Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

Very clever Waldo - and stated with your usual eloquence. They did not destroy the data in response to FOI requests. It was a FOI request that forced the CRU to admit that they no longer had the original data. This is a perfect example of how you and your ilk will never, ever admit to anything being "questionable" in your Alice in Wonderland Alarmist world.

clever? The jbg poster's statement is quoted - verbatim. I responded directly to that statement.

your statements are another matter, entirely... that particular piece of fabricated/distorted British tabloid journalism set off one of the most discussed and contested issues... your linked British tabloid article makes reference to the CRU/EAU website, but... surprisingly... doesn't properly relate it's content - go figure! If you're at all familiar with this issue, you know this... my inclination is to reinforce your purposeful intent to cast doubt and uncertainty.

let's be very clear and precise. CRU does not create any raw data - it is not the owner of any raw data. CRU receives all it's data, as raw temperature data, from the respective weather stations or conglomerates that act to collect that raw data (e.g. the British MET Office), or respective countries "National Meteorological Services". Any raw data CRU has... any raw data CRU ever had... is available from the source stations/agencies that provided that data... or can be obtained from NOAA as administrators of the global GHCN dataset.

let's continue being very clear and precise. The CRU surface temperature record is but one of many maintained independently by assorted organizations throughout the world; of particular note is that the CRU temperature record has always shown the least warming as compared to others. Deniers who revel in casting doubt and uncertainty upon CRU, conveniently overlook the fact of the existence of the numerous other surface temperature records.

continuing to be very clear and precise, organizations that process the raw temperature data, as CRU does, on occasion process some of that data making adjustments for quality issues (for example, adjustments accounting for urban heat island effect on particular select weather stations... something we've talked at length on within several MLW threads). Effectively, this results in 2 sets of data - the original raw data... and the processed (adjusted) data. What CRU has acknowledged is that data storage availability in the 1980s meant they didn't keep both sets of data for all stations... if a station was adjusted they only kept the processed (adjusted) data. What Phil Jones of CRU has been quoted as saying, is that for that 1980's period, the raw data not kept (representing stations that were adjusted), represents approximately 5% of the total raw data... again, 5% of the total raw data. The 5% of which, as raw data, exists with the original sources that provided that data to CRU in the first place. No raw data has been destroyed; again, the 5% of the 1980's era raw data CRU acknowledges it doesn't have, exists with the original providers of the raw data.

but you know all this Simple... yet you purposely choose to cast doubt and uncertainty... as is your way, as is the way of your, as you say, "ilk". And you think this issue wasn't covered within the reviews that exonerated CRU/EAU and staff?

[Shady]

Any raw data CRU has... any raw data CRU ever had... is available from the source stations/agencies that provided that data... or can be obtained from NOAA as administrators of the global GHCN dataset

That's not true.

[Pliny]

let's be very clear and precise.

Should I expect that then?

CRU does not create any raw data - it is not the owner of any raw data. CRU receives all it's data, as raw temperature data, from the respective weather stations or conglomerates that act to collect that raw data (e.g. the British MET Office), or respective countries "National Meteorological Services". Any raw data CRU has... any raw data CRU ever had... is available from the source stations/agencies that provided that data... or can be obtained from NOAA as administrators of the global GHCN dataset.

Quite possibly the above is true, maybe not. but if the CRU is the go to place for raw data that researchers use then it is obviously the wrong place to go. And it is obvious the criteria for reviewing and publishing is biased.

It's a political thing Waldo, not a scientific thing. The science is politically and ideologically tainted.

let's continue being very clear and precise.

I'm not holding my breath.

The CRU surface temperature record is but one of many maintained independently by assorted organizations throughout the world; of particular note is that the CRU temperature record has always shown the least warming as compared to others. Deniers who revel in casting doubt and uncertainty upon CRU, conveniently overlook the fact of the existence of the numerous other surface temperature records.

Overlooking the existence of other surface temperature records, isn't that what the CRU did?

continuing to be very clear and precise,

Your digging a hole for yourself.

organizations that process the raw temperature data, as CRU does, on occasion process some of that data making adjustments for quality issues (for example, adjustments accounting for urban heat island effect on particular select weather stations... something we've talked at length on within several MLW threads). Effectively, this results in 2 sets of data - the original raw data... and the processed (adjusted) data. What CRU has acknowledged is that data storage availability in the 1980s meant they didn't keep both sets of data for all stations... if a station was adjusted they only kept the processed (adjusted) data. What Phil Jones of CRU has been quoted as saying, is that for that 1980's period, the raw data not kept (representing stations that were adjusted), represents approximately 5% of the total raw data... again, 5% of the total raw data. The 5% of which, as raw data, exists with the original sources that provided that data to CRU in the first place. No raw data has been destroyed; again, the 5% of the 1980's era raw data CRU acknowledges it doesn't have, exists with the original providers of the raw data.

So your justifying that that 5% is insignificant. Very scientific of you. Some of the data has been adjusted but only about 5% so that won't skew anything. Finally, very clear and precise.

but you know all this Simple... yet you purposely choose to cast doubt and uncertainty... as is your way, as is the way of your, as you say, "ilk". And you think this issue wasn't covered within the reviews that exonerated CRU/EAU and staff?

Doubt and uncertainty must exist even after the question is considered settled. It's the scientific way.

You are using science to be alarmist and political, too often these go hand in hand.

We know government has to be weaned off of oil revenues and new sources of taxation found to replace them. We won't truly have free technological development of alternatives until that occurs.

The thing we should do is downsize government so that they are economically viable without destroying the economy in the process.

how's it going on understanding Maurice? A few people have pilloried him over the past few years and interestingly enough find themselves in legal hot water, unrelated to Mr. Strong at all. Let's see what happens to Glenn Beck now that he has lifted up this rock.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Pliny

[BubberMiley]

So far, 2010 is the warmest year on record, according to both NASA and the National Climatic Data Center.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/05/2010-is-warmest-year-on-record/1

I only bring it up to be amused by how the deniers respond.

[bush_cheney2004]

So far, 2010 is the warmest year on record, according to both NASA and the National Climatic Data Center.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/05/2010-is-warmest-year-on-record/1

I only bring it up to be amused by how the deniers respond.

Yay! It's American data and analysis so it must be true! Good 'ole NASA...and the NCDC (which is really NOAA)....where were these guys when we were looking for WMD in Iraq? LOL!

[waldo]

let's be very clear and precise. CRU does not create any raw data - it is not the owner of any raw data. CRU receives all it's data, as raw temperature data, from the respective weather stations or conglomerates that act to collect that raw data (e.g. the British MET Office), or respective countries "National Meteorological Services". Any raw data CRU has... any raw data CRU ever had... is available from the source stations/agencies that provided that data... or can be obtained from NOAA as administrators of the global GHCN dataset.

Quite possibly the above is true, maybe not. but if the CRU is the go to place for raw data that researchers use then it is obviously the wrong place to go. And it is obvious the criteria for reviewing and publishing is biased.

My comments are most certainly true, Pliny... they are certainly there for you to refute - have at er! You're obviously out of your element, but don't let that stop you from posturing. We've had past MLW thread discussions challenging the validity of CRU data - there is no problem with the CRU data; particularly related to the denier trumped up fallout from Hackergate, several independent reviews of CRU data were undertaken to scrutinize the CRU data (I recall highlighting one that RC did... I could have chosen others, but I like to watch Simple's reaction! ).

It's a political thing Waldo, not a scientific thing. The science is politically and ideologically tainted.

no, try again. The physical science foundation is... the physical science foundation.

let's continue being very clear and precise. The CRU surface temperature record is but one of many maintained independently by assorted organizations throughout the world; of particular note is that the CRU temperature record has always shown the least warming as compared to others. Deniers who revel in casting doubt and uncertainty upon CRU, conveniently overlook the fact of the existence of the numerous other surface temperature records.

Overlooking the existence of other surface temperature records, isn't that what the CRU did?

what are you talking about? The various organizations operate independently of each other... of course, deniers are perplexed that all these independent organizations, with their own distinct processing, have been able to corroborate the work of each other... have been able to bring forward irrefutable results of global warming. But, of course, led by prominent TV weathermen (/snarc), deniers would presume to attack the integrity of the surface temperature record. Deniers are also perplexed that they haven't been able to make any headway in that regard - so sad!

continuing to be very clear and precise, organizations that process the raw temperature data, as CRU does, on occasion process some of that data making adjustments for quality issues (for example, adjustments accounting for urban heat island effect on particular select weather stations... something we've talked at length on within several MLW threads). Effectively, this results in 2 sets of data - the original raw data... and the processed (adjusted) data. What CRU has acknowledged is that data storage availability in the 1980s meant they didn't keep both sets of data for all stations... if a station was adjusted they only kept the processed (adjusted) data. What Phil Jones of CRU has been quoted as saying, is that for that 1980's period, the raw data not kept (representing stations that were adjusted), represents approximately 5% of the total raw data... again, 5% of the total raw data. The 5% of which, as raw data, exists with the original sources that provided that data to CRU in the first place. No raw data has been destroyed; again, the 5% of the 1980's era raw data CRU acknowledges it doesn't have, exists with the original providers of the raw data.

Your digging a hole for yourself.

So your justifying that that 5% is insignificant. Very scientific of you. Some of the data has been adjusted but only about 5% so that won't skew anything. Finally, very clear and precise.

no Pliny, you misunderstand... the quote reference is that 1980's era raw data (that data that has been adjusted) isn't held within CRU. It's said to amount to approximately 5% of the total raw data. The insignificant reference reflects upon the fact that 5% of raw data is not lost and can easily be recovered, is so needed. So, Pliny... if you'd like to account for that stated 5% of raw data, just approach the original owners of that data... or approach NOAA, since they maintain the overall global GHCN record of data from world-wide weather stations - that's all you need to do, Pliny. Now, if you'd like to talk about data skew, you'll need to take that up with Simple's favoured TV weatherman... although, like I said, it's been quite difficult for denier TV weatherman to take on, in particular, NOAA scientists, who have beat back any and all attacks on the integrity of the surface temperature record.

but you know all this Simple... yet you purposely choose to cast doubt and uncertainty... as is your way, as is the way of your, as you say, "ilk". And you think this issue wasn't covered within the reviews that exonerated CRU/EAU and staff?

You are using science to be alarmist and political, too often these go hand in hand.

no, sorry - try again.

We know government has to be weaned off of oil revenues and new sources of taxation found to replace them. We won't truly have free technological development of alternatives until that occurs.

The thing we should do is downsize government so that they are economically viable without destroying the economy in the process.

you're truly a contradiction in time, Pliny. What reason(s) do you see for needing to, as you say, "wean off governments from oil revenues"?

how's it going on understanding Maurice? A few people have pilloried him over the past few years and interestingly enough find themselves in legal hot water, unrelated to Mr. Strong at all. Let's see what happens to Glenn Beck now that he has lifted up this rock.

be very afraid, Pliny... he lives in China - hey? I'm hearing all kinds of talk of a new world order... Strong and Soros... be afraid, Pliny! Be very afraid!

[waldo]

So far, 2010 is the warmest year on record, according to both NASA and the National Climatic Data Center.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/05/2010-is-warmest-year-on-record/1

I only bring it up to be amused by how the deniers respond.

and, of course... we've been in the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century - that only now appears to be waning. So, here come da Sun, here come da Sun! All other things being equal... let's see what happens to global earth temperatures (even accepting to an upcoming revived la Nina cycle).

[jbg]

support your case that will offer direct repudiation to the independent/transparent reviews that have exonerated CRU/EAU. Put up or STFU!

Are you saying I should attempt a "restore deleted data' on the East Anglia computers?

[waldo]

This destruction of raw data by East Anglia in response to FOI requests is hardly a "non-issues". the decision was made not to allow other scientists to review raw data, but to make people take the IPC's word for their conclusions. Hardly harmless. Indeed tragic. It would be the equivalent of destruction of original Shakespeare manuscripts, if available.

you've been asked to substantiate your claims over deleted data in the past... you've not done so when previously challenged... will you do so now? Your expressed confidence... nay, your blustering certainty (2 spoliation definitions worth of certainty), belies your failure and unwillingness to substantiate yourself.

support your case that will offer direct repudiation to the independent/transparent reviews that have exonerated CRU/EAU. Put up or STFU!

Are you saying I should attempt a "restore deleted data' on the East Anglia computers?

what I'm saying is you continue to make claims, the same claims of 'malicious, purposeful destruction of raw data by CRU' - the same claims you won't... and can't... substantiate. Like I said, state the raw data that you claim was deleted... and, in particular, highlight the resultant CRU conclusions that reflect upon your unsubstantiated claim of the related raw data deletions - the result, that was intended to, as you state, "make people take the IPCC's word for their conclusions". Again, put up or STFU!

[Shady]

Again, put up or STFU!

It's all in their own words my denier dinosaur friend!

Mr. Jones is the same professor who warned that global-warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

Link

Those are his direct words. Please put them into context if somehow they're not.

Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU and contributing author to the United Nation's IPCC report chapter titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes," says he "accidentally" deleted some raw temperature data used to construct the aggregate temperature data CRU distributed.

Link

What a weird coinsidence huh? He says he's going to delete the dara rather than give it up. And by golly, later on, he "accidently" deletes the data! Probably just bad luck.

[waldo]

This destruction of raw data by East Anglia in response to FOI requests is hardly a "non-issues". the decision was made not to allow other scientists to review raw data, but to make people take the IPC's word for their conclusions. Hardly harmless. Indeed tragic. It would be the equivalent of destruction of original Shakespeare manuscripts, if available.

you've been asked to substantiate your claims over deleted data in the past... you've not done so when previously challenged... will you do so now? Your expressed confidence... nay, your blustering certainty (2 spoliation definitions worth of certainty), belies your failure and unwillingness to substantiate yourself.

support your case that will offer direct repudiation to the independent/transparent reviews that have exonerated CRU/EAU. Put up or STFU!

Are you saying I should attempt a "restore deleted data' on the East Anglia computers?

what I'm saying is you continue to make claims, the same claims of 'malicious, purposeful destruction of raw data by CRU' - the same claims you won't... and can't... substantiate. Like I said, state the raw data that you claim was deleted... and, in particular, highlight the resultant CRU conclusions that reflect upon your unsubstantiated claim of the related raw data deletions - the result, that was intended to, as you state, "make people take the IPCC's word for their conclusions". Again, put up or STFU!

jbg, your unsubstantiated... and repeated... claims, reflect upon your parroting of the original perpetrators of this specious 'data deletion' attack on CRU/Phil Jones; specifically, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and renowned denier, Pat Michaels. Sourcewatch for CEI: here ... Sourcewatch for Pat Michaels: here

of course, this CEI/Michaels attack on CRU/Phil Jones was an integral facet of their formal submission that aimed to challenge the U.S. EPA's 'endangerment' proposal... which, as we know, after the public submission phase and resulting review process, moved beyond that proposal phase, resulting in the EPA's Endangerment Finding.

my earlier comments made reference to the actual CRU website statements concerning your/the unsubstantiated claims of the willful, malicious and wanton deletion by CRU of raw temperature data... perhaps you should read and then challenge/refute the direct Phil Jones statement, that itself was in response to this specious and false CEI/Michaels attack:

No one, it seems, cares to read what we put up on the CRU web page. These people just make up motives for what we might or might not have done.

Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center.

The original raw data are not “lost.” I could reconstruct what we had from U.S. Department of Energy reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would start with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete waste of time, though. I may get around to it some time. The documentation of what we’ve done is all in the literature.

If we have “lost” any data it is the following:

1. Station series for sites that in the 1980s we deemed then to be affected by either urban biases or by numerous site moves, that were either not correctable or not worth doing as there were other series in the region.

2. The original data for sites for which we made appropriate adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s. We still have our adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other sites that didn’t need adjusting.

3. Since the 1980s as colleagues and National Meteorological Services (NMSs) have produced adjusted series for regions and or countries, then we replaced the data we had with the better series.

In the papers, I’ve always said that homogeneity adjustments are best produced by NMSs. A good example of this is the work by Lucie Vincent in Canada. Here we just replaced what data we had for the 200+ sites she sorted out.

The CRUTEM3 data for land look much like the GHCN and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies data for the same domains.

Apart from a figure in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) showing this, there is also this paper from Geophysical Research Letters in 2005 by Russ Vose et al. Figure 2 is similar to the AR4 plot.

I think if it hadn’t been this issue, the Competitive Enterprise Institute would have dreamt up something else!

[jbg]

jbg, your unsubstantiated... and repeated... claims, reflect upon your parroting of the original perpetrators of this specious 'data deletion' attack on CRU/Phil Jones; specifically, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and renowned denier, Pat Michaels. Sourcewatch for CEI: here ... Sourcewatch for Pat Michaels: here

See Shady's response here (link).

Also even your likely hero Al Gore concedes that files may were handled inappropriately, albeit attacking the FOIA requests as "make-work". Excerpts below, link here:

It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.

Edited May 19, 2010 by jbg

[waldo]

See Shady's response here.

Also even your likely hero Al Gore concedes that files may were handled inappropriately, albeit attacking the FOIA requests as "make-work". Excerpts below, link here:

It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.

I've chosen to better my MLW experience by no longer accepting to read the intellectually dishonest Shady.

your second link reference in no way provides you any manner of substantiation to your claims of, 'malicious, purposeful destruction of raw data by CRU'. I've provided you direct reference to statements that exist on the EAU/CRU website, I've quoted you directly from Phil Jones. You've provided nothing to refute those statements; you've provided nothing to counter the independent/transparent reviews that have exonerated CRU & staff. Ya got nuthin... other than parroted denier nonsense that, as I stated, initially came forward in relation to fabrications put forward by CEI/Pat Michaels in an attempt to beat-back a U.S. EPA endangerment proposal!

your specific statement wording reads, "This destruction of raw data by East Anglia in response to FOI requests is hardly a "non-issues". the decision was made not to allow other scientists to review raw data, but to make people take the IPC's word for their conclusions." You have failed to describe what raw data was, 'maliciously and purposely destroyed by CRU'... you have failed to detail what conclusions are no longer able to be reviewed/confirmed by external review of CRU research/work. You have provided no substantiation to your claims; none, whatsoever!

[Moonlight Graham]

Holy poop it's warm outside today.

[waldo]

Holy poop it's warm outside today.

speaking of which..... "in response to a U.S. Congressional request, the National Research Council of the National Academies today released, as part of its most comprehensive study of climate change to date, three reports emphasizing why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. The reports by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, are part of a congressionally requested suite of five studies known as America's Climate Choices."

- news release: here

- reports:

-

Advancing the Science of Climate Change

-

Limiting the Magnitude of Climate Change

-

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change

[bush_cheney2004]

speaking of which..... "in response to a U.S. Congressional request, the National Research Council of the National Academies today released, as part of its most comprehensive study of climate change to date, three reports emphasizing why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. The reports by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, are part of a congressionally requested suite of five studies known as America's Climate Choices."

- news release: here

- reports:

-

Advancing the Science of Climate Change

-

Limiting the Magnitude of Climate Change

-

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change

Yea...but what does Canada say? LOL!

[waldo]

... related video from the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academies:

speaking of which..... "in response to a U.S. Congressional request, the National Research Council of the National Academies today released, as part of its most comprehensive study of climate change to date, three reports emphasizing why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. The reports by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, are part of a congressionally requested suite of five studies known as America's Climate Choices."

- news release: here

- reports:

-

Advancing the Science of Climate Change

-

Limiting the Magnitude of Climate Change

-

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change

[Keepitsimple]

All I can hope for is a more open-minded debate......and maybe it's starting. There certainly has been very little about Global Warming in the media since the email scandal. Here's Laurence Solomon's latest article:

Four years ago, when I first started profiling scientists who were global warming skeptics, I soon learned two things: Solar scientists were overwhelmingly skeptical that humans caused climate change and, overwhelmingly, they were reluctant to go public with their views. Often, they refused to be quoted at all, saying they feared for their funding, or they feared other recriminations from climate scientists in the doomsayer camp. When the skeptics agreed to be quoted at all, they often hedged their statements, to give themselves wiggle room if accused of being a global warming denier. Scant few were outspoken about their skepticism.

No longer.

...........

Jeff Kuhn, a rising star at the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy, is one of the most recent scientists to go public, revealing in press releases this month that solar scientists worldwide are on a mission to show that the Sun drives Earth’s climate. “As a scientist who knows the data, I simply can’t accept [the claim that man plays a dominant role in Earth’s climate],” he states.

...........

Earlier this month, the link between solar activity and climate made headlines throughout Europe after space scientists from the U.K., Germany and South Korea linked the recent paucity of sunspots to the cold weather that Europe has been experiencing. This period of spotlessness, the scientists predicted in a study published in Environmental Research Letters, could augur a repeat of winters comparable to those of the Little Ice Age in the 1600s, during which the Sun was often free of sunspots. By comparing temperatures in Europe since 1659 to highs and lows in solar activity in the same years, the scientists discovered that low solar activity generally corresponded to cold winters. Could this centuries-long link between the Sun and Earth’s climate have been a matter of chance? “There is less than a 1% probability that the result was obtained by chance,” asserts Mike Lockwood of the University of Reading in the U.K., the study’s lead author.

...........

Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute stated that the IPCC was “probably totally wrong” to dismiss the significance of the sun, which in 2009 would likely have the most spotless days in a century. As for claims from the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers who argue that periods of extreme heat or cold were regional in scope, not global, Svensmark cites the Medieval Warm Period, a prosperous period of very high solar activity around the year 1000: “It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown — a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, China’s population doubled in this period.”

The Medieval Warm Period, many solar scientists believe, was warmer than today, and the Roman Warm Period, around the time of Christ, was warmer still. Compelling new evidence to support his view came just in March from the Saskatchewan Isotope Laboratory at the University of Saskatchewan and Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado. In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, the authors for the first time document seasonal temperature variations in the North Atlantic over a 2,000-year period, from 360 BC to about 1660 AD. Their technique — involving measurements of oxygen and carbon isotopes captured in mollusk shells — confirmed that the Roman Period was the warmest in the past two millennia.

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/21/its-the-sun-stupid/#more-1398

[waldo]

All I can hope for is a more open-minded debate......and maybe it's starting. There certainly has been very little about Global Warming in the media since the email scandal. Here's Laurence Solomon's latest article:

there has been considerable AGW media coverage these post-Hackergate months... some of which has been referenced in the assorted MLW climate change threads... of course, most of the media coverage has simply been a steady reinforcement of support for the theory of AGW climate change. Simple, just because you choose to ignore... no negate... the significant media coverage that doesn't fit your denier bent.....

Lawrence Solomon has been described/profiled several times over on MLW - Solomon is the denier journalist extraordinaire! So, because you read another of Solomon's tired and predictable articles, you would presume to the, as you say, "starting of an open-minded debate". Oh right, "It's the Sun, stupid!". "All you can hope for"... really, Simple - really?

apparently, any and all countering science that has soundly refuted the Sun as a significant/principal influence on earth's warming climate... hasn't existed and/or wasn't open-debate. Of course, Solomon trots out reference to Svensmark, the "denier Sun King" - Solomon just fails to include mention of how none of Svensmark's claims/papers over the last decade+ have stood up to any scrutiny. But, of course, as is the Simple way, to Simple, the denier journalist Lawrence Solomon is a pathfinder... leading everyone into new uncharted discovery's. Here's a short sampling of some of the latest refutations to Svensmark's most recent 2009 claim/paper, just one of the many incarnations that purports to attribute earth's warming to cosmic rays.

- refute to Svensmark2009 #1: Cosmic ray decreases and changes in the liquid water cloud fraction over the oceans

Abstract: Svensmark et al. (2009) have recently claimed that strong galactic cosmic ray (GCR) decreases during ‘Forbush Decrease (FD) events’ are followed by decreases in both the global liquid water cloud fraction (LCF) and other closely correlated atmospheric parameters. To test the validity of these findings we have concentrated on just one property, the MODIS LCF and examined two aspects: 1) The statistical chance that the decrease observed in the LCF is abnormal. 2) The likelihood of the observed delay (∼5 to 9 days) being physically connected to the FD events. On both counts we conclude that LCF variations are unrelated to FD events: Both the pattern and timing of observed LCF changes are irreconcilable with current theoretical pathways. Additionally, a zonal analysis of LCF variations also offers no support to the claimed relationship, as the observed anomaly is not found to vary latitudinally in conjunction with cosmic ray intensity.

- refute to Svensmark2009 #2: Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation

Abstract: Aerosol particles affect the Earth's radiative balance by directly scattering and absorbing solar radiation and, indirectly, through their activation into cloud droplets. Both effects are known with considerable uncertainty only, and translate into even bigger uncertainties in future climate predictions. More than a decade ago, variations in galactic cosmic rays were suggested to closely correlate with variations in atmospheric cloud cover and therefore constitute a driving force behind aerosol-cloud-climate interactions. Later, the enhancement of atmospheric aerosol particle formation by ions generated from cosmic rays was proposed as a physical mechanism explaining this correlation. Here, we report unique observations on atmospheric aerosol formation based on measurements at the SMEAR II station, Finland, over a solar cycle (years 1996–2008) that shed new light on these presumed relationships. Our analysis shows that none of the quantities related to aerosol formation correlates with the cosmic ray-induced ionisation intensity (CRII). We also examined the contribution of ions to new particle formation on the basis of novel ground-based and airborne observations. A consistent result is that ion-induced formation contributes typically less than 10% to the number of new particles, which would explain the missing correlation between CRII and aerosol formation. Our main conclusion is that galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well.

- refute to Svensmark2009 #3: Sudden cosmic ray decreases: No change of global cloud cover

Abstract: Currently a cosmic ray cloud connection (CRC) hypothesis is subject of an intense controversial debate. It postulates that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) intruding the Earth's atmosphere influence cloud cover. If correct it would have important consequences for our understanding of climate driving processes. Here we report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC‐hypothesis by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so‐called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude.

ya, ya, Simple... if only there was an open-minded debate! (or, as you would favour, one that didn't consistently trump the next latest and greatest denier hope)

[bush_cheney2004]

All I can hope for is a more open-minded debate......and maybe it's starting. There certainly has been very little about Global Warming in the media since the email scandal....

Ain't that the truth. Perhaps they have adopted a bunker mentality, no longer enjoying a free ride without very public and critical scrutiny.

[waldo]

All I can hope for is a more open-minded debate......and maybe it's starting. There certainly has been very little about Global Warming in the media since the email scandal.

ya, ya, Simple... if only there was an open-minded debate! (or, as you would favour, one that didn't consistently trump the next latest and greatest denier hope)

hey Simple… how about more of that open-debate you claim is missing, that you so long for… ya, ya – “it’s the Sun, stupid!”

oh my, Simple! Can you believe the nerve of those wascally scientists and their no-nothing intrusions into using satellites to measure solar irradiance. You know… relying on satellites as the best way to detect changes in the actual sun output versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface… eliminating influences of clouds, pollution, smoke, etc., on measurements. The nerve, Simple… the nerve of those guys!

somehow, Simple… somehow… the scientists at the World Radiation Center, the guys who have been constructing a satellite based, ‘Composite Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Time Series from 1978 to present, somehow… those guys have been unable to show the presence of any increased solar irradiance during the same periods significant earth’s temperature increases. All they show, Simple… is a repeat of similar standard 11 year solar cycle patterns, absent any increases in solar irradiance, absent any increased trend in solar irradiance to match that of earth’s temperature trend increase. What Simple… are the World Radiation Center’s results simply an inconvenient truth… not a part of your longed for/missing open debate? Results graph showing no increase in solar irradiance – here:

Simple, what about those scientists at the Max Plank Institute for Solar System Research… somehow… those guys have also been unable to show any increase in solar irradiance to account and associate with the recent earth’s warming. What Simple… are the Max Plank Institute’s results simply an inconvenient truth… not a part of your longed for/missing open debate? Results graph showing no increase in solar irradiance… showing no correlation between solar irradiance and earth’s recent increased warming – here:

as for the Solomon article reference to the IPCC reports not giving any consideration to the influence of the Sun – nonsense. Two key sections within the WG1 Physical Sciences report include significant reference to solar variability – many paper citations are offered to account for the overall relative lack of radiative forcing that solar irradiance holds… as depicted within this graphic – here:

ya, ya, Simple... if only there was an open-minded debate! (or, as you would favour, one that didn't consistently trump the next latest and greatest denier hope)

[Pliny]

Holy poop it's warm outside today.

He forgot to address the "Holy Poop" part of your post! He did address the "it's warm outside today" part.

[Keepitsimple]

Bring on the debate:

"Spain admits that the green economy as sold to Obama is a disaster," read the headline in La Gaceta, a Spanish business newspaper that reported a leaked internal Cabinet document in a full-page article (Obama has often cited Spain as a model Green Economy). The Cabinet document indicated that more than two jobs were lost for every green job created, that the country's spending binge on renewables had made Spain a high-electricity-cost country, and that Spanish businesses now faced electricity costs 17% higher than the European average. Thanks to the green economy, Spain has Europe's highest unemployment rate, at 20%, and is now staring at bankruptcy.

More constructive news from me: Australia last month abandoned its cap and trade plan, and the U.S. cap and trade plan is going nowhere. In all these countries, the shoddiness of the scientific claims linking man to dangerous climate change has finally been publicized, thanks to the release of the Climategate emails which showed that scientists had cooked the books on climate change. With public belief in man-made global warming tanking around the world, politicians have begun to run for cover. Countries everywhere are bailing out of their CO2-reduction plans.

Except in Canada, where many in the press and public, and especially in the elites, have not yet heard the news.

..............

Fortunately, a remedy for the residents, and for the populace at large, is readily available: Follow the rest of the world and challenge the science.

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=13ccea1b-4567-47d3-824c-f274809f8062

[waldo]

Bring on the debate:

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=13ccea1b-4567-47d3-824c-f274809f8062

Simple, you truly are a pathetic loser... not only do we see another one of your links to your go-to denier extraordinaire, Lawrence Solomon... we see you simply linking and quoting, without offering any comment or interpretation of your own. What's the matter, Simple - are you getting a little anxious about actually making your own assessments/interpretations - wonder why?

Solomon outdoes himself this time, cleverly and deviously crafting his words for maximum vagueness, omission, distortion and effect. We read Solomon stating, "the EU had announced it was putting further carbon dioxide cuts on hold... following like decisions one day earlier by Germany and France". Of course, this simply reflects an unwillingness for the EU collectively, and Germany/France individually, to voluntarily increase the already committed 20% cut in emissions by 2020... to 30%. The emphasis here is on an unwillingness to pursue additional increases on a volunteer basis - Germany has been a strong advocate for moving to a 30% target... but only in the context of a global agreement and of retaining the option as a facet of negotiation within upcoming climate change meetings.

then, of course, Solomon shifts into high-gear with reference to Spain... and an, 'internal leaked Spanish cabinet document'. Certainly, this one is being played up big time across the denialsphere and, not surprisingly, originates via Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) - sourcewatch for CEI. What's missing here is perspective on the lead-up over the past year from the origination point... a 2009 Spanish study (from economics professor Gabriel Calzada of Spain’s King Juan Carlos University). Of course Solomon, and Horner, know of this study, of it's past complete and total debunking, but they don't care... this is simply another opportunity to throw out wild-ass claims while casting doubt and uncertainty - standard denier operation... standard Lawrence Solomon modus operandi!

this one is too easy, Simple... assorted debunking and refutations of that Spanish study - the study that forms the basis of Solomon's referenced 'leaked cabinet document':

- from

José María Roig Aldasoro

, Regional Minister of Innovation, Enterprise and Employment Government of Navarre region in Spain

- from

Teresa Ribera Rodriguez

, Spain's Secretary of State for Climate - letter to U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee)

- from the Spanish technical and scientific organization - ISTAS (Instituto Sindical de Trabajo, Ambiente y Salud) =>

translation

of original

Spanish document

... indepth analysis and focused content debunking

- from

mediamatters.org

- responding to, "Fox News pushing questionable Spanish study on green jobs"

- from

Wall Street Journal

- ... Simple, when even the WSJ doesn't buy into it... who ya gonna call?

- from

Center for American Progress

- Tall Tales from Spain

- the

NRDC blog

gives a summary account of key points from the above referenced Spanish government and ISTAS references; specifically:

Calzada's analysis is based on seriously flawed logic. As the Spanish Government letter says, "The conclusions are based on two static and simplistic ratios, from which it is difficult to draw valid conclusions as they compare non-comparable elements."

* The first ratio compares the economic support given to renewable energies in Spain per job with the average capital per job in Spain. A more valid comparison would have compared support to renewables with support to other energy sources - something other studies have done and shown very different conclusions from Calzada's.

* The second ratio compares annual support for renewable energy per job with the average productivity per job in Spain. As the letter from the Spanish Government says, "This comparison has no value."

Calzada blames renewables for job losses by assuming renewables are Spain's only electricity source. This conclusion is insupportable, however, as:

* Electricity prices are influenced by several factors. In Spain, as ISTAS points out, prices are affected

o The impact and evolution of crude oil prices

o The Spanish importation of coal, which accounted for more than 60% of the total coal used in 2008.

o The costs of nuclear waste treatment, calculated to be around 2,700 million euros.

* Renewable energy is one of Spain's cheaper electricity sources and has actually been lowering prices in Spain.

o According to ISTAS, the production of wind energy in Spain brought market prices down by 7.08 euros/MWh in 2005, 12.44 euros/MWh in 2006 and 12.44 euros/MWh between January 1st and May 31st, 2007.

o In relative terms, this contributed to a drop in the average market price of between 11.7%, 8.6% and 25.1%, respectively.

* Spain's electricity prices are below the EU average.

o According to ISTAS, in Spain the prices per 100 kWh of domestic energy amounted to 12.25 euros in 2007, which is less than the average of 15.28 euros found in the other 27 countries that make up the European Union (UE-27) and the average of 16.05 euros found in the Euro Area; also the price for industrial energy use in Spain amounts to 9.87 euros, which is less than the 10.70 euros of the UE-27 and the 11.23 euros found in the Euro Area.

Calzada's renewable energy employment figures are wrong. Calzada claims 52,200 direct and indirect jobs (but as with other 'facts' provides no citation for this figure.) By comparison, Spain's Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade says the renewable energy sector in Spain employs 73,900 direct workers. Spain's Labor Union Institute of Work, Environment and Health estimates 89,000 direct jobs and 99,690 indirect jobs.

Calzada's wind energy employment figures are wrong. Calzada states there are 15,000 people employed in the wind energy sector in Spain. But the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade puts the figure at more than twice that, 37,730 people.

Calzada doesn't source his facts. As ISTAS details,

* No bibliographical reference is specified for much of the data. Under the "bibliography" at the end of the paper, there is only one word: "Pending."

* Calzada does not provide explanations of his calculations.

* The data has been obtained from secondary sources, without considering whether they are of a comparable nature or not.

The paper appears to be politically motivated. As ISTAS states: "We are not dealing with a study here but rather an essay providing opinions and written with editorial overtones based on secondary information that is poorly referenced and/or explained and which provides only partial statements of the facts. It is a document that is full of errors, a result of the haste incurred in getting it published in order to take advantage of the effect, and it fails at times to honor truth. These errors go anywhere from simple typos or omissions, to the "deliberate" misuse and confusion of terminology."

The Spanish Government letter concludes with an unequivocal affirmation of the Government's recognition of the value of renewable energy and its commitment to it, noting that Spanish renewable energy policy is widely supported, and that it "has established the pillars of the transformation of our energy model to face the future challenges; that has generated important benefits in environmental terms; that has created net jobs; that has created and improved a powerful industrial fabric, helping the rise of leading companies, not only at a national level but also at an international one, with great export and innovation capacity."

Rodriguez concludes, "In the renewable energy field, Spain is an example to be followed."

- of course, Simple... we need to comment on

Gabriel Calzada

, the lead author of that totally debunked Spanish study. Calzada is an avowed denier, a founding member of the

Prague Network

, a

Heritage Foundation

member of it's

Green Jobs Panel

... and, of course, a go-to guy for the

Heartland Institute

.

and he continues... Solomon struts forward claiming, "Australia last month abandoned its cap and trade plan". Whether cap™ is the right strategy or not, Solomon most certainly is not correct in his wording and implication. Rudd's majority Labor government couldn't secure support from the Australian Senate (significant in this case, was a lack of support from the Greens who alternately favour a levy on carbon polluters). Officially, the Labor government has stated an intent to, for now, delay cap™ till after the Kyoto protocol expires (2012)... meanwhile, assorted polls show Australians favouring the Greens levy approach. But don't let any of the internals within Australian politics get in the way of Lawrence Solomon fallaciously spinning the Australian situation around "resistance" predicated upon reaction to Hackergate. Just another Solomon fabrication!

debate Simple? What debate were you calling for... anyone can blindly throw up a link and quote from it... like you've just done. Was there something you actually wanted to discuss - to debate?

[Keepitsimple]

.....and even the mainstream media are starting to pay attention. From Newsweek:

Uncertain Science

Bickering and defensive, climate researchers have lost the public’s trust.

Blame economic worries, another freezing winter, or the cascade of scandals emerging from the world’s leading climate-research body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But concern over global warming has cooled down dramatically. In über-green Germany, only 42 percent of citizens worry about global warming now, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Britain, just 26 percent believe climate change is man-made, down from 41 percent as recently as November 2009. And Americans rank global warming dead last in a list of 21 problems that concern them, according to a January Pew poll.

The shift has left many once celebrated climate researchers feeling like the used-car salesmen of the science world. In Britain, one leading scientist told an interviewer he is taking anti-anxiety pills and considered suicide following the leak of thousands of IPCC-related e-mails and documents suggesting that researchers cherry-picked data and suppressed rival studies to play up global warming. In the U.S., another researcher is under investigation for allegedly using exaggerated climate data to obtain public funds. In an open letter published in the May issue of Science magazine, 255 American climate researchers decry “political assaults” on their work by “deniers” and followers of “dogma” and “special interests.”

This is no dispute between objective scientists and crazed flat-earthers. The lines cut through the profession itself. Very few scientists dispute a link between man-made CO2 and global warming. Where it gets fuzzy is the extent and time frame of the effect. One crucial point of contention is climate “sensitivity”—the mathematical formula that translates changes in CO2 production to changes in temperature. In addition, scientists are not sure how to explain a slowdown in the rise of global temperatures that began about a decade ago.

.......continued

Link: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/28/uncertain-science.html