CO2 will cause more & worse hurricanes! Uh..well, no it won’t.
CO2 will cause more floods and droughts! Er, ah…no it doesn’t look like it does.
CO2 will cause the oceans to rise and flood places! Oops. That doesn’t appear to be the case either.
CO2 will cause Greenland to melt! Oh my! Sorry about that! That correlation hasn’t occurred either.
CO2 will cause the Arctic icecap to disappear! Well…maybe not, at least in the foreseeable future.
CO2 will cause a terrible increase in fires! No, these don’t correlate well with CO2, or warming.

Has there been warming? Well, yes, sure.
Has it been ‘unprecedented’? No, not in historic terms. LIA and MWP both demonstrate that.
Does the physical evidence show a clear CO2 warming/cooling causality? Well, no, that’s not really there.
Is CO2 a factor in recent warming? Well, no, not in the early 20th Century warming, but then, yes, in the late 20th Century warming.
Was it the primary factor? No one’s really sure. That can’t be demonstrated. All we know clearly is that CO2 doesn’t appear to have been a significant factor in the early 20th Century warming period, but does appear to be at least a significant factor in the warming between 1970 and around 2000. We don’t really have a good handle on what was going on between 1940 and 1970 when things cooled substantially.

Bottom line: There’s been warming…in general…since the end of the LIA. We’re not entirely sure why, or even why the LIA occurred.

Is CO2 a factor in warming? Yes, it’s involved, but we’re not exactly sure how or to what extent. But it’s clearly not the only factor involved and may not be the most significant when it’s involved. We know there are some warming periods where it doesn’t seem to be involved at all, and that it doesn’t appear to be a factor in at least some cooling periods, either.

What’s all this add up to? It’s way too early to assume we really understand climate change, including warming. There’s still a lot of uncertainty and a lot of work to be done. And any claims we know, conclusively, that it makes sense to spend trillions trying to reduce CO2 emissions is just speculative bunk, without any firm basis, at this point.

You wouldn’t have to wait 30 years for your validation if you guys gave us some solid reasoning for your beliefs.

I think we’ve all been round and round with this, and I don’t really expect to get any convictions for academic dishonesty, much less fraud, even though I do believe they are guilty of both. However, in looking at the format Genome Research (one of the absolute top tier journals in my field) requires for article submissions, I can across this:

“Genome Research will NOT consider manuscripts where data used in the paper is not freely available on either a publicly held website, or in the absence of such a website on the Genome Research website. There are NO exceptions.”

In fact, this is a common clause in my field. Even when applying for grants you are required to describe how you’re going to make your primary data freely available (generally some home-made website or public database for a specific type of data) and you’re immediately disqualified if you do not include such a section. I’m not so familiar with climate journals, though looking through a few of them (particularly the ones that are common on the CVs of Mann and Jones), I don’t see such statements. And obviously the granting process hasn’t required this field to make data/code freely available either. (which isn’t to say no data is available, much of it is, but large gaps are missing, which of course are required to support their hypothesis)

This combined with some of the statements of these “public” researchers in the climategate emails such as this one by Jones, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it,” makes me believe this entire field is no longer acting as a group of PUBLICLY funded researchers in search of the truth. These publicly funded researchers (and no you can’t use that word enough) has formed alliances with those that share a belief in their pet theory and have (and for all I know still are) acting to exclude those that simply wish to advance knowledge (see emails regarding black listing journals/authors they don’t agree with). This may or may not be criminal, but it is not the work of honest scientists, engaged in an unbiased search of knowledge. As an academic researcher in a field far larger and more competitive than climatology (not to mention publicly valuable!), listing to quotes such as these makes me want to puke. These people have used politics and personal influence to divert large quantities of public moneys for basic research that would see a much better use in other more valuable, not to mention HONEST, fields.

What the likes of Mann and Jones have done is simply disgusting behavior from someone that claims himself to be a scientist. If this were just about any other field, these people would no longer have their jobs. Yet, climatologists, particularly those will to “prove” AGW are a politically favored bunch, so I don’t expect to see anything more than a slap on the wrist. History however, will probably look back on this chapter in science much like we see eugenics today. So, we’ll probably have to wait 30 some years for our validation (as will those climate models!).

http://www.popoffsets.com/
“opt for lower populations, lower emissions”

“Research is indicating that investing in family planning is a cost-effective and permanent way of reducing CO2 emissions and climate change, compared with other technological fixes – and has many other environmental benefits, and no downsides.”

The Muir Russell review said in its introduction: “5. In response [to the emails publication], the UEA commissioned two inquiries. The first led by Lord Oxburgh, into the science being undertaken at CRU, has already reported. This document is the report of the second inquiry … which examines the conduct of the scientists involved.”

The parliamentary report also indicated that the Oxburgh committee was to appraise the science: “10. Alongside the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review [Muir Russell], UEA decided on a separate scientific assessment of CRU’s key scientific publications; an external reappraisal of the science itself.” And “137. … It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel [Oxburgh's] to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.”

And here we are beating a dead thread…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/carefree-record-high-temperatures-in-arizona/

Thanks for your consideration.

Anthony Watts (with an S)

What a strange and confusing bit of nonsense you are spouting.

I can just imagine a lawyer in court saying to the opposition: ‘you can’t prove that I can’t prove my client is innocent!!’.