ClimateGate and the Climatati

[wyly]

What "force" or "speed" you're seeing in all of this, I can't say. Despite a large political push, we didn't ratify Kyoto, nor will anything come out of Copenhagen either. That's 20 years of inaction happening - which means no force and no speed in my eyes.

we did ratiy Kyoto..."China said this week it aimed to reduce its "carbon intensity" by 40-45% by the year 2020, compared with 2005 levels"...and India is expected to follow....so we'll see how it plays out next week...

[Michael Hardner]

we did ratiy Kyoto..."China said this week it aimed to reduce its "carbon intensity" by 40-45% by the year 2020, compared with 2005 levels"...and India is expected to follow....so we'll see how it plays out next week...

I stand corrected. I looked into this, and the status is that we've ratified it, but the current government doesn't appear to be acting towards reducing targets.

CTV News - Kyoto & Canada Q&A

[Keepitsimple]

And folks on the right are "against climate change" irregardless of data because some of the changes being proposed are things they don't like. It cuts both ways.

Frankly the "denier/believe" dichotomy just doesn't cut it, much like other simplistic labels.

That's the foolishness of the term "denier" and being "against Climate Change". Those who are labelled deniers fully believe in Climate change and that natural variations cause temperatures to periodically warm and cool. Many "deniers" will also concede that human activity may play a role in accelerating Climate Change but that role is likely to be relatively insignificant. So in reality - they deny nothing - they only dispute the amount of excess warming that human activity causes. Given that, the use of the term denier is inappropriate at best, completely foolish at worst.

The term "alarmist" is applied to those who believe that over and above natural Climate Change variations, human activity is causing global temperatures to rise at a rate that imperils the world and our way of life. Literal Armageddon awaits us all if we do not take drastic action. There is no give and take to their position - that is simply the way it is.....do nothing and die....Wyly is a perfect example. The term Alarmist is quite appropriate.

I don't really think it's necessarily a Right or Left ideology....although people on the right would "tend" to be more in the Rational camp while those on the Left would "tend" to lean towards alarmism.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[wyly]

I stand corrected. I looked into this, and the status is that we've ratified it, but the current government doesn't appear to be acting towards reducing targets.

CTV News - Kyoto & Canada Q&A

this government and the previous liberal government both suck at doing anything, signing the agrement is meaningless without any actual action to implement it...

[eyeball]

That's the foolishness of the term "denier" and being "against Climate Change". Those who are labelled deniers fully believe in Climate change and that natural variations cause temperatures to periodically warm and cool. Many "deniers" will also concede that human activity may play a role in accelerating Climate Change but that role is likely to be relatively insignificant. So in reality - they deny nothing - they only dispute the amount of excess warming that human activity causes. Given that, the use of the term denier is inappropriate at best, completely foolish at worst.

The term "alarmist" is applied to those who believe that over and above natural Climate Change variations, human activity is causing global temperatures to rise at a rate that imperils the world and our way of life. Literal Armageddon awaits us all if we do not take drastic action. There is no give and take to their position - that is simply the way it is.....do nothing and die....Wyly is a perfect example. The term Alarmist is quite appropriate.

I don't really think it's necessarily a Right or Left ideology....although people on the right would "tend" to be more in the Rational camp while those on the Left would "tend" to lean towards alarmism.

You think the economic alarmism that disaster will be the result if we do something about AGW is rational?

[waldo]

From Kevin Trenberth(U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research).To Michael Mann.Oct 12 2009 'The fact is we can't account for the lack of global warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't...Our observing system is inadequate' Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics-that there is no evidence that temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.

From the Ottawa Citizen, page A8,November 29th edition. This is but one of the emails that have come to light. Correct me if I'm wrong,but isn't one of the foundations of good science the INCLUSION of all relevant data? Cat got your tongue Al Gore?

This could just be as simple as forgetting one word, such as 'data'. He'll have to explain it, in any case

He has already

But his explanation is even worse than the original statement because when faced with a mismatch between models and reality he assumes that reality must be wrong. The blind faith in climate models is perhaps the biggest problem with climate science today

oh snap! The jig is up... party's over... oh well, c'est la vie. All rightee - this one's really taken off - reaching number one with a bullet on the denialmeter

but wait... perhaps there's more... perhaps there's other information left out of that hacked email quote... any context?... any of that around?

cause anal line-by-line hacked email parsing... is good for ya!

Within the hacked email thread, Trenberth offers a reply where he mentions his own paper, offers local weather anecdotes, names his paper (An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability) & provides a link to locate it... and then offers the much parroted quote:

From: Kevin Trenberth <[email protected]>

To: Michael Mann <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600

Cc: Stephen H Schneider <[email protected]>, Myles Allen <[email protected]>, peter stott <[email protected]>, "Philip D. Jones" <[email protected]>, Benjamin Santer <[email protected]>, Tom Wigley <[email protected]>, Thomas R Karl <[email protected]>, Gavin Schmidt <[email protected]>, James Hansen <[email protected]>, Michael Oppenheimer <[email protected]>

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.

Yes, Michael Hardner, it could be just as simple as omitting a single word... oh, like the word, "increased" - “the lack of increased warming”… but a word really unnecessary given the context of the email thread topic/discussion. But hey now! It could also be just as simple as adding a single word... "global"... a word that doesn’t actually exist in Trenberth’s statement. Of course that’s the phrase that get’s parroted a thousand times over, using that added "global" word. But when has the lack of attention to detail or falsification ever stopped deniers before... but I digress from the more focused matter at hand in this parroted denier claim, that of, what Trenberth actually stated, particularly in full context of the complete email.

So what did Trenberth really say... contextually say... in the context of his noted paper reference? The paper where he unequivocally states that long-term global warming is occurring; that the long-term trend shows an upward trend with strong decadal oscillations and that within this trend pattern are many natural variances, each at different timescales… … where the 90s had a greater rate of warming, partially due to the strong El Nino of 1998, while the 2000s have been of slower warming… still warming, but relatively less than the 90s.

The essence of Trenberth’s paper, the one his quote reflects upon (the paper he names/links, after the altered quote being parroted by the denialsphere)… is one that speaks to an assessment of that natural variability in terms of being able to track the natural variability energy that gets rearranged or changed within the climate system. Trenberth’s paper, his explanation of his own hacked email quote… has nothing to do with Riverwind’s continued unfounded slams toward climate models. Trenberth suggests the ability to track natural variances, the energy rearrangements/changes associated with them, is not robust… that developing improved methods of tracking the energy changes associated with natural variance is required… you know – because it might help to account for the “lack of increased warming” seen in latter years, relative to the 90s.

But hey now! Trenberth’s assertion that improvement in measuring/tracking natural variance energy “flow changes”, surely, can’t be good for the deniers who want to hang their hat on natural variance, if they even admit that global warming is occurring. You know, the denier bunch who themselves can’t provide any support around their natural variance claims… the denier bunch who can’t actually provide any evidence that measures and tracks radiative (heat) flux changes associated with natural variances (the “stuff” Trenberth says needs improvement)... the denier bunch who can’t actually provide any evidence to soundly refute AGW global warming. Surely, the denier bunch can’t be… won’t be… in favour of Trenberth’s assertion that would actually help them make their case in support of natural variance. Noooooo… they would rather anally line-by-line parse emails and sling mud… cause they can!

And this... this... is the kind of bullshit being trumped up through the denialsphere and on into the mainstream... and into MLW by the denier parrots.

[Oleg Bach]

Would you like me to go to some web site, pluck something off it, post it triumphantly and then act like a midget waving his monster dick around?

I leave that sort of behaviour to you.

No snow for Christmas for you.

[waldo]

Enough is enough is right. That editorial is the "coming out" of this Journal's bias. Their complete dismissal of any skepticism is completely in line with skeptics' claim that their papers are dismissed. That editorial is maddening....but in a way, also frightening. Having said that, perhaps it's all well and good....Nature has exposed itself for what it is......for all to see. What an amazing chain of events.

ooohhhh, the deniers are thrashing and frothing to no end over this Nature article... but articles like it are showing up now throughout the blogs and into the mainstream. We should expect to see a revamped strategy from the denier camp... "to arms, to arms"... "aoooga, aoooga!

Nature deals with skeptics by design... it doesn't arbitrarily dismiss skeptics without foundation. Nature deals in Science - apparently... the deniers don't take well to an acknowledgment of that science by one of the most preeminent Science journals.

[Oleg Bach]

Wait untill you have domestic crop failure and an apple costs you twenty bucks..you won't be able to deny that..

[Shady]

ooohhhh, the deniers are thrashing and frothing to no end over this Nature article... but articles like it are showing up now throughout the blogs and into the mainstream. We should expect to see a revamped strategy from the denier camp... "to arms, to arms"... "aoooga, aoooga!

Nature deals with skeptics by design... it doesn't arbitrarily dismiss skeptics without foundation. Nature deals in Science - apparently... the deniers don't take well to an acknowledgment of that science by one of the most preeminent Science journals.

It's the true believers who are now the deniers. You deny false data. You deny data manipulation. You deny the concerted effort of silencing dissenting views. You deny it all, when it's all right in front of you to see.

[Riverwind]

we did ratiy Kyoto..."China said this week it aimed to reduce its "carbon intensity" by 40-45% by the year 2020, compared with 2005 levels"...and India is expected to follow

The Chinese targets are nothing but business as usual. Nobody takes them seriously. They are simply an attempt to deceive the public.

[waldo]

It's the true believers who are now the deniers. You deny false data. You deny data manipulation. You deny the concerted effort of silencing dissenting views. You deny it all, when it's all right in front of you to see.

then it should be quite easy for the denier cabal to find something that actually sticks... find the falsification, the manipulation and the silencing of dissenting views. The denier cabal is just so ticked that their hacked email charade isn't getting the mileage they're after. As time goes by, each and every one of the scurrilous accusations has been dealt with - you need to get out more Shady!

got anything new, Shady? Particularly since you seem so emboldened now

[Riverwind]

I wasn't talking about skeptics, I specifically said those people who claim humans aren't affecting the climate, or admit we are but to such a small degree that it's insignificant and we need do nothing

Sorry - there is a huge difference between claiming that "humans aren't affecting the climate" and claiming that "it's insignificant and we need do nothing". The latter viewpoint is completely consistent with all we know about GHGs and radiative physics. What you need to remember is the argument that more CO2 leads to catastrophic climate change has no theoretical basis - it is nothing but an assumption which is programmed into the climate models.

It's not, but mosts scientists aren't part of any lobbying groups

The problem is not most scientists - the problem is the minority who control what makes it into the IPCC reports.

While I'm sure there's some money being tossed at "climate alarmism" as you put it, I doubt it comes even close to the denial lobby's efforts - I mean their benefactors include some of the biggest companies in the world (ie - Exxon).

Al Gore's own company spent $300 million on pro-alarmist advertising. Environmental groups collect billions each year to promote alarmism. There is simply no comparison to the few 100,000 that oil companies give to some think tanks with conservative views. The idea that there is some massive oil company sponsored campaign to fight climate change legislation is a myth spread by alarmists.

[Shady]

then it should be quite easy for the denier cabal to find something that actually sticks...

Absolutley. Let me know when you guys finally find something that sticks, and doesn't need to be manipulated to fit a desired outcome. Until then, deny away.

[waldo]

Sorry - there is a huge difference between claiming that "humans aren't affecting the climate" and claiming that "it's insignificant and we need do nothing". The latter viewpoint is completely consistent with all we know about GHGs and radiative physics. What you need to remember is the argument that more CO2 leads to catastrophic climate change has no theoretical basis - it is nothing but an assumption which is programmed into the climate models.

snicker... without the models... the CO2 problem in 6 easy steps... without relying on climate models

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps

We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused and so we will try to break it down carefully.

Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.

The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth’s surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium. This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around [tex]\sigma T^4[/tex] (~390 W/m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4 (~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the absence of any greenhouse substances.

Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.

The fact that different absorbers contribute to the net LW absorption is clear from IR spectra taken from space which show characteristic gaps associated with water vapour, CO2, CH4, O3 etc (Harries et al, 2001; HITRAN). The only question is how much energy is blocked by each. This cannot be calculated by hand (the number of absorption lines and the effects of pressure broadening etc. preclude that), but it can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. The earliest calculations (reviewed by Ramanathan and Coakley, 1979) give very similar results to more modern calculations (Clough and Iacono, 1995), and demonstrate that removing the effect of CO2 reduces the net LW absorbed by ~14%, or around 30 W/m2. For some parts of the spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour, and so simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect. Thus CO2 on its own would cause an even larger absorption. In either case however, the trace gases are a significant part of what gets absorbed.

Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions

CO2 is up more than 30%, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%, tropospheric O3 has also increased. New compounds such as halocarbons (CFCs, HFCs) did not exist in the pre-industrial atmosphere. All of these increases contribute to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated

Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA radiation budget from whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface temperature change. Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about 2%, the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02*1366*0.7/4 = 4.8 W/m2 (taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the radiative forcing (RF). An increase in greenhouse absorbers or a change in the albedo have analogous impacts on the TOA balance. However, calculation of the radiative forcing is again a job for the line-by-line codes that take into account atmospheric profiles of temperature, water vapour and aerosols. The most up-to-date calculations for the trace gases are by Myhre et al (1998) and those are the ones used in IPCC TAR and AR4.

These calculations can be condensed into simplified fits to the data, such as the oft-used formula for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) (see Table 6.2 in IPCC TAR for the others). The logarithmic form comes from the fact that some particular lines are already saturated and that the increase in forcing depends on the ‘wings’ (see this post for more details). Forcings for lower concentration gases (such as CFCs) are linear in concentration. The calculations in Myhre et al use representative profiles for different latitudes, but different assumptions about clouds, their properties and the spatial heterogeneity mean that the global mean forcing is uncertain by about 10%. Thus the RF for a doubling of CO2 is likely 3.7±0.4 W/m2 – the same order of magnitude as an increase of solar forcing by 2%.

There are a couple of small twists on the radiative forcing concept. One is that CO2 has an important role in the stratospheric radiation balance. The stratosphere reacts very quickly to changes in that balance and that changes the TOA forcing by a small but non-negligible amount. The surface response, which is much slower, therefore reacts more proportionately to the ‘adjusted’ forcing and this is generally what is used in lieu of the instantaneous forcing. The other wrinkle is depending slightly on the spatial distribution of forcing agents, different feedbacks and processes might come into play and thus an equivalent forcing from two different sources might not give the same response. The factor that quantifies this effect is called the ‘efficacy’ of the forcing, which for the most part is reasonably close to one, and so doesn’t change the zeroth-order picture (Hansen et al, 2005). This means that climate forcings can be simply added to approximate the net effect.

The total forcing from the trace greenhouse gases mentioned in Step 3, is currently about 2.5 W/m2, and the net forcing (including cooling impacts of aerosols and natural changes) is 1.6±1.0 W/m2 since the pre-industrial. Most of the uncertainty is related to aerosol effects. Current growth in forcings is dominated by increasing CO2, with potentially a small role for decreases in reflective aerosols (sulphates, particularly in the US and EU) and increases in absorbing aerosols (like soot, particularly from India and China and from biomass burning).

Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the ‘fast feedbacks’ have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the ’slow’ feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.). Given that it doesn’t matter much which forcing is changing, sensitivity can be assessed from any particular period in the past where the changes in forcing are known and the corresponding equilibrium temperature change can be estimated. As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~7 W/m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars). More formally, you can combine this estimate with others taken from the 20th century, the response to volcanoes, the last millennium, remote sensing etc. to get pretty good constraints on what the number should be. This was done by Annan and Hargreaves (2006), and they come up with, you guessed it, 3ºC.

Converting the estimate for doubled CO2 to a more useful factor gives ~0.75 ºC/(W/m2).

Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number

Current forcings (1.6 W/m2) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m2) imply 1.2 ºC that would occur at equilibrium. Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are not yet there (so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is ‘in the pipeline’. We can estimate this independently using the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~0.7 W/m2, implying that this ‘unrealised’ forcing will lead to another 0.7×0.75 ºC – i.e. 0.5 ºC.

Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. That is significant.

Q.E.D.?

Riverwind... Q.E.D.?

Edited December 3, 2009 by waldo

[Shady]

got anything new, Shady?

Oops, almost forgot my new stuff.

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data

The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Link

And...

UK University to probe integrity of climate data

LONDON (AP) - A British university said Thursday it would investigate whether scientists at its prestigious Climatic Research Unit fudged data on global warming.

Link

Looks like the house of cards is falling.

[waldo]

Oops, almost forgot my new stuff.

Looks like the house of cards is falling.

that "researcher"... from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. C'mon, Shady... try to keep up... the CEI has already been highlighted - along with their positions and ties (e.g. "big oil", "big tobacco")

Shady... your other link simply repeats what's been around for the better part of a week now... standard procedure - an investigation will proceed and Jones is temporarily stepping down during the investigation proceedings. Nothing out of the ordinary here, Shady... it's standard OP for top level managers to remove themselves during investigative proceedings.

Like I said Shady - anything new?

[Riverwind]

Some good news.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of U.S. voters say the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is. Only 21% say the media present an accurate picture, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Some good news.

which scientists are being referred to in that meaningless poll... the denier scientists or the real scientists

an unfortunate point for you within that (albeit meaningless poll)... joe public hasn't followed the scurrilous denier hacked email campaign... why... even the White House gate-crashers get more traction!

[Riverwind]

More formally, you can combine this estimate with others taken from the 20th century, the response to volcanoes, the last millennium, remote sensing etc. to get pretty good constraints on what the number should be.

As I said, there is NO theoretical basis for the high CO2 sensitivities. They are simply ESTIMATES that are programmed into the climate models via their choice of parameterizations for clouds and aerosols.

[Riverwind]

joe public hasn't followed the scurrilous denier hacked email campaign... why... even the White House gate-crashers get more traction!

Which is why it will be very hard for the alarmists to explain away the UEA emails with convoluted, nonsenscial logic. People understand what a 'trick' to 'hide the decline' means and they understand 'we can't explain the cooling' means.

[wyly]

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

some 20% of adult Americans still believe the sun orbits the earth, only 10% of Americans don't know what radiation is, 42% believe they've been in contact with the dead, 60% believe a 900 yr old man built an ark for two of every animal on the planet....

any poll asking Americans anything concerning science is worthless, they're a land of scientific ignoramuses...

[waldo]

which scientists are being referred to in that meaningless poll... the denier scientists or the real scientists

an unfortunate point for you within that (albeit meaningless poll)... joe public hasn't followed the scurrilous denier hacked email campaign... why... even the White House gate-crashers get more traction!

Which is why it will be very hard for the alarmists to explain away the UEA emails with convoluted, nonsenscial logic. People understand what a 'trick' to 'hide the decline' means and they understand 'we can't explain the cooling' means.

Interesting... you would bank on the general scientific ignorance of joe public, influenced by the fallacious denier campaign to purposely misconstrue… notwithstanding the complete absolute refutation of those 2 examples you pompously tout. C’mon… put both of them up… there’s no shortage of go-to sites that have torn the denier hacked anal line-by-line parsings apart… shredded them, and shown the deniers for all they are.

Actually, Hackergate is proving to be very worthwhile in showing the depths the denier side will sink to. In any case, we have additional perspective to go along with your monstrous conspiracy claims that include all scientists (well… except denier “blog scientists”), and all scientific organizations/institutes/society’s/etc….. all conspiring to keep the denier down! We can now add that you’re quite happy to accept the general scientific ignorance of joe public – so long as it suits your purpose/agenda. Quite telling – indeed.

[Riverwind]

you would bank on the general scientific ignorance of joe public, influenced by the fallacious denier campaign to purposely misconstrue

I don't like it but it is reality that cuts both ways. e.g. the alarmists would not have gotten away with the nonsense about 'the science being settled' and 'sceptics are shills for oil companies' if the public had the capacity to investigate such matters deeply.

[Riverwind]

This is fun:

This just in. The Institute for Scriptural Geology in Waco, Texas, today offered “unswerving support and fervent prayers” for the scientists caught up in Climategate. Professor Elmer Moody, director of the institute, told a press conference: “We know what it’s like to have the integrity of our research questioned by unbelievers, so our hearts go out to those good folks at the East Anglican University.

“Our work proves conclusively that, once proper adjustments are made by adding up the numbers in the Book of Daniel, the geological record shows that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Yet we have had to endure years of mockery from skeptics who refuse to accept that time is running out.” (The institute follows a strict premillennial dispensationalist timetable that forecasts the Rapture for 2011.)