At Climate Audit, it’s candy day for geeks. Hansen has released his temperature analysis source code and documentation – finally;
Hansen says resentfully that they would have liked a “week or two” to make a “simplified version” of the program and that it is this version that “people interested in science” will want, as opposed to the version that actually generated their results. […]
In recent posts, I’ve observed that long rural stations in South America and Africa do not show the pronounced ROW trend (Where’s Waldo?) that is distinct from the U.S. temperature history as well as the total lack of long records from Antarctica covering the 1930s. Without mentioning climateaudit.org or myself by name, Hansen addresses the “lack of quality data from South America and Africa, a legitimate concern”, concluding this lack does not “matter” to the results. […]
So United States shows no material change since the 1930s, but this doesn’t matter, South America doesn’t matter, Africa doesn’t matter and Antarctica has no records relevant to the 1930s. Europe and northern Asia would seem to be plausible candidates for locating Waldo. (BTW we are also told that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon confined to Europe and northern Asia – go figure.]
As is the norm for McIntyre’s site, the comments are a must read. He adds –
I’m sure that one other consideration in freeing the code were the [Climate Audit] threads patiently reverse engineering what he did plus the fact that we were having some success in pinning down the steps. In combination with the “Y2K” publicity, I can’t imagine that NASA was pleased with the prospect of this playing out on the internet over the next few months and simply decided to cut their losses, regardless of Hansen’s views on the matter.
Click here to download the code.
This is absolute proof of the power of blogs. As more review of the raw data and the adjustments that were used become known, the powers that be within the UN and the climate industry lose the ability to duck behind the peer review charade.
If the “geeks” can peel back the skin of the onion and show that there has been as much manipulation of data as most of us suspect, we might finally see the end of the “Climate Change” histeria and be able to start a reasoned discussion based on validated facts and verifiable theories. Sort of like, you know, real science.
That sound you hear is all the people at the Democrat party headquarters screaming “NOOOO!” in unison.
I’m strongly reminded of the time Arthur Kellermann was compelled by Congress to produce the data from his various studies on gun control. Heard the same sound too. 🙂
Between this and Osama Yo Mama’s little TV show, I’d say there’s some major scrambling going on down there in Warshingtoon today.
Here come all of the keyboard climate scientists!
Quick: Write down the diffusion equation, describe its form, and solve its relative, the heat equation, for a flat metal plate heated on one edge.
It’s like watching armchair warriors criticizing MMA fighters…i.e., it would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
Came across a interesting British comment site that covers much the same topics of interest that Kate does and is also ascerbic on Climate Hysteria. He actually got a letter published by Steyn!… anyway,
http://monkeytenniscentre.blogspot.com/
worth a peek.
Anon, I am not a climate scientist, rather an amateur historian with a great interest in the neolithic/ holocene. In other words a passion for what can be known about the paleoclimate and it effect on contemporary humans. One thing this teaches is that climate change is real and the swings and variations can be violent, sudden and profound. And this was long before any industrial age added it piddling share of CO2 or water vapour to the atmosphere ( piddling in comparison to that spewed by any self respecting volcano or the effects of methane). The legitimate question has always been ” do we spend our resources on adaptation or avoidance?”
My position and that of many others is that King Canutes’ lesson was real and apt ( albeit largely misunderstood by modern educators), you cannot hold back the tide. As our suns’ radiant output fluxes, as various volcanos (Toba, Yellowstone) can devastate whole hemespheres and decades, as a largeish meteor stike on the wrong tectonic plate boundary can set in motion tsunamies lasting millennia causing mass extinctions… I concede that certainly locally men may be a problem and cause of pollution, but that globally he is as the flare of a pocketmatch held up before the sun on a clear day at noon from a mountaintop and that our scarce resources must be applied with the best intelligence we can muster. (And yes I know that even the smallest lit match can cause a fire that can get someone kilt, but if we have to spend billions I would rather have those billions to hand and applied to adaptation. And dont tell me that the polar bears dont have that option, as a species they may be only 100,000 years old but the Arctic Ocean was mostly ice free 7000 years ago and had been since shortly after the end of the last glaciation 10000 years ago).
But then I am no expert
Sincerely,
Robert Albin
Calgary
Mortified, cover eyes with hands, avert head, sphincter clenching, slowly crawl mewling off to the side of the road, back broken… a double posting!
Sorry all,
( see I told you I was no expert; what I am is red of face)
Robert Albin
Anon
Your point? The science is tougher than it looks?
Granted.
The fact that scrutiny of the data and technique of Hansen found a foothold on the web is the story. McIntyre seemingly deconstructed a flawed methodology.
Let the factual debate begin.
Or are you of the school of thought that dictates the first knee to the groin wins?
A strange analogy…only surpassed by the seemingly weird science of the catastrophists.
Syncro
Apparently then the sky is not falling… who let chicken little out of his cage???
Moonbats, on their latest “free the poultry” binge.
Anon, you have your hands on your ears singing LALALALALA…
Let’s see, this global warming isn’t apparent in the US, South America, Africa…..
….not very “GLOBAL” then is it?
anon,
I am sure there are people on this blog who are capable of reviewing the code, are you one of them?
Even if there arent anyon that wasnt the point of McIntyre’s challenge. It is about making the information available. Which actually was one of the original purposes of the internet in the first place, so thatacademics could easily share data and communicate…original purpose being defence communications but thats another story.
The info is now available in its original form and can be peer reviewed or layman reviewed….does it really matter? It beats being lcked away in some climate vatican so that only priests can see it
The reason s/he posts under anon is the same reason as the poor suckers who get caught in any scam….they can’t stand the fact they are non thinking fools. The AGW cultists are seeing their scam fall apart slowly,the same as the priests did with Gallileo etc. Exclude over half the earth’s area,and say you have “settled science”? Try that with your taxes next year anon,and see how fast you have to reveal facts/formulae for your “settled amount owing”!!
Go to the NDP website to see a picture of Jack Layton side by side with a 90 horsepower motor as he tools about on his Artic Tour on Climate Change. heh heh
http://www.ndp.ca/page/5693
Hey Anon, it must suck to watch your hobby horse get shot out from under you by morons like us, eh?
Let me tell you the future, bunky. Between now and November ’08 these revelations about global warming science being crap are going to come fast and furious. Won’t be hard for the little elves to do this because it IS crap. (No, I’m not giving you a linky. No links for ill mannered trolls)
After this election no DemocRat will ever mention Global Warming again, same as they never mention gun control after the 2000 election.
Liberals and the NDP will naturally stay behind the curve a few more years to try and wring some more votes from the dead horse. We have a much more…cooperative… media than the Yanks. No Rush Limbaugh, no Fox.
Sleigh ride’s over. Find a new issue to express your hate, jerk.
test
In the face of all the overwhelming counter evidence to prove the theory of MMGW to be flawed, I notice the weather channel still pumping out the daily hysteria gruel………I had pretty much boycotted this shrill source of hysterics but I was stuck in a motel room and wanted a loacal weather reading (which the weather channel got wrong)…and there we were being told by the talking head that southern Ontario had a “hot spell” attributed to global warming…..Now you don’t have to be a resident of Onterrible to know their southern “peninsula” is surrounded by 3 great lakes…these control the weather there. So I went to the government weather site online and ran their seasonal radar model to see what was going on in Ontario this summer…apparently it has been hot…mostly due to humidity from the lakes and no wind for extended periods…when they do get a wind it is a north wind which lofts the humidity high and carries it off to rain somewhere other than southern ontario…so they have had less rain than normal because of north winds carrying it out of the region..temperatures were normal for the season but felt hotter because of the humidity and windless days.( Seems the weather channel broadcasts weather “perceptions” rather than indices)
But no, this is MMGW causing “hot spells” according to the weather channel…who has commercials for hybrid cars on every 1/2 hr. 😀
good one phantom, this is a very big 5 billion year old earth, been through asteroids volcanos floods whatever, only a moronic liberal stinking environMENTAList would be stupid enough to believe the big lie. Goebbels would be so proud of these suzuker types and their new hobby horse. As we fill the bank accounts of sheiks and terrorists for oil here in the west, we are shut off from drilling in so many places that would free us of dependance on these countries. The environMENTAList is the real enemy, what is really wrong with the environment, gets hot in summer cold in winter, same as it always has. These gores and suzukers will be seen as the most destructive to the econmy over time.
Interesting, too, is how the code had to be dragged out of him. I seem to remember several months ago, that Hansen released some dribs and drabs of his method, but only the barest minimum he was required by the conditions of his grant to release. Also noteworthy in the climateaudit comments is that much of the released code was time stamped only in the last few weeks and days. I ain’t no expert, but that smells fishy to me.
The whole point of academia is to be able to look at someone else’s methods and published data. If it holds up under scrutiny and reproduction then it becomes more reliable. That is a fundamental part of the scientific method.
I am an academic, I’d be insulted if someone denied me his data or methods after it was published. It would be unacceptable if I refused to do the same after i published data.
People that hide data have something else to hide.
Why are some lefties so against this?
All I want out of this is some advance warning on the next UN/leftard worldwide cause celebre’ . A guy needs time to set up the companies ( offsets anyone ? ) , to properly fleece the well-heeled overindulgers .
Hiding something ?? Yup. The fudge factors. Same method as 2nd year science students sometime use.
The Kult is unraveling — that is for sure.
It has been a long haul in dragging down the media-enhanced scam, but the truth always wins eventually.
The darkest days were during the United Nations’ Montreal Dec 05 meeting where PM Matin made a complete ass of himself on the world stage. (have not heard from him since)
The most difficult part was seeing TV “interviews” (script) featuring the “iconic” Suzuki telling lies and knowing others were denied access to both the meeting and the media because they were not “stake holders”. (aka, they were not taken in by the Kult)
Name two, you say ?
Nancy Green Raine and Tim Ball.
I suggest we try running the programs in reverse; perhaps this will reverse global warming.
It’s kind of a non-issue don’t you think? But hey, anything that gets Steve McIntyre,
a self promoting attention seeker with connections to the petroleum industry some headlines. This guy has done absolutely nothing to advance his argument against man made global warming. In fact he has at times become a bit of an embarrassment to those trying to convince you that the debate is still open. Many are either too lazy, stubborn or simple minded to make the paradigm shift to recognising that AWG is real and to understand the problem they along with their children will face.
Steve McIntyre may have found very a minor correction in the temperature record, but that has not changed the science behind AGW. The earth is still warming and you don’t need a code to see evidence
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=5492&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Dissecting%20the%20Wall%20Street%20Journal%27s%20Mannhunt&Cache=False
The day our local weatherman can start batting 900 on weather for the next day or two, instead of the 300 they have been averaging here in the Frazer Valley, this so called summer {it has been the coldest, wettest I can remember}. I will start considering the predictions of someone who claims to be able to predict the climate 50 years from now.
“a self promoting attention seeker with connections to the petroleum industry” You mean like the goracle right alby?”The earth is still warming and you don’t need a code to see evidence”
Yeah like the frost on my windshield this morning or the snow in the mountains to the west of me, You have to download this pic, not quite 2 mb I took it about an hour ago.
http://www.filefactory.com/file/d38ff1/
all signs of global warming for sure or is that global cooling? Oh wait a minute, I work for a oil company! Oh well I guess I’ll have to eliminate myself as an unbiased character. But if I’m eliminated because I work for an oil company, alby, does that mean I get to eliminate the fruit fly guy seeing as he takes money from oil companies as well? good reading here http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover022207.htm and a list of donors here http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/DSF-AR0506-final-web.pdf
I must admit that I find the reports of people freezing to death during extreme cold snaps slightly bewildering, plus worries that the extremely cold temperatures over the artic will expand the ozone hole mystifing. Why would either of these events occur with gobal warming? Sort of like the line “sun so hot I froze to death”
Albatros:
Thank you for expressing your opinion. It’s actually a very big issue. We are being asked to make large scale changes to our lives based upon what we are told is science. The problem is there is not much resembling science involved. If the methods and means are not published (what has been released is still not the actual code) then there is no way to verify. Scieence must be verifiable. It is imperitive that we insist on open access to the government funded “science”. I’m also glad you pointed-out the “connection to the petroleum industry”. Everyone should note that big money is available for those telling the right story, problem is the multibillions are for the pro AGW crowd.
Albie did not just drink the Gore potion,he guzzled it.
Albatross,
Please make your name and address public while making the follwoing statement
“Steve McIntyre is knowingly making false statements denying Anthroprogenic Global Warming because he is in the pay of the Petroleum Industry.”
This is what you mean right?
If not then stop implying motives to someone.
McIntyre himself says the world is warmer than before, he also said his find reconfirming 1934 as the warmest summer on record in North America is not an earth shattering development.
The nice thing about Steve is he would say that 2006 being the warmest on record wouldnt have been earth shattering either.
Find me one, just one measurable prediction that the AGW crowd have made successfully without having to revise downward later and I will grant more credibility to the theory.
As it stands right now, the data is questionable, the predctions havent worked out and there are significant other theories challenging AGW as the pre eminent explaination for the warming we have seen, which is less than AGW predicts and nowhere near as global as the theory would imply.
All due respect Albatross but the epithets of lazy, simple minded and stubborn are probably better descriptions of AGW idealogues.
Albatross, you try to deflect the argument into a warming/colding cul de sac, which is your falacy.
My, and many other skeptics’ position is:
Well, it may be warmer at the moment, by how much and why are not clear. It gets warmer and colder all the time. Here in Ottawa, it goes between -30C and +30C every six months. I think this is part of a natural cycle. So, some piddling little 0.xC over 150 years, after a prolonged “cold” period, doesn’t seem so weird.
Also, a warmer planet would be good for every living thing. And CO2 is not a pollutant, but a necessary gas for all living things; more is better.
What we are opposed to is hysterical rantings based upon ignorant computer models fed with bad data, all for very obvious political reasons.
Lysenko? Albatross?
Alby favors sterilizing Africa to reduce the surplus human load on Mother Gaia, don’tch Alby?
Your bridge is falling, you better go check on it.
Colour me surprised. Not one person here could even verify a simple diffusion or transport model. This means that everyone is taking some OTHER climate-denying expert’s opinion as their own, since they are incapable of doing the analysis themselves.
This would be okay were it not for the fact that they happily chastise their opponents for
‘towing the line’ of the AGW conspiracy, and compare the climate scientists and their supporters to priests and their followers.
Exactly who is doing the mindless following? If you can’t check their results, you’re just as guilty. And if you’re not writing journal articles and doing research, you really aren’t up to date and your contribution is minimal. Whenever a group wants to skirt the regular scientific peer-review process, it should raise suspicion; c.f., Intelligent Design.
No qualitative or quantitative response from anon…I suspect he’s a busy giy…just like other self important climate pontifs…too busy running data set calcs in the dark, warm, moist and smelly place where his head resides. (Victim of cranial recal displacia)
No need to remove it from it’s smelly isolation from the rest of the world…the data sets never lie…no need for objective investigation.
Anon: let me know when you hear the “pop” and see light for the first time. 😀
Okay anon, I’ve watched you be all higher and mightier–or at least appear to think so for long enough.
Anyone who spouts anything about models in reference to the GW/AGW debate automatically loses credibility.
The fact is, the equations governing the atmosphere and the climate, including diffusion and transport, are all based on differential equations and/or integrals. The dirty little secret that the model followers ignore is that no computer in the world can explicitly solve any of these equations. They are solved by either finite difference approximations or parameterizations. Finite differences incur truncation errors which build up with each time step. In other words, errors, minute at first, balloon out of control. In order to solve this problem, modelers introduce filters which dampen these errors. This in itself introduces error into the solution. Parameterizations are introduced because of either incomplete understanding of the actual things going on (in other words, fudge factors) or because of insufficient computing power to solve the equations explicitly. In other words, errors.
So your imploring people to verify models is disingenuous at best, and a dead wrong lie at worst. The fact is, whatever the models say (and even they don’t agree), we can’t blindly accept them like so many AGWers do. I mean, maybe the climate is changing due to us and maybe it isn’t. But we cannot say so at this time. Anyone who says so and, even better, says “the science is settled” is ignoring or denying the fact that science is never settled–that’s what makes it science. 100 years from now, when we have a half-decent record of surface observations (rigorously sited and monitored and maintained and quality-checked and with constant local conditions, e.g. not near an airport or near an airport or in a field or in a parking lot but never changing from one to the other–which has not yet occurred) we can maybe speak with more intelligence on the subject. Until such time, I ask that you and your looking-down-the-nose “intelligentsia” who seem to know more than the rest of us (surprise! educated!) peons just STFU!
Anon – perhaps you should visit this thread before you damage a tooth with that foot.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006355.html
Dave
thanks for your post
you said wot I’v said many times, just much more eloquently
I say”there isn’t a program that will accurately run a climate model in it’s full complexity, and if there were, there isn’t a computer capable of running said program”
Stop the presses. I have just developed a computer model in which the Ross Ice Shelf melts off crashing into Patagonia and sending it spinning into the Pacific, eventually grinding into Easter Island. Meanwhile Antarctica, now unbalanced, tips over on its side sending a Tsunami which causes Brazil to split off from South America, cross the Atlantic and run into the west coast of Africa where it bursts into flames. London is swamped. Calgary is unaffected. Conclusion: 1. I need more grant money. 2. No, I will not share the code.
“Anon – perhaps you should visit this thread before you damage a tooth with that foot.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006355.html“
[Posted by: Kate at September 9, 2007 7:37 PM]
Whoops… the web-footed bird with the hooked beak and inadequate wings just tried out as a walk-on goalie, but discovered he was in the NHL. (“Damn, those people can shoot”)
Hm-m-m-m-m… back to the playbook. 😉
Someone elses knowledge…..and you have checked Newton and Einsteins math? Come on, Philo 101 argument….whats next the idea that we are all creatures of our senses and therefore here is no objective reality…I mean man we could all just be someone elses dream man….oh this is good shit put on some more Phish will you.
Anon, you are stupid to assume people here don’t have advanced scientific education, and maybe even be good at mathematics and physics and, even more importantly, critical thinking.
“If you can’t check their results, you’re just as guilty.”
Hilarious! Now we’ve just seen a new variation of the bullsh*t “chickenhawk” argument – “if you can’t solve that differential equation then shut up”.
Anyone ever hear this old Engineering joke?
Q: How do you know you have failed Engineering?
A: You try to cancel the “d”‘s in dy/dx.
Seriously, the irony is the fact that Hansen et al should be readily sharing their data and code to prove the science.
All McIntyre is doing is simply saying “show your work”.
First he pointed out flaws in Mann’s “hockey stick” that no one else in the climate science community found (basically you could feed random numbers into the model to get the hockey stick).
Second he raised questions about the methodology NASA used to determine the hottest years. Again, no else in the climate science community had addressed these until AFTER McIntyre flagged them.
Now he (and anyone else feeling like doing the math) will be trying to find out what temperature corrections Hansen applied to temperatures. And once again, no one else in the climate science community seemed to be pushing hard demanding the code.
You see this trend repeating (climate scientists not asking the questions the mathematically inclined “jesters” are asking), and you have to wonder why. I certainly do.
Dave (a different Dave from the 7:10pm comment – but I completely agree – who spent far too much of my youth staring at differential equations)
@Dave:
A trivia point. Technical analysis of stocks was impugned by exactly the same method: using random numbers to produce fake stock charts that looked like real ones. This debunkment was part of the early research that led to the Random Walk hypotheis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Fama
In trolling through the code, I note most of the fortran (.f) files were edited recently. I also note they are almost entirely comment-free.
Coincidence?
RicardoVerde:
I agree that policy should come from good science. However I disagree with your statement ”The problem is there is not much resembling science involved. The very basic science of AGW is the physics of the CO2 molecule and the chemistry of burning fossil fuels. These are always overlooked in their importance and how rock solid they are.
Stephen:
You said there were significant other theories challenging AGW. What ones did you have in mind? I try to keep up with the science but I am not aware of any. I would appreciate a reference if you have one.
To keep it on topic, great that NASA has made public the codes, I am all for open work. I tend to agree with Steve McIntyre comments about the current warm period, but good of him to check it out.
However in response to a couple of posts above, I will say that I find the number of items that “disprove AGW” over the last month is amusing. Remember this one ? (As Kate said, this is one to share and recommend.) Or perhaps this one. We are continuing to check his work over at Deltoid, but it is not looking good for Dr. Schulte right now. Or even http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006859.html this one.
Regards,
John
Why doesn’t anon try solving the Navier-Stokes equations and get himself a Nobel Prize in Mathematics?
The reason some of the equations don’t have a solution is that they are damned difficult.
The computer modeling of analytical solutions necessarily introduces errors and hence climate change modeling.
Ergo the conclusions are suspect, by the very nature of the modeling.
How in God’s name is the science ever settled?
It is difficult enough to solve a system of 5 or 6 variables let alone several hundred with their codependencies.
Anon is suffering from adventures in dream-scape.
“Posted by: RicardoVerde at September 9, 2007 4:24 PM”
-“. It’s actually a very big issue. We are being asked to make large scale changes to our lives based upon what we are told is science. The problem is there is not much resembling science involved.”
There have been dozens of papers published over this subject, just by James Hanson. That is in addition to the thousands of papers published globally by climate science telling us humans are destroying this climate through emissions of greenhouse gases. These are peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals available to anyone that wishes access to them. For whatever reason James Hansen has up until now not released his codes. They are likely codes still being used in ongoing studies that he doesn’t want let out into public hands until those studies are completed, but this is simply a guess. The fact that he has not released these codes does not invalidate the science of global warming. Hanson is only one scientist among thousands whose studies have shown humans are responsible for global warming.
You talked about changes we are supposed to be making to fight climate change based on the science presented. What changes will there be in our lives if we ignore the warming. There are many armchair climate sceptics who will tell us that there have been climate changes in the past so obviously it should change again. For some reason these sceptics trust the climate scientists enough to parrot them about past climate, yet refuse to recognise their expertise predicting future climate.
Ask yourself where the scientists are that have gone through the peer-reviewed process explaining global warming with explanations other than greenhouse gases. Don’t give me names such as Tim Ball because he hasn’t published anything on the subject. You will find people spouting off ridiculous claims like “mars is warming” or volcanoes spewing CO2, but none of those people are backing up these explanations through the recognised scientific process. All they end up doing is displaying their ignorance of the problem. Sure you will find people like McIntyre nitpicking the odd minor details, but that is all they are, minor details that get headlines, but have no effect on the science. The problem is the sceptics are not burdened with backing up their claims through the peer-reviewed process.
So without the need to back up there words the way a real scientist would be required to do, people like Ball and McIntyre can say whatever they like, as long as they can make the Financial Post, Exxon will still cover them.
Just watched a fifth estate (CBC) documentary on climate change. Apparently the science is now definitely settled and debate is simply being orchestrated by big oil. Chretien was a hero, Harper is an environmental ultra villain. Comparisons also drawn between big oil and big tobacco. Plenty of usage of the words “consensus”, “settled” and “deniers”. Unfortunately no informative discussion between the qualified scientists with opposing viewpoints. The most nefarious implication though is debate itself on the issue is evil or inspired by it. I guess that’s why I pay my taxes to support CBC as it seems they’re entitled to do the thinking for all us little people. Truly frightening.
–Posted by: The Phantom at September 9, 2007 6:37 PM
I do??? When did I say that? I think you’re full of it.
–Posted by: Stephen at September 9, 2007 4:54 PM
à”Steve McIntyre is knowingly making false statements denying Anthroprogenic Global Warming because he is in the pay of the Petroleum Industry.”
This is what you mean right? ß
No it’s not, and why do you have quotations around that sentence, it’s not a quote? See my above post.
“Find me one, just one measurable prediction that the AGW crowd have made successfully without having to revise downward later and I will grant more credibility to the theory.”
Ok, here’s one. That if left unchecked CO2 levels could reach 1000 ppm by century’s end.
–>Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at September 9, 2007 5:16 PM
That has been hashed over too many times to repeat them. Your argument is deeply flawed. See pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/ for the explanations.
“Unfortunately no informative discussion between the qualified scientists with opposing viewpoints.”
That’s because there are no “qualified scientists with opposing viewpoints” they all agree on AGW. But really, open discussion between scientists is justifiably rare. It’s not showmanship the way Fox News would like it to be, it’s about science and scientific discussion is not done on a stage for entertainment purposes.
albatros39a wrote:
“Ask yourself where the scientists are that have gone through the peer-reviewed process explaining global warming with explanations other than greenhouse gases. Don’t give me names such as Tim Ball because he hasn’t published anything on the subject. You will find people spouting off ridiculous claims like “mars is warming” or volcanoes spewing CO2, but none of those people are backing up these explanations through the recognised scientific process. All they end up doing is displaying their ignorance of the problem. Sure you will find people like McIntyre nitpicking the odd minor details, but that is all they are, minor details that get headlines, but have no effect on the science. The problem is the sceptics are not burdened with backing up their claims through the peer-reviewed process.”
Do yourself a favor and go have a look at Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.’s research group blog archive at http://climatesci.colorado.edu/
Click on the “climate change forcings and feedbacks” entry under “Categories”. There are *many* of peer-reviewed publications referenced there that deal with climate change forcings other than CO2.
Read some, then come back here and eat some crow.
For the “you gotta blame the weather” file, or the future-audit-of-talking-points inbox:
“While praising the superiority of French medical care and the fact that French doctors make house calls—almost as an aside to praising the superiority of every element of French society compared to America’s—Mr. Moore forgot to mention that 13,000 Frenchmen died of heat prostration and dehydration during a heat wave in the summer of 2003, when most French physicians were on summer vacation and did not show up in emergency rooms, let alone make house calls.”
– An excerpt, with italics added, from “What Michael Moore forgot to tell you” by Richard E. Ralston. Published by Steve Martinovich’s Enter Stage Right.
I was wondering why that mass of death didn’t travel over the border to Spain, Italy, Austria or Germany.
Same old spew from Albatross….debate over. nobody who is qualified disagrees and anyone who does disagree is in the clutches of big oil.
Convenient argument…lazy, stubborn and simple minded to quote someone. Cut the slander Albatross.
There are only two broad facts that are agreed in this whole debate
1) It is warmer than since the last ice age
2) There is more CO2 in the air
After that there is not a lot of agreement, cause, effect or models.
The problem with saying there is a consensus is it is too easy to pull the argument down by finding people who disagree. For lists of articles, academic peer reviewed articles, that eat away at many of the dearly held pillars of AGW go to http://www.worldclimatereport.com
Sorry Albatross, AGW may be true but it isn proven yet, not by a country mile.