Scientists Suggest that Swindle Fudged Data

Thu, 2007-05-03 09:16Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Scientists Suggest that Swindle Fudged Data

Two more scientists have stepped forward to criticize the U.K. TV documentary, the Great Global Warming Swindle , for misleading viewers with unsubstantiated conclusions about climate change.

Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of the Danish National Space Center, and Nathan Rive, a Research Fellow and the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO) in Oslo, Norway, say the only way the program could have produced at least one of its graphs (inset) was by making up the data.

Although scientists have denounced the content of the climate change denial documentary, and several of the “experts” who participated in the production (e., Tim Ball , Fred Singer) work as lobbyists for the energy industry, there is still a movement to have the Swindle shown in schools alongside the award-winning Inconvenient Truth. There are even those who suggest that asking that the Swindle be corrected or removed to a dusty shelf are guilty of censorship (Hi Amy).

Let's hope this latest round of criticism finally convinces school officials that this docu-commentary is actually an agenda-driven piece of propaganda that has no place being presented as a reasonable counterpoint to the proven science in an Inconvenient Truth.


“… the proven science in an Inconvenient Truth.” That’s a good one, Richard. LOL Keep ‘em coming. We can all use more humour in our lives.

–J. Dowell, Denieralist

“Proven science” indeed! That’s rich. “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” – Phil Jones in a reply to climate skeptic Warwick Hughes in February 2005 as confirmed and reported by climatologist Hans Vans Storch at a National Academy of Sciences hearing March 2 on “Scientific Efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years.”
No, he meant: “Why should *I* make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

As opposed to .. you know Hughes doing all the research himself, ‘cause we’re all still waiting for research that proves a natural cause.

I guess it’s just too hard for some people.

I must have missed the memo where somebody successfully challenged Gore's science. I know there is some snivelling about whether Kilimajaro is melting because of warming or because of the devastation of the local forest (which, by the way, contributes to warming), but I'm interested in your pruportedly substantial scientific expertise on the rest of the show …

Here is what Richard Lindzen of MIT has written about An Inconvenient Truth:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the Earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.”

Various scientists and science writers have compiled lists of Gore’s goofs. Here’s a sampling of where they think the Goracle is either wrong or misleading:
–He promoted the now-debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate.
–He attempted to minimize the significance of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
–He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most scientists believe does not exist.
–He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930s were as warm or warmer.
–He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note that it is only true of a small region, and the vast bulk of Antarctica has been cooling and gaining ice.
–He erroneously claimed the ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices.
–He made assertions of massive future sea level rise way outside of any supposed scientific “consensus” and not supported in even the most alarmist literature or by the IPCC.

“I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands has fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific.” – Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, N.Z.
–He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa’s Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits.
–He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving.

Consider yourself “memoed”, Richard.

Boy this is tedious:

Various scientists and science writers have compiled lists of Gore's goofs. Here's a sampling of where they think the Goracle is either wrong or misleading:
–He promoted the now-debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove man's overwhelming impact on the climate.

The debunking of the hockey stick is, in fact, bunk .

–He attempted to minimize the significance of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

“He attempted to minimize?” Gimme a break. Tim Ball, et al, throw these terms around as if they have just discovered two phenomena that have escaped the attention of the world's scientific community. As your reviled hockey stick demonstrates, relative to the current warming trend, the Medieval Period and the Little Ice Age appear to be minimally important.

–He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most scientists believe does not exist.

I actually agree that Gore leaned a little heavily on this point, leaving himself open to just this kind of criticism. At the same time, the best climate models show an increase in Katrinas being a big feature of a changed future. We can't prove the New Orleans link to climate change, now or probably ever. But we'd be thick as the Vostok Ice Core to ignore the obvious warning. Here something for people who are actually interested in the science on the link between hurricanes and climate change.

–He asserted that today's Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930s were as warm or warmer.

I'd be entertained to see fresh data on this. It seems to me that the latest is showing unprecedented warming.

–He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note that it is only true of a small region, and the vast bulk of Antarctica has been cooling and gaining ice.

How do you peddle this hokum? The data shows ice getting thicker in the centre of Antarctica and Greenland because it's snowing more (probably because it's warmer). But the net loss of ice is huge.

–He erroneously claimed the ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices.

See my original post.

–He made assertions of massive future sea level rise way outside of any supposed scientific “consensus” and not supported in even the most alarmist literature or by the IPCC.

A few people have strayed into the swamp on this question; Gore doesn't seem to be among the worst offenders. Again, though, for someone who thinks of a planning horrizon that goes beyond the next election cycle, sea level rise is going to be an issue - quibble if you will about how big an issue.

“I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands has fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific.” – Dr. Chris de Freitas , climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, N.Z.

–He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving.

I understand that part of the polar bear population is indeed thriving - the garbage bears in the Churchill town dump are robust, numerous and scary as ever - but that doesn't prove that bears are not drowning in significant numbers. It only proves that you don't want to talk about the bears that are drowning, any more than you want to talk about the shoddy, industry funded claptrap that passed for science in the Swindle.

Michael Mann will be touched, I am sure, that there is still at least one person out there who still believes in his hokey stick.

The “drowning polar bear” story is a bogus one. No study was ever done on this; in fact, the drowned polar bears were observed only after a major storm had swept through the particular area.

Almost all polar bear populations in Canada are thriving, not only the garbage munching bears in Churchill.

While “An Inconveninet Truth” may not be untrue, portions of it are presented without proper context, with the effect of distorting the science, and misinforming the public. Alarmism, as they say. Regards,

Paul G said: “Almost all polar bear populations in Canada are thriving, not only the garbage munching bears in Churchill”.

Do you deliberately try to mislead us Paul, or are you just lazy and can’t be bothered to check sources?

“Of the 13 Canadian polar bear populations, the current trends for the 11 populations not known to be severely reduced from historic levels are:

* five populations declining,
* five populations stable and
* one population is data deficient.

In the next 10 years, five polar bear populations have an estimated high/very high risk of decline, six have a low/very low risk and there is currently no estimate for two populations”.

Found at:

That means that greater than 50% of the Canadian polar bear populations are in trouble.

Ian Forrester

You’re cherry picking to promote unfounded alarmism again Ian.

Here is a quote from Dr. Mitchell Tayor, one of Canada’s foremost polar bear biologists:

“Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

And a headline from the CBC:

“Polar bear worries unproven, expert says”

And a quote from The Scotsman:

“According to new research, the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade.”

And the Inuit say:

“Polar bear numbers rising, Inuit elders tell wildlife board”

Now entertain us some more with your “Myth of the Drowning Polar Bears (Due to AGW)”. Regards,

Paul, if every reference you find supporting a thesis points to the same person then check to see if he may have an ulterior motive. The area which Taylor studies is the most populated region of the arctic where hunting of polar bears was rampant. The population nose dived up to the 1970’s (surprise surprise, when hunting was banned populations rebounded) The Inuit are lobbying for increased hunting limits. Surprise suprise along comes a biologist who thinks this is a great idea and he writes a few reports showing that there are way too many polar bears so let the Inuit hunt more of them.

Then along comes AGW and the effect it is having on polar bears.…. get my drift?

There are a lot more reports confirming what the WWF are reporting than are supporting Taylor.

Ian Forrester

You’re no expert on polar bears Ian, so don’t pretend to be one like the WWF also pretends to be.

Dr. Mitch Taylor is a well respected polar bear scientist with far more expertise then the WWF.

What peer reviewed science has the WWF publiched on polar bears?

And can you provide me with the peer reviewed science confirming an increase in drowned polar bears? Regards,

Paul, I’ve never claimed to be an expert on polar bears. However, I’m pretty good at sorting rubbish from facts in most areas. It is pretty easy to distinguish a good science paper from a paper written with a political or economic agenda.

I will not repond to your request for additonal information since Carl has done an excellent job for me.

Ian Forrester

Of course you won’t respond to requests for peer-reviewed articles on the supposed dire status of polar bears because you can’t supply any. Regards,

You see what you are up agaisnt with Desmoggers, Paul. Everyone who produces data that does not support AGW hysteria and alarmism has ulterior motives. They are in the pay of big oil or they are defending some other sort of commercial activity, in this case Inuit hunting rights. This is a constant theme of (poor beleaguered) Ian Forrester. No wonder Littlemore and his crew admire Ian so much. He does their work for them.

This Demsogger tactic is not a surprising stance when you look at the purpose of this web site, which is operated by David Suzuki’s PR firm. The web site was obviously created to marginalize all the so-called leading deniers by smearing their reputations or calling their motives into question so others will dismiss what they say.

Once they have accomplished this task, they can pretend that the science is settled and there is a consensus because only industry shills and nutcakes question the AGW hypothesis.

Fortunately these shabby efforts do not seem to be working because people on their denier hit list keep turning up in the media to question AGW.

Ask the Experts: Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing?
Answered by Dr. Andrew Derocher

“Some recent media reports have cited inaccurate data concerning polar bears. They mistakenly state that polar bear populations are increasing. We turned to Dr. Andrew Derocher, a member of our Advisory Council, for clarification. Dr. Derocher is a polar bear scientist with the University of Edmonton in Canada and the Chair of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.

Question: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed that the polar bear be listed as a threatened species. Yet some news reports state that polar bear numbers are actually increasing. For example, the following paragraph appeared on the Fox News Web site:

“In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it’s 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent.”

If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population declines?

Answer from Dr. Derocher: The various presentations of biased reporting ignore, or are ignorant of, the different reasons for changes in populations. If I thought that there were more bears now than 50 years ago and a reasonable basis to assume this would not change, then no worries. This is not the case.

The bottom line here is that it is an apples and oranges issue. The early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess—there is no data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses. We are sure the populations were being negatively affected by excess harvest (e.g., aircraft hunting, ship hunting,self-killing guns, traps, and no harvest limits). The harvest levels were huge and growing. The resulting low numbers of bears were due only to excess harvest but, again, it was simply a guess as to the number of bears.

After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the 1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased— there is no argument from anyone on this point. Some populations recovered very slowly (e.g., Barents Sea took almost 30 years) but some recovered faster. Some likely never were depressed by hunting that much, but the harvest levels remained too high and the populations subsequently declined. M’Clintock Channel is a good example. The population is currently down by over 60% of historic levels due only to overharvesting. Some populations recovered as harvests were controlled, but have since declined due to climate-related effects (e.g., Western Hudson Bay). In Western Hudson Bay, previously sustainable harvests cannot be maintained as the reproductive and survival rates have declined due to changes in the sea ice.

At this point, we lack quantitative data for an overall assessment of trend in Canada or Nunavut as a whole. There is, however, very strong evidence for a decline in Western Hudson Bay and the Southern Beaufort Sea based on quantitative studies. More recently, scientists working in the Southern Hudson Bay have reported a major decline in the condition of polar bears. A decline in condition was the precursor to the population decline in Western Hudson Bay. There is clear suggestion of a population decline due to over-harvest in Baffin Bay, Kane Basin and possibly Norwegian Bay.

The point is that you cannot simply summarize the status of polar bears—the information lies in the individual populations. You cannot put the various time periods together into a simplistic overview. Sea ice is declining but again, it is not declining the same everywhere. Some small areas of multi-year ice may improve habitat for polar bears. This latter point, however, does not mean that the habitat in all areas will improve and the predictions are very clear that the primary habitat of polar bears is at risk.

We can control harvests through management and these efforts are underway for several of the over-harvested populations. So far, I have not seen any movement on serious consideration of reducing greenhouse gases in North America (or other countries with few exceptions). Climate warming is not under control and I do not see the management changes coming to effect the needed changes in climate change emissions.

Look at the messengers: lobby groups for big business say there is no problem. Yes, conservation groups moved the issue forward for listing under the Endangered Species Act but this was already an issue that was founded on scientific information. The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group was moving on a Vulnerable designation (the same as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act) before anybody heard of actions from environmental groups. Sea ice change and habitat loss is the key driving force. Ignore the bears for a moment and look at the evidence for sea ice change: NASA is a key player in looking at the actual decreases in sea ice. It is an easy matter to put the dots together: no habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears. This never was an issue of polar bears alone. The only effective conservation approach is to protect the habitat and this is an issue of climate change. You can distort the issue any way you so desire. At the end of the day, the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species follows shortly thereafter (or before).

Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things”.

I posted a list of references yesterday but it never got through the spam filter. Once again I will repeat that if you only read right wing blogs you will only get right wing points of view. The majority (not all) of these have biases of varying sizes. Anyone who is in the consulting business knows that you check around for someone who mirrors your view and then you hire him to support your already defined position.

I agree that it is getting harder and harder to find expert sources who are not biased but with perseverance it can be done. Usually University and Government employees are the least biased and private sector “think” tanks are the worst.

Ian Forrester

As I’ve said before, you can provide no peer-reviewed science that polar bears are threatened with extinction.
And no peer-reviewed sceince that more polar bears are drowning.

So an intelligent person can safely say, that according to the peer-reviewed science, polar bears are not threatened with extinction. Regards,

Paul G said: “you can provide no peer-reviewed science that polar bears are threatened with extinction”.

Since both Carl and I have presented ample evidence to back claims that a number of the populations are in fact declining, you start talking about extinction. No where in this thread have I claimed that polar bears are heading for extinction. Stick to what is being discussed.

As for the peer reviewed paper on polar bears drowning then you obviously haven’t looked very hard.

Here it is:

“Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea”, Polar Biology, vol 29, 681-687, 2006.


“During aerial surveys in September 1987–2003, a total of 315 live polar bears were observed with 12 (3.8%) animals in open water, defined for purposes of this analysis as marine waters >2 km north of the Alaska Beaufort Sea coastline or associated barrier islands. No polar bear carcasses were observed. During aerial surveys in early September, 2004, 55 polar bears (Ursus maritimus) were seen, 51 were alive and of those 10 (19.9%) were in open water. In addition, four polar bear carcasses were seen floating in open water and had, presumably, drowned. Average distance from land and pack ice edge for live polar bears swimming in open water in 2004 (n=10) were 8.3±3.0 and 177.4±5.1 km, respectively. We speculate that mortalities due to offshore swimming during late-ice (or mild ice) years may be an important and unaccounted source of natural mortality given energetic demands placed on individual bears engaged in long-distance swimming. We further suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues”.

Don’t you ever get embarassed about making all those errors? Hope your job doesn’t require you to make too many critical judgement calls.

Ian Forrester

There are a number of errors in the assumptions you that you draw from those links. For starters I do agree with the assessment that there is no current sign of polar bear extinction. The link below highlight another cbc interview with Dr. Taylor where he highlights a population that is decreasing and adjusting management practices.

Dr. Taylor also states that

Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic.

The absence of panic is attributed to his conclusion that populations in other regions are growing. However. Dr. Taylor is also a climate change denialist of sorts hosting this website so that might lead some to question his overall reliability. Though he is a biologist so perhaps that credibility is better.

Polar bears have been considered a threatened species I believe back in the early 1900’s mostly due to over exploitation of the species though hunting during that time period. The bear populations have been in recovery since primarily due to changes in the management practices and the quota system.

Modern growth of some populations has been suggested though modeling of the population and hunting quotas are based on catch per unit effort or fly over estimation. Where as changes in the dynamics of the bears habitat can change how much effort is needed in hunting one, i.e. if the bears are spending more time on land there is greater likelihood of running into a human hunter. Authors such as Stirling believe that this is leading to an overestimation of population size. In addition a market decline in seal products has all but stopped hunting in some places, causing a surge in seal populations allowing bears to be the sole predator and not having to compete with humans. I hate using internet sources but I couldn’t find a journal one with a quick search

A number of authors have written on the effects of warming and predictions for the bear population. Journal articles such as

Stirling I. and Parkinson C. 2006. Possible effects of climate warming on selected populations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic. Artic 59(3) 261-275.

Where by they state that

Polar bears depend on sea ice for survival. Climate warming in the Arctic has caused significant declines in total cover and thickness of sea ice in the polar basin and progressively earlier breakup in some areas. However, long-term data on the population size and body condition of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay, as well as population and harvest data from Baffin Bay, make it clear that those two populations at least are more likely to be declining, not increasing. While the ecological details vary in the regions occupied by the five different populations discussed in this paper, analysis of passive-microwave satellite imagery beginning in the late 1970s indicates that the sea ice is breaking up at progressively earlier dates, so that bears must fast for longer periods during the open-water season. Thus, at least part of the explanation for the appearance of more bears near coastal communities and hunting camps is likely that they are searching for alternative food sources in years when their stored body fat depots may be depleted before freeze-up, when they can return to the sea ice to hunt seals again. We hypothesize that, if the climate continues to warm as projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), then polar bears in all five populations discussed in this paper will be increasingly food-stressed, and their numbers are likely to decline eventually, probably significantly so. As these populations decline, problem interactions between bears and humans will likely continue, and possibly increase, as the bears seek alternative food sources. Taken together, the data reported in this paper suggest that a precautionary approach be taken to the harvesting of polar bears and that the potential effects of climate warming be incorporated into planning for the management and conservation of this species throughout the Arctic.

Big question becomes if polar bears can adapt to rate of change currently occurring in the artic, it’s a big question, and there is no answer. If they can’t, then it’s likely they will be extinction bound…….

Thanks Carl, you have saved me the trouble of fishing out similar reports.

There are also a number of reports showing that even though the populations are steady the overall health of the individual bears is declining due to poor nutrition.

Some people will just never accept facts.

Ian Forrester

Carl states:

=== “For starters I do agree with the assessment that there is no current sign of polar bear extinction.” ===

Agreed. And there is no peer-reviewed science that predicts the extinction of polar bears, the same as there is no peer-reviewed science supporting the notion that more polar bears are drowning.

Therefore, alarmists propagating the claim that “all the polar bears could go extinct”, are not supported by the science and should be ignored on this particular claim. Regards,

I only say no sign of extinction because at the moment there isnt, but polar bears are not a threatened species for no reason at all. The threatened definition puts it one step away from being endangered. Now, its quite clear that at least 1 bear population is in decline from climate change. As the bears ecology and life style is well connected to the presence and absence of sea ice.

Seal hunting and seal populations have exploded in some places due and have provided bears with increased food sources in other places, and there is concern from Canadian Wildlife services (See Stirling and Lunn) that bears are increasing their time spend on land as less ice is present leading to over estimation of populations.

It cannot be said with definity that the bears are going extinct but there is documented and clear concern that climate change is the biggest threat to the populations. The notion that they could go extinct is definitely a possbility but if they are unable to adapt to a rapidly changing environment. The polar bear study group also concludes that

Future challenges for conserving polar bears and their Arctic habitat will be greater than at any time in the past because of the rapid rate at which environmental change appears to be occurring.

There is no doubt the concern for the bears.

John, the IPCC features the “Hockey Stick” (it’s “hockey”, not “hokey”, can’t you spell?) in its latest report of the science, the AR4:

See Chapter 6 on Paleoclimate, pages 466-483. The chapter debunks McIntyre and McKitrick’s allegations, as well. Page 467 features the MBH graph.

You fools on here still denying the scientific facts and supporting the propagandist Swindle programme are imbeciles. The people who come on this site know you are funded by oil. Glad youre wasting your time though. Hope you can sleep at night knowing you are trying to kiss your kids’ futures goodbye.
You and (poor beleaguered) Ian Forrester keep telling me I get money from oil companies. If this is true, my cheques must have gone astray. Perhaps you can tell me which oil company(ies) is (are) paying me so I can follow-up? So far Ian hasn’t been much help in me actually getting my hands on the money he says I am making. I hope you can do better, Martin.

Maybe they don’t know where you stay. I don’t think there is postal delivery in the caves up in the Gatineau Hills. It makes you even look more stupid when you admit that you don’t get paid for promoting the rubbish that Ball, Singer, Michaels, Soon, Carter, Balliunas et al. get paid for. They must just love you and cheer after your every post. Leaves more money for their sleazy pockets.

Ian Forrester

Or is Ian Forrester a pseudonym for Littlemore or Hoggan? Could you be (Heavens to Murgatroyd!) Emily? Fess up Ian, who are you, really and who pays you to post all this AGW hooey?

John, the reason I will call out all the nonsense you and others put out is that I hate to see people distorting the truth. It is lying and fraud, very serious offences in my book. You have shown that you are very capable of lying to distort the truth. Remember your post about the Rideau Canal? You lied about that then said that you found the information in the Ottawa Citizen. John, two lies do not cancel each other out, they just show that you are completely unprincipled (did you not think that I would check in the Citizen to see if what you were saying was true or not?).

I happen to lead a life and have a career where truth and honesty are number one. You of course would not understand that.

Ian Forrester

John Dowell,

For the record, I find that the DeSmogBlog is good for my reputation, so I sign everything I can. James Hoggan cleverly conceals his posts under the name “Jim Hoggan.” He uses this pseudonym in his personal life as well, to distinguish his friends from people like you. As to Emily, she'd be unforgettable no matter how she signed her name.

Ian Forrester, as far as I know, is the name used by Ian Forrester, one of my favourite DSB contributors and someone who just took you and yours down cold on your imaginary polar bear exposé.

One has the word “Swindle” in its title and that describes the contents exactly.

The other has “Truth” and it is 100% correct.

The two Johns above haven’t a clue as to the difference between swindle and truth. I just hope that neither of you are involved in education of young minds since you so distort the truth. Your knowledge of science is so lacking I don’t know how you have the audacity to even comment on stuff which is so obviously beyond your capabilities.

Ian Forrester

“… the proven science in an Inconvenient Truth.”

When was the theory of anthropogenic global warming proven, Richard? I would be most intrigued to know this, and so would a lot of other people, I’m sure.

Where can we find this conclusive proof, that you claim exists?

Or did you just make that up?

Oh for the love of God, Eco-Hitler, why must you always attack the writing of an article here, rather than trying to deal with the content of its message? What do you have to say about the scientists who say that some of the content in the Swindle has been fabricated? Sorry for the rant, but I’m getting tired of seeing you only post superficial, inflammatory questions. Try answering them for a change!

“Oh for the love of God, Eco-Hitler, why must you always attack the writing of an article here, rather than trying to deal with the content of its message?”

Odd that every single post on this website does precisely that. Yet you don’t seem to complain in that case.

“Sorry for the rant, but I’m getting tired of seeing you only post superficial, inflammatory questions.”

Interesting. Littlemore makes the claim that the science in Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is proven, and you find my request for this alleged proof “superficial” and “inflammatory”.

Very revealing, indeed.

I think you will have to wait for your answer, Eco-Hitler. I am not aware of any scientist who can point to a human influence on climate change that is in any way discernible from the background of natural forcings.

The AGW cultists thought they had their proof with Mann’s hockey stick but after McKitrick and McIntyre got through with it, you don’t hear about it so much anymore. Seems there was this slight problem (among many) of it producing a hockey stick no matter what data was fed into it.

Desmoggers are loyal if nothing else so Richard Littlemore stands by his Mann.

The Hockey Stick is still valid and accepted.

Here you go, EgoHitler and John DowellD

“…The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the “Hockey-Stick” shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis (“PCA”), are readily seen to be false , as detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected Nature criticism demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data that were infilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the putative ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known reconstructions), is an artifact of the censoring by the authors of key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature.

The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, “Journal of Climate” by Rutherford and colleagues (2004)…”

And the Hockey Stick for Dummies

Well here we are again, as if this site is a haven for deniers instead of the place the deniers get outed - deSmogBlog is a A VOICE for deniers!! It seems to only take one to throw off the whole conversation. We have an uphill battle for truth once again. The point that keeps getting missed is that “the action that we must take for climate change” is the same as “the action we must take for pollution that is affecting our health”, both being good reasons but only one is sufficient reason - TO REDUCE OUR FOSSIL FUELS EMISSIONS. So stop distracting from truth and get on the damn bus to reduce FF emissions, ‘cuz there are two good reasons to do so. Pollution, or global warming - both good reasons to reduce emissions [and embrace alternative energy]

I think the inclusion of air pollution is one of the strong points of the Tory plan. Polluted air is a real problem that requires our attention. The strategies for cleaning up the air and tackling alleged AGW may have some overlap but they are not entirely the same. Money wasted on the notion that tinkering with CO2 emissions can alter the course of climate change could, in my view, be better spent cleaning up our air and water.

Yeah, let’s develop alternative energy sources so we can cut back on fossil fuels as much as possible for the sake of cleaner air and to reduce our (the West’s) need to buy oil from people who hate our guts. Maybe we should go nuclear, which is cleaner but has disposal problems. No matter how we create the energy we need to run our society, there are going to be side effects. I guess we just have to choose the least damaging.

Geez, with those remarks I may have jeopardized the income from big oil that Ian says I am getting.

Freshly minted college graduates won’t be entering the most promising of job markets this spring, and that means one key to successful job hunting is perseverance and will be more important than ever. Spring is the time for a job hunt. That is when a lot of people are hiring, and it is also the time for students on spring break to begin the job hunt for employment over their summer vacation.  Unemployment during any season isn’t pleasant, but you don’t want to have to need an instant payday loan for summer activities like rafting or camping.  As with any job hunt, it’s important to start sooner rather than later to secure employment and start earning an income.  The best kind of debt relief is to make more money, which is something that can be aided if you have a successful job hunt.

People denying global warming are completely off. The Arctic Ocean’s Permanent Ice is melting, there is no denying that, it’s visible by satellite. If people denying global warming really knew what they were talking about, they would mention more about the cause of such global warming, as it is not 100% proven greenhouse gases are the main cause of this, although it logically should be among the major factors, along with deforestation and of the Amazonian forest, the lungs of our planet. The point though is those important factors are caused by mankind.

Eva Moly, culinary arts colleges ’ student