In fact, any attempt to examine objective facts should be viewed with suspicion in light of strong conclusions that the Earth is warming. Far better to just go with the flow.

The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change

No fooling. Hard to rely on calculations where the input data error bounds may be greater than the trend you are trying to predict.

And its not done with formulas. Its regression analysis, using cherry picked data hiding behind the term 'proxy data'.

Google 'John von Neumann curve fit an elephant' for an assessment of data fitting by one of the 20th century's most brilliant applied mathematicians.

This should come up third

http://www.jamesphogan.com/comments/index.php?id=110

Yeah, Justin, and I'm sure you also believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old too, right?

"let's just take a deep breath and remind ourselves that there's still time to undermine the global economy and cinch down on freedom, if we try."

Damn the data! Full speed ahead!

When you start citing to a publication that isn't an acknowledged right-wing rag, serious people will pay attention. The Times of London is like the Washington Times. That's not to say it isn't spot on from time to time, but it's not exactly a credible scientific publication.

Then again, there's a good reason why you don't cite to scientific journals on this topic. Must be that global conspiracy.

When there is an important development - on any matter, not just global warming - for your sake, Pragmatist, I sincerely hope it's publicized in a newspaper or website that is sufficiently left leaning to meet your standard.

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change

No fooling. Hard to rely on calculations where the input data error bounds may be greater than the trend you are trying to predict."

Why did they fiddle with the data, ChuckR? (Regression analysis, etc.) Setting aside for a moment the insurmountable problem of temperature stations mounted on hot roofs and next to HVAC vents and assuming no cherry picking of data, wouldn't the most devastating proof of global warming be a simple line graph of the temperature from 1850 to the present?

Pragmatist is spot on. Quoting Exxon Mobil shills to combat actual science is laughable.

Whilst the exact nature of the connection between the Science and Public Policy Institute and the Centre for Science and Public Policy is not entirely clear, it has been claimed that they are one and the same[43]. As both organisations operate from units in the same building[44] [45] and share the same key personnel[46] [47] [48] [49], at the very least these two organisations are very closely and tightly connected. The SPPI do not advertise their funders, however donations to the CSPP are easier to identify. The CSPP is a project of the Frontiers of Freedom[50] who have received $1,037,000 from ExxonMobil between 2001 and 2006. This breaks down as $40,000 in 2001[51] $232,000 in 2002[52], $195,000 in 2003[53], $250,000 in 2004[54], $140,000 in 2005[55] and $180,000 in 2006[56].

The SPPI claims to be 'a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party'. This statement, coupled with its connection to the CSPP and its shyness at disclosing its funders, could lead one to speculate that diversionary tactics are being used. Industry has been accused of misleading science and public policy and opinion through a 'deliberate -- and extremely reckless -- campaign of deception and disinformation'[57]. Blurring the boundaries and presenting themselves as impartial, could give the Institute an air of credibility with their vested interests remaining hidden.

It's hard to take you seriously when you question the integrity of actually scientists and then parrot this PR without any critical analysis of the source.

Oops, messed up that link somehow...
Spin Profile - Science and Public Policy Institute

When did we start borrowing "spot on" from the English?I hope we don't start calling trucks "lorries" anytime soon.
Don't get me wrong-I've been to the UK and I like English people,I just don't believe in hijacking other countries' jargon for the most part.
A professor at UAH needs to worry more about trigger happy academics than global warming.
Gun free campus policies have made innocent people at various institutions prey to whoever wants to gun them down.
The shooters aren't too concerned about a firearms charge.
I'd suggest that losing your job over an inane policy is better than having your brains scooped up in a dustpan.
This woman had some background.Check it out on the net.
Russ-I responded to you on another thread in a serious,non-hostile way and you ducked it.C'mon-you're better than that.

Monique

A plot of temperature versus time from 1850 to today assumes you can get a single temperature data value that represents the entire earth's temperature (or temperature trend at least) for each bit of time you are plotting. Suppose you could get such a temperature - is that for a day, a week, a month, a year? Can you be sure that it is an equally reliable reading over the past 160 years - or are the errors in reading too large relative the trend you are trying to discern? There are 154 million square miles of planet surface. Do you have enough data? Through all that time?

Why stop at 1850? Why not go back and include the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming? Why not keep going and include the Roman Warming? Why is it that only periods they select can be used to study climate - wouldn't a couple of millenia be better than a century? Some of the climatologists have tried to ignore the existence of these pre-Industrial variations? Why did they choose proxy data like tree rings - dendroclimatology! - and then stop using it for those periods where it didn't confirm their preconceived notions? And so forth. People like Jones, Mann and Hansen have made an absolute trainwreck of what is an important field. I feel sorry for the upcoming researchers - the ones who are just getting PhDs or are new to the field - it now has the credibility of a used car salesman's association.

ps - nothing wrong with regression analysis. It can help find what's an important variable and what's not. But it isn't a theory - it's data fitting. Look at von Neumann's elephant for an example of data fitting and smoothing.

" There are 154 million square miles of planet surface. Do you have enough data? Through all that time?"

I see. Thank you. So the consistency and adequacy of temperature stations really is an important factor here.

Yes, the apply-it-only-when-it-works-for-us approach to the dendroclimatology data has done serious damage to the case they have been trying to build for AGW.

It turns out that the Amy Bishop,the UAH killer,was a left wing extremist who was obsessed with Obama.
Deafening silence from Pat Crowley,Matt Jerzyk,and Nancy Green,who rail about right wing extremists shooting people.
BTW her victims who died were an east Indian and two Blacks.One of the wounded was Hispanic.Our leftist "friends"at the other blogs haven't accused her of being a racist.If she was obsessed with Obama,she probably isn't.Just a homicidal bitch.

Randomly Joe decides to start talking about something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand... and what with the obscenity too. I'd hope the AR mods deal with such nonsense appropriately.

Back to the discussion of climate change and research distortion:

One thing to consider when quoting ANY tenured professor at a university is who funds their research? In the case of some of the most vocal climate change critics, there is significant research funded by the fossil fuel industry (albeit the same standard needs to be applied to climate change theory advocates as well!)

Still, when I look at pictures of glaciers that have stood in Alaska and Greenland for thousands of years, and how quickly they seem to be shrinking, shouldn't common sense prevail? Do I need a computer model to tell me that northern ice melting is a sign *something* is happening to our climate?

The fact of the matter is, whether or not they run out in 10, 100, or 1,000 years, fossil fuels are NOT a renewable resource. The pressure and time required to produce oil and coal from organic deposits are epic in nature. So while we continue to wrangle over whether or not climate change is happening, we continue to burn through these fuels... worse yet, global demand is also rising at alarming rates as India and China continue to develop.

Why shouldn't the United States be at the forefront of the clean-energy economy -- both securing our independence from troubled parts of the world (Canada's significant oil contributions not withstanding), and providing a viable new economic sector?

I'm still not getting how producing windmills, biofuels, and photovoltaic cells here in the U.S. will somehow hurt our economy. Can someone fill me in here?

I just think this country would be much better served by exploring the production of new technologies in the energy field, rather than quibbling over various time spans throughout history in which the planet might have warmed or cooled.

Are you the new mod?If not, go piss up a rope."Bitch" is not an obscenity.
You chime in about once every two months and want to make the rules.Hahahaha.

Jake

The only thing you can trust is results, and those only after they are exposed to full-out vetting, aka, attack, by other scientists who are not best buddies with the investigator. Doesn't matter who funded them - evil corporations or evil government.

Please google growing glaciers - you will get about 3 million hits - although after the first pages probably most are nonsense or off topic. Some glaciers appear to be growing, some to be shrinking. Among the latter are high Alpine glaciers whose retreat is uncovering the remains of 17th-18th century villages. These were engulfed during the Little Ice Age that lasted from the 1600s to the early 1800s. This has been well documented contemporaneously - the villagers and their priests marched up to the glaciers and prayed for the advance to stop, to no avail.

I'm still not getting how producing windmills, biofuels, and photovoltaic cells here in the U.S. will somehow hurt our economy. Can someone fill me in here?

I too am a fan of clean energy. By way of bona fides, I have worked on tidal energy designs, a couple of solar thermal designs and a Stirling engine generator as well as a natural gas hospital generator, a coal plant water wall and bits and pieces of nuke plants. However, none of your alternatives can supplant the power plants fueled by fossil fuels or nuclear. Not now and not without a breakthrough in cost and public acceptance. The energy they gather is too diffuse - you need to many of each over too wide an area - and the same people supporting them in principal will oppose them in practice - a la Ted Kennedy and Congressman Willam Delahunt. The latter was of course the DA who put the fix in for Amy Bishop when she murdered her brother in the 1980's. Unless you think that three blasts from a freakin' pump shotgun could possibly be an accident. So Joe B's comment is hereby tied in. There is a place where they have committed to large enough numbers of wind turbines and the required distribution network to make a difference. This place is not called New England. It is called Texas.

I join you in the call for exploring new technologies. But eventually, they have to stand and deliver. My favorite big boy would be a pebble bed nuke and my favorite diffuse energy system would be cheap and rugged photovoltaic roof shingles.

Chuck-it was a PUMP ahotgun?That nails it.I carried one for many years.If you had an accidental discharge,it would be one round only.I was ready to consider the remote possibility if it had been a semiauto,but even then,hard as hell to believe.Mr.Paris,computer scientist at URI,must know a lot more about firearms than me(NOT).

Joe

Pump gun, one blast into the wall, one blast into her brother and then one blast into the ceiling, followed by an attempted carjacking at shotgunpoint - after she left the house. A real sweetheart.

No wonder Delahunt is making noises about not running.He hasn't got any serious opposition.This case sounds like there was a coverup.
Bishop's area of specialization didn't involve politics or anything controversial.
It seems that she was suspected of sending a mail bomb to another professor who pissed her off.
I recall a female cop named Antoinette Franks in New Orleans-she murdered her partner in a robbery along with two other people.
Then it turned out she had also killed her father and brother,if I reall correctly.She's on death row in Louisiana,where they actually execute bad guys(or girls)-I wonder how she passed the job interview for being a New Orleans cop.