Join DeSmogBlog's James Hoggan at the Vancouver International Film Festival Oct. 6th

Any chance this could be a cross Canada tour? (he asked from Calgary)

Even climate scientists who AREN’T “climate skeptics” are complaining about politics producing bad science.(using data upside down.. gee, NEW science as practiced by warmists)(professor Atte Korhola entitled "Recession in Climate Science")

"when later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground.

It is a translation from a prominent Finnish scientist.

Toinen esimerkki on arvovaltaisessa Science-lehdessä hiljattain julkaistu tutkimus, jossa arktisten alueiden keskilämpötilojen todetaan olevan nyt korkeammalla kuin kertaakaan aikaisemmin kahteen tuhanteen vuoteen. Tulos saattaa hyvinkin olla totta, mutta tapa jolla tutkijat tähän päätyvät, herättää kysymyksiä. Proksi-aineistoja on on otettu mukaan valikoidusti, niitä on pilkottu, manipuloitu, silotettu ja yhdistelty – ja esimerkiksi omien kollegoideni aiemmin Suomesta keräämät aineistot on jopa käännetty ylösalaisin, jolloin lämpimät jaksot muuttuvat kylmiksi ja päinvastoin. Normaalisti tällaista pidettäisiin tieteellisenä väärennöksenä, jolla on vakavat seuraukset.

Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. It is concluded in the article that the average temperatures in the Arctic region are much higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. The result may well be true, but the way the researchers ended up with this conclusion raises questions. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined, for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences."

Since the MWP was warmer than it is now, it means we do not have to worry about the earth getting that warm again idiot. It also means that the temperature can rise or fall drastically, regardless of CO2, idiot.

Why bother talking about this guy? Apologies for re-posting an earlier comment I made about this guy. A deep thinker he most definitely is not, at least in terms of having detectable links to the real world.

May I suggest, dont get your scientific information from the blogosphere, which is about the only place left on Earth where there might seem like there is an argument about the correctness of scientific view about AGW. There is no debate in the scientific literature, which unequivocally supports the consensus (but is often more worrying than the IPCCs very conservative positions).

Funding to the deniers are provided by those with an overt agenda, frequently the oil and gas industry or front groups funded by them. These groups are clear that they exist to derail responses to AGW.

Conversely, science in general, is funded by public granting agencies that are very clear that they fund only excellent science and do not serve an agenda (but may address a theme: this is not the same thing). Unless you believe that the whole world is in on some kind of conspiracy, that is, which would be an interesting new take on conspiracy theories. That science is synthesized by the monumental efforts of the IPCC, who summarize ALL science published in the peer-reviewed literature, not just the stuff that Greenpeace wishes they would cover. If they did not do such a comprehensive job, Saudi Arabia, the US, China, Canada, etc. would never agree to endorse their findings.

This brings me to the most important point: there is fortune and glory for any scientist who can find an alternative explanation for the masses of independent observational evidence consistent with AGW. I think it’s fair to say that we would really like to be wrong about this science and find it was all a false alarm. The problem is, that this as yet undiscovered alternative explanation actually has to be plausible, and that is where the nonsense routinely coming from Monckton and his ilk falls down. It is also why you will not find them publishing their tirades in peer-reviewed literature. Reason and evidence indicate, rather mercilessly, that the consensus view is almost certainly correct and virtually all new evidence being published daily in the peer-reviewed journals around the world make that consensus stronger and more precise.

If Choi and Lindzen, for example, manage to publish a contrarian paper in the peer-reviewed literature (Monckton babbled a lot about this paper the other day, but managed to misrepresent its contents more or less totally), and they’re right, their views will propagate because their results will lead to better predictions than the previous approaches. But, if by some strange twist of fate, they are incorrect, well science isn’t perfect but is generally very, very good as self-correction. In that case, their paper will be refuted or fade away as a simple mistake.

“Successful prediction is the best evidence that science has an objective grip on reality.” -Gottfried and Wilson 1997 (Nature).

(BTW, how many times do people like Monckton and Ball have to be caught lying publicly before people stop defaulting to the view that they are always telling the truth? 10 times? 50 times? Really, IS there a threshold? The answer to this question, which I think is “There is no limit”, is very informative about the true nature of climate change contrarianism. It’s a political/sociological phenomenon, not a scientific one. The phenomenon allows those with Monckton’s or Ball’s flavour of personality disorder to flourish when they could never do so, and demonstrably never did so, as scientists.)

Now, argue with the arguments if you would like. I will not bother addressing the predictable subset of "rebuttals" that are just randomized reordering of previous insults. Or ignore me. The last strategy is the most sensible one in terms of dealing with Monckton. Not one national leader is left on Earth, not counting the president of the Czech Republic, apparently, who bothers to rake over the dregs of his tired talking points. Why do we?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html

looks like the repeated lies are from the UNs IPCC..

"In a coordinated effort to defend the refuted thesis, alarmed alarmists tendered a handful of supporting studies. Mann himself cheered those either attacking McIntyre and McKitrick or supporting his own reconstruction and dubbed them the “Hockey Team.” And the position of team forward and co-captain was bestowed upon Keith Briffa of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose temperature graphs, derived from Yamal, Russia tree ring data were heavily cited by the IPCC as supporting evidence of MBH’s assertion of unprecedented 20th century warming.

While studies reaffirming both the MWP and LIA continued to be published, congressional hearings and expert panels found MBH to be largely unsupported by studies relying on legitimate proxy data other than Briffa’s. Still, most alarmists continued (and continue) to defend the HS on principle.

Which in no way dilutes this plain truth: By the time most Americans received their first lesson in climate hysteria in the Albert Gore lecture hall that was the 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, the MBH chart the nutty professor stood before and offered as proof of impending doom was already held in disrepute by most serious persons of science.

Lest there be any doubt, why else would the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) -- notwithstanding the appointments of both Briffa and Overpeck as lead authors – give the graph short mention and exclude it entirely from the SPM?

It appeared the Hockey Team was being sent back to the minors.

That is -- for the moment."