Friends of Science Ads Are Wrong and Should Be Pulled

Tue, 2009-11-10 16:48Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Friends of Science Ads Are Wrong and Should Be Pulled

Isn’t Halloween over? Then why is Friends of Science (FOS) rising from the dead with a new radio campaign.

Or maybe its April Fool’s because the FOS ads are so inaccurate or misguided that they must be taken as a joke - or must be playing us all for fools.

The ads, currently running on radio stations across the country, make the claim that there, “Hasn’t been global warming for over 10 years.”

I put this to a couple of top climate scientists and both said, unreservedly, that this is an outright false statement. Both pointed to temperature data on NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that very clearly shows that temperatures over the last 10 years have been some of the hottest on record.

According to NASA, the five hottest years on record have been:

1) 2005

2) 1998

3) 2002

4) 2003

5) 2006

Then, there’s this graph of temperature measurements since 1880 that also clearly show it isn’t getting any cooler.

And if for some reason you don’t think NASA know what they’re talking about, there’s always the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which also measures global temperatue. Their measurements similarly debunk the claims made by the Friends of Science.

I know that media are hard up for ad revenue, but the Friends of Science ads are irresponsible; they  should be pulled immediately.

There are two ways this can be done.

The first (and the most effective) is to call or email the radio station when you hear the ad and demand that the ad be pulled AND that the station run a correction.

In fact one media personality is pretty much calling for this on his own station already.

Then, send a complaint to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which is in charge of regulating such things. Here’s the information you need to make such a complaint.

Now, before the trolls start complaining at the foot of this post, let’s deal with the complaints.

First, this is not an attack on “free speech.” This is “paid speech” and it’s wrong. If a company was advertising items for sale at a price they wouldn’t honor, their ad would be pulled. FOS are advertising a world that doesn’t exist, and recommending that we act on their erroneous counsel. It’s wrong, it’s dangerous and it should be stopped.

Second, there are surely some out there who will point to 1998 as the year that the Hadley Centre in the UK identifies as the hottest on record. Well, go slam your head against the evidence. “Statistics” and “damn statistics” should be left to people who are competent to deal with them. “Lies,” on the other hand, should be tracked down, rooted out and dismissed.

Comments

You say above: "Second, there are surely some out there who will point to 1998 as the year that the Hadley Centre in the UK identifies as the hottest on record. Well, go slam your head against the evidence."

The response to "slam your head against the evidence" is inappropriate here, because the evidence you cite doesn't refer to the HadCRUT dataset. It would surely be better to point out simply that trends are not determined by looking at the hottest year only. Different datasets may have slightly different values for various years, but all the datasets show that warming is still continuing.

There are good answers to this available at the UK met office, Hadley Center. In particular, they supply a FAQ at http://hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html, which has a good answer for the question "What are the differences between HadCRUT3, GISS and NCDC global temperature analyses?", explaining the reason for the very small differences that exist. It's largely to do with different techniques for handling regions with poor coverage, especially the Arctic.

They also answer "Q. Have global temperatures been falling since 1998?" with a plain NO. See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html

PS. What markup can we use in comments?

A plain NO?

It is unequivocally true that linear regression over the period January 1998 to September 2009 does not show a warming trend. So while there may be no significant cooling, the HADCRUv3 data show no evidence of recent warming.

If you look at that period only, using HadCRUT3, you get 0.000 degrees per year from the regression line. So yes, the answer to the question "Have global temperatures been falling since 1998?" is certainly no, any way you like to cut it.

The paper also points out that "Global warming has not stopped", and "Natural climate variations temporarily enhance or reduce observed warming".

That is, if you actually LOOK at the data, what you see is a warming trend, with short term variations up and down around the overall trend. This pattern is seen in all the datasets that have been mentioned. Statistically there's no basis in this data set or any of the others for the notion that global warming has "stopped".

Picking a trend line from the high point in 1998 is a way to get regression gradients that are less than the trend, because you are starting from a localized peak in the data; and you'd have to be pretty dashed clueless to use that as a basis for saying that global warming has stopped.

I guess that's because, although linear regression shows no warming (your slope of 0.000 shows this), it's because some skeptics "cherry-pick" an El Nino year to start etc.

Fine, I actually agree with you hence my original arguments above that 2002 is a better starting year and has a scientifically valid reason based on the Swanson and Tsonis hypothesis that there was a climate regime change 2001/2002.

And if linear regression starting in 2002 gains statistical validity, then we do have evidence for saying that warming has stopped.

Kevin, the "temp measurements since 1880" link to NASA/GISS is broken.

Noticed a few times in the last few days some older links I have to NASA/GISS read as "broken".

Re: the radio ads.... hardly surprising, all things considered. I'll pass that along to a couple of site's I post on.

Thanks for that!

More importantly, who is presently funding these guys and their ads? They are like ticks. Do they have to disclose their sources? What can be done that funding of a cult like this is no more tax deductible. Well, I guess a donation to the Jehovahs witnesses is also tax deductible.

In the Calgary oil patch, there is quite a lot of ignorance concerning this. All economists, most petro engineers and some geologists I talked about global warming actually share the opinion of the Friends of Science - whereas alone their name is already suspicious to me. In the case of engineers, it does not surprise me as their thinking is strongly one-dimensional and linear. Most geologists and engineers in the oil patch have batchelor degrees - and this also accounts for most of the Friends of Science. And hence these people have never performed independent, rigorous scientific research published in peer-reviewed magazines. On top of that opportunism appears to be part of the local culture, paired with Texas-style ultra-right wing attitudes. Alberta is the only place in Canada, where even the Conservatives are not right wing enough for the general public. And there is all sorts of wild religious belief going around, too. Now add all this up. Scary!

FoS SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD
From:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=142

Sallie Baliunas
www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=3

Chris de Freitas
www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1271

Madhav Khandekar
www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1115

Tim Patterson
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1163

Tim Ball
www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164

Also see:
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-change-denier-research

Despite numerous claims that global warming ended in 1998, 2001, or 2003, etc., the data shows these claims are groundless.

1) 19 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 25 years. The warmest years globally have been 1998 and 2005 with the years 2002, 2007, and 2003 close behind. The warmest decade has been the last ten years and the warming has been widespread globally.

2) If one "cherry-picks" a small subset of data, it may appear on the surface to show global cooling. However, if one looks at the long-term trends it is quite obvious that global temperatures have been increasing since 1880 and at a faster rate in the past two decades.

3) A change in the heat stored in the ocean is a better indicator of climate change than changes in atmospheric heat. The oceans have warmed significantly in recent decades and the trend is 50% greater than that reported by the IPCC in 2007. There is certainly no global cooling in the oceans!

4) Surface temperatures north of latitude 60 degrees are warming at an accelerated rate in the past few decades.

5) The Arctic was experiencing long-term cooling in the past 2000 years according to Milankovitch cycles until very recently. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of the 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.

6) Sea ice extent has been dramatically reduced since 1979.

7) Since measurements began in 2004, there has been a dramatic decrease in sea ice thickness.

8) The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to decrease.

9) 90% of worldwide glaciers are retreating.

Sources for this data:

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/works_cited.html

All of these dates you give are pretty recent and do not really matter because we have only been taking accurate temperature measurements for a short period. The fact is, the temperature has been higher than it is now and there has been more CO2 in the air. Sorry.

Let's see, Shooshman: you have revealed your age to be 23, and you work in packaging. I am guessing that you haven't got much background in science. Have you got ANY IDEA how much work has been carried out in this field by professional scientists for decades? You really, really need to do some reading. I have suggested it before, but I'll try again -- go to RealClimate.org, click on "Start Here", and learn a thing or two.

Fern Mackenzie

when you go to realclimate see if you can find any links to EMS or Fenton Communications while your there. You may also try to connect to the Tides Foundation. See what they all have in common. peace, rich

I don't have to be qualified to point out a known fact which is that there has been more co2 in the atmosphere and the temperature has been warmer. You keep telling me to go to realclimate. Let me guess, climate depot is horrible and nothing they say is true. Femack, didn't I tell you nothing would happen in copenhagen? Oh and how about the auto company bailout? Chrysler scrapped their entire electric car line and Ford, the only company not bailed out, turned a profit. With a year's notice, the U.S. government couldn't get enough swine flu shots for the country. And you people want a global government to set emission rates and think that we should blindly support a public option for universal healthcare. Looking at these examples of government failure, can you honestly say I shouldnt be very afraid of what they are trying to do?

At Climate Depot, you will see at the upper right "A project of CFACT". Click on it, and have a look at the staff list and the advisors list. Precious little background in climate science in evidence there. Now go to RealClimate and scroll down the panel on the right to "Contributors". Click on it and check out the qualifications of the people who write the RealClimate content. These guys know what they are talking about. The folks at RealClimate are real climate scientists. The folks at Climate Depot are not.

As for "world government", it just makes sense for the world to co-operate when dealing with an issue that affects the whole world. That doesn't translate to "world government" -- it means countries working together when they have a common goal.

Never mind. When I was 23 (32 years ago) I knew everything, too.

Fern Mackenzie

Real Climate's Schmidt 'anti-science exposed' 'Using an image of Lake Powell to indicate anything about climate change is perverse' - June 4, 2009 - Excerpt: As with so many other products generated by the AGW industry, Schmidt's book Climate Change: Picturing the Science is part of an ongoing effort to frighten the credulous. Its messages include: weather will kill you; our moment on Earth is unique; and climate did not used to change. Had you wanted to fulfill the responsibilities of an objective and hard-hitting journalist, you might have asked Schmidt about the image of Lake Powell on his book's cover. [...] Were you aware, may I ask, of the controversial nature of the damming of the Colorado River that led to Lake Powell? Environmentalists were and are appalled by this particular dam. It has changed an important piece of the American natural landscape. [...] Group-think has affected many societies negatively, and it has not disappeared during our own time. The fact that neither Mr. Schmidt's editor, nor his publisher, nor you, nor the photographer, nor Mr. Schmidt himself would stop to reflect on the oddity of this cover is enough to give one pause.

Schmidt issues 'Correction and apology' for incorrectly claiming permafrost melt was cause of collapse - June 2, 2009 - Excerpt: the cause of the collapse was the 1964 Earthquake rather than permafrost melt. We take complete responsibility for the mix-up in captioning and the erroneous attribution and we'd like to fully apologize.

AP reporter Borenstein calls out 'Real Climate' activists' Mann and Schmidt for 'misrepresenting interviews he did with each of them'- June 15, 2009

Real Climate touted Steig et al 'Antarctica is warming' study 'falsified' - May 29, 2009
Excerpt: After reading this latest statistical analysis, I think it is fair to conclude that the paper's premise has been falsified. [...] It is my view that all Steig and Michael Mann have done with their application of RegEm to the station data is to smear the temperature around much like an artist would smear red and white paint on a pallete board to get a new color “pink” and then paint the entire continent with it. It is a lot like “spin art” you see at the county fair.

Scientists, Data Challenge Real Climate Touted Antarctic 'Warming' Study - 'It is hard to make data where none exist' - January 21, 2009

The Truth about RealClimate.org - July 6, 2009
Excerpt: Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that.

Schmidt Admits Defeat in Climate Debate! Tough New York City crowd reverses view on man-made warming and converts to skepticism following debate featuring RealClimate.org's Schmidt– March 2007

RealClimate.org's Michael Mann incorrectly Cites Mt. Kilimanjaro as evidence of man-made global warming - Providence Journal - September 25, 2008

Reality Check: Mann's using years old Mt. Kilimanjaro talking points. Mann's “facts” on Kilimanjaro are outdated.

2008: Studies and scientists debunk Mann's 'new hockey stick' - Comprehensive report exposing Mann's research

UK Spectator: 'Hysterical' Real Climate's Michael Mann's Hockey Stick 'most discredited study in history of Science – February 7, 2009 – By Melanie Phillips

Pielke Jr.: Details RealClimate.org's & Others Engage in 'Character Assassination' of Skeptical Scientists'

Real Climate 'has clearly aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change' - January 14, 2005 - Excerpt: The site's focus has been exclusively on attacking those who invoke science as the basis for their opposition to action on climate change, folks such as George Will, Senator James Inhofe, Michael Crichton, McIntyre and McKitrick, Fox News, and Myron Ebell. Whether intended or not, the site has clearly aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change.

Real Climate's Schmidt attempts to 'explain why skeptics are simplistic' - June 1, 2009

Not again! Antarctic 'warming' author Steig claims Steve McIntyre has accused him of 'thinly-veiled accusations of scientific fraud' - June 3, 2009

History of Real Cilmate's activism and funding - Newsbusters.org - June 28, 2008

UN IPCC Scientist Richard Courtney Rips Real Climate Touted Antarctic Study - January 29, 2009
Excerpt: I am not surprised at Steig's behaviour that attempts to deflect attention from his paper and its content. I have written a letter to Nature complaining that Steig's paper contains a flaw so severe that Steig's paper should not have been published, and I suspect that others have written complaints to Nature concerning other errors in that paper, too.

excercise on that. there is plenty more.
and this is ONLY about a one world government

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-fraudulent-censorship-at-real.html
"more fraudulent censorship at realclimate

RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that.
from popular technology article. really want to see the connection to a one world gov check out fenton communications (directly related to EMS).

Real Climate Suffers from Foggy Perception by Henk Tennekes
By Henk Tennekes on Climate Science

Roger Pielke Sr. has graciously invited me to add my perspective to his discussion with Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate. If this were not such a serious matter, I would have been amused by Gavin’s lack of knowledge of the differences between weather models and climate models. As it stands, I am appalled. Back to graduate school, Gavin!

A weather model deals with the atmosphere. Slow processes in the oceans, the

this is really too easy. sorry, i'll stop now.

"UN IPCC scientist Richard Courtney". Richard Courtney isn't a scientist, and his 'contribution' to the IPCC was to act as an essentially self-invited reviewer of the report.

There you go, the fraudulent lies of certain climate skeptics.

Oh, and since when is 'censorship' "fraudulent"? (Short answer: it never is, unless you claim you do not censor, or that the censored message contained something different).

Shooshmon writes: "more co2 in the atmosphere and the temperature has been warmer"

Did you mean more CO2 and the temperature has been cooler? Of course more CO2 would cause a warmer temperature all other factors being equal.

If indeed you did have a typo and meant to say more CO2 and it was cooler millions of years ago, then, yes, you are correct. Of course, the sun was much less bright many millions of years ago so much higher CO2 values were required to reach today's temps.

I suggest you read:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-has-been-higher-in-the-past.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/High-CO2-in-the-past-Part-2.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.html

In fact, you should spend some time at Skeptical Science. John Cook does a wonderful job of pointing out the flaws in many of the skeptics' arguments.

Scott, I think everybody knows that a molecule of co2 gives of infrared. I'm saying that based on the fact that there may have been 5 times as much co2 during the time of the dinosaurs and the temperature was warmer, we can can conclude that we have a lot of time before we have to change energies. And I don't know if there is a relation or not but a lot of people throw this 450ppm number like its such a sure thing, yet the earth has tolerated a higher ppm.

shooshmon,

It does not take more than few degrees C change to cause catastrophic impacts. Most estimates are that there will be a 2 to 4.5 C increase by 2100 with 3 C being the most likely. An increase of 3 C would cause devastating impacts, especially on coastal communities and the poorest people.

You should read the IPCC WGII Reports and the Synthesis Report from the Climate Congress to learn about the impact of a slightly warmer world.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport/

Scott A. Mandia
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/

Ok well the countries of the world are not going to cooperate with each other. There is no point in doing anything if China isn't going to do anything. Half the world's steel is now made in China and they produce more emissions than any other country. All I can tell you is that I don't see why I should worry about global warming until atmospheric levels approach the levels they were at in the time of the dinosaurs. And I basically get my climate info from 2 people, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen who are both honest men. In fact, Roy Spencer recently critiqued a Lindzen study and found some questions.

False.

If you are relying on Lindzen and Spencer, you are taking an extremely narrow view of the issue.

As for the level of CO2 in the atmsophere during the time of the dinosaurs, conditions during that era are irrelevant. There was no human infrastructure to be affected, no 6+ billion mouths to feed, no need to adapt abruptly to desertification.

It's happening fast, we're to blame, and it's going to get much, much worse. We have painted ourselves into a very small corner, no wiggle-room. True, Copenhagen is looking grim, but that's not the end of the story. Do you really think everyone will just give up and walk away? Try reading the British newspapers online, particularly the Guardian or the Times. Check out the global picture, look beyond the U.S. The rest of the world is 'way out ahead of the United States on this issue.

. . . except Canada, of course! (Thanks Steve)

And Spencer found "some questions"? If Lindzen was on the other side of the spectrum, Spencer would have crucified him for making so many fundamental mistakes and his failure to explain why his results were so different from prior analyses. But anyone who understands sciencespeak immediately recognises Spencer essentially burning Lindzen's analysis to the ground: outright faulty methodology and very questionable assumptions.

What a top climatologist...even his fellow 'skeptics' feel the need to make it clear he is wrong! VERY wrong!

I would say even the warmest global dataset (GISS) doesn't show any warming since 2002, if you apply linear regression. Using the monthly anomalies from January 2002 to September 2009 (93 data points), the regression line is basically flat, no warming or cooling (-.0015). The start of 2002 is significant since it coincides with the climate regime shift postulated by Swanson and Tsonis (Swanson K. L., A. A. Tsonis (2009), Has the climate recently shifted?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L06711, doi:10.1029/2008GL037022). If the alleged radio ads changed the wording to "no warming since the start of 2002" I would have to agree with them.

The FOS assertion was that there "hasn't been global warming for over 10 years."

Oh really?

GISSTemp last 120 months (ten years):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/last:120/plot/gistemp/last:120/trend

You morph that into the last seven years and ten months (since 2002) in order to show a flat or negative slope:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2002/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend

In any case, the fact is neither show anything at all about any underlying climate trend, positive or negative, because neither time series is long enough to differentiate an underlying climate trend from annual or decadal natural variability.

Both FOS and you are trying to distract people with hand waving about weather variability, not climate.

I'm thinking the FOS radio ads should have said: "for the last 12 years (144 monthly data points) most global atmospheric temperature anomaly datasets show a slight cooling via linear regression analysis". That would have not addressed the climate vs. "weather" issue, and it would have cluttered the ad with needless technical information, but it would have been unequivocally true and thus not subject to any calls for retraction on the basis they are factually wrong.

The point I'm trying to make is that the earth didn't fall apart and it was habitable to dinosaurs, which need much more food than us. Your point about dessertification is idiotic, the Sahara Dessert is shrinking. You keep talking about the rest of the world being so far ahead of America, let's see what happens at Copenhagen. I'm betting nobody signs onto anything because nobody cares.

Well, I tried. If you refuse to look at the bigger picture and the real science, nothing and nobody will get through to your narrow little world.

is just an irrelevant distraction.

There were no Humans around when dinosaurs were. Neither were any of the plants or animals that humans presently eat.

What is relevant is that atmospheric CO2 levels are presently higher than they have been at any time during the last 2.6 miilion years or more, which covers the entire span of the current ice age AND the entire span of Human evolution from late Australopithecus though Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanerthalensis to Homo sapiens

And as for your assertion that "the Sahara Dessert is shrinking," it is in fact not shrinking, but moving northward as Hadley cell circulation shifts northward, as predicted by the greenhouse theory.

Jim, I don't think anyone can be certain that co2 levels weren't higher in such a large time frame of millions of years. But I appreciate the fact that you address this because I think it is worth discussing. I just don't see why if the dinosaurs lived in a hotter, co2eier environment we cannot do the same.

What would we eat?

I clearly gave my agreement to a statement different than FOS. See my last sentence above. My contention is a simple statement of the fact no empirical evidence shows any atmospheric warming since the start of 2002. You can argue that nearly 8 years of monthly data does not represent climate, only weather variability, but obviously not everyone thinks so as I've noted in my reference to the Swanson and Tsonis paper.

the length of time needed to differentiate an underlying trend in climate from natural variability is a property of the data itself:

See: Results on deciding trends
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html

Which is why the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and just about every other meteorological and climatological agency defines that length of time as around 30 years.

The real answer is nothing. Thirty years might be the recent frequency of recent PDO shifts but other than that there's no statistical magic quality in the number 30. A stronger trend would be discernable in a shorter period of time. However since the current warming appears easily overwhelmed, it "disappears into the noise" and I'll guess that's why scientists have hung their hat on the magic 30 year number.

30 years has been statistically determined to be a more appropriate period for climate research, such that it includes several cycles of known natural variability, in particular solar cycles, but also ENSO cycles (not very regular).

Robert Grumbine's statistical analysis showing how 30 years is determined by the data itself, did you klapper?

In one sense I agree with you Jim. The signal is very weak relative to the noise, hence the need for 30 years to see it reliably. However, if that is true, and if Swanson and Tsonis are right we won't know about the alleged climate regime change of 2001/2002 until 2032. I think actually long before that we'll know if there was a regime change in 2002.

From Swanson and Tsonis (2007):

"Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing."

That's the problem with the FoS: they don't want to see the big picture - for which the 2002-2009 trend is essentially irrelevant (as much as the, let's say, 70s trend is irrelevant).

The 2002-2009 trend will be interesting. As it stands, the T increase for 2009 will be 0.1C and the current El Ninjo will continue with more T increase for 2010. The FoS will have even more pain finding cooling in the 2002-2010 short term trend, their last lifeboat on the ocean of cherry trends.

Remember January of 2007, and how Phil Jones of the CRU said 2007 was going to be the warmest year ever (thanks to the El Nino that started in late '06)? It didn't happen, did it?

Wow. That's all of 1.5% of the time since the end of the last Ice Age.
Taking this period as a whole temperatures have been warmer than the present almost throughout (e.g. Houghton, J.T., et al (Eds.).  1990.  Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment.  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK., Esper, J. and Schweingruber, F.H.  2004.  Large-scale treeline changes recorded in Siberia.  Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029).
And while the Earth was simmering in this preindustrial heat, deserts shrank and civiisations flourished. Much like they do today in fact.
Yes the Sahara IS shrinking (Nicholson,S.E.  2001.  Climatic and environmental change in Africa during the last two centuries.  Climate Research 17: 123-144.) and global primary productivity (photosynthesis) is increasing (Young, S.S. and Harris, R. 2005. Changing patterns of global-scale vegetation photosynthesis, 1982-1999. International Journal of Remote Sensing 26: 4537-4563).

You demand references, Dennis, I can provide them!

Reclaiming the World of Real Science: Heartland Institute Vs Real Climate

By Lubos Motl, The Reference Frame on SPPI

The Heartland Institute organizes a climate conference in March that is, unlike the conferences that you usually hear about in the media, open to climate skeptics and experts regardless of their political opinions or overall sentiments about the relationship between Nature and human civilization. The organizers have sent invitations to many kinds of climate experts, including some of the well-known champions of the climate alarm. These invitations have provoked a hysterical reaction from RealClimate.org. The profoundly concerned scientists describe all the scientists who will attend - before they actually know who they are - as being corrupt by the “evil” oil industry, not being scientists at all, as people being paid concrete amounts of money to fabricate papers and talks, and so on. Their talks are described as “tobacco science”. The RealClimate “group” explains that the participants are not scientists at all - before they actually know who is attending - and they encourage the participants to skip the talks and enjoy a nice hotel in New York instead. They wouldn’t hear any science at all, so it is important that the participants can’t hear the talks…

Their smear job is so blatant, hostile, and inconsistent with any kind of a reasonable, balanced, open-minded, or scientific analysis of a question that I can’t really believe that there exist people who are intelligent enough to learn how to read but antediluvian enough to be influenced by this incredibly transparent propaganda.

Over at Real Climate, AP reporter Seth Borenstein calls out Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt for misrepresenting interviews he did with each of them. Blogs are useful for holding the media accountable, but the directionality can work the other way as well.

One group of workers in the field of climate change has managed to make global warming appear worse than we originally thought. This group includes Michael Mann, Eric Steig, Caspar Ammann and Steven Stefan Rahmstorf. They are all also contributors to the Real Climate weblog, a compendium of global warming information that strongly supports the theory that humans are endangering the planet by emitting CO2 and warming the planet. thomas fuller

Who do you refer the term "champions of the climate alarm" to? Scientists? Sorry, you disqualify yourself. Heartland institute, not my kind of beer.

...has run in the past with the explicit subtitle "disproving anthropogenic global warming" and included talks in which it was claimed AGW was a socialist conspiracy to create a communist world government. In fact, the Heartland institute endorses a presentation by Christopher Monckton in which he claims something similar.

No self-respecting scientist would go even close to such a conference organised by such an organisation.

these responses were supposed to be part of an answer to fern's response about realclimate further down the column. there are many others. google realclimate BS haha and the list keeps on giving. wake up marco. its not a hidden agenda any longer. you dont have to hide anymore. this is about control. wake the f up.

Can't handle the truth about the Heartland institute, and thus attack Realclimate. What is it with deniers and their inability to react on-topic and not admit their heroes being part of an immensely questionable organisation?

i was on topic. ferny decided to give someone an assignment to find out the truth about this bs and read realclimate. i did a search about them and came up with about three pages of dishonest stuff they produce. i was relaying this info to the "new student" . maybe ferny would read it as well. none of these were my quotes. what is it with alarmists and their inability to see the light. green-agenda.org will let you read about your heroes. i'll keep reading about mine.

How about you link to one of those pages and point out exactly what you consider to be dishonest.

Or are you just making a baseless smear?

just scroll down PAL. after ferny remark. i list many.maybe you can go thru them and remark on the points. start with steig and his conclusion on the antarctic which might not be listed. of course mann and his hockey stick is still in play with you bats so to convince you will be difficult.

Pages