The science stays the same -

The science stays the same

Independent data confirms climate change is happening, say U.S. scientists


In the run-up to the Copenhagen climate change summit next week, a lot of media attention has been focused on a matter that was thought to be settled a long time ago—whether the world really is warming. Two weeks ago, hackers stole and posted emails from servers at the U.K.’s University of East Anglia showing exchanges between top climate scientists over the past decade. “Climate-gate” as some conservative bloggers have dubbed it—no one ever accused them of being witty—has mostly revolved around messages suggesting the scientists had some of their own doubts about aspects of the warming data, or were keen to deprive climate change sceptics/deniers of fresh ammunition. But when House Republicans called Barack Obama’s top science advisors before them yesterday, trying to bring the scandal across the Atlantic, they got taken to school. Completely independent data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows dramatic global warming, they were told, and the world is in real danger. One peeved climate researcher even conducted a chemistry experiment on the witness stand to try and prove the point.

Associated Press

Filed under:

The science stays the same

  1. Global warmer deniers are the new creationists.
    They share the same ideologies, the same arrogant disrespect for science and the same evasive debating techniques.

    • But Rui, you're the one trying to cut off debate by tossing around labels like "deniers". Please explain why it isn't relevant that the scientists at the CRU in East Anglia were actually covering up data that showed a cooling trend. I mean…don't you believe in, you know, science?

      • I worked for almost one year with scientific computer modeling (molecular biology, in my case). I didn't see anything absurd in their models. There was the so called fudge multiplier but it was in dead code.
        Now, regarding the data, people say they hid data series from the 60's. Even if that's true it would be just part of a much bigger body of evidence from a lot of other sources.
        This is exactly like one technique used by creationists, known as "the wedge". First they claim the whole evolution invalid because we don't have the missing links in fossil's history. If you try to call attention to other details they bring back the focus to the one detail where they can insert a wedge and keep hammering on it.

        • Rui, you make an interesting point about the wedge, however in this case really the only significant indicator of global warming is the temperature data. On the evolution issue, all the evidence points toward evolution except the missing link. In this case the only evidence that ultimately matters is temperature data and it shows a decline. This not ancillary, it is the key piece of data.

          • No. It doesn't. Stop lying.

            The only way you can posit a decline is if you cherry pick the start year as 1998.

            Start from 1997, 1999, or virtually any other year in the past couple hundred years and you'll see an obvious warming trend that continues to this day.

            AP sent the numbers to a group of statisticians without telling them what the data was. They concluded that there was no evidence of any decreasing trend in the numbers.

  2. Mark Steyn will no doubt claim that NASA and NOAA are merely acting on behalf of the Obama Administration.

    • No, they're just wrong. That's all.

      • They're just wrong in measuring data? Seriously? That's your argument, that NASA and the NOAA are unable to properly read a temperature reading?

        That you'd even go there I think shows how pathetic your case is.

        • Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? They're wrong about anthropomorphic global warming. And frankly, they may also be wrong with the adjustments they make to the raw temperature data, just like CRU. Not that you care.

          Climate is always changing, witless moron.

    • And why on Earth would you believe they weren't?

  3. Don't be silly. Steyn will claim it's a jihadi plot.

  4. and proof of the feminization of Canadian men, don't forget.

  5. So, Alberta's oil sands still threaten humanity, right? Ok, I just needed to be sure.

    • The oil sands would be fine, if humanity would just leave them alone.

  6. I say post the data. Why is this stuff so secret. I don't mean another Al Gore presentation. I mean post the data the NASA and the NOAA have gathered and show us (the little pee brains) what it is that everyone is freaking out about. This is not a Religion. I am not going to take a leap of faith. Show us your God and I will believe!

  7. They do post the data. It's online. Heck, I'll save you the trouble of spending three seconds on google to find it.

    Click on the graphs image for the most salient information.

    • Oh don't bother the poor fellow with facts. Can you see their against his religion?

  8. What Planet do you leftards live on. Climategate. Look up the truth!

    • I would think they would prefer to live on one where people didn't call them "leftards" for having a different point of view. I hold out hope that could be Canada, but that implies some restraint in debate. How about it SpencBC are you willing to work towards that kind of planet by contributing an actual opinion rather than an offensive insult?

      • Only if you leave it with the rest of your socialist idiots. But your time of marginalization is coming. The left will die of investigation warming after Copenhagen!

  9. has anyone ever read some of those those e-mails? "hide the decline" is about as obvious as it gets.

  10. "the fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming, and it is a travesty that we can't"

    that pretty much says it all. oh and that little bit about hoping that the planet really is warming, to prove the science, how is that scientific at all? aren't you supposed to come to a conclusion AFTER you collect the data? data which by these people's own admission, nobody can look at because they destroyed it. the data they posted is their "value added" data, which is useless because no one really knows how much "value" was "added"

  11. the fact is, the climate is changing. it's supposed to. that's what it does. it changed before the industrial revolution, it'll change again, but it hasn't warmed in ten years. the only change has been a slight cooling. too bad the author of this article didn't read a few more of those e-mails, or he would have known that even his heroes at east anglia and penn state know that.

  12. Our current era, including the relatively brief sampling time (100 years? ice core data for 1000 years?) only provides 'point in time' information. The globe has been warming and cooling for millions of years, and we can only guess at the magnitude of change. I don't think that human produced emissions significantly contribute to the variation. Changes in the Sun's activity, volcanic eruptions, and perhaps changes in the core of the Earth are probably the main 'drivers' of climate change.

    • As for your "other factors", the sun's activity is periodic with an 11 year cycle (so couldn't explain an 100-year trend), volcano erruptions are more likely to cool the earth (see Mt. Pinatubo erruption) and you've got a lot of explaining to do to demonstrate how the earth's core would have an effect on atmospheric or surface temperatures, above and beyond what a well-documented greenhouse effect could do (see Venus for evidence of a carbon dioxide-based greenhouse effect).

      • There are two things I keep hearing:

        1) The sunspot cycle has not rebounded so far this time and by an uprecedented amount of time, and this is why things have been cooler.

        2) CO2 only affects a particular spectrum of the Sun's radiation, and in fact the maximum effect of C02 in particular has been surpassed – meaning, the spectrum affected by CO2 cannot be any more blocked no matter how much C02 concentrations are increased.

        Any comment or refutation of either of these?

        • canuckclehead: “2) CO2 only affects a particular spectrum of the Sun’s radiation, and in fact the maximum effect of C02 in particular has been surpassed – meaning, the spectrum affected by CO2 cannot be any more blocked no matter how much C02 concentrations are increased. ”
          It’s not the sun’s radiation that is the factor here – it’s the long wave outbound radiation from the earth. Yes, CO2 onlys ‘plays’ at about three primary “bandwidths” to block this outgoing radiation, two of which are already largely blocked by water vapour anyway. The remaining window is already mostly blocked but not completely. However the effect of any additional CO2 is minimal as the window is largely saturated and incremental CO2 has a very small effect, increasing on a logarithmic basis. The warmers will then scream on about positive feedback but that’s complete crap – physical measurement of what’s going on with respect to incoming and outgoing radiation in the atmosphere clearly show that any associated feedbacks are negative, not positive.

          • Right on what CO2 effects, wrong on the saturation. Again, look at Venus – it has virtually no water vapour and magnitudes higher concentrations of CO2. If CO2's greenhouse effect had a maximal point, the greenhouse effect on that planet would be minimal, and yet despite getting 25% of the radiation as Mercury does, it has average temperatures that are significantly higher.

  13. Many of the comments above (for & against) contain basically sound logic but they all share the same flaw – lack of sufficient data to prove either side. The two inextricably linked questions (Is the earth on a continual & accelerating warming trend? & Is man-kind the major contributer to this trend?) have well documented and contrary answers. I recently read in an article by a geologist that the answer to the first question is “yes” but that the trend is hundreds of centuries old (the trend he was speaking of was the retreat of the great glaciers) so the answer to the second question was “no”. And so it continues………
    But the part of this debate that I find most disturbing is the statement by the climate change advocates that the science is unquestionable ……. complete …… can not be challenged etc. How absurd is that? The purpose of science is to ALWAYS question …….. to CONTINUALLY challenge (the conventional wisdom) ….. and to NEVER admit that the debate is over …….. because if they do they are doomed to be proven wrong – not necessarily on the scientific point in question but most definitely on the “finality” of the debate. And when they resort to name calling (deniers??) it a pretty good sign of the desperation of a losing debate.
    So I would just ask all readers to please try to keep an open mind. 25 years ago climatologists were warning of the coming of the next Ice Age and I was (evidently) duped by them. Thus I tend to be a bit more skeptical than those under 50.

    • Applause. (and I'm only 39)

      Re: resorting to name calling being a sign of losing a debate — might well apply to evolution, too.

      • I also call flat-earther idiots. Does that mean I'm losing that debate as well?

    • Seeing with my own eyes the Time cover and story about the coming man-made ice age is the strongest reason that I'm not on board with it this time around as well. It's more than a little trippy how similar the language about 'increasing scientific consensus' was. I like to say I didn't believe in global cooling in the '70s either sometimes when people ask how I can possibly disbelieve such a by reputation mainstream view. (even if the reason for that being I wasn't born at the time!)

      I think that there's a big commonality between Scientific Materialism and Scientific Global Warming. Communism was by reputation the winning and 'scientific' view and that so many people thought it was didn't prove or disprove it, it just showed that people can have faith in anything, and maybe even more so the less they are associated with traditional faiths.

  14. The earth has warmed and cooled continuously through time. We know what happened, but no one can yet say for certain why? In particular no one has identified the climate system feedbacks which caused the changes. This highlights the weaknesses in the current models – they do not incorporate system feedback because our climate change scientists have yet to work out what it has been in the past as a guide to the future. Absent this feedback all that the models can tell is that an increasing trend will continue to increase indefinitely. Can we settle on this point?

  15. Pointing to the other datasets like GISS or NCDC is like pointing to tweedle dum instead of tweedle dee. These datasets are so fudged you’d think they were created by Willy Wonka. At least a bit more is known about theire method of creation and that’s open to significant challenge. The data in these datsets has been diddled to death to tease a warming signal out of them that is just not there in the underlying raw data. Funny though, all these adjustments tend to drive current day temperatures up with respect to temperatures say in the 1930 and 1940’s when the earth was also in a warming phase. In fact all the warming in the NCDC set is as a result of adjustments, that is except for adjusting for the proven Urban Heat Island effect which is ignored because it drives the adjustments the wrong way for the Warmers!

    The only solid numbers we have to go by are the satellite records which are immune from the variety of factors that may or may not warrant adjustments to the surface temperature record and provide almost complete spatial coverage of the earth absent from the surface records. Yes these satellite records show a moderate warming over the 30 years since they’ve been available but one has to factor in the shift from a cool PDO at their beginning as well as the two major volcanic events in the earlier part of the record (El Chichon, Pinatubo). Given that, and the fact that these satellite records show no statistically significant warming for 15 years, takes the wind out of the sails of the Alarmists claims that we’ll see up to 6 degrees of additional warming by the end of this century. As if!

    • “The only solid numbers we have to go by are the satellite records”

      Satellite lower troposphere data is an infra-red measurement, which is processed in a machine that also goes “bing” (Monty Python hospital sketch, remember!) to produce a temperature value. After that its subject to adjustment for other factors, drift, orbital decay, effect of the sun on the side of the satellite.

      As you say the data is really well and truely “teased” to which I will add “on a best effort basis with no guarantee as to programming accuracy or output reliability”.

  16. Before you accept NOAA's and GISS's words on the accuracy and independence of their data go to, Anthony Watts's website surveying the actia; measuring stations around the US, Properly (according to the NOAA manual) they should be sited in large open fields on either grass or dirt, not shaded by trees. The vast majority of them are mis-sited: on alsp[halt and concrete, right outside the line of air conditioners expelling hot air. My favorite is the one right above the fire house's barbecue pit. They also have them on tops of buildings and in wastewater treatment plants.

    Garbage in, Garbage out.

  17. AGW is not a fact, it's an unproven theory. What's more it appears now to be a disproven theory. Since temperatures peaked in 1998 a cooling period has started. Because history shows no one can accurately predict climate, who knows, we may be entering a new ice age? Although not technically an ice age, the Littel Ice Age followed the Medieval Warming Period, starting mid-13th century, bottoming out in the 16th and 17th centuries, and by mid 19th century was warming again. With so many variables affecting climate it is specious to blame anything on to industrialization and arrogant to think man can reduce temperatures long term. Besides if we are currently entering a cooling cycle, contemplation of measures to reduce temperatures even if it were at all possible would be nuts.

  18. And yet, despite the cold water thrown on AGW by the sceptics, the arctic and antarctic ice continues to melt far more extensively than predicted by models, mountain glaciers are in retreat, sea levels are rising, and the last decade was the warmest on record.

    If the global climate does not change, the planet is already sufficiently battered by environmental damage and overpopulation that the future is going to be difficult enough. So let's party while we can!

  19. Unfortunately global warming activists all share the same mental block. That is, they live in a world where we are a larger factor on nature than anything else, or even worse, that we are somehow not part of nature anymore. Do you really think that out of the millions of other species most of which probably outnumber us (sorry, no hard data, but I think it's a safe assumption) that we are the main contributors to changes in nature? Nature changes all around us, as we change as well. Really what it comes down to is a superiority complex mixed with projected guilt from people who want to make a buck. Why else would a former vice-president make that whole presentation, he's not that stupid, and he can find out easier than most all the flaws of the theories he proposed. Why else would he create a company that sells "carbon credits" and then donate to it when he got pressure from greenies about his mansion. It's like John Lennon singing Imagine with a yacht, a butt load of cash, and several houses. Hypocrasy is the surest sign of a ignorant idealist or a scam artist, and to me there's a very thin line.

  20. Headline: The Science Stays The Same

    Uh huh. At least until the East Anglia hacker sets his sights on NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    Upgrade the firewall, boys! Delete, delete, delete!