Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Suzuki

GET UPDATES FROM David Suzuki

Investigation Hits at Climate Change Denier's "Science"

Posted: 07/14/11 03:35 PM ET

In their desperation to find even a tiny shred of peer-reviewed science to challenge the volumes of research from around the world about human-caused climate change, deniers have often held up Willie Soon's work.

Dr. Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for studies that purportedly show that the sun, and not CO2 emissions from human activity, is the main factor in climate change, and that climate change in the 20th century wasn't that unusual to begin with. He has also argued that mercury emissions from burning coal are no big deal.

Now, in response to a Greenpeace investigation, Dr. Soon has admitted that U.S. oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world's largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his research. According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests. This despite the fact that he once told a U.S. Senate hearing that he had not been hired by, employed by, or received grants from any organization "that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."

Dr. Soon has also been affiliated with a number of industry front groups, including the coal-funded Greening Earth Society, and Koch-Exxon-Scaife-funded groups including the George C. Marshall Institute, the Science and Public Policy Institute, the Center for Science and Public Policy, the Heartland Institute, and Canada's Fraser Institute.

Correspondence uncovered by Greenpeace also found that Dr. Soon led a plan in 2003 to undermine the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report years before it was even released in 2007.

It's not news that the fossil fuel industry has funded an ongoing campaign of doubt and misinformation about the effects of its products and about the dangers of climate change -- people and organizations from science historian Naomi Oreskes (author of Merchants of Doubt) to Greenpeace have been exposing these efforts for years. From hiring trolls and front groups to post comments on websites, submit letters to editors, and write opinion columns to sponsoring "scientific" research and holding conferences, it's all been well documented. (The same tactics have also been used by the tobacco industry.)

The latest revelation is a bit of an embarrassment for oil giant Exxon, though. The world's largest oil company had admitted that it funded these efforts but promised in 2008 it would stop giving money to groups that lobbied against the need to find clean energy sources.

It's also an embarrassment for those who, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny the existence of climate change -- or admit that it's happening but say we can't and shouldn't do anything about it. Of course, they will continue to repeat the same discredited points about "climategate" and medieval warm periods and CO2 as plant food, and they'll continue to take the advice of industry shills like Tom Harris to bombard the media with opinion articles and letters to editors and to post numerous comments under online articles.

Some rightly point out that we should look at the science and not at who is paying for the research. So what about Dr. Soon's science? Well, let's consider one paper that Dr. Soon published with colleague Sallie Baliunas, which attempted to discredit the work of Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. Three editors of the publication that ran the study resigned in protest, including incoming editor-in-chief Hans von Storch. He said "the conclusions [were] not supported by the evidence presented in the paper." Greenpeace notes also that 13 of the scientists cited in the paper published rebuttals stating that Dr. Soon and Dr. Baliunas had misinterpreted their work.

After all their digging, deniers have only been able to find a few minor errors in the volumes of peer-reviewed science about climate change, and have had to rely on manufactured scandals and conspiracy theories to bolster their arguments. It only takes a bit of investigating to poke holes in the scant bits of research that have attempted to discredit real climate science. Let's stop wasting our time on deniers. It would be better spent trying to resolve the serious problems we have created.

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation editorial and communications specialist Ian Hanington.

This blog was previously published here.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

 
In their desperation to find even a tiny shred of peer-reviewed science to challenge the volumes of research from around the world about human-caused climate change, deniers have often held up Willie ...
In their desperation to find even a tiny shred of peer-reviewed science to challenge the volumes of research from around the world about human-caused climate change, deniers have often held up Willie ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 544
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
05:59 AM on 08/16/2011
Will David Suzuki agree or disagree - RIGHT HERE - RIGHT NOW DAVID - that unless science continues to be forced to stand on its own merit and do so without regard of who pays for it, science itself is doomed?

You pay that concept the tiniest bit of lip service with "we should look at the science and not at who is paying for the research" but then go on a tirade that Exxon has no right to defend its own business interests as though THAT is what ought to be the litmus test for who is telling the truth and who is lying. So what about THIS money David? http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf What about the self interests of those putting all of that money into their own pockets huh? Is that different than Exxon? When you open a door - people can walk through in either direction.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
David Suzuki
Scientist, broadcaster, auth
05:16 PM on 07/29/2011
On behalf of David Suzuki, I'd like to thank the scientists and scientifically literate readers who took the time to challenge the deniers here. It can be frustrating, especially when their tactics include trying to drown out the truth by constantly posting more and more nonsense. In this case, readers can clearly see which arguments are scientifically and rationally valid and which are not. It may also interest some of you to know that when Tom Harris bailed, saying he had other work to do, the other work included going to other sites where this article appeared and posting the same arguments and more, including the old one about CO2 being harmless plant food. Again, thanks to all who took part in this important discussion.

Ian Hanington
Communications and Editorial Specialist
The David Suzuki Foundation
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
09:09 AM on 08/07/2011
Thanks Ian!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:01 AM on 08/18/2011
Yeah. Thanks Ian. We live to serve the religion. Baaaaaa.
07:05 PM on 08/26/2011
Why is my answer to the above Suzuki post being deleted?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:29 AM on 07/27/2011
The SEPP's Bob Carter has committed climate science fraud.*

Dr. Robert M. "Bob" Carter is a leader of and/or major contributor to several prominent organizations that are "skeptical" of man-made global warming / climate change, including the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and the  International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

You Orkneygal nonetheless claim to have "no interest" in even examining evidence irrefutably demonstrating an instance of ICSC Chief Science Adviser Bob Carter's fraud,* just as the ICSC's Tom Harris repeatedly refused to address Bob Carter's fraud downthread.

Please answer the following question that you Orkneygal have repeatedly refused to answer:

The debunked Bob Carter is also a founding leader of the "skeptical" New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC). You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

------------
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:23 AM on 07/27/2011
Dr. Roy Spencer believes God will protect us from global warming.

The University of Alabama, Huntsville's Dr. Roy Spencer is the lead author of the article cited just below. Roy Spencer along with the debunked Bob Carter [1] is one of the relatively very small number of climate scientists who is also a global warming / climate science "skeptic".

Dr. Roy Spencer is a also on the Board of Advisers of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation [2], a fundamentalist Christian organization that preaches that the Bible infallibly tells us that God will protect us from global warming:

-----------------------
The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels... 

We believe that idea... fails the tests of theology... with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible...

The providence and promises of God inform a Christian understanding of creation stewardship, helping to avert irrational or exaggerated fears of catastrophes - fears that are rooted, ultimately, in the loss of faith in God... God’s wisdom, power, and faithfulness justify confidence that Earth’s ecosystems are robust and will, by God’s providence, accomplish the purposes He set for them.
------------------------
[3]

continued...
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:54 AM on 07/27/2011
Dr. Roy Spencer is an evolution science denier who believes that "the theory of creation actually [has] a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution" [4] in addition to his believing that God will protect us from global warming. [2,3]

Do Roy Spencer's religious beliefs influence his "scientific" assessments?

We report, you decide.

----------------
[1] http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

[2] http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/board-of-advisors/

[3] http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:38 AM on 07/27/2011
On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance

Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.


http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:52 AM on 07/27/2011
Dr. Roy Spencer's UAH dataset was infamously wrong for years.

You didn't mention that the lead author of article you are referencing is Dr. Roy Spencer, the "official" climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show, who happens along with the fraudulent and debunked Bob Carter* to be one of the relatively very small number of climate scientists who is also a global warming / climate change "skeptic".  Is that perhaps because:

* Dr. Roy Spencer was infamously wrong with respect to the UAH satellite global temperature dataset that he analyzes and maintains, reporting falsely for the better part of a decade that the globe warmed much less than it really did until Spencer was audited and corrected by independent climate scientists?

- and/or -

* Dr. Roy Spencer is a religious fundamentalist who along with his Cornwall Alliance brethren believes that per the Bible a just and Christian God will protect us from global warming? **

Do tell, Orkneygal.

----------------
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
B Wood
11:47 PM on 07/28/2011
Today the echo chamber is trumpeting Spencer's newest research paper that claims NASA data inidcates significant amount of heat is not being trapped in the atmosphere.

This is how this works.

Spencer is the scientist who did this research paper. He is affiliated with the Heartland Institute.

James Taylor, who works for Hearltand writes a blog on Forbes.com talking up Spencer's paper, which by the way is not peer reviewed yet.

Other web sites and blogs that are "skeptics" or ideologically stunted link up to this article and it gets lots of hits.

Pundits start talking the paper up. Spencer will go on Limbaugh, Beck and Fox.

Within three months or less, Spencer's paper will get discredited, but it will only be noted on a few websites. Most people will never know the research was flawed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:09 PM on 07/27/2011
Why not use Spencer's name in your post; its the proper and required practice to cite a direct copy of any kind. Is it because Spencer has all the credibility and regard Publicola suggests? Why wouldn't such an omission on your part be willful, and what is denialism if not this kind of behavior?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:17 PM on 07/27/2011
There's a 250 word limit on postings the board will accept. You can't post everything of interest about an academic paper in just 250 words.
05:02 AM on 08/16/2011
Maybe he/she wanted to keep it a secret only up until the reader clicked on the link to open the document which then clearly displays the names of Dr. Spencer and Dr. Braswell?

In that way, by hiding Spencer's name from his/her entry, Orkneygal successfully circumvents the unfair prejudice placed against Spencer by others posting here prior to this post thus affording a better chance that the casual reader will actually go there and read it.

If everyone who hated you successfully libeled you as a rapist wouldn't you tend to want to delay revealing your name to a girl you are taking on a blind date?

Love your faux 'concern' for 'proper and required practice', too bad you do not seem to have much concern when it comes to your own proclivity for character assassination.

Orkneygal did nothing wrong but, damn it, AAA will manage to find something bad to say about Orkneygal personally if he/she dares to post something that threatens AAA's religious belief in CAGW.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
MJinCanada
Safe from zombies until my 2nd cup of coffee
09:19 PM on 07/26/2011
Another excellent article by Dr. Suzuki.
05:06 AM on 08/16/2011
Too bad they don't allow anyone to post a rebuttal huh?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:15 PM on 07/25/2011
Orkneygal; "If you want to defame Dr Carter, go right ahead."

I am not defaming Dr. Carter - that Dr. Robert "Bob" Carter has committed climate science fraud is not false or unfounded. To the contrary, Dr. Bob Carter's fraud has been irrefutably demonstrated.*

Orkneygal: "I am just not interested in his work"

Are you interested in the work of the high-profile  "skeptic" entities the Science & Environmental Policy Project  (SEPP) and/or the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)? If so one would think you would be interested in Bob Carter's scientific fraud as well, since Dr. Carter is a primary science adviser to the SEPP and a NIPCC  contributor.

Orkneygal: "...and I am certainly not interested in your evaluation of it."

That Bob Carter has committed scientific fraud was in this instance demonstrated by statistician Tamino.*

Orkneygal: "Go badger someone about Dr Carter that is willing to play your game with you."

I have repeatedly asked the climate science "skeptics" who have posted in this thread - including International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) Executive Director Tom Harris - to address a demonstrated instance of ICSC Chief Science Adviser Bob Carter's scientific fraud.  Funny how none of you will do so, Tom Harris' claim that he has "no problem answering respectful, rational questions" and your purported disdain for those who demonstrate "consistent and persistent refusal to openly debate" science matters notwithstanding.

------------------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:01 AM on 07/26/2011
Your efforts seem to still bring none of the results that you are looking for.

One of our Lecturers is from Texas, USA. He tells us "If you like the results you are getting, keep doing the things you are doing." or alternatively "Insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result."

Good luck with your quest!
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:41 AM on 07/26/2011
Dr. Bob Carter has committed climate science fraud.*

Dr. Robert "Bob" Carter is leader of and/or major contributor to several high-profile organizations that are "skeptical" of man-man global warming / climate change, including:

* The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

* The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

* The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) 

That NONE of the so-called global warming "skeptics" who have posted in this thread -- including the ICSC's Executive Director Tom Harris -- will address Dr. Bob Carter's demonstrated scientific fraud* with respect to global warming no matter how many times you are asked to and instead act as if you are not even interested in Bob Carter's fraud is a "result" that I have been demonstrating repeatedly in this thread.

Speaking of questions that you Orkneygal have repeatedly refused to answer:

Dr. Bob Carter also is a founding member of the "skeptical" New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC). You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

------------
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:29 PM on 07/27/2011
"Your efforts seem to still bring none of the results that you are looking for."

What results are sought by people like Publicola? Can you even describe or defend your ideology on the terms established by stating what those "results" are? I'm going to say no, and cite your refusal to discuss the baseless ideological charges you level as evidence.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:33 AM on 07/24/2011
Orkneygal:"I am sorry when anyone cuts off discussion about scientific matters."

That's great,  Orkneygal.

In which case, unlike what both the ICSC's Executive Director Tom Harris and you have repeatedly done downthread, you will now not cut off discussion about the following scientific matter and fraud but instead directly address it and answer the question I've asked you about it, right?

-----------------------------

In a recent lecture the ICSC's Chief Science Adviser Dr. Bob Carter claimed: 

"There was no temperature increase from 1979 to 1995"

-and-

"There was no change [in temperature] between 1999 and through to today"

http://www.sydneyminingclub.org/presentations/2011/april/bob-carter/index.htm

[Slide 6 starting at 1:35]

To support his assertion Dr. Carter shows UAH global satellite temperature data and puts flat "lines" across the data for those time periods.

The not-skeptical observer might be mislead into assuming that the flat lines Carter drew there are statistically-valid trend lines; that assumption however would not be correct. Actual statistical trend lines in that context show warming trends, as is explained here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

Do you Orkneygal agree that Bob Carter's analysis that I have addressed here is not statistically or scientifically valid? ''Yes' or 'No'?

And if 'No': 

Please explain in statistical and scientific detail why you instead think that Carter's analysis that I have addressed here is or even could be statistically and scientifically valid - thanks.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:36 PM on 07/24/2011
I have noted before that I am not interested in Dr Carter's work and know nothing of it.

You would be well served to go find someone that is interest with his work and harass them for a response to your claims.

Good luck with your efforts. But I really think you need to re-evaluate your efforts. You do not seem to be very successful.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:42 PM on 07/24/2011
Dear Orkneygal,

For someone who purports to dislike "cutting off discussion about scientific matters" and
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:19 PM on 07/24/2011
Dear Orkneygal,

For someone who purports to dislike "cutting off discussion about scientific matters" and have disdain for those who demonstrate "consistent and persistent refusal to openly debate" science matters, as was also true with the ICSC's Tom Harris you have an impressive - for lack of a better word - consistent and persistent record of refusing to openly debate a demonstration of Dr. Bob Carter's scientific fraud*.

You also claim to have no interest in Bob Carter's demonstrated scientific fraud, which too is curious given that not only is Dr. Robert "Bob" Carter the International Climate Science Coalition's (ICSC's) Chief Science Advisor but he is also a primary science advisor for an even more prominent climate science "skeptic" organization, the Science & Environmental Policy Project  (SEPP), as well as contributor to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). 

As these are all high-profile climate science "skeptic" entities one would think that "skeptics" such as yourself would be interested in examining the evidence that one of their most prominent scientists has committed scientific fraud - that is if one were a real scientific skeptic, as opposed to a fake "skeptic" who isn't interested in scientific truth but instead promotion of science denier propaganda.

Bob Carter is also a founding member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC). You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

-------------------
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:35 AM on 07/24/2011
The overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and about as warm as our most hospitable and gentle current warming period which began at the end of the Little Ice Age.

However, the MWP deniers, such as the IPCC, US EPA, CSIRO and the UK’s MET Office, will never admit the similarity of current global climate to the MWP because it means that their religious-like belief in AGW is exposed for the steaming pile of junk science that it truly is.

Climate change is complex and not well understood.

But this part is simple.

Since the world was just as warm in the past when CO2 levels were significantly lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's sole temperature regulator. There must be other factors.

This wonderful warming period has powered the social and industrial advances that have made modern people the healthiest and most prosperous in history. MWP deniers want us to believe that plant friendly, life giving CO2 is a bad thing to better advance their meglomanical desire to boss around the developed world and further impoverish the poor while pocketing a lot of taxpayer money along the way.

Useless, misguided attempts to control carbon are not the answer to the ever changing climate. There is only one answer to changes in climate that has ever worked for humanity.

That is adaptation.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:44 AM on 07/24/2011
Orkneygal:

"CO2 cannot be the earth's sole temperature regulator. There must be other factors."

As every climate scientist in the world agrees with this scientiffically trivial statement and has never claimed otherwise, and as it is moreover agreed to and addressed in detail in the IPCC report and in the 2010 National Academy of Sciences report affirming that.global waning over recent decades is real and per overwhelming scientific evidence largely caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, your statement here Orkneygal is of course nothing but a straw man and science denier disinformation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:10 AM on 07/24/2011
Note how deniers bottom-line degradation of the ecology in terms of adaptation rather than cleaning up our act. This is intended to preserve the materialist and rankist worldview that depends on treating the planet as though it has no limits. What Orkneygal never states is what happens to the rest of life if rates of change outstrip adaptation. We can pretty much assume deniers believe it is entirely legitimate to drive whole ecosystems to extinction; because they do not value what they don't understand. We also never hear about how people in the developing world will adapt. I think we can assume the same position is secretly held; the poor either adapt or die all on their own.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
03:21 PM on 07/23/2011
This is outrageous!

The House of Lords must be JOKING.

Is it some kind of April Fools Day over there?

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
03:07 PM on 07/23/2011
OrkneyBossLady

You have done some really unbelievable work here today.

If you want to take a break, I can take over for a while.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:44 AM on 07/24/2011
Thank you for your compliment.

If you think yourself capable of battling with the Rommulans you do not need my permission to do so.

Sally forth and prove your mettle.

Or, not.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
05:00 AM on 07/25/2011
Orkeny, Romulans is spelled with one "m."
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:02 AM on 07/23/2011
Orkneygal:"Does Tom Harris read this blog?"

Yes, the Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) Tom Harris does read this blog. In fact, Tom Harris has made multiple posts in this blog downthread.

In direct response to one of Tom Harris' posts downthread I cited statistician Tamino's demonstration that Mr. Harris' colleague and the ICSC's Chief Science Adviser Bob Carter has committed scientific fraud. [1]

Tom Harris directly responded to my post to him, saying that he would forward Tamino's demonstration of Dr. Carter's fraud along to Dr. Carter. In turn I responded to Mr. Harris' post, directly asking Mr. Harris to forward my request to Dr. Carter for Dr. Carter to discuss his fraud with me here in this forum. [2]  Dr.Carter has to date failed to do so.

I also asked Tom Harris in this thread, while he was still posting in it, the following [3]:

-----------------------------
Do you agree that Dr. Carter's analysis that I have addressed here is statistically invalid, and that his claim of 'no warming' over those two time periods is not supported by the UAH data that he is referencing to support his claim? 

And if 'no':  Please explain in explicit detail why you instead think that Dr. Carter's analysis that I have addressed here is or could be statistically and scientifically valid.
------------------------------

Mr. Harris did not respond to my question; instead saying later upthread that he had to "withdraw from the discussion".

continued...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:13 AM on 07/23/2011
I am sorry to hear that your strategy and tactics do not seem to be working.

Again, all the best with your efforts!
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:47 AM on 07/23/2011
You are sorry that the ICSC's Tom Harris has repeatedly refused requests by me for him to address his Chief Science Adviser Bob Harris' scientific fraud? If so thanks for that sentiment.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:10 AM on 07/23/2011
....continued

Orkneygal: "Wouldn't it be more effective to send him a letter or email, rather than to trash him on a blog he may not be aware of?"

Tom Harris is quite aware of this blog, having made multiple posts in it including in direct response to me.  Moreover Mr. Harris directly received my requests to discuss Dr. Carter's fraud here in this forum and to forward the same request to Dr.Carter himself - and again neither has chosen address Dr. Carter's fraud.

Those are facts.  If in your mind that means that Mr. Harris and/or Dr. Carter's reputation has been "trashed" then perhaps you Orkneygal would care to defend your fellow 'skeptics' with respect to Dr. Carter's fraud as documented by Tamino [1] and addressed by me in this forum?

----------------------
[1] Statistician Tamino demonstrates fraud by the Chief Science Officer of International Climate  Science Coalition'(ICSC), Dr. Bob Carter:

(http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

[2] I ask the Executive Director of the ICSC, Tom Harris to forward to Dr. Carter my request to have Dr. Carter discuss his scientific fraud here in this forum (which Bob Carter has not done):

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97644193.html

[3] i ask Tom Harris to discuss Bob Carter's fraud with me here in this forum (which Tom Harris repeatedly refused to do):

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:56 PM on 07/22/2011
From the Climate, etc Blog

Time-varying trend in global mean surface temperature

Two key questions in the climate debate are:
How much of the recent warming can be attributed to natural variability versus anthropogenic forcing?
Is the rate of warming in the latter half of the 20th century unusual or unprecedented?

A new paper published in Climate Dynamics tackles both of these questions:

On the time-varying trend in global-mean surface temperature

Zhaohua Wu • Norden E. Huang • John M. Wallace • Brian V. Smoliak • Xianyao Chen

......JC comments: I think this paper is an important contribution to our understanding of the climate variability of the 20th century. The paper highlights significant inadequacies in the IPCC AR4 analysis.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/14/time-varying-trend-in-global-mean-surface-temperature/#more-4080
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
09:14 PM on 07/22/2011
Speaking of Judith Curry, does the peer reviewed paper Reconcilin­g anthropoge­nic climate change with observed temperatur­e 1998 - 2008 by Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, James H. Stock address both insolation and ENSO, or doesn't it? (ENSO is the acronym of ENiño &Southern Oscillation­, which is the oscillatio­n between El Niño & La Niña conditions­.)

You only need to read the Abstract to answer the question.

http://www­.pnas.org/­content/10­8/29/11790


Abstract
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrat­ions, it has been unclear why global surface temperatur­es did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropoge­nic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-yea­r cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropoge­nic effects because rapid growth in short-live­d sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrat­ions. As such, we find that recent global temperatur­e records are consistent with the existing understand­ing of the relationsh­ip among global surface temperatur­e, internal variabilit­y, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropoge­nic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:29 PM on 07/22/2011
It would have been useful if you had actually explained which Kaufman et al paper you were referring to.

Kaufman et al

1.1 million results

http://tinyurl.com/3p55gle
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:35 PM on 07/22/2011
Dr Curry clearly is not impressed with the most recent Kaufman et al paper. She has dedicated an entire Blog thread to it.

Climate Skeptic has an insightful commentary about what he calls "The Plug" in his 7 July post. Nice short evisceration of the nonsense modelers get up to, including in this case.

I think his commentary about the impact of soot on the Arctic ice extent is also interesting. Of course the Rommulans will never agree since in their world view, it MUST be higher temperatures causing the ice extent loss in the Arctic. That is the only way Hansen's claims of massive temperature increases in the Arctic, where there are virtually no thermometers to confirm his claims, can be sustained.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
10:21 PM on 07/22/2011
YES or NO, Orkneygal, does the peer reviewed paper Reconcilin­­g anthropoge­­nic climate change with observed temperatur­­e 1998 - 2008 by Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, James H. Stock address both insolation and ENSO, or doesn't it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
01:14 PM on 07/22/2011
We've now seen, in this very discussion thread, that "industry shills like Tom Harris" don't know the science well enough for themselves to answer basic questions about the water vapor feedback without a team of "science advisors," and even then, even with all that help, he still wouldn't really address the perfectly lucid (if I do say so myself), perfectly direct, terribly basic question that I put to him about the water vapor feedback.

And even currently-publishing scientists that deny the climate consensus can't even tell the lay audience that reads the Wall Street Journal about one peer-reviewed study that substantiates their denial, appealing instead to what they are likely to find "intuitively implausible" based on conceptual hand-waving and outright lying that the positive feedback from water vapor is in any legitimate doubt. That author's "iris hypothesis" is discredited in the scientific community, and the only places he can still talk about it and be taken seriously are in front of lay audiences.

So some climate science deniars, like Tom Harris, don't even know what they're talking about and the few that do know what they're talking about are demonstrably liars.

The question is, why? What is their motive? Tom won't divulge his sources (until they're subpoenaed), but a pattern is quite evident in the climate denial industry. Climate deniars do it for money. Okay, not so surprising; a lot of people would do a lot of sick things for $1,000,000. But then the question becomes, who is willing to offer that particular indecent proposal? Oil and coal companies and trade groups. Why? to avoid regulation, and to continue obtaining subsidies from the federal government -- under the false pretense that the carbon dioxide that their products pollute cause no climate change or only minor, unimportant degrees of climate change.

92318 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f 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. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00923.htm
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:12 PM on 07/22/2011
Orkneygal: "If you think Dr Carter has committed fraud you should bring it up with him."

Dr. Bob Carter is the Chief Science Adviser of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).  Downthread I twice directly asked Tom Harris, the Executive Director of the ICSC, to forward my request to Dr. Carter for Dr. Carter to address and discuss with me his demonstrated scientific fraud* with here in this forum - Dr. Carter however has not responded.

I also asked Tom Harris downthread for himself to defend his colleague Bob Carter's scientific fraud here in this forum - Mr. Harris too did not respond to my request and instead he stopped posting, claiming that he had to stop posting in this thread as he no longer had time to do so.

One would think that if Tom Harris believed that Bob Carter was not committing scientific fraud that he would take the time to defend the integrity of the Chief Science Adviser of his organization and thus the integrity of his ICSC organization more generally. Mr. Harris however has directly declined to do so.

Perhaps Mr. Harris understands - as Dr. Carter seems to as well - that since Dr. Carter's fraud is scientifically indefensible it is better to run away than to address the patently obvious fact that Dr. Carter has committed scientific fraud.

----------------
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:26 PM on 07/22/2011
Does Tom Harris read this blog?

Wouldn't it be more effective to send him a letter or email, rather than to trash him on a blog he may not be aware of?

Sounds to me like you need to reconsider your approach to communications if you expect to be successful. In any case, good luck with your efforts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
07:02 PM on 07/22/2011
Not only did he read this article, Tom Harris, Executive Director of the fraudulent ICSC created an account for the sole purpose of stating his objection to being falsely accused of having earned a PhD.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/ReedYoung/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97648841.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
10:30 PM on 07/22/2011
As a matter of fact, he has read this blog, and he has even commented, to complain about being falsely accused of having earned a PhD. Apparently, the title "Dr." is offensive to him. It's just a page or two back in this discussion thread.