this summary, via Powerline from Icecap.com, is the most succinct and effective summary of the situation I have read. It should be tattoed on the torsos of the Warmist freaks who gathered in the blizzard in Copenhagen:

In the wake of Climategate, common sense deniers like to say that there is lots of other evidence for global warming, in addition to that which has been debunked by the East Anglia whistleblower. Actually, however, the scientific evidence for AGW is remarkably weak. At Icecap, Lee Gerhard, geologist and reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sums up the key scientific evidence with admirable brevity:

It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen. Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know:

� The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.

� Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.

� Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.

� There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.

� The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:

� Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.

� The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.

� Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.

� Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the "hockey stick" graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.

� During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.

Contrary to many public statements:

� Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.

� Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.

� Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.

� The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.

� Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century.

The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.

Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word "ever" is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean "in the last 20 years," or "the last 70 years." "Ever" means the last 4.5 billion years.

For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, "How long is ever?" The answer is since 1979. And then ask, "Is it still warming?" The answer is unequivocally "No." Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word "unprecedented" cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years.

Send those stupid bastidges up here. I have plenty of global warming to go around right now.....

ha! ha! we just got back from sledding - it's a balmy 12* (and on it's way down)

Not nice enuf to sled here.....to much global warming with up to 50 mph winds and temps to match yours.

Evidence Schemivende You're now marked for assimilation by the new world order.

Past two days had snow in areas that hadn't scene any for decades. 2/3 of Continental US is snow covered. I wonder if Al Gore owns a snowblower?

Sunny, calm and chilly here above 4000 feet elevation. Cross country skis worked fine first trek of the season. The only warming evident was me sweating within the first mile. Beautiful day up on the hill.

They just don't understand do they?

They certainly understand how to make the "facts" fit their agenda.

and that my friend is their prime objective

On Drudge today....2/3 of the US states saw snow on either Chhristmas Eve or Christmas day.

it was 70F here this morning. Damn warm for December.

About average here.
High teens-I just got back from a bicycle ride and froze my azz off.

Sure didn't seem like global warming out there!

Ok it is official.....we are having a blizzard....throw another log on the fire.........and pass the Makers Mark!

Biggest snowfall ever in Dec in Baltimore areas was last weekend.

Of course, in "ever" I mean in the last couple hundred years, not 4 billion.

Heart attack snow here today. 5 inches of it on top of yesterdays 6.

This one is always a hoot. As if damage is relevant in any way, shape or form. A Cat 3 is a Cat 3 is a Cat 3. We have detailed records of all Atlantic hurricanes for the last 100 years. Other than 2004 which was a perfect storm of Tropical activity, the past 20 years is no different in number or intensity of hurricanes for the past 100 years.

Major ice storm here... my wife had to camp out at her office because she is the on call doc at the hospital... global warming....bah humbug.

As an operative for the Republican Party, Stevers has already been well assimilated.......not much more anybody else can do to him.....



Casey

Even experts in the same office disagree.

Scott Denning is a compatriot of Bill Gray , whose specialty is hurricane predictions. Gray has been one of the earliest and most outspoken critics of the global warming theory.


Casey

If not CO2 - what explains the present trend?

The CO2 models - and concentrations - seem to be the most plausible explanation.

That is - without a political bias to the contrary.

Hhmm isn't CO2 necessary for plant life? How about natural occurrence. Doh!

The fundamental problem with your question is that there is absolutely nothing unusual about the Earth's present temperature or its rate of change compared with historical norms. If you look at unaltered base data, with reasonable smoothing applied, we are in a temperature range that is easily explained by normal random variation. In that case, there is no need invoke some special cause. That is a bedrock rule of statistics.

Here is smoothed historical data for Salt Lake City, near where I live. Each blue triangle is the average of the 17 preceding data (averages the noise down by a factor of a bit more than 4).

Do you honestly see cause for alarm?



Well, you say, it's only temperature data for one location. Maybe the rest of the world is different. OK, let's look at the average of all the Nordic surface temperature stations. that's here:



Does the general shape of the Nordic curve look familiar? It should. Overall, it looks a lot like the Salt Lake City data.

Can you genuinely say that the present situation is so special as to require its own explanation? I can't.

Just for fun, we can stretch the Nordic data until the scales match the Salt Lake data and overlay them. You get this result:



Yup, there are some interesting differences, but broadly they match. Whenever I can get to unmanipulated data, I seem to always get the same result: There is absolutely nothing unusual about today's temperature that requires any explanation at all, other than normal random variation.

The well-known hockey stick graphic that got everyone so concerned is a mathematical construct. Mathematical constructs always yield to real data. The hockey stick fell apart and broke down in the face of real data, starting several years ago. It simply does not match the real data anymore. Well, it never did, either. But the basic fact is that the model did not survive a collision with reality, and a model that does not survive a collision with reality is not worth many tears. You can only torture the graph into the shape you want for just so long. Eventually, it will be free.

So, my friend, your question is moot. There is no reason to answer the question, why are present temperatures so boringly similar with those of the past?

Temps here ran under by 3 degrees for the last month. Average ambient temp comes on our power bill and was -3 over last year which was -2 over the previous year???????????

Glo Bull warming has that real fresh dairy smell around here.

ever heard of sunspots?

Here's a basic scientific investigation checklist. How many of these criteria does the AGW theory meet?

1. Verify and characterize your measurement system. Be sure that it has sufficient repeatability and accuracy to reliably detect effects that are important to your argument.

2. Capture and preserve your raw data. Make it available to everyone.

3. Perform your analysis. Preserve all details of your analytical methods, including all assumptions.

4. Give all of the above to everyone who has an interest your findings. Encourage them to pore over the data looking for errors. Encourage them to re-do your analysis. Encourage them to cross-check the results in new ways.

5. If you can get people to do that, and all the findable errors are found, all the analyses prove to be consistent and error free, and nobody can come up with a better explanation than yours, then your idea will be accepted.

I score IPCC 0/5 on that list.

Gee, someone should make that list his signature line....

The answer to your question is easy BCBrian. It's all that hot air from you talking out your ass.

denton - you're the man!

I have seen this data before as well and came to the same conclusions. Anyone good at modeling can make models show anything they want them to.............

steve - very good find. You are right - that is as succinct as can be put IMHO. Being a Geologist by training and profession, I could not do a better job of stating the facts from a geological point of view.

You're preachin to the choir brother...

Obviously nobody bothered checking out the link in my previous post, so let me try this again. Interestingly, Scott Denning works in the same office and sees the same data as Bill Gray--and Gray is one of the most outspoken and early critics of the global warming theory.

Adding heat changes temperature

Scott Denning and Todd Ringler � December 24, 2009

Previous coverage of the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen often includes some basic misconceptions. We'd like to point out some facts that are not in dispute and try to cool tempers a little.

We're both climate scientists with decades of experience: Scott Denning is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, and Todd Ringler is a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

One common misconception often repeated in the media is that concern about global warming is based on recent warming trends. We hear endlessly repeated arguments about how much (or how little) the weather has warmed in recent years.

Television pundits and politicians sometimes talk themselves blue about whether recent warming is caused by people or natural cycles. But the reason we expect the climate to warm with increasing levels of COis not based on past trends. It's based on simple measurements of heat radiation from the gas itself.

The Earth's temperature is set by a balance between incoming heat from the sun and the radiation of that heat back to space. Molecules of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the air absorb some of the outgoing heat and radiate it back down to the surface, like tiny heat lamps in the sky.

The heat radiation from COmolecules was first discovered almost 150 years ago. The properties of the gas are not in the slightest dispute and can be measured by any laboratory with exactly the same results. The basic science was done before the Civil War and does not depend on complicated computer models.

When scientists predict global warming due to continued reliance on fossil fuels, we are simply saying that if you add heat to the surface of the Earth, it will warm up. Another undisputed fact is that since 1800, the amount of COin the air has increased by about 35 percent.

If it were to double from preindustrial levels, 4 watts of heat would shine down on every square meter of the planet: that's the equivalent of a tiny night-light bulb that burns 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

You'd think pundits who predict this will not cause climate change would have some kind of explanation for why this extra heat will not warm the planet, but they don't. They seem to think that because there are natural climate cycles, or because the climate has not yet warmed catastrophically, or because of hacked e-mails in England, the laws of physics have somehow been repealed.





Sorry; adding heat to something changes its temperature, unless something else takes the heat away.

Media pundits also seem to think the sky will fall if we burn less fossil fuel. This view betrays a very dim view of human history. If the naysayers had their way, we'd still be driving buggies.

Some argue our entire modern economy rests on the subsidy of cheap fossil fuel. If they are right, our children's future is dark indeed because industrialization in China and India will soon outstrip world supplies.

We take the more optimistic view that human ingenuity and creativity can and will lead to a bright future in which billions of people can live well without burning coal, oil or gas.

Absolutely true, and beyond dispute. And a thoughtful and informative post, too.

The "hide the decline" comment that is so widely quoted actually referred to a major unexplained divergence between the hockey stick model and the real data. When the model does not match the real data, the model loses, every time, all the time. That is also beyond dispute.

The net of all this is that I'm being asked to believe a predictive model that doesn't match the data, that has to distort known historical events to reach its results, and is thus unverifiable and immeasurable and contrary to known facts. And I can't find any evidence in the time series model that helps their argument.

So is there man-global warming? Is it a bad thing? Is it of sufficient magnitude to concern us? I don't know. All I can say is that from what little I can see, the evidence doesn't meet my five-point test and I hold the result as inadequately supported.

OTH, should we be moving away from fossil fuels? You bet! We ought to be building nuclear plants like mad and working hammer and tongs on fusion reactors. It is an observed and measurable fact that that will improve the quality of the air that we breathe and of the water in our rivers, lakes and seas. That is reason enough.

I'm very encouraged by the price trends on photo-voltaics. If those trends continue, in a surprisingly short time they will be quite cost effective. I think it would be great to see homes roofed with the stuff, and everybody's home system phase synched with the world.

BTW, I am old enough to remember what seemed like pretty much the same bunch of people that are now on the AGW bandwagon being staunchly opposed to nice, clean, efficient nuclear reactors, and getting them stopped in this country for decades. But maybe that's just my perception.

I've been out shoveling and moving global warming residue for the past 6 hours. Algore and BCBrian can shove AGW where the sun don't shine. I think we got over a foot on the level but you can't tell as there is anything from bare ground to 5 ft drifts around my house. Thank goodness for ATV's with snowplows (so I can contribute to AGW bullschitt that it is!) My neighbors were darn glad to see me!

Thanks, Steve. That was excellent.

Well, I for one, am glad for AGW; this blizzard would have been much worse had the polar ice caps not been melting and the temps rising especially, strangely, in metro centers where there were universities receiving grants for their research on weather, especially if it-the research-showed a warming trend. My neighbor down the block, usually a reliable sort, thought he saw a polar bear in the swirling snow which of course would have been much worse except for the rising temps. I think he just had cabin fever form staring out of the window for three days.

I keep looking at it from the perspective and wisdom of "Follow the Money" If people are NOT somehow convinced that we have global warming, how are you going to SELL Carbon Credits?
I have also asked many times how did mankind melt the over 1 mile high glaciers that covered all of Canada and lots of Northern US. The sad part is,,, so many fall into the myth because a$$holes like Al Gore promote it and has already made millions of dollars on a stupid, unprovable story.

You live in Florida...jackass

You made me spit good bourbon through my nose.....warn a guy would ya!

I got my 4 wheeler stuck on level ground trying to run in about 16 inches of heavy snow... IN NORTH CAROLINA! Global warming... maybe Gore and the other warmists will start trying to sell bridges and prime swamp land next after this Winter gets done making headlines...

Via legislative act.
Tons of products and services (especially "servics") that no one would otherwise ever purchase.

We must never forget what the delectible Hillary Clinton once said, "The free market has failed" and that many in national gov't are true believers. For decades ALL therein have strived to make it a reality.




Yes, but it was such a lovely slideshow.
Certainly worthy of SOME sort of reward...