Let's see CO2 is not a GHG. Ted's voodoo perspective trumps science once again

You and I both know its not the primary GHG – the amount of “forcing” separated from all other influences is the real issue – for which we have no real answer.




Who on this thread was trying to make the link between AGW and weather events – me or you? So have a good laugh at yourself Dingo.



Depends on what we consider “collateral costs” and direct costs of making it capable of being main stream.


?

Just your belief that extreme weather can be related to AGW. And of course that the MWP never happened world wide. That farce is next to go down the tubes.




Just another piece in the puzzle – the cover up will end with real scientific evidence.

I have a question for those in this thread who use the label 'denialist'.

Are the scientists in this group denialists as well?

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences
Tim Patterson[31], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology

.. and the list goes on, there are many more.

There are scientists who prefer Biblical creationism to evolution. They are denialists too. That doesn't mean the above are all denialists. Many of the GW skeptics have arguments with particular parts of AGW theory but accept the general proposition that human release of GHGs is the principal reason for temp. rise in recent times. If you limited your selection to climate specialists who had written peer reviewed papers arguing against AGW then you would be doing more than throwing names up against the wall. Spencer(Not on your list) might be one.

Is your argument that weak that you must throw out a red herring in the form of Biblical creationism when I mentioned nothing of the sorts?

The list of scientists who don't believe our past warming trend is far larger than the few names I listed above.

I guess since you use the term denialist to describe those who don't subscribe to anthropogenic global warming. I will use the word 'sheep' to describe those who blindly follow the "the science is settled crowd".

Best evidence shows human released CO2 is the primary forcing causing recent temperature rise. At least you shifted from denying the influence of CO2 altogether.


I was simply matching your logic on the treatment of storm intensity.


Collateral costs is just another way of saying real costs. The environmental devastation of fossil fuel would be an example of a collateral cost.

No. Models that are incapable of predicting anything and are suspect at best show this. The “primary” cause of temperature changes is still up for debate. IMO CO2 plays a part – a small and insignificant part.



Ya right. Storm intensity tied to GW is your mantra all through this thread. And with lots of “GW fanatics” right behind you. Turns out it is, like much of the “science” of GW you profess, -wrong.



And we pay for it through taxes and the costs passed on for pollution control, cleanup, etc. I have no problem with any of that. Except the silly “carbon tax” which presumes things I believe are not true and then wants us to pay trillions of $$ for.

Your uniformed opinion and two bucks will buy me a cup of coffee.



I have simply followed the IPCC on this matter. They think warming oceans are likely associated with increased storm intensity but they also say the matter is unresolved at this time. As to your usual uniformed but emphatic opinion. That should be worth another cup of coffee.


And all that pollution control and cleanup is a real cost added to the price at the pump. You do get that don't you?

The carbon tax is to pay the added cost WHATEVER that might be. I realize when it comes to AGW for you 2+2=3 but then subtract that problem and except a carbon tax that pays for the REAL to you downstream costs.

.

Right “likely associated” and then there were all those stories from around the world on extreme weather being related to GW. But ya its “unresolved” and the stories are not even worth one cup of (strong) coffee.


Realize this. We don’t know what the cost will be of doing nothing since we don’t know how much the temperature will rise. So spending trillions now based on “models” that could be off the wall is stupid. And no one in the Congress – even Democrats (except the far left) will vote for it.

Here we see how data is withheld from peers who may not agree or look too closely at the data or conclusions. This is par for the course.

“We seem to be having occasional success in getting things archived. CSIRO was shamed into providing the data for their Drought Report and David Stockwell has now reported on this.

Earlier this year, we reported a form of academic check kiting by Ammann and Wahl, where they had referred to Supplementary Information for key results, but failed to provide the Supplementary Information. Flaccid peer reviewers and flaccid editors at Climatic Change either didn’t notice or didn’t care. Given that RE significance had been a major issue both in the original MM articles and in the twice rejected GRL submission by Wahl and Ammann, you’d think that someone would have spent a couple of minutes checking out whether the argument in the SI actually worked. But, hey,…
The editors of Climatic Change didn’t have any information about the SI. When I contacted Caspar Ammann for the SI, he replied early this year in the typically ‘gracious’ Team style:

why would I even bother answering your questions, isn’t that just lost time?

So this became one more issue on the blog. Some readers get tired of the litany of non-compliance. Look, I get tired of the non-compliance too. Ammann’s case was particularly egregious because the article actually referred to and relied on the SI, which was then withheld. In some cases, sunshine works. CSIRO grudgingly archived their drought data and, a couple of days ago, I noticed that Ammann had grudgingly put up his Supplementary Information (without notifying me despite my outstanding request.)

I’ve been criticized for not replying to Wahl and Ammann, but, unlike, say, IPCC section authors considering this material, I actually like to be able to examine the Supplementary Information and this has only been available for a couple of weeks (and, in my case, effectively only a couple of days.)
Some of the results in this SI are simply breath-taking. I hardly know what to say or where to begin.
Read the rest of this entry »
http://www.climateaudit.org/

Ted's denialist hero, Stephen McIntyre, is a mathematician, not a climate scientist. He challenged Mann on his hockey stick reconstruction of annual temperature over the last 1000 years and lost the argument. Apparently his one legitimate claim to fame is he found a minor error in some NASA temperature data. Correcting the error pushed the second hottest temperature in US history up to the hottest - bid deal! Denialists have pathetically tried to ride that corrected glitch into anti-global warming heaven. These denialists are shameless, they will grasp at anything.

Which makes you ask, why are so many folks invested in AGW denialism in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and support for the AGW model? They will latch onto any opinionated denialist with a degree in just about anything. Most of them seem to repair to some kind of scientific conspiracy theory involving government preferential payoffs to AGW folks and a belief that it's all part of a globalist socialist takeover of private property. Hard to fathom but yeah, that's what most of them appear to believe. It's real primitive tribal paranoia stuff.

Here's the much disputed hockey stick graph for those who aren't acquainted with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Ye..._Comparison.png

Here RealClimate offers a Dummies Guide to the Hockey Stick controversy.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ck-controversy/

It's funny how the global warming sheep follow the Mann Hockey stick graph so religiously.

The major flaw with the Mann graph is that he makes the Medieval Warming period and little ice age all but disappear. That is because the temperatures from those times would not look right if one wanted to craft results in the way they saw fit. Yeah, real science there.

Also......

If we are continually warming then shouldn't 2007 have been THE warmest?

If anyone was curious 1934 and 1998 are tied for the warmest year on record.

ALSO, Five of the ten warmest years occurred before World War II since we have been keeping record.

Link to revised NASA data that was quietly swept under the rug so nobody would notice.

And you wonder why we think of AGW advocates as religious nutcases? You sit here and insult those of us that are skeptical of the claims that science can predict the future based on climate models that are unable to predict the measured past and you can't understand why we are reluctant to accept the predictions made? Throw in a price tag in the hundreds of billions of dollars, the restriction of future economic growth, hell throw in your own thinly veiled advocacy of genocide (unless you don't think reducing the global population by 85% would need to result from genocide or eugenics of some sort?) and you are looking at (from my point of view) a group of people that are either full of themselves (best case) or lunatic fanatics (worst case).

We all know that you must be an expert in order to challenge conclusions. That's why I dismiss critics of the Iraq war: very few of them are current generals in the US armed forces. How can some civilian or former soldier dare to speak out about a war when they aren't an accredited expert? They are just Middle East Stability denialists! (Yes, this was sarcasm).




"Invested" in denialism? I'm not invested in anything. I am fully aware that the temperature has risen globally over the last century. I am skeptical of future predictions based on flawed computer models. I am skeptical of change when the case for the future scenario is unproven and the cost of the change versus the benefits of the proposed change are dubious at best. Jim Hansen thinks we've reached a tipping point already. So let's go home since the game is already over.

Seriously, though, how can there be a conversation (or debate) when one side is continuously demonized by such derogatory terms as "denialist", "opinionated", and "overwhelming". Throw in "Luddites", "idiots" and "bone heads" and you'll win us over easily...

Jim Hansen isn't the only serious scientist who thinks the likely best the world can achieve in controlling greenhouse gases won't be enough to prevent a totally different climate regime. (See Guardian Article on Bob Watson's Viewpoint).







(See HERE for biography of Bob Watson).

It's about the character of the arguments Amlord. Most of them don't rise to the level of serious skepticism. Usually they are just silly recycled rants. And I think I do make distinctions. For instance skepticism of long term global warming raised by Spencer due to troposphere studies he and others had done I was the first to bring up on this thread. That was based on real atmospheric data that as of right now has not been adequately refuted. No way is that denialism.

But back to the denialism charge. Let me give you exhibit A, the poster right before you - Sleeper. Here's his rejoinder to me.


Standard denialist strawman, need I explain? These denialist folks are constantly positing premises that they pull out of nowhere.



He takes a topic, world wide global warming, and offers up a set of statistics referring strictly to America. I've posted on many forums and on every one there is a denialist waiting to play this apples and oranges game.

Most of this stuff seems to come out of a standard denialist playbook because you keep reading it over and over wherever you go.

Here is a recent denialist example that is more original and also gave me a laugh. On another forum it was reported that the North Pole was about to turn into an ice free lake due to global warming. There was also a parallel article reporting eruptions occurring directly below the North Pole. Every denialist to a man, started hooting and hollering that the imminent conversion of the North Pole to a lake was due to the volcano erupting below it, not global warming. I then pointed out the part of the article that said the volcano was many kilometers below the North Pole and would not have any effect on the melting. Some tried to hang in there and others gave up and went off looking for some other denialist fish to fry.

It's this kind of stuff, much of it recycled over and over, and commonly attached to some conspiracy theory that has led me to the conclusion that the word 'skepticism' simply gives stature to what really is little more than an irrational denialist state of mind, an agenda driven condition of faith. So I use the word that is most descriptively accurate.

Don't mean to hurt anybodies' feelings.

By the way, it's a low blow to make reference to my conjecture about a possible long term population optimum. Included in that you imply some genocidal and/or eugenic agenda on my part. I advocated neither. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, namely the validity of AGW as a principal explanation for recent temperature increases.

Shame on you.

Ted brought up this aricle some time ago. I responded with a brief reference to one of the more authoritative climate blogs. In keeping with my desire to respond to any skeptic reference to work that has even a semblance of peer review. HERE is a more extensive response from Realclimate.





Or, as one of commenters on the Realclimate article stated:

Gee skepticism form a “mathematician” (McIntyre) - How odd since the entire theory of AGW rests on MATHEMATICAL models that me and lots of others find not up to the job of predicting out 100 years and getting me to agree now is the time to commit to 6 trillion in spending.

And if you read McIntyre you notice how little support and cooperation he gets from the AGW “scientists” when he questions their math and their conclusions.

“There has been the most extraordinary series of postings at Climate Audit over the last week. As is usual at CA, there is a heavy mathematics burden for the casual reader, which, with a bit of research I think I can now just about follow. The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists, and I'm going to try to tell it in layman's language so that the average blog reader can understand it. As far as I know it's the first time the whole story has been set out in a single posting. It's a long tale - and the longest posting I think I've ever written and piecing it together from the individual CA postings has been a long, hard but fascinating struggle. You may want to get a long drink before starting, and those who suffer from heart disorders may wish to take their beta blockers first.

Shortly after its publication, the hockey stick and its main author, Michael Mann, came under attack from Steve McIntyre, a retired statistician from Canada. In a series of scientific papers and later on his blog, Climate Audit, McIntyre took issue with the novel statistical procedures used by the hockey stick's authors. He was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes, and criticised Mann for not publishing the cross validation R2, a statistical measure of how well the temperature reconstruction correlated with actual temperature records. He also showed that the appearance of the graph was due solely to the use of an estimate of historic temperatures based on tree rings from bristlecone pines, a species that was known to be problematic for this kind of reconstruction.


http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/200...esus-paper.html

Still trying to beat us with a broken hockey stick are you Ted? I know by now that you're going to believe what you want to believe despite the evidence to the contrary, so I not going to try to change your opinion. However, to avoid confusing others, HERE is a reproduction of a graph of 11 separate attempts at reconstructing the temperature record over the previous 1250 years of the Northern Hemisphere taken from the IPCC's AR4. All 11 graphs have the hockey stick appearance.

These proxy reconstructions are interesting but not even a key part of the case for AGO. Why don't you and your fellow deniers spend some time refuting the Arctic ice melt, retreating glaciers, and the growing evidence of instability of the cryosphere generally?

As you apparently just ignored the IPCC AR4 "Hockey Stick" graph is a fraud – The graph is blown and the incompetance of the IPCC is clear. Want to dispute Bishop. Do it TedN5 - point by point. Stop hiding behind the fraud of RealClimate LOL

"There has been the most extraordinary series of postings at Climate Audit over the last week. As is usual at CA, there is a heavy mathematics burden for the casual reader, which, with a bit of research I think I can now just about follow. The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists, and I'm going to try to tell it in layman's language so that the average blog reader can understand it. As far as I know it's the first time the whole story has been set out in a single posting. It's a long tale - and the longest posting I think I've ever written and piecing it together from the individual CA postings has been a long, hard but fascinating struggle. You may want to get a long drink before starting, and those who suffer from heart disorders may wish to take their beta blockers first.

The other important happening was the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, which would be attended by many of the big names in paleoclimate and at which both McIntyre and Amman would be making presentations. McIntyre's plan was to use the question and answer session after Amman's presentation to once again press for the R2 number for the hockey stick, a figure that had never been released, despite it being constantly requested over the previous years by McIntyre, journals, politicians and journalists. Sure enough, when confronted, Amman once again prevaricated.

While the AGU was meeting in San Francisco, Climate Change had provisionally accepted Wahl and Amman's CC paper, any objections which might have been raised by McIntyre swept aside by simple means of not inviting him to review the second draft. The resubmitted version of the paper turned out to be almost identical to the old one, except that a new section on the statistical treaments had been added, presumably as a condition of acceptance. And here there was an upside because, buried deep within the paper, Amman and Wahl had quietly revealed their verification R2 figures, which were, just as McIntyre had predicted, close to zero for most of the reconstruction, strongly suggesting that the hockey stick had little predictive power.

In the background, howevrer, much had been happening. Suddenly in September 2007, and with the IPCC report published, the CC paper suddenly appeared, preceded in the same journal by another paper by the same authors. What had happened was that Wahl and Amman were quietly allowed to rewrite their rejected GRL paper and submit it to Climatic Change instead. All reference to the rejected GRL paper in the CC paper could be replaced by reference to the new paper, (which I will call the Jesus paper, in light of its extraordinary resurrection and for lack of any less confusing name). With identical authorship, and a maze of cross-references between them, the two CC papers were carefully designed to make understanding how their arguments relied on each other as difficult as possible.

You will remember that Amman and Wahl had claimed that they had established a benchmark of zero for a 99% significant RE score - that is to say, there is only a 1% chance that you might have got that score by chance. McIntyre had, much earlier, shown that if you ran red noise through the process, you could get RE scores of more than 0.5. (Red noise is best described as a "random walk" - a line which wiggles at random, but is not entirely random like white noise.) To reduce your chance of random error to 1% you actually needed to score 0.54 for RE. How Amman had come up with zero as his benchmark was a mystery.
Now, with the code in front of him, McIntyre could see exactly what Wahl and Amman had done. And what they had done was to calculate almost exactly the same figure as he had! The number they had arrived at was 0.52, just a whisker away from McIntyre's own 0.54, but they had reported to the world that it was sufficient only to score a positive number! Of course, this wasn't picked up by the peer reviewers because, as we've seen, they didn't have access to the Supplementary Information, but the IPCC's purposes had been served - the hockey stick found its way intact into the Fourth Assessment Report, unscathed by skirmishes with inconvenient statistical truths.

To get the answer they needed, the higher scoring runs had to be made to be lower than the hockey stick, but left in the calculation.
To do this, Wahl and Amman came up with a value which they called a calibration/verification RE ratio. As the name suggests, this was the ratio of the two RE numbers for calibration and verification. This ratio is however, entirely unknown to statistics, or to any other branch of science. But it was not plucked out of the air. The ratio and the threshold value which was set for it by Wahl and Amman was carefully calculated. They argued that any run with a ratio less than 0.75 should be assigned a score of -9999. Since the hockey stick had a score of 0.813, 0.75 was pretty much the highest level you could go to without rejecting the hockey stick itself. However if you set your ratio threshold too low, not enough runs would be rejected and the hockey stick would no longer be "99% significant". Some of the results of this ratio were entirely perverse - it was possible for a run that had scored a reasonably good RE in the calibration (there was a good correlation between it and the actual temperatures) to be thrown out of the final assessment on the grounds that it had done very well in the verification - the correlation with actual temperatures was considered too good!

With this new, and pretty much entirely arbitrary hurdle in place, Wahl and Amman were able to reject several of the runs which stood between the hockey stick and what they saw as its rightful place as the gold standard for climate reconstructions. That the statistical foundations on which they had built this paleoclimate castle were a swamp of misrepresentation, deceit and malfeasance was, to Wahl and Amman, an irrelevance. For political and public consumption, the hockey stick still lived, ready to guide political decision-making for years to come."
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/200...Page=2#comments

I'll admit I don't understand most of the statistical gobbledegook of McIntyre but to my mind he has been thoroughly discredited, as the basic Mann hockey stick model has been verified by numerous studies involving many temperature proxies for the last 1000 years. TedH5 showed showed you a whole graph full of them from IPCC 4. Anyway check these links out.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114

Naturally you give me the same bogus web site to verify you belief that this “Hockey Stick” is real. The article was simple enough to read. The “scientists” in question did everything they could to get their unacceptable conclusions into the IPCC 4 and succeeded. The IPCC bought this lie.

Here is the key – “To get the answer they needed, the higher scoring runs had to be made to be lower than the hockey stick, but left in the calculation.
To do this, Wahl and Amman came up with a value which they called a calibration/verification RE ratio. As the name suggests, this was the ratio of the two RE numbers for calibration and verification. This ratio is however, entirely unknown to statistics, or to any other branch of science.”

In other words after stonewalling McIntyre and others they essentially “made up” a ratio that worked to give them the required result because after years of being perused they finally admitted their original value had no predictive value. In other words it was worthless.

.

Wrong. The MWP was much warmer than the Mann graph – and in any case there is no dispute that it is warmer now as we came out of the “little ice age” – the questions are how much as compared to other times, the ‘cause” and what the future holds – and if the graph has no predictive value it is worthless .

And this points out how much deception is behind the AGW “science” – and that is why many of us out here think it is pure crap.

So this is why criticizing mathematicians and statisticians for being interested in how the numbers are derived is key. Even the current numbers for world temperature are questionable give the Tom Foolery that has taken place with the GISS as previously discussed.

And the idea that anything is “peer reviewed” when a liar like Mann stonewalls some selected scientists to cove the holes in his “graph” tell us a lot.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Ted passionately advocates for a mathematical know nothing simply because he agrees with him and ignores a host of climate scientists and their many proxy studies on temperature over the last millenium who support the hockey stick model.

Ted I have a feeling you would support Donald Duck over Einstein if DD were advocating your religiously held preconceptions.

And what might be the motive of these many scientists to dummy up some hockey stick timeline for temperature that they knew wasn't true? Let's get to the bottom of this conspiracy.

Well form me AGW is no religion and from what I have seen of some of the “scientists” like Mann I am not impressed

The bottom line is that the “conclusions” are worthless if the data and data analysis are flawed, faked, manipulated, or otherwise not accurate. And that is exactly what we see here.

So you may maintain your religious belief in AGW – I want definitive proof and un corrupted data/analysis and we don’t have that throughout the IPCC 4 report therefore I question the conclusions.



Well there was that email claimed to have been sent by Mann saying “we need to make the MWP disappear” – clearly it becomes hard to blame “man” for GW when it has happened before when there was no “forcing CO2 created by man” to blame.

The far left in heavily behind AGW as a way to sniffle global capitalism and industrialization in general. Meanwhile “real” pollution gets the back page in the story. Thus the pollution that kills millions gets far less attention than it should.

Thanks Ted for making my point about the essential conspiracy nuttiness behind the AGW denialists.

Keep your eyes tight shut and suck up the Realclimate coolaid.

Here is another example of manipulated data. Needless to say these folks will not get away with this crap and the big “carbon taxes” you would love to see will never happen.

“After I posted GISS Spackle and Caulk, a number of commenters marveled at the symmetry of the histogram (GISS temperature estimate minus actual temperature). Some were dismayed that there was not a clear warming bias in the plot.

When GISS combines multiple records for a single station, it uses an undocumented enhancement to the "bias method". This "enhancement" starts with the latest record, that being the MCDW record, rather than the documented longest record, which is usually the one with the real December 1986 temperature. An average temperature is calculated for both the MCDW record and the older record for the period of overlap, which is usually 1987 to 1990.
If the average temperature of the older record during the period of overlap is warmer than the MCDW record, the older record is "cooled" to match MCDW. The opposite is true if the older record is warmed to match the MCDW.

All things being equal, a cold estimate for December 1986 results in a colder 1987 to 1990 MCDW, as compared to the older record. Therefore, the older record is uniformly cooled to match the MCDW estimate. June 1906 is cooled just as much as February 1985. Across Europe, Greenland, Iceland, and all of Russia this happens more than twice as much as the warming does. And it is done to many records that go well back in time.

By cooling the older record and leaving the current record unchanged, an enhanced warming trend is introduced. This is completely artificial, of course, because the actual December 1986 temperatures are available.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3428#more-3428

If you have been following this thread you might like to check out the latest on the seasonal Arctic ice melt. Despite the cooler than recent trend temperatures for 2008 (likely due to the El Nina condition of the ENSO), the ice melt is approaching last year's record melt. (See This Graphic and discussion or HERE).

And ice increase on the other side of the world.

Until I see that the “data” is not being manipulated by “believers” I will remain a skeptic.

And I am not holding my breath for honesty from the believer crowd.


Over the past 20 years, southern sea ice has expanded, in contrast to the Arctic's decline, and researchers want to understand why. Many climate-model experiments show the Arctic responding more rapidly than Antarctica as global warming kicks in. But after looking at the latest projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Arctic sea ice is well ahead of the models, and Antarctic sea ice is well behind what the models project," says Stephen Ackley, a polar scientist at the University of Texas, San Antonio.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html?page=1

Ted, your Christian Science Monitor Article is a pretty good one for the popular media but hardly implies what you conclude.



Meanwhile, as we have shown elsewhere in this thread, the total mass of Antarctic ice is declining - growing in the East somewhat with predicted increases in snowfall but declining more in the West.

Over the past 20 years, southern sea ice has expanded, in contrast to the Arctic's decline, and researchers want to understand why

The key sentence is above. The sacred “models” which we base prediction on do not seem to work here nad this is and always has been the key issue.

It's is only key because you declare it is key while choosing to ignore the major points in the article. And, no, the models aren't sacred. They are constantly being examined and improved as more and more research accumulates and as computer speed and capacity improves.

No they are seriously flawed in making long term predictions and the date inputted into the models is suspect as well.

Why did it take YEARS for Mann to show how he derived his “curve”? Why is the data so poorly handled or I should say mishandled.

The whole argument for AGW stinks of lying and politics – words that do not go with scientific research. And please don’t tell me this isn’t happening because I have documented it above.

That sums up Ted. Something is key because he declares it to be key followed by one of his repetitive invented strawmen, the "sacred models" in this case.

Ted and others doggedly conduct their war with the evidence and the experts. Apparently it supplies some psychological payoff. A convenient interpretation of nature and nature's processes as dwarfing man's puny contributions I think supplies the God and serious science as opposed to the pc kind stands in as the ever nefarious Devil. This all has a fundi true believer feel to it.

Why do they go to all this trouble to assert 2+2=3? Some sort of world view is clearly threatened. Maybe I should leave it up to them to explain it. AGW fronting as a kind of socialist global conspiracy to take away property rights of theirs keeps coming up over and over. That certainly appears to supply a basis for much of this perverse denialist thinking.

Ted, if your really interested in the status of current climate models and what's going on to try to improve them, read Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations put out by the US Climate Change Program. I particularly recommend the chapter on Future Model Development. The discussion on page 86 and 87 is directly relevant to better modeling of what is going on in the southern oceans.

I will look for a copy but that is not the major problem TedN5. The old saying is GIGO “garbage in garbage out”.

The input of flawed or deliberately incorrect data will make the best models worthless. And today we have both problems. Immature and limited models and bad or deliberately erroneous data. Theses issues may get corrected but I really don’t see how because of the all to political nature of the debate.

Unbelievable, Palin still says she doesn't know what is causing climate change and that it doesn't matter what is causing it, we just need to do something about it!

Palin on YouTube

Let's see, that leaves open:

Moving everyone to Alaska and Canada and possibly Patagonia. (Possibly the reason that Palin's Church believes Alaska will be one of refuges for the saved).

Putting up a giant sun screen.

Going back in time to a cooler time.

Praying to God for deliverance (a Palin favorite).

This is the reasoned response on global warming we get from the Vice Presidential Candidate picked by someone who holds up his champion of responses to global warming as evidence of his opposition to the failed policies of George W. Bush.

She is ½ right. We don’t really know the primary cause. And it troubles me McCain even discusses “cap and trade”. But its all politics – we know no POTUS or Congress – even lefty Dems will pass this anchor on the US economic system – not anytime soon.

And the troubling dishonesty in the gathering and analyzing of data continues.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4101

This seems kind of funny.


This reminds me of when Al Gore's movie premiere had to be cancelled due to unseasonal snow storms. Must be karma.

I am with you there. Al is alive and out there planning the same thing for the US – and if Obama is elected we will have it – regardless of the fact that the proof that man caused anything significant in temperature rise is inconclusive at best and a fraud at worst.

Obama with wackos like Pelosi will drag us to this abomination and it will cost millions of jobs and prolong the recession.
I am confidant McCain, if elected, will take a fresh look at the evidence and find it wanting – and proceed to kill of any thoughts of a “carbon tax”.