How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Tonington]

Have you checked out Bjorn Lomborg? He believes in anthropological global warming. He's left wing politically. But he decries the hysteria and waste of money on futile attempts to halt the warming, and suggests the money would do much more good elsewhere.

I know of Lomborg's work. A famous climate delayer. His arguments are bogus. For one, waiting for breakthrough technologies is completely the wrong approach. We have technology to cut emissions now. Those in the energy industry well know, that significant breakthrough technologies are a rarity, if at all in some cases.

Then there are his biological blunders in writing, which are catalogued. He is no biologist, but writes like he knows what he's talking about. Well, he doesn't. In his recent book, he argues that polar bears will simply evolve backwards to deal with the loss of their habitat. If you can't see how that is wrong, let me explain. Polar bears drifted away from the brown bear over 200,000 years ago, and it was only 10-20,000 years ago when the polar bears moalrs changed significantly from the brown bears. And he thinks they will be able to cope with this environmental change in what, the next 50 years....

Here's a biologist that does a more thorough analysis of his wonky assertions and claims.
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

And I'm still waiting for an example of fear mongering on the denier side. There well may be some, but as yet I haven't seen it.

There are multiple examples, but the economic forecast is probably the best example. If we were to believe economists, who only know how to count things, then we would slip into the worst depression the world has ever seen. The problem with that line of reasoning is, that there are already districts, municipalities, states, and countries that are making significant strides, without economic ruin. The other problem is, that the economists have no way of knowing how industry will brainstorm to come up with solutions. Companies like Nortel for instance found ways to solve the problem of CFC's in the Montreal Protocol, and in the long run actually saved money by implementing newer technology. An initial investment of $1 million on a new cleaning system saved the company $4 million a year in chemical waste disposal costs.

I merely invented a simple example to show how totally useless it is.

No, you merely came up with a Strawman. No one would sincerely propose such a ridiculous system.

Let me try to be more specific. Suppose company "A" cut's their emissions by 30 tons, and their cap required a reduction of 20 tons. That extra 10 tons is available for sale. Company "B" is unable to cut their emissions and is 30 tons over their cap.

Scenario 1. No credits are traded/sold, no money changes hands. Total reduction - 30 tons.
Scenario 2. Company "B" buys 10 tons worth of credits from company "A". Total reduction - 30 tons.

Right, and if you don't see how rewarding efficiencies is a good thing in this situation, and how that can proliferate, I don't see the point in discussing this.

Here's another real life example of how the system fails to reduce, and may actually increase emissions. France has set caps on industries, and any company over their limit must pay X francs per tonne. LaFarge found that even with the newest technology they would be unable to come close to their cap. So they shut down the factory, putting hundreds of employees out of work permanently, and moved their manufacturing to Morocco. Net result - France's emissions are lowered more than expected, a bonus for their target efforts. Morocco's emissions increase the amount that France's decreased, plus the cost of transporting all that cement to France means emissions increased overall.

France is a unique case, which needs to be discussed in context. In order to trade credits and emissions, you have to formulate a baseline. As France has a large nuclear industry, the opportunities for reducing emissions becomes harder. That forces stricter targets on other industries. This example provides a good case study for how to fine tune future programs.

You said they were all worried about global warming. What you should have said is they were worried about temperature increases for their farms. And if you think 50 below is enjoyable you obviously haven't even come close to experiencing it.

Right I said global warming. You ought to know by now that global warming is not just about temperatures, it is also about ecological changes, and changes in water chemistry due to the many mechanisms which govern hydrological systems.

Never heard of James Hansen. Where was that on?

I don't know your posting well enough to know if that is a joke, but Hansen is the leading climate scientist in the United States. He's the big cheese at NASA Goddard.

Here's an unrelated question that falls into your field: Some years ago I heard of someone who had developed a system of raising prawns in tanks (I believe in Saskatchewan). Have you heard of it? Has anything come of it? Sounded like a good idea to me if it could be done economically.

I haven't heard of it. Though I'd think twice about that. The economics is what makes me think it's not such a good idea. The salt needed to make marine water is cost-prohibitive on a commercial scale.

 

[Walter]

[SIZE=+3]How Hot IS It?
[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]The records tell unsettling tales. [/SIZE]

By anybody’s definition, Tucson, Arizona, is a warm place. The question of just how warm started attracting special attention about 20 years ago when the government’s official climate-monitoring station began racking up a series of daily record high temperatures, with a greater number of new records set each year.
Tucson observed 21 new record daily highs in 1986 and 23 in 1987. For 1988, the number climbed again, to 38 record highs, and it jumped to 59 the following year. Remarkably, in 1988 and ’89 all but one of these milestones were achieved on days when no other station within a thousand miles set a record of its own.
The growing pile of record daily highs from the National Weather Service (NWS) office at Tucson International Airport—and the absence of corresponding new records from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base on very similar terrain just three miles away—suggested a problem with NWS monitoring equipment, specifically with a device called the HO-83 hygrothermometer, newly installed at the airport in 1986.
By itself, misleading data from one temperature sensor would be of little if any consequence. But in the early 1990s, articles in the scientific and technical literature began examining design flaws that might cause any HO-83 to read significantly higher than the real ambient air temperature and to produce higher readings the longer it remained in service. The earliest of these papers seen by Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News appeared in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate in June 1992. Author Robert Gall of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and three co-authors noted that by comparison with the equipment it replaced, the instrument at NWS Tucson tended to report daytime temperatures 2 to 3 degrees higher.
Since NWS records “are often the first that researchers turn to when studying climate changes,” the authors wrote, “It is important that biases in the data be identified and corrected before the record is hopelessly contaminated with errors and before small changes that are being searched for are lost.”
They went on to write that if there is a design problem with the HO-83, “then it is serious because these instruments have been installed at all first-order sites [weather stations operated directly by the NWS] around the country, and all of these could be providing erroneous readings.”

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/oct/oct07.html#1​

 

[Walter]

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions - COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet. (Ohio State University)

If the models are wrong what are Al and Dave going to say?

 

[Niflmir]

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions - COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet. (Ohio State University)

If the models are wrong what are Al and Dave going to say?

With 50 sampling points (according to the report), one does not have much hope of initial data making extremely accurate representations. The solution is more measurements, not different models. My models on black holes suffer from the exact same problems. I wouldn't even consider simulating initial data from 50 points. In contrast, continental data has thousands of data points.

A good understanding about how the solutions to differential equations are approximated is fundamental to the interpretation of these null results.

 

[Tonington]

Do you have a link to the report NIf?

I haven't found it, but I have found other quotes from the author on his findings. For one, he notes that there is extreme warming on the Northern Antarctic peninsula, one of the fastest warming places on earth in his words. As you pointed out, he himself points out the difficulty in establishing a clear trend with only 100 weather stations for a continent the size of America and Mexico combined, which has thousands of weather stations.


Heres some of his quotes:

Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth.

It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations

 

[Niflmir]

Do you have a link to the report NIf?

I haven't found it, but I have found other quotes from the author on his findings. For one, he notes that there is extreme warming on the Northern Antarctic peninsula, one of the fastest warming places on earth in his words. As you pointed out, he himself points out the difficulty in establishing a clear trend with only 100 weather stations for a continent the size of America and Mexico combined, which has thousands of weather stations.

Heres some of his quotes:

Nah, I just read the University press report. Those things are notorious garbage in the academic community. The University just wants to make inflammatory comments to generate hype and get their name out there. Once the actual papers hit the peer review process there isn't even a blip on the radar, but damage done to public opinion for the sake of University publicity.

The guy is also quoting saying "... most models predict..." implying that he is aware of the exact number of models out there and has read the results of more than half of them. I find that hard to believe. Its just unscientific information is all, no one would ever publish a statement like that.

 

[Tonington]

It's funny though. I'm sure the deniers will jump all over this. Probably even the ones who deny the effects of ozone destroying molecules...

 

[Extrafire]

I know of Lomborg's work. A famous climate delayer. His arguments are bogus. For one, waiting for breakthrough technologies is completely the wrong approach. We have technology to cut emissions now. Those in the energy industry well know, that significant breakthrough technologies are a rarity, if at all in some cases.

His arguments regarding the spending on useless CO2 reductions are what I'm referring to. Though he agrees that global warming is happening and that human-generated CO2 is a contributing factor, he questions whether "hysteria and headlong spending on extravagant CO2-cutting programs at an unprecedented price is the only possible response" and states truthfully that the money could be much better used elsewhere, and save millions of lives to boot.

Then there are his biological blunders in writing, which are catalogued. He is no biologist, but writes like he knows what he's talking about. Well, he doesn't. In his recent book, he argues that polar bears will simply evolve backwards to deal with the loss of their habitat. If you can't see how that is wrong, let me explain. Polar bears drifted away from the brown bear over 200,000 years ago, and it was only 10-20,000 years ago when the polar bears moalrs changed significantly from the brown bears. And he thinks they will be able to cope with this environmental change in what, the next 50 years....

Did he really say something like that??? He should know better. Anyone should know better. But I hadn't heard that of him. I've read "The Skeptical Environmentalist", and for the most part he was right on the money. I don't recall him mentioning polar bears in that book. Maybe I've just forgotten. In any event polar bears aren't threatened anyway, in fact they seem to be thriving in the increased temperatures - their population has quintupled in the last 50 years.

There are multiple examples, but the economic forecast is probably the best example. If we were to believe economists, who only know how to count things, then we would slip into the worst depression the world has ever seen. The problem with that line of reasoning is, that there are already districts, municipalities, states, and countries that are making significant strides, without economic ruin. The other problem is, that the economists have no way of knowing how industry will brainstorm to come up with solutions. Companies like Nortel for instance found ways to solve the problem of CFC's in the Montreal Protocol, and in the long run actually saved money by implementing newer technology. An initial investment of $1 million on a new cleaning system saved the company $4 million a year in chemical waste disposal costs.

If it's just a matter of reducing output, then you are correct. If one designs a truck engine that doubles mileage, then the cost of the new engine will soon make it worthwhile for any trucking company to spend the money. However, the technology to achieve Kyoto targets on time does not exist, and even if it did, it takes decades for new technology to work it's way throughout the economy. The technology to reduce emissions to the point where atmospheric ppm actually decline isn't even imagined yet. So the only alternative would be to reduce the economy to the extent necessary to meet targets. That's not fear mongering, that's facing reality.

No, you merely came up with a Strawman. No one would sincerely propose such a ridiculous system.

No, I offered a simple scenario to demonstrate. You tried to twist it around to something it isn't. I can only conclude that you know I'm right on that one and have to divert the discussion to something else. Enough already.

Right, and if you don't see how rewarding efficiencies is a good thing in this situation, and how that can proliferate, I don't see the point in discussing this.

Efficiencies are rewarded by a better bottom line, as you yourself have suggested above. Stealing from other corporations by credit transfers or any other means is still immoral. The eastern provinces are practically drooling at the prospect of getting a cut of Alberta's oil money.

France is a unique case, which needs to be discussed in context. In order to trade credits and emissions, you have to formulate a baseline. As France has a large nuclear industry, the opportunities for reducing emissions becomes harder. That forces stricter targets on other industries. This example provides a good case study for how to fine tune future programs.

France is one of the countries who benefited from the use of 1990 as a baseline instead of 1997 when the Kyoto accord was made. If they had to use 1997 as a baseline, they knew they wouldn't have a hope in hell of making it. It gave them a head start, in effect they cheated. And even with that, plus the draconian limits (that actually increase net emissions) they still won't make their Kyoto targets. This example provides a realistic example of the real effects of carbon caps.

Right I said global warming. You ought to know by now that global warming is not just about temperatures, it is also about ecological changes, and changes in water chemistry due to the many mechanisms which govern hydrological systems.

Yeah, yeah I know that. But you said they were concerned with global warming, the inference being that they were afraid of increased hurricanes and rising sea levels and melting glaciers and the end of the world as we know it, when in reality they were concerned about increased water temps affecting their bottom line. If they didn't believe that those water temp increases were caused by global warming, if something else was causing it, like perhaps a nuclear plant discharge upstream, they probably wouldn't worry at all about global warming. It's the water temp that they're concerned about. On the west coast the temps went down. Is that caused by global warming?

I don't know your posting well enough to know if that is a joke, but Hansen is the leading climate scientist in the United States. He's the big cheese at NASA Goddard.

Joke? The humor escapes me. Sorry, the name doesn't ring a bell. Can't say I've never heard it, but if I have, it wasn't something to make his name stick in my mind.

I haven't heard of it. Though I'd think twice about that. The economics is what makes me think it's not such a good idea. The salt needed to make marine water is cost-prohibitive on a commercial scale.

I don't remember much about it, but I do love prawns, and was hoping it was happening somewhere. Too bad.

 

[Extrafire]

Seems the sun is the major driver of climate change after all.

Despite the claim of a heavily publicized recent study, the sun still appears to be the main agent in global climate change, according to new research by Danish scientists. The study by the Danish National Space Center rebuts a July study by UK scientists who allege there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years.
The Danish researchers, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, contend the UK study erroneously relies on surface air temperature, which, they say, "does not respond to the solar cycle."
Over the past 20 years, however, the Danes argue, the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean sub-surface water temperature.
"When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record," Svensmark and Friis-Christensen say.

 

[Extrafire]

OK, I found some stuff on James Hansen. Is this what you're referring to?

But who is James Hansen? Is he an impartial researcher seeking scientific truth? Or a political activist with an axe to grind?

In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA's official press policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being "silenced," despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim. While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a "constitutional right" to grant interviews. Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate science.

Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.

A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.
[...]
But the issues don't stop here. Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry. Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.

After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend. A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do.

George Deutsch, the NASA intern who resigned over the censorship fallout, said he was initially warned about Hansen when starting the job, "People said ... you gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates.'"

Update: Hansen has denied receiving direct funding from OSI. Investors Business Daily is standing behind the story, claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media.
Link for full article

I also followed a link to this (rather questionable) forum. No link to backup this article

Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief,
once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington
Post story indicates he did.

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist
Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia
University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil
fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the
next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by
burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the
Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be
sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program
developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a
Columbia University research associate at the time.

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies?
Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would
heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently
believe today?

"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts
in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last
week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at
the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his
finding.

Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he
was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no
worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.

This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John
McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory
"court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who
were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?

People can change their positions based on new information or by taking
a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There's
nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is
arrived at honestly.

But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as much a
political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one
approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier
to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest
change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?

If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA
having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself
compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age
projections of the early 1970s.

Could be he's feeling a little chill in the air again.

("The 'Old' Consensus?", "Investor's Business Daily," 9/21/2007.)

Which story were you referring to? I suspect the first, but they're standing by the story.....

 

[Walter]

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’


By Noel Sheppard | October 9, 2007 - 00:55 ET

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods.
It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning, wouldn't you agree?
For those that haven't been following this case, a British truck driver filed a lawsuit to prevent the airing of Gore's alarmist detritus in England's public schools.
According to the website of the political party the plaintiff, Stewart Dimmock, belongs to (ecstatic emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
​

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can make similar determinations.
Of course, even if one could find such an impartial jurist, our media wouldn't find it newsworthy, would they?
—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

 

[Walter]

Well said.


Lord Lawson and Professor Philip Stott at the CPS 2007 Conservative Party Fringe Event" (Centre For Policy Studies) Listen to audio

 

[Niflmir]

Seems the sun is the major driver of climate change after all.

I have attacked the science behind this study before, but I guess it bears repeating.

Their major complaint is that Lockwood and Froehlich use a running mean to analyze the trend in warming. This is a standard method of dealing with auto-correlation and their complaint with it is spurious, and probably due to an ignorance of standard statistical methodology.

Furthermore, they cherry pick data which they feel does not support anthropogenic causes but do not perform a Bayesian analysis of it, dishonestly acting as if their measurements are the only ones to have been made and disregarding the work of many honest scientists.

Then they admit to removing an upward linear trend in the temperature time series and analyzing the result for correlation with the solar cycle. They superimpose the "inverted" solar cycle to the temperature residuals and wave their hands arguing that the correlation is clear. The fit is nefarious at best and they do not report any correlation coefficients.

This is hack science at best and would not be able to pass a rigorous peer review process. It is nothing short of hand waving, or smoke and mirrors if you prefer.

 

[Tonington]

It was indeed the first story Extra. Here's a response from Hansen to the story. He has responded more than once.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf

In response to his supposed part in the ice age saga, a most persistent myth, he has this to say:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Grandfather_70924.pdf

If allowing someone to use your model means that you support the science they conduct, then perhaps we should be bringing gun manufacturers to court for all the murders their products have caused....

 

[Extrafire]

Well said.


Lord Lawson and Professor Philip Stott at the CPS 2007 Conservative Party Fringe Event" (Centre For Policy Studies) Listen to audio

Very well said, especially the first speaker.

 

[Extrafire]

I have attacked the science behind this study before, but I guess it bears repeating.

Their major complaint is that Lockwood and Froehlich use a running mean to analyze the trend in warming. This is a standard method of dealing with auto-correlation and their complaint with it is spurious, and probably due to an ignorance of standard statistical methodology.

Furthermore, they cherry pick data which they feel does not support anthropogenic causes but do not perform a Bayesian analysis of it, dishonestly acting as if their measurements are the only ones to have been made and disregarding the work of many honest scientists.

Then they admit to removing an upward linear trend in the temperature time series and analyzing the result for correlation with the solar cycle. They superimpose the "inverted" solar cycle to the temperature residuals and wave their hands arguing that the correlation is clear. The fit is nefarious at best and they do not report any correlation coefficients.

This is hack science at best and would not be able to pass a rigorous peer review process. It is nothing short of hand waving, or smoke and mirrors if you prefer.

They give good reason for removing an upward linear trend. Seems it shouldn't have been there. Lockwood and Frolich appear to have done some fancy footwork, so to speak, erasing the solar cycle from data sets to present a false impression of rapid temperature increase. Guess they didn't like the fact that the temperature has ceased to increase since 1998. Sounds like real hack science to me, and would definitely not pass peer review.

Remember, no matter the theory or the science, the bumblebee flies anyway

 

[Extrafire]

It was indeed the first story Extra. Here's a response from Hansen to the story. He has responded more than once.

I wouldn't know the truth of it, but they're standing by the story......
Usually that isn't done if it isn't substantiated.

 

[Niflmir]

They give good reason for removing an upward linear trend. Seems it shouldn't have been there. Lockwood and Frolich appear to have done some fancy footwork, so to speak, erasing the solar cycle from data sets to present a false impression of rapid temperature increase. Guess they didn't like the fact that the temperature has ceased to increase since 1998. Sounds like real hack science to me, and would definitely not pass peer review.

Remember, no matter the theory or the science, the bumblebee flies anyway

The upward linear trend is physical, which is mentioned. Lockwood and Froehlich erase the 11 year cycle to search for a long term trend. As I stated, this is the standard method for dealing with auto-correlation. One can not search for long term trends using autocorrelated data, it is simply too noisy.

The Lockwood and Froehlich paper passed peer review. It was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, an extremely reputable journal. If you are confused about the validity of moving averages to detect trends on a larger time scale than autocorrelated fluctuations, I recommend learning more about them here, here, here, or in a decent text book on stochastic processes.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

Money doesn't help much (unless you are the banks) at credit crunch. I don't think he heard of a thing such as a green business. Head strong, stubborn, and pessimestic. His name is called Lomborg

 

[typingrandomstuff]

Yup. The court decides everything. They decide the colour of your clothes, marriage license and fact check. Just like the past church and the people who supported earth surrounds the sun. "We must put them to death!" Al Gore is going to be in trouble big time. An ugly picture of the law. If you have a good lawyer, you will be not guilty.

I don't think the sea levels will rise. If the atmosphere is gone, then the water will evaporate slowly into space. It will be drought, not flood. Al Gore do prove global warming exsits though.