# Canada Withdraws from Kyoto Protocols



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 13, 2011)

Canada quits Kyoto climate pact - CNN.com



> (CNN) -- Canada officially renounced the expiring Kyoto Protocol on Monday, a day after international negotiators agreed to extend the treaty's limits on carbon emissions blamed for a warming climate.
> 
> Environment Minister Peter Kent said Ottawa would keep working to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and help negotiate a new framework for a global pact.
> 
> But in a statement to reporters on his return from last week's climate conference in South Africa, Kent said that for Canada, Kyoto "is in the past."



The theory that human activity is primarily responsible for the increase in temperatures since 1850 is collapsing in terms of how many in the public buy into it. The recent cooling temperatures (no matter what statistical lies Hansen publishes from NASA) that we have seen for the last ten years, the realization of new factors that reduce likely human cause, and the revealed fudging of data and the conspiracy on the part of a handful of scientists to silence opponents, have them shunned as well as any publication that publishes sceptical work have all but destroeyd the AGW theory.

All I can say is 'About damned time' people started observing that the Emporer has no clothes.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 13, 2011)

Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend? 

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 13, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?
> 
> There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.



You are a sharp guy, Old Rocks, and I dont want to get into some pejorative back-and-forth, but we hit the peak temps in 1998, and since then we have been on a shallow slope down in average temperatures.

The Temperature Decline That Dare Not Speak Its Name



> Lets look at the NOAA claim that the surface temperature increased .11° C during 2000-2009. Although they did everything possible to hide this information from the public, media, politicians, and even fellow scientists, by the late 2000s even die-hard alarmists were eventually forced to accept that the surface temperature record showed no warming as of the late 1990s, and some cooling as of about 2002. In other words, overall, for the first decade of the 21st century, there was either no warming, or no warming and even some cooling.
> 
> One of the consistent themes in the Climategate emails was consternation that the planet wasnt warming as expected
> 
> ...










> This graph shows a temperature decline of 0.73°Fahrenheit (-0.4°C) for 2000-2009 in the U.S. To get a perspective on how large a decline this is: the IPCC estimates that the temperature increase for the whole of the 20th century was 1.1°F, or 0.6°C. In other words, at least in the United States, the past decades cooling wiped out two-thirds of the temperature gain of the last century.
> 
> While the U.S. isnt, of course, the whole world, it has the worlds best temperature records, and a review of the NOAA data since 1895 shows that in the 20th century the U.S. temperature trends mirrored, quite closely, the global temperature trends. So, for example, between 1940-1975, a global cooling period, the NOAA chart showed a temperature decline of 0.14°F (-0.07°C).
> 
> In other words, it stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe that the global temperature trend from 2000-2009 could be a full 0.51°Chalf a degree Celsiushigher than the temperature trend for the United States (that is, -.4C + .11C).




And one more:

» NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data-AGAIN! - Big Government



> The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).
> 
> But Mother Nature was never good at computer science.  Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). Whats even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006.  Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. So the scientists at the University of Colorados NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they fudged the numbers.  They simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of  what was actually happeningdecelerating.
> 
> ...



ETc, etc, etc.

While I respect NASA, Hansen is full of crap.


----------



## Douger (Dec 13, 2011)

Graphs are fun ! Like Monopoly !


----------



## idb (Dec 13, 2011)

Canada's position has nothing to do with science and everything to do with oil sands.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 13, 2011)

Douger said:


> Graphs are fun ! Like Monopoly !



lol

I have never heard of graphs being compared to monopoly before...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 13, 2011)

idb said:


> Canada's position has nothing to do with science and everything to do with oil sands.



My bet is that it has to do with both those things and the simple fact that the US is not following them, so why should they?


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 14, 2011)

Why should anyone? It was a bad idea from the get-go.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?
> 
> There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.







Only because of shenanigans.  Take away the "adjustments" and voila the 1930's are still the warmest.  Certainly all the written history points to that decade being the warmest.  They certainly didn't have snow records being set then, unlike now.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2011)

idb said:


> Canada's position has nothing to do with science and everything to do with oil sands.







That's OK, CO2 has nothing to do with temperature increases so they're even.


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?*
> 
> There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.


Apparently, around the bend.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 15, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?*
> ...



'Around the bend' implies a lack of reason or fact and neither are lacking here as my difference with the scientific 'concensus' is not absent said facts and reason.

What is lacking here are things that would make the AGW argument appear to be good science rather than ideologically driven pseudo-science.

Why did NASA and CRU have to 'adjust' their temperature records? Why do these adjustments for specific months change on a recurring basis? Why arent the original unadjusted temperature records freely available? Why do these AGW proponents regard FOIA requests as literally threats?

Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote? Why does the scientific community that pushes AGW still endorse the obvious fraud of Michael Mann's 'Hockey stick' temperature record graph?

Why is the steady downward trend of the US decline in average temperature over the last ten years get dismissed as anomolous compared to a much sketchier temperature record that contains data from poorly monitored and maintained stations across the third world? Why are a few stations temperature records extrapolated over huge areas of ocean such as the one in northern Canada that is used for the whole Arctic region?

If Co2 is causing this supposed rise in temperature over the last decade, then why is it nowhere near as strong as all the experts and models predicted ten years ago? Why havent the oceans risen more than a few inches in various places? In the Early 90's AGW advocates claimed that if something wasnt done in the next few years (seven if I recall correctly) it would be too late and temperatures would go into a feedback loop that would destroy life on  Earth as we know it. So why does everything look pretty much AOK?

Why do these AGW advocates assert so many easily disprovable things from undocumented sources, like the IPCC does in its official reports, such as the Himalayan glaciers all melting or that Polar bears are dying because the retreating ice is leaving them isolated on baren islands of snow? (Polar bears can swim for hundreds of miles.)

I could go on for pages, but I dont have the time.

But my point is simply this: all this absolute BULLSHIT AGW advocates spew and do is what makes me doubt AGW theory. 

AGW is not about science; it is about hugely increasing the political power of government over peoples lives and nothing more than that.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 15, 2011)

Why should they buy in the pact when the biggest polluters were not in on it in the first place.  The entire thing was a waste of time, no matter what the science said.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Cooling for the past decade? Are you completely around the bend?
> ...



Now Walleyes, you know that is only true for the less than 2% of the surface area represented by the US. For the rest of the world, the '30s were not that warm. 

The snow records set last winter were something new, as was the heat records set last summer. And the record for the Missouri and Mississippi being in continous flood from March through September. And then there was Texas, had a few tornados also, last spring in many states.

Wilder and wider weather swings, with an overall warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You could go on for pages, and most of what you state is totally wrong. You want real science on this subject, here is one place to start. Up to date, and some of the world's best scientists speaking on this and other subjects.

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Yeah, amazing how the 2% with the best temperature data on the planet is immaterial.  But, let's look at your statement.  You claim the 1930's weren't warm in the rest of the world in the 1930's.  So, let us see what the Chinese have to say about your assertion shall we? 

Why looky there, they say you're full of crapola too!  Who knew!  It seems that the opposite side of the world was JUST as hot as the US.  So, logically, what does Occams Razor and the Principle of Uniformitarianism tell us was happening in the rest of the world?

We're waiting....

"The understanding of the ongoing climate change needs high-resolution records of the past, which are difficult to obtain in north-central China. Historical documents are unique materials for high-resolution (up to season) climate change reconstruction. Here, we report an attempt of quantitative climate reconstruction covering the main part of north-central China, by combining historical drought/flood index and tree-ring data. The rigorous verification tests confirm the fidelity of transfer functions used in the reconstructions. The precipitation and temperature anomalies/intervals were then defined based on the reconstructions. Finally, the intensity of several big droughts recorded in historical documents was re-examined and the dominant and recessive patterns of heat/water changes within the study area were identified. We concluded that (1) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1484 AD, 1585-1587 AD, 1689-1691 AD, 1784-1786 AD and 1876-1878 AD, were the results of rainless and torrid combination; (2) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1560-1561 AD, 1599-1601 AD, 1609 AD, 1615-1617 AD, 1638-1641 AD and 1899-1901 AD, were first caused by rainless summer, and then controlled by low precipitation and/or high temperature; (3) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1527-1529 AD, 1720-1722 AD, 1813-1814 AD, 1856-1857 AD and 1926-1930 AD, were first caused by torrid summer, and then controlled by both low precipitation and high temperature; (4) the dominant climate pattern within the study area consisted of warm-dry and cold-wet alternations, and the recessive pattern consisted of cold-dry and warm-wet alternations. We also showed that the drought/flood index is a valuable climate proxy in quantitative reconstructions, especially in places where tree-ring data is not available. "

North-Central China 530 Year Summer Temperature and Precipitation Reconstructions


----------



## idb (Dec 15, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





> Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote?


Pardon?????
Have you never heard of peer review?


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

idb said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...







Yes.  Have you heard about the systemic corruption within the climatology peer review world?  I suggest you look up the Steig et all fiasco for an example of the "pal" review process at work.  Or how about that famous polar bear study that was peer reviewed by the mans wife?  You talking about those peer reviewed studies?


----------



## idb (Dec 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



That's the great thing about conspiracy theories in the age of the internet, you can find an example of any nefarious activity you care to look for.

You place no importance on concensus.
I consider myself a skeptic but when the preponderance of scientific opinion seems to agree I have to take notice - after all, they're the experts.


----------



## Toro (Dec 15, 2011)

idb said:


> Canada's position has nothing to do with science and everything to do with oil sands.



Yup.

And they should have.  It's simply worth too much money to Canada to not abide by Kyoto.

But even without the oil sands, Canada wouldn't have hit the targets.


----------



## earlycuyler (Dec 15, 2011)

Those Canuck sons of bitches. What the hell are they thinking ?


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...






When the preponderance of scientific opinion is arrived at through corruption I think you have a problem.  Don't you?  As far as your conspiricy theory nonsense if you are truly interested in SCIENCE I suggest you look at what the CRU and the rest of the AGW supporters are doing, (please note, I call them supporters instead of some pejorative, unlike the opposing side).


----------



## idb (Dec 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Don't get me wrong, I want the scientists to be wrong but...

As far as corruption...I just can't see where the gain might be for all of these scientists to participate in such a huge....conspiracy (that is the word for what you're claiming).

How could such a conspiracy be perpetrated for so long by so many without someone leaking the true details...I'm not talking about counter-theories but a true smoking gun to expose the scam?


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...






Scientists _theories_ are either proven correct or they are not.  When scientists promulgate theories that are non-falsifiable there is a problem.  And it is not a huge conspiricy, it is a small one.  I figure there are maybe 25 of them running the show with a few dozen politicians helping them along as it gives them far more power over the public.

And the facts have been leaked, along with ample evidence to show the MSM is actively participating in the fraud.  After all, the Fourth Estate has long felt they should be the ultimate determiners of mans fate.  Just look at the yellow journalism of old.  I don't see much improvement from those dark ages.  Do you?


----------



## idb (Dec 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Scientific theories are almost never proven, they are always open to new evidence.
It's through constant testing that they become more accepted - or rejected.

The fact is that AGW, presumably based on the preponderance of evidence, is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...







The fact is, AGW is accepted by the majority of _climatologists_ the other natural sciences are not nearly as invested in it.  I know of very few geologists, for instance, that credit the theory.  We study paleo climate and realise that this is actually a pretty nice time in the history of the Earth and should enjoy it while we can.  We also realise that for the planet to be really miserable cold is the trick.  Whenever it has been warm it has been nice and bountiful

At some point a thinking person should relaise that when they keep trying to scare you over and over and over again they probably don't have much.  The Boy who cried Wolf and all that.

An for all the BS about consensus, I just think back to poor old Alfred Wegener who was denigrated by teh natural sciences for having the temeruty to say that their consensus opinion on how teh world functioned was wrong.

He was a astronomer and meteorologist don't you know and how could _HE_ possibly know _anything_ about geology.  Sound familiar?  Only he was correct and plate tectonics has been the result of his work.

So much for consensus science.


----------



## idb (Dec 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I would have thought that climatologists would have been the group most likely to know (no disrespect to you and your learned colleagues).

Sometimes there really is a wolf.

I thought that Herr Wegener's theories were rejected mainly because he couldn't propose a mechanism for them - in fact, the theories that he did propose were wrong, his hypothesis was based on the observation (also observed by many others in the past) that everything seemed to fit together.
In any case, to be honest, if I were around then I most likely would have accepted the consensus expert scientific opinion while assuming that they would have examined all the evidence.

I must say that it surprises me how you dismiss the importance of agreement among experts.
Surely this provides the impetus to develop robust evidence when presenting a theory.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



More yap-yap without the slightest evidence cited.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Actually, Wegener's hypothesis was mentioned in the first beginning Geology text that I read in 1956. The peices fit remarkebly well together, phyisically, and the geology, also. However, how does one drive fragile continental material through dense basaltic crust?

The answer had to wait for the Vine and Mathew paper on the magnetic stripes at the Juan de Fuca rift zone. Then it was clear to everyone, and suddenly things like ophiolite assembliges took on a whole new meaning.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Crock of shit, Walleyes. Both the American Geophisical Union, and the Geological Society of America state that AGW is a fact, that it is a clear and present danger, and that we are already feeling effects.

The recent AGU Convention had many lectures on AGW, as well as many other subjects of interest to those interested in Geology. You can access and listen to the lectures here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> You could go on for pages, and most of what you state is totally wrong.



Really?

So what part of the scientific process does consensus come in? Is that part of peer review?

Maybe they all should have taken a vote on Keplers theory, or Einsteins.

And I know for a FACT that the temperature stations are not well maintained and a good portion of them no longer meet minimum standards AND NASA USES THEM ANYWAY.

And about the Hockey Stick graph Mann invented by selectively combining two different data sets, one proxy data largely taken from tree rings, but only up to 1950 or so and then he switches to the use of official temperature records because the tring ring data for the same period SHOWS A CONTINUED REDUCTION IN TEMPERATURE, the infamous problem of 'hiding the decline' in tree ring data that is contrary to AGW theory.

Which part of what I just stated is wrong?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 15, 2011)

idb said:


> > Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote?
> 
> 
> Pardon?????
> Have you never heard of peer review?



Lol, peer review is not about a vote, lolololol.

IT is about REVIEWING THE DATA and showing why it is valid or not or the theories that tie the facts together.

Truth is not subject to a vote, Good Lord.


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...







Wegener produced fossil evidence of the fit of the continents among other pieces of evidence.  And you are correct Sir Francis Bacon was the first to make note of the fit between Africa and South America.  I defer to the climatologists _themselves_ who are asking some very hard questions of the hockey team.  That can't be answered.  

In the long run it isn't going to matter.  The thieves will steal what they can till they get put up against the wall.  May that be many years in the future.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 15, 2011)

idb said:


> That's the great thing about conspiracy theories in the age of the internet, you can find an example of any nefarious activity you care to look for.



And the Mafia is not a conspiracy? Enron was not a conspiracy? Maddoff neither?

You are niave.

Yes, most conspiracy theories are bullshit, but not all of them and in the case of AGW there is plenty of documentation available now to see that the leaders of the AGW movement are engaging in absolute nonsense.



idb said:


> You place no importance on concensus.
> I consider myself a skeptic but when the preponderance of scientific opinion seems to agree I have to take notice - after all, they're the experts.



Yeah so were the astronomers during Keplers day and the physicists of Einsteins early period.


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Allways you forget the true grandfather of plate tectonic theory.  Come on now, what's his name?


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...







Yeah?  So?  They would have called Wegener a "denier".  What does that tell you?


----------



## idb (Dec 15, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > > Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote?
> ...



Fair enough, although I never said it was.
Peer review subjects a matter to critique - an examination of the methods and the conclusions.
A consensus should emerge from the review.
Indeed, the consensus might be that the whole study was full of shit, or that it's inconclusive or....

Lolololol


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

idb said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...







Here's a article from Delingpole showing just how corrupted the peer review process has become.  Read it only if you care about science.  This is the tip of the iceberg....



"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
 them out somehow  even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.

If you can't spot what's wrong with this email, don't worry you're in great company. Among the numerous luminaries who can't are environmental activist and filmmaker Rupert Murray, celebrity mathematician Simon Singh, celebrity Nobel Prizewinner Sir Paul Nurse and celebrity Guardian doctor Ben Goldacre to name but four. To each one of them I have tried on occasion to explain why the corruption of "peer-review" is the issue that matters above all else in the Climategate emails. But none of them, sadly, was bright enough to get it.

Sigh.

Let me have one more stab. Here's how I explain "Peer review" in my forthcoming book Watermelons:


Peer review is the benchmark by which most new scientific research tends to be judged. If that research is to be taken seriously by the scientific community then it must be accepted for publication by one of a fairly small number of academic or quasi-academic journals, such as Nature, Science and Scientific American.

Peer review is not a perfect system. In the golden era of  Twentieth century science it wasn't even thought necessary: neither Watson & Crick nor Einstein were peer reviewed. But in today's abstruse, fragmented world where the various branches of science have grown increasingly recondite and specialised, peer-review has become widely accepted as the least worst method by which quality science can be sifted from junk science.

And nowhere more so than within the climate science community. In the run-up to Climategate, one of the main weapons used by those within "the consensus" against dissenting scientists was that their various papers picking holes in AGW theory had not been "peer-reviewed" and were therefore invalid. As Phil Jones himself puts it in one of his emails:

"The peer review system is the safeguard science has adopted to stop bad science being published."

I think that's pretty clear, don't you? Now let us revisit that Jones/Mann exchange in the light of this knowledge.  What we see happening is the deterioration of "peer review" into something more akin to "pal review." The "peer review" process  at least in the debased field of "climate science"  has been corrupted. No longer can it be relied on as a guide to what is true or untrue, correct or incorrect, plausible or implausible. That's because the scientists who control the "peer review" process  as revealed by the Climategate emails  are a self-serving claque, with rather less concern for the pursuit of objective truth than for their own vested interests.

With me so far? Good. Now we can move on to an incredibly complicated story which is causing much excitement at Watts Up With That?, Climate Audit and Bishop Hill at the moment. Some are saying its as damning of the "Consensus" as Climategate. It involves two people you've probably never heard of  Eric Steig and Ryan O'Donnell.

Eric Steig is a member of Michael Mann's "Hockey Team"  the group of Warmist scientists who established a website called Real Climate, initially to rebut claims by McIntyre and McKitrick that Mann's Hockey Stick wasn't quite up to scratch, later to stick up for the Warmist cause generally.

In 2009 Steig et al published a paper considered so important that it made the cover of Nature. (H/T Barry Woods). The paper purported to counter one of the main arguments used by sceptics to dispute "global warming", viz "if global warming really is as catastrophic and universal as some claim, then how come Antarctica remains as stubbornly cold as it was 30 years ago?" Steig's paper showed that contrary to earlier claims, Antarctica was in fact warming too.

Or was it? Among the sceptics who suspected the reliability of Steig's paper were Jeff Id (of the late-lamented Air Vent site) and Ryan O'Donnell. They pointed out that the statistical methods used to show this alleged warming were based on highly dubious extrapolations of data taken from small number of stations on the Arctic peninsula and coastline. (Something similar happened recently, you'll remember, with NASA's dramatic "warming" that took place in the Arctic  all of it, funnily enough, in places where there were no thermometers to check the reliability of NASA's claims).

Steig suggested that rather than argue it out on the blogs O'Donnell, Id at el should publish a paper under peer review. So that's what they tried. And guess which person it was who was selected to review O'Donnell et al's paper. And guess which person it was  under the pseudonym Reviewer A  who tried to thwart the paper's progression to publication with 88 pages of comments and obfuscation ten times longer than the original paper.

Yep. You got it. The mystery peer reviewer was none other than Eric Steig. Even in the monstrously corrupt world of "climate science" this was clearly a breach of protocol. Certainly, in no other scientific discipline would a reviewer with such a clear conflict of interest be invited to review a paper whose main purpose was to criticise one he'd written himself.

Now let us allow Iapogus (the commenter at Bishop Hill from whom I filched this summary: I'm an interpreter of interpretations, me) to continue the story:


Ryan guessed that Reviewer A was Stieg early on, but still remained patient and good natured. At one point in the review process, Steig suggested that Ryan and Jeff should use an alternative statistical technique, which they then did. But then later, Steig then criticised the paper, citing the example of the same statistical technique as an issue (the one he had suggested). So Steig has laid himself open to charges of unprofessional conduct, duplicity. And that was when Ryan decided to bring all this out in the open. Meanwhile Gavin and the other members of the Team at the Real Climate (RC) blog have gone into overdrive in moderating any commenter who ask any reasonable questions about all of this. Basically this was the evidence that peer review at least in climate science is broken.

Now you could argue that I shouldn't be reporting on stories like this. It's one of those "How many polar bears can dance on the head of the pin?" discussions of nuances of meaning which may be of tremendous interest to the "climate science" community  both sceptics and warmists alike  but which has little traction in the outside world.

Up to a point, I'd agree with this. The AGW debate  as I repeatedly argue in this blog  is essentially a political one not a scientific one.

Unfortunately, there are still lots of people out there  the Simon Singhs, the Sir Paul Nurses, the Ben Goldacres, the Robin Inces, and their Guardianista Twitter Posses, for example  who think otherwise.

And it's important that these people are made to realise that not only are there no sensible political or economic arguments to support their cause, but passing few scientific ones either. If the science supporting AGW theory is really as rock solid as Warmists claim, why on earth would they need to resort to the kind of corruption and dirty tricks we first saw in Climategate and are now witnessing again in RealClimategate?

Give up, guys. The game's over."


RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of 'peer review' | Climate Depot


----------



## idb (Dec 15, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > That's the great thing about conspiracy theories in the age of the internet, you can find an example of any nefarious activity you care to look for.
> ...



True, but again, how am I to judge?
I have no expertise in the field.
What's the point of having experts?

At the moment, the consensus is that AGW is real.
Science might, in time, prove them wrong.
What do we do in the meantime, hope for the best or plan for the worst?

Are you suggesting that the Mafia, Enron and Madoff are responsible for global warming?
Your point is lost on me.


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

idb said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...









Yes, only priests can tell you what God is thinking.  Everyone knows that!

How pathetic.  Educate yourself and THINK for yourself.  That's why you have a brain.


----------



## idb (Dec 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...




If the system is as corrupt as stated here then people like me, with no expertise, have no starting point for discussion!


----------



## idb (Dec 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I employ experts.
Have you ever been to a doctor?


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...






Yes, I have several.  I came within a minute of dying less then a year ago.  I see them and then I research what they have to say.  Sometimes I'll see a second doctor to get his opinion, then I go back to my primary and we work out wht we're going to do.  Together.


----------



## idb (Dec 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I'm betting that you base your conclusions on the data presented to you, and its interpretation by the doctors...or do you carry out your own tests?


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...






Yes, on the data presented and my own informed opinion.  I was able to inform my cardiologist that one of the drugs he wanted me to take was known to have synergistic effects with one of my other drugs that frequently lead to complications.

The pharmacy would probably have caught it, but they are not 100% either.  But, that's what happens when you place your trust in others.  Here in the US, doctors kill around 100,000 people per year due to misdiagnois, mis-prescribing drugs, or simple mal practice.

The common denominator is uninformed patients or uninformed advocates for them, or no advocates at all.  You may continue to go through life with blinders on.  I choose not to.


----------



## idb (Dec 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Good for you.
The most obvious difference with AGW and your excellent outcome is whether the data is even accurate.
The next obvious difference is the disagreement on the interpretation of that data.

Do you see my point, how can you reach an informed decision when the basic data is in question?

Don't worry though, I haven't given up, but the frustration can be...well...frustrating sometimes.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 16, 2011)

You know, anybody with a computer can make a really pretty, color coded, and professional looking graph.  I can make and post one that would show that there are 20 times more ardvaarks in the USA than there are dogs and cats combined.  It would not be based on anything but fantasy, but I guarantee you somebody would see it and post it elsewhere and there would soon be a flurry of discussions all over the internet re the ardvaark epidemic and all the stuff that would be threatened as a result of it.  

Some of the stuff found on the GW religionist sites are almost as misleading and/or as suspect.

I thought the Fox folks missed a really good opportunity and question in last night's GOP debate given Canada's news of pulling out of Kyoto.  I was hoping hoping hoping that somebody would mention that to the candidates and ask them if they would follow suit.  I couldn't get logged on to feed the question and it probably wouldn't have been seen or used anyway, but I think that would have been a great question.


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...






Here's some homework for you then.  I challenge you to find any empirical data at all that supports the AGW supporters.  The caveat is it can't have been adjusted (like they were doing in your country till they got caught) or massaged in any way.  It has to be raw data.
No computer models are allowed either.  The AGW supporters have sunk so low that they now consider computer model results to be data.  One of the most absurd assertions ever in science.

Take a week then get back to us and tell us what you've found.


----------

