Climate Model Scorecard

[sunsettommy]

From Warwick Hudges website

Introduction
<EXCERPT>
<EXCERPT>

Excerpt:

Our previous website at erols.com had a section giving a scorecard for global warming. The scorecard simply gives some of the predictions that climate models have made and compares them to observation as would be done in any normal scientific endeavor. The scorecard includes links where further discussion can be found. At some point a more complete list of references may be added, but most can be found in the links or by a google search. Following the scorecard, a summary discusses some of the ways that the climate models are not validated.

<SNIP>
Snip:

The table is not an exhaustive list of every claim made and we may add more items as time goes on. As of the date of this compilation (July 24, 2004), there are 34 items. Using a Win-Loss-Tie (or W-L-T) scoring system, we estimate the record is 3-27-5 for the greenhouse warming hypothesis, which is a poor record. The three items that seemed to be positive (receding glaciers, decreasing snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, and stratospheric cooling) are heavily publicized without much mention of the other items. Stratospheric cooling is probably the strongest evidence, but ozone depletion may explain part of it and, in any case, it is far weaker than the models predicted.[/font] Receding glaciers and decreased snow cover could be explained by the sun which has been getting brighter over the last few centuries. Glaciers started receding before carbon dioxide started increasing, so using glaciers as evidence of greenhouse warming is weak evidence.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Go to the LINK and see a very long Scorecard,that shows how POORLY the Climate Models warming predictions have fared.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Since those who claim that global warming is caused by human activities rely completely on climate models, this analysis devastates their claim.

[sunsettommy]

THE IPCC


Excerpt

If you ask a Greenie Scientist for evidence of Global Warming they will cite the IPCC instead.

The IPCC is a UN political group.
The name says it all - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Intergovernmental Panel - an intergovernmental panel is now deciding science - poor science!!
on climate change - climate always changes - it's like the weather.

The IPCC have replaced the Scientific Doctrine and the Scientific Method with their own doctrine so science is now decided by popular consensus - their popular [flat earth] consensus.
This is illustrated with the "but thousands of scientists agree with us so we must be right" assertion which ignores the fact that, in science, theory is constantly overturned or severely modified by individuals with reproducable evidence.
This allows new discoveries to constantly overturn the popular concensus and keeps our knowlege of the universe up to date.
That is gone now.

The IPCC invite hundreds of Scientists to contribute to the consensus on Global Warming.
Most have computer models on climate change which pre-suppose global warming.
They then run a political process where all contary opinion is disregarded and they determine the concensus.

They produce a turgid, verbose, Scientific Report along with a slick, glossy Summary for Governments and the Media.




Reading it, a real scientist will not take it seriously. There is no dissent, no discussion, no argument, and computer modeling of such an extremely complex system is only a very interesting exercise that would need to be validated by other means. Even if they wade right through all the tedious, stilted report they do not find any such validation.



On the other hand a politician reading it would immediately recognize this list of qualitative epithets which can be used to fake the validation of the computer models without ever giving any quantitative information [facts and figures] on which that validation might be based.











"consistent" is the most popular. Then there are "consistent picture", "best estimate", "remarkable consistency", "good agreement", "It is likely that", "a degree of consistency", "ample evidence", "indicate that", "significant", "about", "compelling evidence", "only slightly", "coincides with", "relate well", "broadly consistent with", "qualitatively consistent with", "strongly support", "better predict" (here, they are naughty; you are not supposed to say "predict", it has to be "project"), "varying quality" "improvements have been made" (on what?), "more firmly established", " about a factor of". "broad quantitative estimate" (oxymoron!), "substantial gains", "notable advances", "overall confidence", "ability to reproduce", "major improvements", "more realistically depict", "growing capabilities". And so on and so on.
[Opologies to Dr Vincent Gray http://www.john-daly.com/tar-gray/tar-spm.htm ]



A lawyer reading it would love the verbose prose and jargon but would soon realize that the case was far too circumstantial.


The IPCC claims that the planet is warming, the weather's going wild, disease is spreading, the sea is rising, weeds are growing and all this as a result of burning fossil fuels;
and why? because computer programs predict it and thousands of scientists agree with it.


People who know and like Science would say that is ridiculous - and they'd be right.


The IPCC greenies have never established that the examples they cite of global warming are anything but natural phenomena.
They have completely failed to establish a causal link to the burning of fuels.


Unfortunately climate science has now been locked into the IPCC dogma and new discoveries that contradict it are not permitted and cannot attract funds.





http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/IPCC.htm




This is just one of many websites that skewer the obvious IPCC "Science Consensus" and "Circulation Models" as B.S.

[markus3622]

Two points here really.

1) There seems to be disagreement between you and Tex on the IPCC. In a PM to me, Tex feels that the IPCC supports the skeptics position.

I both proved beyond any doubt that both the IPCC and the National Academies of Sciences Climate Change Panel (unanimously, in the case of the NAS) support our position

ST, you obviously feel that the IPCC doesn't support the case.

2)On the point about models, it highlights the risks of using work that isn't peer-reviewed, and why scientists wouldn't use that type of data. I haven't got time to respond to everything in that long table, but it should be clear that there are quite a few problems.

i) 'Predictions' made on temperature increases from 1900-2000 made in the latter part of the 20th century aren't predictions, they're validations.

ii) The table only uses the MSU reconstruction of tropospheric temps. Why no mention of RSS data that fits well?

iii) The arctic isn't cooling - see the scientific literature on this

iv) The work is poorly referenced - i.e there is no paper by Houghton on cyclones /hurricanes in 1988. No prediction is made on hurricanes

v) Stouffer isn't the lead author on any papers in 1994 according the science citation index, and I can see no paper saying that the MWP is 'physically impossible'.

6) The IPCC predicted a decrease in diurnal temperatures, whereas your link says it didn't.

The point is, it's not a very good source - it seems to cherry pick and in some cases is just plain false. That's why we should be looking at the scientific literature, not funny websites

[Naturalized-Texan]

The vast majority of those making up the IPCC are government bureaucrats, neraly all socialists, or worse, from nations with socialist governments. Only a tiny minority of the members are scientists - less than 5%, maybe even as little as 2%. Even those "scientists" are socialists who twist the science (e.g., Michael Mann's "hockey stick" fraud) to reflect their socialist agenda - world socialism under UN control in accordance with the rules set down by UN Commission on Global Governance (CGG).

[markus3622]

But you were saying that the IPCC supported your case.


The vast majority of those making up the IPCC are government bureaucrats, neraly all socialists, or worse, from nations with socialist governments. Only a tiny minority of the members are scientists - less than 5%, maybe even as little as 2%. Even those "scientists" are socialists who twist the science (e.g., Michael Mann's "hockey stick" fraud) to reflect their socialist agenda - world socialism under UN control in accordance with the rules set down by UN Commission on Global Governance (CGG).
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Do you have any evidence to support your claim at all? Otherwise we can safely ignore it or forward it to conspiracy corner.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Leftists are desperate to be able to prove that human activities are causing global warming so that they can impose draconian controls over the economies of every nation in the world, especially the United States. They are willing to tell bald-faced lies in order support their claims - e.g., Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” fraud – and to produce invalid climate models that have been unable to even come close representing actual climate changes as was shown by the Climate Model Scorecard that sunsettommy posted to start this thread.

When one looks at the actual record of climate change – the 500-year Medieval Warm period followed by the 500-year Little Ice Age followed by the 0.6 degree Celsius warming in the past 100+ years (most of which occurred before 1940, before the great industrial expansion following WW II) – the only logical conclusion that one can reach is that the warming of the past 100+ years is nothing more than the beginning of a new natural warming cycle – a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Until and unless there is iron-clad PROOF some time in the future that global warming is caused by human activities, we should do nothing more than to sit back and enjoy the obviously natural warming trend. After all, since the warming is part of a natural cycle, there is absolutely nothing that we can do to stop it short of turning off the sun.

[Faithful_Servant]

Leftists are desperate to be able to prove that human activities are causing global warming so that they can impose draconian controls over the economies of every nation in the world, especially the United States. They are willing to tell bald-faced lies in order support their claims - e.g., Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” fraud – and to produce invalid climate models that have been unable to even come close representing actual climate changes as was shown by the Climate Model Scorecard that sunsettommy posted to start this thread.

When one looks at the actual record of climate change – the 500-year Medieval Warm period followed by the 500-year Little Ice Age followed by the 0.6 degree Celsius warming in the past 100+ years (most of which occurred before 1940, before the great industrial expansion following WW II) – the only logical conclusion that one can reach is that the warming of the past 100+ years is nothing more than the beginning of a new natural warming cycle – a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Until and unless there is iron-clad PROOF some time in the future that global warming is caused by human activities, we should do nothing more than to sit back and enjoy the obviously natural warming trend. After all, since the warming is part of a natural cycle, there is absolutely nothing that we can do to stop it short of turning off the sun.

Giant mini-blinds might do the trick... It's an actual proposal by some left-wing nut job. Shoot massive amount so of reflective material into a solar orbit between the Earth and the Sun. This would block some of the heat coming from the Sun and help keep the Earth cooler. Of course little things like reality keep creeping in to stop them from accomplishing this utterly stupid and completely unecessary task.

[markus3622]

This now raises another question - and a contradiction on your part. Ok, so the major scientific bodies of the world agree that there is a problem and action is needed. That part is undisputed.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

It's a statement from the scientific bodies in Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom and of course the US.

The problem with absolute proofs is that they don't exist in science. The theory of evolution could be overturned . I suppose the most quoted philosopher of science would be Sir Karl Popper, who came up with the falsification principle.

Now knowing the science always has uncertainty (I've not disputed that) you could use your argument to say that nothing should be done about anything. I don't really want to bring politics into this, but I didn't see many conservatives arguing against invading Iraq until there was 100% evidence of WMD - you've argued that there was a certain level of evidence (agreement among the CIA experts for example) and that was good enough for you. I don't see much advocation of waiting for another 9/11 before ontroducing anti-terror legislation. Why isn't the scientific consensus on climate change (that undoubtedly exists) good enough?

I'm not sure what part of Texas you live in, but there are certainly parts of it that might experience severe water shortage problems in the future, so that land becomes fallow. Businesses might move away because of increased water costs to wetter parts of the US, affecting the regional economies. I was speaking to a Professor of Hydrology from New Mexico recently.


You can see from this image that parts of SW US are water stressed. The population is predicted to jump from 280 million to 420 million by 2050, with much of the growth happening in the south and west.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol289/issue5477/images/medium/se2508647001.gif

I quote from a paper

RELATIVE REGIONALVULNERABILITY OF WATER RESOURCES TO CLIMATE CHANGE<SUP>1 </SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>Brian Hurd, Neil Leary, Russell Jones, and Joel Smith </SUP>
<SUP>JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION , Vol 35, no 6
</SUP>
Key findings show that consumptive uses in thewestern and, in particular, the southwestern United Statesare relatively vulnerable, whereas in stream and waterquality uses are relatively more vulnerable in the southernUnited States. The findings further underscore theimportance of continued and expanded efforts inmonitoring and data collection and the need to focus ondeveloping monitoring data relevant to water quality andecosystem health. The potential vulnerability of westernwatersheds that are currently water stressed by competingand rising water demands, which are most likely to continue rising, and southern watersheds stressed bywater quality and flooding, are of particular concern.
<DIR><DIR>














It's worth noting this paper is predicated on the idea that the world is getting warmer (which half the time you agree with and half the time you dispute), places like Texas could have serious problems. NT, no disrespect, but this is more likely to affect your grandchildren than it will you. If you write that we should " sit back and enjoy the obviously [sic] natural warming trend" then it seems a bit of a reckless strategy.





Here's a link you might find interesting.

http://www.gcrio.org/NationalAssessment/overpdf/overview.html




















</DIR></DIR>

[Naturalized-Texan]

Giant mini-blinds might do the trick... It's an actual proposal by some left-wing nut job. Shoot massive amount so of reflective material into a solar orbit between the Earth and the Sun. This would block some of the heat coming from the Sun and help keep the Earth cooler. Of course little things like reality keep creeping in to stop them from accomplishing this utterly stupid and completely unecessary task.
That is a perfect illustration of the nuttiness of left-wing wackos. On the other hand, it's encouraging because that proposal is an admission that the Sun is the cause of global warming as opposed to the nutty claims that the warming is caused by human activities.

There is no way that any of those wacky, politically-inspired, junk scientists can ever convince me that the American economy should be destroyed based on evidence that is at best flimsy and is at worst fraudulent.

[Faithful_Servant]

This now raises another question - and a contradiction on your part. Ok, so the major scientific bodies of the world agree that there is a problem and action is needed. That part is undisputed.

No markus, that part is highly disputed. There are multiple major scientific bodies that are saying that the science behind GW is highly flawed, yet you seem to choose to ignore this reality. Just once try to take an unbiased, comprehensive view of GW. Read the science from both sides, the way NT and I have done. All you've done is cut and paste the same flawed data that every other GW proponent has. You seem to be a pretty intelligent guy, so why not look into the arguments against GW? Do some research into why people like NT and myself so adamantly oppose the concept of human caused GW. Look into the full text of the Kyoto and Rio accords and start following the money. See where that little excursion takes you. You see, following the money was what convinced me that there was some seriously flawed science going on. Rio and Kyoto were written to channel money to third world nations; the scientists that are doing the research will lose their funding if GW is proven to be inaccurate. Both of these factors have lead to some very seriously flawed computer models, due to the fact that they want to keep the money flowing. If the money stops flowing, these researchers go back to teaching 8th grade science classes in Omaha.
Stop reposting the same flawed studies that we've seen over and over again and do some research into why we believe that GW is so flawed. Look at the tests done on the computer models, look at how inaccurate they have been at projecting past trends. Above all, follow the money, it's the root cause of the deception of GW.

[markus3622]

What I posted is that it isn't disputed that the major scientific bodies of the world agree that the climate is changing and that mankind is partly responsible.

There are multiple major scientific bodies that are saying that the science behind GW is highly flawed, yet you seem to choose to ignore this reality.

Go on, name one. Just one reputable, major scientific body that says the science behind climate change is highly flawed. Pick the most respected one you can find.

Above all, follow the money, it's the root cause of the deception of GW.

This is where we agree. You'll notice that many of the skeptics are politically biased and funded by oil interests. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[markus3622]

So, we can take it as granted that no major scientific body disputes the science of climate change - only a small handful of skeptics.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Faithful_Servant:

You, sunsettommy, I, and others have posted dozens of different links to scientific sources in at least a dozen different threads in this forum that have thoroughly debunked the claims of the enviro-Nazis that global warming is caused by human activities. Yet, Markus has consistently refused to even consider them. Instead, he reposts the fraudulent claims of his favorite junk scientists that are completely based on invalid climate models. He even pretends that the NAS Climate Change Report supports his absurd claim that global warming is caused by human activities when he knows very well that it doesn't. That is the very essence of intellectual dishonesty.

The proof of your follow-the-money suggestion is the fact that about 25 years ago those junk scientists turned on a dime from studying global cooling to studying global warming when they learned that there was no grant money available to study global cooling but there was plenty of grant money from left-wing groups, socialist governments, and the UN (e.g., the IPCC) to study global warming provided that they toe the left-wing line.

Your most recent post and the above facts are the reasons that I no longer read or respond to Markus's brainwashed BS.

[markus3622]

Faithful Servant

If you look through the threads on climate change, you will notice that the few pieces of evidence presented by the skeptics have been challenged on the science, using peer-reviewed work. What is interesting is that skeptics like Tex, rather than challenging on the facts has resorted to a few tactics:

1) Find another "piece of evidence" supporting the skeptics' position (and ignoring the challenge to their evidence). This tactic has a rather short shelf-life, being that the position is based on about three or four pieces of work.
2) At this stage, conspiracy theories about World Socialism appear - unsupported of course. - You will have noticed how NT made a claim about the proportion of scientists on the IPCC. Once challenged, he ignores it, hoping it will go away.
3) Once a piece of evidence has been refuted, repost it a few pages later, hoping nobody notices. The Soon/Balunas paper has appeared a few times under this guise.
4) If all else fails, label the opposite position as 'junk science' or 'fraudulent'.

It is also worth noticing that NT's position has changed from time to time

"The world isn't getting warmer" becomes "the world is getting warmer".
"The IPCC position supports the skeptics" becomes "the IPCC is a socialist conspiracy"
"The NAS scientists are real scientists" becomes "the NAS panellists didn't have the guts to tell the truth".

Ultimately, the one point that remains unchallenged is that the major scientific bodies of the world have publicly stated that the world is getting warmer and that man is partly responsible. Not one major scientific body has been found that disputes this. Perhaps NT would like to challenge this point, or concede the debate.

[sunsettommy]

Faithful Servant

If you look through the threads on climate change, you will notice that the few pieces of evidence presented by the skeptics have been challenged on the science, using peer-reviewed work. What is interesting is that skeptics like Tex, rather than challenging on the facts has resorted to a few tactics:

1) Find another "piece of evidence" supporting the skeptics' position (and ignoring the challenge to their evidence). This tactic has a rather short shelf-life, being that the position is based on about three or four pieces of work.
2) At this stage, conspiracy theories about World Socialism appear - unsupported of course. - You will have noticed how NT made a claim about the proportion of scientists on the IPCC. Once challenged, he ignores it, hoping it will go away.
3) Once a piece of evidence has been refuted, repost it a few pages later, hoping nobody notices. The Soon/Balunas paper has appeared a few times under this guise.
4) If all else fails, label the opposite position as 'junk science' or 'fraudulent'.

It is also worth noticing that NT's position has changed from time to time

"The world isn't getting warmer" becomes "the world is getting warmer".
"The IPCC position supports the skeptics" becomes "the IPCC is a socialist conspiracy"
"The NAS scientists are real scientists" becomes "the NAS panellists didn't have the guts to tell the truth".

Ultimately, the one point that remains unchallenged is that the major scientific bodies of the world have publicly stated that the world is getting warmer and that man is partly responsible. Not one major scientific body has been found that disputes this. Perhaps NT would like to challenge this point, or concede the debate.

You are very similar to people I talked with way back in the 1970's when the prevaling.........Scientific Consensus that an Ice age was coming very soon.:hahaha:

Like I have said before clods like you who fall for the Consensus crap is indeed a mental midget.I provided clear example of ONE PERSON bucking a consensus and he in time was proved correct.He was not even in the field either,he was a Meterologist,dabbling in Geology as a HOBBY!

You ignore it because it explodes the mantra of Consensus easily and YOU KNOW IT! If there was clear and compelling evidence of Global Warming as being caused by Mankind,the mantra of Consensus would not even be prated at all.That is because the FACTS would explain itself.

The "Hockey Stick" claim is not even surviving peer review and yet you STILL like it because the IPCC likes it.It is pitiful you think this way.Consensus and peer review DOES NOT prove anything!

The Consensus in the 1970's was WRONG! OOOps I just showed that Consensus can indeed be wrong.

[sunsettommy]

Plant Fossils of West Virginia

Climate and the Carboniferous Period


Excerpt

West Virginia today is mostly an erosional plateau carved up into steep ridges and narrow valleys, but 300 million years ago, during the Carboniferous Period, it was part of a vast equatorial coastal swamp extending many hundreds of miles and barely rising above sea level. This steamy, tropical quagmire served as the nursery for Earth's first primitive forests, comprised of giant lycopods, ferns, and seed ferns (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/TableOfCont.html).
North America was located along Earth's equator then, courtesy of the forces of continental drift (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/continents.html). The hot and humid climate of the Middle Carboniferous Period was accompanied by an explosion of terrestrial plant life. However by the Late Carboniferous Period Earth's climate had become increasingly cooler and drier. By the beginning of the Permian Period average global temperatures declined by about 10° C.

Interestingly, the last half of the Carboniferous Period witnessed periods of significant ice cap formation over polar landmasses-- particularly in the southern hemisphere. Alternating cool and warm periods during the ensuing Carboniferous Ice Age coincided with cycles of glacier expansion and retreat. Coastlines fluctuated, caused by a combination of both local basin subsidence and worldwide sea level changes. In West Virginia a complex system of meandering river deltas supported vast coal swamps that left repeating stratigraphic levels of peat bogs that later became coal, separated by layers of fluvial rocks like sandstone and shale when the deltas were building, and marine rocks like black shales and limestones when rising seas drowned coastlands. Accumulations of several thousand feet of these sediments over millions of years produced sufficient heat and pressure to transform the soft sediments into rock and the peat layers into the 100 or so coal seams which today comprise the Great Bituminous Coalfields of the Eastern U.S. and Western Europe

Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.

With this in mind the road to understanding global warming and our present climate begins with an historical journey through a chapter in Earth's history, some 30 million years before dinosaurs appeared, known as the Carboniferous Period-- a time when terrestrial Earth was ruled by giant plants and insects, and glaciers waxed and waned over a huge southern continent.

Excerpt

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times,our present atmosphere,like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

Excerpt

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_pin1.gif The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were theonly geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

In the link is a chart that shows the CO2 levels and the worldwide temperatures,over 600 million years.

[Naturalized-Texan]

“Binding Science” by John Derbyshire, National Review, July 4, 2005, pg. 48:

Not all facts are plain, unfortunately, and scientists are subject to the same temptations as the rest of us. Given a mass of very approximate data that can be made to fit different interpretations, and given further the offer of a fat research grant from some U.N. agency or left-wing foundation, on the understanding that the interpretation likely to inspire further such grants will be the one that best accords with fashionable political dogmas, scientists prove to be as corruptible and capable of self-delusion as any absinthe-swilling Eloi, as the current controversy over global warming illustrates.

[markus3622]

Sunsettommy -

1) There was no consensus on "global cooling" in the 1970s - nothing comparable to today
2) I agree that any consensus could be wrong. That's the scientific position to take - it doesn't mean it is wrong. At least you're admitting that there is a scientific consensus.
3) The "hockey stick" has passed peer-review, but has been challenged in an economics journal
4) Your point is that the climate was warmer in the past when there were higher CO2 levels. That makes sense - that's why people are concerned about increasing CO2 levels - basic physics

Tex,

I agree that confirmation bias can be a problem. John Derbyshire could also have written about fat cheques from right-wing foundations. This point seems to elude you completely.

[Naturalized-Texan]

"absinthe-swilling Eloi" LOL!

John Derbyshire sure hit the nail on the head when he described the global warming junk scientists as being as corruptible and capable of self-delusion as any absinthe-swilling Eloi. After all, those junk scientists sold their souls to the Devil (i.e., the UN and other left-wing groups) for grant money to promote the global warming scare and sacrificed their credibility on the altar of world socialism under UN control. The sad part is that so many have been so easily fooled by that pseudo-science, including some here.

[markus3622]

"Because the deniers are so out of tune with this overwhelming scientific consensus, they have been forced to turn on climatology itself. They say that - out of hunger for research grants - climatologists have all begun to skew their evidence. The more disastrous their predictions, the more money they are given by government agencies, so you can't trust what they say.

This is the opposite of the truth. Swaths of the most reputable climate change research has been funded by the US government. Who can seriously claim the White House of George Bush is eager for proof of climate change? In fact, there is political pressure - but it is for scientists to play down the evidence of climate change. We know, for example, that the former chairman of the IPCC, Dr Robert Watson of Harvard University, was removed from his position after heavy lobbying from the White House because he was too outspoken. For any scientist prepared to defy the evidence and deny anthropogenic climate change, there are huge "grants" and "consultancies" waiting for you from gas and oil companies."

The deniers then take a different tack: in the 1970s, they say, climatologists were warning about the dangers of a "new Ice Age". Now they say we'll boil. Isn't the truth that they don't know?

This is largely a myth. A handful of scientists in the 1970s believed they were witnessing a process of "global cooling" that - if extrapolated for a very long period - would lead to an Ice Age. They said this was simply a possibility worth exploring, and they admitted the evidence was woefully insufficient. A few populist magazines ran with the idea but the scientists always expressed extreme uncertainty.

Today, by contrast, there is a near-complete scientific consensus that man-made global warming is happening and could be disastrous. The evidence is not patchy and partial, as the "global cooling" scientists always admitted theirs was; it is massive and overwhelming.

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=606

[sunsettommy]

Sunsettommy -

1) There was no consensus on "global cooling" in the 1970s - nothing comparable to today
2) I agree that any consensus could be wrong. That's the scientific position to take - it doesn't mean it is wrong. At least you're admitting that there is a scientific consensus.
3) The "hockey stick" has passed peer-review, but has been challenged in an economics journal
4) Your point is that the climate was warmer in the past when there were higher CO2 levels. That makes sense - that's why people are concerned about increasing CO2 levels - basic physics

Tex,

I agree that confirmation bias can be a problem. John Derbyshire could also have written about fat cheques from right-wing foundations. This point seems to elude you completely.

I see that you lied on #1 and #3 and #4.

You distorted #2 I did not support Scientific Consensus.The Geologists of his day had a "consensus" It was proved wrong by ONE person! That was what I was pointing out.It is clear you have no idea how often a Consensus in science was later shown to be wrong.It is clear you will try and rationalize away this well known ONE mans effort to show that Continents DID drift.

The Hockey Stick man does not even provide his "RAW" data to anyone and to this date has not been found reproducable by anyone else.That indicates that it is a dead claim and also as I have said before he tries in one stroke do away with DECADES of research of real variability of the Medieval optimism and the Little Ice age.They really happened and Mann and the IPCC and apparently stupid pideon stools like you fall for the lies.

Historians,Geologists,Climatologists and even a few Hobbyists on the subjects have shown the evidence of the real events of the Little Ice age and Medieval Optimism.Fools like you in the desperate effort to erase ANY variability to the make the obviously slight warming look big.It is a blatant dishonest effort that has now exposed the obvious bias for the warming by CO2 crowd.People are now challenging Manns work more and more and so far found it wanting.

The IPCC gets most of the Funding by the United Nations.A very political and biased body that has shown strong dislike of America.How did you miss that?

[sunsettommy]

"Because the deniers are so out of tune with this overwhelming scientific consensus, they have been forced to turn on climatology itself. They say that - out of hunger for research grants - climatologists have all begun to skew their evidence. The more disastrous their predictions, the more money they are given by government agencies, so you can't trust what they say.

This is the opposite of the truth. Swaths of the most reputable climate change research has been funded by the US government. Who can seriously claim the White House of George Bush is eager for proof of climate change? In fact, there is political pressure - but it is for scientists to play down the evidence of climate change. We know, for example, that the former chairman of the IPCC, Dr Robert Watson of Harvard University, was removed from his position after heavy lobbying from the White House because he was too outspoken. For any scientist prepared to defy the evidence and deny anthropogenic climate change, there are huge "grants" and "consultancies" waiting for you from gas and oil companies."

The deniers then take a different tack: in the 1970s, they say, climatologists were warning about the dangers of a "new Ice Age". Now they say we'll boil. Isn't the truth that they don't know?

This is largely a myth. A handful of scientists in the 1970s believed they were witnessing a process of "global cooling" that - if extrapolated for a very long period - would lead to an Ice Age. They said this was simply a possibility worth exploring, and they admitted the evidence was woefully insufficient. A few populist magazines ran with the idea but the scientists always expressed extreme uncertainty.

Today, by contrast, there is a near-complete scientific consensus that man-made global warming is happening and could be disastrous. The evidence is not patchy and partial, as the "global cooling" scientists always admitted theirs was; it is massive and overwhelming.

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=606

Any consensus sheds no new understanding,no new data or facts.All it does at best is indicate popularity of a position or belief.

Therefore any consensus is irrelevant.It can take just ONE person to overturn it.

So prating that it has a "Consensus" somehow puts a legitimate stamp on it,is WORTHLESS!

You really need to get off the Consensus wagon and think for YOURSELF.

[markus3622]

1) Show me where there was anything near a consensus on global cooling. Was there anything resembling IPCC, for example? It was your claim that such a consensus existed.

2) I didn't say you supported the current day consensus - I said you admit it exists - big difference

3) The Hockey Stick man does not even provide his "RAW" data to anyone and to this date has not been found reproducable by anyone else.

This is false on both counts.

(i) Raw data
"NB. All the data that were used in MBH98 are freely available for download at ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/ (ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/) (and also as supplementary data at Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/suppinfo/nature02478.html)) along with a thorough description of the algorithm."

(ii) Reproduction of work -http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

Will you admit your mistake?

4) The data you showed from Virginia does indeed show that it was warmer in the past and CO2 levels were higher (except in the late Carboniferous period - which had similar climate and CO2 levels) - so I wrote the truth there

[markus3622]

The reason we have been discussing the consensus is because

Actually, there is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by human activity

If we both admit that a consensus exists (which you appear to be doing), we can move on.

[sunsettommy]

1) Show me where there was anything near a consensus on global cooling. Was there anything resembling IPCC, for example? It was your claim that such a consensus existed.

2) I didn't say you supported the current day consensus - I said you admit it exists - big difference

3)

This is false on both counts.

(i) Raw data
"NB. All the data that were used in MBH98 are freely available for download at ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/ (ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/) (and also as supplementary data at Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/suppinfo/nature02478.html)) along with a thorough description of the algorithm."

(ii) Reproduction of work -http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

Will you admit your mistake?

4) The data you showed from Virginia does indeed show that it was warmer in the past and CO2 levels were higher (except in the late Carboniferous period - which had similar climate and CO2 levels) - so I wrote the truth there

WRONG!

Filed under:

MBH98 (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?cat=2)
Replication (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?cat=10)
— Steve McIntyre @ 11:52 am
Mann and realclimate have argued that MBH98 was replicable on the original record. Mann cites Wahl and Ammann as support for this, but Wahl and Ammann are close associates of Mann’s (Ammann is a realclimate contributor), working recently from a much different record, hardly "independent" and their code only addresses one area of MBH98 calculations. Cubasch is a better test; he was not able to replicate Mann - see here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=134); also von Storch has reported Mann’s "shoddiness" here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=127). As I pointed before, Wahl and Ammann’s replication does not do anything that we had not already done - their calculated RPCs under identical assumptions are identical to mine - see here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=210), here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=211) and here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=212). There are many issues which cannot be replicated even after one Corrigendum and an extensive Corrigendum SI, as well as issues that could not be replicated on the pre-Corrigendum record. here ("][/url]

I’f you go to the Replication tab in the Categories frame, you will get some of my previous comments on this topic.

To clear up one misconception that many people have: there is a little code on Mann’s FTP site What’s missing is the rest of the code - for the calibration of proxies, the estimation of reconstructed PCs, the calculation of the NH temperature index, the application of Preisendorfer’s Rule N to tree ring networks, etc. etc. See the listing below. The existence of problems in the code already available makes it all the more mandatory to look at the rest of the code.

Here are matters which can now be mostly analyzed, but could not be replicated on the pre-Corrigendum record:

1. PC tree ring calculations. This is misrepresented in MBH98, but is not corrected in the Corrigendum itself. We’ve discussed this in our GRL and EE articles. This is the one bit of code that is at Mann’s FTP site, and, without inspecting code, this misrepresentation could never have been identified. The fact that a misrepresentation was identified in the only code available so far seems to me a good reason for inspecting other code.
2. The start date of the Gaspe series. MBH98 "edited" this series so that it would be included in early 15th century calculations, where it has a material impact. The start date was misrepresented in MBH98.
3. 35 series listed in the original SI as being used were not used. Mann et al say that the presence/absence of these 35 series "does not matter". Why is it that the presence/absence of the bristlecones matters so much?
4. 2 series used in MBH98 were not listed in the original SI. The Corrigendum acknowledges this, but fails to give a location for the 2 series other than Stahle, pers. comm. Since the first 120-125 years of these 2 series are identical to 2 other series, it looks like near-duplicate versions of the same site (probably Spruce Canyon CO) have been used;
5. unreported truncation of the Central England, Central Europe and chin04 series. This truncation was carried forward from Bradley and Jones [1993] where it was also unreported.
6. use of “grey” versions of proxy data inconsistent with citations and versions archived by the authors;
7. erroneous geographical location of precipitation series. (These were not corrected in the Corrigendum. “The rain in Maine falls mainly in the Seine”) see MM03 and here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=128)
8. use of JJA data for Central England and Central Europe series instead of stated annual data;
9. calculation of temperature principal component series weighted correctly by the square root of the cosine of the latitude (instead of the cosine of the latitude) [von Storch et al 2004]. There has been much criticism of an error by McKitrick and Michaels pertaining to an incorrect calculation of cosine of the latitude, but silence by Mann et al. on this very similar error of their own. See here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=100)

Since we began examining MBH98, two substantial data archives have been made publicly available that were not publicly available in 2003. First, a directory at Mann’s FTP site at University of Virginia, not identified in prior correspondence and not previously publicly referenced, suddenly materialized in November 2003 after our first article. The FTP site itself had been established only in July 2002, long after publication after MBH98, and was not accessible to contemporary scientists or to IPCC TAR. Secondly, an extensive new archive was required by Nature in connection the July 2004 Corrigendum, which provided much new data and additional information on methods.

Even with all this new information, there are many items that cannot be replicated. Although Wahl and Ammann claim to have “reproduced” MBH98, there is a whole litany of things that their code shows no evidence of “reproducing”. Here is a quick list off the top of my head, which I’ll probably add to later:

1. the selection of proxies which was supposedly done according to “clear a priori” criteria. The “clear a priori” criteria were not reported and have not been disclosed in response to inquiries. Without a statement of these “clear a priori” criteria, it is obviously impossible to replicate the proxy selections of MBH98.
2. the selection of tree ring chronologies listed in the original SI according to the criteria listed in Mann et al [2000] (which expanded on MBH98 information); here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=90)
3. the explanation in the Corrigendum for the discrepancy between the tree ring sites listed as being used in the original SI and the tree ring sites actually used. The exclusion of the excluded sites (and the inclusion of included sites) cannot be replicated according to the stated criteria. here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=91)
4. the data set archived in July 2004 does not match the description provided in MBH98 or in the Corrigendum SI. here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=84)
5. the proxy rosters in each calculation step from pre-Corrigendum information, including a total of 159 series said to have been used in MBH98 [Mann et al , 2003] here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=120)
6. the use of 24 proxy series in the AD1450 step as reported in MBH98 here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=120)
7. failure to use 6 available proxy series in the AD1500 step (including 5 series used in the AD1450 step) here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=120)
8. the selection of the 1082 “dense” gridcells and 219 “sparse” gridcells according to the selection criteria stated (for the first time) in the Corrigendum SI. here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=85)
9. the archived “sparse” and “dense” instrumental series here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=111)
10. the number of retained temperature PC series in each calculation step. The number retained appears to depend on short-segment standardization, which we criticized in connection with tree ring series. The number retained cannot be replicated with non-erroneous PC methods.
11. the number of tree ring PC series retained in each network/calculation step according to the retention policy (Preisendorfer’s Rule N) reported at realclimate.org [link] in December 2004. No information was provided in MBH98, the Corrigendum talked about a scree test being used as well. I can replicate the illustration at realclimate for the AD1400 North American network, but as soon as you try other networks/periods, the criterion can’t be replicated. here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=34)
12. the Corrigendum states that PC series were re-calculated for each calculation step, but this is not correct. The actual selection of steps in which fresh calculations are made is impossible to replicate.
13. is there an unreported step commencing in 1650? If you plot the confidence intervals, there is a step here, but there is no mention anywhere of a step commencing in 1650 in MBH98 or the new SI. An archived reconstructed PC also begins in 1650: what’s going on here? here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=200)
14. the 5 archived RPCs cannot be replicated. Here I wish to emphasize that my emulations of the RPCs were identical to those of Wahl and Ammann. However, they are content if their emulation is roughly similar to MBH98; I am not. here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=106)
15. why does the RPC replication deteriorate in the early 15th century. The 15th century is obviously a problem area. Given other issues with the 15th century, I’m really interested to see what’s going on here. here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=106)
16. the reconstructed NH temperature series from the RPCs here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=112)
17. In MM03, we reported collation problems in the data set archived at Mann’s FTP site to which we were originally given access. After publication of MM03, Mann made the duplicate accounts available and a new FTP site appeared. Mann said that the collation errors in the previous accounts did not exist in the actual accounts. However, Rutherford referred to a file pcproxy (retrieved from the Wayback machine) long before our inquiry. I think that it’s quite possible that the collation errors in the first data set did not exist in the actual data set (and not much turns on this in terms of the final results), but, for good order’s sake, I’d like to see code demonstrating that collation errors were not made. I have a sneaking suspicion that they were made and that this is one of the reasons why Mann is so reluctant to show his code.
18. MBH98 and Mann et al [2000] both stated that MBH results were “robust” to presence/absence of all dendroclimatic indicators. A fortiori, this entails that MBH98 results are “robust” to the presence/absence of the bristlecones (and the PC4). Wahl and Ammann do not report that they have replicated this result – I wonder why not?
19. MBH98 stated that they had done R2 cross-validation tests and Mann told Natuurwetenschap that his reconstruction passed an R2 cross-validation test. Again we can surmise the answer – I presume that Wahl and Ammann have replicated the catastrophic failure of the R2 test and have similarly replicated MBH withholding of this information. This is not really the type of replication that one wants.
20. confidence interval calculations in MBH98 here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=200) and here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=201)
21. data citations for instrumental series. These are currently attributed only to NOAA, which is not an adequate citation.

There are two elements to replication: what could have been replicated on the record before our studies of MBH98 began and what can be replicated after the Corrigendum SI in July 2004. The two differ, but, as shown below, the Corrigendum SI is far from resolving many MBH98 issues.



http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=240

Your mistake is swallowing a contrived claim by Mann and his cronies.They have been picked apart over it and their weasling of the data they used is openly exposed.

The Variability is well known.The Little Ice age is real and was significant from the temperature departure of what we today enjoy.How can you so stupidly overlook this? This has been known since the 1800's! There is over 150 years of research on it and you allow Mann and his highly biased cronies sweep away using PROXIES?:hahaha:

The Medieval Optimism is well known and proved historically,Geologically and even Climatically.There was indeed a much warmer Earth around 900-1100 AD.

[markus3622]

So 1), 2), 3) i) and 4) were correct. There's quite a lot to your point 3(ii) and I'll need some time to look at that. Look at it I will. What can be stated though, is that both pieces of research are "hot of the press" and still in the review period.

[sunsettommy]

THE LITTLE ICE AGE

Richard D. Tkachuck
Geoscience Research Institute


Excerpt:
CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion there is ample evidence that a significant cooling occurred for several centuries starting around 1450 AD. This cooling caused significant changes in the distribution of plant and animal life and in the way man responded to the environment. The causes for this cooling may have derived from a combination of changes in the energy output of the sun and changes in the atmosphere of the earth which resulted from volcanic activity that reduced the amount of energy absorbed.
This uncertainty as to the cause for this cooling which so markedly affected life should warn those who demand that the Earth responds only to massive (forceful) events. Very subtle changes in the factors determining climate during the Little Ice Age occurred. One wonders how much greater they need be to cause a true ice age.


http://www.grisda.org/origins/10051.htm

It is a long link with charts and refernces.

The Little Ice age was real and historical.

[Faithful_Servant]

The reason we have been discussing the consensus is because

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Naturalized-Texan
Actually, there is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by human activity
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


If we both admit that a consensus exists (which you appear to be doing), we can move on.

Are you on medication? Tex just said that there is NO consensus. You have go to be the densest cut and paste artist I've ever seen. Small planets orbit around your house. Time slows in your vicinity. Light is bent when you walk by. The guy downstairs from you only weighs 2 lbs., but the guy upstairs weighs 459 lbs.

[Faithful_Servant]

Faithful Servant

If you look through the threads on climate change, you will notice that the few pieces of evidence presented by the skeptics have been challenged on the science, using peer-reviewed work. What is interesting is that skeptics like Tex, rather than challenging on the facts has resorted to a few tactics:

1) Find another "piece of evidence" supporting the skeptics' position (and ignoring the challenge to their evidence). This tactic has a rather short shelf-life, being that the position is based on about three or four pieces of work.
2) At this stage, conspiracy theories about World Socialism appear - unsupported of course. - You will have noticed how NT made a claim about the proportion of scientists on the IPCC. Once challenged, he ignores it, hoping it will go away.
3) Once a piece of evidence has been refuted, repost it a few pages later, hoping nobody notices. The Soon/Balunas paper has appeared a few times under this guise.
4) If all else fails, label the opposite position as 'junk science' or 'fraudulent'.

It is also worth noticing that NT's position has changed from time to time

"The world isn't getting warmer" becomes "the world is getting warmer".
"The IPCC position supports the skeptics" becomes "the IPCC is a socialist conspiracy"
"The NAS scientists are real scientists" becomes "the NAS panellists didn't have the guts to tell the truth".

Ultimately, the one point that remains unchallenged is that the major scientific bodies of the world have publicly stated that the world is getting warmer and that man is partly responsible. Not one major scientific body has been found that disputes this. Perhaps NT would like to challenge this point, or concede the debate.
It's been challenged and defeated repeatedly, markie. You just ignore the posts.

[markus3622]

FS, my post was to Sunsettommy, stating that NT had said there was no consensus. That should have been obvious. Easy mistake to make if you weren't reading the thread properly. Just like the other part of the thread you missed.

The reason I was able to write "Ultimately, the one point that remains unchallenged is that the major scientific bodies of the world have publicly stated that the world is getting warmer and that man is partly responsible. Not one major scientific body has been found that disputes this.",

was because when I challenged you to find one major scientific body, you skipped it. (I waited about five days) Now's your chance. Just one major scientific body will do.

[sunsettommy]

FS, my post was to Sunsettommy, stating that NT had said there was no consensus. That should have been obvious. Easy mistake to make if you weren't reading the thread properly. Just like the other part of the thread you missed.

The reason I was able to write "Ultimately, the one point that remains unchallenged is that the major scientific bodies of the world have publicly stated that the world is getting warmer and that man is partly responsible. Not one major scientific body has been found that disputes this.",

was because when I challenged you to find one major scientific body, you skipped it. (I waited about five days) Now's your chance. Just one major scientific body will do.

It is obvious that I have wasted my time telling you that "Scientific Consensus" is NOT a FACT,just a popular belief.It is not even smart of you to still keep up with the mantra of how many "scientific body" publicly state anything.It sheds NO new understanding of the issue.

I have already told you about ONE man overturning the Professional Geologists stated Scientific Consensus that he was daft about the possibility of Continental Drift.

I agree with NT that there is NO Scientific Consensus,It is a propaganda tool to silence the ones who does not agree with them.That is why they say it so often,the Media does it too.They are afraid of the few who courageously speak out against the Global Warming Cabal.

You show that fear too in the threads on this subject.

By the way you are forgetting the Russians:

http://en.rian.ru/science/20050701/40831419.html

PLUS more,


UPDATE II: The "Joint Academies Statement" engineered by Lord Robert May appears to be more "misstatement"


Then US-National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Albert (his term just expired on June 30) states in an e-mail:
"... we definitely did not approve the Royal Society press release, and I have sent a letter to Bob May expressing my dismay at his misleading and political statements there."



The situation now appears that we have a joint academies statement, including the US and Russian Academies of Sciences that does not, in fact, include either the US or Russian Academies. At this time, immediately prior to the G8 Summit, the only definitely known endorser of Lord May's statement is, well, Lord Robert May.

-- information curtesy S. Fred Singer

UPDATE: SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN DISARRAY AS RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE WITHDRAWS FROM G8 STATEMENT

The international scientific community was plunged into disarray as news emerged yesterday how Britain's Royal Society has been orchestrating a political campaign behind the back of the Russian Academy of Science. In a calculated attempt to overthrow the well-known sceptical position of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS) on climate change, the Royal Society appears to have pressured its president, Yuri Osipov, into signing a politically motivated document against the expressed stance of its own organisation.

The RAS had never seen or discussed the text of the Academies' statement. After having done so, the RAS climate scientists have come to the conclusion that the statement of the Academies is "lacking scientific proof and having contradictions in logic in its many assertions."

The shenanigans of Lord May and his cronies appears to have backfired: Instead of providing evidence of an international "scientific consensus" on climate change, the public retraction by the Russian Academy of Science from the Royal Society's unduly political G8 statement has exposed the whole exercise as a complete farce. As a result, the reputation and integrity of the world's leading scientific academies have been severely damaged.

-- Information curtesy Benny Peiser

Andrei Illarionov provides: STATEMENT OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE

Moscow, July 1, 2005

Statement of the Council-Seminar of the Russian Academy of Science under President of the RAS on Climate Change and issues of the Kyoto protocol on "Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change» (further - «Academies' statement»)

The Council-Seminar of the Russian Academy of Science has examined the «Academies' statement» and makes the following statement:

1. The Council-Seminar announces that the Russian Academy of Science has not been given the opportunity of working over the text of the «Academies' statement». «The Academies' statement» itself has not been discussed by any of the collective bodies of the Russian Academy of Science. The decision to support it has not been taken by any of the collective bodies of the Russian Academy of Science.

2. The Council-Seminar sees the «Academies' statement» as lacking scientific proof and having contradictions in logic in its many assertions.

3. The Council-Seminar attracts attention to the fact of absence at the present level of knowledge of cost-effective methods of stabilization of greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere.

4. The Council-Seminar noted that the «Academies' statement» offers costly and ineffective measures to achieve unproven targets.

5. The Council-Seminar asks the President of the Russian Academy of Science to repudiate his signature from the «Academies' statement».

6. The Council-Seminar reiterates its full support to its Statement of May 14, 2004*, including:
- in regard of the absence of scientific basis of the Kyoto Protocol,
- in regard of ineffectiveness of the Kyoto protocol to achieve aims of the UNFCCC,
- in regard of risks to the Russian economy from the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

* Opinion of the Council-Seminar of the Russian Academy of Science under President of the RAS on Climate Change and issues of the Kyoto protocol on anthropogenic climate change and Kyoto protocol, Moscow, May 14, 2004.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Yup a "scientific body" that DOES NOT accept Global warming of IPCC and others.

Whoops there goes your argument.There is indeed a Scientific Body that thinks similar to Richard Lindzen,Patrick Michaels,Willie Soon,Sallie Ballunas and many more.It is obvious that there are a lot of Scientists who does not agree with your beliefs and those of IPCC and similar groups.

So your adherence to the mantra that "Scientific Consensus" is relevant is dumber than ever.

[markus3622]

I must admit those are interesting developments. They've appeared in the last few days, and it'll be interesting to see if anything further happens on that front. Having said that, the statement from the Russian academy appears to actually be attacking the Kyoto side (the reduction in emissions) rather than the science of climate change itself. It's certainly not clear from what you've posted that the Russian academies reject the science of climate change.

Bruce Albert's position is similar.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=12338&cid=4&cname=Business+Today

Radio correspondent Tom Feilden said Mr Alberts had "taken exception to the way the Royal Society has spun the story, if you like, in a press release issued to accompany the text of the statement. Now, in it, the Royal Society's Lord May claimed that the US Government policy on climate change was misguided, and that the Bush administration had consistently failed the advice of American scientists.

"In his strongly worded - it has to be said - letter, Bruce Alberts says he is dismayed by that and accuses the Royal Society of misrepresenting their position, considerably changing the meaning and intend of a report the Academy published in 1992, which forms the basis of their policy. Now, he makes clear that Lord May's comments have caused a great deal of trouble behind the scenes in Washington and even threatens to withdraw from future collaborative efforts with the Royal Society."

The argument seems to be more about the wording of the joint statement, attacking the Bush administration, rather than the science. Bruce Alberts does not appear to be saying that he disagrees with the science.

In this presentation that Bruce Alberts gave in 2002, he restates the summary of the 2001 NAS report, that only one member on the committee disagreed with. It seems likely that the skeptics will jump on this email and spin it, without actually considering what Alberts is criticising.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/workshop2002/keynotes/alberts-5dec2002.htm

This article from Nature throws some skepticism over the Russian position. I'll grant you one organisation that is at least dubious.

On the work on the hockey stick, we need to wait to see how the peer-review process goes.

It's good to see we've all stepped up to discuss the science now, looking at peer-reviewed journals and major scientific bodies, rather than crank websites.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040531/pf/429327b_pf.html

[markus3622]

Interestingly, the President seems to agree that human activity is making the earth warmer

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050706/nyw077.html?.v=18

Listen, I recognize that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem. Kyoto didn't work for the United States and it, frankly, didn't work for the world. The reason it didn't work for the world is many developing nations weren't included in Kyoto.

President Bush has a problem with Kyoto, but that's a different topic.

[sunsettommy]

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR72302.html

[sunsettommy]

Sunsettommy -

1) There was no consensus on "global cooling" in the 1970s - nothing comparable to today
2) I agree that any consensus could be wrong. That's the scientific position to take - it doesn't mean it is wrong. At least you're admitting that there is a scientific consensus.
3) The "hockey stick" has passed peer-review, but has been challenged in an economics journal
4) Your point is that the climate was warmer in the past when there were higher CO2 levels. That makes sense - that's why people are concerned about increasing CO2 levels - basic physics

Tex,

I agree that confirmation bias can be a problem. John Derbyshire could also have written about fat cheques from right-wing foundations. This point seems to elude you completely.

Here is a few examples to answer #1,

Bottom section of the link:

JamesPHogan.com

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="99%" bgColor=#ffff00 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="60%" height=20>GARBAGE IN -- GOSPEL OUT Posted on January 6, 1998 <TD align=right width="48%" height=20>Read More of the Environmental (http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/archives/environment.shtml) Topic.</TD></STRONG></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
GLOBAL WARMING IN PERSPECTIVE


What They Were Telling Us Then:


In these days when attention spans and retentiveness seem increasingly to be TV-conditioned to thirty minutes or thereabouts, it's worth being reminded of what the big panic was a quarter of a century ago.

Science Digest, February 1973, warned that the "world's climatologists are agreed" that humanity must "prepare for the next ice age."

Science, March 1, 1975, announced that the Earth had better prepare for "the approach of a full-blown 10,000 year ice age." And later, December 10, 1976, predicted "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

International Wildlife, July, 1975: "A new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery."

Newsweek, April 28, 1975: "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," which would "reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

New York Times, August 14, 1975 discussed "the many signs pointing to the possibility that the Earth may be heading for another ice age."

The culprits? Americans mainly, for showing the rest of the world how to stop squabbling and make life better instead. The solution? More government funding of more studies; more taxes; more controls.


http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/content/010698.shtml

Underlining sentences are mine.

[markus3622]

Keep pummelling that strawman. Once you've killed him however, you may have to start on a new one

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

You're basing your conclusion in a few reports that appeared in the popular press, as opposed to the scientific journals.