The latest climate ‘conspiracy theory’

by Judith Curry

Guess who the new climate ‘conspiracy theorists’ are?

When I first saw this published in the WaPo, I thought it was a joke: Why I’m trying to preserve federal climate data before Trump takes office.  Excerpts:

Trump is serious about overtly declaring war on science. This isn’t a presidential transition. It’s an Inquisition. It’s a 21st-century book burning. The incoming administration is likely to be willfully hostile toward the scientific process, with far-reaching implications.

One of the most tangible consequences of sharp cutbacks in federal funding for climate science is the potential loss of critical data — whether by neglect or malice — that underlie global efforts to understand our climate system. By all accounts, that’s exactly what Trump and his team want: Ignorance of how human actions are affecting our planet makes it easier to maintain the status quo.

‘Saving’ climate data

WaPo has another article on the topic: Scientists are frantically copying U.S. climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump. Excerpts:

Alarmed that decades of crucial climate measurements could vanish under a hostile Trump administration, scientists have begun a feverish attempt to copy reams of government data onto independent servers in hopes of safeguarding it from any political interference.

The efforts include a “guerrilla archiving” event in Toronto, where experts will copy irreplaceable public data, meetings at the University of Pennsylvania focused on how to download as much federal data as possible in the coming weeks, and a collaboration of scientists and database experts who are compiling an online site to harbor scientific information.

In recent weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has nominated a growing list of Cabinet members who have questioned the overwhelming scientific consensus around global warming. His transition team at the Department of Energy has asked agency officials for names of employees and contractors who have participated in international climate talks and worked on the scientific basis for Obama administration-era regulations of carbon emissions. One Trump adviser suggested that NASA no longer should conduct climate research and instead should focus on space exploration.

Those moves have stoked fears among the scientific community that Trump could try to alter or dismantle parts of the federal government’s repository of data on everything from rising sea levels to the number of wildfires in the country.

Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that Trump has appointed a “band of climate conspiracy theorists” to run transition efforts at various agencies, along with nominees to lead them who share similar views.

“They have been salivating at the possibility of dismantling federal climate research programs for years. It’s not unreasonable to think they would want to take down the very data that they dispute,” Halpern said in an email. “There is a fine line between being paranoid and being prepared, and scientists are doing their best to be prepared. . . . Scientists are right to preserve data and archive websites before those who want to dismantle federal climate change research programs storm the castle.”

To be clear, neither Trump nor his transition team have said the new administration plans to manipulate or curtail publicly available data. But some scientists aren’t taking any chances.

Breitbart counters with this article: Fake News – Climate Scientists ‘Save’ Data from Donald Trump. Excerpts:

No one has done more damage to “climate data” in the past three decades than the corrupt, politicized activist scientists who are now afraid that they may be neutered or booted out of office by the incoming administration.

One of the many shocking revelations of the 2009 Climategate emails was that in some cases the raw temperature data had been destroyed or lost by the scientists whose job it was to maintain it. Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia admitted that they had not kept “the original raw data” for reasons of “data storage availability”.

That, in turn, prompted a lawsuit by the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group, is arguing that U.S. EPA’s climate policies rely on raw data that have been destroyed and are therefore unreliable. The nonprofit group — a staunch critic of U.S. EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases — petitioned (pdf) the agency last week to reopen the public comment period on its proposed “endangerment finding” because the data set had been lost (E&ENews PM, Oct. 9).

But climate scientists familiar with the data insist that the reports are based on sound science and that the data in question was altered as part of standard operating procedure to ensure consistency across reporting stations.

For the alarmists now to turn around and claim that the Trump administration is unfit to look after data that they’ve already lost and destroyed is, as Tony Heller puts it, an “Orwellian Climate Moment“.

NOAA overwrites their monthly temperature data, and wanted $260,000 to recover data which should have been downloadable online in a matter of seconds.  Fee Notification Letter – 2014-001602

AGU

Well, the conspiracy theory about climate data and climate science seems to be growing.  At the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, there was a #standupforscience rally.  Images and videos are provided by a post at WUWT.

Scott Waldman of ClimateWire has a good overview: Scientists prepare for ‘nightmare scenario’ under Trump (unfortunately behind paywall).  Excerpts:

SAN FRANCISCO — Climate scientists are ready for battle.

With President-elect Donald Trump naming skeptics to Cabinet positions and sending mixed messages about his own view of established climate science, the world’s researchers say they fear and dread the next four to eight years. As more than 20,000 earth and climate scientists gathered here for the American Geophysical Union’s first major meeting since the election, they vowed to combat any federal effort to stifle their work.

For a short time Tuesday, dry presentations of research papers were replaced with protests. Scientists, some donning white lab coats, chanted “Out of the lab, into the streets!” and “Resistance, resistance, resistance” in defense of their work.

The pushback from scientists comes amid mixed messages from the incoming Trump administration about climate change.

State and federal officials from the Obama administration buoyed the crowd of anxious researchers by telling them they were not alone.

Of particular concern is one of the weapons that the Trump administration could deploy against them. David Schnare, general counsel of the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, who has represented groups that have sued for access to climate scientists’ unpublished emails and research, is now part of the transition team.

Lawyer Peter Fontaine fought Schnare’s attempts to get Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann’s emails for years through a series of court battles. 

Yawn.  Michael Mann again.  See Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior.  Standing up for integrity in climate research does not require that you stand up for Michael Mann’s egregious behavior.  So . . . losing data — sort of like what happened to the hockey stick data and meta data?

Buzzfeed has a more balanced article: Climate Scientists Split Over How to Survive Trump.  Excerpts:

Just a couple of hours earlier, BuzzFeed News had sat down with Margaret Leinen, director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, and current president of the AGU. She acknowledged the concerns, but urged calm until it’s clear what the Trump administration is going to do. “A lot of people like me have seen transitions before,” she said.

“I think that immediately anticipating that the federal government will start destroying datasets is an overreaction,” Leinen said. “Remember also that Congress has a lot to say about this.”

Somewhere in the middle, judging from the AGU meeting, are the vast majority of researchers who want to steer clear of politics and simply get on with their work. They went about their business as usual, checking their emails and scurrying from talk to talk — many of the younger scientists carrying cardboard tubes containing posters describing their research.

Later that evening, the top brass of NASA’s Earth sciences division held a packed town hall meeting, delivering a pep talk with the message: “Keep calm, and carry on”…for now, at least. Thomas Zurbuchen, a Swiss-born space scientist who is the space agency’s most senior science official, warned against “amplifying noise,” and urged everyone to “behave like scientists,” and wait for evidence of what the new administration wants to do.

“When the data come, when we have the evidence, when there is a line at which decisions have to be made, there may be fights that have to happen,” he said. And if that time comes, Zurbuchen also warned against infighting between space scientists and Earth scientists over NASA research dollars. “United communities are a lot harder to beat than divided communities,” he said. “Let’s stick together, and stick up for each other.”

An epidemic of activism

Nature has a provocative article:  Is Donald Trump pushing more scientists towards political activism?  It seems that the answer is ‘yes’.

From a column in Nature from a few months ago: The elephant in the room that we can’t ignore.  Excerpts:

The playwright Bertolt Brecht had a good line on expertise. In his plays, doctors, lawyers and other ‘experts’ are generally portrayed in threes. They squabble haplessly among themselves, each manoeuvring into the position that most elevates themselves in the eyes of their aristocratic paymaster.

And that, sadly, is the role to which senior scientific leaders have sometimes reduced themselves. In the main, they have been happy to accept the autocracy of politics and finance, even, like the president of the European Research Council, hanging around at the annual meeting of business leaders at Davos in Switzerland, hoping to pick up crumbs from the rich man’s table.

The problem extends down into the community itself. We like to talk about ‘engaging the public’, but many scientists really just want to talk at them. 

And those senior scientists who do engage with the government or public — as scientific advisers, for example — often take up highly political positions without acknowledging that they are doing so. For example, they support free-trade agreements that cede the right of democratic governments to control things such as cigarette advertising or pesticide use without hard, scientific evidence. This is a political position that is pursued with great dedication by global corporations — and that is haplessly bought into by many scientists without a thought for its consequences.

But at the top, there is paralysis: leading scientific organizations do little except chase money and reinforce the ruling nexus of politics and finance .

So, what are the ‘alarmists’ afraid of?  This article from the Manhattan Contrarian nails it:  The Impending Collapse of the Global Warming Scare.

JC reflections

The definition of ‘conspiracy theory’:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors.

‘Without warrant’ is key here; there is simply no evidence to support the crazy ideas and fears about the Trump administration’s policy about climate science — simply, because he apparently hasn’t even started thinking about it yet, including appointments for the Undersecretary of NOAA, the Administrator of NASA, etc. Zurbechan’s statement is exactly correct:  “behave like scientists,” and wait for evidence of what the new administration wants to do.

JC message to the alarmed scientist/advocates:

Get over it, your side lost.  Changes of Presidential administrations occur every 4 or 8 years, often with changes in political parties.

Get busy and shore up your scientific arguments; I suspect that argument from consensus won’t sway many minds in the Trump administration.

Overt activism and climate policy advocacy by climate scientists will not help your ’cause’; leave such advocacy to the environmental groups.

Behave like a scientist, and don’t build elaborate conspiracy theories based on vague conflicting signals from the Trump administration.  Stop embarrassing yourselves; wait for the evidence.

Be flexible; if funding priorities change, and you desire federal research funding, work on different problems.  The days of needing to sell all research in terms of AGW are arguably over.

Open your minds to different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence.

If you are advocating for policies, do some serious homework about the policy process, economics, and unintended consequences of technologies and policies.

Understand that climate policies are not the only, or even primary, driver for energy policy.

 

464 responses to “The latest climate ‘conspiracy theory’

  1. When they plot against us, it’s a conspiracy.

    When we plot against them, it’s a vast, well-oiled, well-orchestrated, well-funded, active and vicious Subterranean War on Science hidden from public view.

    Totally different.

  2. I don’t see Trump or his administration fudging data. That’s been left to the ‘consensus’ activists. What I do anticipate is that Trump & his advisers will be demanding answers to some very obvious questions which have been avoided by the IPCC & its proponents.
    From my perspective I see the ‘consensus’ as contrived through violation of the tenets underpinning the scientific method…e.g. ignoring contrary evidence, confirmation bias etc.
    Feynman’s version of the scientific method is the rock on which ‘the consensus’ crashed. When the observations don’t meet the predictions of your theory …. your theory is wrong.

    • I think the very realistic fear is that data will be interrupted or not published due to funding cuts.

      • A typical move would be to Shift responsibility for NASA data to NOAA
        and then Not fund the work required to manage, update, and support that data.

        They might not be stupid enough to destroy stuff, but you can expect they will start to make things harder to get, or they will use Data Quality act to take it offline

      • More conspiracy thinking…..

      • David L. Hagen

        Nick Stokes
        What about the data that has been unlawfully withheld and should have been published under existing funding?

      • Steven,

        I agree that funding cuts are likely. Perhaps punitive, even retaliatory funding cuts. I’ve been predicting this for several years. It’s SOP in politics. I hope that funding for critical data collection and storage is maintained. I suggest describing these programs as necessary for research to improve weather prediction.

        “you can expect they will start to make things harder to get, or they will use Data Quality act to take it offline”

        What is the basis for this prediction?

        So far the “keep the data from the public” battle has been waged by scientists against public laypeople. Speaking as a layperson, this fear by climate scientists seems like “projection” — as in “projection of one’s unconscious qualities onto others.” As in I hope they don’t do to us what we have done to them.

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

      • “Nick Stokes
        What about the data that has been unlawfully withheld and should have been published under existing funding?”

        What data is that?

      • “What data is that?”

        That is what we are hoping to find out.

        Worried?

      • “Nick Stokes I think the very realistic fear is that data will be interrupted or not published due to funding cuts.”
        Hmm, is this the data that someone said takes two men and half an hour a day to compile?
        You seem to do a better job on your site in your spare time [thanks it is very good] and I am sure you do not have a Government team helping you out.
        Pretty hard to cut that much time out really. It is all computers and a button.

      • Curious George

        Nick, I agree with you. So far the “climate community” exhibited a singular disregard for data preservation. No version control; data is adjusted on the fly. Add Trump’s expected cuts, and maybe even the authors won’t be able to get their data as the were yesterday.

      • No, that is merely projection. The data will be there for anyone to use. The adjustments may cease, but then that is not raw data, that is a manufactured output.

      • “I think the very realistic fear is that data will be interrupted or not published due to funding cuts.”

        A large portion of USHCN data is infilled … fabricated.

      • Not funding efforts which would continue to provide data is a prerogative of the Administration. Climate and Earth science research is not the only game in town.

        As for data collected and not published, what prevents people from filing FIA to see it.

        You sound like my nephew who is currently working with a startup in Boston and lead on a NSF funded project related to climate. Is a shift in funding priorities something to be worried about if it means losing your job? Yes. But it is a personal problem, not a national one. Trust me, a lot of your fellow citizens have experienced job loss.

    • Raw data has been destroyed, whether through nolus or dolus. Now they want to stop the fake data from being destroyed. What a pity that no comprehensive efforts have been made to archive raw data, not even by the closest thing skeptics have to a counter to the IPCC, namely the NIPCC.

  3. Skeptics have been asking to see the data for two decades- we are all about keeping it intact!
    I’d almost say they were doing us a favor by backing up all the data in various places- but willing to bet in some cases it wouldn’t be ‘all’ the data. God Help- scratch that, Secularist Help Them if skeptics were actually able to get hold and work with the ORIGINAL data!

    ClimateOtter (slayer of Griff)

    • GG, you da man. That was the best troll takedown ever. Utterly ottered.

    • It will be fun to have the shoe on the other foot.

      With the skeptics in charge of data, I wonder how they will respond to requests….

      No need to wonder, virtually every request I have made of skeptics for code and data has been denied

      I suspect they will,play the same game whn in power..

      Like some who refused to release tax returns because they are being audited, I suspect Skeptics will refuse to release data because it is being audited.

      And folks here will say nothing.

      • Professor Mosher,

        Do you any idea how much information has been held back by the White House and federal agencies over the last 8 years? Some of us are looking forward to reviewing all the WH internal, EPA, DOE and FCC documents. I don’t think that history will be very kind to many of the participants.

        Best, Steve

      • Stephan.

        beware what you wish for.

        Also, my point still stands.

        when the new adminstration refuses documents people here will say nothing.

        They said nothing when skeptics refused my requests in the past, they will say nothing in the future.

      • I am so glad we have a resident clairvoyant who can also discern the future. Most of us just have to trod through life not knowing what the next day holds. But now we have someone who knows as much as the Almighty.

        I am sure he also knows the outcome of the next Superbowl, if only he would share with us so we could all get rich off of his talents.

      • > Professor Mosher,

        Join accuracy and familiarity, StephenH. Call him Moshpit.

        Best of luck with your document review. I’m sure you’ll love it when teh Donald will make all his business associates sign NDAs.

      • Steve Heins “As an informed witness of the last 20 years of broadband and energy, I humbly submit that nobody foresaw the year 2016, in Y2K, accurately. In fact, nobody was even close.”

        It is even less likely that any of us will be seers or accurate futurists going forward.

      • And we look forward to a FOIA of the “Climate Industry” and the individuals and universities who benefitted from the federal agencies largess recently.

      • Among individuals who may have benefitted from the federal agencies largess, there’s this one you might like to keep an eye on:

        It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it

      • “No need to wonder, virtually every request I have made of skeptics for code and data has been denied”

        Which publicly funded researchers and data sets are those?
        Oh – privately funded, huh? Then you are at the owners mercy.
        No need to take them seriously if they wont share, right?
        D’OH!!! I guess we don’t need to take Jones, Bradley, Mann, Hughes or anyone else that refuses to release data seriously either. Cuts both ways…

      • Steven,

        I wonder if in your whole life you have ever had anything positive to say, or is your world view essential negativity? As my father used to say, why be difficult when by taking a tiny bit of extra time and effort you can be downright impossible? On the day that you agree with something on this page the sun will stand still and the moon will stop and it will be recorded in scripture.

      • Funny, you never asked me for data…

    • “Skeptics have been asking to see the data for two decades- we are all about keeping it intact!”

      I agree; but pardon my cynicism, who says they’re digging through archives to just “back it up”?

  4. What steps have Brad and Judy taken to preserve the NIPCC report from further denunciation by the elitist Chinese academics behind the global warming hoax ?

    • Russell, that won’t be necesary, Mr Trump has given the go ahead to a massive data transfer from USA to Russian servers located at the Chelbayinsk Spy Center. This has opened a huge business opportunity for Exxon to drill oil wells in Chechnya and Lake Baikal. The Russians are so happy they want to change Volgograd’s name to Novotrumpgorod.

      • Really Fernando, according to reports submitted to The American Thinker , all available drilling capacity has been diverted to connecting Chelyabinsk and Comet Ping Pong in time for the inaugural ball.

      • Fernando, I thought you were an oil guy, not a comedian. That was funny.

      • In actual fact Putin’s top secret data center contains such a high concentration of state of the art CPUs that it has been located in the New Siberian Islands. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to afford the cooling bill:

        https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2016/12/new-arctic-military-base-declared-ready-operation

        This also explains the anomalously high temperatures in the Arctic recently:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/post-truth-global-and-arctic-temperatures/#comment-216686

      • Willard? low blow. the survivalist comedian.
        I think the key is to have in the house things you need for whatever you expect can happen. For example, I would expect a large earthquake in California, and that means keeping your goodies where they won’t be covered by a ton of rubble. And evidently if you are getting ready for a helicopter crash in the Arctic you had better have stuff to survive low temperatures and be ready to patch up a compound fracture.
        Better still crash near Putin’s top secret data center located in the New Siberian Islands.

      • > low blow

        I meant it as a compliment, Doc. Twas a good comment that I linked to.

        Fernando’s OK, as long as you don’t mention Fidel.

      • First item in your survivalist kit: a rifle. Second item: cartridges which fit your rifle.

        Water, dried or canned goods, batteries, proper clothing for extended time in outside weather conditions are all recommended items. But without the first two anyone can come along and take from you. Conversely, they also allow you the opportunity to acquire what you need.

      • Fidel Castro is fine now that he’s dead. The big problems right now are Raúl Castro, his son Alejandro, and his grandson Raulito, because they are the backbone of an emerging Castro Dinasty. Another problem is Raul’s satrap in Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, who is causing tens of thousands of deaths by violence, disease and starvation.

        I’d like to use this opportunity to point out that Lomborg is right, the world faces much more serious problems than global warming, which do require attention. Lack of freedom and human rights abuses are foremost on my list.

  5. “NOAA overwrites their monthly temperature data, and wanted $260,000 to recover data which should have been downloadable online in a matter of seconds. Fee Notification Letter – 2014-001602”

    The person who wrote this FOIA request (Kent Clizbe) is an Idiot.

    He requested not only data, but code, and phone logs, and email etc etc.

    BONEHEAD mistake.

    A FOIA request is NOT like discovery in a court case.

    Long ago when we FOIA CRU we figured this out. Doesnt Anyone remember how we divided the requests up into small requests?

    Why?

    Well because there is a threshhold of cost that most agencies use. In other words If you go on a fishing expedition they will make you pay.

    So you split your requests up..

    Basically they estimated 10,000 hours to look through everything because he Asked for everything. Really Dumb. What it shows is that he wasnt really interested in the data.

    NOAA FOIA officers in my experience ( gettting 1000s of pages from them
    -phone logs, meeting notes, email, data and code) Are extremely professional and helpful. When I requested data about station histories and attempts to block Anthont Watts work, I eventaully got everything I requested… FOR FREE..

    why?

    Cause I used my brain.. and didnt ask for everything in one sweeping fishing expedition. In the end I got internal emails discusssing mcIntyre and Watts, and phone logs etc, everything.. Just write better FOIAs..

    • Mr Mosher,

      Keep a civil tongue in your head.

      I’m an expert in vetting, fraud detection, intelligence, counter-intelligence, counter-terrorism, historical espionage, research, and a couple other related specialties. I’ve worked throughout the federal government–mostly in civilian and military intelligence agencies, but also in DHS and the FBI. I’ve worked with and trained most of the military special forces.

      Details: http://www.kentclizbe.com

      I’ve uncovered frauds who were blatantly in the face of the public, media, and “experts” for years. See my work described in a NY Times article here:

      The man-caused global warming climate scam is a massive scheme to defraud the federal government of its grant monies. The fraud has been enabled by federal agencies, up to now. The Trump administration appears to intend to thoroughly vet, audit, examine, and verify the federal agencies and their grantees now. It’s what I’ve been working on for the last 12 years–as a freelancer.

      You are welcome to disagree with my tactics. You are not welcome to make ad hominem attacks and call me names.

      I’ve responded to your bitter and hateful critiques of my FOIA requests in the past. You seem to be even more bitter than before. Let it go. And stop calling names. Deal with your own issues. I’m quite capable of taking care of mine.

      Thanks.
      Kent Clizbe

      • > The man-caused global warming climate scam is a massive scheme to defraud the federal government of its grant monies.

        … which is why the falsified observational data match the fraudulent model output with such fidelity.

      • Occam’s razor cuts to the quick.

        The simplest explanation is likely the truth.

        Con men have big mouths, babble a lot, impugn those who are working to expose them, and concoct elaborate excuses or props unsupported by reality. Like the climate fraudsters’ fake “Climate Models.”

        As Chico Marx said, “Who you gonna believe? Me or your [lying] eyes?”

        Fraudsters’ schtick usually includes routines to distract and confuse their pursuers.

        Their days are numbered. Listen to ’em squeal.

      • brandonrgates,

        You wrote –

        “… which is why the falsified observational data match the fraudulent model output with such fidelity.”

        – attempting sarcasm, I guess.

        The fraudulent model output is carefully tuned to match the adjusted historical data. Sometimes they get it right, accidentally.

        How dumb would you be to create models that are adjusted to agree with your fabricated data, and then find they don’t agree? Even a bumbling buffoon would manage! Alas, too many cooks spoil the broth.

        Magically, ice ages appear and disappear, glaciers advance or retreat as new evidence appears, furious retuning of models occurs. Dumb and dumber.

        Cheers.

      • > Con men have big mouths, babble a lot, impugn those who are working to expose them, and concoct elaborate excuses or props unsupported by reality.

        [cough cough cough, hack hack … gasp]

        > Fraudsters’ schtick usually includes routines to distract and confuse their pursuers.

        Con artists failing to obtain a more convincing agreement between falsified “observational” data and bogus model output is arguably a confusing state of affairs. Perhaps they did that to make it look more like Real Science ™, Kent?

        Oh … but … Occam.

      • F O O L .

      • Mike, they get it right “accidentally on purpose”. They do whatever guess work that they have to thereby creating a match where there really isn’t one. It’s well known, for example, that in the models clouds cause net warming when in reality they cause net cooling. Anything to make those models work, if only for the time up until the present…

      • > attempting sarcasm, I guess.

        Critical thinking, Mike F.

        > How dumb would you be to create models that are adjusted to agree with your fabricated data, and then find they don’t agree? Even a bumbling buffoon would manage!

        That was indeed the point I was driving at.

        > Alas, too many cooks spoil the broth.

        That ad hoc explanation is sure to hold up in court.

        I just love it when the “sucks to your theory, show me your evidence crowd” … doesn’t.

      • Re: fiddled data matching fiddled models … Alas, too many cooks spoil the broth.

        In this case, to many crooks, surely ?

      • Punksta,

        You are correct, of course.

        I perhaps should have said ” . . . too many crooks cooking the data, making a hash of it . . . “.

        Thanks for the correction. I’m sometimes far too polite and humble for my own good.

        Cheers.

      • Kent,

        Mosher is a very civil commentator here. He can be obtuse at times and cranky as well. But he is honest. And he exhibits a knack for making some people uncomfortable. While I can see how being called and idioot might offend you, did you look past that to his point? You may be extremely experienced and expert in what you do. That doesn’t mean whatever you do is done as if by God’s hand. To be honest, as someone who has filed a FOIA, I’d say Mosher makes sense. Taking the time to break down your requests into manageable chunks and being respectful to the people who are responsible for replying makes sense.

    • “How to get around FOI requests legally as a Government Department”
      there is a threshold of cost that most agencies use. In other words If you go on a fishing expedition they will make you pay.
      $260,000 to recover data which should have been downloadable online in a matter of seconds. Basically they estimated 10,000 hours to look through everything”
      Typo’s fixed as well.

  6. Isn’t all this data back-up somewhere? If not, isn’t the government negligent? Presumably laws exist to cover the preservation of data. End of story.

    • Of course it is. And wayback machine, Heller, and others have been archiving all the manipulations such as by NASA GISS.

      • NASA GISS dont adjust data.

      • Mosher, the wayback machine says that they do. Lots of examples in essay Blowing Smoke. Just compare their official ‘final’ public results over time. Or, look at Nuuk Greenland or Rekyavik Iceland. Of course, if you mean ‘final’ isn’t data then I would agree. But then, NASA GISS should not call it data either, yet they do.

      • “Mosher, the wayback machine says that they do.”
        The wayback machine says that they did. As did their code, publicly available, and their papers, which explained how and why it was done. Even their interactive web site offered adjusted and unadjusted data. But since 2011, they have not homogenised anything. They input the GHCN adjusted data.

      • “NASA GISS dont adjust data.”

        You’re funny!

      • wrong rist

        LOOK AT THE CODE

        1. GISS INGEST from NOAA
        2. When NOAA data changes, GISS changes.. DUH!

        The Only adjusting they do is their UHI adjustment, which was last changed in 2010..

        The UHI adjustment does basically nothing as that 2010 paper shows.

        Read the frickin code, we fought hard to get it.

        Now, However Trump owns that code and every number that comes out of it

      • Steven Mosher: “LOOK AT THE CODE”

        Yes, let’s!

        ;
        mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
        ;
        ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
        ;
        yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
        valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
        2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
        (...)
        ;
        ; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
        ;
        yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
        densall=densall+yearlyadj
        ;

        FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro

      • Dunno how that graph got in!

      • > Dunno how that graph got in!

        Indeed — the arbitrary scaling of the CO2 curve relative to temperature looks particularly robust. Only a climastrologist would do something so ridiculous.

      • “Dunno how that graph got in!”

        Yes, it is a mystery?

    • Do you have any clue about the Petabytes of Nasa data that are at risk?

      nope.

      Millions of boxes of un digitized records as well

      • “Do you have any clue about the Petabytes of Nasa data that are at risk?”

        At risk from what?

        Desperate Warmies destroying it to cover up their myriad “homogenisations”, carried out to keep the illusion of AGW alive?

        I think those are the only possible risks, and all this tripe about Trump is a smokescreen to cover up what the data forgers have been doing tor a couple of decades or more.

      • Risk from Mis management, loss, distruction, obsfucation.

        Trust me, I have a pile of FOIA to serve once the new administration takes control and responsibility.

      • “Trust me”

        Why on Earth would anyone do that?

        Once – a decade or so ago – perhaps.

        But not any more.

      • Steven Mosher,

        Why are you waiting? Why not just download what you want? Now.

        You seem to be issuing the usual pointless and stupid threats – what are you hoping to achieve?

        Why do you need a pile of FOIA? Are you just too lazy to get whatever information you want?

        Do you believe there is a conspiracy to somehow cool the Earth by destroying data held in other countries? Africa, for example.

        Lots of questions. Not a lot of answers. Pseudo scientists might be terrified that the Government will quickly find out that climatology is of less practical benefit than astrology.

        Maybe if you stamp your foot and pout, you’ll get some attention. A hug, even. There, there – all better now! Off you go and play with your crayons!

        Cheers.

      • Was it raiders of the lost ark or the sequel? A giant Govt warehouse with all those boxes of data. Never lost. Wait, it was men in black.
        “I have a pile of FOIA to serve once the new administration takes control and responsibility.
        Long ago when we FOIA CRU we divided the requests up into small requests” therefore I am still going!
        Maybe a group cloudshare request would help you catch up, or a chat with Lewindowsky.
        There, there, it’s all just a little conspiracy.

      • Curious George

        “Millions of boxes of un digitized records” will make a nice bonfire.

      • “Trust me…”

        Nope. There is not even enough evidence to suggest you trust yourself.

      • Mosher,

        Millions of boxes of non-digitalized data. I’d say any organization with 1000 employees has tens of thousands of such data and that is assuming they are good at record archiving.

        If an administration or an individual decided to destroy boxes of paper data, I am pretty sure they would be committing a federal crime. From my time in the service and in nuclear generation, it was regularly made clear that falsifying or destroying records and documents was against the law.

        True story. As component reliability engineer at a nuke planet, I’m going through the records on a component for reactor controls. As I’m looking at the test sheets, I notice the IC tech and the Electrical engineer’s signature’s are Dick Lick and JC Penny. As an inveterate smartass, I was impressed by their gall. However my next thought was whether they realized the risk this represented. Not wanting to get anyone in trouble, I quietly asked around. Turns out the IC tech was named Richard by his parents, Mr and Mrs Lick. (and I thought gasser was a tough name to have in grade school).

        The engineer was Jay Perry. He used his initials in his signature and his r’s looked more like n’s.

  7. Schadenfreude.
    I’m smiling EVERY SINGLE DAY.
    I love seeing the climafascists squirm.
    #Draintheswamp!

    Of course Trump will not do anything of the sort.
    It’s total fear-mongering from the leftists.

    Besides, the left has distorted the data so many times, it would be a wonder if we could actually get to the real raw data anymore. It’s probably filed under “insurance” on Anthony Wiener’s computer.

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. (roll-eyes-emoticon here)

  8. It’s nice to not be in the company of people more paranoid than myself; therefore, I don’t have to listen to the rancor that the sky is falling all the time.

    Saving data in a hurried way means to me saving malware, worms, and all sorts of spyware that can contaminate millions of computers, government and private, all with a stroke of a kdy. Saving data in a hurried way tends to place it in places no longer accessible, hidden with long forgotten codes, passwords, and stylistic programing that makes the data gibberish. Storing data in remote regions tend to make data accessible to prying eyes with unintended consequences. Maybe Mann’s data will turn up or the Climate Research Units data, long lost will resurface as data attached to…

    It will be nice to see NASA go back into the space business and leave earth science into the meteorological realm from whence it sprang; ie, going back to one’s roots.

    I am really tired of computer forecasts for events a hundred years hence and its associated politics. I would really like to know the forecaster who predicted in May that this December was shaping up to be of record cold and snowy.

    Who predicted the Polar Vortex dip into the more Southern climes? it is surely not all that hard to do? is it? That’s what computers are suppose to do. right? Oh what fun it is to dip into the archived forecasts of last Spring; or last year at this time? or ten years ago? or a hundred years ago?

    • “It will be nice to see NASA go back into the space business and leave earth science into the meteorological realm from whence it sprang; ie, going back to one’s roots.” @RiHo08

      That will make my day when it happens!

  9. I just love watching these AGW diehards lose it. Let them keep running their mouths. It just shows how mentally unstable and obsessed they are. The average American is not as stupid as they believe we are. So I say keep it up! Plus I still want to se JC at NOAA!

    • Judy at noaa would be great.
      Folks will then have to back off fraud charges.

      Because who ever takes noaa…If they audit adjusted data..
      Will be put in the tough spot of denying everything that skeptics believe.

  10. I dont know which is more sad, that well educated, responsible adults would dream up all these looney theories or that millions of the true believers will latch on to the tales and delude themselves into believing it all. There are traits common to accepting these conspiracy scenarios and blindly believing CAGW. One of them being a near absence of critical thinking skills.

    The Democrats seem to be running on a treadmill with the Terror of the Stalinist Progeny strategy and now have become desperate for a little traction with their base. So on to the next enemy behind the curtain trick.

    What a pathetic state of affairs. Nearly incomprehensible that so many could be so gullible. Only in America.

  11. First they come for your data…
    Then they come for your code…
    They they take a look at your code….
    Then they chuckle and leave.

  12. It feels like more 1984 double speak.

    I documented several local trends in USHCN data that have been reversed from cooling trends since the 40s to the present, then homogenized into warming trends.

    Phil Jones. discards all the raw data at the CRU and keeps only the “adjusted data” yet alarmists are sheepishly accepting

    Now they are worried that Trump will eliminate their manufactured data? WTF!

    For pointing put contradictions and challenging the alarmists’ hypotheses skeptics have long been accused of being part of a conspiracy by Big OIl and the Koch brothers. As it has always been, it is just more of the alarmists’ gambit to suggest conspiracies by attacking any and every challenge to their weak hypotheses as a conspiracy

    • “Phil Jones. discards all the raw data at the CRU and keeps only the “adjusted data” yet alarmists are sheepishly accepting”

      Untrue.

      As Climate Audit proved over 95% of CRU data is in GHCN

      • Nice head fake into a straw man. GHCN is at NOAA. The CRU controversy was about what CRU had in England. And then there is the related Harry Read Me mess about how the missing CRU version of raw got converted into adjusted whatever.

      • “Nice head fake into a straw man. GHCN is at NOAA. The CRU controversy was about what CRU had in England. And then there is the related Harry Read Me mess about how the missing CRU version of raw got converted into adjusted whatever.”

        WRONG.

        The first FOIA written was done by Willis. he asked for the station data and the list of station names (ids) that CRU used in GHCN. From 2007 to about 2009 there was considerable back and forth with CRU basically saying that 95% of their data was from GHCN. Willis’s great point was that CRU should point out which EXACT stations they used from GHCN.

        In 2009 Steve Mcintyre and I started a drive to find out about the other 5%, This 5% was given by NWS to CRU in Absolute units, and CRU would only publish Normals. They refused to release the absolute data to us because they said it was covered by Confidentiality agreements

        That is when we launched the effort to get the confidentiality agreements.
        That, dear friend, was led by yours truely as we divided up the countries in the world and asked CRU to release any confidentiality agreements form those countries.

        In the end the agreements were posted and there were only 4-5 Countries who had agreements.

        The purpose Mcintyre had in requesting the data ( he had a 2002 version.. guess you forgot about that ) was he believed that CRU basically did virtually nothing to the raw data, in short he questioned that they added any “value” in their value added data.

        In the end ( Jan -feb 2010 ) CRU would Post all the data we sought with the exception of Poland

      • > In the end ( Jan -feb 2010 ) CRU would Post all the data we sought with the exception of Poland

        Well that tears it. Everyone knows it gets cold in Poland. QED.

      • Curious George

        Steven, please show me CRU raw data. Not purported 95%; the data.

      • 95% is not 100%. Besides, they already told us they do not keep the raw data.

      • I wince whenever I see the topic of adjusted temperature data brought up. Is it reasonable to question the methods or results from applying statistical analysis tools to raw data? I would say yes, if only because statistics can be made to dance to whatever tune the fiddler is playing. But at some point you really have to look at the details. I believe Mosher has made a very good argument that whatever individual component data adjustments might be questionable, the big picture doesn’t really change.

        Similarly, the Karl paper this year – I personally thought their methodology was crap – created a lot of criticism. But I recall most (other than Mosher) missed a key point. If you accept the results of the paper, you also have to accept that the rate of change was much slower than we have been told.

        So either you stick with trashing the Karl adjustment paper and then accept the current estimates of change or you say ok, I have problems with it, but assuming it is good, we don’t have to worry because the trend is lower than we thought.

  13. I have heard a lot of fake news attributed to Trump, but destruction of data was not one of them. As far as I know, Trump would LOVE to get ALL the data out into the public (where it will be safer than on any private server – just ask the climategate emails!).

    I supported Trump because he was not establishment. And the establishment (both sides) is extremely corrupt. But I never thought I would see mass hysteria. I guess that is just an added bonus!

    This is going to be fun the next few years.

    • All the data is public.
      That’s how we are doing the backup

      • So you contradict yourself. How is Trump going to “destroy” data that is in the public domain? Most conspiracy theories at least have a kernel of feasibility. You just destroyed that (which was feeble to begin with).

        The paranoia about Trump is worth the price of admission! LOL!

  14. Why would Trump want to destroy the data that proves this whole CAGW thing is very over egged? Lets see, except for the now rapidly cooling 2015-16 El Nino blip, no warming this century except by Karlization. No acceleration in SLR. CO2 caused Greening. Please do preserve this data.

    And likely this is pure projection, just like Oreskes’ fossil fuel industry ‘conspiracy’ to fund skeptical merchants of doubt. What warmunists will be destroying is the non-public data showing deliberate ‘fingers on the scale’ like Karlization (the oversight committee never got the information it had requested under a lawful subpoena), GISS cool the past and warm the present details, and much other arguable malfeasance like Richrd Windsor email accounts and Lerner’s IRS email backup tapes
    A hysterical (and hysterically funny) over-reaction replete with protests and an ’emergency’ session at AGU. Warminist heads are exploding. Pieces of watermelon splattering all over the MSM front pages, like WaPo this morning. A deplorably lovely sight.

    • Standby for karl’s revenge

      • Rep. Lamar Smith probably is, also.

      • Yup, Lamar is the best non-politicized scientist in the biz.

      • Br, you missed the point. CAGW was never about science, only energy policy. Smith is much better positioned, and better qualified on energy policy. Tough that you and yours lost to deplorablea.

      • Being from an oil state, Smith may be a teensy bit biased?

      • > CAGW was never about science, only energy policy.

        Here we may actually agree, Rud, albeit for different reasons. You will note that literature and the IPCC use the AGW abbreviation. You will also note that the basic theory and first predictions were laid out back in 1896, by Arrhenius (based on other works by Fourier, Pouillet and Tyndall) — who thought that warming and additional CO2 would be a net benefit to agriculture.

        Fast forward to the late 1970s/early 1980s. Far from dismissing the science as a ploy to meddle with energy policy, Exxon not only accepted the literature concensus that rapidly rising temperatures driven by CO2 emissions could be potentially harmful (if not catastrophic), they did a fair amount of self-funded research and modeling.

        Never is a pretty strong word, and in this case demonstrably false. It’s the kind of hyperbole engaged in by people who argue that a planned and orderly transition out of fossil energy into alternatives like wind and solar is infeasible … if not catastrophic in and of itself.

        You know, the same kind of people who dishonestly put a C in front of AGW as a form of ridicule to undermine the science …

        … and then whinge and carp and bellyache about how oh-so-political the whole thing has gotten …

        … as if an issue with major policy implications wasn’t eventually going to become political just by the very nature of the scope of what is at stake.

        I’d find your risibly self-refuting farce rather more amusing …

        > Tough that you and yours lost to deplorablea.

        … save for the fact that it and others like it are apparently working, and have been since well before this particular election.

      • Never is a pretty strong word, and in this case demonstrably false. It’s the kind of hyperbole engaged in by people who argue that a planned and orderly transition out of fossil energy into alternatives like wind and solar is infeasible … if not catastrophic in and of itself.

        Looks like a straw man to me.

        There may be instances of “planned and orderly transition out of fossil energy” that won’t produce economic catastrophe*, but that doesn’t mean every plan.

        Quite a few of the “plans” offered over the last few decades look to have had catastrophic economic consequences. Especially those offered by socialists and fellow travelers who didn’t see any danger in completely ending capitalism.

        You know, the same kind of people who dishonestly put a C in front of AGW as a form of ridicule to undermine the science …

        Nope.

        While there are plenty of those (including here), the original use was against people who were twisting the science in support of their own agenda.

        You know. The ones who yell about how urgent it is that we “do something about it”, but then accuse anybody who suggest alternatives to their preferred agenda of “not wanting to do anything”.

        * It’s perfectly possible that Exxon came up with a plan in the ’70’s, a successful plan that’s coming to fruition now. Note how the price of solar energy has decreased exponentially from then till now. And how it’s almost competitive with fossil. Give it another decade or so. (CF Wright’s “Law”)

      • AK,

        > There may be instances of “planned and orderly transition out of fossil energy” that won’t produce economic catastrophe*, but that doesn’t mean every plan.

        A typical Rud argument is that wind and solar are not “cost effective”, else they wouldn’t be subsidized … which I find to be a curious definition of cost effective.

        > While there are plenty of those (including here), the original use was against people who were twisting the science in support of their own agenda.

        If Rud makes such distinctions, I have missed them. Even so, I think this “distinction” is crap. Anyone who *cites* “the science” to propose a solution for reducing emissions can be accused of “twisting” the science to support their own “agenda”.

        Which I consider political science.

      • A typical Rud argument is that wind and solar are not “cost effective”, else they wouldn’t be subsidized … which I find to be a curious definition of cost effective.

        I don’t.

        Since subsidies “distort” the “natural” evolution of the economy (including technology) it makes perfect sense to assume that the default value of “cost effective” includes no subsidy.

        The primary objection, as I understand it, is that such subsidies will (or may) become permanent, leading to a continual drag on the economy, making it less efficient. Such subsidies act similarly to tariffs and other selective taxes in distorting the economy from how it would evolve without.

        I have two objections counter-arguments:

        First, is that the entire system of “free”-market capitalism evolved in a system of competing nation-states, who “farmed” their internal economies to provide taxes to pay for military expenditures as well as domestic civilian industries to support them. Such as steel, coal, and oil for warships etc.

        The clear winner was Britain, who routinely used tariffs and other “level playing field” controls to maintain its economy in the desired state. Others used more internal controls, which interfered much more with the “level playing field”, and lost.

        The notion that the only moral/ethical form of laissez faire capitalism is one without such “distortions” seems simplistic and unwarranted to me.

        My second argument involves Wright’s “Law”.

        When we combine this effect with the basic relationship between cost and demand, we get the potential for a positive feedback situation leading to an exponential growth situation of the sort described by “Moore’s Law”.

        When we include the effect of subsidies (or similar “distortions”) on this feedback the result can be a rapid growth of the subsidized technology, allowing it to become “cost effective” relative to competing technologies at some time.

        When the “out-competed” technologies include negative externalities, IMO the subsidy route is potentially a much cheaper ways to replace them than simply charging a Pigovian tax.

        AFAIK there has been no published research, modeling, or even speculation among economists regarding the interaction of Pigovian taxes and Wright’s “Law”. A quick Google search yielded exactly two items, one of which was a comment of mine here. (The other was a long archive of somebody’s blog, with the references in different original posts.

        Even so, I think this “distinction” is crap. Anyone who *cites* “the science” to propose a solution for reducing emissions can be accused of “twisting” the science to support their own “agenda”.

        Nope.

        A clear distinction can be made between:

        We have a problem and this is the solution

        …And:

        We have a problem, what’s the best solution? (Or “let’s look for the best solution”.)

        The original argument was that the problem was so “urgent” that “we” needed to implement their solution (Kyoto) right away, without taking time to look for something better.

        This is tantamount to the Hurrah in a confidence game:

        A sudden crisis or change of events forces the victim to act immediately. This is the point at which the con succeeds or fails.

        Which is why Mr. Trump’s characterization of “global warming” as a scam makes so much sense.

      • > The notion that the only moral/ethical form of laissez faire capitalism is one without such “distortions” seems simplistic and unwarranted to me.

        I’m glad you said that, AK, because it is essentially how I was going to challenge your leading statement: “subsidies ‘distort the ‘natural’ evolution of the economy (including technology)”.

        > The primary objection, as I understand it, is that such subsidies will (or may) become permanent, leading to a continual drag on the economy, making it less efficient.

        Slippery slope fallacy, though one with precedent which *may* make it valid — e.g., production tax credits don’t just exist for wind energy … they’re still in place for fossil fuels. A common justification for any fossil fuel subsidy or other tax consideration is that energy is a strategic resource, an argument I’m loath to dismiss out of hand.

        The long-term question may be one of degree, not simple existence. And it is that nuance which I think often gets lost in “subsidies are (always) bad” discussions.

        > Such subsidies act similarly to tariffs and other selective taxes in distorting the economy from how it would evolve without.

        I agree. It appears that our dispute here is mainly over the normative, not positive.

        > When we include the effect of subsidies (or similar “distortions”) on this feedback the result can be a rapid growth of the subsidized technology, allowing it to become “cost effective” relative to competing technologies at some time.

        Yup. I daresay that’s the intent … or *agenda*.

        > When the “out-competed” technologies include negative externalities, IMO the subsidy route is potentially a much cheaper ways to replace them than simply charging a Pigovian tax.

        Interesting thought. Because the subsidy is targeted to a particular replacement, whereas the Pigovian tax

        1) lets the market itself look for a replacement OR
        2) simply accept the tax.

        Of course, just as markets can fail to properly price external costs or othewise fail to find “optimal” solutions … so can bureaucrats.

        > AFAIK there has been no published research, modeling, or even speculation among economists regarding the interaction of Pigovian taxes and Wright’s “Law”.

        Huh. It seems an obvious thing to study. If you ever go for a PhD in Economics, perhaps you’ve got a good topic for a thesis in this.

        > The original argument was that the problem was so “urgent” that “we” needed to implement their solution (Kyoto) right away, without taking time to look for something better.

        The main stipulation of Kyoto was emissions reductions. AFAIK, it was agnostic to how signatories did it.

        In any case, I perceive that your argument still leads toward “anyone who doesn’t agree with MY conception of the *best* solution is twisting science to suit their own agenda.” Which is easily mirrored. Zero sum game.

        ***

        The most difficult thing to “prove” in a debate is the opposition’s motives. And motive, especially ulterior motive, is the easiest thing to deny. We can already see how much trouble me hinting about Rud’s motives has gotten me into on this subthread — it creates a near impossible burden of proof for me to be able to carry.

      • > Which is why Mr. Trump’s characterization of “global warming” as a scam makes so much sense.

        Which presumes the C prepended to AGW will never happen. How does one *know*, AK?

        Regardless of which actions we choose (or don’t as the case may be), there will always be a counterfactual conditional to argue: what IF we had done something different?

        So. The only way to *know* the risks of unmitigated emissions is to let the risks be realized. Some things I’d rather not find out empirically. Add to that the non-AGW damages fossil fuels are already doing, and you have my precautionary principle / no regrets position on mitigation which is, in a nutshell: transition to non-emitting energy technologies as quickly as is feasible without destroying the economy in the process. Even with due-diligence and planning, that process will *surely* involve some amount of trial and error …

        … thus, better to do it sooner rather than later because I prefer a healthy margin for error as opposed to the *possibility* of near perfection being all but an absolute requirement.

      • @brandonrgates..

        I wasn’t really debating you (at least at first), just setting the frame for my disagreement with Rud. You’re right with this:

        Interesting thought. Because the subsidy is targeted to a particular replacement, whereas the Pigovian tax

        1) lets the market itself look for a replacement OR
        2) simply accept the tax.

        Of course, just as markets can fail to properly price external costs or otherwise fail to find “optimal” solutions … so can bureaucrats.

        These are all true. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s a potential to find a much cheaper solution using subsidies than what a Pigovian tax would accomplish. That doesn’t mean such solutions exist in any specific case, or that they would be found even if they exist.

        But to close off the search for such better solutions would be sub-optimal.

        Let me give you some cases:

        •       Subsidies for solar power go back to the ’70’s, although AFAIK they returned only a small fraction of the actual cost. Nevertheless, those subsidies must have had some effect, increasing the market and thus speeding the operation of Wright’s “Law”.

        Today, solar power, having followed a roughly exponential price decline since then, is almost cost-competitive in some venues. While much of the early deployment was probably cost-effective without subsidies (and probably didn’t qualify anyway), the effect of those subsidies was to speed the cost reductions.

        •       Subsidies for wind power have pushed the technology to the point that it is marginally cost-competitive without subsidy, although existing subsidies still act to increase deployment, thus accelerating the price reductions.

        But I would class this as “bureaucrats” failing to find optimal solutions. IMO wind power is not scalable. The subsidies and enthusiasm involved in pushing wind power is pretty much wasted, because when climate scientists start modeling their effect on the boundary layer they’ll discover (IMO) strong effects on climate.

        Not to mention the neodymium problem. IIRC when I ran the numbers, I discovered that even recovering all the neodymium dissolved in the oceans would only supply a very tiny fraction of that needed to scale wind power to a significant fraction of the total energy requirements for later this century. (I used 100 tWatts.)

        •       Let’s compare a Pigovian tax equivalent to $30/ton to a system requiring fossil use to subsidize any sort of ambient-carbon-based recovery system in amounts equivalent to that same $30/ton.

        At current prices for ambient-carbon-based fuels, the Pigovian tax would see everybody just pay it, because that’s cheaper than paying for biofuels, or whatever. This would continue to be true until the price of such fuels drops to less than $30/ton (carbon emission) over the fossil equivalent.

        But it will take a long time for that price to drop because, per Wright’s “Law”, the price drop will be slow because little is being deployed.

        Compare that to the system of using that same $30/ton to subsidize any sort of ambient-fossil-based fuel. This approach is backwards from how it would be implemented, which would involve setting a percentage, maybe1%, or 0.1%, whatever works out according to the market to around $30/ton.

        The dropping cost of fossil-neutral (i.e. ambient-carbon-sourced) fuel would be matched by increasing percentages required, from any source. This works around the issue of bureaucratic mistakes, allowing the market to incent the most effective solutions.

        The main stipulation of Kyoto was emissions reductions. AFAIK, it was agnostic to how signatories did it.

        It was sold in the US as a cap-and-trade with emissions trading. Caps would be set according to required emissions reductions.

        A horrible solution. Kyoto was roundly rejected.

        In any case, I perceive that your argument still leads toward “anyone who doesn’t agree with MY conception of the *best* solution is twisting science to suit their own agenda.”

        Well, I do think I have a better solution than any of those on the table.

        But my point isn’t my solution, it’s that there isn’t enough urgency to justify skipping a much more thorough search for better solutions.

        The fact that every solution depends on new technology while there’s effectively no study of the interaction of Wright’s “Law” with Pigovian taxes is enough to show me that that search hasn’t really been pursued.

        My proposed solution(s) would at least start people thinking about folding the effect(s) of Wright’s “Law” into economic models. Which should be done before any effort to roll our a “solution” in the political/economic sphere.

        I.e. Look before you leap.

      • Brandon,
        You should know that the storyline “It was deniers who added the C to AGW”, automatically brands you as someone not to be trusted.

        One of the biggest issues motivating people who are labeled “denier” is the uncountable number of boogeymen which have been ginned up. It was the primary reason I started paying attention. Every message was “We have to do something now or this bad thing will happen”. We are approaching 30 years since Hansen’s presentation before Congress and 20 years since Al “show me the money” Gore introducing his movie yet there is still little to no evidence of bad things. In fact it is so bad, the people pushing the alarm button are twisting themselves into pretzels trying manufacture evidence supporting causation. I mean it takes real effort to come up with “The record cold and snowfall amounts are do to global warming, by means of disrupting the polar vortex.”

        So don’t come here pushing the lie that it has been skeptics of AGW who have catastrophe to the story line.

    • The dilemma will come once skeptics own the data products.
      When they are unable to find fraud when they are unable to find material defects.. then there are two choices..

      Think ahead..

      • The dilemma will come once researchers have to justify funding and the inclusion of ‘it’s climate change’ won’t cut the mustard. The research will still be required and funded but the terminology will become more benign. For those researchers who prefer to be more socially active with their work, the private sector beckons. The 97% consensus will bow to financial requirements again.

      • When they are unable to find fraud, then there will be more confidence in the data. Which does not exist today. Do not attribute your own actions to those of your opponents.

      • Steven,
        I think Trump doesn’t give a damn about climate change other than to make sure the money spent as a result of the outgoing administration is well spent and/or figuring out how the US might profit from it.

        He is going to want experience and expertise he can trust. Would you want John Holdren directing your science policies? Seriously, that is similar to naming John Gacy to head of Head Start.

      • What they should do is get rid of the garbage, aka Karl, and let the net temperature rise to where it should be. Everyone knows it has been warming. The question is why? Any honest assessment of all the available evidence results in grave doubts about the capacity and physical mechanism for CO2 to account for the temperature record.

        The (likely intentional) effect of the Karl bucket head reconstruction was to minimize the 1945 to 79 cooling. If we are ever to understand how this planet really works we need the highest quality data regardless the agenda it supports, and we need to save every scrap of the raw data for future evaluation.

    • Ah, SM, many of us have. We have identified many possible defects. surfacestations project, UHI that Best expectations denies, BEST station 100600, Rutherglen in Australia BOM… So your homework is about to be checked by competent auditors. We shall see what emerges.

    • Bill the Frog has asked me to check the objective criteria Prof. Curry uses for differentiating between “weak”, “strong”, “very strong” and “super” El Niños. Likewise for La Niñas.

      Can you assist by any chance Ristvan? Can Judith?

    • Professor Curry… where are the NOAA whistle blowers? In the same deep six as Hillary’s jailers?

      • Lol… like the cool phase of the AMO? You kan kangaroo justice; you kan’t kangaroo physiks.

      • I’ve seen a lot of intriguing teases on TV news programming beginning with Edward R Murrow, but I believe Judith just topped them all. Can’t wait!

      • Predictions:

        The pressure of political winds changing has led the ‘establishment’ to take the lifeline that Ms. Curry represents and we’ll see a lot more cooperation and tribes start to dissolve. Could this be the ‘guest post’ she’s hinting at?

        Steve Mosher is correct and now the skeptics own the data, they’ll be forced to accept that it’s pretty much as correct as it’s going to be, and the methods that are used to adjust it are good.

        Tone changes towards nuclear as an energy source as funding dries up completely for ineffective and expensive wind and solar.

      • JCH

        Weren’t you crowing about the cold patch in the Pacific shrinking? That went well:

        Not to mention the breathtaking global warming going on for some time now around Antarctica.

  15. Western academia believes that, as Earth descends into the next ice age, we must continue to safeguard all of the government scientists’ filing cabinets full of global warming pseudoscience as precious talismans of the past.

  16. None of the appointees have actually done anything yet. They aren’t even in charge yet.

    Lots of premature, pre-emptive presumption of actions going on here.

    And in the previous post/thread.

    Fake news by the megabytes.

  17. Let me see, the environmental community wanted to use RICO Act to silence deniers and criminalize denying, but they are now afraid of being silenced, all “97 %” of them.

    Sheesh! I never knew scientists could be so shallow and unphilosophical.

  18. The Russians have all the climate data (even the deleted data) backed up on their servers. No problem.

  19. > Behave like a scientist, and don’t build elaborate conspiracy theories based on conflicting signals from the Trump administration. Stop embarrassing yourselves; wait for the evidence.

    When the fear is loss of data, waiting for evidence of it may not be the best strategy.

    • The fear, Gates, is that the government “climate scientists” will be doing their level best to destroy all the data that demonstrates how they have been cooling the past and warming the present.

      Fortunately, we have a few true scientists such as Tony Heller who foresaw this years ago and are doing their best to forestall them.

      • > The fear, Gates, is that the government “climate scientists” will be doing their level best to destroy all the data that demonstrates how they have been cooling the past and warming the present.

        Nice squirrel, catweazle. But thank you for my daily dose of irony.

        A main reason you know adjustments are done at all is because the methods are described in refereed journals, the codes for making the adjustments are freely available for any John Q. Public to download, inspect, compile and run for themselves and the before and after data are available for anyone to compare at its most granular level.

        And of course when both land and ocean datasets are combined, net adjustments are cooling:

        > Fortunately, we have a few true scientists such as Tony Heller who foresaw this years ago and are doing their best to forestall them.

        No True Scotsman would fail to die laughing at that howler.

      • “the codes for making the adjustments are freely available for any John Q. Public to download”

        Indeed they are, Gates – if you know where to look for them.

        Here is a sample from Harry of the UEA CRU.

        ;
        mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
        ;
        ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
        ;
        yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
        valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
        2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
        (...)
        ;
        ; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
        ;
        yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
        densall=densall+yearlyadj
        ;

        FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro

        What a credulous little creature you are!

      • And of course when both land and ocean datasets are combined, net adjustments are cooling:

        Bullsh1t. I know it when I see it.

        You and Victor Venema. And Steven Mosher. Dishonest rhetoric.

      • Harry?

        Thats Too funny

        Do you know what dataset Harry was working on?

        have you ever read the disclaimer on the data?

        Nope.. thought not.

        There is a reason why CRU tells you to NOT use the dataset created by Harry.. Guess what it is?

      • > Bullsh1t. I know it when I see it.

        Wow.

        > You and Victor Venema. And Steven Mosher. Dishonest rhetoric.

        Actually, it was Zeke Hausfather who did those plots. I didn’t believe them at first either …

        … until I got the data, wrote my own code, and obtained similar results.

      • Actually, it was Zeke Hausfather who did those plots. I didn’t believe them at first either …

        Oh, I believe them. I admit there’s incentive for AGW believers to fake them, but I don’t believe they did so. In fact I almost believe they didn’t, Just a bit of skepticism.

        But just from memory, I can compare these curves with the graph of CO2 over the last century and a half, and see that the “adjusted” curves eliminate the steep rise prior to significant CO2 (1915 to 1945), while leaving the one that correlates with substantial pCO2 (1980-2000).

        The “adjusted” curves clearly provide much more support to the AGW paradigm than the original. Which still wouldn’t cause me to question the science (more than a little).

        But:

        [… N]et adjustments are cooling

        ..And

        […] homogenization adjustments reduce global warming

        Those are bullsh1t. They may be technically true, but they’re ly1ng by telling the truth.

        Both those statements are intended to imply, to people who don’t think fast and keep the requisite charts in memory, that the “adjusted” temps reduce support for AGW. They don’t. And they trigger the bullsh1t detectors of anyone who actually compares those charts.

      • > Both those statements are intended to imply, to people who don’t think fast and keep the requisite charts in memory, that the “adjusted” temps reduce support for AGW. They don’t.

        I keep an updated version at annual resolution on my blog:

        > And they trigger the bullsh1t detectors of anyone who actually compares those charts.

        Yes, because data corrections which just happen to give a slightly better fit to theory must be wrong.

        But whatever, AK. Feel free to use the raw data — over the entire 1880-2014 interval the implied climate sensitivity to CO2 is higher.

      • > But just from memory, I can compare these curves with the graph of CO2 over the last century and a half, and see that the “adjusted” curves eliminate the steep rise prior to significant CO2 (1915 to 1945), while leaving the one that correlates with substantial pCO2 (1980-2000).

        And just from memory I can spot a plausible explanation for that big step-change / spike through the WWII years:

        (after Kennedy et al. (2012) Figure 2)

      • Only if you’re implying that the rise from 1910-1945 was due to CO2…

      • Yes, because data corrections which just happen to give a slightly better fit to theory must be wrong.

        That’s the problem with types like you.

        It’s got to be cognitive dissonance. I made myself perfectly clear, but all you can see is your hallucinations.

        I didn’t say anything’s wrong with the theory, or the better fit.

        What’s wrong is the l1e.

      • If adjustments are so easy to make and reproduce Brandon, why does anyone need to store adjusted data? Why not store only raw data?

      • > If adjustments are so easy to make and reproduce Brandon, why does anyone need to store adjusted data?

        If anyone is arguing to prioritize adjusted data over raw, why don’t you quote them directly, mark4asp?

        > Why not store only raw data?

        If push came to shove, that’s what I’d do.

      • > Only if you’re implying that the rise from 1910-1945 was due to CO2…

        More like if I assume over the entire 1880-present interval that …

        1) net external forcings (both positive and negative, natural and manmade) are roughly zero
        2) internal variability also nets to roughly zero
        3) there are no biases present in the raw observational data.

        (3) is a dubious assumption, if only for the documented switch from mainly bucket SST to ERI SST readings (a warming bias), but also because of documented biases and inhomogeneities in the land surface record. The other two aren’t terrible assumptions, but (1) only by historical accident.

        However, let’s not lose track of where this conversation got started (as it almost always does): with catweazle’s overly simplistic assertion (which is *only* true of land surface stations):

        The fear, Gates, is that the government “climate scientists” will be doing their level best to destroy all the data that demonstrates how they have been cooling the past and warming the present.

        It really should suffice for me to rebut a “climate scientists have their thumb on the scale” argument by pointing out that the global sum total of adjustments *including* SSTs warm the past far more than they do the present, and that the net result is a cooling adjustment over the entire period of instrumental records.

    • “When the fear is loss of data” – CRU managed to lose all raw data without any help.
      To their defense, that was at a time when a gigabyte (but not a magnetic tape) was something unheard of. But no longer. Ever heard of a due diligence? Do you (or they) know what is a version control, and how to use it?

    • Something to remember,
      Upside down Tiljander.

  20. I’m curious as to why the incoming administration was asking, specifically, for names of people who worked on climate science. What is the reason for singling them out?

    • That is not what the DoE transition team asked. You either ignorantly or deliberately misrepresent, perpetuating more fake news. They specifically and narrowly asked for two sets of names. 1. Who worked on SCoC, with related supporting information (e.g. Meeting minutes). That is important and relevant, because SCoC is part of a statutory required cost/benefit analysis of federal climate related regulations. And it appears Obama’s team deliberately rigged SCoC no different than Stern in the UK. Discount rate is likely only the tip of the iceberg. So knowing who can provide first hand info on a key number is a big deal.
      2. Who liased or attended UNFCCC. Now the really fun part is DoE also refused to provide that list of names. Yet it is publicly available for Paris (and Morocco). That refusal simply shows stupidity and bureaucratic obstruction. You can get the full US list over at WUWT. Whoever replyed ‘No’ to that transition team question is out of a DoE job on Jan 21 2017. Which may have been the main point of that particular request. What fun to watch this unfold.

      • “Whoever replyed ‘No’ to that transition team question is out of a DoE job on Jan 21 2017.”
        The response came from Energy Department spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder. I presume it was authorised by Dr Moniz, the current Energy Secretary. His replacement has already been announced. He’s reminding the Trump team that he is still the one in charge, and he’s not going to conduct their witch hunt for them. They’ll have to wait till January.

      • ==> What fun to watch this unfold. ==>

        I agree. It is fun to watch “skeptics” who complained so constantly, and who self-victimized so ubiquitously, jettison any pretense that they were acting on principle when they complained about special interest groups and “activist’ involvement in science and science-based policy formation – as they applaud the involvement of special interest groups and “activists” in science and science-based policy formation.

        All contingent on ideological orientation.

        The power of “motivated reasoning” is a sight to behold.

      • Curious George

        They’ll have to wait until January. True. A nice example of a bipartisanship anyway.

    • The reply from the DOE mentioned that it would not expose the names of persons working in its “labs”; but that was an alarmist misdirection, because such names, and their lab activity, weren’t the focus of the inquiry.

    • They are looking to eliminate those climate ‘scientists’ primarily motivated by politics, ie the most crooked/politically correct ones. The idea is to try and promote an interest in seeking the truth, a notion anethema Democrst administrations.

  21. Interesting how the politicians (and corporate interest, potentially) being empowered to direct research activities is magically being considered mutually exclusive with “activism” – post election.

  22. Go Trump! It’s time stop the climate religion. It is doing far more harm to the world than ISIS.

  23. Maybe they’ll even find the lost falsifiable GHE hypothesis. Of course, the GHE enthusiasts are terrified that a secret Russian Government Organisation will retrieve it from its hiding place, and leak it. Along with the missing heat, no doubt.

    What a pack of Witless Warmist Wallies!

    It doesn’t matter how much you save or don’t save the past. It still won’t predict the next 100 seconds, let alone the next 100 years!

    Fools.

    Cheers.

    • And yet as the past has shown, this same tired tedious trend continues, unabated, despite not knowing the future, it will continue as predicted.

  24. I think we are actually witnessing a mass psychological disturbance here. There doesn’t appear to be any other logical reason to explain what is going on, not only with the global warming establishment, but with the left in general. I’m sure such a phenomenon has happened before but I doubt it has ever been documented in such excruciating detail and certainly never has had the opportunity to spread globally at such breakneck pace via the internet and other electronic digital communications. It really is probably a unique event in our history, a social phenomenon that will mark a critical juncture in our development.

    • There are pictures that were taken in the Ohrdruf concentration camp, shortly after the liberation of the camp in April of 1945, where the guards shot the remaining prisoners as American forces approached…

    • Ant – Nest – Disturbance Syndrome.

    • ==> think we are actually witnessing a mass psychological disturbance here. There doesn’t appear to be any other logical reason to explain what is going on, not only with the global warming establishment, but with the left in general. ==>

      May be the best example of an argument from incredulity I have ever seen. Not to mention, consider that significant percentages of the “right” thought that Obama is a ferner and the anti-Christ .

      • Not to mention, consider that significant percentages of the “right” thought that Obama is a ferner and the anti-Christ .

        And the MSM was right in there yelling with them, right?

        Not.

    • JJ, to paraphrase Jedi master Obi-wan Kanobi: there is a great disturbance in the farce.

  25. “One of the many shocking revelations of the 2009 Climategate emails was that in some cases the raw temperature data had been destroyed or lost by the scientists whose job it was to maintain it. Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia admitted that they had not kept “the original raw data” for reasons of “data storage availability”.”

    Really dishonest misinformation, a commonly twisted story. It was not Jones responsibility to maintain “raw temperature data”. UEA is not the custodian of measurements. Jones obtained copies from Met Offices, as anyone else could. The reason for trying to locate his original data was to match it to the homogenised output that he had kept, a need he had not envisaged so long ago. That may be a loss to Jones’ own work, but the world has lost no “raw data”.

    • Yes. We can only ‘lose’ data that we have access to in the first place.

    • So why the panic?

    • Nick, this is not my cup of tea – I don’t know anything about responsibilities of institutions. The temperature data (does it include the Yamal tree data?) may have come from the Met. But undoubtedly they did use only a subset, not all the Met data. What subset?
      You remind me of a famous Joelle Gerghis answer: I don’t have to tell you what data sets we excluded from our work.

    • George,
      “What subset?”
      That’s irrelevant here. The false charge is that “the raw temperature data had been destroyed or lost by the scientists whose job it was to maintain it”. In fact Jones was just an academic doing research and writing papers. He wrote off and got copies of met data. He did his research, wrote the paper, and that was it. No doubt he kept the data for a while in case of queries, but it wasn’t actually the data that he derived and published. But the queries first came 20 years later. I suspect many scientists would fail to locate data they hadn’t used for 20 years.

      • Curious George

        Irrelevant, when you can not repeat your results? You should only be publishing in the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

      • Nick

        The Met Office rarely get rid of anything as I can testify having been to their offices, library and archives.. They share the latter with Devon County Council who have high standards of archiving and have hide scrolls dating back to the 12th century containing minutes of meeting by Exeter town council (although it wasn’t called that then!)

        I went through these joint archives (often written in French and Latin) partly looking for weather related references to the tunnels that were used to carry water to the Cathedral and then to other parts of Exeter.. These were built from the 14yh century onwards.

        Anyway, my point is that the Met Office are likely to have the original data. however it is unlikely that Phil Jones would keep such data relating to one of many projects dating back two decades and whether he could track down what he used and why from the original met office material might also be difficult.

        One of Phil Jones phd students -now a respected climate scientist-works at the met office and would, I am sure, be able to fill in any background, should the question be posed civilly and had a point

        tonyb

      • Tonyb,
        “Anyway, my point is that the Met Office are likely to have the original data. however it is unlikely that Phil Jones would keep such data relating to one of many projects dating back two decades…”
        Thanks. That’s my point too.

    • Nick Stokes,

      I’m glad you realise that Jones was just an academic – not an actual scientist. Just your average climatologist, in fact.

      As to missing data –

      “But when Jones turned down requests from them to reveal details about the location of the 84 Chinese weather stations used in the study, arguing that it would be “unduly burdensome”, they concluded that he was covering up the error.”

      And then, he magically lost the appropriate records, never to be seen again! What a surprise!

      Maybe it’s not hard to lose something which never existed – just like Trenberth’s lost heat, Gavin’s CO2 thermostat, or Hansen’s tipping points.

      No GHE. No missing heat. No science. Just climatology, as usual.

      Cheers.

      • “And then, he magically lost the appropriate records, never to be seen again!”

        As so often, reckless with facts. The reference to lost data here is to data that Jones obtained from met stations and homogenised, in the mid 1980’s. Twenty years later, he was unable to locate that data that he obtained (which, from his point of view, was no longer needed).

        You’re mixing that up with a jihad from Doug Keenan about a paper with Wei-Chyung Wang, in Albany. There were accusations about missing docs, but no indications that Jones lost them, or indeed that they were ever in the UK.

      • Nick Stokes,

        Even the originals vanished, coincidentally, it would seem.

        You say he was unable to locate the data twenty years later. What a surprise! It seems to have vanished completely! Oh well, Jones said it existed at one time.

        I accept that Jones may have been mistaken, and that the missing data he claimed to have used, may never have existed in the first place!

        I’m happy with accepting Jones’ quoted words. Maybe they are a little inconvenient, but I believe what people say.

        Here’s what Phil Jones wrote –

        “If we have “lost” any data it is the following:

        1. Station series for sites that in the 1980s we deemed then to be affected by either urban biases or by numerous site moves, that were either not correctable or not worth doing as there were other series in the region.

        2. The original data for sites for which we made appropriate adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s. We still have our adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other sites that didn’t need adjusting.”

        I might be wrong, but the supposed original data doesn’t seem to exist anymore.

        It doesn’t really matter. As you said, an academic rather than a scientist. Deny, divert, confuse. Still no GHE. Not even a falsifiable GHE hypothesis. Non reproducible Cargo Cult Scientism – slurps vast amounts of money from the trough, produces nothing of use.

        Cheers.

      • When is it ever the case in science that the original observations are “no longer needed?” What hogwash that is. A scientific work product is supposed to be reproducible. An actual scientist would know this already without having to be told.

      • ” the original observations are “no longer needed?””

        because they aren’t Jones’ original observations. They are Met Office records, and anyone can get them from the source.

      • Nick Stokes,

        Jones claimed he lost “the original data . . . ”

        If you are saying he is mistaken, I believe you. I foolishly believed what he wrote.

        I would be surprised if the (presumably UK) Met Office has the original Chinese records. Of course, I will believe you if you can provide some evidence. Otherwise, it sounds like more Warmist Waffle to me.

        Maybe the climatologists have redefined “lost data” to mean “data that isn’t reallly lost. We just can’t find it, or even show that it existed in the first place.”

        There. Fixed.

        Cheers.

      • ” I foolishly believed what he wrote.”
        No, you foolishly can’t keep track of two different stories. I’ll spell it out again:

        Your first comment
        “details about the location of the 84 Chinese weather stations” etc
        related to Keenan’s jihad about Wei-Chyung Wang’s paper. Theer was no issue there of Jones losing data.

        Your second comment
        “Station series for sites that in the 1980s” etc
        related to an issue about papers Jones wrote in the mid-1980’s about global temperatures. Quite different. No Chinese, and no “original data”, except for the data provided by met offices of which he published a homogenised version.

        “I would be surprised if the (presumably UK) Met Office has the original Chinese records.”
        Just hopelessly confused.

      • Nick Stokes,

        “The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved, as it states in the 1990 paper, which was published in Nature. “It’s not acceptable … [it’s] not best practice,” Jones said.”

        I’m not sure about jihad. Is that like using the word denier? Are you claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is of a certain religion?

        Oh well, maybe Jones was hopelessly confused. Maybe he meant Africa, but accidentally said China! Or maybe we’re talking about different things. One paper was ‘Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land.”

        Maybe Phil Jones was misquoted at length. Maybe he never had access to the data used in the paper, so he couldn’t have lost it, even though he claimed to later.

        Maybe if you can present some facts that contradict what I have quoted, people might pay you some attention. I prefer facts to accusations that there is a jihad (whatever that’s supposed to mean).

        Just more denial, and attempts to divert and confuse, it seems.

        Jones possesses a BA, an MsC, and a Ph.D. in Hydrology (1977) from the Department of Civil Engineering. More appropriate than Gavin Schmidt, perhaps, but hardly a ringing endorsement. At least no false claims of Nobel Prizes.

        I don’t know whether he was gullible, ignorant, or incompetent. Or maybe just hopelessly confused. A bumbling fumbler, or fumbling bumbler?

        Just another academic, as you pointed out. No real science involved. Just models, data manipulation, missing or non existent data. And you call this science?

        Cheers.

      • NS – if he didn’t save the original data THAT HE USED, how would I know he used the data he claims? Maybe he made a mistake? Who knows?

  26. A chance for the public to see just how politicized climate science is.

  27. ‘Apres nous la deluge ‘.. closed society panic at the
    Centre for Science and Democracy advocacy union
    of very concerned scientists. Destroying data sets?
    How ironic … I love it so!

  28. 1) People are worried about modeling run data being lost. Climate modeling groups could lose funding.

    2) Why is Mosher so salty against Clibze? He knows about the poor quality of data practices at NOAA?

    3) Time to reorganize climate funding away from computer modeling and toward observational data.

    • Item 3 has been my goal for 42 years, but cutting network funding is an easy spreadsheet exercise for a congressional staffer that only worries if it will rain on their way to and from work. NASA is going to turn the satellites toward Mars, so no data help there.

      Hey, NOAA says the ocean is 95% unexplored. Do the oceans influence our climate??? What a novel idea that is. http://www.noaa.gov/oceans-coasts

    • > 3) Time to invent time travel.

      FIFY, Shub.

    • “2) Why is Mosher so salty against Clibze? He knows about the poor quality of data practices at NOAA?”

      I know about the witch hunts and what material effect they have had on guys who work hard.

      People making stupid requests make it hard for others making informed requests.

      • Steven Mosher,

        I thought in the US, all citizens were entitled to equal protection under the law.

        Are you advocating the laws should apply differently to people whom you ascertain to be stupid?

        Typical climatological thinking. Fantasy supplants fact.

        I wish you luck in your efforts to have different laws for those who subscribe to your deluded thinking, but I hope you continue your outstanding record of failure.

        Cheers.

      • “Are you advocating the laws should apply differently to people whom you ascertain to be stupid?

        No. The problem is the guy who wrote the FOIA is a dunce.

        Its pretty simple.

        Lets take CRU FOIA laws.

        There is an 18 hour limit, That is staff can give you 18 hours of free work, after that they will charge you for your data request

        I know, I tested this hypothesis.

        So, Lets suppose you want to fin all the documents on Adjusting at CRU

        Two options.

        1. Request all relevant documents, phone logs, emails, meeting notes, data, codes, etc etc
        2. Request all data.
        Then
        3. Request all emails..
        Then
        4. Request all phone logs.

        Option 1.. which the Bozo did, will get you a response That will cost 262,000. Why? Even a dope like you can get this. he asked for too much information in a SINGLE request, If you break up the requests, and do it over time, you get it all for free.

        Dope.

        thats the best way to work with NOAA.. Stacks of documents on my shelf show me that you are dope for not understanding how to game a system to cough up the documents without charging

  29. A blast from the past:

    Physicist Raymond Hoff, who published more than 50 reports on air pollution in transport and toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes—including pioneering work on acid rain—at Environment Canada between 1975 and 1999, doesn’t seem to exist, either. “Nothing comes up when I type my name into the search engine on [Environment Canada’s] website,” says Hoff, now a professor emeritus at the University of Maryland. Also gone are internal reports on the oil sands experiments of the 1970s. “That research was paid for by the taxpayer. Now, the people who need to protect Canada’s environment can’t get access.”

    http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/vanishing-canada-why-were-all-losers-in-ottawas-war-on-data/

    The War on Data may be more real than the War on Drug ever was.

  30. In reply to a Twitter request from Eric Holthaus that stated, “Scientists, help us: what would you back up next?”.

    My reply (with a nod to Steve MacIntyre): Lonnie and Ellen Mosly-Thompson ice core data.

    Bruce

    • Please #Archive #Lonnie & #Ellen #Mosly-#Thompson #ice #core #climate #data before they die. bbc.in/2hKT37v bit.ly/2hLN02y

      • Lonnie Thompson has far more data archived at the NOAA paleo site than anyone else. Here is a list as it stood in 2013:

      • David L. Hagen

        Nick Stokes 61 expeditions by Lonnie Thompson. 16 expeditions by Ellen Mosley-Thompson. Total data sets archived at NOAA 17. Is that ALL of them? Where are the rest? For background see Steve McIntyre 2012 Lonnie Thompson’s Legacy ” Despite Lonnie Thompson’s claim that “our ice core data are archived at the World Data Center NOAA Paleoclimate”, no data from any of these Ellen-led expeditions has been archived at the NOAA Paleo website.”

      • Nick Stokes … “far more” is not the same as all.

        From Steve McIntyre …

        In my last post, I observed that Ellen Mosley-Thompson’s archiving record was even worse than that that of her husband, Lonnie Thompson, whose failure to adequately archive his ice core measurements has long been a subject of criticism at Climate Audit. In particular, I observed that Ellen had archived nothing from the 15 expeditions to Greenland and Antarctica that, according to her CV, she had led.

        Despite Thompson’s claim, no data whatever is archived for many ice cores. For other cores, my issue is that the Thompson archive is completely inadequate, as I’ll discuss below. I remain mystified by Thompson’s intransigence in establishing a comprehensive and meticulous archive of his measurement data, as, in my opinion, he should regard the establishment of such an archive as an essential part of his scientific legacy and his #1 priority given his age and health.
        https://climateaudit.org/2012/07/08/lonnie-thompsons-legacy/

        I did a fairly thorough review of Thompson’s non-archiving as of July 2012 here. Nick Stokes at WUWT claimed that my posts were refuted by his being able to locate Thompson data at NOAA. Unfortunately, this is the sort of misdirection that is all too prevalent in the field.
        https://climateaudit.org/2013/04/07/the-quelccaya-update/

        Details at the links.

      • “. Total data sets archived at NOAA 17.”
        There are 265 data sets in the archive, from scientists all over the world. Lonnie Thompson has contributed 17, by far the largest contribution. Ellen’s name is on 11.

        Does every expedition produce archiveable data? Does no archive embrace more than one expedition?

        “Nick Stokes at WUWT claimed that my posts were refuted by his being able to locate Thompson data at NOAA. Unfortunately, this is the sort of misdirection that is all too prevalent in the field.”

        Climate Audit was a very strange place. After a series of posts claiming that Thompsons do not archive data, pointing out that there are actually a lot of archives there is “misdirection”. And evidently, there are indeed many who resisted misdirection and followed McIntyre faithfully. But the archives are there.

      • Nick, Nick, Nick,

        After claims of not archiving SPECIFIC data, claims of archiving data different from originally SPECIFIED, are 100% inconclusively misdirection, and you know this.

        You are a mystery. Sometimes you contributed extremely accurate and valuable input to discussions, and at other times, such as today, you flop aboutas if you are Michael Mann’s Marionette.

        Tis’ a puzzlement.

      • David L. Hagen

        Nick Stokes Please show how you found 11 ice core data sets at NOAA Ice Cores under Thompson, E.M. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo/f?p=518:1:0:::::
        I only find one using NOAA’s author selection , that that is already listed under the 17 for Thompson, L.G.
        See: 1. Sajama – Oxygen Isotope, Ion, and Particle Data Thompson, L.G.;Davis, M.D.;Thompson, E.M.;Sowers, T.;Henderson, K.A.;Zagorodnov, V.S.;Lin, P-N.;Mikhalenko, V.N.;Campen, R.K.;Bolzan, J.F.;Cole-Dai, J.;Francou, B. Earliest Year: 25000 cal yr BP * Most Recent Year: -47 cal yr BP (1997 AD) * Location Bounds – North: -18 * South: -18 * East: -69 * West: -69 *

      • Charles the M,
        “After claims of not archiving SPECIFIC data, claims of archiving data different from originally SPECIFIED, are 100% inconclusively misdirection, and you know this.”
        The claim to which I responded was sinmply:
        “Please #Archive #Lonnie & #Ellen #Mosly-#Thompson #ice #core #climate #data before they die.”
        Nothing specific there. Just a general claim that the Thompsons don’t archive.

        These arguments go like this:
        A. The Thompsons are serial non-archivers
        N. But look – lots of archives
        A How can you defend serial non-archivers, designated by Climate Audit
        N. But look … and so on

        David Hagen,
        ” Please show how you found”
        I said:
        “Ellen’s name is on 11.”
        Bruce Plateau, Camp Century, Dasuopo, Dunde, Dunde, Guliya etc
        Are you confused by her listing under E. Mosley-Thompson?

      • No Nick, the arguments, not the title of the piece, were more like this:

        Mosley-Thompson has had an important leadership role in the U.S. PARCA program (Program for Regional Arctic Climate Assessment), which drilled 49 short and medium-length cores in Greeenland between 1995 and 1998. She was senior author of a summary article in 2001 – see here.

        Despite the importance of d18O as a climate proxy and the promised benefits of the PARCA Program for Regional Arctic Climate Assessment, not a single d18O measurement from the PARCA program has been archived at the NOAA paleoclimate archive nor, to my knowledge and I’ve looked very carefully, elsewhere.

        Squiggles for 6 of Mrs Lonnie’s Greenland cores (5 PARCA and one 1989 core) and 3 of her Antarctic cores (dating back to the early 1990s) were shown in a 2006 article. None of this data has been archived.

        Nor, to my knowledge, has any other American scientist archived any Greenland d18O measurement for any year subsequent to the inception of the IPCC in 1990. I’ve looked closely at the major archives (NOAA Pangaea and NSIDC and the most recent archived d18O measurement from Greenland by a U.S. scientist appears to be from 1986 (see here), the most recent year archived from 1989 hole GRIP89-1.

      • Charles,
        Well, the title (“Lonnie and Ellen, A Serial Non-Archiving Couple”) all that what most people seem to remember. And it is an echo of that that I was responding to. OK, if you go through the CA weeds, you find that yes, the Thompson’s do archive, but Steve has complaints. Well, he always does. The problem is, he wraps it up in a simple counter-factual message – Thomspns serial non-archivers, and that is what I here. And I say – but look – and they say, go read McIntyre (which they haven’t done).

      • Nick,

        Actual substance as opposed to misdirection is not “in the weeds.” Don’t argue like a ten year old.

      • “Actual substance as opposed to misdirection”
        Substance is what I never see from these complainants, including you. What is it that CtM, or David Hagen, or Bruce Anderson so desperately want to read in the Thompson archives? All I ever get are slabs cut and pasted from Steve M, if they can be bothered. And the parroted complaint “The Thompsons are serial non-archivers” or whatever.

        One thing I have battled over, at Climate Audit, unsuccessfully, is just getting simple facts right. The Thompsons don’t archive? OK here is a slab of stuff they arhived. No, the Thompsons don’t archive. Steve says so.

        I stick to that. The Thompsons do archive. If you have a complaint of incompleteness, spell it out. Preferably in your own words. But statements of obvious factual nonsense get us nowhere.

      • Absolute rubbish Nick,

        Your tactic is to seek out the most ambiguous statement you can find and interpret it the way you want in response.

        It is a straightforward tactic and it is transparent.

        And yet you often bring useful information to discussions. I am curious, what is the criteria to decide when to be honest and when to be conniving?

      • I am curious, what is the criteria to decide when to be honest and when to be conniving?

        How about:

        If honesty will make the argument:

              then use honesty;

        else:

              connive.

      • David L. Hagen

        Always use honesty (or remain silent.) Never connive. Each person will be held accountable for every word said. http://biblehub.com/matthew/12-36.htm

      • “when to be honest and when to be conniving?”
        The honesty question is on the other side. When people like Bruce and David make simple statements to the effect that the Thompson’s do not archive, then that is an untruth. More disparaging terms could be used (with justification here), but that is not my way. I simply answer it in the terms stated. The Thompsons do archive.

        If someone wants to put a balanced view as to what could be improved with their archiving, fine – let’s hear it. But get basic facts right first.

      • Nick

        I don’t know the ins and outs of this one.

        Where is the Thompson material archived and how would it be accessed?

        Tonyb

      • Nick

        Think I have answered my own question by re reading the thread where you underline the word archive at 2.52.

        Is the argument that Thompson only archives a small fraction of the work? Has this always been available and for some reason was not picked up by Steve or was it archived Years after the event?

        Tonyb

      • Tony,
        “Is the argument that Thompson only archives a small fraction of the work? Has this always been available and for some reason was not picked up by Steve or was it archived Years after the event?”
        Tony, the thing stated is usually simply that the Thompsons don’t archive. In fact they archive far more than anyone else. If you read what Steve actually says, there is a lot of archiving – he finds fault with it, as always. So he heads his article “Lonnie and Ellen, A Serial Non-Archiving Couple”. And that is the chant the crowd takes up.

        In fact, they don’t archive everything. But the fact that they archive so much more than anyone else means that either their output is super-human or they are still way ahead of the standards of their field.

        Their contribution to the NOAA archive did take place years after the event. But that archive only startd taking contributions in 2010. Before things were more informal. Here is a characteristic McIntyre diatribe fro 2007. He has the data; he’s complaining about inconsistencies etc.

        In fact, in the 2013 post quoted above by rovingbroker, he did catch up with some of the modern reality:
        “It is worth commending Thompson for prompt archiving of the present data, but that does not refute past criticism of both Ellen and Lonnie. (I note that Thompson has mitigated some of that criticism by archiving some data on old cores, even within the past year.)”
        So he switched fire to Ellen. But the boo squad here hasn’t noticed.

      • Nick

        Thanks for his. I was not a great follower of the main climate audit blog and some of the articles were rather specialised. I can see Thompson do archive and they are better than the average researcher in their field.

        I don’t know whether in steves real line of work that people routinely archive mining findings to a much higher standard than in climate science thereby giving Steve unrealistically high expectations?

        Whatever the historical background I hope that sufficient fuss has been made to ensure that everyone in climate science nowadays routinely carry out high quality and timely archiving…

        Tonyb

      • David L. Hagen

        climatereason A key problem is papers have been published without objective testable data that peers can use to evaluate the paper and/or use for other analyses.

      • Am I getting this right?

        The Thompsons don’t archive their data.

        No that is not true. See, here is data they have archived.

        Ok, they have archived some data, but it is just a small fraction of the data they have used.

        Doesn’t matter. If they have archived data, you can’t criticize them for not archiving the majority of their data.

      • ” If they have archived data, you can’t criticize them for not archiving the majority of their data.”
        Of course you can. Just give a list of the things that are not there at the moment that you really want to see in the archive.

        But don’t say they haven’t archived data. That is, you know, a falsehood.

      • timg56

        Its pretty simple.

        Suppose that Trump had 50 invoices this month to pay contractors.

        Suppose he paid 45, and did not pay 5.

        The MSM would say “TRUMP DOESNT PAY HIS BILLS”

        and you would point out that he paid 45 out of 50 and the headline would be technically… unclear, mirpresenting, spinning, open to interpretation, etc

        Its best just to what the case is wrt archiving

      • To be honest, I don’t care how much of their data the Thompson’s have archived. And if I did, all I really need to know is what percentage of the data was archived. With that information I could then decide whether I cared enough to put additional effort into finding out if they archived the most valuable data.

        To borrow Mosher’s analogy, to determine if a headline stating Trump does not pay his bills, is accurate, I would want to how many bills and how many were not paid. Using Mosher’s example, learning he had 5 unpaid bills out of 50, I would conclude the headline was bogus. Now it could be that the bills totaled $50 million and the 5 unpaid bills amounted to $45 million. Then I might reach a different conclusion.

      • David L. Hagen

        Nick Stokes
        Twitted by Stephen McIntyre ‏@ClimateAudit Dec 15

        @DavidLHagen @WHUT even these limited Thompson archives are only a fraction of the actual data. Maybe Trump can get Thompson to archive data

      • David L. Hagen

        Nick Stokes
        11 cores under Mosley-Thompson, E. (and NOT under Thompson, EM)
        WHY NOT?
        BUT 10 of those are already with Thompson, LG
        Only 1 added to Thompson, LG.
        Where is the rest of the data?
        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo/f?p=518:7:0::NO:::

        Stephen McIntyre ‏@ClimateAudit Dec 15 affirms:

        @DavidLHagen @WHUT even these limited Thompson archives are only a fraction of the actual data. Maybe Trump can get Thompson to archive data

      • “Where is the rest of the data?”
        How about saying what data you mean. Have you any idea of your own? Or are you solely relying on tweets from SM?

        You just don’t seem interested in looking, only accusing. I showed you where the PARCA data was (and has been since at least January 2009, despite CtM’s quote from SM above). You seem to think it’s an unfair trick for Ellen to use a hyphenated name.

    • Eric HolthausVerified account ‏@EricHolthaus Dec 13
      Eric Holthaus Retweeted Eric Holthaus
      Update: @PPEHLab has graciously offered to take leadership of this project.
      Climate #datarefuge website is now up:
      http://www.ppehlab.org/datarefuge

  31. Hopefully, the seas won’t begin to rise again when Obama leaves office.

  32. Its time to increase the integrity of climate research… and truly promoting academic freedom so that scientists are free to pursue research without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police. ~Dr. Judith Curry

  33. “Get over it, your side lost. Changes of Presidential administrations occur every 4 or 8 years, often with changes in political parties.”

    This sounds like the politicization of science… from Dr Curry.

    I do agree that Conspiracy Theories are unhelpful. The real concern is the appointment of climate change deniers into positions of power. There is every chance their willful ignorance will influence policy decisions – this is not a Conspiracy Theory.

    • The climate change deniers are being pushed OUT of office.

      And your handle is an insult to otters.

      • Harry Twinotter

        Gary Gudalefsky.

        “And your handle is an insult to otters.”

        Oh come on, you can do better than that can’t you?

      • Harry Twinotter,

        You mention climate change deniers.

        And yet, you can’t actually name one person who denies that the weather (and hence the climate) changes, can you?

        Just more Warmist Weasel Words! The Warmists are terrified that real scientists (as opposed to RealClimate mathematicians calling themselves scientists), might ask to see some evidence of the scientific method.

        Cargo Cult Scientism might not be enough to keep the river of grant funds flowing. What a pity!

        Cheers.

      • “(as opposed to RealClimate mathematicians calling themselves scientists)”

        Don’t forget “climate psychologists”.

    • Harry, you assert they are willfully ignorant because they have not drunk the CAGW coolaid. Some inconvenient facts. Except for the now rapidly cooling 2016-16 El Nino blip, there has been no warming this century except by Karlization. The warming ~1920-1945 is essentially indistinguishable from ~1975-2000. IPCC AR4 SPM figure 8.2 specifically said they earlier period was not mainly AGW– simply not enough change in CO2. Natural variation did not stop in 1975. Observational ECS is half of what is modeled. The models produce a tropical troposphere hot spot that does not observationally exist. SLR is not accelerating unless you append sat alt to tide gauge, a fear analogous to Mike’s Nature trick. Diff GPS corrected tide gauge estimate closes with sum (ice sheet loss plus thermosteric rise). Sat alt does not.
      Deplorables elected Trump to get rid of the warmunist cult ‘religion’ and put responsible fact driven adults back in charge of policy. Get over it. Your aide lost.

      • Thank you, istvan, for putting “not wild about harry” in his place…

        “Your aide lost.” should read “Your side lost.”

    • There is every chance their willful ignorance will influence policy decisions – this is not a Conspiracy Theory.

      We can hope.

    • The politics in one country changed, but the science just rolls on because it doesn’t have borders. You won’t see a change in the science, only perhaps a bit more shouting from politicians unhappy about it, and continued activity from those skeptic tanks like Cato influencing Congress.

    • So which appointee has denied that climate changes? Be specific with supporting links to their acclamation of the basic fact that climate changes. And equivocation will be seen as merely an attempt to cover up an untruth on your part.

    • Typically the otter attributes ignorance, willful no less, to those who hold opinions different than his.

      Knowing you are smarter and better educated than the masses must be an exhilarating feeling. I wouldn’t know. Despite 3 degrees and being among the best in my small field, I can’t forget I’m the grandson of an immigrant coal minor.

  34. There once was a great library called Alexandria but some zealots deleted it.
    Book burning was popular in the 1930s.
    I noticed they are storing it out of US jurisdiction like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.

  35. Dr Curry.

    “Yawn. Michael Mann again. See Steyn versus Mann: norms of behavior. Standing up for integrity in climate research does not require that you stand up for Michael Mann’s egregious behavior. So . . . losing data — sort of like what happened to the hockey stick data and meta data?”

    You appear to be obsessed with Michael Mann. Care to provide evidence that backs up your claim of “egregious” behaviour, and him “losing” data?

    • HT, see Climate Audit for the ‘lost’ data– stuff like his own analyses showing Mann wrong. Read ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ for the rest.

      • Harry Twinotter

        ristvan.

        Got an references to a real climate website, or to the actual documents themselves? I should point out that Mann et al’s research was the subject of a number of investigations, and nothing badly wrong with it was discovered. Since then his results have been confirmed by other studies.

        I guess this is what Dr Curry means by the “politicization” of science. She says she is against it, so I find it puzzling why she does not support Dr Michael Mann on that basis.

      • HT, you are wrong on many counts. What is a real website? Gavin’s joke at Realclimate? DeSmogBlog? As for investigations, I think you will find upon study thatnthe Wegman committe did not exonorate Mann, rather the opposite. Your side tried everything and failed on 8Nov2016. The consequences now follow.

      • Harry Twinotter
        ” I should point out that Mann et al’s research was the subject of a number of investigations, and nothing badly wrong with it was discovered. Since then his results have been confirmed by other studies”
        HT, all of the other studies had Mann’s name, fingerprints or associates in them.
        No new proof at all just circular logic.
        I would say check it out, but I know that you already have, and still dissemble.

      • > […] all of the other studies had Mann’s name, fingerprints or associates in them.

        Genetic fallacy / association fallacy.

        > No new proof at all just circular logic.

        There goes my second irony meter of the day, angech.

      • Twinotter said: Mann’s … results have been confirmed by other studies

        I thought climate cultists changed their mind on the Hockey Stick? Is the Hockey stick real or not?

      • note, MBH98, 99 were not referenced in the IPCC AR5

      • Curious George

        IPCC drops a major contribution to their Nobel prize?

      • Harry Twinotter

        Dr Curry.

        “note, MBH98, 99 were not referenced in the IPCC AR5”.

        Not surprising as the study was a bit dated by 2015, and (from memory) was not global. It has been replaced by several more up to date Hockey Stick graphs.

      • This is a riot.

        “Dr Mann’s research was subject to a number of investigations and nothing badly wrong was found with it.”

        Leaving aside the fact that the investigations otter refers to were not focused on the actual research, his use of the phrase not badly wrong is interesting.

        Exactly what what does not badly wrong mean?

    • Harry Twinotter,

      Wrongfully claiming to have been the recipient of a Nobel Prize on documents submitted to a Court seems pretty outstanding behaviour to me.

      Trying to claim he was too thick to realise he didn’t really get a Nobel Prize, as an explanation for his egregious behaviour, raises the bar even higher.

      I don’t know about data, but claiming you can assess an average annual air temperature at prescribed observation height by looking at a piece of timber, is simply bizarre. Even Gavin Schmidt stated that the tree ring data could be discarded without making any difference to anything. Useless, and pointless. Climatology.

      Mind you, Gavin Schmidt is not really a scientist himself, just an undistinguished mathematician. A matched pair of bearded, balding, bumbling fumblers? Or should that be fumbling bumblers?

      I would describe both as buffoons – ridiculous but amusing.

      Still no GHE. Pity.

      Cheers.

    • Hahahaha, some dopes are still defending hockeyschtick Mann??? Really?
      And with the “other studies have confirmed his results” routine?
      Priceless.

    • Otter, Mann has attacked Dr Curry on several occasions. Do try to keep up.

  36. What a bunch of drama queens! (apologies to any drama queens out there)

    The real loser here is, of course, The Onion. How can they possibly keep operating with this sort of thing going on?

  37. “Get busy and shore up your scientific arguments; I suspect that argument from consensus won’t sway many minds in the Trump administration.”

    So are you saying that the Trump administration would be swayed if there wasn’t a consensus? You do realize the consensus is based on the evaluation of the evidence by climate scientists? Contrast that with opinions from people with a clear vested interest, who cannot on their own evaluate the scientific evidence.

    I am actually looking forward to see how this is going to play out during President-elect Trump’s first 100 days. It will be interesting to see how the appointees will justify their positions if they go against established mainstream science – will they use the opinions of a minority of scientists, or will they actually discuss the scientific evidence? Either option will be interesting.

    • Harry Twinotter,

      If you could actually produce a falsifiable GHE hypothesis, you might appear even slightly respectable.

      Of course, you can’t. Just more assertions that thermometers get hotter when you increase the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and the Sun.

      Buffoonery. Climate Cult Scientism.

      Cheers.

      • > Just more assertions that thermometers get hotter when you increase the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and the Sun.

        How is that NOT a “falsifiable GHE hypothesis”, Mike F.?

      • brandonrgates,

        An ridiculous assertion is not a falsifiable GHE hypothesis.

        It’s just a ridiculous assertion. Maybe that’s why even an undistinguished mathematician pretending to be a scientist, or a tree whispering buffoon wouldn’t be silly enough to provide it as a falsifiable GHE hypothesis!

        Or are you suggesting that the ridiculous assertion is actually the GHE hypothesis? Where might I find this assertion put forward as a hypothesis explaining increases in the temperature of thermometers? In your fantasy, perhaps?

        Too silly for words. I do hope you have something better than that.

        Still no falsifiable GHE hypothesis. Just ridiculous assertions – generally implied, rather than stated in scientific terms. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that climatologists attempting to put forward a scientific hypothesis, discover very quickly that they will just look like the buffoons that they are.

        No GHE involving CO2. No scientific basis at all. Speculation at best, self serving delusion or fraud at worst.

        Cheers.

      • > An ridiculous assertion is not a falsifiable GHE hypothesis.

        If a statement is not falsifiable, one can’t very well demonstrate that it is ridiculous … one can only assert that it is ridiculous.

        Logic. Try it.

        > Buffoonery. […] Too silly for words. I do hope you have something better than that.

        Et tu, Mike F.?

      • brandonrgates,

        You still can’t produce a falsifiable GHE hypothesis, can you?

        Just more attempts to deny, divert, and confuse.

        The usual Witless Warmist demands – do this, do that – whilst avoiding the point.

        Produce a fact or two, just a smidgen of science, maybe, and you may gain a little respectability.

        No GHE. If there was, I assume that someone, somewhere, might have used some of the billions scammed from the Government to demonstrate the existence of this widely accepted myth. But als, to date, nothing!

        Don’t worry just because you can’t find any repeatable experimental support – neither can anybody else!

        Cheers.

      • Falsifiable hypothesis #1: Doubling CO2 causes 3 C of global warming. So far, standing up.

      • > You still can’t produce a falsifiable GHE hypothesis, can you?

        This is all so pleasingly circular.

        > No GHE.

        To which falsifiable GHE hypothesis does that refer, Mike F.?

      • Of course it’s a hypothesis, because it can be tested by experiment.

        And that is exactly what we are doing.

        And guess what, CO2 is going up and so is temperature.

        Sucks to be scientifically handicapped.

      • “Sucks to be scientifically handicapped.”

        Sucks to be ignorant of the law, particularly since ignorance of the law is no excuse. It also sucks to affirm the consequent which is no mere informal fallacy it is a formal fallacy. Worse still, it sucks to be philosophically bankrupt. Never mind the epistemological problems that come with “causation”. Okay, on second thought, let’s mind it for a moment and long enough to ask; how precise is a measurement of causation and is it precise enough to assess the relationship between cause and effect?

        How does your association between events you might call correlation answer the question of a causal relationship? What about multiple factors or any confounding variable that might concomitantly influence outcomes? What is the likelihood that humans are predisposed to recognize patterns and psychologically likely to collect data that supports their world view, or is confirmation bias only a phenomenon of the scientifically handicapped?

        Should Hume just be dismissed out of hand in regards to the question of causal existence? Does causation even exist or is it merely the habit of humans to to infer a a connection between two events we’ve noticed successively several times. The question of Hume’s argument resonates even more today in this post-truth milieu where the debate is largely guided by appeals to emotion that have nothing at all to do with the relevant policies and the successive assertion of talking points get louder and louder in an attempt to drown out factual rebuttals.

        But those are merely the philosophical questions, which in a post-truth milieu is, with louder and louder repetition, roundly dismissed. Misinterpreting causal links, however, can lead to pointless action, or worse, it can lead to harmful action.

        In regards to law, it may be tempting to cite Massachusetts v EPA and claim the law is “settled”, but its 5/4 split decision has left the door open for future challenges. Correlation and consensus are dubious methods in relation to the scientific method and as such is dubious evidence under the Daubert standard.

        By the way, it sucks to be handicapped regardless of the adjective that precedes it.

      • Ahh, the old correlation is not causation gambit.

        You think you win the argument with that.

        It is just a necessary but not sufficient step before a conclusion. You need to find the mechanism that links the variables that you have found a correlation for.

        And also you have to check all the other variables that can have an effect.

        This has all been done, it’s not the sun stupid, it’s not the oceans stupid, it’s not volcanos stupid, it’s not the waste heat from the combustion process stupid, it’s not cosmic debris stupid, “who you jiving with that cosmic debris” stupid, it’s not the stadium wave stupid, etc. stupid.

        There’s a Tort case here somewhere, at some point it will suck to be Exxon Mobile.

        If you claim there is confirmation bias, you need to provide evidence.
        Scientists are trained as undergrads to avoid confirmation bias, I know I was.

        Consensus is just a shortcut for those who don’t want to read the thousands of papers that support the AGW narrative. If you don’t like that, try refuting Mann and Hansen, better men have tried and failed.

    • Harry, were you born warped or did it taken you a life time of achievement to get that way?

      • Harry Twinotter

        afonzarelli.

        “Harry, were you born warped or did it taken you a life time of achievement to get that way?”

        Ohhh more insults! Keeping up the reputation of climate change deniers being nasty sorts.

      • Actually otter, many of us love our families and our country, work hard, value our friends and neighbors, go to church and volunteer in our communities.

        The fact some of us have a low tolerance to people who think anyone who doesn’t think like them or agree with them must be a deplorable person doe not make us nasty.

        Then there is the fact that someone shouldn’t dish it out if he can’t take it coming back at him.

        Like you disparaging people above because they don’t agree with you.

    • It will be interesting to see how the appointees will justify their positions if they go against established mainstream science – will they use the opinions of a minority of scientists, or will they actually discuss the scientific evidence? Either option will be interesting.

      If Trump follows my advice, he and his appointees will 1) call for a series of detailed scientific debates on the dozens of contested aspects of AGW and CAGW, similar to the Dutch site already doing that (I forget its name); 2) they will ask for universities to provide a forum for such online debates by setting up unofficial “climate courts” for this and other scientific heterodoxies; and 3) they will call for a half-dozen two-hour oral debates, to be broadcast to the public, at a less detailed level.

    • In many cases they will be getting scientific reports from their underlings at DOE, EPA, Commerce, etc., and have to decide whether to act on them or smother them.

    • I think the Trump administration will try to validate statements made by alarmists against actual evidence. The consensus is meaningless. There is none. What you claim as “the consensus” is based on weak mathematical models, and bullying people not to step out of line. Just because a model uses evidence does not mean it is based on evidence. Models are based on weak assumptions, approximations. GCMs are not validated in any scientific sense. It is as correct to say that GCMs misuse evidence. The evidence itself can justify a lukewarmer position at most. People like you call that lukewarmer position “denial”.

    • “Ahh, the old correlation is not causation gambit. You think you win the argument with that.”

      If that’s all you got from my comment then it not only sucks to be scientifically handicapped, ignorant of the law, handicapped by fallacy, and philosophically handicapped, it just sucks to be slow.

      “It is just a necessary but not sufficient step before a conclusion. You need to find the mechanism that links the variables that you have found a correlation for.”

      Moi needs to find this? You want the skeptics to do the science for ya?

      “And also you have to check all the other variables that can have an effect.”

      Now you want me to figure out what the confounding variables are for ya, so you can then smugly declare “sucks to be Exxon”?

      “This has all been done, it’s not the sun stupid, it’s not the oceans stupid, it’s not volcanos stupid, it’s not the waste heat from the combustion process stupid, it’s not cosmic debris stupid, “who you jiving with that cosmic debris” stupid, it’s not the stadium wave stupid, etc. stupid.”

      Uh-huh. Don’t know what a confounding factor or confounding variable is, do ya? There is nothing more amusing than watching someone project their intellectual level onto others.

      “There’s a Tort case here somewhere, at some point it will suck to be Exxon Mobile.”

      Gee, right after calling me stupid you make this comment? You’re just good to be true, ain’t ya?

      “If you claim there is confirmation bias, you need to provide evidence.”

      On top of all your handicaps you also have a reading deficiency? Guess that means ya gotta – wait for it..- read harder.

      “Scientists are trained as undergrads to avoid confirmation bias, I know I was.”

      And it shows, in spades! How can anyone riddled with so many handicaps have any confirmation bias? It just boggles the mind.

      “Consensus is just a shortcut for those who don’t want to read the thousands of papers that support the AGW narrative. If you don’t like that, try refuting Mann and Hansen, better men have tried and failed.”

      Oh I see, is your argument now that it was the skeptics who manufactured the so called consensus because they couldn’t be bothered to read the papers – presumably authored by “scientists” at your intellectual level – what else ya got?

      All your training as a “scientists” has failed you much in the same way that all the training for mediocre athletes fail them in terms of getting in the big show. Ya probably need to start looking for an easier field you can survive in. Maybe law, where you can tell your clients: “There must be some case law out there that works in your favor. What you need to do is find that case law and get back to me so I can bill you.”

  38. I would like to zero in on this statement: “Get busy and shore up your scientific arguments; I suspect that argument from consensus won’t sway many minds in the Trump administration.”

    And the Trump administration would be absolutely correct in not accepting an argument from consensus. That is the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. It does not matter if 7 billion people say something is true, that does not make it true.

    Today my primary complaint against the CAGW movement is that they refuse to act like scientists. Which is to say, they refuse to answer legitimate dissenting questions, they refuse to show their work as required by the scientific method, and they claim to need more money for studies even though they also say the issue is settled. They use the ad populum, and sometimes ad hominum, logical fallacies to stifle debate and deep-six data verification. If the issue really is true, then you have nothing to lose when debating and when showing your data.

  39. Reblogged this on Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations and commented:
    Thanks, Judith, I enjoyed this post. The concluding “JC message to the alarmed scientist/advocates” is well done.

  40. richardswarthout

    It is disturbing to think that these conspiracy theorists may xalso be teaching our young.

    Richard

  41. There’s a lot of persuasion going on in K-12 education,
    Richard, both in the US and here in Oz. Ref my latest
    serf post, ‘Trust but Verify.’ bts.
    https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/43rd-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/

  42. Data Refuge

    Here is a list of vulnerable datasets. If you have an ask, and would like to nominate data, or if you have an offer, and would like to download/scrape/etc or provide server space, please fill out this form.
    If you are hosting a public #DataRescue event or “hackathon,” let us know in an email to DataRefuge@ppehlab.org and we will share it too.

    Gov. Climate Datasets (Archive)
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12-__RqTqQxuxHNOln3H5ciVztsDMJcZ2SVs1BrfqYCc/htmlview?usp=drive_web&sle=true

    Please recommend data sets that should be publicly available, to:
    Data Refuge help form
    https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc0C7eQySKrDvDtFKAFUEwRNx6-tPueCqZMZzMhMit-XN653A/viewform?c=0&w=1
    (~90 data sets listed.)

    Submitted the Lonnie G. and Ellen Mosly-Thompson ice core data.
    Ice Core Paleontology
    Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center
    The Ohio State University
    108 Scott Hall
    1090 Carmack Rd
    Columbus, OH 43210 USA
    Phone: +1 614-292-6531 / Fax: +1 614-292-4697
    For general information, website feedback, or accessibility questions, please contact us.
    http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/Icecore/

    Submitted:

    Please archive ALL ice-core data from 61 expeditions by Lonnie Thompson and 16 expeditions by Ellen Mosley-Thompson’s CV Antarctic sites include Plateau Remote, Dyer Plateau and Siple Station; Greenland sites include those in the PARCA program e.g. GITS, D2, D3, Raven, Tunu. See expeditions listed at http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/Icecore/vitae/lgt_cv.pdf https://geography.osu.edu/sites/geography.osu.edu/files/Ellen%20Mosley-Thompson%20CV.pdf

    • ” Greenland sites include those in the PARCA program e.g. GITS, D2, D3, Raven, Tunu.”
      This is just drive-by harassment. You don’t seem to bother to look. You couldn’t even find her name at the NOAA archive. As for this, the PARCA data (Ellen) is archived at (where else) PARCA (NSIDC, NASA)

      • David L. Hagen

        Nick Stokes Thanks for ref to PARCA https://nsidc.org/data/NSIDC-0624
        Please explain why this is not listed under Thompson, E.M. at NOAA Ice-Cores? The only record on Thompson, E.M. I had previously found is:

        1. Sajama – Oxygen Isotope, Ion, and Particle Data
        Thompson, L.G.;Davis, M.D.;Thompson, E.M.;Sowers, T.;Henderson, K.A.;Zagorodnov, V.S.;Lin, P-N.;Mikhalenko, V.N.;Campen, R.K.;Bolzan, J.F.;Cole-Dai, J.;Francou, B. Earliest Year: 25000 cal yr BP * Most Recent Year: -47 cal yr BP (1997 AD) * Location Bounds – North: -18 * South: -18 * East: -69 * West: -69 *
        Records of past temperature, precipitation, atmospheric trace gases, and other aspects of climate and environment derived from ice cores drilled on glaciers and ice caps around the world. Parameter keywords describe what was measured in this data set. Additional summary information can be found in the abstracts of papers listed in the data set citations. …”

      • “Please explain why this is not listed under Thompson, E.M.”
        Because it isn’t archived there. PARCA commissioned Ellen’s work, and made the data available. This probably happened before the NOAA archive existed. People who actually want to find it know where to look.

  43. The most sadistically delightful aspect of all this is that for once, in possibly man’s history, there will be an answer to a political, scientific, social and philosophical question, all rolled into one. Will CAGW befall us all?

    The answer will be YES or NO.

    We can tick off the harbingers of doom as they fail to arrive (sea levels, famine, droughts, hurricanes, tornados etc.) and get on with spending taxpayers cash on promoting global peace rather than global windmills.

    And I can’t help but laugh when Attenborough presents the polar regions as cold, inhospitable and deadly, and equatorial jungles as hot, steamy, inhospitable and deadly. The difference being that the only thing likely to kill you at the poles is the lousy weather. In the tropics, you’re only likely to die if you are fat enough to be considered a tasty tidbit for the innumerable hungry animals happily enjoying their warm environment.

  44. Have no fear!! Governor Moon Beam is here!!! From the article:

    “The time has never been more urgent or your work never more important. The climate is changing, temperatures are rising, oceans are becoming more acidified, habitats are under stress – the world is facing tremendous danger,” Brown warned the group.

    “Some people say that they’re gonna turn off the satellites that are monitoring the uh climate, low earth uh phenomena, the landsat and all the various measuring satellites that we have,” claimed Brown in a video of the event posted to the Sacramento Bee. He recalled recommending a landsat for California in 1978. “They called me governor moonbeam because of that.”

    “And if Trump turns off the satellites, California will launch its own damn satellite,” charged Brown. “We’re gonna collect that data.” He remarked that private companies in California have launched satellites.

    Brown added a warning if “they start messin’ with Lawrence Berkeley Lab or Berkeley Livermore, I’m the president of the Board of Regents, I’m gonna say keep your hands off! That laboratory is going to pursue good science.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/15/california-gov-threatens-battle-trump-admin-rallying-climate-action-troops/

  45. Steven Mosher | December 15, 2016
    “NASA GISS dont adjust data.”
    Except they did, see
    ristvan | December 15, 2016
    Mosher, the wayback machine says that they do.
    Nick Stokes | December 15, 2016
    “The wayback machine says that they did. As did their code, publicly available, and their papers, which explained how and why it was done.
    Even their interactive web site offered adjusted and unadjusted data”
    They input the GHCN adjusted data.
    catweazle666 | December 15, 2016
    You’re funny!

    Tied up in all this is the blatant assertion that is made.
    Which is true by 2 giant stretches of vocabulary.
    “Some one else done it and we only use it”
    see “When NOAA data changes, GISS changes.. DUH!”
    So NASA GISS does use adjusted data. Which basically is adjusting the real data by proxy.

    and
    “We don’t do it now”
    “The Only adjusting they do is their UHI adjustment, which was last changed in 2010..”
    So you do admit they did adjust it
    Get over it Steven and don’t obfuscate all the time on this.

    “Now, However Trump owns that code and every number that comes out of it”
    Perfect, this is the The latest climate ‘conspiracy theory’.

    I am having the time of my life Climate wise at the moment, except for the odd hot flush. Unfortunately it is too good to be true. Adjusted data? look at the Global sea ice. Trump gets in and it goes up 2 million square kilometers since the election. There is adjusting to the new regime already. Too big to be natural variation, surely?

  46. It is not a conspiracy theory, but just an abundance of caution.

    • It is not a conspiracy theory, but just an abundance of caution.

      If only they had phrased it that way, no one here would be laughing at them. (I’m sure that our side would be behaving similarly (archiving data for that reason) if the tables were turned.)

    • The WaPo article was by one person who is taking it on himself to save data from Trump. Is it a widespread effort? No. He mentions that others have wondered whether the US climate model data for the next IPCC report will be allowed to be contributed. Good question for Trump to address.

  47. Angech – “Global sea ice. Trump gets in and it goes up 2 million square kilometers since the election.”

    What are you on about? What are you on for that matter? Why don’t you take a look at the data?

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/arctic-sea-ice-news-from-agu/#comment-216660

    • Jim it was 3,000,000 down now today it is 604,000 down Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly at WUWT sea ice page . I am fairly sure of the figures. What am I reading wrong?
      Is the graph wrong?

      • Yes that graph is wrong. You don’t honestly expect to get always accurate sea ice info at WUWT do you?

        For an in depth explanation of the issues see for example:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/04/satellite-problems-with-arctic-sea-ice-measurement/

      • Cryosphere today, University of Illinois, global sea ice area anomaly, seemingly updated daily, is actually totally useless?
        Thanks, I guess.
        Is it totally out if action, and if so why don’t they remove it from their website?
        I don’t honestly expect to get accurate sea ice info at Great White Con, that’s a bit cruel but keeping in the tenor of your comment above. What I really mean is the sea ice info is presumably accurate, just the spin you impart on it as a world class bowler.

      • Ron Clutz 2 days ago the last 24 days, Arctic 2016 ice extent has grown by 123k km2 per day, compared to the 10-year average 79k km2 per day. Of course the Antarctic is melting so global would be a lot less than this but still a substantial Trump effect!

      • Angech – I don’t know why CT still haven’t got their act together. However since “Wipneus” can reproduce their calculations it’s no loss to me personally.

        Thanks for your kind words about all the GWC data. Now please show me an example of the “spin” of which you speak.

        If you want spin go see Ron Clutz. Last time I looked he hadn’t published even a single one of my many data laden corrective comments. This is a cross-post, but here’s the data.

        Arctic sea ice area has a big gap to fill, so it’s hardly surprising if it’s increasing somewhat faster than “normal” for the time of year.

      • Jim Hunt I don’t know why CT still haven’t got their act together.
        I must agree you”re right, it does not seem to be going up in synch with the actual ice increase/decreases,
        “Now please show me an example of the “spin” of which you speak.”.
        This comment is up there as one of your best. Do you deny ever spinning any of your posts or cherrypicking responses?
        Anyway I am feeling too down at having to agree with you. Thanks for the graph.

  48. Here’s the actual conspiracy.
    Mine makes more sense.
    All this is a full court last second press to pressure and prepare the ground for the Electoral College to nullify the election.
    No doubt with co-ordination from the Clinton camp.
    Elements of the intelligence/government establishments appear to be helping too.
    He’s Putin’s puppet AND he will destroy science and the environment
    (and don’t forget that he murders kittens)
    We had to to do it.

    We’ll know Monday.
    All heck will break loose if they do it.
    Like I said, were closer to Ft. Sumter than Appomattox.

    • While a return to Hamilton’s concept of an Electoral College that is more than a rubber stamp would be great, it is unlikely to happen.

      • Would you be saying the same thing had hillary won?

      • In either case, I would not want to change the role of the Electoral College between an election and their vote. But the Federalist papers show that the original intent of the EC was not to have a President by popular vote, but rather by an election by informed experts. They thought a popular vote was not a good thing, hence the EC was born. We should have kept that idea in its original form.

      • Gee, that sounds like exactly what happened. Not by popular vote, but by informed individuals. LOL

      • Of course Jim would be saying the same thing!
        Of course he would be in favor of changing the electoral college situation had Hillary won the election but lost the popular vote.
        Jim would be all over it.
        Because it does not matter who won or lost, that electoral college situation is just wrong and has to be fixed.
        It is pure coincidence that the Hillary supporters are bringing this up only AFTER she lost…

      • No, as I mentioned above, the EC is a good idea in its original form. The current form is rather arbitrary, and does not achieve much except to favor some of the popular vote over others.

      • It favors no popular vote over any other. All is treated with equal minimization.

      • While a return to Hamilton’s concept of an Electoral College that is more than a rubber stamp would be great, it is unlikely to happen.

        I doubt you’d find the reality “great”.

      • Worth a read. He also addresses the issues of foreign influence, and why the elector job should be short-term.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Hamilton.27s_understanding_of_the_Electoral_College

    • Top spy office: Intel agencies will not brief Electoral College members on alleged Russian interference:

      Spy agencies will not brief members of the Electoral College on alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential race before the Dec. 19 vote, despite pleas from 70 electors, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence indicated today.

      […]

      Although the statement didn’t directly say a briefing for electors was out of the question, a U.S. official told POLITICO the statement was a signal that spy agencies had closed the door to the possibility.

      One Republican and 69 Democratic electors have repeatedly called for a briefing. They have cited concerns over close ties between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the camp of President-elect Donald Trump.

      Almost 1 in 4 Electoral College Dems demanding intel briefing:

      Nearly one in four Democrats on the Electoral College are now demanding an intelligence briefing on foreign interference in the presidential election — a call backed Monday by top advisers to Hillary Clinton.

      […]

      Despite the additions, the letter lacks support from the most prominent Democratic electors in the country — former President Bill Clinton, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. Their offices declined requests for comment Tuesday.

      […]

      In the letter, the electors argue that they’re obligated to investigate and vet “[a]llegations that Donald Trump was receiving assistance from a hostile foreign power to win the election.”

  49. Here is the “Rule of Thumb” for the Cool Tools site for 12/14:

    For every case of fraud uncovered in scientific research, 100 others go unreported.
    — Scott Parker, data specialist, Beaumont, Texas

    Cool Tools is a wonderful site; it’s at http://kk.org/cooltools.

  50. Here are the conspiracy theorists. I counted less than 30 out of over 20,000 AGU conference attendees. Is this the 97% consensus? Looks more like the insignificant fringe. (There’s a photo of a larger crowd of curious onlookers rather amused by the pathetic rally)

  51. “The definition of ‘conspiracy theory’:

    A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors.”

    Congress defines “conspiracy” in Title 18 Section 371:

    “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

    Federal prosecutors who charge people with conspiracy are floating a legal theory to judge and/or jury. As an example, federal prosecutors advocated a conspiracy theory in an attempt to convict Ammon Bundy and six others involved in an armed standoff in Oregon. The jury rejected that theory and acquitted the defendants.

    Federal conspiracy charges are frequently brought against people, and perhaps are the most frequent charges brought forth by federal prosecutors. To defend my use of the language “conspiracy theory” in regards to prosecutors using 18 – 371 I make the point that prosecutors use this statute so often because it allows them to bring a much broader collection of evidence than would otherwise be allowed. Some would argue the evidence set is so broad as to render it a conspiracy without warrant.

    I’ve never heard of a prosecutor dismissed as a “tinfoil hat wearing” conspiracy theorist and no Lewandowski papers that I know of pretending to examine the phenomenon.

  52. ‘Wikileaks founder Julian Assange flatly rejected U.S. intelligence claims that his organization received leaked Clinton emails from the Russian government, saying the allegations are part of a ‘foolish’ and ‘dangerous’ effort by Democrats to overturn Donald Trump’s election victory.”

    This is obviously evidence of a devious CIA operation. The CIA has painted Assange’s bedroom slippers with psychoactive drugs, and then beamed subliminal messages into his head, by vibrating his bedroom walls with a super-secret CIA Area 51 device, making him tell obvious porkies.

    Assange is obviously a top-secret Kremlin agent (Putin’s secret love child, in fact), but the CIA have taken control of his brain. They know that Americans know that the Demcrats are the appointed rulers of the US, and that Saint Hilary is the anointed one.

    Provided that the CIA can continue to make Assange claim it wasn’t the Russians, this will be taken as evidence that it was, indeed, the Russians. Denials are obvious proof to the contrary.

    All part of a cunning CIA plot to overthrow a regime that doesn’t actually exist yet. Ah well, the CIA might as well try something different. Previous efforts at external interference have had less than stellar results. Time to tilt at non-existent windmills?

    How hard could it be?

    Cheers.

  53. Ah the webs we weave. In the USA ALL raw data collected using taxpayer dollars is considered a federal record and subject to punishment if destroyed. (Federal Records Act).

    • Unless you’re a progressive then it’s ok to destroy whatever you want.

      • Apparently the current AG doesn’t think it’s such a big deal. Sessions does have the tool if he wants to use it. Maybe someone will create a NGO that does nothing but request the raw data. AGW is politically biased and should be audited as such.

  54. Pingback: La última teoría de la conspiración de los chicos del clima | PlazaMoyua.com

  55. “The incoming administration is likely to be willfully hostile toward the scientific process, with far-reaching implications.”

    No that’s the outgoing administration.

  56. While it is very disturbing to the most vocal CE Denizens when anything is posted that disrupts their precious “Echo Chamber” here at CE, Dr. Richard Tol posted two things on his Facebook feed today:

    (1) He made the statement: “There are no grounds for Trump to adjust the social cost of carbon downwards.

    (2) He then linked to a paper of his: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps-75-2015.pdf&site=24

    • Not that I have a dog in this fight, but you aroused my curiosity. For completeness should you add?

      (3) He then made the statement: “Then again, there were no grounds for Obama to adjust the social cost of carbon upwards”

      • Plannin Engineer,

        Did you see my comments (and references) arguing why the estimates of SCC and of the projected net-damages of GHG emissions are not justified, not valid? The comments are together starting here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/25/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-3/#comment-826494
        I’d welcome yours and others’ comments on the arguments. It seems to be a subject CE’s Denizens avoid. It seems to be the Achilles heel of CAGW.

      • Planning Engineer — What page in the Tol paper did you see the quote: “(3) He then made the statement: “Then again, there were no grounds for Obama to adjust the social cost of carbon upwards”.

        I didn’t see this quote in the Paper. Thanks.

      • Planning Engineer — 2nd Request. Where did you see the Tol statement (in his 39-page paper) “Then again, there were no grounds for Obama to adjust the social cost of carbon upwards”.

      • Stephen – it was on his Facebook feed like the other statements you referenced. I took that he meant them to be considered together, that the part you quot d was a set up for the next posting.

        Peter-will try to find some time to take a look.

      • Was the Trump statement you quoted also in the paper? I searched and did not see it.

      • Planning Engineer Thanks for your response. In checking Dr. Tol’s Facebook page, I see that he made two separate posts to the same article: (1) The statement I cited to Trump; (2) A second post (that you cite) referencing Obama. I didn’t see Richard’s second post.

        In reading Tol’s 39 page paper, I see nowhere that Trump or Obama are specifically cited. You may or may not agree, but I believe that Tol’s point is that the SCC is not simply just running a model.

        Dr. Tol believes that a small carbon tax (I believe in the $20 range) should be implemented and gradually increased yearly. The context of the Carbon Tax in Tol’s thinking (and other leading economists like Nordhaus) is in international trade (called climate clubs).

    • Thanks for the heads up. Always good to get more information. Your sarcasm doesn’t really add much to the conversation, though. Maybe lighten up a bit?

  57. Hello everybody:
    sorry for the off-topic, but I’d like to find some figures about the increased number of “climate” university departments during the years, or the trend in funding of climate research.
    I’ve tried to google it, but didn’t find anything clear.
    Thanks in advance.

    • Funding by year for the 13 Federal science agencies that get it is reported annually in a document called “Our Changing Planet.” Google it. Funding by university is almost impossible to work out because each agency does that separately via a myriad of programs, grants and other contracts. It is a $2.5 billion per year black box.

  58. It’s pointless telling the climate establishment m to “behave like scientists”. They haven’t the faintest idea what this means.

    • If the agencies funded research asking the right questions then we might get some useful answers. Most scientists respond to funding and the government controls the questions. But getting the right questions asked will not be easy because the agency people who specify the questions are all warmers.

      • Yes, the flavour of the whole enterprise is determined by that of the funding agents. This is where a cleanout of bias and political motivation could most help.

  59. Climate data are neutral if they have not been falsified. If falsified, the intent is to make the temperature show more warming than there actually is. The huge rush to hide climate data from Trump indicates the fear that their data manipulations will come to light. It is possible to change data in the process of transferring it so as to hide the degree of data manipulation present in it. Here is an example of gross data destruction followed by insertion of false information. In the eighties and nineties there was a standstill of warming we now call a hiatus. I noticed it and showed it as figure 15 in my book “What Warming?” But miraculously, those data disappeared and in their place a fake warming they called “late twentieth century warming” appeared. I protested but nothing happened so I had to put a notice about into the preface of my book. That fake warming is still there in official temperatures p[ut out byHadCRUT, GISS, NOAA and others, and they have no intention of removing it. These data are basic information upon which scientific climate analysis is built. If you change the data the analysis based upon it also changes, in the direction that data-mongers who did it want it to change. To me the outcry about “data saving” is simply an admission that these guys changed data and now are anxious to hide this fact.

    • That is not observational data, so the term data set is a misnomer. It is the output of complex and questionable statistical models, operating on various convenience samples of observational data. They changed the models.

  60. According to Ristvan Bob is a real expert on El Niño?

    • That was supposed to be a reply to Harry, but his comment seems to have disappeared.

      • Harry Twinotter

        A reply to something I posted?

      • Yes Harry. You were less than complementary about Bob Tisdale. Hence my query!

      • Harry Twinotter

        Jim Hunt.

        “Yes Harry. You were less than complementary about Bob Tisdale”.

        Interesting that my comment got censored, I wonder if him and Dr Curry talk.

      • Harry Twinotter

        Poor old Bob, HotWhopper routinely shows his articles to be nonsense. I recall from the days when I was still allowed to comment on WUWT how easily triggered he was about any criticism.

      • Hotwhopper IS the epitome of fake news and bad science. If that is the source of your libel, perhaps you should go over there to your own echo chamber. Hotwhopper posts no truths. Just hatefilled opinion.

        You still owe Bob an apology. If you are man enough to admit it.

  61. One Trump adviser suggested that NASA no longer should conduct climate research and instead should focus on space exploration

    NOAA would seem to be the proper agency doing climate science.

    In other news…in the US we have something called a Senate(since 1789), which has a long history of getting in the way of anyone that wishes to make dramatic changes to anything. The last I checked the Senate was 52 Republican’s and 48 Democrats with a healthy dose of RINO’s and DINO’s.

    I would posit that those predicting a Trumpocalypse may have watched one too many Hillary campaign advertisements or one too many reruns of Aaron Sorkin political drama’s for their own mental health.

  62. One of John Gall’s laws of systems, approximately quoted:

    Every system has a type of person adapted to thrive on it or in it.

    Climate science will find a way.

  63. Could this be just a diversion?

    The incoming administration has already asked for data the release of which might lead to exposure of corruption or malfeasance.

    Step 1: Accuse incoming administration of destruction
    Step 2: Launch campaign to “secure” data and facilities, then remove and relabel files
    Step 3: Administratively forget where the newly secured files went.
    Result: Evidence no longer available.

    The first step in any forensic investigation is to freeze all files before the mice get at them.

  64. Pingback: The latest climate ‘conspiracy theory’ Guess who the new climate ‘conspiracy theorists’ are? - The Word Merchant | Stephen Heins

  65. scientists have begun a feverish attempt to copy reams of government data onto independent servers

    Ridiculous. All publicly available data should have been put under a proper revision control system a long time ago, with digital signatures and timestamps. That would make checkouts easy, so there would be ample distributed storage, would make data safe against tampering and anyone could track retrospective adjustments using computer programs. The algorithms that make such a scheme possible were available decades ago and I am quite surprised there are still scientists not aware of their existence.

    However, I can imagine how devastating graphics representing history of retrospective adjustments would be, so I can understand their willful ignorance.

  66. How Obama’s Climate Rules Might Unravel

    “This calculation, known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), serves as the linchpin for much of the climate-related rules imposed by the White House over the past eight years. From capping the carbon emissions of power plants to cutting down on the amount of electricity used by the digital clock on a microwave, the SCC has given the Obama administration the legal justification to argue that the benefits these rules provide to society outweigh the costs they impose on industry. It turns out that the same calculation used to justify so much of Obama’s climate agenda could be used by President-elect Donald Trump to undo a significant portion of it. As Trump nominates people who favor fossil fuels and oppose climate regulation to top positions in his cabinet, he already appears to be focusing on the SCC.” –Bloomberg, 15 December 2016 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/how-climate-rules-might-fade-away
    H/T Benny Peiser, GWPF Newsletter: http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=f7297a865d&e=d3ab024ae2

    Great news, eh? Use the SCC to justify unwinding US climate policies. Fantastic! Go Trump!

    For those that don’t know, the SCC is estimated using Integrated Assessment Models (IAM). The IAM’s rely on a damage function to estimate benefits or damages to projected changes in global mean surface temperatures. However, the damage functions are not validated, highly uncertain, based on sparse data, there has been little work to improve the underlying data thy are based on for two decades, and they are probably WRONG – for the reasons argued here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/25/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-3/#comment-826494

    • The IAMs have to go out 300 years to get significant damages from today’s emissions, mostly from sea level rise. Basing expensive and disruptive policies on 300 year projections is as absurd as it gets, and that is precisely where we are with today’s climate policy.

      • David,

        Thank you. And that’s just part of the problem. Even out to 100 years the IAMs show that the costs of mitigation policies would massively exceed the projected damage costs. And that’s using key parameter inputs that are on the high side of IPCC central estimates: e.g ECS=3.2, RCP8.5, unvalidated damage functions, unrealistically low discount rates, totally unrealistic assumptions about proportion of global GHG emissions that are included in the 100% economically efficient mitigation policies, every country is fully onboard and never pulls out.

  67. Galileo was not the only scientist who believed the earth revolved around the sun, but was the only one who stated it publicly and got locked up for it. The consensus was it didnt, but many just didnt speak their mind.

  68. Pingback: Bits and Pieces – 20161216, Friday | thePOOG

  69. How can it cost serious money to store climate data? It’s just text, places and temperatures. Anyone can get a TB of cloud storage practically for free. That is enough to store all the world’s climate data since the invention of written text.

  70. Trump selects Zinke as interior secretary

    Out of all the Republicans on the Hill, Zinke has one of the strongest track records on conservation and public land issues — and he’s even voted against his own party at times. He voted against the GOP’s fiscal 2016 budget because it sold public lands, and even resigned as a delegate to the RNC this summer because the party platform included language calling for the sale of public lands.. . .
    He’s also partnered with Democrats on conservation issues: In October 2015 he was the only Republican to support a Democratic amendment to permanently authorize the so-called Land and Water Conservation Fund. He’s also received praise from conservation groups, including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Teddy Roosevelt Conservancy Partnership, Friends of the East Rosebud and the Outdoor Industry Association.

    As secretary, Zinke would oversee about one-fifth of the nation’s land, including national parks, wildlife refuges, tribal lands and areas ripe for drilling, mining, wind and solar development, and oil and gas pipelines. Zinke’s targets could include ending limits on offshore drilling, lifting Interior’s freeze on new coal leases and abandoning federal fracking regulations, such as a rule that a judge struck down in June.

    Zinke could also help Trump unravel the department’s recently finished five-year road map for offshore oil and gas drilling, which took two areas in the Arctic out of contention, although doing so could take several years.

    On climate change, Zinke has called for a “prudent” approach to the issue that does not do too much damage to the coal industry. Montana is the sixth-largest coal-producing state in the nation, according to the Energy Information Administration.

    Are there any secret Interior climate databases that need to be archived?
    OR brought to Zinke’s attention?

  71. Your advice is far to common sensical to be taken seriously by the audience it is addressed to. Reality for them is what they wish it to be.

    The good thing is it may be self correcting.

  72. I have not read all of the posts. I work for a company deeply engaged with collecting., processing, and archiving a wide swath of satellite data related to climate. I know these people. Not going to happen. I know Amazon. If this were a remote risk, Amazon would archive the data for free and my compatriots would make it happen.

    The risk is not in the current data. The risk is switching earth observing priorities to deep space. With the continuing evolution of microsatellites (cubesats), reducing the earth observing budget will only decrease the rate of increase of earth observing date. A little.

  73. Trump is appointing conspiracy theorists and fake-news propagators. At least he is being consistent with his campaign on this part.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-national-security-monica-crowley_us_58542a74e4b08debb788afc4

    • Trump is appointing conspiracy theorists and fake-news propagators.

      No he’s not.

      The “fake-news propagators” are you and HuffPo.

      • And WaPo: FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House

        FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House, officials disclosed Friday, as President Obama issued a public warning to Moscow that it could face retaliation.

        […]

        The positions of Comey and Clapper were revealed in a message that CIA Director John Brennan sent to the agency’s workforce Friday.

        “Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” Brennan said, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.

        The CIA and the FBI declined to comment on Brennan’s message or on the classified intelligence assessment that CIA officials shared with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, setting off a political firestorm.

        […]

        Officials close to the FBI and the CIA now say that lawmakers had misunderstood Comey’s position. “The truth is they were never all that different in the first place,” an official said. Similarly, officials said, Clapper and Brennan saw the intelligence the same way.

        So all we still have is “he said, she said” stuff. Somebody “leaked” an internal CIA memo with vague language, and the FBI and CIA (and, presumably, DNI) refused to comment.

        This is all still fake news. The only real news is that Brennan, an Obama appointee, is pushing a story that there’s good evidence of “Putin’s” involvement.

        Nobody else in the intelligence community has come out and agreed with him.

      • The free press is an important part of what the US is. Unlike Russia who only provide government-sanctioned disinformation to their people, the US press can report what the scientists and intelligence community really think. What Russia has is equivalent to having the Breitbart angle on every story.

      • IIRC I’ve seen Russian publications that disagreed with the party line.

        You don’t see many of them in English.

        And while I don’t deny the right of fake news organizations such as the NYTimes and WaPo, or even HuffPo, to exist, I do deny their right to try to suppress their competition on the other side, such as InfoWars.

        The “free press” mentioned in the 1st amendment applies to printing in general, AFAIK. Not just “newspapers” who follow the ObamaParty line.

      • AK, InfoWars? Really? Moonlanding deniers occupy that space. These groups tend not to have reporters per se, but rumormongers for whom facts are not needed, so they can sit at home and make things up.

      • “These groups tend not to have reporters per se, but rumormongers for whom facts are not needed, so they can sit at home and make things up.”

        Ring ring, ring ring, ring ring.

        Kettle: Hello Pot?

        Pot: Yes. This is Pot.

        Kettle: You’re black!

        Kettle slams the phone down snickering uncontrollably.

    • And as for “conspiracy theorists”, what about your “conspiracy theories” about Exxon?

      • Steve Coll just wrote a book about ExxonMobil. You can watch him on C-SPAN BookTV AfterWords series – it’s on C-SPAN2 as I write this. Enlighten yourself.

      • Exxon really did have scientists who were concerned about global warming. Their documents show this.

      • Steve Coll […]

        Why should I care about anything Steve Coll says?

      • OK, I listened to two interviews with Rachael Maddow:

        The fact that he’s willing to come on Rachael Maddow’s show starts him out with two strikes against him.

        Given his liberal viewpoint, I find his discussion quite positive towards Tillerson.

        First, the idea that the US should be a “world leader” in destabilizing countries around the world in the name of “human rights” has been as surely discredited as the Soviet Union. CF the “successes” in Egypt, Lybia, and Syria.

        “Stable” dictatorships may not be the best thing, but when they’re destabilized we get ISlS etc.

        Second, one of the most useful things in a negotiation is to be able to put yourself in your counterparty’s place. As Secretary of State, Tillerson will need to negotiate with leaders of large multi-national corporations, and his experience means he’ll have a much better idea where they’re coming from.

        Third, his lack of experience in “government jobs” and publications in foreign relations journals is a distinct positive. Those folks are in their own little bubble, and should be ignored.

      • “Exxon really did have scientists who were concerned about global warming. Their documents show this.”

        Can be found here….
        http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/shareholder-archive/supporting-materials

      • What I found interesting was Exxon’s corporate culture. It’s modeled on a military hierarchy. None of the top 3 layers of the company has anyone that came from another industry or even fellow energy companies. The “Not Invented Here” syndrome runs deep in their corporate physic.
        This myopic view of the world was on full display when they missed out on the shale gas explosion in production. They were not alone in underestimating the natural gas boom, Texas Electric (TXU) was bought by Energy Future Holding for 40+ billion based on collateral gas futures contracts for $7+ mcf and then went bankrupt when gas fell to under $3 mcf, TXU relied on future gas prices forecasts provided by Exxon (and others).
        Being one of the richest companies in the history of the world their solution was to just buy their way into the market for 31 billion $$ (XTO energy 2010). Rex Tillerson has very specific leadership skills that fit perfectly with Exxon corporate culture. I am under the impression the State Dept. is operating under the rules of the Constitution and Congress, not as a corporation. Square peg – round hole paradox.

  74. Jim D: Fake news propagators like the Puffington Host?

    One hopes that a reorganized system will separate the functions of 1) Instrument design and data acquisition; 2) Data storage; 3) Data analysis and interpretation. The path toward scientific integrity is to ensure that one entity doesn’t control all three functions. Let the data analysis folks fudge all they want as long as the original data is open to the public and the instrument design/calibration is done independently of those doing the interpreting.

  75. This incessant argument over the temperature reconstructions seems kind of silly. I think BEST for sure has done as good a job as possible given the poor quality of the data.

    Just 2 question:
    1. Do you believe the climate has been warming since the little ice age?
    2. Do you believe that warming has ceased?

    Now, the third question is why has it been warming since 1900? Natural, man-generated CO2, a combination of the two, or something else?

  76. “Now, the third question is why has it been warming since 1900? Natural, man-generated CO2, a combination of the two, or something else?”
    Well you mentioned BEST.
    Have you seen this from them?

    http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

    “The (high res) annual and decadal land surface temperature from the BerkeleyEarth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and the NATURAL LOG OF CO2. It is observed that the large negative excursions in the early temperature records are likely to be explained by exceptional volcanic activity at this time. Similarly, the upward trend is likely to be an indication of anthropogenic changes. The grey area is the 95% confidence interval.” (my caps).

    • So, the “fit” is this?

      Fit = alpha + beta * log( CO2 / 277.3 ) + gamma * Volcanic

      Plugging in their numbers we get:

      Fit = 8.342 + 4.466(CO2/277.3) + (-0.015 * Volcanic)

      Right, that’s scientific alright.

    • Nice curve fit by Muller and Mosh. Where the actual data do not “match the slope throughout”, you pull the “natural logarithm” out of hindquarters.

      “The natural logarithm of a number is its logarithm to the base of the mathematical constant e, where e is an irrational and transcendental approximately equal to 2.718281828459”

      I particularly like the irrational and transcendental part. Please explain what this constant has to do with the relationship between CO2 and temperature?

      Actually, California might be described as a natural logarithm. With a few billion in unfunded pension liability,
      succession and tilting at Carbon windmills are positively irrational and transcendental.

  77. I wouldn’t worry about progressives disguised as scientists copying data paid for by the tax payers. The greater threat is that data that undermines their politics might disappear like Hillary’s emails, or the “w” keys on White House keyboards when the Clintons left the White House.

    We can’t have honest scientists seeing the sausage works that are the climate models and temperature adjustments.

  78. Good bloody gods this is hilarious! What— the missing ice was taken by space aliens? You people are hilarious!

    • “Good bloody gods this is hilarious! What— the missing ice was taken by space aliens? You people are hilarious!”

      Wanna hear something funnier? Since space aliens didn’t take the “missing ice” it follows that humans are causing the planet to warm. Bada bing bada boom! Confusion of necessity can be slapstick and it would be tragic if it weren’t so darn funny.

      • JPZ,

        Would you accept that heat of human origin has an effect on the temperature of thermometers?

        This seems to be qualitatively different from claiming the planet is getting hotter, which would be odd for a giant ball of molten rock sitting in space, a long way from the nearest external heat source.

        The heat producing properties of CO2 rely on magic, and thermometers respond to heat, rather than magic.

        Cheers.

      • Mike;

        Are you under the impression my slapstick joke was an advocacy of CAGW?

        If so, breath brother. Relax some and enjoy the ride.

        I’ll see your cheers and raise ya an amen.

    • Next, climate scientists will form a coven. Then they can cast spells on Trump and the electors. From the article:

      At what level will students be taught or permitted the use of spells?

      It is not unusual for traditional covens to discourage the use of magic or spell crafting before Initiation. There is much background work to be done first. This should never be rushed. See our page on Spells for further information.

      A study group or Outer Court of a coven may practice learning to recognize and work with energy, but leaders or teachers need to be aware of the responsibility they take on when the give others the tools of magic.

      http://bluemoonwicca.org/startup.html

  79. richardswarthout

    TB

    According to Ocean2K the oceans have been cooling since about 1000 CE and are still below those medieval temps. Go figure.

    Richard

    • “According to Ocean2K the oceans have been cooling since about 1000 CE and are still below those medieval temps. Go figure.”

      Don’t know why you think that needs “figuring”.
      The Earth was generally cooling from the point of the HCO c6000ya and the oceans naturally would have followed with a large lag.
      The warming of from anthro GHG’s only really broke free of -ve forcings (chiefly aerosol) from ~1970.

  80. JPZ,

    Phew! (Wipes forehead).

    Nearly had me here! Song running through my head –

    Warmists to the right of me,
    Luke-warmers to the left of me,
    Stuck in the middle.

    I’ll fold.

    Cheers.

    • Skepticism of CAGW can seem like a long and lonely road, but you’re not alone. It’s just that the like minded tend to be skeptical of travelers on roads less traveled. Here, enjoy this skeptical song by Ben Folds:

      ” Kids today gettin’ old too fast
      They can’t wait to grow up so they can kiss some a$$
      They get nostalgic about the last ten years
      Before the last ten years have passed

      So why you gotta act like you know when you don’t know?
      It’s okay if you don’t know everything
      So why you gotta act like you know when you don’t know?
      It’s okay if you don’t know everything.”

      Kind Regards,

      JPZ

      • JPZ:
        “Skepticism of CAGW can seem like a long and lonely road, but you’re not alone. It’s just that the like minded tend to be skeptical of travelers on roads less traveled.”

        Can I point out (again here) that the IPCC gives an ECS of between 1.5 and 4.5C for x2 CO2.
        1.5 is not “C”
        4.5 is “C”

        So, ergo, the the IPCC consensus science is ALSO “sceptical” of the “C” that has been prefixed to AGW by *sceptics*.

      • Tony,

        I am aware of this. It would be great if you would point this out to the countless politicians who ignore it and insist that the world is coming to an end and 97% of the scientists agree. Pointing it out to skeptics is preaching to the choir.

      • Tony Banton,

        From the IPCC –

        “How do we estimate climate sensitivity?

        Climate scientists use a range of approaches to estimate ECS and TCR, including using climate models that represent the relevant physics and chemistry and by analysing recent climate records and paleoclimate reconstructions.”

        You are probably aware that the UK Government Met Office recently admitted that statistical analysis of recent climate records was useless. It claimed that it used models to produce its estimates instead.

        So it’s models all the way down. There is no such thing as actual ECS, by definition. Another Warmist fantasy.

        Not even any CO2 related AGW. As you admit, even Warmists can’t find anything Catastrophic. CO2 is plant food, and the Met Office admit that the only support for warming is toy computer models which by definition give at least 130 wrong results every run of 131 models.

        The IPCC admits the atmosphere is chaotic, and also admits it is not possible to predict future climate states.

        I’m not sure why you continue flogging this particular dead horse. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of point, does there?

        Cheers.

      • Tony,

        The IPCC reports are not the only player in the game. There are plenty of other players pushing the CAGW storyline. And “ergo”, your point – that because the IPCC includes non-C 1.5 degrees – they are skeptical of catastrophe is a false statement.

        And it makes a difference as to what part of their report you reference. The advice to policy makers presents a different picture than all of the individual scientific sections do. So even if the scientists or the working groups might not be saying catastrophe, many others are. Don’t think so? Then explain why the President of the US, his Sec State and Science Advisor and the Governor of the state I live in (not to mention Gov. Moonbeam Brown) all claim it is the greatest threat our nation faces.

        All of you who are now trying to claim it was skeptics who ginned up the catastrophe storyline must think we are simply low educated cretins.

  81. Pingback: Trump skrämmer klimatalarmisterna - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen

  82. Pingback: The latest climate ‘conspiracy theory’ | Climate Etc. – Noscibilis et Amabilis

  83. Pingback: Onward marches the Great Pause Global temperature update - Telzilla

  84. Pingback: The latest 'climate conspiracy theory' - Principia Scientific International

  85. Pingback: The latest climate ‘conspiracy theory’ | Climate Etc. | Cranky Old Crow

  86. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #252 | Watts Up With That?

  87. These so called “climatologists” (mostly accountants, lawyers and the like) will do and say anything to ensure their funding levels are increasing. It has little to do with science but the redistribution of wealth. The whole premise of science is the discussion of theories for and against and scientific evidence to prove theory matches actual data which it doesn’t. I very much doubt that climate change (global warming) would garner above 2 sigma which is very disturbing.

    • John, sadly you typify Curry’s readers with apparent deliberate ignorance of the basic science of climate change and the realities of scientific research. Research is not done to ensure that funding levels increase, it is done to investigate and document phenomena, to test hypotheses, and to add to the body of knowledge. Most scientists scramble to maintain even basic minimal funding. They sure are not getting wealthy.

      • The skeptics are still scratching their heads about what the real-world data shows over the last 60 years. For the AGW theory, it is just as expected.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25

      • “The skeptics are still scratching their heads about what the real-world data shows over the last 60 years. For the AGW theory, it is just as expected.”

        Your fantasies about the real world are not the real world. Go ahead, change my mind and show me “the skeptics (who) are still scratching their head about what the real world data shows”.

      • The skeptics don’t have a clue why 75% of the warming has occurred in a period of 75% of the CO2 rise, but they are pretty sure these are unconnected to each other. So 60 years of observations (not just models) show 2 C per doubling, and they just say ‘nope, impossible, must be coincidence’, etc. Anything not to face up to quantitative evidence for the theory.

      • “The skeptics don’t have a clue why 75% of the warming has occurred in a period of 75% of the CO2 rise, but they are pretty sure these are unconnected to each other. So 60 years of observations (not just models) show 2 C per doubling, and they just say ‘nope, impossible, must be coincidence’, etc. Anything not to face up to quantitative evidence for the theory.”

        The problem with sweeping generalizations in regards to skeptics, Jim, is that the term “skeptic” is a sweeping generalization itself. To your point, you failed to show me skeptics scratching their heads with your seeming straw man and instead gave your description of skeptics being stubborn. Stubborn people don’t generally scratch their heads in confusion. Try again.

      • You only have to look at the host’s pronouncements that we don’t know that the majority of the warming is due to the GHG increase, and she places it closer to 50% or less, but it is still a head-scratcher what the rest could possibly be due to because nothing is surmised for it. However in fact the ongoing positive imbalance indicates that all the warming so far and more to come is due to the GHG forcing that we have already had, and the science has moved on from this backwater of an argument about attribution.

      • “You only have to look at the host’s pronouncements…”

        The host meaning Judith Curry, whom to serve your purposes you call a “skeptic”. Before you know it we’re going to see you call Micheal Mann a skeptic for disagreeing with Thom Karl over the hiatus.

        “However in fact…”

        From a fanciful tale to “fact”, kinda like “fake but accurate”?

      • Some people prefer the term “dismisser” as in dismissing the consensus statements like “very likely most” as being at all likely. Is that a better term for it? Actually “skeptic” is their term for themselves, but they are not being true to its real meaning which allows for the possibility of truth of the climate science consensus statements, so “dismisser” or “naysayer” would be better because they don’t allow for it. This also applies to the Republican congressional delegation as a political block.

      • Jim,

        I was actually trying to pull you out of the box, not push you deeper in. Silly me, I guess.

      • JPZ, I was trying to see if you consider naysayer a better term, or dismisser, but I guess you won’t say. That came up in the debate before because a lot of true skeptics don’t like the climate “deniers” being called skeptics, for obvious reasons. I usually call them “skeptics” as a compromise. Headscratchers might be a good term too.

      • “JPZ, I was trying to see if you consider naysayer a better term, or dismisser, but I guess you won’t say.”

        I don’t, brother. I’m sorry I don’t mean to frustrate you. It’s just that if you include Judy in the skeptic camp (and if she’s got no problem with that I don’t either) ya gotta admit that camp represents a broad bunch of people many of whom do not agree with many others thrown into that box. And while I agree with you – or at least I think I do – about what skeptics mean versus who calls themselves one, even if you and I can get everyone to agree that if they’re skeptics then they gotta act like skeptics, that still becomes this generic term.

        “That came up in the debate before because a lot of true skeptics don’t like the climate “deniers” being called skeptics, for obvious reasons. I usually call them “skeptics” as a compromise. Headscratchers might be a good term too.”

        I’m grateful to you in regards to your consideration of those (myself included) who dislike the “denier” label. I have long admired your patience with people and willingness to just keep engaging despite the snarky remarks (from myself included) thrown your way. Headscratchers, however seems to be a bit of AGW advocacy projection (no snark intended).

      • JPZ, I use the term “headscratchers” but I don’t believe those people really are as mystified as they profess when they see such a clearly visible link between forcing and warming. I find this pretense annoying. Surely the link is more likely just what it looks like than something else as yet unexplained by science.

  88. Pingback: Will Trump Admin Destroy Climate Data?

  89. Pingback: Latest climate ‘conspiracy theory’ | spinnews

  90. “Research is not done to ensure that funding levels increase, it is done to investigate and document phenomena, to test hypotheses, and to add to the body of knowledge.”

    Unless you happen to be S. Darin Kinion, a physicist who was sentenced to eighteen months in prison for “a guilty plea entered June 14, 2016, in which Kinion acknowledged submitting false data and reports to the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (“IARPA”) of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in a scheme to defraud the government out of money intended to fund research.”

    https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-lawrence-livermore-research-scientist-sentenced-18-months-prison-submitting

  91. Pingback: Roundup Dec 19 | Catallaxy Files

  92. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #253 | Watts Up With That?

Leave a Reply to ristvan Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s