I certainly hope that most climate scientists do not actually fit the Lonnie Thompson transparency model. In fact, he is one of the most notorious witholders of data. He has steadfastly refused to permit his data to be viewed by anyone.

As for the information that I presented, I have tried to show that the e-mails validate the criticisms of the critics, especially Steve McIntyre, particularly well.

For the record, I do not believe that these e-mails in any way prove that AGW is a fraud or a hoax, and I am particularly disturbed by those who claim that they do. If we are going to achieve a more reasonable discourse on climate change, the skeptics have to stop crying "fraud/hoax," the advocates need to stop crying "Big Oil," and the scientists need to become transparent with their data and code and to permit an independent peer-review process.

I can appreciate that you need to complete some work. I do too. I have some major deadlines to meet for the end of the week. But once you are free, please take the time to consider what I have written. And if your cousin is more knowledgeable about the science, perhaps you could pass the info on to him for his take on it.

Rob:

I'm not trying to be evasive. I'm really not. I just don't have time to go through all the stuff you posted. Further, I'm not a scientist, so I may not be able to respond adequately to everything that is raised in those reports.

When I wrote about picking a few things that you think call AGW into question, I was referring specifically to e-mails uncovered in the Climategate leak, not to everything that's ever been written that calls--or tries to call--AGW into question. I don't believe there's anything in those e-mails that does that. We see some misbehavior on the part of a few climate scientists. We don't see anything that seriously challenges the mountain of evidence that has been compiled and reported by thousands of scientists working independently and whose careers are not compromised in any way. I still go back to Lonnie Thompson and his wife Ellen Mosley-Thompson at Ohio State. As far as I can tell, they've conducted their research with utter transparency and total integrity. They've risked their lives gathering ice core samples from remote alpine glaciers around the world.

Take a look.

I'm sure that the vast majority of the climate researchers fit the Lonnie Thompson model far more than the UEA model.

I'm sorry. When you left the following comment, I thought that you were prepared for an honest discussion of the science:

"I will leave you with the challenge my cousin gave to another correspondent, who is a climate change skeptic:

'So, why don't you pick out a few things that you think call global warming into question and we can discuss them.'"

I guess I was mistaken.

Correction: I never ASKED you to provide me with anything. In fact, I distinctly remember writing not to bother. Further, this is finals week; I have a mountain of papers to grade that's even bigger than the mountain of propaganda you posted back on Day 6. I simply don't have time to read all that stuff. You might think that's just an excuse, but it's actually the truth. I shouldn't even be taking the time to compose this comment.

Moreover, aren't you wasting your time posting that stuff? Are you really going to convince me by posting all that information? I'm sure I'm not going to convince you, no matter what I say. So "moving on," as you put it, might just be the best thing for both of us to do.

Peace,
D

Hey, BuckeyeDon,

On Day 6 you asked me to provide you with some science that challenges AGW so that we could discuss it. I have done that, but you have ignored it and moved on. This is precisely the behavior that frustrates the scientists who are committed to the scientific method. You are following in the ways of realclimate.org where, if you can't answer the question, just move on.

And one more thing--if scientists are not being published for work related to intelligent design, it is because science does not deal with the supernatural. Any scientific journal will not publish work that is not based in science. I wouldn't expect an astronomy journal to publish works on astrology, or a physics journal to publish works on metaphysics, or a mineralogy journal to publish works on the "healing powers of minerals." These topics are no less under the realm of scientific inquiry than is the search for God. That study is for the work of theologians.

Try this thought experiment--develop an experiment that proves or disproves God. Keep in mind, such an experiment must be reproducible, not only by you, but by other researchers. Do you really think God is going to play along with such an experiment? If He did, all we would ever have to do to make difficult decisions is put out a fleece and see if it is wet from the morning dew.

God is not some science experiment, and it should be just as disturbing to Christians that some would treat Him that way as it is to scientists that some scientists work in realms of the supernatural and call it science.

If you can prove God exists, where is faith? Ironically, it is the Western scientific mindset that gets us applying science to God. We think we need to prove or disprove His existence, and in so doing, we devalue faith, and we try to reduce Him into something we can understand, study, experiment with, and quantify. In so doing, we reduce Him to a mathematical equation, we try to fit Him into our puny brains. We rob HIm of His Godness. We wipe out His mystery and His majesty. And the tragic things is, we can't do it anyway--we can't quantify Him. We can't even describe Him in scientific terms. Scripture never does this. Why do we think we can?

We should be resisting any scientific forays into faith, not encouraging them or arguing for them. Trying to do so is trying to control God.

The same question could be asked of geologists who "believe in' plate tectonics. Why, just 40 years ago, many geologists believed that the origins of mountains was explained by eugeosynclinal theory (enough sediment builds up in a basin to the point the crust rebounds and uplifts mountains).

So why is it that geologists have now come to the consensus that Plate Tectonic Theory explains the origins of mountains (and earthquakes, and volcanoes...)? Is it some conspiracy? No. There are technological advances and data that we just didn't have 40 years ago, or were just starting to implement. These advances in technology gave us a picture of the world we just didn't have at that time.

So it is with climate. We didn't have as many satellites or the kind of data or technology (including computer capabilities) then that we do now. It was a fledging science, and we simply had not studied it enough to have a clear understanding of it. Just the pictures that satellites give us provide far more information so that we can far more accurately understand and predict weather patterns. What has doppler radar done for the prediction of tornadoes? What has satellite imaging done so that we can now predict when and where hurricanes will develop and strike? Take some time to study the advances we have made in imaging technology alone, and you should get some insight into why we didn't know then what we know now.

It is like this with every science. Those crazy Curies who developed our understanding of radioactivity were stirring vats of radioactive material with no protection. They didn't know the dangers. They didn't have the data or the experience to know what it could do to them (they paid for that ignorance with their lives, both died of cancer). It wasn't that long ago that you could go into a shoe store and they would X-ray your feet to make sure you had a good fit inside those new shoes!

Technology advances. So does our understanding. As I said before, take the time to e-mail a climate scientist or two. Learn about this. You are right not to just "buy the hype" but you should view the hype from the deniers' side (populated mostly by non-scientist pundits) with the same amount of skepticism that you aim at the scientists (the actual experts).

As changing your life based on unproven threats--I would think the threat to our national security because of our fossil fuel based economy is a significant threat, and one that should inspire all of us to change our lives. That's just one negative effect of a fossil fuel based economy. That doesn't even begin to address health and environmental effects. If you don't want to alter your life because you don't believe in climate change, then think of all the other very negative effects we all live with because of fossil fuels.

I resolved a while ago that I would stop posting on internet threads because of the lack of accountability that often causes me to say things I regret, but the idea of AGW just stirs me up enough to cause me to forget that, this will be my last post but I want one of you to explain to me why 30 years ago, the scientists were saying that instead of global warming, we were facing another ice age. There were a lot of scientists coming together in consensus on that fact, but turns out they were wrong. So why can we be so sure they are right now.

My ID comment was not a "red herring," I was just making the point that just like AGW is as much or more about politics as it is science, the concentrated effort to drive any scientist who even poses the idea of ID (watch Expelled) is proof that science and scientists aren't infallible and there is a possibility that they are wrong. I am not comfortable altering my life based on a threat that I don't believe is being proven adequately. But that's just me.

"By the way, how many of these same 'peer reviewed' scientists take intelligent design seriously."

This comment has "red herring" written all over it. Of course scientists don't take ID seriously as science, because it isn't based in science.

But we aren't here to debate ID today. I want to ask you and the other AGW skeptics posting here a few things.

We humans, with our feet planted on the ground, think the atmosphere is pretty thick, don't we? After all, those commercial jets winging their way to Copenhagen are probably flying about six miles above the surface. A general guide to the limits of the atmosphere says that it's about 400,000 feet thick, or 76 miles, although anyone flying over 50 miles up is classified as an astronaut.

That's pretty thick, isn't it? Yet a scale model of the earth that's the size of a basketball would have an "atmosphere" that's only 0.09 inches thick. Less than 1/10 of an inch. That's the representation of that 400K-foot or 76-mile limit. And the height where the jets fly would only be about 1/100 of an inch. (And you know if you've ever flown that the air is pretty thin at that altitude. That's what the drop-down masks are for in case of decompression, right?) So this envelope of mixed gases isn't really very thick at all when put in perspective, is it?

It can be easily demonstrated that carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs heat and prevents its escape. Through our burning of fossil fuels, we humans release 27 billion tons of CO2 into that thin layer of air every year. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it's estimated that we've released 500 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is made from carbon that's been sequestered and has been out of circulation for a very long time (that's why we call them fossil fuels, isn't it?).

Are we seriously to believe that releasing this much heat-absorbing carbon into the atmosphere hasn't had an effect on temperatures on the surface? Isn't it asking a bit much to tell us we should believe that the observed temperature warming has been caused by other factors alone and not by burning fossil fuels?

"By the way, how many of these same "peer reviewed" scientists take intelligent design seriously."

Umm...since science cannot prove nor disprove supernatural beings, the answer is probably few to none. Leave issues of faith to faith.

Going green does help impoverished people. Environmental degradation is incredibly destructive to impoverished communities.

The Creator has indeed designed some amazing cycles into His creation. Recognizing, honoring, and living sustainably within them is something humans have done only very poorly. And those who try to do so are often scoffed at, as if it isn't important, or that God doesn't care how we use the resources He gave us to sustain us. I highly doubt He wanted us to selfishly trash His creation. Yet we are doing it right now.

So if you don't want to go green because you don't believe in climate change, fine. Go green because it honors the Creation God gave us and acknowledges the resources He provided should be responsibly managed and used sustainably.

And if that isn't a good enough reason, fine. Then go green because it means we will finally get off this fossil fuel economy and can free ourselves from foreign countries having such a major influence on our economy.

"Al Gore doesn't do your side any favors when he refused to debate the issue with lines "the time for debate is over," but thats what alarmists do isn't it."

What's what alarmists do? Gore is absolutely right that the time for debate is over. He's countering what he recognizes as a stalling tactic. As a former senator, he understands the concept of a filibuster all too well.

"Maybe we should artificially cause volcanoes to erupt across the world, that would probably drop the temperature by several degrees and possibly cost less than whats being cooked up at Copenhagen. I know you will mock, but in my mind it makes as much sense as what I hear coming from the AGW believers already."

If I honestly believed what you seem to believe, I suppose I would agree. I'm not mocking you: honest. I just wonder if you have ever stopped to consider what the consequences might be if you are wrong.

If the word hadn't been purged of all meaning by political misuse, the policies climate change activists are trying to implement would be understood as conservative is every sense of the word. Opposing them simply doesn't make sense, unless you have a darn good reason for believing that we can continue living the way we are living with no consequences. But such a belief has no support either in science or in the Bible.

There are plenty of climate scientists who would probably be happy to answer your questions. Why don't you ask? In the age of the interwebs, a quick google search will bring you to some of their webpages. They are a far better resource that Al Gore.

Al Gore doesn't do your side any favors when he refused to debate the issue with lines "the time for debate is over," but thats what alarmists do isn't it.

Maybe we should artificially cause volcanoes to erupt across the world, that would probably drop the temperature by several degrees and possibly cost less than whats being cooked up at Copenhagen. I know you will mock, but in my mind it makes as much sense as what I hear coming from the AGW believers already.

"I respect the desire to help those affected by ecological tragedy, but I do not believe that AGW is a serious threat."

Can you imagine the world in 100 years with all of our coastal cities, and some entire countries, under water? This is far beyond the scale of any "natural" cycle in recorded human history, and it will effectively end civilization as we know it. This is not just a "serious" threat, it is an almost unimaginable one.

And please, please, please, leave Al Gore out of it. Al Gore is one person. One person. This issue is so much bigger than Al Gore that the continued obsession of AGW skeptics with bad-mouthing him suggests that they are in the grips of an irrational obsession. You're not doing yourself, or your argument, any favors this way.

I respect the desire to help those affected by ecological tragedy, but I do not believe that AGW is a serious threat. I see it as an attempt to control societies through artificial threats.

Throughout history there have been events that have caused pain to many people but have also produced some sort of benefit, the black plague comes to mind, it killed millions, but the reduction of the population also helped to restore both flora and fauna, leading to a better economy for Europe. Volcanoes wipe out multiple towns but lower the global climate (read Superfreakonomics). My point is that nature has built in cycles and events that I believe our Creator has designed to regulate and restore creation. Is the climate warming, in some places (Several US cities are witnessing their earliest snowfalls in history). Is it man made, I doubt it. Spending our time trying to go "green" instead of engaging hurting people is not in the spirit of Christ. Why don't you guys preach at all the big wigs like Al Gore flying their massive fuel burning jets to Copenhagen.

By the way, how many of these same "peer reviewed" scientists take intelligent design seriously.

And how can one spread the Gospel and represent Christ while ignoring such a huge, manifest and overwhelming threat to every aspect of life as we know it? (Sorry, it's not unproven; see my previous comment.) This only makes Christians look like either hypocrites or ostriches, which in either case damages the Gospel and its credibility.

"Representing Christ" means nothing if it does not involve modeling Christ's example of utter commitment to the value of human life and of concern for those most threatened by the abuse of power. That is what Christians concerned about global warming are trying to do.

Thanks, Don, for your valiant efforts to counter the posters determined to undermine climate science. It seems no other subject on GP brings out such consistent, vociferous opposition.

Who's squirming, though? Personally, I would have absolutely no reason to squirm if credible evidence were presented that we are not facing the greatest challenge to its continued existence that civilization has ever encountered. I would be delighted. I have no reason whatsoever to want that to be true.

Unfortunately, though, the evidence is overwhelming, and despite the repeated claims that are being made here, there is a mountain of it, and no credible evidence to contradict it. I have posted on this repeatedly here, and anyone interested can follow my comment trail. It includes the response I got from a well-known author with a reputation for debunking scientific "groupthink." He assured me that this is not an example of such groupthink - that the science is as settled as it could possibly be, in a way that the current tempest in a teapot over "Climategate" can't even begin to challenge.

In short, the only people who are squirming are those who see major changes to their way of life coming if this threat is taken even half as seriously as it needs to be.

Brent,

Not being a climate scientist myself, I can't personally vouch for the research. It's possible that the 84% of scientists (according to Skeptical Inquirer) who believe man is responsible for global warming are mistaken. If I was betting, I'd stick with the scientists, because the scientific method allows for peer review, criticism, and exploration of legitimate doubts.

Focusing on emails from four scientists is just ridiculous, though, and it's a transparent attempt by the right wing and the oil lobby to discredit the entire scientific community.

Believe me when I tell you that I would be glad to hear the scientists were wrong this time. Despite the bull we hear daily from talk radio and the Republican Party, there is no one who would not prefer to believe that we are not causing this problem, or that the problem does not exist. That goes against your idea that this is some kind of groupthink.

Unfortunately, the people we've seen engage in groupthink over and over again are the same people who refuse to consider that the scientists might be right. These are the same people who decided that Enron was the model for the company of the future, that Wall Street was better off with no regulation, and that we would be greeted as liberators when we invaded Iraq.

Give me a break: the moderates and liberals are controlling congress now, and they can't get enough groupthink together to agree on what time of day it is.

It doesn't take a computer model to predict the climate over the next 90 days. I live in MN. I predict that the climate over the next 90 days will be very snowy and cold (Many Minnesotan's predict the climate in Disney World over the next 90 days to be warm and sunny, which is why they migrate south during this period). Towards the end of those 90 days, hopefully, if we are lucky, the snow will all melt out, and it will begin to warm up. Bet I'm pretty close to that scenario. Been like this ever since I can remember, which makes my predictions match a pretty well-established climate trend.

Of course, I have to admit the amount of snow we tend to get, and sometimes even the depth of cold, has diminished over the last 10 years. Perhaps it is a bit too soon, but it seems to be a change in the trend we Minnesotans have come to expect. Furthermore, when I was a kid, we would have snowdrifts to the top of my house, a phenomenon I haven't seen since then. That goes back earlier than 10 years. Getting closer to calling that a change in our expected climate trends.

You might take the time to at least learn the difference between weather and climate, not to mention the rest of the science behind climate change, before you so staunchly deny it. If you are having such a difficult time finding evidence that counteracts the non-human causes, I would suggest finding a climate scientist's website and sending out a couple of e-mails. Likely the experts would be very happy to help you out.

Perhaps the reason you keep hearing "the science is settled" is that to scientist, the science is settled. Meaning that they don't need to keep reinventing the wheel on questions that have been answered long ago. The knowledge is assumed, in other words. Just like if you took an algebra class, the professor wouldn't take any time to teach you how to add or subtract.

You said: "Four researchers in East Anglia who misbehaved a few times. Compared to tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers."

Phil Jones said: "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 !"

Michael Mann said: "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board..."

If this is the attitude and actions of these scientiests, what is to say that there are not others who are purposely controlling the peer review process to shut out those who are applying genuine science to the question and coming up with results that discredit the science.

There are also statements made regarding the intention of "hiding behind" certain laws and policies when it comes to FOIA type requests, so other "peer reviewed" scientists may be able to check the data, but those ignorant skeptics can't get their ignorant hands on it.

And by the way, in regards to previous comments some have made about the illegality of the hackers, I prefer to view them as nonviolenet AGW protestors who are defying the law in order to make the truth known. That's how it would be spun if this had been a conservative think tank being hacked.

I believe in being a good steward of creation, I believe that people have been harmed by things like deforestation and other poor ecological choices, but I am saddened to see the cause to stop an unproven threat elevated to the same status as spreading the Gospel and representing Christ in this world.