Sunday August 24, 2008, 3:48 pm
Are you scared yet?

Just think of all the "coulds" which would happen "if".

What are the odds?

We never see discussions of that....just the scare stories.

Of course the whole terror campaign is based on the false assumption that "greenhouse gases" can change climate when there are things far more influential...like the Sun and sunspots.



A simplified view of the new equations governing the greenhouse effect
New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.

However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

Sunday August 24, 2008, 4:04 pm
Let's not forget about the million tons of methane release, which acts as an exponential accelerator. Several times more powerful as a greenhouse gas. Yes, Geysers of release from currently trapped frozen hydrocarbons at ocean bottoms around the globe. Plus methane release from permafrost melt. Something about methane being flammable, and the cycle of global warming tending to reverse toward an Ice Age!

Sunday August 24, 2008, 8:59 pm
Good point Robert...here is an article you might be interested in reading

Large Methane Release Could Cause Abrupt Climate Change As Happened 635 Million Years Ago

An abrupt release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, about 635 million years ago from ice sheets that then extended to Earth's low latitudes caused a dramatic shift in climate, triggering a series of events that resulted in global warming and effectively ended the last "snowball" ice age, a UC Riverside-led study reports.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080528140255.htm

Sunday August 24, 2008, 10:58 pm
Jup, apparently same happened 55 million years ago causing so called Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)
http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/02-20/warming.asp

"The emissions that caused this past episode of global warming probably lasted 10,000 years. By burning fossil fuels, we are likely to emit the same amount over the next three centuries," said James Zachos, professor of Earth sciences at UCSC.

Monday August 25, 2008, 8:12 am
Yes, I watched a documentary recently, Earth: The Biography, they showed where the permafrost is melting, it is releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. Just like trees release their life's time worth of CO2 back into the atmosphere when cut down. So does the soil once thawed. They actually dug down through the ice on lakes situated above what was once permafrost and with a cigarette lighter, set the water on fire (ok, not the water, but the gas escaping). Still, if you had seen it, it was impressive, and scary to think of how much CO2 is being release at and exponential rate due to global warming. In the end, the consensus was that the Earth would probably survive, it has survived worse. But we, human beings, won't. So, it's not really a race to save the planet, it''s a race to save the human race.

Monday August 25, 2008, 9:06 am
Oh, crap, where is Charlie Epps when I need him. Can anyone translate the math findings into human?

Monday August 25, 2008, 9:39 am
First, CO2 can't do what is said...then ,we only add 3% to the total..and it's now cooling and has been for 8 years.

Guys, stop telling yourselves scare stories about impossible situations.

Link to videos giving the other side of the story. At least allow a little balance in the information.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/01/censored-global-warming-videos.html

Monday August 25, 2008, 10:03 am
Hey, let's just continue our present wasteful lifestyle! No reason not to! What, me worry? Let's go on using up our oil, buying SUVs and mega-homes, encouraging the huge populations of India and China to do the same! Why change? it's sooo -- INCONVENIENT! Good news that we don't HAVE to!

Who CARES about the future, anyway! WE won't be there! So what if we live it up for the moment? Nuthin', nuthin' to worry about........

Monday August 25, 2008, 10:36 am
Wait just a minute....whatever complaints you have about a wasteful lifestyle are a separate issue from whether CO2 can change climate.

Stop mixing the two up!

Try informing yourself as to what is really going on with natural cycles and stop allowing yourself to be stampeded into falling off an energy cliff.

"This video sets aside doomsday alarmism and political axe-grinding to look at the science behind the history of climate change on earth. An examination of early Viking colonies on Greenland, wiped out by a period of global cooling, enables scientists to draw important conclusions about our current phase in the climate cycle. What we learn in this program is that earth's climate is always changing - from The Middle Ages and the "Little Ice Age" to the modern warming that has been going on since 1850 (well before human-generated CO2 began increasing in our atmosphere).

Dr. Willie Soon, an Astrophysicist from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Dr. David Legates, a Climatologist from the Center from Climate Research at the University of Delaware provide an easy-to-follow review of current climate science, which suggests that the sun's irregular patterns and other natural forces are the major sources of climate change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl4Pz1mwBao

Monday August 25, 2008, 11:57 am
NOTED & THANKS, INGRID.....SCARY !!

Monday August 25, 2008, 12:34 pm
We have messed in our nest...

Monday August 25, 2008, 12:50 pm
Glad that so many people are actually getting this...and are interested in taking action...

Monday August 25, 2008, 12:52 pm
You guys worry too much about global warming and its effects. It was warming in the MIddle AGes than it is now and we DID NOT DIE!!! WE DID NOT DIE! WE DID NOT DIE! In Fact, Marco Polo traveled from China to Europe by way of the North American Passage which, incidentally, is about to open up again for a short period of time, during the summer. Global warming is actually good for everything, including people. GEt a LIfe!!! Dont believe this hoax of lies connected with global warming. REad a geology book, inform yourelves!

Monday August 25, 2008, 1:02 pm
It is warmer now than in the Middle Ages - and yes, we are dieing (actually thousands are dieing each year due to climate change)...and so are other species that share this earth...however, you are correct - we should continue to inform ourselves- you can start here:

TEN POPULAR MYTHS
About Global Climate Change
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html#cc10t

Climate change myths
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Global Warming Myths and Facts
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate
denialist myths and misconceptions.
http://www.care2.com/news/member/537645068/411848


Anti-denaliest Resources

If you're looking for a chance to educate yourself on climate change, get started on greening your own life (with all the normal caveats that lifestyle changes are nowhere near enough) or have facts and figures at hand to win your next argument with a denialist, you've got some tricky choices ahead of you. After all, the web has never been more overrun with climate "resources" and "guides," and most of them are lame -- some are downright inaccurate or misleading. (quote from the author, not me )

Here is a quick survey of some interesting and useful links:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007016.html

Here are som Myths and their rebuttals. Detailed explainations can be found on the site:

http://green.yahoo.com/global-warming/ed-14/global-warming-myths-and-facts.html

Climate scepticism: The top 10 Myths

Climate scepticism: The top 10 Unravelling the sceptics

What are some of the reasons why "climate sceptics" dispute the evidence that human activities such as industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation are bringing potentially dangerous changes to the Earth's climate?

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finalises its landmark report for 2007, we look at 10 of the arguments most often made against the IPCC consensus, and some of the counter-arguments made by scientists who agree with the IPCC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

Monday August 25, 2008, 2:23 pm
It was warmer during the MEWP...and it lasted for close to 400 years.
The second IPCC Report in 1996 showed a 1000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the third IPCC Report in 2001 contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1000 years. This is wrong. Here is how it was done.

Firstly IPCC gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature four hundred times more weight than any other…and omitted to mention the fact. The overweighted technique was one which IPCC’s second report had said was unsafe…measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years because temperature speeds up growth. But tree fertiliser speeds up growth too and one of them is carbon dioxide so this distorts the calculations unless some way is found to make allowance for shifting carbon dioxide levels.

"This might be bad science but need not be criminal. But closer scrutiny shows that the deception goes deeper…a domain of barefaced lying and Scientific Fraud. IPCC stated that 24 data sets were included going back to 1400. But without saying so they left out the set showing the medieval warm period...tucking it away in a folder marked ‘censored data’.
http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827


Here is the graph from the 1995 IPCC report, before Ben Santer claimed a human footprint on climate....and was well rewarded with grants and "prizes"
http://bp0.blogger.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/R0bUzxqFBgI/AAAAAAAAAG4/s8Hpo9G-kSU/s1600-h/Picture+28.png

Do the Greenies lie, or are they so blinded by religious dogma they are no longer capable of recognizing truth, let alone speaking ...or writing it?

Monday August 25, 2008, 2:57 pm
So very noted. This is NOT good, and I can't believe anyone is in denial on this issue. Thank you.

Monday August 25, 2008, 3:11 pm
ya, so, the IPCC updates graphs based on new science...so what...that is how science works...constantly challenged and updated as new findings come in...only dogma says the same, even when new information comes in...

Monday August 25, 2008, 3:47 pm
OMG...what am I dealing with here?

The "Hockey Stick" was pulled because the faking was outed by McIntyre and McKitrick. The old REAL infowas re-instated! That is very different from what is pretended above.

Denialism is really "Green" and slimy.

Sampling of Inconvenient Questions for Climate Fear Promoters
By EPW Blog Saturday, August 23, 2008

A list but by no means comprehensive
How do you explain that global temperatures according to UN data have not increased since 1998 and there has been no significant warming since 1995?

(See: MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.”- (LINK Here and Here)
Are you aware that even the UN IPCC does not consider climate models to be “predictions” or “forecasts” but merely emission scenarios?

(See high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, referred to climate models as “story lines.” “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007. He also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.” (LINK)

Are you aware of multiple scientific studies showing the medieval warm period (before SUV’s and human emissions) to be warmer than current temps?

(See:
1: A November 2007 study published in Energy & Environment found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” The study was authored by C. Loehle and titled “A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.” http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 -
2) A June 29, 2007 scientific analysis by Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm. Excerpt: “Burger argues that [the 2006 temperature analysis by] Osborn and Briffa did not apply the appropriate statistical tests that link the proxy records to observational data, and as such, Osborn and Briffa did not properly quantify the statistical uncertainties in their analyses. Burger repeated all analyses with the appropriate adjustments and concluded “As a result, the ‘highly significant’ occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century disappear.” (LINK)

How do you explain that CO2 levels have been much higher in the Earth’s history, but have not coincided with human or animal extinction?

(See: Ivy League Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of U of Pennsylvania: “There have been times in Earth history when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 5, 10, even 15 TIMES the present concentration, and the climate of Earth still supported animals not unlike ourselves.” (Link)

Can you explain why Greenland has cooled since the late 1930’s and 1940’s?

See: (See: Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt – July 2007 - Link)

Can you explain why Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels in recent years?

(See: Peer-reviewed study finds Antarctic fails to warm as climate models predicted – May 7, 2008 – (LINK) & Media Hype on ‘Melting’ Antarctic Ignores Record Ice Growth – March 27, 2008 – (LINK))

Are you aware that Arctic Sea ice has EXPANDED in 2008?

(See: Arctic ice INCREASES by nearly a half million square miles over same time period in 2007 - July 18, 2008 – (LINK) )
Are you aware of the multiple peer-reviewed studies blaming Arctic sea ice reductions on many factors not related to man-made carbon emissions?

(See: Numerous Peer-Reviewed Studies Show Natural Causes of Arctic Warming and Ice Reduction - Jan. 2008 – (LINK))

Are you aware that the Earth is currently in one of the coolest periods in its geologic history?

(See: Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack is a professor of earth and environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania. Giegengack noted that the history the last one billion years on the planet reveals “only about 5% of that time has been characterized by conditions on Earth that were so cold that the poles could support masses of permanent ice.” Giegengack also noted “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler.” - (Link Here & Here)

Are you aware that a recent U.S. Senate report features more than 500 scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears—more than 10 times the number (52) of UN IPCC scientists who signed off on alarmist (and media hyped) Summary for PolicyMakers in 2007.

(See: U.S. Senate Report of over 400 (now 500 dissenting scientists and growing) (For Full Senate Report) See also U.S. Senate Report released in July 2008: ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008 (Link))

Are you aware that many solar scientists and geologists are now warning of a possible coming global cooling?

( See comprehensive report: Global COOLING: 2008 So Far Coolest For at Least 5 Years Says - Plus: Geologist: ‘Global warming of the past 30 years is over’ - Part 1 &
Part 2)
How do you explain that an analysis in peer-reviewed journal found COLD PERIODS – not warm periods

– (See INCREASES in floods, droughts, storms, famine – Quaternary Science Reviews April 24, 2008 - (LINK))
How do you explain the recent U.S. government report which found Hurricanes declining, NO increases in drought, tornados, thunderstorms, heat-waves?

The only increases were in computer model scenarios of the future (See: U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report shows Hurricanes declining, NO increases in drought, tornados, thunderstorms, heat-waves – June 20, 2008 – (LINK))

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4612

Monday August 25, 2008, 4:52 pm
please read the "hocky stick" discussion in the links I provided - it is alive an well - the other assertions above are also discussed

Monday August 25, 2008, 4:58 pm
See: U.S. Senate Report of over 400 (now 500 dissenting scientists and growing) (For Full Senate Report) See also U.S. Senate Report released in July 2008: ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008 (Link))

That is a FAKED petiton FYI - many "signers" are demanding their names be removed because the "petition" does not represent their views...

Monday August 25, 2008, 5:29 pm
Grasping at straws again, EH?

So where is your proof of this allegation?

You constantly make this stuff up and never offer any proof.

Green Denialism is pretty slimy

Monday August 25, 2008, 5:37 pm
This story is so noted highly! Thanks Ingrid. It gets pretty grimy ... umm I mean grim lol... when there's only TWO maybe 3 denialists who try out do the majority consensus on climate change.

Monday August 25, 2008, 5:43 pm
The `Hockey Stick':
A New Low in Climate Science

In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 5-yearly report on climate change [10], in a blaze of publicity, which contained the now infamous phrase that there was "a discernible human influence on global climate".

In their previous 1990 report [33], the IPCC illustrated their, then, understanding of how global climate had changed, not just during the previous 95 years, but also the past 1,000 years. In so doing they presented this graph (Fig 1.) of temperature change since 900 AD.This graph asserts that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were higher than those of today (as suggested by the opening lines to the Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer), while it was much cooler during the Little Ice Age (as suggested by John King). Historical records from all over Europe, and Greenland attest to the reality of both events, and their profound impact on human society. For example, the colonisation of Greenland by the Vikings early in the millennium was only possible because of the medieval warmth. During the Little Ice Age, the Viking colonies in Greenland collapsed, while the River Thames in London often froze over, resulting in frequent `frost fairs' being held on the river ice.

The dating of these two climatic events depends to some extent on what one regards as `warm' and `cold' in comparison with present temperatures, but the following dating approximates these events -

1) `Medieval Warm Period' (AD 700 - 1300)
2) `Sporer Minimum' cool period (AD 1300 - 1500)
3) Brief climatic warming (AD 1500 - 1560)
4) `Little Ice Age' (`Maunder Minimum') (AD 1560 - 1830)
5) Brief warmer period (AD 1830 - 1870)
6) Brief cool period (AD 1870 - 1910)
7) 20th century warm period (AD 1910 - 2000)

As to what caused these two major climatic events, the most probable candidate is the variable sun, particularly with respect to the Little Ice Age. This is because we have direct observations of sunspot counts going back to 1600 AD, which allows us to compare variations in the sun with variations to global climate. Fig.2 shows how the sun has changed over time, the radiation being greatest during a sunspot maximum and least during a sunspot minimum, both recurring on an 11-year cycle.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Monday August 25, 2008, 6:25 pm
re the 400 scientis petetion

Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked
List of "Scientists" Includes Economists, Amateurs, TV Weathermen and Industry Hacks

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101

Don’t believe Inhofe’s hype

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/24/dont-believe-inhofes-hype/

400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Global Warming - Bunk

http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent-scientists-dispute-global-warming-bunk

re: "Hocky Stic Graph Proven Wrong"

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646

See the other resources above for more....again you scream "no evidence" when it is right in front of you..really fooling no one, just looking silly...

Monday August 25, 2008, 6:31 pm
BTW - I do recognise that there are counter arguments and questions still are present. I stick to my conclusion, though, that there is a 90% chance that we are at least a significant cause of the current warming trend - a 10% chance we are not (based on the literature). I am not willing to bet the lives of millions of people and thousands of species on that 10% ... lets play Russian Rullet with 9 full chambers and 1 empty seems unwise to me...

Monday August 25, 2008, 6:48 pm
Desmog Blog is run by a PR man and financed by a convicted felon.

The newscientist article was written in spite of the Wegman report, in which the Hockey Stick was also demolished. Some nerve, to try to pretend the head of the American Statistical Society findings don't mean anything, so they don't even mention it in the article. Even the IPCC ditched the Hockey Stick graph in their last repor as being too much of an embarrasment.

Your references are "green and slimy".

"In this, the first of a series, I examine The Deniers, starting with Edward Wegman. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. Few statisticians in the world have CVs to rival his (excerpts appear nearby).

Wegman became involved in the global-warming debate after the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess one of the hottest debates in the global-warming controversy: the statistical validity of work by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann's study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium. You may have also heard of Mann's hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick's long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick's blade) this century.

Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann's work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.

Wegman accepted the energy and commerce committee's assignment, and agreed to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann's work.

"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.

Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians." Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

Worse, the problem also applied more generally, to the broader climate-change and meteorological community, which also relied on statistical techniques in their studies. "[I]f statistical methods are being used, then statisticians ought to be funded partners engaged in the research to insure as best we possibly can that the best quality science is being done," Wegman recommended, noting that "there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics."

In other words, Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt -- although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, he believes, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how.

One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. "I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent PhD with an assistant-professor appointment in a medical school." As an example of the statistical barrenness of the climate-change world, Wegman cited the American Meteorological Association's 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association.

While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.

To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer."

"

Monday August 25, 2008, 6:55 pm
and then you provide NO EVIDENCE for your statements after chiding me for doing that - halarious LMAO!!!

Obviously this will go on forever...so I am done...people who care will look at my references and do their own research...

Monday August 25, 2008, 7:31 pm
The Wegman Report isn't evidence? Are you mad?

http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/Wegman.pdf

Monday August 25, 2008, 7:34 pm
Oh, I didn't give you the link to Norman Solomon's article. since you have seen it sooooo many times before, I didn't think it would matter that much.
But here you are again.
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0