Free Markets, Free People


Global Warming “Science” v. The Scientific Method (update)

Even the youngest student of science knows the foundation of scientific inquiry rests in the scientific method. It is by scrupulously following that method that the data and science behind it can be verified. In short:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

It also requires that the data collected be made available to peers so the theories in question can be tested for their validity.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

The bold is my emphasis because I want to highlight a remarkable article at NRO by Patrick J. Michaels entitled “The Dog Ate Global Warming”. Obviously a little twist on “the dog ate my homework”, Michaels says that the “data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.”

Or, said another way, the findings are now unfalsifiable because those who did the original research say they no longer have the original data.

First some background about what’s being discussed:

In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

So we’re talking about the findings which were used to make the IPCC’s dire warnings in its report. They are the basis for the entire global warming movement’s desire to do what is necessary globally to lower the amount of CO2 emissions.

But, others scientists ask, given their doubts about the accuracy of the data, should it be? Scientists interested in peer reviewing the theory, as the scientific method demands, found it impossible to do so. And therein lies the story:

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Michaels is stunned by he reaction. Anyone who reads that response should be stunned by it. As Michaels says, it is “breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust”. Not unscientific. Anti-scientific. Jones is refusing a peer the data used to reach his conclusions in direct contravention of the scientific method. When you see a refusal like that, especially phrased the way it was phrased, all sorts of alarm bells should go off in the head of anyone who claims to be a scientist. And, of course, they have.

Over the years, requests have been made for the data and almost uniformly turned down for various reasons. Finally a request for the data made by Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado solicited this response from Jones:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Michaels calls BS on this one:

The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

Anyone familiar with data storage throughout the short history of the computer age knows this is nonsense. Transfer of data from various systems to newer systems has been accomplished without real difficulty all thorough its development. What Jones is trying very hard to do is one of two things a) hide data that he’s pretty sure won’t support his conclusion or b) admitting to a damningly unscientific procedure which should, without his ability to produce and share the original data, call into serious question any findings he’s presented.

Why is this important – because based on this finding, the world is moving toward economy crippling treaties and legislation, like the pending cap-and-trade bill here in the US, based on totally unverified “science”. As Michaels says this story isn’t just “an academic spat” – it questions the very foundation of the premise which these economic crippling moves are based in.

Scientific consensus? Not even proven science, for heave sake – yet we’re moving on it like it was. Dangerous, foolish and costly. This is what rushing into things without making all of the inquiries necessary (and taking the time to do them) usually ends up with bad legislation.

And cap-and-trade promises to be no exception to that rule.

UPDATE: The Thinker provides a reminder of what I expect to see concerning Michael’s charges from the “Chicken Little” crowd:

As I described in my my model of belief, a faith-based belief is a belief in something for which there is no good evidence either for or against (e.g., the existence of God), whereas a delusional belief is a belief that is maintained in spite of evidence to the contrary (e.g., the efficacy of astrology). It is usually a delusional belief that requires an “appeal to other ways of knowing,” since a faith-based belief (strictly as I’ve defined it) can’t be challenged on scientific grounds.

The “appeal to other ways of knowing” is one of the strategies that a delusional person will use to cope with the cognitive dissonance that occurs when their beliefs bump up against reality. When questioned on this “other way of knowing” the person will then be forced to resort to other coping strategies (i.e., fallacies and biases).

Just a little helpful guide for those trying to evaluate the comments of those trying to defend the indefensible. Always handy to know if you’re dealing with someone grounded in a faith-based belief or a delusional belief, wouldn’t you say? If you’d like a local example of delusional belief, I’d steer you to the comment thread on Honduras where it is available in full flower.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

44 Responses to Global Warming “Science” v. The Scientific Method (update)

  • You dense righties just can’t believe in the world’s consensus on global warming, can you? Instead of admitting that people like Al Gore are absolute authorities on these matters, because they are wise leftists who think like me, you insist on quoting silly abstractions about the “scientific method” which you are not trained in anyway, so you ought to just shut up about it.

    I’m telling you, it’s just a few cranks who disagree with global warming caused by people, and of course that means we’re going to have an extensive law to stop you people from heedlessly contributing to the problem. Your kind of thinking is being pushed aside, thank goodness, and you can wail all you like about “evidence” and such, but you’re going to end up funding we wise leftists and our control over society every time you buy gas or turn on a lamp. Just accept it.

    So stop talking about how things have cooled in the last ten years, and all that solar activity stuff. It just shows what cranks you are. The very idea that the sun could have an effect that dwarfs what people do! Why, the sun is, what, only about ten miles wide, right? I don’t recall exactly, because I focused my attention during school on post-modernist international relations theory, in which we learned why the US is always wrong about everything unless we’re continuously apologizing to the world and atoning for our sins, so I don’t recall the details on that grunt science-type stuff. But I’ve talked to wise leftist experts on this matter, and they’ve assured me that my understanding is completely correct, so you thick righties just need to accept my second hand or third hand interpretation of stuff I have no direct experience with over your own silly opinions. What use is your grunt engineer training without the tempering of wise leftist post-modern thought? And you ex-military basket cases are completely suspect in everything you think anyway, because your minds are so warped by the stress.

    And I’m sure this scientist is being perfectly honest about the original data is no longer available. I lose stuff off my computer all the time. Just last month I wrote a long piece for my students on why everything Bush ever did was wrong and how they are going to be living in a nation in complete decline but they should be happy about it since wise leftists will be running things, and the program asked something about keeping it, and I guess I pressed the wrong button or something because it’s gone.

    Really, why do you silly righties insist on thinking for yourself when it’s been proven by the holy writ of post-modernism that we wise leftists are the only ones who really understand anything? To summarize all the stuff you guys have gotten wrong:

    - Markets don’t adjust themselves. They require the wise guiding hand of a leftist to adjust.

    - You’re right about our entitlement programs being unsustainable and leading to economic decline, but you refuse to see that the obvious solution is to create a huge, brand new entitlement for healthcare.

    - Sadr won over Maliki.

    - Sarah Palin is awful and nasty, and she’s going to be investigated for awful corruption involving kitchen redecorations any day now.

    - Jimmy Carter is one of the wisest and most compassionate men on the planet, and we should have stuck with his 12% inflation, 12% unemployment, and 18% interest rates instead of electing that awful man Reagan, who is the source of all our consumerist ills and our live-beyond-our-means mentality, and it was not either the fault of the Democrats for refusing to cut spending, so stop saying that!

    - What happened in Honduras was a coup because we wise leftists with our godlike powers of post-modern political science have defined it as one. You dense righties don’t get a vote, so stop wailing about specialists in foreign law and written constitutions and stuff like that. Have we wise leftists not proven conclusively that written constitutions don’t mean squat when they get in the way of wise leftists running society? It’s like I just can’t get through to you people on the simplest things.

    - John Kerry was a stainless knight and war hero, and all 50 of the people accusing him of bad behavior are partisan liars, even the ones who are Democrats.

    Now have you finally got it?

  • If this story is true, then Jones should turn in his diplomas, have the word “FRAUD” branded onto his forehead, and have a 1L Ehrlenmeyer shoved up his a**.

    I’m sorry to say that science is often perverted due to money, prestige, politics, or some combination of those. Let’s assume that Jones and Wigley weren’t essentially hired to start up a false front (CRU) to produce phony data in support of “global warming”. Let’s assume, instead, that they are honest men who got caught up in the hype. They published some remarkable (!) findings that have become the hottest scientific subject since the A-bomb. Their names are (in some circles) on par with Einstein, Fermi, Watson, Crick, and Salk. Now, does anybody really think that they want to risk even the SLIGHTEST possibility that somebody might demonstrate that they fouled up?

    That being said, it seems to me that Jones KNOWS his work is questionable, to say the least. That he published work that he presumably KNEW was shoddy should see him laughed out of the scientific community. That he’s issuing angry accusations and lame excuses when other scientists ask to see his original data… Well, I don’t know if it’s a criminal act, but it should see him ejected from every scientific association of which he’s a member and barred from any research or teaching job for the rest of his life.

    I’m sure MiniTru would be glad to hire him to do the statistics on their political polling. “According to our statistical expert Dr. Phillip Jones, President Obama’s approval rating now stands at 7345% +/- 1.7428494%, an increase of %745 from last week’s high of 94502%!”

  • They didn’t back up their original data, without which they had nothing, and the only data they have available has been altered according to some method(s) (which they will probably also refuse to disclose). “Trust me” he is saying. Well, if it worked for Bernie Madoff it will work for him.

  • Ott Scerb for President. There, i said it.

  • “Now have you finally got it?”

    Yes, perception may indeed be one’s reality, it just isn’t science.

  • I wish I could print this and force a lady in my office to read it. She is a huge lefty and insists that AGW is real.

    After Wilson yelled at the President, she and I got into an arguement about how the Dems treated Pres. Bush. I pulled up the video from one of his SOTUA’s when they booed him and she refused to watch it. So I turned the speakers up all the way and forced her to listen.

    We don’t have a very good working relationship.

  • Very interesting – but where is the *science* wrong? Where is the century+ of accumulated data wrong?

    Also, are the ice sheets and glaciers in on this conspiracy? How about birds and flowers that are migrating and blooming earlier? Are they both in on the Big NWO Conspiracy?

    Meh, when you have no science, you need to make a big song and dance about none events like this one….

    • Did you even read the article? There’s no data available so no one knows or has been able to confirm whether it is right or wrong. The “scientist” who holds it first refused to release it and then said it had been destroyed.

      The only “meh” here is your seeming inability to understand the point of the post.

      • Like I said, when you can’t refute the science, all you can do is make a big song and dance about none events like this one….

        You Deniers have no more credibility than creationists and flat earthers. Get used to being irrelevant.

        • One more time, so that even the slow might get it – what “science”? The “scientist” can’t even produce the data. How is it possible you continue to miss that point?

          • OK, I’ll explain it for you:

            1. the statements made by Professor Jones are *alleged* with no credible cite

            2. CRU is not obliged or *legally* allowed to hand out raw data that they receive from third parties to just anyone that demands it – http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/d144f4c668050d59 – especially anti-science individuals from another country (Stephen McIntyre – a key detail missing from your version of this non-story) with clear agendas to twist and distort the science to deny reality

            3. There is nothing unusual or sinister in discarding raw, unprocessed data. Do you think that every measurement in every laboratory on the planet is recorded and kept in perpetuity? No, of course not. I wonder why you’re not making a fuss about any of those in your oh-so-earnest concern for scientific rigour? I know the answer.

            4. The raw data still exists, just not with the CRU. Go to the sources if you’re really interested in looking at the raw data – but that’s not what this is about. It’s about desperately trying to discredit one respected source for global temperatures.

            5. The attempt to spin this as some kind of conspiracy to cover up the ‘real’ temperature trend is pathetic and impotent because *all* other data sets say exactly the same thing – the planet is warming. This includes thousands of natural proxies, e.g. growing seasons, ice cover, bird migration, blooming of flowers, migration and spawning of fish, dates of mountain snow melt, peak flow of glacier-fed streams and disappearing glaciers. Do you think the birds, fish and ice are all in on the conspiracy as well?

            6. So, even if you did prove that the UK’s highly respected Climate Research Unit was corrupt, lying and falsifying data, you’d still be no further forward in your campaign to deny reality – the planet is warming – just as the CRU data, NASA data, satellite record, global weather station data and thousands of natural proxies confirm.

            7. Patrick Michaels – an utterly discredited individual, e.g. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/pat_michaels_fraud_pure_and_si.php

            8. It’s laughable that people who deny scientific reality so eagerly quote the scientific method to try and legitimise their conspiracy theories

            One more time: the reason you Deniers get so excited about non-events, such as this, is because you cannot refute the mountain of *science* that clearly demonstrates that Anthropogenic Climate Change is *fact*.

            P.S. FYI: the world is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the Earth and your god did not create all creatures great and small 6000 years ago.

          • Well I’m glad you finally laid your cards on the table.

            A) CRU is no more “well respected” than you – and I think you know where that’s going

            B) No one said it was “sinister” – that’s your strawman – but to pretend it isn’t unusual is simply not true.

            C) In “Chicken Little” circles I’m sure Patrick Michales is an “utterly discredited individual”. Most likely because he, and other “discredited” individuals, like the 900 scientists who signed a petition essentially calling AGW “science” hogwash, keep asking for the original data on which the AGW theories are based.

            D) No one is denying the earth’s climate is changing. It always has. What is being looked at with scientific skepticism – something you apparently lack – is that it is being changed by man to the extent claimed.

            E) A reminder:

            As I described in my my model of belief, a faith-based belief is a belief in something for which there is no good evidence either for or against (e.g., the existence of God), whereas a delusional belief is a belief that is maintained in spite of evidence to the contrary (e.g., the efficacy of astrology). It is usually a delusional belief that requires an “appeal to other ways of knowing,” since a faith-based belief (strictly as I’ve defined it) can’t be challenged on scientific grounds.

            I’m sure you’ve figured out which fits you.

            F) The “mountain of science” supporting AGW has been kicked in the rear so badly that even the majority of those who aren’t paying close attention to the argument have come to the conclusion that it is a hoax.

          • Jack, it’s not clear you understand what science is. Let’s go one better on your evidence (which is not science): even if the temperature was increasing 5 degrees a year and any moron could see it, melted ice flooded the coasts, every bird and fish got lost, and flowers burst into flame – that wouldn’t mean it was being caused by man.

            McQ’s indictment is of legislation based on AGW. The story is in this quote:

            it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

            Legislating our lives based on the available “science” is similar to legislating based on religious faith. Science has proven that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, but it hasn’t proven yes or no on AGW or a creator.

            Just in case: GW and AGW are not the same thing. Proving GW does not prove AGW. It doesn’t make sense to claim that but some people do.

          • Not to mention the claim that refusing other scientists original data for peer review isn’t “unusual” is absolute and complete rubbish.

          • “Not to mention the claim that refusing other scientists original data for peer review isn’t “unusual” is absolute and complete rubbish.”

            In fact, witholding and then conveniently revealing the data is long lost is just barely short of prima facie evidence of deliberate fraud. For Jones to be in the clear, he would have to replicate the work in an above board fashion–until, then he has well earned a cloud of suspicion.

          • Among the more laudable skeptics on the warming question is physicist Freeman Dyson who stops short of using a loaded term like hoax but clearly isn’t buying the big pitch, and he is going by the data as it is presented (i.e., prior to any further examination).

            Another laudable skeptic was the late author Michael Crichton whose training was as an M.D. but who was way more than your average informed person on questions in science. He documented a whole series of environmental scares over recent decades and placed warming in that tradition. He wrote the novel “State of Fear” about the warming scare.

            The most impressive skeptic among climatologists is Richard Lindzen of MIT who thinks that future generations will laugh at the hysteria generated over a 1 degree F. rise in global temperatures. When it was announced that “the debate was over” on warming he said that he was surprised because he didn’t think that a serious debate had even taken place.

            Another important skeptic has been William Gray, a renown specialist on tropical storms, who essentially debunked the idea that warming was responsible for the an increase in frequency and strenth in hurricanes.

            The list goes on, and one thing most of these people have shared in common is that they are viciously attacked and their motives have been questioned (with the exception of Dyson about whom it was implied that he was simply old and past his prime as a scientist). Dyson is a firm believer that taking measures to curb development over the issue of CO2, which he says should not be considered a pollutant, will do irreparable harm in the developing world.

          • Here’s some science for Jack Mildam – in this age of “melting ice caps” the Antarctic currently has more ice than ever previously measured. (of course, measurements only go back to 1979)

            http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

            Arctic ice is also increasing, and should surpass the 1979 – 2000 northern average sometime this winter after hitting a low point in 2007. Why the up and down? Nothing to do with man, just a natural long term sine wave fluctuation in our ice caps that has always been there and always will. People who know nothing about science but everything about alarmism always assume that everything in the world is a straight line function. Actually, almost *Nothing* in our physical world is a straight line function.

            Here’s another extremely good paper that everyone should read on the state of science today:

            http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Nova-Exile_for_non_believers.pdf

          • “OK, I’ll explain it for you:”

            But you don’t explain anything. You offer excuses laced with ad hominem.

            No one has disputed that this data has been represented as showing roughly a 100-year warming of app 0.6C or app. 1.0F. Some scientists see great significance in those numbers. Other scientists see them as being of little significance.

            There are questions, however, about how valid those numbers are, which is why other scientists want to look at the original data used to arrive at them. That’s science, where other scientists look at the same data and question it.

            I first started paying attention to this question about a decade ago and I have always been more impressed with the representations and arguments of the skeptics. They are much clearer, in part because they place these trends in the context of global climate history. The “hockey stick” representation made by Warmists ignored the Medieval Warm Period and manifestly misrepresented the recent warming trend as dramatic and dangerous.

        • when you can’t refute the science

          The point of the post is that “the science,” or in this case, the data, has disappeared, possibly in an attempt to keep “the science” from verifying its veracity.

          You are an example of the “delusional belief” that is described in the bottom portion of the post. The fact that the data that could be used to verify the claims regarding global warming has conveniently been lost is meaningless to you– the people who lost it claim it says what you want to believe it says, and that’s good enough for you.

        • I’m going to have to side with Jack, McQ.

          As crazy as it sounds, the company I work for has been monitoring bed temperatures in
          Loch Ness since the 1970s. (This was a fisheries study and had nothing to do with Nessie.) You can actually see one of our research platforms motoring across the lake behind Leonard Nemoy in the In Search Of… Nessie episode.

          Sensors from that time were crap and were of course spread out – the lake is huge. I came on board in 1998 when we installed an upgraded array where 15+ years of data showed a regular, predictable temperature flux that we thought might be used by migratory schools. I didn’t have anything to do with it after the install.

          In 2006 we were selected to test a new prototype of wireless sensor netting with a much denser distribution. I was on the install team, helping select a suitable location. We had an intern who had the fun job of moving the old paper data into a database for modelling. Since he would run the model every so often, he noticed that within the flux we’d monitored was a discernible temperature anomaly that moved within the array spread. We explained fluid dynamics and the concept of data noise to him but he wanted to believe it was Nessie. So we chose that area to install the netting just so we could mess with him.

          But he may have gotten the last laugh. It’s been insane around here the past year. In 2008, a curious colleague of mine heard about the intern and programmed a custom visual model based on the intern’s old model for the anomaly. When he ran it on some of the 2007 data, you can actually see – and I know how this sounds – a distinctive plesiosaur shape swimming across the bed. The new sensor netting is so dense you don’t have to imagine that some blob is close to the right shape, I mean it’s right there.

          So like I’ve said, it’s been nuts. We brought in more model programmers to check the entire 2006-2009 dataset with three distinct models. Most of us assumed it was a group of mammals moving together, except we never found any separate mammal images in the entire dataset. We did, however, find what can only be eight distinct plesiosaurs, in over 50 events, moving in that area over two years. It’s completely unbelievable but the data doesn’t lie. We’ve been preparing an official presentation for spring 2010.

          We have run into a few snags. First is that we can’t find the pre-1998 paper data. The last person to use it was the intern who was entering it but he was killed in a shark attack last year. Also, Leon wins the lab pool on how long a 64GB flash drive will survive against Murphy’s Law: one week. Those things are cheap, so don’t ask me why all the model data was backed up to only one flash drive. (If you’re upgrading the entire lab at once, shouldn’t you have more than one backup? Especially with something this important?)

          Anyway, we still have some accumulated data in the Powerpoint presentation and we’d already made a WMV of the data model running and showing the plesiosaurs. We may not be able to run the models accurately any more but you can see the result in the movie clips. We’ve also documented our data gathering methods from 1973-2008.

          We realize there will be skeptics because we can’t produce the data, but come on. Nessie, baby!

          • You can side with whomever you wish, of course, but in this case you’re siding with someone who says “data be damned, I’ll believe what I chose to believe” – and that ain’t “science”.

            Believing or not believing that man has a hand in the warming isn’t the point here – it’s the fact that one of those who has had his “science” used as the foundation for the IPCC’s bs warning can’t and won’t produce the original data so other scientists can test it and verify it – you know, peer review? Without it, what he has at best is an unverified theory which should have as much credibility as something I could cook up tonight.

          • Heh. The shark attack was an especially good touch.

          • Or hinted at nicely, “Bruce, you need to read more than the first line”. Sorry Zozo – and I have to agree, the shark attack was an especially good touch.

    • very good discussion…….

  • OK, the original stuff is “lost” so where do we go from here?

    • They’ve already “gone” from here – skeptics have said that the findings can’t be duplicated with the info he provided in his conclsions and have asked for the original data.

      They’ve gotten the “dog ate it” excuse – where do you think they should go from here? I know where I’d go – I’d call his conclusions scientifically unsubstantiated until he could produce the data.

  • Is anyone else reminded of Michael Bellesiles?

  • Even if you stipulate that the now missing data was accurately reported by the outfit handling it, it was never that impressive and it has been grossly misrepresented. Most famously misrepresented by the “hockey stick” formulation, where recent warming trends were portrayed as something abnormal and dramatic.

    The Earth’s climate warms and cools. We are in a ten thousand year warming trend, what is known as an inter-glacial period. But even within that period there have been warming and cooling trends. During the Medieval Warm Period, for instance, Greenland became habitable (hence the name Greenland) and then uninhabitable again as things cooled. The Little Ice Age, which ended circa 1850 featured some of those bitter cold winters during which New York Harbor froze at the end of the 18th Century. Since c. 1850 there’s been a warming trend but there has been cooling as well, and there appears to be another cooling period starting now.

    One of the reasons the data might have gone missing is that a re-examination by scientists who have learned how to question the previous conclusions might show that the data shows nothing significant.

    In other words, that global warming science could be generously called short-sighted and without substance, and more accurately called a hoax.

    CO2 is simply not a pollutant and does not even correlate significantly with warming. That is what the skeptics have been saying for a long time now. But big stakes, mostly political at this point, but also a lot of research funding and scientific reputations, have been bet on warming. It might have started as an enthusiasm, but now it’s a full-blown hoax.

    Climate always changes. Warming and cooling happens. We are in an interglacial period. And mankind doesn’t have too terribly much to say about it.

    • I am convinced it was a deliberate scare hoax from the word go. Ever wonder what happened to the horrible problem of Acid Rain from the 1990′s?

      Remember how we just HAD to do something about it? So a sulphur emissions exchange program (affecting only the USA) was set up, that some people got rich over, and voila! Overnight you never heard anything ever again about Acid Rain. That was sure a quick fix.

      Remember how in the 1980′s there was this awful hole in the Ozone layer and we were all going to die unless some really expensive changes in refrigerant use were not put into place pronto. As soon as the law was passed in the USA, You never heard a single word again about the ozone layer. Turns out, it never really changed, it fluctuates within known parameters.

      They fooled us before and some people got real rich, so this time they went for broke and decided they could deceive the entire world. Maybe they are right, it might work.

      • I’ve always thought it curious that certain people positioned to make money from “solving” global warming started pushing the idea hard just when the earth was predicted to change from a 30-year warming trend to a 30-year cooling trend. If they had gotten their way, they could (would) “prove” their solution worked by trumpeting that the earth was cooling. Smugly. And by the time the cycle rolled over again they’d be in their money-lined graves, while a generation that grew up never questioning AGW would panic as the earth naturally warmed despite everything they tried.

        Ignore the scope of the decreased human condition and it’s really an elegant con.

  • I would venture that we know less about the weather than we do anything else on the planet. Maybe, just maybe, in a couple of thousand years we will know about 10% more about it than we do now. That should put us at about a .1% level of understanding of how this deal actually works. Anybody, who calls themselves anything more than a student of climatology, is nothing but an arrogant asshole.

    It really is that complex.

    There are no authorities.

  • I’ll take it that by ignoring the arguments I’ve put forward that you are unable to rebut them and therefore accept the planet is warming – which further exposes this story as the charade it so obviously was to begin with.

    > …900 scientists who signed a petition…

    Ooh! Science by petition! Presumably you’re referring to Inhofe’s 400 / 650 / 700 ‘scientists’ – the vast majority of whom were not scientists, and the vast majority of those were scientists not climate scientists. Another laughable attempt by the anti-science brigade to spread FUD.

    > The “mountain of science” supporting AGW has been kicked in the rear…

    “Kicked in the rear”? Is that a scientific term? You should write to the Nobel Foundation – I expect they’ll send you a prize for that astounding refutation of a century+ of accumulated science from multiple disciplines.

    > …it is a hoax.

    Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn’t because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it’s that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.

    You wingnut Deniers enjoy your obscurity on your little sideshow blogs, ranting over conspiracies and how it’s all a big hoax, involving thousands of scientists in every science academy of every major industrialized country on the planet. You’re as relevant to the conversation as your cousin Deniers, the creationists and flat earthers.

    When you come up with some *science*, let us know.

    • You wouldn’t know *science* it it bit you on the keister – but since you also can’t seem to grasp the point of the post, it is probably a good idea that you fold your tent and steal off into the night. “Deniers” seems to fit you much better than anyone here.

    • What can’t be replicated isn’t science. That means that Jone’s “research” which can’t be re-searched is not science.
      Also, you’ve quoted Tim Lambert, ergo, you have a large credibility deficit to overcome with every one of your assertions.

    • he vast majority of whom were not scientists, and the vast majority of those were scientists not climate scientists. Another laughable attempt by the anti-science brigade to spread FUD.

      Says the person whose example link that “discredits” Pat Michaels is to a blog post by a computer scientist.

      Your attempts at dismissing Bruce’s post by (A)ignoring the premise and (B)playing the “science is settled” card were bad enough, but then you go and undermine your own standards. You’ve been flinging poo at the wall in the hopes that some of it sticks. That’s not *science*, you know.

    • >>> You should write to the Nobel Foundation

      Jack, the IPCC Nobel prize was for peace not science. That should tell you everything right there.

      >>> Ooh! Science by petition!

      Yeah, well I keep hearing about “The consensus” Science by consensus is bullsh1t too.

      >>> When you come up with some *science*

      We have, the problem is we are waiting for proof of your arguments. So far, every GCM single model has come up ZERO for prediction reliability.

  • Jack said: “P.S. FYI: the world is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the Earth and your god did not create all creatures great and small 6000 years ago.”

    That’s right, the earth is not flat.

    It is interesting (at least I think so) that the center of mass for our solar system is outside the radius of the Sun. But what the hell, if you’re comfortable believing the Sun is stationary and all the planets revolve around its center, that’s fine, it works in most cases. Of course, our rotating solar system rotates around some center of mass in our galaxy which in turn may be…well, you know how the kinematics of these types of bodies in space should behave.

    It is also interesting that human history/civilization began about 6000 B.C. Curious, isn’t it, that after billions and billions of years writing just then developed into a useful medium.

  • Finally, proof that the AGW science is an out and out scam

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/

    The data was totally cherry picked to “prove” that the 20th century was anomalous. What a complete load of sh1t these guys are.

    • Nice catch, I was about to post this link as well. Jack Mildam wanted to know where the *science* was? It isn’t on the side of the alarmists, that’s for sure.