Climate Change Sceptics In Error

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.  The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.  The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity. But UK scientists found there has been no significant link between cosmic rays and cloudiness in the last 20 years.

Will the media publicize this the way they publicized "ClimateGate?"  They should - because we all need to understand that climate change is real and that we need to deal with it now.

Hockey Stick Graph

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientist-michael-mann

The board of inquiry at Pennsylvania State University said it found no evidence that Michael Mann, a leading climatologist, had suppressed or falsified data, tried to destroy data or emails, or misused information. ....It also cleared Mann of purposely hiding or destroying email relating to an IPCC climate change report.

Can we now get on with dealing with climate change?  

ClimateGate and the Great Glacier Melt

Discussing Climategate and the Himalyan glaciers that wll not melt as fast as predicted in the 2007 IPCC reprot, Gwynne Dyer writes:

People who know science and scientists will be disappointed both by the behaviour of Jones and by the glacier incident, but they will not be surprised. This sort of thing happens from time to time, because we are dealing with human beings. But it does not (as the denial brigade insists) discredit the whole enterprise in which they are engaged. The weight of the evidence rests overwhelmingly on the side of those who argue that climate change is real and dangerous. Ninety-seven or ninety-eight percent of scientists active in the relevant fields are convinced of it; all but a couple of the world’s 200 governments have been persuaded of it; public opinion accepts it almost everywhere except in parts of the “Anglosphere”. The United States, and to a lesser extent Australia, Britain and Canada, are the last bastions of denial. From being the least ideological countries 50 years ago, when much of the rest of the planet was drunk on Marxist theories, these countries have become the most ideological today. Disbelief in climate change has been turned into an ideological badge worn by the right, and evidence is no longer relevant.

http://www.straight.com/article-282021/vancouver/gwynne-dyer-climagegate-and-disbelief

Hmmnnn - read the comments attached to the article.  The commenters prove Mr. Dyer's point about the Anglosphere being a bastion of denial.  I am beginning to think that our society is so addicted to oil that we are all in the first stages of addiction: denial that the problem exists. What to do?  Keep pushing to change the zeitgeist ....appeals to reason and the provision of  evidence are not working.  

Climategate Discussed

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1215/Climategate-global-warming-and-the-tree-rings-divergence-problem/%28page%29/3
Much discussion of the Climategate e-mails has centered on "tricking" tree ring data that may not confirm global warming. What's the divergence of data all about and does it really confirm cooling instead of warming? In other words, tree growth may have slowed because the amount of sunlight reaching trees, which is especially critical to growth at high latitudes, has diminished since the mid-20th century.  If global dimming is a major factor in the divergence of the past 50 years, should we expect to see the opposite of divergence — realignment? — now that the skies are cleaner?

D'Arrigo responds: "I think this would be difficult to detect and tease apart due to the many competing factors potentially impacting tree growth – hard to separate this type of effect from other environmental factors but an intriguing possibility."

Elizabeth May read all ten years of hacked emails: please have a look at her blog for her conclusions. She doesn't decide global warming is fake.  She concludes that scientists involved were cogitating about problems such as the tree ring issue above ... NOT plotting to deceive the world about climate change.

http://www.desmogblog.com/climatespin-using-stolen-emails-cripple-policy

An independent analysis of the emails, however, show that they did not, in any way, undermine the scientific foundation for our understanding of how and why the climate is changing. Even Hayward acknowledges that "Climate change is a genuine phenomenon, and there is a nontrivial risk of major consequences in the future."

I keep wondering who funded the hack.......

ClimateGate Answered Per Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=4

Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity.

Can ClimateGate be true? aRe the deniers correct?  Are Climatologists conspiring   to tax and enslave the world?  The answer from Scientific American after the jump.....