US science agency refuses request for climate records

Nov 3, 2015

by Jeff Tollefson

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has refused to comply with lawmakers’ attempts to subpoena internal communications relating to a recent climate-change study by its scientists.

The analysis, published in Science in June1, analyzed NOAA’s temperature records and found that global warming has continued apace in the early twenty-first century. The study contradicts previous findings — often cited by global-warming sceptics — suggesting that warming has slowed since the 1990s.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat
Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who leads the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, asked NOAA in July for the data used in the study and for any internal communications related to it. NOAA has provided the committee with the publicly available data and has briefed committee staff on the research, but the agency has not turned over the communications.

Although NOAA’s latest response to the committee skirted the issue, the agency suggests in a 27 October statement to Nature that it has no intention of handing over documents that reveal its internal deliberations.

“Because the confidentiality of these communications among scientists is essential to frank discourse among scientists, those documents were not provided to the Committee,” the agency said. “It is a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”

In response to queries from Nature, Smith released a statement accusing NOAA of rigging its temperature records and stonewalling the House committee.

“NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda,” Smith said. “The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities.”

NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton denies the accusations. She notes that the agency’s study was peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal, and that the agency has provided the committee with temperature data and briefings on the research.

“We stand behind our scientists, who conduct their work in an objective manner,” Clayton says. “We have provided all of the information the Committee needs to understand this issue.”


Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

 

57 comments on “US science agency refuses request for climate records

  • @OP – In response to queries from Nature, Smith released a statement accusing NOAA of rigging its temperature records and stonewalling the House committee.

    Denialist politicians seek out private emails as in the UEA case so they can misrepresent them so as to confuse the public.
    Many of those non-scientists are not even competent at reading the peer-reviewed papers!



    Report abuse

  • much as happened in the UK using freedom of information acts to sift through private emails to bolster the ad-hominem and straw-man core of the denialist argument.

    makes sense. peer-reviewd articles have to be written in an unambiguous way, giving no room for creative interpretation of the content so there’s no chance of getting support from the boring old facts



    Report abuse

  • @OP – In response to queries from Nature, Smith released a statement accusing NOAA of rigging its temperature records and stonewalling the House committee.

    Muppets like Smith are going to be more upset by this news which is a step in the right direction in cleaning up industry!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34751370
    US President Barack Obama has announced he is rejecting an application to build the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada.

    Speaking from the White House, he said it would not have served the “national interests” of the US.

    Its construction has been hotly disputed for seven years, with environmentalists saying it would do irreparable damage.

    The proposed pipeline would have run 1,179-miles (1,897km) taking 800,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska.

    But Mr Obama said it would not have:

    lowered petrol prices
    created long-term jobs
    affected energy dependence

    “The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy,” he said.

    The pipeline also generated controversy outside of Washington, souring relations between the former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the US president.

    President Obama said he had spoken to newly-elected Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and they agreed the issue of climate change trumped any differences of opinion over the pipeline.



    Report abuse

  • Retroactively changing the temperature will make scientific inquiry harder to do. If the scientific process was used in changing past temperatures, the researchers have nothing to hide. When taxpayers pay for research, they should be entitled to see the documents that led to that research. The US Senate was the key agency that exposed the Mann “hockey stick” graph as based on bad statistics. So the Congress has a role. As Richard Feynman said, science involves an “utter honesty” that should be applied to climate science as well.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 11, 2015 at 9:46 am

    Retroactively changing the temperature will make scientific inquiry harder to do.

    There is nothing “retroactive” about temperature plots. Data has been recorded by multiple scientific studies and multiple independent agencies.

    If the scientific process was used in changing past temperatures, the researchers have nothing to hide.

    The research and data has been widely available world-wide for review by other scientists. Science up-dates its views when new data becomes available.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
    Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming
    Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

    When taxpayers pay for research, they should be entitled to see the documents that led to that research.

    These papers and the data are available. What is not available is the private correspondence between the scientists involved. Understandably after the gross misrepresentation in the popular media of the UEA emails, scientists do not want to give charlatans and propagandists opportunities to quote-mine and misrepresent their private discussions.

    The US Senate was the key agency that exposed the Mann “hockey stick” graph as based on bad statistics.

    Numerous scientific illiterate politicians and bought political stooges, have been misleading the public, disparaging the work of reputable scientists, while promoting grossly exaggerated doubt-mongering about strongly evidenced climate data.

    The graphs on my link – produced by 4 independent scientific bodies give the accurate picture.
    The other statements from major scientific bodies make the position clear, that man-made pollution is causing potentially dangerous global warming.



    Report abuse

  • 9
    NearlyNakedApe says:

    Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who leads the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

    Lamar Smith besides being a well-known climate denier, is also a Christian Scientist (I’ll never get used to the silliness of that contriction in terms) and a member of the Tea Party Caucus. He was on Bill Maher’s roster of “Most crazy Congressmen” comedy routine a few years back. Some of his contenders were famous anti-science crackpot right-winger religiots like Paul Broun and Louie Gohmert.

    This man has exactly zero credibility when it comes to knowledge of science, neutrality and integrity in public matters. He’s your typical “for sale” Republican congressman who is more than likely among the hundreds who receive campaign contributions and funding from the Koch brothers and other big oil & coal interests.



    Report abuse

  • What Lamar Smith wants is “the” evidence that there was no GW for 18 years. There is no such evidence because GW did not stop for 18 years. Lamar Smith is asking for something that does not exist. There simply is no real evidence that says what Lamar Smith wants to believe.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/05/362091/how-can-it-be-warming-when-its-almost-always-cooling/

    Denialists are very good at misinterpreting mathematics, partly because they don’t understand statistics and partly because they have an agenda. Lamar Smith is a denialist.



    Report abuse

  • Asteroid1Miner
    Nov 12, 2015 at 2:46 am

    Denialists are very good at misinterpreting mathematics, partly because they don’t understand statistics and partly because they have an agenda. Lamar Smith is a denialist.

    They are also good at lazily accepting spoon-fed misleading nonsense of cherry-picked local data which buck the global trends – fed to them from denialist websites!

    Some years back I was debating a denialist on RDFS and he quoted me the expansion of the Pope Pius IX glacier in South America (a warmer wetter climate produced more local snowfall).
    Needless to say he omitted to mention the substantial shrinkage of the other 47 glaciers in that area!



    Report abuse

  • The satellite evidence shows the pause and the fact that the other data sets are now out of step with the satellite evidence is a cause for concern. It requires some investigation. The Senate hired the best statisticians and physicists in the US who showed that the hockey stick graph was simply wrong. Everyone knows that man-made CO2 is warming the world. The question is how much and there is a wide range of possible outcomes.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 12, 2015 at 10:27 am

    The satellite evidence shows the pause and the fact that the other data sets are now out of step with the satellite evidence is a cause for concern.

    All it shows is that there was some slowing in the surface warming in some places because of an increase of the cycle of heat absorption by the oceans.

    It requires some investigation.

    It has been thoroughly investigated multiple times. It is only the denialists who would like the public and politicians to think the matter is in doubt.

    Previous conservative predictions of temperature rises which were challenged as wild exaggerations at the time, have turned out to be underestimates as measurements have continued.

    The Senate hired the best statisticians and physicists in the US who showed that the hockey stick graph was simply wrong.

    Most of the shouting in the senate was done by scientifically illiterate politicians who were paid stooges of the coal mining and oil companies.

    This link I gave earlier, shows a hockey stick form from 1940 to the present time. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ The four independently caculated graphs confirm each other’s findings.

    Everyone knows that man-made CO2 is warming the world. The question is how much and there is a wide range of possible outcomes.

    Unfortunately everyone does not know this because of the heavily funded disinformation and doubt-mongering campaigns orchestrated by the carbon polluting industries.

    The main reason that the rate of warming cannot accurately be predicted, is because of uncertainty about how much governments will treat the problem seriously, and how much they will reduce emissions.
    Small differences in emissions and feed-back effects, can have radical effects on both the extent of global change, and the nature of local effects – such as floods, droughts, forest fires, tundra fires, seasonal temperatures, ocean currents, and the intensity of storms.

    The new technologies are there – or under development.
    What is needed is to get the obstructionists out of the way, close down the obsolete polluting industries, and get the investment money directed into building a clean new world.

    Stupid governments are still subsidising oil drilling in dangerous places, planning new coal mines, + new coal fired power stations, and developing extensive gas-fracking, while cutting subsidies to develop the needed solar thermal, photovoltaic, hydroelectric, tidal power, wind power, geothermal, heat-storage and heat recovery, thorium nuclear, biofuels, carbon-capture where feasible, electrification of transport, and building and appliance efficiency.

    and there is a wide range of possible outcomes.

    Many of which are massive and very expensive disasters, if the rapid rise in temperatures is not stopped.

    There are already international arguments about the levels of compensation for states already suffering from man-made climate change, and the liabilities of the countries responsible for the pollution.



    Report abuse

  • The hockey stick graph went back to 1400 – not 1940. It is not credible to dismiss the top statisticians in the US and pretend they did not write a report. The satellite data shows a pause and the surface temperature data formerly showed a pause. Now the surface data has been adjusted and no longer shows a pause. No one has explained why this would be the case.

    What we don’t know is how big climate sensitivity is. Will doubling CO2 lead to 7 degrees of warming or 1 degree? If its one degree, we don’t have to do any of the things you are proposing. If its 7 degrees, we should do more. That is why the data is important and why the Congress should be concerned about data adjustments.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 12, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    The hockey stick graph went back to 1400 – not 1940. It is not credible to dismiss the top statisticians in the US and pretend they did not write a report.

    Do you have a link to this peer-reviewed report by “top statisticians”?
    The reports I have been looking at from numerous reputable independent scientific bodies go back hundreds of thousands of years.

    The satellite data shows a pause and the surface temperature data formerly showed a pause. Now the surface data has been adjusted and no longer shows a pause. No one has explained why this would be the case.

    Actually it has been very clearly explained as the use of improved measuring techniques and adding the latest two years figures to the calculations.

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

    Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming – June 4, 2015

    A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or “hiatus” in the rate of global warming in recent years.

    The study is the work of a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) using the latest global surface temperature data.*

    “Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends,” said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., Director, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. “Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century.”

    The apparent observed slowing or decrease in the upward rate of global surface temperature warming has been nicknamed the “hiatus.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, released in stages between September 2013 and November 2014, concluded that the upward global surface temperature trend from 1998­­-2012 was markedly lower than the trend from 1951-2012.

    Since the release of the IPCC report, NOAA scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends and now use a global surface temperature record that includes the most recent two years of data, 2013 and 2014–the hottest year on record. The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets. One of the most substantial improvements is a correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 12, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    If its one degree, we don’t have to do any of the things you are proposing.

    Doing many of the things I am proposing in appropriate locations, makes economic sense regardless of global warming. Many have already been done on pilot schemes or, like efficient LED lighting are going ahead anyway.



    Report abuse

  • The report is at: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/ad_hoc_report.pdf

    The NOAA analysis looks at surface temperature. The satellites look at the temperature in the troposphere. As your quote says, the surface temperatures have been “improved.” But the surface temperatures should move in the same direction as the temperature in the troposphere. Since they don’t, I think that Congress should look at what is going on. For example, ocean buoys generally have lower temperatures than ships. So the NOAA raised the buoy temperatures. Maybe the ships record a higher temperature because the engines give off heat. Why weren’t the ship temperatures lowered to match the buoy temperatures? Congress should ask the question. Good climate science needs good data.

    The point is that the RDF is devoted to science – finding out the truth from the data.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 12, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    The NOAA analysis looks at surface temperature. The satellites look at the temperature in the troposphere.

    The satellites look at temperatures right across a whole range of terrestrial features: sea temperature, ice, a diversity of land surfaces, and are cross checked by land based weather stations.

    http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Taking_Earth_s_temperature
    Like thermometers in the sky, satellite instruments can measure the temperatures of Earth’s surfaces. ESA’s new GlobTemperature project is merging these data from a variety of spaceborne sensors to provide scientists with a one-stop shop for land, lake and ice temperature data.

    Information on land surface temperature is a key parameter for studying the Earth system. It plays an important role in physical processes such as atmospheric convection and surface evaporation, biological processes like vegetation sensitivity to stress and to fire, and chemical processes such as emissions of gases from the surface to the atmosphere.

    Long-term trends in surface temperature can also be an indicator of climate change.

    Meteorologists and climate scientists rely heavily on air temperature measurements made using thermometers installed at ground-based weather stations despite the availability of satellite-derived measurements. This is mainly due to the complexity of the data from different satellite instruments, utilising both infrared and microwave data, and the variety of formats in which the data are made available.

    The report is at: . . . . .

    This is an ad-hoc committee report of April 26 2010 looking at old data from 1998 to 2006, where statisticians seem to think they know better on climatology, than climatologists.

    In our further exploration of the social
    network of authorships in temperature
    reconstruction, we found that at
    least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of
    coauthored papers with him
    .
    Our findings from
    this analysis suggest that authors in the
    area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not
    be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe
    that web logs are an appropriate forum
    for the scientific debate on this issue.
    It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely
    heavily on statistical methods they do not seem
    to be interacting with the statistical
    community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results
    was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this
    case we judge that there was too much
    reliance on peer review,
    which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has
    been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public
    positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

    It is certainly supported by other independent analysis, so casting doubt is misleading.

    Regardless of whose analysis is correct, the four independent graphs I provided on my link confirm that 1998 was at that time the hottest year of the millenium, so what you have provided is the opinion of statisticians who were casting doubts on correct information from climate scientists, which has been generally been confirmed by later studies.

    In assessing reliability I am afraid that when it comes to multiple peer-reviewed climate science papers, and an ad-hoc committee report, there is no contest.
    The flaws and unsupported doubt-mongering in the committee report, have been highlighted by subsequent data and subsequent studies.

    The suggestion that 43 science specialists consulting each other and keeping track of latest developments, casts doubt on their independence, is laughable!
    These statisticians are are not people with expertise in climate science, and their talk about science “communities” is just conspiracy theory bullshit!
    Like most science deniers, – the fast moving topics produce subsequent confirmations which overtake them while they are still spouting doubt and denial!



    Report abuse

  • Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

    Sorry I overlooked the detail of this strawman claim in my previous comment and repeated the word “millenium” instead of “century”, in error!

    I am not aware of any climate scientists claiming the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium.

    The hottest decade of the century up till that time, perhaps! – As is shown on the graphs I linked.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 12, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    But the surface temperatures should move in the same direction as the temperature in the troposphere.

    Why?? There is no law of physics which says heat inputs must raise temperatures uniformly or at a steady rate over the whole planet.

    Since they don’t, I think that Congress should look at what is going on.

    How would Congress possibly know, unless they ask the expert climate scientists who have the best understanding which is available using scientific measuring techniques and analysis.

    Muppets like Smith are too scientifically illiterate to even understand basic science, let alone the complexities of satellite surveys or climatology.
    They are probably unable to even understand the simplest of explanations of the mechanisms, or of the technology used.

    In any case, most change-phobic deniers do not want to understand the science or embrace new improved technologies.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 12, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    The hockey stick graph went back to 1400 – not 1940. It is not credible to dismiss the top statisticians in the US and pretend they did not write a report.

    Nobody is disputing that they wrote a report, but that report has been thoroughly debunked!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

    In 2003, as lobbying over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol intensified, Soon and Baliunas published a paper claiming greater medieval warmth, and on this basis the Bush administration chief of staff Philip Cooney deleted references to climate reconstructions from the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment. The paper was quickly dismissed by scientists in the Soon and Baliunas controversy, but on July 28, Republican Jim Inhofe spoke in the Senate speech citing Soon and Baliunas to claim “that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”.[13] Later in 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published McIntyre & McKitrick 2003 disputing the data used in MBH98 paper. They were given extensive publicity, and met Inhofe as well as making a presentation sponsored by the George C. Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In 2004 Hans von Storch published criticism of the statistical techniques as tending to underplay variations in earlier parts of the graph, though this was disputed and he later accepted that the effect was very small.[14] In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal components analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. Their analysis in was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology. In June 2005 Rep. Joe Barton launched what Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, called a “misguided and illegitimate investigation” into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. At Boehlert’s request a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[15] Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate. The Wegman Report supported McIntyre and McKitrick’s view that there were statistical failings, but did not quantify whether there was any significant effect. It included an extensive network analysis which has been discredited by expert opinion and found to have issues of plagiarism. Arguments against the MBH studies were reintroduced as part of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, but dismissed by eight independent investigations.

    The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using different data and methods. More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears.[1] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years



    Report abuse

  • who showed that the hockey stick graph was simply wrong.

    Ken. This is incorrect. Not only has the Hockey Stick graph been confirmed, refer Alan4D’s graphs, but it is worse than the original Mann Hockey Stick graph. No up to date deniers make this claim anymore because they know that it is easily displaced by science, like the material cited by Alan4D, that compares research from….

    NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

    I would ask you to do your own due diligence, and make a rational evidence based decision in relation to the assertions you have been posting, because they are all scientifically incorrect.



    Report abuse

  • If we have any desire to grow up into great-great etc. grandparents, sustainability in all things is key. Simply burning use-once assetts denying much higher value use within a circular economy later is simply impoverishing the future.

    Sustainability nets stasis and represents the maximal precautionary mode we can adopt whilst still developing the wealth to handle unexpected catastrophe. That there is a risk of 7 degrees countenanced makes sustainability a no-brainer. Or we could just risk being selfish dicks. Its less effort after all. And what do we care?



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 12, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium

    There is understandable confusion when non-specialist statisticians and politicians, bumble around with the complexities of climate science.

    The 1990s was the hottest decade in the millennium IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE – not globally! Local historical variations do not necessarily represent the global picture. Globally it was the hottest decade to date, in the last century or so, although there have been higher temperature records set in more recent decades.

    As I said earlier, the information is on the links to graphed data and to the statements of worlds’ leading scientific bodies.



    Report abuse

  • @OP – “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data

    Well it took me a couple of minutes to find the link to their very clear explanation, but I suppose with Smith’s level of technical skills and literacy, he needs an investigation team to do it for him!

    to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda,” Smith said.

    Poor diddums can’t find anything which supports his wish-thinking agenda from the numerous available scientific reports, so I suppose any suggestion that he should do a competent job of helping plan for the future of the planet and industry, is “extreme”!

    “The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities.”

    At least the committee chair tried to warn them about this stupid waste of taxpayers money – investigating competent science in an attempt to promote a wish-thinker’s incompetent agenda! : –

    Rep. Joe Barton launched what Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, called a “misguided and illegitimate investigation” into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.

    Smith however continues to be a clueless obstructive waste of time and money!

    Any suggestion that he could competently exercise oversight responsibilities of any scientific work, is a laughable sick joke!



    Report abuse

  • 27
    ExperienceCounts2 says:

    The science was published in a reputable, peer reviewed journal.

    How ’bout the global conspiracy wackos challenge the science in the journal where it was published.

    You’re simply parroting lies about the “hockey stick” being bad science. It’s not only still accepted and well established science, it has been reproduced more than a dozen different ways.

    It’s trivial to prove that it’s a lie. Cite a letter in the journal where the science was published that challenges the paper. Cite the specific scientific journal where the “hockey stick” has been discredited.

    You can’t do either, because it’s a lie. No one has ever demonstrated there were significant problems with the data or the methodology of that paper.

    Here’s a challenge for you, one that I’ve never had any global conspiracy wacko even attempt to take up in the 10 years or so I’ve been waving it in front of them: Cite data supporting the existence of the MCA (“Medieval warming period) that does not appear in the “hockey stick” paper or in any subsequent reproduction of the “hockey stick diagram.

    You can’t. Your global conspiracy claim is that climate science is good and perfect and valid if you can cherry pick a tiny bit of it and claim that it is evidence of a global conspiracy against you, then you turn around and claim that it’s all fraudulent and guesswork and invalid whenever it clearly refutes your global conspiracy claims.

    Here’s another challenge. Answer one simple question. How is it possible that all of these organizations all arrived at the SAME wrong answer?

    http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
    Never mind that according to you they’re all completely wrong, how did so many diverse organizations, professional, governmental, private, professional, how did they ALL evaluate the evidence and ALL arrive at the SAME wrong answer?

    There is no global conspiracy.

    BTW how come the anti-science wackos don’t demand the private discussions and internal emails of the people making public health policy? What about defense contracts? What about nuclear energy research? Why is climate science the only target of this “absolutely must have total transparency” rule?



    Report abuse

  • ExperienceCounts2
    Nov 15, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    The science was published in a reputable, peer reviewed journal.

    Unfortunately, denialists usually don’t read peer-reviews, and most of them could not understand the science anyway!

    I’ve never had any global conspiracy wacko even attempt to take up in the 10 years or so I’ve been waving it in front of them:

    Like yourself, people on this site have been quoting solid evidence for years!

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/11/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-in-one-pie-chart/#li-comment-56223

    Some of the earliest discussions no longer exist.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 12, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    If its one degree, we don’t have to do any of the things you are proposing.

    If it is a 1 degree ongoing rise, we need to get on with it urgently!
    CO2 warming does not stop temperatures from continuing to rise for thousands of years after levels of CO2 stop increasing.

    If its 7 degrees, we should do more.

    If it is 7 degrees, it is approaching the 8 degrees which caused the Permian mass extinction which wiped out most of the animal life on Earth!!! – and with feed-back effects, it would be way out of control and beyond human attempts at mitigation or recovery!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event#Extinction_patterns
    Perhaps the ignoramuses who are shouting “alarmist”, should study some climate history!



    Report abuse

  • You seem very angry but you have obviously not spent 5 minutes Googling peer-reviewed journals debunking Mann’s hockey stick graph. See for example: McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005) The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications Energy and Environment 16(1) pp. 69-100. OR McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005) Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance Geophysical Research LettersVol. 32, No. 3, L03710 10.1029/2004GL021750 12 February 2005.

    The medieval warming period is a historical fact.

    There is no conspiracy. Just scientists that are trying to be advocates instead of scientists.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 16, 2015 at 11:32 am

    McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005)

    Perhaps you should get up to date and have a look at the links I provided to recent work by leading major scientific bodies. (climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)
    The days when denial had any credibility are long gone.

    The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index:

    Or even read the comment I put explaining that the figures for Northern hemisphere and local effects are not global!

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/11/us-science-agency-refuses-request-for-climate-records/#li-comment-190147

    Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
    Stephen McIntyre
    Northwest Exploration Co., Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Ross McKitrick
    Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

    A company rep and an economist?????



    Report abuse

  • A lot, and possibly the majority of climate scientists believe there was a medieval warming period, believe that Mann’s hockey stick is flawed and admit that there is a broad range of possible values for climate sensitivity.



    Report abuse

  • The data have been altered and they are now out of sync with satellite data and there is no explanation for why that is the case. This raises the question as to whether the US government agencies altered the data properly. Congress should investigate and the scientists should cooperate. Science involves a search for the truth and not name calling.



    Report abuse

  • Not sure what point you are making. Global temperature went up about .8 degrees C in the last century. Everyone knows that. The question is whether it will keep going up at the same rate or faster in this century. Even with the adjusted “pause” numbers, the temperature increase this century may only be 1 degree. If the unadjusted pause numbers are right, that is more likely to be true. If temperature goes up by one degree in a century, it may not make sense to spend trillions now. What exactly am I denying?



    Report abuse

  • This is an account of the most recent and comprehensive paper the modest MWP distributed wriggle-

    Medieval Warming Period and from this article’s conclusion-

    They find that over the past 2,000 years, until 100 years ago, the planet underwent a long-term cooling trend. There was a ‘Medieval Warm Period’, but different regions warmed at different times, and overall global surface temperatures were warmer at the end of the 20th century than during the MWP peak. The 2,000-year cooling trend has been erased by the warming over the past century. And of course more warming is yet to come from continuing human greenhouse gas emissions.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 16, 2015 at 2:42 pm

    Not sure what point you are making. Global temperature went up about .8 degrees C in the last century. Everyone knows that.

    We know why it went up in the last century and we know that the increases in CO2 levels causing the rise are continuing and increasing. Those who can look up world trade statistics know the (billions) of tonnage of coal, oil and gas being burned, while those who can recognise carbon isotopes in the atmosphere know the sources of the CO2.

    The question is whether it will keep going up at the same rate or faster in this century.

    That question has already been answered to a high level of probability.

    http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/tag/climate-change/

    [Graph] – Climate simulations of tropical land rainfall change and global temperature change over the 21st century under four different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios.

    A series of other claims are made in the article, mostly focusing on our forecasts over seasonal to decadal timescales. The Met Office is at the forefront of this pioneering area of research and we are increasing skill in this area.

    According to standards set by the World Meteorological Organization the Met Office is ranked as the most accurate global met service in the world. We will continue our research in collaboration with our global scientific partners to improve this vital area of science.

    Even with the adjusted “pause” numbers, the temperature increase this century may only be 1 degree.

    This is nonsense you or someone else has just made up!
    http://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-would-happen-climate-if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-today

    If we stop emitting today, it’s not the end of the story for global warming. There’s a delay in temperature increase as the climate catches up with all the carbon that’s in the atmosphere. After maybe 40 more years, the climate will stabilize at a temperature higher than what was normal for previous generations.

    This decades-long lag between cause and effect is due to the long time it takes to heat the the ocean’s huge mass. The energy that is held at the Earth by the increased carbon dioxide does more than heat the air. It melts ice; it heats the ocean. Compared to air, it’s harder to raise the temperature of water – it takes time, decades. However, once the ocean temperature is elevated, it adds to the warming of the Earth’s surface.

    So even if carbon emissions stopped completely right now, as the oceans catch up with the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature would rise about another 1.1F (0.6C). Scientists refer to this as committed warming. Ice, also responding to increasing heat in the ocean, will continue to melt. There’s already convincing evidence that significant glaciers in the West Antarctic ice sheets are lost. Ice, water, and air – the extra heat held on the Earth by carbon dioxide affects them all. That which has melted will stay melted – and more will melt.

    If the unadjusted pause numbers are right, that is more likely to be true.

    But only if pseudo-science wish thinking is more accurate than scientific methodology which has largely discounted the so-called “pause”!

    If temperature goes up by one degree in a century,

    There will be squadrons of pigs flying around the skies! No informed expert opinion expects the rise at current emissions and trends to be limited to 1 degree!

    it may not make sense to spend trillions now.

    You really have no idea about the potential cost of the global damage caused by a hotter planet, or the viability of green technologies do you?

    What exactly am I denying?

    You are denying the work of over 13,000 climate related peer-reviewed studies, and the recommendations of all of the world’s leading scientific bodies.

    Not only that, but you are denying them AFTER I have pointed them out to you – and you continue to rummage around for misleading refuted nonsense from an ad-hoc committee of poiticians, statisticians who have no qualifications in the methods or tools of climatology, and suggest Googling for peer-reviews which deny the work of several space agencies and the world’s leading meteorological organisations.

    Unsurprisingly you only found long out of date marginal studies, from the likes of mining engineers, oil company geologists, economists, and merchants of doubt!

    http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/dec/14/merchants-of-doubt-review-big-business-hucksters



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 16, 2015 at 2:28 pm
    .
    A lot, and possibly the majority of climate scientists believe there was a medieval warming period, believe that Mann’s hockey stick is flawed

    No they don’t! They recognise there was a Medieval Warm period in part of the Northern Hemisphere!

    Either you can’t read scientific papers, or you are still making stuff up!



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 16, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    The data have been altered and they are now out of sync with satellite data and there is no explanation for why that is the case.

    Strange claim!!
    I am sure I provided a link and a clear explanation of the update-procedure here:-

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/11/us-science-agency-refuses-request-for-climate-records/#li-comment-190101

    Are you saying you cannot understand it?

    Science involves a search for the truth and not name calling.

    Rather ironical from someone who does not seem to read or respond to links to scientific evidence, but continues preaching circular thinking from mistaken preconceptions and science denial!

    I see Phil has provided a further excellent link, to help you sort out your confusion over the Medieval Warm Period(s) and the hockey stick graph!



    Report abuse

  • Some of the proxy evidence uses tree rings. But tree rings show that temperature is falling in the 20th century, which it has not. If you use proxy measures other than tree rings, the medieval warming period is there and warmer than the 20th century. http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830507782616797

    Again I don’t quite get the anger. I don’t quite get what I am denying. I believe it got warmer in the 20th century, I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so CO2 is warming the world. The question is how much? If we don’t answer that question well, we are probably going to waste a lot of money. That is why we need good data and that is why Congress should take a look at efforts to change past temperatures which are not consistent with the satellite temperatures.



    Report abuse

  • Your link did not explain why the surface temperature measured by thermometers would be different from troposphere measurements by satellite. They used to move together and now they do not. Does this not make you curious?



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 16, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    Some of the proxy evidence uses tree rings. But tree rings show that temperature is falling in the 20th century, which it has not. If you use proxy measures other than tree rings, the medieval warming period is there and warmer than the 20th century.

    You really can’t read science papers and articles can you?
    I gave you an explanation about local effects and Phil gave you another link explaining how local and regional effects are different from global averages! –
    and then you ignore that information and come up with this:-

    multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830507782616797 – The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.

    Again I don’t quite get the anger.

    There is no anger- just some frustration with your refusal to understand and learn the science.

    I don’t quite get what I am denying.

    I know! That is your problem!
    You just don’t know how the climate works and how climate science is done, so you keep quoting cherry-picked scraps from ignorant sources who also don’t know how the climate works or how it is studied – and then make stuff up based on your incredulity!

    I believe it got warmer in the 20th century, I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so CO2 is warming the world. The question is how much? If we don’t answer that question well,

    If you don’t know the answer, and don’t learn from those expert bodies who know how it is derived, that in no way invalidates their conclusions.

    we are probably going to waste a lot of money.

    You have absolutely no evidence for that claim. There is no reason to believe that running down obsolete polluting industries, and investing in new efficient clean technologies will waste any money.

    There is money being wasted in exploring for new “reserves” of coal and oil which can’t be safely burned, but that is due to the stupidity of denialist investors!

    The alleged “waste of money” invested in new technologies, is a myth put about by carbon polluters who want to continue with a fat living while everyone else (and future generations in particular) pays for the damage their pollution is causing.

    That is why we need good data

    We have good data and are collecting better data.

    We also have good new technologies and more in development. – Many by leading major companies.
    If you don’t know what they are, that does not mean they don’t exist.
    I have put various links on this discussion including one to an earlier discussion thread on this site.
    This is a science site where many people have a good understanding of science, and a very clear recognition of the scientifically illiterate babblings of the likes of Smith!

    That is why we need good data and that is why Congress should take a look at efforts to change past temperatures which are not consistent with the satellite temperatures.

    This is drivel put about by clueless congressmen – mostly who are in the pay of the merchants of doubt!

    Dummies like Smith cannot understand climate science and don’t want to understand climate science.
    They could not do temperature analysis to save their lives, so are just looking for people who will tell them what they and their sponsors want to hear!

    Low lying coasts, ports, and islands are likely to be permanently flooded by rising seas.
    The power of storms will increase, while regional floods and droughts will be more intense and less predictable.
    Mountain ice caps will shrink radically reducing seasonal irrigation and drinking water for millions of people – to mention just a few effects which will cost trillions!

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/climate-change-economics/florida-coast-map



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 16, 2015 at 5:19 pm

    As long as you keep ducking issues and picking on disjointed scraps of information, you will never understand the workings of the Earth’s climate – not even at a basic level.

    Your link did not explain why the surface temperature measured by thermometers would be different from troposphere measurements by satellite.

    There is no uniform movement of temperatures on different parts of the Earth’s surface, or in different stratified layers within the atmosphere, climate belts, climate cells of the atmosphere or the oceans.
    There are regional cyclic changes resulting from the rates of heat absorption, currents, thermoclines, and heat distribution in the oceans. which affect weather and climate.

    They used to move together and now they do not. Does this not make you curious?

    It might, if I did not already know where to look for the data. Sometimes cold water wells up to the ocean surface in some places, sometimes it does not!
    Why don’t you look up “Southern Oscillation* in a text book or an educational article?
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/gpc-outlooks/el-nino-la-nina/enso-description

    You could then go on to look at “axial precession”, “orbital eccentricity”, Milankovitch Cycles, and Sun-Spot Cycles which explain longer term cyclical climate shifts.

    These are parts of the subject of “climatology” – which also includes geology, glaciology, and volcanism, on which the world’s expert science specialists know a great deal – and most denialists know little or nothing!

    There is little point on a science site in quoting the babblings of the likes of Smith, who are calling for Senate investigations into information which is readily available in basic textbooks, published science reports, and science articles! –
    Even if it would be commendable to educate such senators! –
    Unfortunately the confidently assertive ignorant and science-illiterate, are very resistant to education.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 16, 2015 at 2:42 pm

    Even with the adjusted “pause” numbers, the temperature increase this century may only be 1 degree.

    Parroting nonsense is not evidence of anything other than ignorance and denial!

    We are reaching 1 degree now, are still polluting, and the century has another 84 years to go!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34800829

    Human societies will soon start to experience adverse effects from manmade climate change, a prominent economist has warned.

    Prof Richard Tol predicts the downsides of warming will outweigh the advantages with a global warming of 1.1C – which has nearly been reached already.

    Prof Tol is regarded by many campaigners as a climate “sceptic”.

    He has previously highlighted the positive effects of CO2 in fertilising crops and forests.

    His work is widely cited by climate contrarians.

    “Most people would argue that slight warming is probably beneficial for human welfare on net, if you measure it in dollars, but more pronounced warming is probably a net negative,” Prof Tol told the BBC Radio 4 series Changing Climate.

    Asked whether societies were at the point where the benefits start to be outweighed by consequences, he replied: “Yes. In academic circles, this is actually an uncontroversial finding.”



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 16, 2015 at 2:42 pm

    Even with the adjusted “pause” numbers, the temperature increase this century may only be 1 degree. If the unadjusted pause numbers are right, that is more likely to be true. If temperature goes up by one degree in a century,

    The present evidence already proves that claim to be wrong!

    it may not make sense to spend trillions now.

    This is the confused basis of your denial – where you have swallowed mythology from the merchants of doubt!

    There will be trillions wasted from climate change and damage, due to prevarication in cutting emissions : NOT from investing in new clean technologies!

    There will also be vast wastes of money by “investing” in exploring for and developing, new sources of carbon fuels, which must be left in the ground as they cannot be burned safely.

    The informed smart people, are making sure that their investments and pension funds, are not poured into these black-holes of bankruptcy, by dis-investing in polluting carbon industries.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/05/norways-pension-fund-to-divest-8bn-from-coal-a-new-analysis-shows

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Disinvestment-in-Coal-India-ONGC-NHPC-to-fetch-record-Rs-45000-crore/articleshow/42213919.cms

    http://time.com/3416032/rockefellers-family-divestment-fossil-fuels-rockefeller-brothers-fund/

    http://gofossilfree.org/

    Even some oil companies are beginning to face reality!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34380467

    Monday’s announcement that Shell was pulling out of the Chukchi Sea therefore comes as a surprise.

    Particularly given it will cost Shell £2.6bn to execute the withdrawal.

    And that the company has already spent the thick end of £5bn getting to this point.

    Earlier this year, I interviewed Shell’s chief executive Ben van Beurden – and he was certainly bullish on Alaska.

    Ken Engelhart
    Nov 12, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    The point is that the RDF is devoted to science – finding out the truth from the data.

    That is why science discusses evidence, rather than repetitively parroting refuted drivel from doubt-mongers!



    Report abuse

  • You should try to stick to facts and data and not worry so much about the motives you imagine in others who disagree with you. The objective is the truth and not advocacy for one position or another. Anyway, Congress will be issuing a subpoena so we will see what the evidence shows.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 18, 2015 at 11:17 am

    You should try to stick to facts and data and not worry so much about the motives you imagine in others who disagree with you.

    I note that you have not responded to numerous posts with links to substantive evidence from expert sources.

    and not worry so much about the motives you imagine in others who disagree with you.

    I don’t have to “imagine” the motives of the merchants of doubt!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
    The information on their multi-million $ campaign funding of disinformation by charlatans and the Republican war on science, is on record.
    Imagining information is your methodology, not mine.

    The objective is the truth and not advocacy for one position or another.

    Nope!
    Truth has absolutely nothing to do with their arguments, or the stuff you are parroting! Doubt and disinformation is promoted by big budget campaigns from the likes of the Koch Brothers and Exxon Mobil who have put into funding groups actively involved in promoting climate change denial and doubt in order to con those who don’t know how to find and read reputable science papers or listen to the expert recommendations of the world’s scientific bodies which I linked earlier.

    Anyway, Congress will be issuing a subpoena so we will see what the evidence shows.

    I am sure the science illiterates will do what they can to pursue their dubious doubt-mongering and ad hominem agendas – if the other members of Congress let them waste public money on such nonsense! Their stupidity will make no difference to the laws of physics although it may have an effect on the capability of the USA to cope with them – as the smart money disinvests from coal etc.

    In the mean time if you want to learn anything about climate science, new technologies, or the economic consequences of letting science duffers take important political decisions, there are plenty of educational links on the comments of this discussion.

    As you like bandying around $trillion claims, perhaps you could contribute to this discussion, by giving an estimate of the cost of the flooding of substantial areas of Florida (as shown on my National Geographic link) and then bear in mind that globally, other low lying coasts are also in danger of writing off whole cites as sea-levels rise!



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion
    Nov 18, 2015 at 6:46 am

    norways-pension-fund-to-divest-8bn-from-coal-a-new-analysis-shows

    Away from the scientific and economic illiteracy of denial, Noway is divesting from coal and reinvesting in exporting hydro – electricity to the UK and Germany!

    http://www.statnett.no/en/News/News-archives/News-archive-2015/The-worlds-longest-interconnector-gets-underway/
    National Grid and Statnett reach an agreement to construct an interconnector between UK and Norway. The 1400 MW subsea electricity cable will connect the two countries’ electricity markets directly for the first time.

    The interconnector would run from Blyth in Northumberland to Kvilldal in Rogaland on the Norwegian side. There will be a converter station on each side where the interconnector is connected to the on-shore grid. The project is estimated to cost around €1.5 to 2 billion to be shared jointly. The interconnector is planned to be completed by 2021.



    Report abuse

  • Sea level has been increasing about 1 foot per year since the ice ages ended and it is continuing to increase at about 1 foot per year. Florida gets buried in floods every few decades so don’t buy real estate there. But that has nothing to do with global warming.

    The promises made in Paris will cost over $1 trillion per year and will result in a 1.3 cm reduction in sea level by the end of the century.
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/paris-climate-change-agreement-too-costly-by-bj-rn-lomborg-2015-11



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 18, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    Sea level has been increasing about 1 foot per year since the ice ages ended and it is continuing to increase at about 1 foot per year.

    I see you are either making up or parroting nonsense!
    Sea levels have not risen by thousands of feet! They only have potential to rise by about another 240 feet if all the ice on the planet melts.

    Since the Last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago, sea level has risen by more than 125 m, averaging 6 mm/yr, as a result of melting of major ice sheets.
    At the onset of deglaciation about 19,000 calendar years ago, a brief, at most 500-year long, glacio-eustatic event may have contributed as much as 10 m to sea level with an average rate of about 20 mm/yr. During the rest early Holocene, the rate of sea level rise varied from a low of about 6.0 – 9.9 mm/yr to as high as 30 – 60 mm/yr during brief periods of accelerated sea level rise
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Past_changes_in_sea_level

    Florida gets buried in floods every few decades so don’t buy real estate there. But that has nothing to do with global warming.

    This is a comical level of evasive denial! The past local floods are not the issue related to rising sea-levels on the National Geographic link. The on-going sea level rises are – with both permanent inundation and storm vulnerability over huge areas.

    The promises made in Paris will cost over $1 trillion per year

    This is just a silly accountant playing with wild guesses about money!

    and will result in a 1.3 cm reduction in sea level by the end of the century.

    There will be no “reductions” in sea levels.
    The plan is to try to reduce the rises to more manageable rates.
    The rises will not stop in 2100 simply because we have clocked into a new century!

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm
    The IPCC projections are derived from climate models. Using both tide gauge and satellite data, we can see that sea levels are rising. Unfortunately, sea level rise is already tracking the worst-case projections, as this graph shows:

    A balance sheet has profits and losses! He has no idea about the costs of environmental damage, or the benefits from returns on green technologies.

    @your link! Bjørn Lomborg, a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School, is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which seeks to study environmental problems and solutions using the best available analytical methods.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/23/bjorn-lomborg-climate-thinktank-close
    Bjorn Lomborg’s climate sceptic thinktank to close
    Copenhagen Consensus Centre, directed by the high profile opponent of tackling global warming, is to close in July after the Danish government cut its funding

    Well Guess what? A denialist (visiting) professor of business, who thinks he is competent to contradict environmental scientists, climatologists, and space agencies!

    Lomborg, working through the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, of which he is director, has been highly critical of proposals to tackle climate change. While accepting that climate change is happening, he argues that current policies for reducing emissions are not only failing but are a waste of money as well. Instead of trying to cut emissions we should focus on adaptation, he says, investing in renewable technologies and tackling poverty today.

    He is of course correct that the present CO2 reduction policies are inadequate (and need firm mandatory commitments to reduce emissions) and we will have to adapt to the unstoppable changes already created.

    But it is laughable to suggest that investing in renewable technologies is an alternative to cutting emissions, and works on the delusion that ignoring the devastation of a warming planet is something which we can adapt to in the long term in order to preserve to profits of carbon polluters.

    This is just an expression of ignorance planetary science, climatology, agriculture, palaeontology and biology, coming from someone whose only expertise is obviously limited to playing with monetary accounts!

    There is of course no limit to the people you can find on the internet who have opinions but no scientific skills or understanding, so if you want valid scientific information, you need to get it from scientists working in the relevant subjects.

    Perhaps your time would be better spent looking at some of the links you have been given rather than trying to find contarians who contradict the expert scientific consensus.

    Hint: –
    In order to make realistic forecasts of financial returns from green technologies – you need to know what those technologies are, and how the operational ones and pilot ones are performing!

    Likewise the costs of environmental damage, from floods, droughts, desertification, loss of melt-water for irrigation, crop failures, coastal inundation, more energetic storms, more weather mobility, etc.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 18, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    @your link – Instead, we should make green energy so cheap that nobody can resist it.

    Isn’t that what start-up subsidies for green technologies do?

    We should accept that trying to make fossil fuels too expensive to use will never work.

    Why? The carrot and stick systems are known to be effective methods. Withdrawing massive subsidies from fossil fuel industries would be a good start. The drop in global prices paid to mining and oil companies has already led to the cancellation of some foolish exploration projects which could have escalated CO2 pollution.

    Even with competitive cheaper power sources (like on-shore wind turbines), some people need a push to get them to move with the times and dump their obsolete polluting technology.

    When the pollution is wrecking extensive areas of the planet, it seems only reasonable to charge the cost of the damage to the people who are causing the problem!
    “The polluter must pay” is a well established legal position on many industrial processes.



    Report abuse

  • My jaw drops when I hear arguments like this. “We can’t do anything because it will cost too much.”

    The promises made in Paris will cost over $1 trillion per year

    An asteroid is on course to hit the earth in one year. We can deflect it, but it will cost billions of dollars. Would you say, “No. It will cost too much. Let it hit.” It’s going to wipe out humanity. A dinosaur extinction event.

    Global warming caused by burning fossil fuels is a slow moving asteroid. It has the same potential as the dinosaur asteroid. If tripping points are tipped, it may result in a mass extinction event. But you are saying that you’re prepared to gamble. You’re prepared to BET the lives of your grandchildren, and mine, that all of the credible scientists of the world are just making this stuff up so they can get scientific grants TO buy a better second hand Toyota Camry. Scientists don’t earn very much. Ken. That is one hell’ova punt.

    Ken. You are a billionaire. You are coming to my country to set up a new business. Your business makes wonderful stuff with a good market, but the byproduct of your process produces lead arsenate. You safely dispose of the lead arsenate and pass on the costs of this disposal to your customers. Text book economics.

    When you arrive in Australia, the firm of accountants you hire tell you you’re mad. They advise that you invest in a coal fired power station. The byproduct of a power station is not lead arsenate. It is CO2. Colourless. Odourless. Tasteless. No one can see it, smell it, or taste it. The accountants tell you that you don’t have to pass on the costs of cleaning up your pollution, CO2, because no one realizes it’s pollution.

    This is the hidden subsidy in burning all fossil fuels. You can just pump your pollution into the atmosphere for free. The very second that fossil fuel burners have to collect and store their pollution, at their cost, it becomes massively expensive. It can’t compete with any renewable energy. The very second this cost is factored into fossil fuel energy, your concerns about “The promises made in Paris will cost over $1 trillion per year “ disappears.

    Alan4D has pointed out that the fossil fuel industry has billions of dollars of subsidies from a myriad of governments all around the world. Remove those subsidies too. What now is the economics of burning fossil fuel for energy. We are a deluded species, that can make arguments about costs when the consequences may, I repeat MAY be catastrophic for the planet, not just Homo Sapiens.



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 18, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    The promises made in Paris will cost over $1 trillion per year

    Even if this figure was correct, rather than simply a figure plucked out of the air by someone who has no idea about the potential scale of planetary damage, $1 trillion is a pathetically small figure when looking at a planetary scale.

    The US spent between $4 and $6 trillion on creating the aftermath chaos of the Afghan and Iraq wars!

    Having said that – the chronically stupid, who persist in ploughing their money into carbon polluting businesses, ARE going to see substantial write-offs in coming years! (Shell has just written off £7.6 billion in Alaska!)



    Report abuse

  • David R Allen
    Nov 18, 2015 at 5:42 pm

    My jaw drops when I hear arguments like this. “We can’t do anything because it will cost too much.”

    Strange how bandied around figures somehow fail to count the potential costs of sea-level rises, and escalating drought, flood, and storm damage!

    I asked Ken Engelhart for an estimate of the costs of writing off cites in Florida and coasts around the world! (I am still waiting)

    Perhaps these figures for ONE storm might help a little!

    http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/sandyfinal101713.pdf

    Hurricane Sandy Page 35 – Construction impacts were based on the dollar value of construction needed to repair or replace residential, commercial, public facilities, inventories and infrastructure. These estimates were prepared by the states of New Jersey ($29.5 billion) and New York ($41.9 billion).
    Eleven months after the storm, FEMA reported that $13.5 billion had been allocated to six states.

    Of course this assumes the cities CAN be rebuilt – as in the case of temporary periodic storm damage, which would not be the case of total loss from permanent inundation or coastal erosion!

    Still! I suppose the US can rest easy in the knowledge that they have headless chickens at the helm – running around in circles concocting conspiracy theories while the increasingly energised climate powers up bigger better storms! 🙂



    Report abuse

  • Ken Engelhart
    Nov 18, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    The promises made in Paris will cost over $1 trillion per year

    This is just an expression of ignorance [of] planetary science, climatology, agriculture, palaeontology and biology, coming from someone whose only expertise is obviously limited to playing with monetary accounts!

    I wonder what monetary value this silly business professor put on the ocean acidification, which could kill 90% of fish stocks and block the CO2 carbonate deposition cycle on the ocean floor and cause other feed-back effects?

    http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/SPB37_OceanAcidification.pdf

    There is growing scientific evidence that, as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2)emissions, absorption of CO2 by the oceans has already noticeably increased the average oceanic acidity from pre-industrial levels. This global threat requires a global response.
    According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), continuing CO2 emissions in line with current trends could make the oceans up to 150% more acidic by 2100 than they were at the beginning of the Anthropocene.
    Acidification decreases the ability of the ocean to absorb additional atmospheric CO2, which implies that future CO2emissions are likely to lead to more rapid global warming.
    Ocean acidification is also problematic because of its negative effects on marine ecosystems, especially marine calcifying organisms, and marine resources and services upon which human societies largely depend such as energy, water, and fisheries.

    . . .Or of permafrost turning to swamp, draining, drying out, decomposing, and catching fire – releasing masses of methane into the atmosphere and producing as much CO2 as the human production for a year!

    http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp
    Permafrost comprises 24% of the land in the Northern Hemisphere, and stores massive amounts of carbon. As a result of climate change, permafrost is at risk of melting, releasing the stored carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and methane, which are powerful heat-trapping gases. In addition, permafrost is structurally important, and its melting has been known to cause erosion, disappearance of lakes, landslides, and ground subsidence. It will also cause changes in plant species composition at high latitudes.

    http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/natural-fix/page/3725.aspx

    Total plant biomass is estimated to average 40 t C per ha (Shaver et al. 1992).

    Below the active soil layer is a perennially frozen layer known as permafrost. Although it is difficult to estimate it is believed that carbon storage in permafrost globally is in the region of 1600 Gt, equivalent to twice the atmospheric pool (Schuur et al. 2008).

    Then there is the warming, causing drying out of tropical peatlands and forests!

    http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2015/10/video-indonesia-forest-fires-on-track.html

    Fires raging across the forests and peatlands of Indonesia are on track to pump out more carbon emissions than the UK’s entire annual output, Greenpeace has warned.

    As well as fuelling global warming, the thick smoke choking cities in the region is likely to cause the premature deaths of more than 100,000 people in the region



    Report abuse

  • @OP “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda,” Smith said.

    Smith is simply so ignorant of science, that he thinks scientists conspire to concoct silly false agendas and false conclusions, the way Republican politicians do!

    This is the sort of nonsense to be expected, when science-illiterates are given the job of chairing science committees!



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.