Also, why is it that Mann and others will not release their algorithms? They hide behind the fact that they programmed in Fortran and any computer program is intellectual property, protected by copyright. Because then, you would see how the data has been skewed to create a result, rather than reflect reality.

You refuse to acknowledge the cooling we’ve had in spite of increased CO2 levels, you have refused to acknowledge the EPA’s own admission that not only is CO2 such a small fragment of the atmosphere and almost non-existant as a forcing agent, but that cutting CO2 will accomplish nothing. Well, that doesn’t fit the litrugy and catechism of AGW, I suppose.

Of course, if one is a socialist, then I understand the desire to support AGW. Many notables, such as Al Gore, have spoke of a need for global convernance and some socialist orgs see Climate Control, a laughable concept, as the perfect vehicle to ensure socialism, redistributing wealth, when actually, the opposite will happen. 3rd world countries will stay 3rd world because they can’t afford power generation, thanks to governments bent on solving a problem that doesn’t exist.

If you like, I could explain feedback to you. I just realized that you might not have some of the basic understanding of science that I have and I wouldn’t want to talk over your background to understand it.

“There are several fundamental flaws in the whole AGW argument. For details, see other postings on this blog, at climateaudit.org, wattsupwiththat.com, noconsensus.wordpress.com, etc. There is plenty of mathematical rigor behind the criticisms, if you are really interested in that. I have my doubts, though, given the dismissive language you use above.”

Yes, I’m dismissive. That’s because I’m aware of the arguments used on those Web sites. Why would you assume I wasn’t?

I’ll reply to your points, giving each one a title to save space.

1) surfacestations.org

I’ve been aware of Mr. Watts’ Surface Stations Project for over a year. Are you aware of the report just issued by NOAA, which finds the data from the 70 stations ranked in the two best categories by that Project almost perfectly reproduce the result from the entire group? In other words, the serious bias Mr. Watts claimed is in fact negligible.

2) The famous “Hockey Stick” graph

I’ve looked into this closely as well. To sum up, the NAS examined Mann’s work. Problems were found, but once they were fixed the result was almost the same as before. The NAS concluded that there was substantial support for Mann’s view that the last decades of the 20th century were warmer than any time in the past 400 years. Subsequent work has extended that period farther into the past.

As for Dr. Wegman’s investigation, initiated by Rep. Joe Barton, the net result of the mathematical changes he wanted was also a negligible change in Mann’s original graph. See here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/

So as far as Mann having been “eviscerated” or his methodologies “debunked” — no, that is simply wrong. And the worst thing about this constant harping on the subject is that it’s such a small part of the case for AGW.

3) Kallikak science

I chose this title. It refers to… Hell, Google it. My point is, your argument here parallels Barton’s: that there was some sort of group collusion involved in supporting Mann’s work. It’s rather difficult to set limits on the size of that group, since it evidently includes the NAS.

4) Al Gore’s “con job”

Sorry yourself, NukemHill. I’m not convinced. All I’ve seen is assertions that most of the world’s scientists are practicing bogus science, either because they don’t know any better or because they’re all in some vast (and leakproof) conspiracy. It just doesn’t make sense.

There are several fundamental flaws in the whole AGW argument. For details, see other postings on this blog, at climateaudit.org, wattsupwiththat.com, noconsensus.wordpress.com, etc. There is plenty of mathematical rigor behind the criticisms, if you are really interested in that. I have my doubts, though, given the dismissive language you use above.

Here are some basics, though, just to give you an overview:
1) The temperature sensors used here in the US are supposed to be placed according to some pretty strict rules, as established by the Federal Government. As documented quite extensively by Anthony Watts at http://www.surfacestations.org, these gauges are, in fact, not maintained with any rigor, and are quite often placed such that other factors impact the temperatures being measured: too close to blacktop, near air conditioning vents, near b-b-que pits, etc. These will quite often cause a temperature reading to be higher than would otherwise occur. Why is this an issue? Because urban heat island (and other even more local) effects are being mistaken for “global warming”. Dr. Hansen, at NASA, claims he factors these issues into his calculations, but nobody knows how, and he refuses to release his algorithms. So much for publicly funded science.
2) The famous “Hockey Stick” graph, used by Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth”, and the various IPCC reports, was originally constructed by Mann in ’98. He relied extensively on tree ring measurements (as proxies for temperature), and some rather interesting algorithms, to demonstrate a rather sharp increase in global temperatures starting during the later half of last century. There are several critical (hell, fatal) flaws that have been unlayered. First, the bores he used are from trees that demonstrate sensitivity, not just to temperature changes, but also to changes in Nitrogen, Carbon-Dioxide, and rain levels. In other words, other factors impacted the ring measurements. Those factors are not accounted for in any of his calculations. Second, Mann basically “invented” several non-standard statistical methodologies for measuring the reliability of his calculations. He was thoroughly eviscerated by Wegman, during testimony to Congress a few years ago. Wegman was (is?) the President of the American Statistical Association. Someone who deeply understands statistics, obviously. Mann’s methodologies have been thoroughly debunked. But the Hockey Stick lives on.
3) It has been demonstrated many times over that the climatology community has a severe lack of understanding of statistical methodologies, and is almost fatally inbred. Steve McIntire at Climate Audit, Ryan O at CA & Air Vent, Warren Meyer here, etc., have all shown pretty conclusively that the methodologies being used to “prove” AGW are either mis-applied, or simply being made up out of whole cloth. That simply doesn’t work. And then the “independent” analysis being done by other climatologists isn’t so independent. They are a very tight-knit community (quite often having worked together, or studied together or under one another). So they end up using the same data, the same way, with the same analytical techniques. And then they “peer review” each other’s work. Of course, always with great rigor applied….

I could go on. The point is, the skeptical position is well-founded. The challenges to AGW arguments are based on “some solid evidence”, as you demand above. The response to those arguments? Dismissive condescension; hysterical name-calling; blacklisting; accusations of being bought by Big Oil. And now being called traitors.

Sorry Chris. Trying to dismiss the skeptics as “Denialists”, while typical of your ilk, won’t wash. The ice you tread is getting thinner by the moment. Hopefully, the Great American Public will awaken to the con-job that Al Gore and his sycophants are trying to foist upon us before it is too late. I have my doubts, though. You guys seem to have won the rhetorical war, in spite of the lack of actual science to back your claims.

http://nofreewind.blogspot.com/2009/06/recent-global-temperature-rise-same-as.html

of course, did the world ever warm in the first place is a good question? methinks the corruption is DEEP AND PERVASIVE!
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm

of course, did the world ever warm in the first place is a good question? methinks the corruption is DEEP AND PERVASIVE!
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm

1850-1940: Rapid warming.
1940-1980: Slow cooling.
1980-2000: Rapid warming – but ending the same or a little cooler than the 1930′s.
Since 2000: Cooling.

There was an apparently significant warming trend from the start of the industrial revolution to the 1930′s, but after 1940 – when carbon emissions from fossil fuels increased far more than before – the only clear trend is increased hysteria and data manipulation.

Or if you want a longer timescale:
1000 AD: Vikings raise cattle and probably some crops in southern Greenland.
1500 AD: Vikings frozen out of Greenland.
2009 AD: Greenland is warmer, but still too frozen for farming.

Whatever caused the “Little Ice Age” clearly ended in the 1800′s, and temperatures returned to something closer to the mean of the last 8,000 years. Beyond that, we’re trying to tease out trends that are far smaller than the measurement errors – and politicians and political scientists are going into hysterics over unconfirmed computer models.

I apologize for what was a borderline typographical error. I had meant to write that “…about TWO thirdS are in support of Krugman’s column.”

What principled arguments? We’re talking about science here. You want to disprove AGW? Come up with some solid evidence that it’s wrong. It won’t respond to your “principled arguments”, no matter how eloquently they protest the coming damage to “truth, justice, and the American way” — unless, of course, you are Superman.