"According to your version of scientific method, evolutionary biology is not a science."

No, the point here is that given a data set, two independent researchers can take that same data set and arrive at the same conclusion. But the data used to support AGW has been lost, manipulated and exaggerated. So it is impossible for any two individuals to arrive at the same conclusion with regard to AGW.

Which faulty data? did that one fault somehow cause all the science done to be wrong? that magical one piece of data which somehow proves everything?

@fulhamish - not if it can't be shown that the 1L engine actually does less harm than the 3L engine.

I thought that your creterior was efficiency, on that one you are just sticking your fongers in your ears and saying 'I can't hear you......I can't hear you'.

Incidently how about tax credits on a massive scale for forestry and renewables? If what went out could be shown to equal what came back who could disagree, unless they were a raving pinko/atheist?

Getting used to the communication style now folks, even if the correlation analysis is a bit suspect!

@ Which faulty data? did that one fault somehow cause all the science done to be wrong? that magical one piece of data which somehow proves everything?

The point that the deniers make is that the TEMP data should be subject to probability analysis (t testing). It's a valid point and should not be ducked by all of those pinkos/atheists who support the concept of AGW. I am afraid that this is standard practice for similar data sets.

"All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement"

Yeah I call shenanigans. Most of these people have no specialization in climatology. Actually this silly petition doesn't even say how many climatologists signed it, probably because few to none did. They don't poll climatologists to ask them what they think of quantum gravity. It's absurd.

What on earth...temp data is subject to probability analysis all the time. In fact that's what a bunch of denialists cry foul about. They claim probability analysis is misleading.

The CRU data are 'faulty' in the sense that they systematically underestimate climate change because they exclude the area where warming is happening the fastest.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/01/met-office-hadley-centre-underestimate-global-warming/

"But the data used to support AGW has been lost, manipulated and exaggerated. So it is impossible for any two individuals to arrive at the same conclusion with regard to AGW."

Which data are referring to? Sea levels? Surface temperatures? You've cited nothing. All of it has been replicated over and over again. You're just making stuff up at this point.

What on earth...temp data is subject to probability analysis all the time. In fact that's what a bunch of denialists cry foul about. They claim probability analysis is misleading.

Can you please show me the exact calculation.......... the first thing I will check for is the normal distributionn of the data, a vital point.

@Putin33 - I've already listed the links in this thread.

It snowed in Florida this year. What do all the climate change propaganda scientists think about that?

That is unless the original input data has been 'lost' during the input into a computational model. It has happened before you know. There is an over-reliance on computational models in science generally and climatology, in particular. Incidently, while you are at it, please provide evidence of the correction applied to data for heat and cool island effects. That would also be very salutory and need to be incorporatesd into the error calculatin as a product rather than a summation.

Don't misunderstand me I do not doubt that we are dramatically affecting the climate I am just not certain of the warming scenario. The system is just to complex to be certain that the models are correct. Indeed, as I understand it, the models do not actually predict the specific amount of temperature rise against a given increase in CO2, but rather this calcualtion is an input parameter!

Do you have an understanding of how energy affects complex systems?

Simply put, you add energy to a complex system, and its extremes become more extreme. So you get hotter temperatures, as well as colder lower temperatures.

Any time I hear somebody say "Shit, its cold. So much for those global warming assholes" what comes through is "Holy shit, I don't even know how ignorant I'm sounding right now"

OK Jack that's all pretty cool (or hot!), but if your scenatio was complete the average measure will remain unchanged...........happy days.

"It snowed in Florida this year. What do all the climate change propaganda scientists think about that?" - this is abnormal weather - we're talking about climate, and how if there is more energy available the weather patterns can explore more of the phase-space; this results in more extreme weather conditions (at any one time/place)

The climate (ie average weather distribution over a whole year) is getting hotter on average.

@NoWheels: this has been explained, what is it you don't understand that made you point again to something which supports the AGW theory?

No, Fulhamish. The average is still going up. And there are secondary effects of a more volatile climate even if the only concern was the extremes getting more extreme.

Even if one can make the argument that what we're going through is the environment finding a new equilibrium(and that we can't do much to stop it at this point), it behooves us to understand the process, so after the dust settles (if it does), we can try to understand the why and the how.

Let's tackle your first link, which has been thoroughly discredited in .

http://www.canada.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html

This is a denialist "study" (non peer reviewed) done by two well-known denialists (one of whom is a so-called 'computer expert') and sponsored by an openly denialist think tank.

The study reveals the complete incompetence of the authors, as they do not know the difference between anomaly and absolute temperature.

GISTEMP does not interpolate temperatures, it interpolates temperature anomalies. It's the deviation from the baseline value that GISTEMP shows.GISTEMP depends on the reports from the weatherstations from 3rd parties . If the latter don't send in reports of all weatherstations, there's no data.

Gavin Schmidt (of NASA) explains why this 'study' is idiotic and slanderous:

"Their claim is apparently that coastal station absolute temperatures are being used to estimate the current absolute temperatures in mountain regions and that the anomalies there are warm because the coast is warmer than the mountain. This is simply wrong. What is actually done is that temperature anomalies are calculated locally from local baselines, and these anomalies can be interpolated over quite large distances. This is perfectly fine and checkable by looking at the pairwise correlations at the monthly stations between different stations (London-Paris or New York-Cleveland or LA-San Francisco). The second thread in their 'accusation' is that the agencies are deleting records, but this just underscores their lack of understanding of where the GHCN data set actually comes from. This is thoroughly discussed in Peterson and Vose (1997) which indicates where the data came from and which data streams give real time updates. The principle one is the CLIMAT updates of monthly mean temperature via the WMO network of reports. These are distributed by the Nat. Met. Services who have decided which stations they choose to produce monthly mean data for (and how it is calculated) and [has] absolutely nothing to do with NCDC or NASA."

This is quite embarrassing for the denialists. If you're going to accuse NASA and such of manipulation and fraud, at least have an elementary understanding of how temperature data is collected.

"What do all the climate change propaganda scientists think about that?"

They think that you don't understand the difference between weather and climate, nor do you understand the difference between local weather and global climate and they also point to the fact that the '00s was the hottest decade ever (and 2010 will be a record breaking year in terms of heat). November '10 was a record breaking warm November.

Whether the world is getting warmer or not, I don't really care. What I care about is extremists on the left are pushing for cap & trade, which Obama said would skyrocket energy prices. Don't get me wrong, there are extremists on the right as well. I'm not picking on one side or the other, I just don't want higher utility costs when I can barely pay my bills as it is. So, if a little ice has to melt, so be it imo.

OK that is clearer now Jack thank you for expanding and qualifying your initial post

I am not sure to be honest Jack of the statistical significance of the rise. I do agree that extreme weather events, however, appear to be becoming more common. The second is not predicated on the first. Moreover, as I have written, for a variety of reasons I do not trust computational modelling as a reliable predictive tool of future climate. I have yet to substantially touch on the allocation of research money and facilities. In that context perhaps you read my earlier post comparing academic activity around Three Mile Island and Church Rock? It provides an intersting analogy.

You're right the 00s was the hottest decade ever. The earth has been warming itself and cooling itself since the beginning of time. Let me ask you a question Putin? How did the earth come out of the ice age?

"There is an over-reliance on computational models in science generally and climatology, in particular." - No there isn't

I've studied computational models in physics - there is a lot of work done on modelling chemical structures, and ordering of matter - stuff used to understand 'advanced materials' - this work is not relied upon in physics, infact they experimentalists do not trust the models because they know they aren't always right.

In the fight against HIV computer modelling is being used to identify potential chemical structures which can disable certain proceses (which the HI Virus use to propogate) This is a first step in drug discovery - and being used where the experimental alternative is too time-consuming/expensive.

In both cases there is no over-reliance on computational modelling. In each something else is gained - the physics allows a better understanding of some nanoscale physical properties to be measured, and in the other potential chemicals are found which can be then tested in real life conditions...

In climatology we can't do a full experimental test - there is no 'over-reliance' on models, there is simply no alternative to models. You're talking like relying on models is a bad thing - without the models we wouldn't be able to go beyond the very simplest of conclusions (like greenhouse gas -> higher temperature; it is only with models that we can then estiamte HOW MUCH greenshouse gas changes the temperature...)

How and ever, i will grant that we don't understand all of the various systems (positive and negative feedbacks) The entire bio-sphere is a wide range of ecological systems which no-one is expert in all of, the various geological mechanisms, and the basic physics is fairly well understood, but i don't know anyone who understands all of these things AND how to computationally model it (i could do a half-assed model, i'm sure)

So i'd say that no-one knows how GOOD these models are, but they all agree on several points - those models which do at least postdict the past 'natural variation' and when you compare two models (one where you don't add human activity) you can see the dramatic differences.

It's probably the best we can do at the moment. I don't doubt that the various models each have flaws in them, and that scientists are working to make them better... that doesn't mean that no useful information has been gained in the past 30 years.

I attended a lecture where a scientist pontificated on the core-mantle boundary solely with the use of a thermodynamic model. In fact what he was discussing was a problem largely of kinetics. He could not accept this because his model could not possibly be wrong. I know of an eminant geologist who question the fossil record in Antartica because it did not agree with what his model told him about the past climate. I know of a material scientist who will not consider doping because the model was too difficult to construct. I know several whizz kid pg computer scientists who model glaciar melting, but have never been to Antartica. Common on man wake up, it is luddism dressed up in the Emperor's new cloths.

Sceptism should be the order of the day with these tools in particular, especially as they are starting to rob the scientific process of real experimentation and observation., because of both cost and, to some extent, pure indolence.

"Let me ask you a question Putin? How did the earth come out of the ice age?"

So because climate changes have occurred naturally, that means humans can't cause climate change? Do you also claim that humans can't cause bush fires, because bush fires have occurred naturally in the past?

Yes, the earth has had ice ages and come out of them, the causes of coming out of them are complex but part of the reason is the activity of the sun. The sun's activity has remained constant since the 1970s, yet temperatures keep going up and up.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm

Climate models have already correctly predicted a lot of what we are now experiencing in terms of climate change. In fact, most of the models have, if anything, been too conservative in their forecasts.

"What I care about is extremists on the left are pushing for cap & trade, which Obama said would skyrocket energy prices."

Yes, cap and trade was first proposed by "left wing extremists" like GHW Bush and conservative millionaires like C. Boyden Gray, who wanted a market oriented way to deal with acid rain. If Bush is a leftwing extremist, then what am I?

@Putin: Do you like or hate Obama?

ROFL. Did you even read this link you posted, Darwyn?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=climate-change-cover-up-you-better-2009-11-24

It makes the exact opposite point of you're trying to make.

"Sadly for the potential fate of human civilization, rumors of the demise of climate change have been much exaggerated. The past decade recorded nine of the warmest years in recent history as well as the rapid dwindling of Arctic sea ice, surely the result of imminent global cooling if climate change contrarians are to be believed. After all, one of the most "damaging" emails in question from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., is actually mourning the paucity of Earth observation systems and data in the past decade, such as satellites (gutted by a lack of funding and launch miscues in recent years) to monitor climate change in the midst of natural variability.

The "Copenhagen Diagnosis" released today reveals that by any objective measure—melting ice sheets, greenhouse gas concentrations, sea level rise—the climate is warming faster than anticipated. And when the natural variability induced by massive climate systems such as oscillations over decades in ocean temperatures, currents and even sunspots reverts to the mean, the roughly three warming watts per square meter added by greenhouse gases will still be there to drive climate change.

You can judge the emails for yourself at this wonderful searchable database. While the revelations about pressuring the peer review process and apparent slowness in responding to an avalanche of requests for information unveil something below impressive scientific and personal behavior, they can also be seen as the frustrated responses of people working on complex data under deadline while being harassed by political opponents.

Note the adjective there. Political, not scientific, opponents. Because the opposition here is not grounded in any robust scientific theory or alternative hypotheses (all of those, in their time, have been shot down and nothing new has been offered in years) but a hysterical reaction to the possibly of what? One-world government? The return of communism? If that's the fear, perhaps someone can explain why the preferred solution to climate change offered by former proponents of inaction is nuclear power. Has there ever been a nuclear reactor built anywhere in the world that didn't rely on government to get it done? Sounds like socialism, doesn't it? Hello France? USSR? USA?

The problem is not the behavior of climate scientists or their results. The problem is fear of the actions required to actually deal with the findings of climate science, and it has turned the field into a contact sport as Stephen Schneider of Stanford University puts it in the title of his new book. For example, we might decide to start cutting emissions of greenhouse gases, perhaps by restraining our burning of fossil fuel, or at least capturing and storing the carbon dioxide emitted in that process. It would appear, in fact, that the Obama administration will actually bring to the climate conference in Copenhagen some kind of a proposal to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions."

"Do you like or hate Obama?"

Generally speaking I like him, as he is a bulwark against the extreme right and has been more effective than most Presidents at implementing reforms. My colleagues on the left disagree with me on this point, but they've been acting rather unrealistic about what Obama can reasonably achieve as POTUS.

He was effective steamrolling his agenda, because he had a huge Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, that is until America came to her senses and voted for real change.