How many scientists does it take to prove the debate is not over? More than 30,000 scientists have signed The Petition Project. More than 9,000 of them have PhDs (not that that proves anything about carbon, but it does prove something about the myth of “consensus”). The petition’s wording is unequivocal:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Source: www.petitionproject.org
The Petition Project is funded by donations from individuals and run by volunteers. It receives no money from industry or companies. In late 2007, The Petition Project re-did the petition to verify names again.
AGW says: Everyone knows the petition is bogus and filled with duplicate and fake names.
Skeptics say: Name 10 fakes.
NOTE: This is potentially distracting. Science is not democratic. The numbers and qualifications on either side don’t matter except to put an end to the statement that “the debate is over.” Science is not done by consensus. The climate does not respond to boatloads of scientists, no matter how much hot air they produce.
When did scientists vote anyway?
PAGE 10
I’m posting the pages of The Skeptics Handbooks one by one, so people can discuss each idea, and so there is a html version.
The Petition Project is undervalued
As a sociological phenomenon, it’s probably the largest grassroots movement of scientists in history. It means that we skeptical scientists can name more scientists with similar views than unskeptical scientists can, even though they have so much more funding. It blows away the claim that there is a consensus. It blows away the idea that being a skeptic is a minority fringe, and because the list keeps growing, it blows away the idea that skeptics are shrinking.
Yet despite all that, the media has almost universally ignored it. (Which blows away the idea that the media give people the news).
There are plenty of attempts to bring it down:
- People attack old versions of this (like New Scientist did) it’s the old smear by association. Most of those points were improved in the later version. None of them detract from the idea that there is a significant body of intelligent and well educated people who don’t agree with the IPCC.
- Some say it was not peer reviewed (which is just another false gate-keeper tactic to deny the evidence).
- Some mock it for the names that were duplicates (but the duplicates have been removed and in 30,000 names there are sometimes two people with the same name.)
- Others claim that only “climate scientists” would count (as if PhD’s in Physics can’t read a graph). Though none of these people seem to think there’s anything wrong with Climate-according-to-Leonardo-Di-Caprio.
…
The petition project was done by volunteers and it was done twice.
The petition itself may be actively ignored, but it’s obviously having an effect. Unskeptical Scientists appear to be trying to make one of their own. At a recent University seminar (aiming to explain the “psychology of Deniers”) there were multiple copies of “petition-like” clipboards, and requests for people to sign the pages with their names and qualifications.
By the way, the “real consensus” cartoon came to me as long ago as the UNFCCC conference in Bali in 2007. It was one of the first ones I did on the topic, and still remains one of my favourites.
Update: Dec 26, 2015
[…] praise of secrecy, The pretend consensus – its all about spin, A deniers view of global […]
10
EPA is claiming ‘consensus’:
Cattlemen fight EPA with ‘Climategate’
A national beef group is invoking the so-called “Climategate” controversy as it challenges a recent U.S. government ruling on climate change.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has filed a petition to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. to overturn the EPA’s recent greenhouse gas “endangerment” ruling.
The ruling states that gases believed to cause global warming pose a human health risk and is the first step toward their regulation by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. The NCBA and other producer groups fear the ruling could lead to lawsuits and new restrictions on the nation’s livestock industries.
The NCBA plans to argue the government’s finding is based on faulty and incomplete science and that the Clean Air Act is the improper vehicle for regulating greenhouse gases, said Tamara Thies, the organization’s chief environmental counsel.
“We are taking a position that we do not believe the science with regard to alleged manmade climate change is there,” Thies said. “The EPA has a responsibility to conduct a rigorous scientific analysis and look at all the science out there instead of just cherry-picking certain studies that agree with its position about manmade climate change.”
The cattle group points to Climategate, in which critics allege that e-mails stolen from Great Britain’s University of East Anglia show bias and manipulation of data by scientists on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The fact that the EPA relied on some of the IPCC’s data to make its finding makes the ruling questionable, Thies said.
“The EPA has only considered some (evidence) and never really seriously considered that climate change could actually be caused by natural causes,” she said.
In a statement to the Capital Press, an EPA spokeswoman said the agency is confident that it will prevail in court, adding that the Supreme Court had ordered the agency to answer the endangerment question.
There would be “no basis whatsoever” to deny “a fact that is recognized by overwhelming scientific consensus” that the earth is warming, the statement said.
The spokeswoman would not comment on NCBA’s references to Climategate.
http://www.capitalpress.com/lvstk/TH-beef-appeal-011510
that tactic of not acknowledging the existence of ‘climategate’ is pervasive in so many quarters, not only in the media.
do a search on the beef association + EPA and discover how the ‘mainstream media’ is NOT covering this story.
when the media does not cover such issues, it means other interested parties might not realise such action is even possible. shame.
20
This cartoon is already a classic.
Maslow pointed out that people always have multiple motivations for what they do, with personal security being one of the fundamental drivers.
This cartoon brings that point home so succinctly.
Note the advert for free-range plastic bags – sums up the hypocrisy beautifully.
10
This really struck home for me in my climate research. Here http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi is an actual 350 year temp record, no cherry picking, no hockey stick, no tree rings, no UHIE and by the way no indication of any measurable Co2 influence. Now deny that, the alarmist gain!…….John……
20
Sure love to see that petition requesting qualifications do the rounds in Hollywood…
“Qualifications? I’m (insert name of your choice) and I CARE!”
10
John P #5
Your link is very interesting. I didn’t know there was much data around that hadn’t been “technically tinkered with” these days. i have always wondered just what kind of “scientist” it takes to claim that they can determine what a temperature “ought to have been,” change it, then use it to “prove” their point, and finally build a model to project this mess out to 100 years.
Thanks for giving us a look at this graph.
10
If the CAGW (Catastrophic AGW) believers discount the opinions of scientists who are not specifically climate scientists, they why don’t they discount the opinions of climate scientists who are not specifically scientists, i.e. eco engineers, environmental scientists, CO2 traders and others?
The problem is that most with ‘eco’ or ‘environment’ in their title, and in fact, many in the left leaning academic community, tend to promote the green political talking points featuring the emotional triggers of guilt and fear. Emotional arguments might work on weak minds, but as far as I’m concerned, they have no place in any scientific discussion, climate related or otherwise. Weak minds are not mutually exclusive with educated minds and interjecting guilt, fear and politics into a scientific discussion will confuse even those who should know better, hence the false consensus.
The consensus that’s often cited is really the ‘green consensus’. There’s no scientific consensus now, and there never has been. When a scientific consensus is eventually reached, it will be that the effect of man’s CO2, while finite, is small, not worth a single dollar to mitigate, and more likely to be beneficial to the planet than harmful.
George
10
It only takes 2 people in 1 conversation to demonstrate fudging the numbers. See the latest FOIA post on wattsupwiththat.
James Hansen admits tey did minor modification of a few numbers to retain an upward slope in temps. Which numbers do the 30,000 agree with? The cooked numbers?
10
Bit of a heads up here…
NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special.
Should be interesting, ya think?
10
There are plenty of people in science who share the same name – sometimes they are even in the same field. In the mid 1990s the heads of biotechnology at Griffith University and UNSW were both (very confusingly) named Peter Rogers. There is a Dr David Jenkins at UQ and another at U. Toronto – both are nutrition experts.
10
In 2006, Hans M. Kepplinger and Senja Post surveyed 133 climate researchers in Germany, producing a report that cast light upon the lack of consensus. Senja Post published the report in German “Klimakatastrophe oder Katastrophenklima?” (Climate Catastrophe of Catastrophe Climate?) in 2007. My copy is on loan but for those with appropriate language skills can find a summary in Die Welt and the survey questions and results here (PDF – in German).
Basically, only 20% of those surveyed were of the opinion that we should do everything we can to avoidor to minimise climate change.
10
I think it is time to turn the spotlight on the climate change fakers, those who say they believe in AGW but live a carbon double life. I have sketched out my thoughts on the subject here: Climate change fakers: the mindless mob.
10
Did anyone here see the KUSI Special??? Would appreciate any comments and/or video of such!
Denny
10
while krudd is at the cricket (why can’t pollies stay away?), it would appear the govt is backpedalling a little:
Age: Reconsider carbon plan, says adviser
MICHELLE GRATTAN
ONE of the Government’s key business advisers on the emissions trading scheme has called for a fresh look at whether the plan should go ahead.
Dick Warburton, chairman of the panel set up last year to advise on emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities, said that after Copenhagen’s failure, the matter should be debated afresh.
He is organising a round-table of company executives, bureaucrats and experts – including supporters and critics – to consider the pros and cons and alternatives of a trading scheme.
His move comes as Opposition Leader Tony Abbott tonight gives his first speech as leader on the environment, arguing that while the environment is important, it is not just about climate…
Mr Warburton told The Age that despite intense political debate about the emissions scheme, important aspects had not been dealt with adequately. ”Chairmen and CEOs and the public have very poor knowledge of what the ETS involves.”
The round-table should be held by the end of this month, he said..
Mr Warburton is chairman of Tandou and the Magellan Flagship Fund, chairman of the Board of Taxation and a former member of the Reserve Bank board. He personally believes the climate change science is not settled and would favour a carbon tax or other alternative to a trading scheme..
Other business sources expect a weakening of support from business for quickly passing the legislation.
An important pointer will be the attitude of the Business Council of Australia, but it is yet to consider its position after Copenhagen.
The Government has constantly repeated the argument that business wants legislation passed as soon as possible to provide certainty.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/reconsider-carbon-plan-says-adviser-20100113-m6zp.html
warning to all politicians: no carbon trading, no carbon tax. we know it’s all a scam.
10
might have posted too soon. it’s this mealy-mouthed talk that really p***es me off.
Full text of Tony Abbott’s address to the Sydney Institute
In the next few weeks, I will outline the Coalition’s thinking on how to foster environmental improvements that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Reducing emissions matters because many scientists think that they are having a serious impact on climate. Australia should be a good international citizen and play our part in any effective international campaign to reduce the risk of man-made climate change.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/full-text-of-tony-abbotts-address-to-the-sydney-institute/story-e6frgczf-1225819327681
anyone who thinks there’s an alternative party to vote for is mistaken.
10
“The only consensus I’m aware of is that the earth warmed in the 20th century” (Roy Spencer – UAH).
I suppose if it keeps getting claimed, and the media keep parroting it, then there is effectively a “consensus”. I always felt not enough was done to counter it because sceptics did not want to be drawn into a numbers game, but journo’s did not want to question science.
If scientist “A” says Greenland ice sheet will disintegrate, slide into the sea, cities will be swamped, and we’re all dead – it’s tabloid gold. If scientist “B” says Greenland ice sheet is 3km thick, 1000’s km wide, millions of years old, has survived warmer periods, and was formed with higher CO2 levels than today – it’s a dead bore.
There is consensus, and there is perception of one.
10
When I was taught science in the 60’s there were meteorologists and there were climatologists. Now we have “climate scientists”. Isn’t “Climate Science” just a field invented by and for AGW believers who either choose not to call themselves meteor-/climatologists, because that’s not where the grant money is, or who in addition may not do so because they are in fact neither? If so it should neither surprise nor impress us if they “overwhelmingly” endorse AGW.
10
Denny #14 try here
10
Pat in 16 LOL!!!! pull the other one… you are quite safe as the reality is there is no major party in Australia willing to do anything to tackle climate change. Rudd proposes an average ETS, Abbott will counter with a counter strategy… carbon tax the obvious one but he has already bagged ETS as a big tax so he will go with a direct investment type strategy glossed up with some partnerships and voluntary targets, phasing out of some obsolete coal and switch to gas, geothermal etc etc… and you will have both majors ticking the box that they have tackeled climate change which will please the voters. Noone is going to do anything other than what could be advised as prudent just in case AGW is really bad, or oil runs out etc etc… but nothing more.
Seriously it beggars belief that a sceptic would be anything but overjoyed with the major party’s positions at the moment.
10
Tom in 18 – not such a conspiracy… I work at a University and we have schools of Plant Science and Animal Science instead of Biology and Zoology nowadays… go figure.
Climate science is just climatology.
10
John Colman’s presentation: Global Warming, The Other Side can be viewed at:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81557272.html
10
Oops. That was only the first segment.
Try:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/
10
Matt, there is no major party in Australia willing to tweak the internals of the Sun or put a crowbar onto the Earth’s orbit. Come to think of it, the minor parties aren’t offering much in those departments either.
As for changing the human output of CO2 which is something the political process just might achieve (a completely different matter to attempting to control the climate), it’s unlikely that will happen either (although the recent recession has had far more influence than the various green parties).
10
Ok Tel call it reducing CO2 emissions rather than tackling climate change if you like – no problem. My point stands though.
10
Have a look at this link:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=58e0c50c-1631-46ca-8719-778c0973526e
By National PostMay 19, 2007
In the history of the global-warming movement, no scientist is more revered than Roger Revelle of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Harvard University and University of California San Diego. He was the co-author of the seminal 1957 paper that demonstrated that fossil fuels had increased carbon-dioxide levels in the air. Under his leadership, the President’s Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution in 1965 published the first authoritative U.S. government report in which carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was officially recognized as a potential global problem. He was the author of the influential 1982 Scientific American article that elevated global warming on to the public agenda. For being “the grandfather of the greenhouse effect,” as he put it, he was awarded the National Medal of Science by the first President Bush.
Roger Revelle’s most consequential act, however, may have come in his role as a teacher, during the 1960s at Harvard. Dr. Revelle inspired a young student named Al Gore.
Dr. Revelle would change Gore’s life, particularly since the climate-change field had become cutting edge, with Dr. Revelle adding to the excitement by giving his students advance notice of the fruits of his research.
“It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates,” Gore later explained. “Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!”
Calling him “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming,” Gore thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992. Gore’s warmth for Dr. Revelle cooled, however, when it became clear that he had misunderstood his former professor: Although Dr. Revelle recognized potential harm from global warming, he also saw potential benefits and was by no means alarmed, as seen in this 1984 interview in Omni magazine: Omni: A problem that has occupied your attention for many years is the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which could cause the earth’s climate to become warmer. Is this actually happening? Revelle I estimate that the total increase [in CO2] over the past hundred years has been about 21%. But whether the increase will lead to a significant rise in global temperature, we can’t absolutely say. Omni: What will the warming of the earth mean to us? Revelle There may be lots of effects. Increased CO2 in the air acts like a fertilizer for plants … you get more plant growth. Increasing CO2 levels also affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. That means plants will be able to grow in drier climates. Omni: Does the increase in CO2 have anything to do with people saying the weather is getting worse? Revelle People are always saying the weather’s getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes … .
While Gore in the late 1980s was becoming a prominent politician, loudly warning of globalwarming dangers, Dr. Revelle was quietly warning against taking any drastic action.
In a July 14, 1988, letter to Congressman Jim Bates, he wrote that: “Most scientists familiar with the subject are not yet willing to bet that the climate this year is the result of ‘greenhouse warming.’ As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” A few days later, he sent a similar letter to Senator Tim Wirth, cautioning “… we should
be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”
Then in 1991, Dr. Revelle wrote an article for Cosmos, a scientific journal, with two illustrious colleagues, Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite. Entitled “What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap,” the article argued that decades of research could be required for the consequences of increased carbon dioxide to be understood, and laid out the harm that could come of acting recklessly: “Drastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few who have been trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse effect, has pointed out that ‘… those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the costs and benefits … . ‘ It would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently expanded research so that we will know what we are doing before we act. ‘Look before you leap’ may still be good advice.”
Three months after the Cosmos article appeared, Dr. Revelle died of a heart attack. One year later, with Al Gore running for vice-president in the 1992 presidential election, the inconsistency between Gore’s pronouncements — he claimed that the “science was settled” then, too — and those of his mentor became national news. Gore responded with a withering attack, leading to claims that Dr. Revelle had become senile before his death, that Dr. Singer had duped Dr. Revelle into co-authoring the article, and that Dr. Singer had listed Dr. Revelle as a co-author over his objections. The sordid accusations ended in a defamation suit and an abject public apology in 1994 from Gore’s academic hit man, a prominent Harvard scientist, who revealed his unsavory role and that of Gore in the fabrications against Dr. Singer and Dr. Revelle.
That was then. Would Dr. Revelle, if he were still alive, believe that global warming now demands urgent action? We can never know. We do know, however, that Dr. Revelle had no time for the alarmist views of Al Gore in the 1980s. We also know that those whose views Dr. Revelle respected continue to caution us against precipitous action: Dr. Revelle’s colleague and friend, Fred Singer, is among the most prominent of Al Gore’s critics, and economist William Nordhaus, generally considered the leading expert in the field, continue to warn of the economic danger of climate alarmism.
We also know that the science is still not settled, and that in the years since Dr. Revelle’s death, new research from many of the world’s most respected scientists bears out the cautions that Dr. Revelle bequeathed us.
[email protected] – Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.
– – –
CV OF A DENIER
Roger Revelle was Professor of Oceanography at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and became its director from 1950-64. After his successful efforts to create the University of California San Diego, he went to Harvard University, where he was Professor of Population Policy and director of the Center for Population Studies until 1976. He was also founding chairman of the first Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean under the Scientific Committee on Ocean Research and the International Oceanic Commission. Dr. Revelle received a PhD in oceanography from UC-Berkeley in 1936.
© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
10
Matt,
What’s the point in regulating carbon if it will have no effect on the climate? The most catastrophic CO2 related effect that humanity will experience is when we run out of fossil fuels and are no longer able to fertilize the atmosphere with the raw ingredients of life.
George
10
The only consensus so far is there is none.
10
Hi Jo anne the biggest news ever is happening right now have a look at watts up with that. The 4th video John Colemna major US data scam. The lawyers will not resist this….ITS HUGE
10
CO2isnotevil… how about you read the thread and see how redundant your statement is in context of the discussion.
10
James Inhofe did a similar thing a while back.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7
(This time I’ll keep my mouth zipped about his ultra conservative viewpoints.)
10
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html this is the video that will nail the USA “climate team” video 4. The statements are very strong and would not have been made unless the TV station was 100% the could not be sued. It really is the end of AGW in the USA anyway….
10
NASA has issued the following statement in response to the KUSI Special Report. This statement is from Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City:
J Hansen has issued an immediate reply to the TV show by Coleman:
“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis. The analysis utilizes three independent data sources provided by other agencies. Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data. The analysis methodology as well as updates to the analysis are publicly available on our website. The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically based conclusions regarding global temperatures.” (GISS temperature analysis website: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
please others…hadley? and so on and on., No I think this is the end for AGW in the US anyway. The republicans will take over the senate next week/month and the legal stuff will start. If you have been involved in AGW scam get out now! That could include Australia because there are hungry lawyers here too hahahah
10
Pat #15,
Tony Abbott has to move cautiously. At this stage we feel confident that the AGW scam is roadkill but most of the population haven’t been down this road. The MSM bus is still on the Ruddway and are only too anxious to denigrate Abbott. Now when and IF the US takes a few scammers before a real judge and Mann and Hansen get a please explain then the news might get to the great unwashed.
In the meantime while Wong and Chrome dome terrorise the littlies with 200 foot sea rise and firestorms Abbott with our help should be telling Joe Bumcrack that an ETS is going to stop him driving his car and having barbeques. And he better teach his kids to wave a fan ’cause the AC will have to go. Now when Joe finds out that the sea won’t be a problem til his youngest is a grandmother but that his power bill is going to double tomorrow guess who he’ll believe. Fact. There are more Joes than there are latte sipping doctor’s wives who have become climate experts or journos hoping for Labor pre-selection.
Fight fear with a bigger fear.
10
Happy Friday all!
It’s not the number of heads – it’s what’s in them that counts!
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
The EPA will try to regulate carbon themselves but they will need to produce the science to support their actions. They are bureaucrats and would never put themselves out on a limb like that. The EPA does not stnad a chance with this.
10
” This is potentially distracting. Science is not democratic. The numbers and qualifications on either side don’t matter ”
Yeah, but in an argumane against a warmist, the petition is a very inconvenient fact. They hate it.
10
Matt,
Your point was that there is no political party willing to tackle climate change. My point is that the the reason the politicians are turning against the hype is that they are starting to realize that there is far more uncertainty in the claims of CAGW (Catastrophic AGW) then they have been led to believe. Politicians are a fickle bunch. One the one hand they like to lie, but on the other, they despise being lied to.
George
10
Lionell Griffith @ 21 & 22
I was scrolling down to post the link to John Coleman’s special on Global Warming when I noticed that you had already done so. Thank you for doing it. After watching the segment I am more convinced than ever that the “consensus” will be exposed for the mirage that it is. Actually, “consensus” may need to be redefined as: conned out of our senses. I was amazed to see the Bolivia effect mentioned and was glad to see Joe D’Aleo discussing how the data is “homogenized” in this country (USA). As I have written before, as they follow the money trail the fraud they will uncover will add dimensions to the climategate scandal that will cause it to rival Watergate. I am still predicting indictments probably before the year is out. There is too much riding on this for it to go away. The politicians in the U.S. are beginning to see the opportunity for gain, various law enforcement agencies are investigating the scandal and the bounty being offered to rat out Mann and company will result in the “perfect storm’, a trifecta unfavorable to the “consensus.” For climate alarmists, this is the year of living dangerously.
10
Eddy,
It is simply one more demonstration that when you are at war with reality you WILL lose. The only interesting questions are how many victims do you take down in the process and how do the potential victims avoid being collateral damage? The ball is still spinning on the answers. However, our prospects are looking a bit better.
10
Much of the data homogenization seems to be justified by a paper (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) where they claimed than temperature anomalies are correlated out to 1000 km. Even in the case of a completely homogeneous surface (i.e. across the oceans), this is wrong and even the paper says that near the equator, there is little to no spatial correlation at that distance. There’s also an effort to infer changes over the ocean from land changes (i.e. 1000 km circle around an island) and to infer change in mountains by changes at sea level. The error analysis used to claim correlation relative to error bars, was, surprise, surprise, the result of a GCM (model).
George
10
Rod, re #6
It’s the same scientists who write models using assumptions about how they think the climate should behave and then use the models to prove the assumptions.
George
10
Consensus? Hmmm
500 peer-reviewed papers doubting AGW.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
10
Further to my earlier posting on this topic, the Senja Post’s published paper published in 2008 has a foreword by Hans Kepplinger which says in part (loosely translated from stratospheric German):
10
Just for the un-official record, about a year or so ago someone did a trace on the IP addresses of those fake name.
With just a couple exceptions they originated from virtually the same ISP (?) as the folks who host (Surprise! Surprise!) RealClimate.org
10
BUT THERE IS an alternative party me thinks
have you looked into http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
10
http://just-me-in-t.site40.net/1_19_What-Concensus-.html
I also got hot under the collar when THEY pushed the scientific consensus argument down our throats
10
Hi Jo, his tie should be red with green stripes.
🙂
10