honest & balanced than government and universities? Uh oh. Heads might explode.

too bad billions will be wasted on this before the MSM dreams up the next scare. global cooling, nuclear winter, y2k , global warming,

the change focus and enemies from decade to decade sounds so much like the pronouncements of "1984" is actually frightening to think how prophetic the book was.

Heres a prophecy, in 10 years everyone will be driving cars, the highways will be in disrepair, health care will be underfunded (critics say) ,
eating too much will make you fat and there will still be government employees.

How much does it cost to put gubmint employee and millionaire Dave Suzuki's giant shaggy head on every single freakin billboard in Canada promoting solid science like "Remember, turn out the lights"?

That commie's everywhere.

One can only hope that the trough will be reduced enough so that by the time a certain moonbat graduates there is no slop left for him to wallow in. One thing I have noticed is that the majority of dr fruit fly's merry band of idiots have a vested interest in promoting the myth of global cooling/global warming/climate change. The majority of deniers, on the other hand, just want the government idiots off our backs.

other than the commercials paid for by you and I ,what has happened to Dr. Bono Suzuki, he doesnt go around on his megabus tour anymore?

can anyone go out to quadra island and get a picture of the "habitat for humility" that he lives in ? include the pulpit at the front where he preaches to the flock.

Dr. Fruitfly ? are you out there?

I know what we need to solve all this. A Royal Commission. They solve everything. Here is the best part. They time needed for committee selection, hearings, interpretation, reports etc. This will keep the politicians, bureaucrats and advocates busy for long time. Hopefully, long enough for the AGW skeptical scientists to produce more published work. They need time to catch up to the big central control type politicians and AGW profiteers.

Right now the AGW crowd are like high pressure sales shysters. A slick sales pitch but still a product of questionable quality.

Hmmm, so Smoke, can you explain why the ice caps on Mars are melting ?
,

Alberta Girl sez: "The Fruit Fly Guy and the Failed Presidential Candidate both have made MILLIONS off idiots like you who somehow think that what is happening today had NEVER happened before."

Yes self interest is front and center with the MMGW evangelists...We see Gore with massive wealth from his Occidental Petroleum associations and Moe Strong is a perennial energy patch profiteer who has investment in cola-fired Chinese industrialization as well as big investment in pushing the Chinese development of Iranian oil fields.

Then of course there is the fruitfly guy who soaks up money from petroleum giants.

Idealist dipwads like Smokey boy there live in some naive world that thinks the hard left is full of boy scouts and saints....get real.

Dr. Fruit Fly . . tainted by Big Oil Money.

Go figure.

CanuckInMI: you have made a number of specific statements, perhaps we could look at them one by one.

The IPCC itself has admitted that the sea is not rising as much as they thought it would previously

This may or may not be accurate depending on the values you use. If you could provide a reference we could determine if it is accurate or not.

Kilimanjaro glacier is melting because of local deforestation.

There is no peer-reviewed paper that supports this position. A news piece in Nature ran once looking at a proposal to wrap Kilimanjaro in a tarp to save it and that article mentioned deforestation as a possible cause, but the opinion backed up by nothing.

Mars, Jupiter, Saturn all seem to have warming trends

In regards to Mars, there are many explanations for this. Orbital mechanics seem to be the most likely. We can’t tell anything from Jupiter for the next 100 years and we are seeing less than an annual cycle in Saturn so we can’t say anything about it. But more importantly, we have seen no increase in solar output. A warming on all the bodies mentioned could be cause by an increase in solar radiation but it just is not happening.

Kate’s system doesn’t like too many links so I did not put any in, but if you would like to discuss them one by one I will supply the necessary references.

Regards,
John

Careful with Smokey there. A lawsuit for defaming his good name may be coming soon.

Appropos of nothing in particular, Chretien sucks.
enough

Mr. Smoke, Alby and the rest of you apologists. Instead of just blasting you like you deserve, I'm going to 'splain to you why it is you need blasted.

Here we have an on-going series of photographic evidence, which taken together indicates a serious scientific fraud in climatology. Like, nobody with a brain puts a thermometer next to an air conditioner condenser by -accident-. Therefore either all these site administrators have no brain, or something else is at work. Like fraud.

Us crazy Conservative types are saying, WTF is this?!!! Fraud? This bears further investigation, because if a fraud has been committed then all this global warming public policy is crap.

You, on the other hand, just hit the nitrous button on the global warming manure spreader. Far from wanting to look into it, you're wanting everyone to look -away-.

And that, my dear Mr. Smoke and company, is why you deserve every flame you get.

Kate's post is blowing the lid off of the AGW fraud. Big time !! Because of Chretien/Dion/Martin and their "advisers" Canada had a part in the scam.

The Trolls, especially Smoke (is it really WK ?) have gone ballistic. They tried to squash the thread early but became sda road kill when Kate reminded them that it was Hansen and the GISS themselves that admited their scam was exposed ---- another broken hockey stick.

I thank John Cross for graciously admiting at 9:06am that Hansen's books were, in effect, cooked.

I have no idea if Smoke is in fact WK, but someone like smoke could be fanatically upset by a couple of things this morning.

1) The great Liberal scam is dying. The great hope of Maurice Strong, Martin, Dion, Chretien to replenish Liberal coffers with Kyoto-credit $$s is a bust. And so gone is the hope of the hanger-ons' "careers".

2) Kate, of small town fame, and others, have won. Without the Internet, blogs and knowlegable commenters the Hansen/GISS/Mann/Dion/Chretien frauds would not have seen the light of day;

"And you think bloggers, sitting in their basements, with no education, no training as researchers, no money and no expertise are going to give you factual answers to those questions?"
Posted by: Mark Bourrie

Mark - I posted a quote that gave you an explicit example of the information firehose that is available to media, if they only would turn on the valve.

It's a template developed and proven effective by bloggers - and somehow you still didn't notice it before you wrote.

In other words, "It's the readers, stupid." Bloggers give their audience a voice. They open their pages to instant correction, revision, context, opinion, experience, eyewitness reports and technical expertise.

The audience has always had at their disposal knowledge, information and experience that outstrips the resources of the best funded MSM outlet by several orders of magnitude. Until the internet came along, the ability of that information to poke above the filter was minimal - if you were lucky, a heavily edited letter to the editor might appear. Or a small correction placed deep in the back pages.

Today, that's no longer the case, and it's one reason for the collapse of circulation. The people who once read a story and noted glaring errors of fact are now comparing notes with thousands of others, and coming to some pretty basic conclusions: the industry is deeply flawed. It is not a reliable source of information and often willfully devoid of context.

Until mainstream news realizes what has happened and makes the changes necessary to improve the quality of their product, more people will simply drift away and rely less and less on traditional reporting for their information. That's neither better or worse. It's a consequence of industry malpractice.

Posted by: Kate at August 2, 2007 12:21 PM

Has the Canadian media reported the GISS fraud yet ??

Actually, John Cross, there is a lot of data and analysis rejecting GW and Kilimnjaro. Check out Nature, Nov 24, 2003, for some comments by John Daly. And Braithwaite, in Progress in Physical Geography, 2002/26, pp 76-95. And James Taylor of Env't New, Feb 1, 2004. And Douglas Hardy, U of Mass at Amherst. You can google Kilimanjaro metling deforestation and come up with loads of scientific analysis.

I don't think that 'we could determine if it's accurate or not' - with regard to your rejection of the fact that seas are not rising as much as expected. 'We' - and that includes you - are not experts in this particular branch of science and are not, at the moment, involved in research in those areas. All we can do, is accept or not accept, based on our reasoning and logic, whether some data is 'sufficient' to convince us. But as to our ability to verify accuracy - no.

If the other planets are warming due to natural causes (orbital mechanics) then there is absolutely no scientific reason to exlude our planet from natural causes.

G&M; no AGW fraud yet --- Arar dominates.

Poll there --- most important item at Premiers' meet

GW 51%
Provicial trade 46%

John,

The problem is that politics has crept into the "science" of global warming. Peer reviewing means nothing when the so-called peers are trying to fit the facts into preconceived notions. AGW proponents tout interference by Bush lackeys interfering in science from US government organizations, but discount entirely that this may be push back to the religious zeal of AGW proponents.

Interesting that orbital mechanics can explain away Mars yet somehow not apply to earth.

Politics and religion has entered the debate. Gllobal warming is currently a faith based argument. When data is looked at, it has been falsified and manipulated. The numbers are simply not to be trusted. When questioned, instead of a debate, there ensues vilification and attacks.

Kyoto is a great example. The long and short of Kyoto is that the developed countries either have to lower greenhouse gas production or payoff China, Russia and India. Those countries have no reason to lower there production while at the same time their production has also dramatically increased. Deny Kyoto and you are now labbelled a "denier".
enough

CTV; no Hansen, GISS, Kyoto fruad yet.

More Arar, "killer" storm heading to China.

Alby has an amazing ability to completely miss the point - which is, serious errors in methodology have been uncovered that weaken the AGW argument. The timeframes mentioned are still short to come up with meaningful conclusions.

I understand Mann used proxies (tree rings) for his hockey stick, which were not a full representation of climate, but acceptable scientifically, except he mined for his data.

Frankly, I don't care, this is boring. A simple change of reference - get off fossil fuels, is all that's needed.

Put all that money given to AGW research to development of alternative energy sources, which will also eliminate CO2 emissions. Go after the real pollution and also mitigate possible climate change.

Nobody seems to want to do that. They'd rather argue about the number of angels on the head of a pin, or use AGW to support their agenda - world socialism, get rich, become next US president.

A side point: we're all subject to a bias known as "anchoring." What the term means is, we tend to seize upon a single data point as the base; we also measure changes with respect to it.

The winters back in the late 1970s and early 1980s were terribly cold where I lived - Toronto, to be specific. I actually remember delivering papers, early in the morning, in -40 degree weather. On Christmas Day 1980, I was so cold that I couldn't open the front door with my hands: I had to push the doorbell to get in.

Obviously, I would remember that day. Any winter that didn't feature such a cold day would strke me as comparatively warm.

Thus, because of this anchoring, I would see a winter that wasn't bitterly cold in some part of it as unusually warm. This anchoring has made me open to the claims of "global warming emergency" in a way that I wouldn't be had I been delivering papers in Toronto during (say) the 1950s, and/or had gotten used to 1950s winters as "normal" ones.

I suspect that this anchoring is why so many people my age (I'm 37), from similar regions, find the AGM case intuitively plausible.

CBC; no AGW fraud yet.

A spash about Mansbridge and his "informative" 'show' --- and more Arar.

Ok, I will throw my 2 cents in.

Global Warming vs. Global Cycle

Of course, as far as a Global Cycle is concerned, my theory has been and still is Planetary Alignment. Every century (give or take a few years) Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury all fall in the same eliptical plane opposite from the Earth's eliptical plane. Now that's a lot of magnetic power on display. You cannot have 5 of the 9 planets all in the Western Sky on the same eliptical plane diametrically opposed to Earth's position without somekind of dimensional compression * in the Earth's Orbit. Our Planets' orbit is directly proportional to the magnetic pull from the sun, and having 5 planets like ducks in a row in the opposite quadrant of our orbit every century is going to have a significant effect on our weather, like cooling and heating when you pull your hand away from the fire the 5 planets in orbital alignment pulls Earth closer and farther away from the sun, hence; A Global Cycle.

So, you see, it's not Global Warming, it is a Global Cycle, not caused by man, but God, seeing as how he built the solar system we live in, and seeing as how this is causing the Democrats and Liberals so much grieve he and his son must be smiling amongst the Stars.

,,,,, ;-)
,
*www.astropix.com

OT: Taliban Jack wants Chuck Strahl's fired
Off with his head i say, off with his head

Smoke, all the global warmers are in the pay of big government and big NGOs. They have received 2500 times more money than the so-called denialists.

Your post, and others here, demonstrate that when your cult is threatened, you will resort to heretic burning.

You disgust me.

Shamrock, nothing wrong with fossil fuels, or nuclear.

Governments should leave the money they spend on global warming in the pockets of the popualtion to do as they wish.

The elephant in the room that the blind left is constantly bumping into but can't see is that they will never get consensus on such a b.s. theory. Everyday, new evidence comes out to debunk AGW. Not only that, but fraudulent efforts to support AGW are being unmasked.

Perhaps the most serious problem is that the left is attempting to focus the world's attention on an unproven theory (hard to even call it theory, rather it's a political tactic), which is eclipsing real environmental problems that nations may all agree to solve.

That is criminal.

But then what would you expect from the left?

I hope that eventually, the leaders of this scam - perhaps modern history's greatest fraud - will be punished. And their names will be equated with such in perpetuity.

Smoke has read a lot of posts that he is incapable of crafting a retort to (as he is dead wrong) so he will abandon this thread and will pop up again somewhere else. Sort of like and insect.

Smoke is not Kinsella as Kinsella has far too big an ego to not take full credit for anything he says.

Let's just unplug the Sun; there must be a switch somewhere, and then see how long it takes before people figure out that the Sun is the true culprit of earth warming. Once the Al Gore's of the world figure that out and accept it as fact,.....could be awhile, they can commence their Global Freezing kick.

DrWright, actually they do. Satellites have been monitoruing atmospheric temperature gloablly for 30 years now and sees very little of the icnrease that the warmenizers say should be happening.

"heretic burning" would cause global warming, wouldn't it?

Any blame on "Big Oil" for pollution or carbon dioxide seems misplaced. If it wasn't for "Big Oil" providing us relatively clean oil and gas to burn, we'd have many more coal fired generators.

ET: I did not say that Kilimanjaro’s melting was being caused by global warming (a certain amount of it is, but that is a different argument). I was pointing out that there is no link between deforestation and the melting of Kilimanjaro. For example you reference John Daly in Nature, but in fact John Daly has never published in Nature and I cannot even find the Nov 24, 2003 issue (there is a Nov 20, and a Nov 27 but I can’t find the article in either of these).

In regards to Dr. Braithwaite, he does not even mention Kilimanjaro in his article, let alone deforestation. The George Taylor reference appears to be back to the same Nature article that can’t be found.

In regards to sea level rise, my analysis was going to very cursory and only related to the numbers.

Finally, orbital mechanics do affect the earth (hence ice ages) but they are in the correct phase to cause the current warming.

John

Then again this sounds like a Smoke :)

[Cherniak was nyah-nyahing me yesterday that he has 1,000 Facebook friends and I only have 700. My pithy response: I make way more money, Jason. And I live in a nicer neighbourhood.] WK musings

Can you believe anyone would put that on their website ??

Nuff. On to democracy-threatening items;

Can you imagine the headlines if Hansen would have changed his data to a '2003 now accompanies 1998' at the top ?? ----- Stop the presses !! WE ARE COOKED !!

But when lowly old 1934 is moved to the top ..... nothing. Pathetic.

A now the other shoe has dropped --- and our beloved Canadian press has so far ignored it. Even though a Canadian, Steve McIntyre, untied the laces.

[Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann's work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.]Lawrence Soloman, NP

Mann's work a fraud --- clunk !!
Hansen's work a fraud --- clunk !!

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

john cross - you most certainly did say that deforestation was not the cause of Kilimanjaro ice melting, by saying that there was no 'peer-reviewed link' - of which YOU are aware. That leaves AGW as the cause, by default - since you downplay other GW causes. My point is the scientific error of reductionism in reducing a complex system, such as climate, to one causal factor.

I suggested that you google the three words of Kiliminajro ice melting and deforestation. You'll find all the references.

Whether your sea level analysis was cursory or not, the point is - you can't claim any conclusion of accuracy - and yet, you clearly stated that this was your agenda.

I can only repeat, that my view is that AGW is not a scientific but a 'fictive' narrative. It rests on the longheld western cultural ideas about Human Sin based in individualism, and on the Apocalyptic results of Human behaviour. The tactic to absolve oneself of the horrific results of the sins of 'crass materialism' is, in this narrative, achieved by moving away from individualism into the utopian cloud dwelling realm of socialism, anti-capitalism, anti-individualism etc. That's the basis for AGW - and I reject this narrative for the fiction that it is.

Hey SDA'ers, what's it like being the willing victims of the denial machine? After all, the link between corporate funding and the anti-global warming punditry is real and well-documented. Nobody involved likes to talk about it, but they don't actually deny it either.
Posted by: Smoke
You mean like how Suzuki gets money from automaker then shills for hybrid cars?

http://no-libs.com/?p=1458

So well documented they usually refuse to post source data, then use things like smoothing that is undocumented in many cases, or how they put temperature sensors next to airconditioners?

How can you be so sure that you're on the side of truth? Because you always like what you hear from them? Shouldn't that tell you something?
Posted by: Smoke
Because someone who says they haven't found the truth is looking for it. Someone who says there is a consensus and the others are liars, is not of the same mold of Einstein, Bohr etc.

So lets look at the "Truth" suzuki says tens of thousands of species are going extinct get him to name 5 that have in Canada in the last 50 years.

John Cross, Wimpy Canadian

I understand they are active above us but were missing from the last IPCC report this year unless they released it in the details which I have yet to see.

If i'm wrong and they have put something out feel free to email.

maddinosaur [at] hotmail.com

I'm willing to be told I'm wrong. That's what science is about. Theories are made to be shattered.

PS I'm still waiting for my 10,000$ cheque.

"Hey SDA'ers, what's it like being the willing victims of the denial machine? After all, the link between corporate funding and the anti-global warming punditry is real and well-documented. Nobody involved likes to talk about it, but they don't actually deny it either.
Posted by: Smoke"

The above, by 'Smoke' is a good example of the logical Fallacy of Ignorance. That illogical assertion emerges when Smoke/Someone claims that if there isn't any evidence of X (corporate funding linked to the rejection of AGW)that means that it DOES exist. It's just that no-one is saying anything - either for or against it. So, the Fallacy of Ignorance rests on a claim of a Conspiracy of Silence. Neat. And fallacious.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13698

More kyoto kult lies

WC, there is something "wrong" with fossil fuels, though not in the morality play context ET refers to. What's wrong is the developing world, particularly India and China, will wreak ecological devastation if they continue to burn fossil fuels. If we give ourselves enough time, 50 years at least, to transition out of fossil fuels and make those fuels even cleaner in the meantime, we can get off fossil fuels eventually. Heck, even Nigeria, with vast oil reserves, could develop too, rather than the doctrinaire poor noble savage crap coming from the moonbats.

Problem - as ET points out, this is political science primarily (not from well meaning and thoughtful folks such as John Cross) by those who as Patrick Moore put it, want to put it to the man, to in essense destroy the oil industry and capitalism itself in the bargain. Punishing capitalists and imposing some world government socialism, like Kyoto, is their true goal. That is why Moore broke from Greenpeace.

DrWright: The IPCC AR4-WG1 document covers satellites. Section 3.4.1.2 is titled "The Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit Record" and gives a good review of the topic.

Regards,
John

et: your logic is a little faulty here. I did say that the melting was not caused by deforestation but that does not mean that I accept that it was caused by global warming. There are any number of factors that cause glaciers to lose mass. For example if they melt faster than snow can build up. This could be due to a precipitation decrease.

You are correct in one point, I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers that talk about deforestation as the cause of the reduction in Kilimanjaro.

John

John,

The precipitation decrease is thought (not proven) to be brought about by deforestation. They are one and the same as it refers to the theory regarding Kilimanjaro.

Shamrock: Thank you. By posting on here and having my views challenged by some thoughtful posts I tend to learn more than I would otherwise.

Regards,
John

Ironic headline alert:

Gore police confirm McIntyre to be charged

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/southlandtimes/4157766a6568.html

Rob. Huh?

Glaciers have been melting for eons; otherwise, the earth would still be covered in them. Change is good.

Who decides when the remaining glaciers should stop melting? Al Gore? Why do people follow such pin-heads.

Right, john cross. You said that YOU were not aware of any peer-reviewed papers linking Kilimanjaro and deforestation. That does not mean anything other than your statement about yourself. It does not mean that such papers do not exist; it does not mean that such might not be ONE cause in the deglaciation. All it means - is that YOU aren't aware of any such papers. Period.

I think one has to be aware of that fascinating fallacy of 'ignorance'.

Fabulous! Now this is real ammo to fight Peel region's fraudulent water rate increase... It will be hard for them to dispute NASA information.

Well the story has nothing to do with Al Gore or Steve McIntyre, but I'm sure if the Goracle had a police force at his disposal, McIntyre's act of blasphemy would surley be cause for his arrest.

Didn't the devout lose the argument when they morphed AGW into climate change?

Where is Gore? In Singapore.
Here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/al_gore_slings_bogus_borrowed.html

Scientific American and New Scientist both have articles this month on AGW and climate change.

I notice their articles haven't appeared here yet. Too scientific?

You are, "anon" - like everyone else - welcome to use Reader Tips for your suggested links any time you like.

...keep up the good work Kate.

Anon,

New Sensationalist magazine has lost readershiup due to it's hysterical enviro-mentalist editorial stance.

I refuse to be drawn into the dueling studies vortex. For every study supporting global warming there's another refuting it, each smeared with accusations of being tainted by vested interests.

Global warming isn't about science or the environment, it's about politics, money and power. Socialists invented the global warming myth to gain yet more control over free enterprise and peoples lives, thereby empowering and enriching themselves. They’re always doing that.

Sincere congratulations to Torontonian Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and also to Anthony Watts (www.surfacestations.org) whose work in progress will have further repercussions in the months to come.

Note that Mr McIntyre was also instrumental in debunking the "hockey stick" that the IPCC and Gore believe implicitly and which was instrumental in creating the prevailing AGW hysteria.

Let's be very clear - noone disputes the fact that climate changes and that there has been a modest (as of today - about 0.5°C ± 0.25°C) increase in annual average global temperature over the past 100 years.

There is also no disputing that sea levels have continued to rise infinitesimally since the little ice age (but appear to be pretty stable right now - references can be made available).

As an engineer involved in the planning and development of hydroelectric projects for more than 40 years, it has been a fundamental part of my job to study, understnd and apply climate change data. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the so-called "extreme" weather occurrences reported recently are out of the ordinary (all can be confirmed as having recurrence intervals of less than 1 in 500 years).

Us skeptics do not say that there is no human-induced component of the modest amount of warming that is occurring. We do, however, request transparency and adherence to accepted scientific processes before panic-struck politicians take action that will create chaos, confusion and widespread suffering.

We are already seeing the negative impact on availability of cheap food supplies to the poor of the world as a result to of the rush to use farm produce to produce "bio-fuels".

Anon, you remember the Scientific American issue length slash-and-burn job on Bjorn Lomborg a few years ago?

That's why nobody here mentions them. They are biased, to put it mildly. If half the weather stations in the USA are bent, the last place on Earth you are going to read about it is Scientific America.

Besides, Sci Am has gone down hill rather badly the last ten years. I stopped my subscription when they took all the math out of the articles.

Smoke: your newspaper articles suck.

Incidentally, straying slightly from the topic, do y'all remember the "Adapt or Die" thread from a couple days ago, where-in Mr. Smoke (aka Warren Kinsella? He's a lot dumber than I thought he'd be)took me to task for saying I treat SDA as a news source?

Perfect case in point here. How long from today will we wait until the MSM reports widespread jiggering of temperature records?

Well, Mr. Smoke? Albatross? Any guesses? Am I still a fool for fact checking the MSM from blogs and web sites, or possibly not so much?

Kate, its times like these when I really hate that no swearing rule of yours. ~:D

Anyone who really feels guilty about burning fossil fuels can send me money and I will send you agenuine Texas Canuck Carbon Credit certificate, suitable for framing or wrapping fish.

BTW, the real major cause of climate change is that big burning thing 93,000,000 miles away.

John Cross, a (non snarky) question for you sir. How difficult would it be for a motivated group to bias, mis-report or otherwise screw with the earth monitoring satellite temperature data?

As I recall from previous conversations, the satellite data roughly corresponds to the earth stations. Given that the earth stations have been systematically jimmied, how trustworthy are those satellite readings?

Better yet, how would one check?

Phantom: I think that you are giving smoke too much credit.By backing the Lieberals speaks volumes about his level of grey matter.

A little late to the party but here are my 2 cents, Leftoids blame big oil for everything that is wrong in "their" world. "Big oil must be stopped!" But if they got their way how would they get to their Global Warming love ins and stuff? How would they heat their homes?
Leftoids lack of logic is suicidal. Cause and effect means nothing to them.
Now if all our efforts are redirected to say reducing pollution then we could get somewhere but the leftoids may actually have to do something. Playing the blame game is all they are prepared to do. If they had to stop driving one day a week or turn their furnace down a degree or two then we are asking too much.
It's not up to the government to fix it all, we must do our part in partnership with the government to be successful.

I have tried on occasion to get background information on funding sources for various environmental groups. Many are indeed well funded. All of those protests at events such as the various international meetings, video's, Web sites , "studies", etc. are well planned and centrally executed from a constellation of well managed funding sources. I have tried to determine the degree to which these funding sources can be tracked back to the U.N., and often there is someone -- member of a board or whatever -- who does indeed seem to have career ties to the U.N. There are also sometimes fairly innocuous seeming funders -- corporations, for example, who have a particular interest in the environment. What I have determined is that there is a central driver of the global warming agenda, and that it is the U.N. Beyond this, there are innocent people who are pulled in because of their influence and personal credibility. They are often "flattered" to be invited to participate and seem willing to lend their names and sometimes dollars to support this "good cause".
I have seen this strategy at work on a smaller scale. A "wheeler-dealer" in the education world created an association of education professionals (I won't say which one.) Many people across Canada were invited to join -- probably small fee, but the school boards would pay, so no problem. And it would be a chance to network with your counterparts. Who wouldn't join? There was a "board" which met once a year and they were wined and dined. Who would not be complimented at the prospect of being asked to sit on such a board? Anyway -- to make a long story short -- The guy who started this organization was simply a scam artist . . . making tons of money for himself with little accountability. He used the fact that he was the "director" of this association to get government contracts and other perks. Because most people are naive and take things at face value, they are easily duped into supporting causes such as "global warming", Kyoto . . . in particular because of the way it has all been cast to look like support for the environment. The whole Kyoto/global warming scam is being controlled by a few people who know how to manipulate others. They know how to gather networks of people around them, and they know how to use those networks. Unfortunately, the media has made very little effort to find out what really is going on. I doubt we'll see much press around the Steve McIntyre finding because I think that the media also has been bought -- maybe not with dollars, but they have sold out ethically and are no longer seekers of truth.

h.ryan, historically speaking backing the Liberals to win hasn't gone wrong too often in this country. If you're a sycophantic type with no salable skills and a strong stomach, there's still money in shilling for them.

Personally I don't need money that bad. Besides I'm pretty sure I couldn't say most of the crap Smoke says with a straight face. I'd be overwhelmed by giggles on live TV every time.

Warwick: Smoke has read a lot of posts that he is incapable of crafting a retort to (as he is dead wrong) so he will abandon this thread and will pop up again somewhere else.

No, I just had better things to do this evening than to hover around SDA.

The Phantom: Incidentally, straying slightly from the topic, do y'all remember the "Adapt or Die" thread from a couple days ago, where-in Mr. Smoke (aka Warren Kinsella? He's a lot dumber than I thought he'd be) took me to task for saying I treat SDA as a news source?

And it would still be foolish to treat SDA as an impartial new source. Tell me, Mr. Phantom, just how significant do you think this GISS readjustment is? Bumping 1998 down from "hottest year ever!" to "second hottest year ever!" (only within the US, incidentally, not globally) is, for you, prima facie proof that AGW is bogus? At least be honest with yourself -- you read SDA to confirm your opinions, not to form them.

I'm not disputing the new GISS data; nobody is. What's interesting for me is the (entirely predictable) response among SDA readers here, the same response that occurs with every "Sound of Settled Science" post: that this -- THIS -- will be the stake in the AGW heart (oh please, God, let it be so). Your position on the issue appears as inflexible as that of the Y2Kyoto cultists you mock; in that sense, you share quite a bit in common with your self-declared enemies -- equally partisan, equally ideological.

And who's Warren Kinsella?

jlc at August 9, 2007 4:48 PM
Thanks for your excellent, authoritative post.

Smoke:

Are you, by chance, posting from a barge on the Okanagan?

Skeptical Inquirer has also joined the AGW bandwagon. They came out with a "position paper" that took them 2 issues to lay out. And here I thought that "position papers" were what political parties dream up.

Pretty disappointing from the magazine that was one of the first to question the recovered memory movement.

Death to the unbelievers
Death to the deniers
Death to the questioners
Death to the enemies of Al Gore and the fruit-fly guy
Death to the Skeptics ... oh, wait a minute.

Hmmm, I better write a letter to the editor.

Phantom,

I'm not sure I understand your post but ...

the satellite data measures global atmospheric temperatures at higher altitudes, where the anthropogenic global warming theorists say most heating should occur; however, the 30 years of observation have shown little, if any, warming.

The surface temperature is what is being used to drive this hysteria and these are clearly wanting, in quality as well as quantity - they do not cover the oceans.

Ah Mr. Smoke, back and dodging shrapnel like a pro.

SDA is not an impartial news source. Never pretended to be. Kate's very biased toward posting things that are true.

I balance her truthfulness against the Toronto (Red) Star. I figure out from the difference between the two what the Star doesn't want me thinking about, then I research it in depth. Like gun control or in the present case, AGW.

I could care less about the GISS "readjustment", the fact of the matter is that the data gathering for American climatology (and probably ours too) has been systematically bent.

This is the glaring fact that seems to be escaping you sir, they F$%^ING LIED. You can adjust a dog turd as much as you like, it will remain a turd. I trust the new figures no farther than the old ones.

However, as you have ascertained this information is confirmatory for me, not revelatory. My doubt of the whole AGW scam is due almost entirely to who its supporters are and how they behave. They weasel, fabricate, misdirect, distract and dis-inform.

Yourself, for example. You're a veritable template for the type. Evidence of scientific fraud on a grand scale, and here you are number one man on the manure spreader. The MSM is filled with guys just like you, selling me AGW just as hard as they possibly can.

Sorry dude, that's one used car I'm taking to the mechanic before I buy.

Wimpy, my question is:

A) How hard would it be to bias the satellite data the way they've biased the ground data, and

B) Given that we can't drive over and poke at the satellite, is there a way to find out if they've been biased?

Call me paranoid, but one set of widespread fraud makes one wonder if there are others. Kinda like Adscam.

Phantom, there has been blood let over the satellite data, which DO NOT support the AGW CONSENSUS.

There are many attempts to bias the data, so far not by a large enough percentage.

Funny, that's what I said to John Cross. ~:D

So there's no agreement and no gold standard space based measurement is there, just conflicting data? How delightful. If we could go up and check each one, I wonder how many would be measuring hotter on purpose?

So Wimpy, do we have any satellites pointing at the sun and taking solar flux readings directly, or is that inferred from other things? Mars is melting, and it ain't no AGW up there.

A bladeless hockey stick ... we're playing ringette with our children's future.

ABOUT THAT RECORD HOT SUMMER OF 1934:

Some 1934 tangential historical trivia, from what I've read and what I learned from my late Dad:

Up until 1934, it was the custom all over N America, enforced by laws and strong custom in most locales, that men wore bathing suits with tops, generally the sleeveless T type. (I have copies of a couple of photos of my Dad as a very young man wearing one of those type suits. They do look pretty ridiculous and uncomfortable.)

The summer of 1934 was SO hot, especially all up and down the N. American eastern seaboard, that daring men started taking off their bathing suit tops at beaches, lakesides, etc.

At first on most urban beaches, the police tried to stop that trend by actually arresting those men for indecent exposure. Finally at the height of the extreme heat in that summer, the trend became far too widespread, with far too many men taking off their tops, for the police to be able to stop the trend any more.

So the record hot summer of 1934 gets the credit for men being able to ditch those ridiculous tank top suits. (That bit of history also gives a somewhat different perspective on ladies choosing to go topless at beaches, lakeside, etc. To each his OR her own, eh?!)

Wimpy Canadian: The satellites show warming that is the same or greater than the land warming (there are several different people looking at the data).

Phantom: I would suspect that it would actually be quite hard to do in general in science. However in this case I would say impossible. One of the records is created by Spencer and Christy who have done good work with the satellite data but are very much in the "skeptic" camp.

Regards,
John

Do what John? Bend the data, or check to see if its bent?

Seems to me a satellite just reports what its set up to measure. If its set up wrong, can this be checked from the ground or do we just have to take somebody's word for it that the data's good?

You know, take a reference measurement?

"the same or greater than the land warming"

You better recheck that statement John.

"So, ExxonMobil pays scientists $10,000 to "discover" contrarian research evidence, which you then reflexively and uncritically gobble up like sheep. Don't you ever ask yourselves, "Hey, I wonder what ExxonMobil might have to gain from clouding the global warming issue in paralyzing uncertainty?"

No matter where the funding is coming from it will be FACTS that win in the end. The oil companies may have more of an interest in proving AGW false but that doesn't mean they will be just making facts up, just that they will be looking more criticly at the evidence. The basis of finding truth in anything is having opposed sides debating until all facts are out and nothing is left but the truth. This is the basis of our court system and democracy. What the pro AGW crowd is doing amounts to having a murder trial where only the prosecutor is allowed in the courtroom, the judge is his brother and the jury all only get paid if they find the defendant guilty. Would you think that the facts of the case would come out correctly? The point of this article was that NASA was wrong, they screwed up the data on temperatures that really made a big difference. This is good news are prooves that we maybe aren't as bad off as we thought. We should ALL be happy about this. If it wasn't for "deniers" it may never have been found and corrected. Deniers have their place in keeping a balance to the science no matter who they are or who is funding them. In the end the truth will come out based on the facts not where the funding came from.
BTW it just occured to me that pro global warming people seem to desperatly want AGW to be true. Wouldn't it be a lot better if we found out that it wasn't true and we could get on with our lives and not spend billions changing things and disrupting our lives ? If we could find conclusive proof that AGW wasn't happening wouldn't that be a huge relief? I'd pay $10 000 to try and find evidence that we aren't going to die before I'd pay someone to prove that we are.

I seem to remember someone claiming that the seas will rise up and gobble large swaths of "our kids" land, as I wisked through the veritable plethora of comments above (Jefe, what is a plethora?)
I want to reassure our more spineless liberal type that ocean rise, much like global warming itself, is not in evidence. You have nothing to fear.
"Why, El Guapo?" you might ask.
Because there is a famous American monument that happened to be situated at exactly sea level in the year 1620, which is still exactly at sea level today in the year 2007.
Let's review a few climate facts before I reveal the provinance of my claim.
In 1620 the world was deep into what has become known as the "little ice age" which culminated in it's coldest period around 1700,(2 to 4 degrees F colder that 1950 globally) and ended in the 1850's. In 1622 the Bosphorus or the Straits of Istanbul froze. Iceland was surrounded by pack ice which extended for miles and all of its ports were cut off in that manner. Lake Superior was regularly icebound into June.
Fair to say that the oceans would have been at record low levels with all that water locked up in ice caps and such.
And yet in 1620 William Bradford took his first step into the New World on Plymouth Rock.
Plymouth Rock is still there preserved as a historical monument, and it is still at sea level now, 387 years and one big whopping climate change later.

So relax. The ocean hasn't risen. Not even a smidge.

I'll credit Steven Mosher at Roger Pielke Sr.'s Climate Science for this bit,

"Typically, if you trust your work and keep good records and follow the method, you have no issue sharing your stuff with people, whatever their qualifications.

So, when you you do a proper job you respond thusly:

Here is the data collection code. Check it.
Here is the raw data. Check it.
Here is the code I used to adjust, select, normalize the data. Check it.
Here is my adjusted data. Check it.
Here are my methods and results. check them.

If you find mistakes I will be grateful to learn from you and correct my error."

TJS: "The oil companies may have more of an interest in proving AGW false ..."

What interest? If I'm an oil I'm cheering for AGW ... more profit less production. If your thinking about a mobile energy, what even comes close to gas for bang for the buck? Double or triple the prices with half or third costs ... an accountants dream.

Phantom: I meant that it would be hard to change the data. Just a guess, I really don't know how the data is handeled. Without checking so I stand to be corrected, the current satellites have an on-board reference system. Also, keep in mind it is the trend we are interested in, not the absolute value.

Robert in Calgary: I am happy with my statement.

Regards,
John

John Cross: "Also, keep in mind it is the trend we are interested in, not the absolute value."

So you guys can figure out "trends" without absolute values? I bow to you, your models, your data and your peer reviewed articles. You win.

You may be right Ural but in the short term it's the oil companies that are being made out to be the bad guys in this (even though it's all of us that burns the stuff). I'm sure in the short term at least they wouldn't mind proving that they haven't damaged the planet as much as people are saying. In the long term they would actualy make more profit when gas is rationed and the price raised to $5 / liter. Wouldn't it be a crazy ironic twist if it was actualy the oil companies behind the whole thing?

et: Well, I do tend to post based on what I know instead of making things up out of thin air. If this is the "fallacy of 'ignorance'." then, yes, I am guilty of it.

As you pointed out, all I am saying is that I am not aware of any. However you then posted several that you claimed did provide that link. Guess what, after reading through some I still am not aware of any.

John

I'm all for global warming.

Once it gets warmer, then we'll have to burn less fuel to heat our houses.

Since we are emerging from an ice age, does it not follow that temperature is rising?

Nice guess, Sherlock.

I seem to remember someone claiming that the seas will rise up and gobble large swaths of "our kids" land

Oh yes, the "think of the children" appeal.

That's a convenient emotional trick that quite often results in adults that fall for it being treated like children themselves by their own government/caregivers.

It's also effective and shameful scaremongering directed towards those not yet old enough to have critical thinking skills. "Mommy, you didn't recycle my juice box, why do you want to kill the planet?".

John Cross, the reason I asked was to get at the guts of the satellite data collection.

If the satellites broadcast their data unencrypted then many observers can keep duplicate databases, ensuring agreement. If there's one gatekeeper though, then you have to take his word for it.

Even if the instrument broadcasts unencrypted the instrument itself can be biased as we see with the ground stations. Multiple instruments from unrelated researchers using a variety of techniques to gather the measurements will check for that.

But we don't have that, at a guess. My nasty paranoid mind is guessing we have the worst of all worlds, an encrypted satellite with data being distributed from a single source plus a bunch of other, older satellites not really designed for the job but pressed into service.

You know, I'd really like to be wrong about that. It would be soooo nice to be able to take people's word for it on this issue, but I just can't do it. Too many cheaters.

I hate cheaters. Pox on the lot of them.

After 134 or so comments I guess pretty much anything additional is going to be redundant!
BUT I have to say that I found that bit about the Y2K bug in the computer data to be really good for a chuckle.

And just for good measure.... What the frack is Phantom talking about?

I guess we all can be thankful that Mann and Hansen don't design bridges.

I want to send my thanks to all the thoughtful environmentalists out there for making my life so much easier and better.

As you save and conserve, and keep the price of gasoline down, I can happily pump more and more of the stuff into my SUV at a reasonable price so that I can take my typical weekend driving trips of 200-300 kms; not counting my 6000+ km trips when I am really tripping.

Thanks too for using those ridiculous light bulbs so that I can keep using the warm and pleasant light from my halogen lamps or regular light bulbs. Your efforts are keeping the price of electricity down to a level where I can afford all I want.

Keep up the good work! Don't stop your fight to end global warming! When I'm in my back yard burning through a cord of two of firewood in my firepit I'll be thinking of you!

Just talking about some of that technical stuff OMMAG. You know, the complicated things that the MSM protects us from 'cause we're too dumb to unnerstand?

I wondered if the satellite data was recorded as well as the ground stations next to the two air conditioners do it. Consensus seems to be, we dunno.

Lot of that going around, eh?

TJS: No matter where the funding is coming from it will be FACTS that win in the end. The oil companies may have more of an interest in proving AGW false but that doesn't mean they will be just making facts up, just that they will be looking more criticly at the evidence. The basis of finding truth in anything is having opposed sides debating until all facts are out and nothing is left but the truth. This is the basis of our court system and democracy.

Yes, that's how it works in La-La-Land. In the real world, "truth" is perpetually contested, and "evidence" is more often used to justify rather than inform policies involving the distribution of power, money, and other resources (i.e., politics).

Also, "they'll just look more critically at the evidence"!? Are you kidding? In the real world, companies very much will "just make facts up." Do you not understand the stakes involved here, the sheer amount of money and power up for grabs in the energy sector? Energy is the number one long-term national security (and hence, foreign policy) interest in the world at the moment. There is literally a race between key power nations -- US, Russia, China, India, etc. -- to tap remaining oil reserves. The real levers of power don't care about "facts"; they care about access and control. Global warming is a potential threat only insofar as the policy implications involved may subvert their manoeuvreability as players the global energy market. Under such conditions, corporations still won't lie? That's a good one.

OMMAG: And just for good measure.... What the frack is Phantom talking about?

Socialists in space, messing with the satellite data.

The Phantom: I balance her truthfulness against the Toronto (Red) Star. I figure out from the difference between the two what the Star doesn't want me thinking about, then I research it in depth.

You read the Toronto Star!? Even I don't read that commie rag. And your "in-depth research" on potential satellite data-rigging appears to consist of asking wimpy canadian what he thinks. Impressive.

John Cross: However you then posted several that you claimed did provide that link. Guess what, after reading through some I still am not aware of any.

Oh, don't mind ET, her own research on this is literally two google-links deep. She searched "Kilimanjaro melting deforestation" and basically cribbed her entire reading list (without first reading the primary sources herself) straight from the second hit, a piece by the "skeptical" Heartland Institute (it's why she couldn't provide you with issue numbers -- the Heartland article didn't mention them). She's a funny lady.

LindaL:

"What I have determined is that there is a central driver of the global warming agenda, and that it is the U.N."

The "It" is the evil genius, Canadian Maurice Strong, and his congregation. If Strong was not real, he would have to be invented. Mo is a one-worlder; the AGW is the vehicle/cover for his mad dreams of world hegemony. Start here:

The U.N.'s Ten Commandments

Integrating the Earth Charter into Curriculum. [Billionaires are setting the agenda for the world population][...]

Canadian billionaire socialist Maurice Strong, who presided over the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, is somewhat less tentative. "The real goal of the Earth Charter," said Strong, "is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments." (Emphasis added.) Mr. Strong had high hopes that the Charter, conceived in 1987, would be adopted by the world at Rio. Alas, there were too many other messianic projects on Gaia’s burners at that confab. Gaia, the Greek goddess of Earth, has become the supreme deity in the green theology of the militant environmentalists.

In his opening address to the Rio summit, Strong directed the world’s attention to the "Declaration of the Sacred Earth," which was part of the pre-Summit ceremonies. "The changes in behavior and direction called for here," said Strong, "must be rooted in our deepest spiritual, moral, and ethical values." According to the declaration, "The [ecological] crisis transcends all national, religious, cultural, social, political and economic boundaries." "The responsibility of each human being today is to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light," Strong exhorted. "We must therefore transform our attitudes and values, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature." ...-
http://www.cephas-library.com/nwo/nwo_uns_ten_commandments.html

Still alive there eh Mr. Smoke?

Like ET I have other areas of expertise and other interests than climatology. You want to be impressed, go to the dry cleaners. Ask to use the shirt machine.

Should I decide I really want to pursue this, where oh where shall I go? New York Times science page? Blob & Snail perhaps? Or maybe I could just drop in at Climate Audit after the DOS attack stops and ask those guys! I bet they know, or know who to ask at least. I can avoid hours of tedious library lurking by asking people what the relevant papers are. Kewl! Love that Interweb thingy.

Where I wonder did I first see Climate Audit mentioned Mr. Smoke? Could it be... Kate's?

Your argument is baseless drivel sir. QED.

I should add, Mr. Smoke sir, that a picture of an official government thermometer standing on an asphalt driveway between two air conditioners is worth a thousand climate models.

I think they have that picture beside the definition of the phrase "garbage in, garbage out."

Smoke,
I think you are missing some important realities. Human nature. Especially peoples need for balance and truth. For too long the AGW warming crowd has monopolized the debate politically, scientifically and in the media. It has been a fairly one sided debate. Yet people are by nature designed to actively seek out a differing opinions. If the only skeptics are oil funded groups then by default that will be the only source for people to fulfil the need for balanced coverage of this important issue. This need for debate between differing theories will be met one way or another. After this happens then it is time for citizens to have a mature discussion on what to do, if anything, about Climate Change.

I heard the Premiers prattling on about global warming today. I hope that the Yukon leader offered to buy some of those warming tickets because the Yukon has had cold miserable weather for two years. We had a very COLD winter and a rainy, luke warm 'poor sledding' season. Where is our share of this 'warm'? To quote another globby swarmin' mindset: "It's not fair"!

What is this post supposed to demonstrate?

Global warming isn't about average temperatures in any single country in any particular year.

Incidentally, assuming the GW theory is right, temperature in some regions will actually decrease.

What is this post supposed to demonstrate?

Global warming isn't about average temperatures in any single country in any particular year.

Incidentally, assuming the GW theory is right, temperature in some regions will actually decrease.

No matter what is said pollution hurts everyone.