Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The Climate Change Fiasco: Do You Seek An Explanation?

Recs

25

February 12, 2010 – Comments (13)

Henk Tennekes is just one man, but his words may have a profound impact on how you view academic science for the rest of your life.  Please give this man your time.  Henk Tennekes was Director of Research Emeritus at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Free University (VU) in Amsterdam, and Emeritus Professor of Aerospace Engineering at Pennsylvania State University.

Up until a few days ago, he was one of the leading climate scientists in the world, a member of the very prestigious Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. On January 23, he abruptly resigned.  Members of the Royal Academy do not normally resign. 

Thanks to the power of the Internet, you can read his resignation letter in full below. 

Why do I bring this up here?  Well, it helps to shed light on the way the world works, frankly.  You see, this post isn't about recs or answering questions that can't be answered.  I can't tell you whether or not the environmentalist movement is a great conspiracy, whether the government and academic science have conspired against us, or whether every piece of global warming science is faulty or fault-free.  What I can tell you is that the world is very complex.  Because of this no theory should be considered respectable unless it has withstood the test of time and the rigorous scrutiny that will surely come with its ageing.

I try to set the bar high. Like many other CAPS bloggers, I don't have any desire to see our world turned upside down, to have property and freedom infringed upon, or to have economic activity disrupted on account of a theory (Anthropogenic Global Warming, in this case) that has not withstood the rigorous test of time.  If the current state of Climate Change is any indication, AGW will fail that test.

A lot of people want answers to questions I've never posed.  All I can offer you is insight, if I find any.  Henk has some insight.  Read the letter, please.  He will explain some things.  It's not everything, but it's a piece of the puzzle.

This brings me to my last point. When I first started blogging about AGW a couple months ago, I mentioned that it would unravel quite quickly, not because of anything I was doing but simply because suspect theories get trampled much faster in the digital age.  With Henk's resignation, I am considering this case closed.  My rival on CAPS, lucas1985 has gone missing since ClimateGate started spinning out of control.  I wish him the best, and I hope he has moved on to more fruitful studies in a different discipline.  I won't hold my breath for his resignation letter.

David in Qatar

=======================================================================

Hermetic Jargon

Farewell Message to the Dutch Academy by Henk Tennekes

As soon as scientists and scholars from different disciplines talk to one another, confusion creeps in. In everyday language, words evoke clusters of associations, suggestions, hints and images. This is why an intelligent listener often needs only half a word. But the words that scientists use in their professional communications are usually safeguarded against unwanted associations. Within each separate discipline this helps to limit semantic confusion, but outsiders have no chance.

Disciplines are divided by their languages. Incomprehensible journal articles and oral presentations, ever-expanding university libraries, endless bickering over the appropriation of research funds, resources, and post-doc positions:  The Temple of Science has become a Tower of Babel. A Babylonian confusion of tongues has become the organizing principle. As soon as more than a couple dozen scientists unite around the same theme, another specialist journal is created, comprehensible only to the in-crowd. If this is science, I want to get off.

Many years ago, two members of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences tried to call attention to the problem. One was the leading art historian and Director of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, Henk van Os, the other the retired methodologist of the social sciences, Adriaan de Groot. The two elderly gentlemen arranged a discussion meeting on the peer review system at Academy headquarters. Being an Academy member myself, I eagerly participated. In their introduction van Os and de Groot explained how all disciplines have a tendency to develop their own ‘hermetic jargon,’ the secret language that eliminates the risk of having to discuss the foundations of one’s discipline with the outside world.

Hermetic jargon: what a beautiful neologism! Hermetic: referring to airtight sealing, my Random House dictionary says. Words are at their best when they seed a whole cloud of meanings and associations. In this case my mind reacted instantly, grasping at such concepts as occult science, alchemy, and esoteric writing.  Esoteric, accessible to the initiated only, is the qualification given by the philosopher Lucian to some of Aristotle’s writings. Hermetic sealing was the standard laboratory practice of the alchemists. The net effect of hermetic jargon is that outsiders cannot argue with the high priests who wield the words. They can only accept the occult writings in awe.

Looking at the academic enterprise this way, I come across a lot of issues that bother me. The first that comes to mind is that hermetic jargon makes it impossible to conduct mature, scientific discussions of the paradigms, dogmas, and myths that drive each discipline. The claims of the mainstream physics community worldwide, for example, are outrageous. All science is Physics, period, is what these priests claim. All other disciplines, including chemistry, biology, engineering and the earth sciences, are mere derivatives. Physicists glorify their Nobel prizes without ever contemplating whether the Nobel prize system might be based on a nineteenth-century assessment of the world of science. Hermetic jargon is also a very effective means of excluding outsiders from negotiations for research funds. The system by which professional colleagues judge each other’s performance is called Peer Review. Only peers in the same discipline may pass judgment on their colleagues’ funding requests and on the quality of their papers. Only high-energy physicists are allowed to participate in debates concerning the funding of high-energy physics, only micrometeorologists are allowed to review micrometeorological manuscripts. This makes a lot of sense, of course, because outsiders are in no position to judge the intricate technical details of the measurements and calculations involved. But such judgment is only a necessary first step. The key challenge for a meaningful peer review system would be to make explicit the underlying paradigms, and to subject them to scholarly scrutiny. This, to me, should be the essence of the duty of a National Academy, and perforce of each Academician.

Chances for a mature dialogue will improve when hermetic jargon is taken for what it really is: a way to defend barriers. There are plenty of unresolved issues and dilemmas in the interstices between the disciplines. Almost nobody dares to take a peek, but Gregory Bateson, the originator of the Kantian idea that Mind and Nature form a Necessary Unity, did. Angels Fear is the title of the book his daughter Margaret compiled after he died. The subtitle of that beautiful but rather messy book is Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred. The term ‘sacred’ should not be construed as referring to theology, but to the central problem of all epistemology: how can we know anything, how can we evaluate, who are we to make judgments?  In Kant’s own words: “Reason suffers the fate of being troubled by questions which it cannot reject because they were brought up by reason itself, but which it cannot answer either because they are utterly beyond its capacities.”  Yes, only fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

In oral presentations, to give another example, it would behoove the speaker to speak openly about the questions looming behind the research successes, behind the never-ending propaganda for scientific progress. I myself tried this a few times, but to no avail. In my induction speech for the Academy, in January 1984, I introduced the limited predictability of the weather as a prime example of the uncertainties associated with the sensitive dependence of nonlinear systems to initial conditions and to mismatches between Nature and the models we use to compute its evolution. I told my audience that the prediction horizon, in 1950 estimated by John von Neumann at 30 days, in fact is only three days on average. I dwelt only a little on the implications of this for the myth of endless progress in science. Apparently, meteorology is approaching the no-man’s land between the unknown and the unknowable, I said. This was enough to alert the cognoscenti. The moment the discussion period following my lecture started, the famous astronomer Henk van de Hulst stood up from his chair in the front row and said: “Henk, that is a sermon, not a lecture. Sermons are not appropriate in this Hall.” And the President, David de Wied then,  closing the meeting and thanking me for my speech, said in front of the microphones: “Henk, I really don’t understand what you said, and I believe I don’t want to understand either.”

The two Academy members who had arranged the meeting on peer review apparently had concluded that voluntary changes in the peer review system were very unlikely. They opted for a direct confrontation. They proposed to amend the review system such that a number of colleagues outside the discipline concerned would have to participate in the evaluation of proposals for research funding and debates on the desired direction of research programs. Ask psychologists to look over the shoulders of meteorologists, involve theologians in the evaluation of astronomical long-term planning, let sociologists and engineers review each other’s  professional papers, and so on. As soon as you do that, hermetic jargon loses the rationale for its existence.

It shall come as no surprise that these thoughts were torpedoed the moment they reverberated through the august Academy assembly hall. Everyone knew instantly the very idea was a land mine under the science establishment. Nobody understood that the proposal was rather modest in the sense that bureaucrats, politicians, and taxpayers would be excluded, and that the proposal in fact could be construed as reinforcing the power of the scientific nomenclature. The current practice is that spokesmen for each discipline negotiate directly with bureaucrats in government agencies, and refuse to be drawn into evaluations of the claims of other disciplines.

So all hell broke loose, right there in the meeting, the scene suddenly similar to that in a typical Knesset session, with Academicians jumping up, shouting, and cursing. Within half an hour, the President of the Academy, Pieter Drenth this time, stepped in, stating ex cathedra that the current review system was functioning well enough, despite minor flaws. He closed the meeting, and the Executive Board of the Academy decided to abort the idea altogether.

Following in the footsteps of van Os and de Groot, I have tried to fantasize about the fierce battles that might result if their proposal were put into effect. The central myth of cosmology and astrophysics, for example, is that the human mind is more powerful than the Universe. Stephen Hawking writes: when we discover a theory that unifies gravity and quantum mechanics, we will (I shudder as I write this) “know the Mind of God.” Martin Rees, then the Astronomer Royal of the United Kingdom, wrote a book called Before the Beginning, subtitled Our Universe and Others. Indeed, it has become common in astronomy to talk about Multiple Universes, an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Unfortunately, mainstream theology continues to propagate a similar myth, i.e. the stupid idea that one can talk with insight, and write scholarly publications, about God himself. That, in my mind, is an unforgivable epistemological fallacy. Readers not versed in the Bible might find it useful to read the story of Moses stumbling into a psychedelic thorn bush in Exodus 3. Moses hears voices and asks: “please tell me your Name, so I can tell my people who sent me.”  The Voice answers: “I am whoever I want to be, that should be good enough for you.”

Being an engineer myself, I would be delighted to participate in a debate between engineers and sociologists. In both cases, the interaction between the discipline and society is central to the field of inquiry. Take cell phones. The technology is straightforward, but the sociology is complex. Engineers are servants to society. Their work, which uses physics, chemistry, and countless other disciplines, ought to be analyzed by sociologists. I confess that I know no sociology to speak of, but I know enough about engineering to claim that something must be amiss if the best book on technology I know of is Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

As to my own position, I can illustrate that with another incident at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. I was elected into the Academy in 1982, and assigned to a small group of scholars not bound to a specific discipline, the Free Section. This group was the envy of several others, because the much coveted expansion of disciplinary sections was hindered by our presence. There were 100 chairs in the Science Division at the time, and several other sections claimed to need more. The powers behind the scenes argued long enough for the Executive Board to cave in to the demands to eliminate the Free Section, and lodge its members into disciplines. I was tentatively assigned to the physics section, which did not appeal to me at all. So I wrote to the then President, Piet van Zandbergen, saying that one could imagine putting me in the Engineering Section because I was raised as an engineer, in the Physics Section because my area of expertise is turbulence theory, which is a branch of theoretical physics, and in Earth Sciences, because that would correspond to my current position. Instead, I wrote, I would prefer to be assigned to the Theology and Philosophy Section because of my growing interest in epistemology. The President, eager to avoid any written record of the nuisance I had created, called me one night by phone, saying: “Henk, philosophy belongs to the Arts and Humanities Division of the Academy. The division between them and the Science Division is laid down in our Charter. You cannot cross that Wall however much you want to. That Wall cannot be breached.”

But one can step outside. I did. There is light out there.

13 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 12, 2010 at 7:20 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

Great post, David.  Thanks for the article concerning Henk's resignation.

It will be interesting to see how the record cold weather and snowstorms will affect the cap and trade bill, the push for alternative energy, and alternative energy stocks.

 

Report this comment
#2) On February 12, 2010 at 7:49 PM, whereaminow (20.94) wrote:

eddietheinvestor,

Thanks. I agree that these are interesting times.  I have declared Cap and Trade dead, but that's being a bit grandiose. In reality, there is often no limit to which governments will go to use academic justification for policy enactment.  We'll see.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On February 12, 2010 at 8:42 PM, ChrisGraley (29.76) wrote:

Don't count Cap and Trade out yet. The current administration has demonstrated that they think nothing about the opinions of public at large. They just care about ramming through an agenda before they get voted out.

 

 

Report this comment
#4) On February 13, 2010 at 1:59 AM, MGDG (35.20) wrote:

Interesting read David. How can barriers between different sciences have any real value or advance meaningful peer review?

Would technology developed for social uses be further advanced with input from Theology and philosophy?

Maybe the barriers between sciences have been holding us back or wasting valuable time in resources by advancing faulty science.  

Report this comment
#5) On February 13, 2010 at 9:15 AM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

Interesting read. I don't agree with his idea that one scientific discipline shouold have financial influence over another. I don't think that astronomers should guide public funding for physicists. I think his description of the current system with physicists guiding funding for physicists makes more sense and has worked quite well.

There is plenty of "peer review" of the science of CO2 influenced global warming, you review it for us all the time, completely discounting the reviews of the vast majority of scientists across different disciplines that agree with AGW while elevating theorys that have not stood up to that same "peer review" to cult-like status. Unfortunately quality science or review is not defined by reaching the conclusion that AGW is wrong.

Even in the case of Henke you elevate his opinion to an exalted status above those of the vast majority of his research facility. The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Society is not questioning whether or not the planet is warming as you do with the entire "Global Warming is a lie and measured incorrectly" series of posts, but instead trying to estimate the effects of the real warming they are measuring.

It should not be forgotten that climate warming models predict an increaesed number of extraordinary weather events, like huge snowfalls in Washington and Texas, or hot toasty summers, new record highs in Tibet, or as in the case of this report, record highs in a European autumn.

Compared to the 1971-2000 average it was more than three degrees Celsius warmer from the North side of the Alps to southern Norway.

The year-to-year differences in autumn temperatures in this region are almost always less than two degrees, making this a highly unusual event. It was the warmest autumn on record in the United Kingdom , Belgium , the Netherlands , Denmark , Germany and Switzerland , with the records in Central England going back to 1659, in the Netherlands to 1706 and in Denmark to 1768. Also in most of Austria , southern Sweden , southern Norway and parts of Ireland the autumn was the warmest on record.

In fact, under the assumption that the climate does not change, the observed temperatures for 2006 would occur with a probability of less than once every 10000 years in a large part of Europe. The warming of the world, and also Europe , explains part of the temperature anomaly this autumn. Along the shores of the North Sea the lingering effects of the very high temperatures in July raised the temperatures even further. However, also the unusual weather played a large role. During almost the whole autumn a strong and persistent southerly flow brought warm air to the north of the Alps.

Maybe you are correct and the whole thing is a farce as you present it to be. I just don't agree with you that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are wrong, unable to explain global warming after decades of study. What the climate change scientists modeled, is coming to pass.

Report this comment
#6) On February 13, 2010 at 9:50 AM, whereaminow (20.94) wrote:

Yeah..... anyway, here's an interesting interview with Phil Jones, the man most implicated by ClimateGate.

From the BBC:

Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.

He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics – a decision he says he regretted.

But Professor Jones said he had not cheated the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.

He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.

But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.

These statements are likely to be welcomed by people sceptical of man-made climate change who have felt insulted to be labelled by government ministers as flat-earthers and deniers.

‘Bunker mentality’

Professor Jones agreed that scientists on both sides of the debate could suffer sometimes from a “bunker mentality”.

He said “sceptics” who doubted his climate record should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US.

“The major datasets mostly agree,” he said. “If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.”

His colleagues said that keeping a paper trail was not one of Professor Jones’ strong points. Professor Jones told BBC News: “There is some truth in that.

“We do have a trail of where the (weather) stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be,” he admitted.

========================================

This begs the questions, which datasets agree?  It is my understanding that all of them are riddled with errors and poor QA. It seems like Phil is taking the first step to admitting that his science is pretty poor, but he is not willing to go all the way.  I have to say, it's more contrition than I expected.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#7) On February 13, 2010 at 1:26 PM, ElCid16 (94.13) wrote:

The question “which datasets agree?” is not a new thought, by any means.  The foundation of science was built with agreeable datasets.  Think of how counterintuitive it is that we use only a fraction of the components of the air that we breathe as a usable oxidant.  Or the fact that alcohol, which is commonly known to kill bacteria, is a commonly used food for wastewater bacteria.  Until scientific repeatability proved that these concepts were true, think how foolish some of this science must have initially sounded!  And I truly hope that you didn’t mean all science datasets are riddled with errors.  I hope you were only referring to AGW datasets.

 

AGW as a science is still in its nascent stages.  There is not “plenty of ‘peer review’ of the science of CO2 influenced global warming.” Peer review is not taking scientific data and having a regular Joe reading over it.  It’s having your “peer” review it.  No offense David, but you’re not a peer of climate scientists.  Other climate scientists are.  For a concept as large and as universal as global climate change, decades of agreeable datasets will be needed to ensure that we are, in fact, causing our planet’s entire climate to change. 

 

It sounds to me like Henk Tennekes has now looked back on his life and wishes that he lived the life of a polymath rather than a research scientist.  He simply picked the wrong field.  Having a sociologist read a chemist’s dissertation or having a psychologist read an engineer’s publication would create an enormous amount of inhibition to scientific knowledge and innovation.  Imagine if BravoBevo had to explain all of his stock picks to someone like me and gain my approval before he was allowed click the green or red thumb…his score would probably be lacking that 2 on front, because I don’t know the first thing about making stock picks.  While you think Henk will be remember for those “remarkable words” in his resignation letter, he’ll likely be remembered for his scientific publications. 

I think the reason so many people are jumping the gun with climate change prior to its credibility as hard science is because of the potential dire effects that global warming could have.  We’re not talking about a confined region or a single river.  We’re talking about a huge effect on the entire globe.  A potential loss of water supply, the loss of dozens of major cities, and reduced yields of crops is what could be at stake.  If human-caused global warming happens to be true, but more importantly happens to be occurring exponentially, by the time we prove it to ourselves it could be too late. 

 

And on a side note, I wouldn't say that increasing the energy fraction that comes from alternative sources from 1% to 2% (nah, lets get crazy and make it 3%), increasing energy efficiency, or mandating a few carbon restrictions would be turning our world upside down.

Report this comment
#8) On February 13, 2010 at 1:36 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

David,

You wrote "from the BBC" and then linked us to a the original source of you repeated, the climate skeptic website wattsupwiththat. I almost did not notice it was not actually the BBC.

Here is the full interview done by the BBC.

Report this comment
#9) On February 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM, brianc410 (< 20) wrote:

The whole problem with the "peer review" is that your peers are doing the reviewing.  Who becomes a "Climate Scientist" when they think it's B.S?  You would only choose that field if you believed in it.  Everyone has a bias.  To pretend scientists do not have an agenda is is naive.

 -Nuclear Chemist.

 

Report this comment
#10) On February 13, 2010 at 10:09 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

brianc410,

You choose to become a climate scientists to understand climate better. Whether that study leads you to find a warming trend, a cooling trend, something more or less than historical norms, happens after you are interested in and work to understand climate.

 

Report this comment
#11) On February 14, 2010 at 2:13 PM, ElCid16 (94.13) wrote:

well, Brianc...

Since you are a nuclear chemist, what's your agenda?

Report this comment
#12) On February 14, 2010 at 3:08 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

Because of the obsession with trying to make people believe in global warming, the federal deficit grows more and more unsustainable.  Global warming researchers find evidence of global warming because that is how they get their grants, so their evidence can be biased in order to get the research money.  Obviously those scientists whose research proves that global warming doesn't exist will not get money.  Surely, there are better uses for this taxpayer money, such as paying down the national debt or feeding and housing the homeless. Here is the article:

Global Warming Skeptics Lambaste Plan to Increase Funding for Climate Change Research

By Gene J. Koprowski

 

Global warming skeptics are agog that President Obama is seeking to dramatically increase federal funding for global warming research in the wake of the Climate-gate scandals that have emerged during the last three months.

Global warming skeptics are agog that President Obama is seeking to dramatically increase federal funding for global warming research in the wake of the Climate-gate scandals that have emerged during the last three months. 

The federal budget for 2011 proposes $2.6 billion for the Global Change Research Program, a  21 percent boost over 2010. It will bring funding to a level higher than under any administration dating back to 1989 -- when global warming first attracted federal budget funds.

In fact, critics note, overall climate funding is approximately as large as the entire federal government's budget was in 1932 -- $3.994 billion. (Additional money for climate science is apportioned to a number of federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.)

Critics are lambasting the Obama administration, saying it remains unfazed by the revelations of Climate-gate: doctored research statistics by British environmental scientists, attempts to discredit skeptics of global warming science, and disclosures that the U.N.'s own Nobel-Prize-winning climate science research was based on faulty research about the Amazon rain forest and Himalayan ice caps.

Some public policy experts are expressing outrage that the White House is seeking to boost global warming research funding. "Spending more money on research does not necessarily lead to concrete results," Norm Rogers, a senior policy adviser at the Chicago think-tank The Heartland Institute, told FoxNews.com

related links

Africa-Gate? U.N. Fears of Food Shortages Questioned

Warming Oceans Meet Heaving Bosoms in U.N. Climate Chief's Racy Novel

Penn State Probe into Mann's Wrongdoing a 'Total Whitewash'

Dutch Point Out New Mistakes in U.N. Climate Report

He said tens of billions of dollars have been spent on climate research in the last 20 years, and there remains no consensus on the science. 

Another expert, Professor Don Easterbrook at Western Washington University's department of geology, said the federal money "ought to be spent carrying out real research on the climate." 

Easterbrook said most of the federal funds so far have been spent on what he terms "political science," which aims to find a manmade cause of global warming when there are any number of ways to investigate the causes of temperature change. These are political motivations rather than purely scientific reasons, he said.

"This is a travesty," he told FoxNews.com.

But other scientists applauded the proposed boost in federal money for climate research.

"Funding for neglected basic research in geophysics, climate, and allied sciences is welcome," said Dallas C. Kennedy, a physicist with a doctorate from Stanford University. Kennedy believes those fields have seen dwindling resources in recent years, and money spent on them will yield better science.

The administration's proposed changes include the creation of a new federal agency that will serve as a clearinghouse for climate-change data and resources. U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke explained the potential benefits, saying "we'll discover new technologies, build new businesses and create new jobs."

Howard Hayden, a professor of physics at the University of Connecticut who runs a newsletter called The Energy Advocate, said he believes good data has been gleaned from 20 years of global warming research. "The data collection is useful and necessary," he said. 

Another scientist, Dr. Mitchell Taylor of the department of geography at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ont., said funding priorities for the federal government need to be reshaped. There should be an "independent reconciliation" of the climate-change data that has been researched by the government and private institutions, he told FoxNews.com. He is calling for an independent body of experts -- including critics of the global warming hypothesis -- to sort through all the conflicting research.

What's more, he said, the government should re-frame research to look critically at the global warming hypothesis in light of the recent data and "investigate in a fair and balanced manner alternative explanations for climate change."

What, exactly, will the American taxpayer get for its global warming research dollars? The EPA is spending $43 million to implement the greenhouse-gas reporting rule, to perform regulatory work for the largest stationary sources of greenhouse gases, and to develop new standards for cars and trucks.

Research being funded at the National Science Foundation seeks to promote "discoveries needed to inspire societal actions leading to environmental and economic sustainability," according to an agency statement. The NSF's portfolio for global warming will reach $766 million.

NSF and EPA spokesmen in Washington did not return e-mails requesting additional comment on the increased spending. But a fact sheet from the White House Office of Management and Budget portrays the global warming funding as part of the Obama administration's new jobs-creation policy, which aims at making the U.S. "the world leader in developing the clean energy technologies that will lead to the industries and jobs of tomorrow."

Last year's budget provided $2.0 billion for the climate science program, a figure that doesn't include the half a billion in stimulus money that the White House directed to global warming, as Obama's science adviser recently told Congress.

"Investments in climate science over the past several decades have contributed to an improved understanding of the global climate," said John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, in testimony before a House committee.

Report this comment
#13) On February 23, 2010 at 5:40 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@whereaminow,
"This begs the questions, which datasets agree?  It is my understanding that all of them are riddled with errors and poor QA."
This clearly shows how little you know and how little attention you pay to those trying to educate you.
There are 4 land-sea surface temperature databases:
- GISSTemp, made by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. It only uses publicly available data (GHCN v2) and all the code, methodologies and data are freely available.
- HadCRUT, jointly made by the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre and East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.
- Global Surface Temperature Anomalies, made by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
- Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies, made by the Japan Metheorological Agency.
Two reconstructions of tropospheric temperatures made by satellites:
- Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)
- University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), done by "skeptics" Roy Spencer and John Christy.
Many other records.

All records agree:






Don't trust temperature records? How about world glaciers and Arctic sea ice?



Or birds?


It's a big conspiracy, isn't it?
Why don't you try to get a basic understanding of climate science instead of parroting ignorant talking points as if they were fact?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement