Andrew - if you are going to come out with this stuff then at least you need to ackowledge the current debate. It is now widely acknowledged that solar magnetic changes have driven earth climate in geological times. If you don't believe me here is the paper that basically conceeds the point for the global warming side.
The paper is by Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory and Claus Frolich, of the word radiation centre in Davos, Switzerland. 'Recently opposite directed trends in climate forcings and the global mean surface temperature (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, July 13, 2007 - its available online).
The paper does not try to contest the evidence that the sun and climate were strongly linked in pre-industrial times and even in the first half of the twentieth century. One key work is that of Gerard Bond of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Oservatory of Clombia University and nine others which convincingly linked solar activity to changes in drift ice in the North Atlantic over thousands of years (Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene, Science, December 7, 2001).
For heaven sake Andrew look it up, and then tailor your arguments to suit the reality. Then I'll pay attention. At the moment the article is seriously out of date.

I wonder what this bloke's smoking? It must be pretty damn good.

He can dream up scare campaigns even quicker than Ruddy can come up with ways to throw money away.

Of couse, paying Andrew & his fellow travelers is one way of throwing money away, for no useful purpose.

Thanks Dr Glikson, clear and informative as usual.

Curmudgeon

I'm really trying to be patient, Mark - it is becoming tiresome.

Again, you really don't know how to read a scientific paper, let alone the conclusions they make:

>> 5. Conclusions

... Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the (solar) mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified. <<

Now, which part of that don't you understand?

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf

I'll repeat again Mark: you are doggedly trying to show a correlation between temperature and (solar) magnetic field variations over a period when temperature, greenhouse gas forcing, and some solar magnetic field index are all going up using (by inference) a statistical attribution technique which ignores greenhouse gases AND considers only a solar magnetic field index.

If we knew zilch about how CO2 affects climate, what you have to say would be interesting. However, we know a lot about GHG’s and their effect. No amount of fiddling by you will make the physics disappear.

You say your book is coming out in June - I should look in the Sci Fi section then?

Btw, if you are going to cite a paper, you should at least get the title correct.

Actually heres the abstract to "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature"

Abstract: There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

What 'debate' are you talking about Mark? And what point is conceded? That the sun can warm us up and can change the climate? Wow, that's big news.

Is it really worth bothering? The deniers have their heads firmly stuck in the sand and no amount of graphs, charts, proof or even actual consequences will convince them to pull their heads out and open their eyes. The seas could rise by metres and they would still say it is not caused by humans. Their arguments have been debunked numerous times but still they stick to their dogma. They are like the worst of religious zealots, which most of them probably are as well.

And yet again some quotes from the science is settled brigade in 1970

'“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

and don't forget our coolist alarmist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

How can this current crop of alarmist get so much press? Fantasy upon fantasy dressed in science. I wonder what the next scare will be?

well runner, it's because scientists today know everything there is possible to know about climate, why, they know exactly what it will be like in 50 years or by the turn of next century.

You see in the past climate science was not as perfect as it is today - and no don't ask about weather because "that's different".

Just because they have been wrong before, that's in the past and should only be referred to when dismissing skeptics, it's all abut the future now and everyone important, in their opinion, agrees.

Get with the campaign buddy, invest in renewables or get into science and you'll understand that there's money in all these research projects. As so many people say on this forum, we should be investing in causes of climate change, as we try to find any other reason why it is not natural .. we're convinced it is not natural and if we just tweak this and hide that .. hey, let's blame this gas, or maybe that one .. what's today, Tuesday so it's not cosmic rays, is it?

you don't even have to study causes of climate, say "Lions of the Serengeti and the effect of climate change on their toenails" - ooooh climate change, better fund that one!

You would have to be a religious zealot to sign up to the ridiculous doomsaying and end of the world hysterics being sold as scientific fact.

How many predictions of differing sea level are we up to now?

How many end of the world predictions are we up to - and how many times has the world ended?

(That or they have vested interests? I assume all the warmists have sinister reasons that they continue to push this bandwagon, and no lack of substance will ever convince them .. I also suspect they are zombies or Klingons armed with mighty conspiracy theories. /sarc)

Someone say conspiracy theory?

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2888700.htm

Andrew Bolt's there, but ... but,

Where's Arjay?

Where's Nick Minchin?

qanda and bugsy
the point is in my article of last week. It is clear and has been repeated many times. Lockwood conceeds the point that the magnetic solar field dictates climate but, crucially, and I have noted this qualification many times, he alleges that the link breaks down in 1985 (ergo CO2 must be to blame). The evidence for this link is overwhelming and is cited in the Lockwood paper. He does not try to contest it. The argument is over climate later than 85 which I won't go into here..
Andrew Glikson's article is seriously out of date because he doesn't take any of that into account. His is still the view that CO2 has dictated warming in PAST CLIMATES, and there is serious doubt over that point. Much as I enjoy chatting with you guys the patience (and certainly the politeness) is on my side.

Maybe qanda and bugsy should check the latest research by Lockwood et al. "Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?" (April 2010). They may find like Lockwood did since his 2007 paper that things are not as cut and dried they think. Lockwood states,Average solar activity has declined rapidly since 1985 and cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29) He goes on to say, despite hemispheric warming, the UK and Europe could experience more cold winters than during recent decades.

One doesn't have to know too much about the planet we live on to realise that the greatest biodiversity is in the tropics and the further one goes in a poleward direction the less is the biodiverstiy. Andrew Glikson knows that very well but somehow he is able to postulate that if the planet as a whole gets warmer we will see extinctions presumably reversing the latitudinal gradient that has characterised biodiversity for a billion years. He quotes refences in support of his case but as usual they are very selective. So maybe I can redress the balance. Douglas Erwin's paper "Climate as a Driver of Evolutionary Change"(2009) states "Some of the best evidence for a link between biodiversity and climate comes from latitudinal gradients in diversity, which provide an avenue to explore the more general relationship between climate and evolution. Among the wide range of biotic hypotheses, those with the greatest empirical support indicate that warmer climates have provided the energetic foundation for increased biodiversity by fostering greater population size and thus increased extinction resistance; have increased metabolic scope; have allowed more species to exploit specialized niches as a result of greater available energy; and generated faster speciation and/or lower extinction rates". There is much more research that suggests great uncertainty regarding the effects of past climates on diversity and evolution and it would be good to see Andrew concede this in place of the biblical certitude that characterises his words. Even his favourite PETM of 55 mya which he has written about many times and says caused extinctions, others say was a time of diversification, including new mammal groups which appeared during this brief 170,000 year period.

Mark, Lockwood doesn't "allege" that the effects of changing solar activity (magnetic flux, total irradiance or any other measure) cannot explain warming (or even solar contribution to warming) after 1985, he demonstrates it. If you think that Lockwood said the magnetic solar field "dictates" climate (or even past climate), or that Glikson thinks that CO2 "dictated" warming in past climates, then I guess that's your interpretation and yours alone. I accept Lockwood's words that solar irradiance etc. have effects on climate (as well as GHGs, even in past climates), but yours are a distortion. A word of advice, run this interpretation of what he says by Lockwood himself before you go publishing it in a non-peer reviewed opus.

malrob,
Lockwood also goes on to say in the next line
"We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect."

Hmm, and?

Oh and malrob, if you truly understand what is involved in periods of mass extinction/speciation/diversification events, you wouldn't be so quick to paint a glowing picture of them. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live through one of these periods.

Give me a nice long period of stabilising selection any day.

bugsy 1
My comment clearly relates to Europe and doesn't suggest otherwise.
bugsy2
Individuals at the time know nothing of or incur no disadavantage from speciation or diversification. And I suggest that any individual experiences only its own impending death and no such individual has ever known it is the last of its species. And anyway, isn't extinction a wonderful thing? 99.9% of all species that ever existed are extinct and without it none of us would be here writing this stuff.

qanda is caught up in a conspiracy theory that there is a conspiracy theory.

Skeptics don't organize quite the way you seem to think they do, hence your conspiracy theory that skeptics conspire.

Just accept that some people are at each end of the bell curve and many more are in the middle, here's a phrase that might be meaningful to you "that's normal".

You crack me up.

Andrew, qanda, Bugsy. It is only recently that Prof. Phil Jones was completely exonerated of any wrong doing or fraud. This is a powerful endorsement of his views and you must accept he is right. The fact that his views are now contrary to yours is something you have to deal with.

spindoc - who exonerated him? (I thought there were several reviews going - do you have a favourite to share? I suspect its the one by his own orgainsation isn't it - very objective!)

When you say exonerate, there was no concern about refusing to comply with FOI requests?

No mention of the fact criminal charges cannot be laid now since the activity outlived the time allowed for charges?

You're not concerned that after refusing the FOI requests, he then "lost" the data. Gosh, that's good scientific method, did the review exonerate that and say that's perfectly OK?

It's good that you think that sort of review "exonerates" people, like you would the AWB enquiry, or the police investigating themselves.

When you have a review by vested interests, you get exactly what you want when you set it up - as per the political methods parodied in "Yes Minister".

I accept he was exonerated by one of the reviews, but know very well that it is not a credible review and that they missed an opportunity to put this to bed completely by doing it the way they did.

The review I suspect you're talking about, did not extinguish doubt, and is laughable when you read the 5 page report.

Amicus, you are spot on of course, I was being a little too sarcastic for my own good. I should have used inverted comas when I said “completely exonerated”.

I was referring to the fact that under oath and legal advice before the UK Parliamentary Inquiry, Phil Jones effectively “pulled the plug” on AGW. Like I said, his views now contradict the “warmers” and they never seem to mention him or his work anymore, odd that is it not?

Were it not for the UK’s statute of limitations Phil Jones would now be contemplating his navel in “Wormwood Scrubs” and yes the various hearings had farcically narrow terms of reference, but that was no surprise was it?

It may be a very different story if the sixteen “Litigation Hold Notices” issued against the US EPA are pursued in the US Courts.

Meanwhile, I think we should let the warmers quietly fade away rather than encourage them to scour the internet for links that can salve their embarrassment. This a very bad time for them and I think we should be more empathetic. Have a giggle if you must but empathise.

Hmmm, the plot thickens!

Bugs, I wondered this morning why all the interest in solar (in)activity – smelled a rat :)

Checked What’s Up at Watt’s Up – bingo! Seems they’re all at it again, the denialospherists that is. The dumb-nuts are back to their usual modus operandi, cherry picking snippets of climate science papers for anything that they can spin and doctor to lend support to their ‘deny-n-delay’ cause. Remember how they used Josh Willis’ research last year into ocean temperatures to ‘debunk’ AGW? Well, they’re at it again, this time with Mike Lockwood’s work.

After reading “Solar Change and Climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum” (H/T malrob)

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2114/303.full

I can’t see why Curmud, malrob and Co are getting all excited and wetting their collective pants about. Note the tone Lockwood takes in addressing internet “controversies” – this is unusual in a science paper, as if he is forewarning the ‘denialosphere’ not to take his research out of context, or claim it as ‘evidence’ of their own warped thought. Alas, to no avail, as the Watts’ congregation chant:

“cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% (‘very unlikely’ in IPCC lingo) chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years”

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/fulltext

So called ‘warmers’ are suggesting a 90% (‘very likely’) chance of warming in the next 100 years, and they’re being threatened (metaphorically speaking, of course) to being hung, drawn and quartered from the nearest letter-box.

What should the ‘warmers’ threaten (metaphorically speaking, of course) to do to the ‘coolers’, for suggesting a much more unlikely chance (< 10%) of cooling?

An interesting aside: some ‘coolers’ claim the Little Ice Age was worldwide, so why don’t they now claim Lockwood’s research shows that the LIA was really only occurring in a very particular northern clime?

_______

malrob

>> Individuals at the time know nothing of or incur no disadavantage from speciation or diversification. And I suggest that any individual experiences only its own impending death and no such individual has ever known it is the last of its species. <<

Specious codswallop

rpg

Actually, organisations like the Heartland Institute are very ... well, organsised. Their cronies lobby and bombard mainstream media shock jocks and colourful weatherman identities with all sorts of guff - with the intention of sowing the seeds of doubt into your bell curve sample numbers.

Amicus, spindoc - put rpg right.

The University of East Anglia’s and The Royal Society’s investigations into ‘climategate’ was a ‘white wash’ of the ‘fraud’ to ‘hide-the-decline’, right?

As to your bell curve, yep – for the people who just haven’t got a clue ... you’re spot on.

What is also not so surprising - the bell curve of ALL the major scientific institutions and academies in the world, including actual scientists engaged in ‘climate science’, is HEAVILY skewed in support of the notion that AGW is real, it is significant, and we should do something about it – sooner rather than later.

But as an “engineer”, you knew this.

_______

Spindoc

>> Phil Jones effectively “pulled the plug” on AGW. Like I said, his views now contradict the “warmers” <<

That word, “effectively”.

I suspect your comment is another example of a Freudian slip, like leaving out the inverted commas, spindoctor.

qanda, you ask me to put rpg right?

I think you have the wrong person. Like I said, when the High Priest of AGW, Phil Jones, says under oath, that he cannot substantiate any warming and cannot show any link with carbon emissions, I have to believe him.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the CRU or IPCC.

Alternatively you could get a degree in some relevant science, obtain a research grant, produce a paper, get a job with the CRU or IPCC, discard your original data, give your dog the “schedule of adjustments” for lunch, deny FOI requests so nobody can verify your findings, feed selective assumptions into a computer model, exaggerate outcomes and timeframes when your research is challenged, and finally, start a campaign to frighten schoolchildren.

Look qanda, the world is a cruel place; Copenhagen let you down, as did the CRU, IPCC and all the governments of all the developed and developing nations worldwide. There is a strong message in all this.

It’s all over to extent that no political person or entity anywhere in the world see’s enough AGW evidence to support you. The remaining rats have deserted the sinking hulk of the “Good Ship AGW”.

You look like the remaining cabin boy (sorry, cabin person) clinging to the Poop Deck as you shout to everyone watching you, “it’s OK, the pumps are working fine”.

What is it with reality and you?

Nope, got it right.

30 years -> climate trend certain

15 years -> climate trend uncertain

The latter apparently goes over your head, spinner.

By all means, believe him - I do.

Why you continually fail to understand that a longer period is needed to filter the signal from the noise is baffling. You are either dumb-ass ignorant (which you are not) or you are blinded by your own perceived "reality".

Reality maybe different for you spinner, than it is for me - does that make my reality shite?

I've tried to stay away from this argument but I have to bite. Qanda (I assume you are the Q&A of old) why is 15 years -> climate trend uncertain but 30 years -> climate trend certain? I am aware that the classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization, that such time periods are called climate normals, and they are generally used as reference values for comparative purposes. As this is an arbitrary figure then how about 60 years -> climate trend certain. This could take into account longer term natural climate variability such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (among others) and would surely give you and other scientists a better idea of the natural varibility in GAMSAT temperatures, making any anthropogenic influence likely to be easier to determine.

Regarding this point I would suggest not only is the 30-year average the barest minimum time frame in which to compare changes in climatic averages but the current international standard also partially coincides with the measurable warming that occurred within the last three decades of the 20th century. In addition, the shortness of this time frame excludes previous warming periods, such as those experienced in the 1920–40s – as well as previous cooling periods – thus casting doubt on the current international standard time frame as a long-term measure of climate in my mind.

I am also amused by the notion that 30 years is required for a certain climate trend (though I do not necessarily agree with it) but that barely 30 years of satellite Arctic sea ice records is more than sufficient for many scientists and advocates (not necessarily you though) to proclaim we can expect Arctic sea ice to disappear, as some have postulated, in the near and not too distant future. Who sets these time periods and with what justification?

This might seem a little confusing to you Raredog, but the data itself actually dictates what time frame is needed to gain a measure of statistical significance. When trends are strong and noise(variability) low, then far less data points are needed to gain statistical significance threshold (or confidence if you like). Phil Jones has said that the trend is for warming over the last 15 years, but the statistical significance isn't quite there, "but only just" under the statistical significance threshold of 95%. If one goes out to 30 years, the trend is clear and the significance no problem at all. Since Jones said that the trend was very close to the significance level, then if the data was taken out to 16, 17 or 18 years, then the significance would likely pass the 95% threshold, but that wasn't the question asked of him.

Phil Jones didn't say what you think he did spindoc, get over it.

The author's warmist assertions are typical of those of members of the AGW Fearmongers Club.
Given that the warmists, after more than 20 years of intense searching (particularly by the IPCC), have failed to prove that global warming is man-caused, it is now time for them to shut up. It is not generally known that the 2007 IPCC Report cited over 18,000 references, but that not one contained proof that CO2 emissions are the driver of climate change. Despite continually increasing CO2 emissions, the IPCC has been unable to explain the global cooling trend from 1940 to 1975, and why there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years -- the latter is acknowledged even by Phil Jones, the scientist at the centre of the Climategate scandal.
The ongoing regurgitation of assertive blurb by warmists has led to dysfunctional behaviour . Gullible politicians have been misled into proposing emission reduction policies that have no effect on climate, but damage economies and living standards. The renewable energy legislation severely curtails investment in efficient low-cost coal-derived power generation, and instead encourages investment in high-cost unreliable wind turbine and solar energy, that are twice and ten-times more expensive respectively.
If the Rudd Government is serious about eliminating unnecessary expenditure, it should stop forking out $90 million a year to keep more than 400 public servants employed within the federal Climate Change Department. It also should stop funding warmist socalled research in Government authorities and the universities.

Bugsy, << Phil Jones didn't say what you think he did spindoc, get over it.>>

Really? Perhaps you could post the transcript of the UK Parliamentary Hearing, then we can disscuss what Phil Jones actually "said". That way we don't need to discuss what "I think he said".

Over to you.

One and the same Raredog.

While the PDO is termed an oscillation, there is no evidence to show that it is “periodic”. Many people also assume the Southern Oscillation Index is also “periodic”. These people don’t understand the concept of periodicity and that the time scales assigned to the PDO is a “characteristic” time scale – they are not periods. For example, the PDO time scale includes 50 to 90 year and 10 to 30 year scales, as you have alluded to.

Yes, the PDO (and ENSO) does impact our major ocean and the enveloping continents, however, the cause of the PDO is still unresolved. Predicting the PDO is still very uncertain because of the limited time we have been making direct observations, although they go back to the early 1900’s. In other words, we really don’t know if the PDO is a long term pattern of variation or just another unexplained unknown. It certainly is not “periodic” (by definition) so any predictions based on it are meaningless.

Therefore, what you suggest is not very practical, sorry. To make strategic policy decisions in the next few years but that we should have to wait another 100 years (by inplication) just to see if an unknown unknown validates anything at all towards making those important decisions, is just plain silly, imho.

Raredog, we already know a helavulot, but as comments above typically demonstrate, joe and jill ‘six-packs’ don’t have a clue about ‘climate science’. It is obvious that people are running scared, helped by ideologues pushing their own “she’ll be right’ agenda. It is not all doom and gloom as the ‘alarmists’ AND the ‘deny-n-delay’ brigade would have us believe. However, it would certainly make things better if we could all live in a more environmentally and ecologically sustainable way - that is definitely not happening.

Why? I have no idea.

Raycom, still waiting for your reply. See the post below yours:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10243#168034

Ok spindoc, here's one bloggers partial transcript of the hearing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/01/parliamentary-climate-emails-inquiry

I tried to get from the parliamentary HoC Science and Technology Committee site, they seem to have sever errors (or no web page?).

Anyway, here's a link to the full report:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

Now, what on Earth in all this makes you think that Jones 'effectively “pulled the plug” on AGW' or that 'that his views now contradict the “warmers”'?

I'd really like to know what gave you that impression.

No Bugsy, I don't want a "partial Blog", especially not from the Guardain for goodness sake, what are you on?

I am pointing you to two specific questions asked of Phil Jones, is the globe warming? and what is the link, if any, with residual atmospheric carbon?

Thank you for the link to the parliamentary hearing report but I have a full copy, that is not the "transcript" I pointed you to.

If this is all you read you are destined to be a warmer. Take your dammned blinkers off!

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link to the transcript you have apparently read.

Bugsy

I have this 203 page pdf (similar to your 61 page summary, but contains more detail) - spindoc should have this too.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387ii.pdf

I'm not sure where spindoc has "pointed" you to either. Nevertheless, he should provide the web link - if only to compare apples with apples.

No link from spindoc bugsy, at least not yet.

This is the original BBC Q&A with Phil Jones that raised the ire of the 'denialosphere' in the first place - specifically about the trend since 1995.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

But I don't spindoc is referring to this transcript - there certainly is no question about "residual atmospheric carbon", one question that spindoc is "pointing" you to.

Will just have to wait and see if he can actually "point" to the transcript himself.

Bugsy, why don’t you get together with qanda and start work on the following from the link you kindly provided?

Re Global Warming?

Q91 Ian Stewart: Is the highest.
Professor Jones: Is the warmest going back to 1850,
it is 0.16 warmer than the 1990s and that was warmer
than the 1980s.
The margin of error is 0.15
Verifiability? Q100 to Q105
Access to raw data? Q107 to Q118
Can the CRU findings be reproduced? No. Q135
CRUTEM3 contradictions Q139 to Q143
Availability of raw data? No, only derivative Q145 to Q150

Memorandum submitted by Richard S Courtney (CRU 01) This submission concerns the importance of an email (see Appendix A) from me that was among the files hacked (?) from CRU. It demonstrates that in 2003 the self-titled “Team” knew the estimates of average global temperature (mean global temperature, MGT) were worthless, and they acted to prevent publication of proof of this.

See: Memorandum submitted by Godfrey Bloom MEP (CRU 18)

See: Memorandum submitted by Clive Menzies (CRU 19)

See: Memorandum submitted by Dr Michael Simons (CRU 20)

See: Memorandum submitted by David Shaw (CRU 22)

See: Memorandum submitted by Dr D R Keiller (CRU 23)

See: Memorandum submitted by David Holland (CRU 24)

See: Memorandum submitted by Ronald K Bolton (CRU 25)

Funny how this lot didn’t hit the media, only the bit about no fraud from Phil Jones. It is however, from the very same Hearings.

Thanks qanda, that’s the BBC one I wanted you to produce. Now we can answer Bugsy’s question which was, what did Phil Jones actually say in relation to; is there global warming and is it caused by carbon?

Q. Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
A. Yes, but only just.

Even with the qualifier “statistically-significant” the answer is still “no global warming since 1995”. The global trend 1860 to 2009 is, according to Phil Jones, 0.16 degrees C per decade. Even if the CRU’s arrival at this figure were uncontested, which it isn’t, their own margin of error is 0.15 which leaves little to discuss.

Q. How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

A. I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Er, hang on a minute Professor Jones. Even if we accept your 100% certainty, didn’t you miss out the words “statistically-significant” this time around? Yes we can see the on your figures there is 0.01 degree C per decade to account for outside your margin of error, but how “statistically-significant” is that, if at all?

Did you say you agree with the IPCC Chapter 9 that “there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity”. But hang on, we were told the IPCC don’t do research, so where did they get that “evidence” from? Oh yes, I forgot, the CRU of course.

If the “warming” since 1950 is man made, why does no warming outside margin of error show up on the trends you have just given us for that period? If there isn’t any warming, how can it be man made?

qanda, In the table from Phil Jones BBC interview there are two errors, one contradicts his testimony at the hearing, can you spot them

This is a joke right?

Where's the statements contradictory to warming? Where's the statements "effectively pulling the plug?" on AGW? Where's the question on residual carbon? Where's the 'specific question', "is the globe warming?" and the apparently contradictory answer?

Memoranda written by other people are not in issue here. What is in issue, is that you think that Phil Jones' statements were apparently contradictory to the idea that the earth is experiencing AGW. And that you think it a "fact that his views are now contrary to [mine]". Again I ask, where is that evidence? What exactly are these views of his that are so contrary to mine?

It appears you are working from a different transcript from us. Please provide this apparently different transcript.

Oh, the BBC transcipt, not the one 'under oath and legal advice before the UK Parliamentary Inquiry' at all, no wonder I couldn't find it, it was the one I thought you were talking about in the first place. The confusion between 'significant' and 'statistically significant' and what a 'margin of error' is.

These might help:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=statistics+for+dummies&x=0&y=0

They are quite good as a resource, and are far more educational than Plimers book.

As I thought.

Despite ALL the evidence, the findings and conclusions of the parliamentary inquiry is a 'conspiracy'. OLO's very own spindoctor is right, and they have got it all wrong. WOW, hoodagestit!

Nowhere does our spinner argue with any cognisance, at all, that >> Phil Jones has effectively “pulled the plug” on AGW. <<

Spindoc also says;

>> Like I said, his (Phil Jones) views now contradict the “warmers” ... <<

Complete and utter nonsense.

You’re right bugsy, Phil Jones didn't say what spinner thought he said – but he won’t get over it.

Don’t be surprised if you can’t find the question to Phil Jones about "residual atmospheric carbon" – the spindoctor was not lying ... he was making it up, so don't expect him to find it either.

_______

spindoc >> qanda, In the table from Phil Jones BBC interview there are two errors, one contradicts his testimony at the hearing, can you spot them <<

You really don’t have to prove you are a clueless twit, spindoc – I already know. For the onlookers though, be my guest ... go ahead.

Btw spindoc;

>> Thanks qanda, that’s the BBC one I wanted you to produce. <<

Another um, er ... not lie spinner, but a typical case of whatyacallit urself, amnesia!

You did not want me to produce that at all. I was flying in the wind because you wouldn't/couldn't produce the transcript you yourself were referring to. You were asking bugsy this:

>> Perhaps you could post the transcript of the UK Parliamentary Hearing, then we can disscuss what Phil Jones actually "said". That way we don't need to discuss what "I think he said". <<

1 of 2

I apologise to all onlookers for giving the impression that I’m an arrogant old fart who is totally condescending of those (like spindoc) that question the veracity of the current knowledge of ‘climate science’. Alas, it’s true. I have nothing but contempt and complete disdain for these so called ‘sceptics’ – resolute in denying what the vast majority of scientists, including those listed here;

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689

are telling them.

Sure, we don’t know everything – but we do know a heluvalot more than the 'spindocs' of the world. To the real cynics (not sceptics), please ... ask questions, seek answers. At the end of the day, if you are still unsure about the science, perhaps you should be enrolling in an undergraduate course (at least) or be doing post-grad work in real ‘climate science’, whatever that may be. Who knows, maybe one day you too could be contributing to the stuff that pseudo-sceptics (like spindoc) can really ever, only, dream about.

It’s tiring and it’s tedious – and sometimes we lose our patience, we are only human. Yet, no matter how many times we rebut, rebuff and refute the ‘pseudo-sceptic’ claims, in no matter how many cogent ways, responses and replies – the ‘pseudo-sceptics’ still do not want to accept what the overwhelming numbers in the scientific community, the real sceptics, themselves accept. That is; AGW is real, it is significant, and that it’s about time the politicians got their act together, to show real leadership, and to do something substantive about it.

Cont’d in the morning

Qanda states : – the ‘pseudo-sceptics’ still do not want to accept what the overwhelming numbers in the scientific community, the real sceptics, themselves accept. That is; AGW is real, it is significant ...
Qanda reiterates what we have known all along, namely, that warmists ACCEPT that AGW is real. The real problem with this is that the warmists cannot provide any irrefutable evidence to support their acceptance.
If they had nothing to hide, why did Phil Jones and his CRU colleagues refuse to respond to freedom of information requests and make the information public? Why were the CRU and other associated warmist contributors to the IPCC so concerned about the fact that the predicted post 1998 global warming was not happening?

qanda - full of alarmist hysteria and more shrill than usual "AGW is real, it is significant, and that it’s about time the politicians got their act together, to show real leadership, and to do something substantive about it."

It doesn't matter what you call skeptics, whether your current ploy of trying to pigeonhole them into different "sub species", pseudo-skeptics, real-skeptics, cynics, deniers and then attack the characteristics of each straw man thus set up, it's beside the point.

The point everyone makes, there is no proof that CO2 drives temperature, and saying it is not needed, does not make it so. There is no proof that paying a big new tax will help at all reduce CO2.

An alarmist with vested interests in keeping the alarm and doomsaying going, is hardly going to be credible.

Keeping the money pouring into renewables and the pockets of scientists researching, "the effects of climate change", is clearly the common motive of many so called scientists. Scientists who then blither and blather at anyone who threatens their goose that lays golden eggs.

You try to predict the future, as weather forecasters do and don't understand you are now suffering the same ridicule they do. Which I suspect is why you all bristle so much when weather is mentioned in the same sentence as climate.

I fully understand your anger, you've made poor decisions and want others to pay for them and your career choice and feel threatened by the questioning and skepticism.

You feel very strongly about this, don't you?

2 of 2

So typically, ‘pseudo-sceptics’ will re-badge and repeat their favourite dogma time after time. They proffer nothing new, and demonstrate time after time, that they really don't understand what has been shown or explained to them, that dispels their misguided beliefs. As we see here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10243#168034

And here;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10372#169940

And here;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10372#169965

They just keep re-badging and repeating the same old guff, they have no semblance of understanding anything in response - so ignore it.

Yep, pseudo-sceptics (including rpg) want absolute 100% proof, but continuously fail to understand that science can never give 100% absolute proof.

Of course no real scientist wants AGW to be as significant as it is, so if we are in a position to test the hypothesis rigorously we do. Guess what? AGW is becoming more robust every time. I really hope some other scientist out there can genuinely put a nail in the coffin of AGW, but to date, they haven’t. They should keep trying though, regardless that some pseudo-sceptics think research funds should be with-held from ‘climate science’ – astounding rationale showing just how vacuous these pseudo-sceptics are.

Yes, the Raycoms and rpg's of this world just don’t want to accept what they just don’t understand. They‘re blind and deaf to what is presented to them and, stuck in a mud of their own making, they keep shouting from their pulpits about their own brand of ‘truth’, to whomever will stop by and listen.

As we've seen, the pseudo-sceptics will tip scorn and shite on anyone (Professor Phil Jones included) who conflicts with their own brand of ‘expert’ opinion, notwithstanding their own brand of ‘expert’ opinion is gleaned from the sanctity of their own arm-chair, and over the time it takes to google their favourite shock jock columnist, or their book-marked ‘denialist’ blog-site.

Note to Andrew Glickson, who normally replies to comments on his articles?

I take your point, but do you really expect to ‘win’ people over by scaring the crap out of them? You do know something about the Earth System; you know bugger all about shaping human behaviour.

Bugsy/qanda, when you two have quite finished with the “froth and bubble”, can we get back to the debate?

This debate is not about what I said; it’s about what Phil Jones said. OLO’ers may be wondering why your reflective angst and abuse is focused upon the messenger? You are not as you stated, refuting and rebutting “pseudo-skeptic” claims; it is Prof. Jones you have to challenge.

I made the statement that Phil Jones effectively pulled the plug on AGW, because he cannot substantiate any CRU warming trends.

When Phil Jones acknowledges that the warming trends the CRU produced cannot be repeated independently, AGW died. I evidenced this by pointing specifically to his testimony under oath which you can read for yourself.

I have also pointed to a long list of other expert testimony, from the very same hearings that support this position.

The raw data is either “lost”, or not “otherwise available” because of agreements with the supplier countries (FOI?). Where raw data is available the SOA’s (schedule of adjustments) are missing, as is the case with the NZ data from NIWA.

The only complete sets of data remaining are derivative, worthless, unless of course you know differently. So when you plead << please ... ask questions, seek answers. >>, I think we just have.

The AGW phenomena have been Europe-centric from the start, opportunistically exploited by Euro-Politics for power and money. The concentric ripples are now fading back to their origins, Europe.

Just like the “Stockholm Syndrome” afflicts those held physically hostage, “Brussels Syndrome” afflicts those held ideologically hostage. It is unhealthy to make a sudden transition. This why those who have obsessed over AGW, politicians, media, intelligencia, academia and the warmers worldwide, must keep the “dream alive” long enough for a graceful (non- embarrassing) exit strategy.

There may be a future initiative to collect good temperature data, to process it independently and to publish conclusions. This would be an excellent result from Mexico in December. In the meantime no politician will legislate on this “false premise”.

Actually spindoc, this 'debate' we are now havingis as much about the misinterpretation and misprepresentations in what you think Phil Jones said, as about what he actually said.

Tests for "statisical signifacance" aren't tests for existence. They're tests of likelihood what's observed being due to chance or not (ie a 'false positive').
The 95% cut-off (ie P<0.05) is a standard cut-off across most sciences for 'statistical significance' and ususally means we can be 95% certain that the trend is not a random effect. However if (P<0.1), ie significant at the 90% level, we can still be better than 90% confident the effect is not due to randomness.

It's completely erroneous to say that not reaching 95% significance means that something (ie warming trend) doesn't exist.

Secondly, Phil Jones didn't acknowledge the warming trends the CRU produced cannot be repeated independently. In fact he made specific testimony to the opposite right from the start of his questioning, Q78-Q80.

"Q79 Ian Stewart: You believe that the data is robust and verifiable?
Professor Jones: Yes.
Q80 Ian Stewart: Can I ask you then just to explain—some of us are not scientists on this Committee—how it could be verified? Was that implicit in what you have just told us?
Professor Jones: That was implicit in what I told you because we are all working independently so we may be using a lot of common data but the way of going from the raw data to a derived product of gridded temperatures and then the average for the hemisphere and the globe is totally independent between the different groups."

Independently verified trends. That someone cannot reproduce exactly what they did in one specific instance does not mean that they didn't do it correctly nor does it mean that it doesn't exist, and certainly doesn't signal the "death" of AGW, no matter how much you want to believe that.
Oh, and Jones said that the raw data is still available from the meteorological stations that provided them in the first place.

Again, Phil Jones did not say what you think he did. Get over it.

bugsy .. "Independently verified trends. That someone cannot reproduce exactly what they did in one specific instance does not mean that they didn't do it correctly" Yes it means exactly that, it means if you cannot reproduce it, it's junk.

Being able to reproduce results is science, if you can not produce it not science.

"nor does it mean that it doesn't exist" yes it does, that's exactly what it means, regardless of what mates he had review it! No wonder reasonable people have all but lost total interest in alarmist blather speak.

If results cannot be reproduced, it's garbage .. end of story no matter how much you want it to be real, or proof or whatever .. that's a fundamental of science, that you can repeat a process and get the same result.

that's the problem with all Jones data, it's made up, it's "adjusted" out of all significance. i.e. garbage.

The raw data is not what Jones used, he used the raw data as the fundamental building block and "processed it", that's what he put up - not the raw data.

The FOIs were to find out what he did and how did he get that dataset that he ended up with and was used by the IPCC.

Do you get it yet? That's why sites like WUWT are getting attention, they relate to the source of the original data, as much as qanda disdains raw data and how it is collected, it is fundamental and if you ignore that, you have crap.

I think you do get it but just can't face it .. it's what everyone who is horrified by what they did is on about and I can't believe you are too stupid to see that. You can't just argue it away as Jones did by saying, "well make up your own dataset, mine is private"

That's what the problem is, he made it up, using "scientific methods" of course, yes, of course .. nudge nudge wink wink. Ah ah ahker bullshytte!

So tell me then, rpg, what does it mean when several independent researchers process the same data in independent ways and end up with very close results? That they are not exactly the same is expected, that they give us the same answer on warming trends, is significant.

That's what Phil Jones is talking about.

That someone like say, NASA, cannot EXACTLY reproduce the CRU result is not a major issue, if they can process even a different dataset and end up with essentially the same answer, that's what reproducibility really means.

Bugsy, I said only derived (gridded) data is available, I am correct and Jones confirms this.

Q100 Graham Stringer: You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, the weather stations, all the information, the codes, have been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?
Professor Jones: That is not the case.

Q105 Graham Stringer: He wanted the data, he wanted the codes, he wanted all the other
information and you refused to give it to him. Why?
Professor Jones: Because we had a lot of work and resources invested in it. That was way before the FOI requests started.

Q106 Graham Stringer: I am interested in why you have, both through the Freedom of Information Act requests and to Hughes and to other scientists, refused to give them the data.
Professor Jones: We have given them the gridded product so that we have not given them the raw station data but the product in grid boxes.

Q107 Graham Stringer: They cannot go back to the basics, as any scientists would want to, and say “Is this right?” You have denied them the right to check yours.
Professor Jones: We have made the gridded product available from the very beginning but not the raw station data. Most scientists do not want to deal with the raw station data, they would rather deal with a derived product.

Q109 Mr Boswell: What has not gone out, which has excited these allegations of undue withholding, and why did it not go out?
Professor Jones: It is the specific raw data that we used. We have always put out a gridded product and people can get to much the same raw data from other sites in the USA.

Jones admits the Met Office even now only has 80% of the raw data, seven countries have refused to release theirs (?) and the NZ (NIWA) data has no SOA’s. Because of this it will take years to reproduce or verify the CRU’s work.

Actually spindoc, only the gridded data is available from the CRU. The raw data can be gathered independently, if that is what is required. It is not really required, as the trends have been confirmed using much of the same data by several groups working independently.

On the issue of 'reproducibility', if I was working on, say, oxygen consumption in rats and produced a certain result that after administration of a particular drug, if you wanted to check my result, what would be the best way of doing this? Would you put in an FOI to get all the raw data reads and photocopies of all the lab books and spreadsheets to 'reproduce' the experiment? That is not reproduction, that is duplication of a calculation.

If you wanted to reproduce the experiment you would do it independently, preferably using your own rats. Since we are actually talking about global temperature data, much of the raw datasets would be similar of course, but they don't need to be exactly the same. That the trends were supported by completely different datasets (eg satellite measurements), means that the result was well verified. Much more so than just repeating a calculation. Asking someone for pretty much all of their data and procedures is not standard practice in science. In fact, in some circles it's downright rude. That you seem to think that because they didn't let every Tom, Tony and Harry at their life's work, just so every detail can picked apart on the internet, that it doesn't exist as a scientific result or isn't science, is only worthy of derision.

bugsy "So tell me then, rpg, what does it mean when several independent researchers process the same data in independent ways and end up with very close results?

That's what I'm asking .. what does it mean, when a "science" can produce different results from the same source data ..

So what have they produced bugsy ?

"That they are not exactly the same is expected, that they give us the same answer on warming trends, is significant." Who are these people who all got similar but not the same results?

Is that "good enough" for climate science is it - what crap you speak, that's not good enough at all and you know it, you're fudging along with the rest of them.

Is that what you reckon science is?

So which do we believe, or should we all wait till a set of results is produced for everyone ..

Come on, you haven't answered anything, just added to your own confusion, do you read what you post?

Jones produced rubbish, and could not release how he derived it as he made it up, all the reviews in the world will not change that.

He admitted destroying data .. end of story, he should be horsewhipped and run out of science on a rail - in fact he thought he would be when this all broke, he looked quite upset, but the chaps have all gathered around and made sure they don't have one of the chaps looking silly, or they all would - if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, probably is a duck eh qanda, otherwise, why would anyone question it?

Qanda's argument is that climate scientists say they have decided the world is warming due to CO2 and if anyone disbelieves that they are ... (insert appropriate insult here) and are wrong, so there! No further correspondence entered into, (I wish!)

Qanda, just wishing away skeptics is not working is it, regardless of shrilly increasing insults and attempted bullying - you must be a joy around your office, (while you deliver the day's mail.)

Rpg is right Bugsy, not only do you not read what others contribute, you don’t even read what you contribute.

You write << Actually spindoc, only the gridded data is available from the CRU. The raw data can be gathered independently, if that is what is required. >>.

Only two lines above your opening response it says << Jones admits the Met Office even now only has 80% of the raw data, seven countries have refused to release theirs (?) and the NZ (NIWA) data has no SOA’s. Because of this it will take years to reproduce or verify the CRU’s work >>.

So yes, the raw data could be gathered independently, and yes, it would take years, and yes it most certainly is required. It is required because until and unless it is, AGW is dead and I doubt any politician in the whole world will legislate to support your view.

Your recovery from “Brussels Syndrome” will not be easy. This process, like all traumas, is denial, anger, acceptance, reconciliation and recovery. You are stuck in “denial” and that is not good for you.

Sorry Bugsy but you are way out of your depth on this.

No spindoc and rpg, it is you who are 'out of your depth' in scientific issues generally. If the AGW case solely relied in the CRU, you may (only may) have a point. But it doesn't. The CRU's conclusions have been supported by many groups working separately.

The trend for warming has been independently verified by many different organisations. To name some:

American:
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
USA National Climate Data Centre
Global Climate Laboratory, National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, North Carolina.

Chinese:
Key Laboratory for Environmental Change and Natural Disaster Research, Institute of Resources Science, Beijing

Spanish:
Grupo de Física de la Atmósfera y del Océano, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Vigo, Ourense, Spain

rpg, the fact that different groups come up with the same conclusions, and that the trends are only slightly different, shows to me that they were truly independent, because they would have treated and averaged the data differently, or even used completely different data. I would be more worried if they came up with exactly the same answers and the same graphs, that would indicate some sort of fix was in and that the results were duplicated rather than separately reproduced.

spindoc, "Brussels syndrome", rhetoric much? Make that one up yourself? Because it's been used before for something else you know.

Bugsy, I admire your tenacity. You have plugged away against tough opposition and have demonstrated a level of determination that is surpassed by few. Please accept my apologies for past abuse. You have earned much respect.

Aside from the possibility of “questionable” stuff from the CRU you quite rightly note that so many other institutions produce independent “similar results”? You suggest this is support that the warming trend identified by the CRU is real.

This is a terrific point and deserves my best effort, so here goes.

The analytical computer applications to process the data are not, as pointed out by Phil Jones, “rocket science”. The only other variables are data and adjustments. The data comes in two forms, “primary” or raw data and “secondary” data which have been modified in some way. The modifications to which secondary data can be subjected are either approved SOA’s (schedules of adjustments) and/or gridded averages. Both sets of secondary data are derived.

There is nothing wrong with derived data providing that the SOA’s are provided to demonstrate “what” was done to the raw data. In the case of gridded averages, any “assumptions” are embedded and therefore independent processing will typically produce a “similar” result.

Each country and their scientific institutions have access to their own countries’ raw temperature data. This does not allow them to arrive at “global” projections. To do this they must access other data, either directly where allowed or via various scientific websites as referred to by Phil Jones. This access can be open, for a fee or only through “affiliation”.

The CRU is not, contrary to popular belief funded by the British, the CRU is funded by the US DOE. Its affiliates are the US research agencies to which you refer. The data they share and merge with their own data is the stuff Phil Jones makes available which is only “gridded” derived averages. (See; Q106, Q107 and Q109) The data that Jones is referring to, that the CRU makes available for sharing “on these other websites” is only “gridded derived” data, no raw data.

Continued:

Continued:

Q148, Graham Stringer “It is the United States Department of Energy that funds you, is it not?”
Professor Jones: Yes.

Q149 Graham Stringer: It puts you above people who have paid their tax dollars to fund you because they cannot check the work you are doing.
Professor Jones: But they can get access to all the data on these other websites.

Unfortunately for Jones, he admits the Met Office even now (as at March 2010) has only 80% of the raw data available to “others”, seven countries have refused to release theirs (?) and the NZ (NIWA) data has no SOA’s.

So the independent researchers to whom you refer do not in fact produce “independent” work at all, because the work they have done is based upon and merged with , 1) the assumptions generated by the CRU, 2) derived or gridded average data, 3) data with no SOA’s and 4) incomplete data sets. All as evidenced by Phil Jones himself.

This means that even if they did so called “independent” analysis after March 2010, there would be little change to the outcomes.

Like so many who might not understand the science, but do understand processes, I know these results and predictions are utterly meaningless. I know this because the input data is meaningless, and I know this because Phil Jones told me. It therefore applies to any and all who use these data.

The issues for the CRU in general and Phil Jones in particular are much more serious than the UK parliamentary hearings. If this ever get to the US courts, and 16 “litigation hold notices” have already been lodged against the US EPA, US taxpayers are going to have a very large bite out of several UK institutions and possibly some government agencies. Uncle Sam does not like being duded

Oh spindoc, what convincing narrative, if only it were true.

I think you will find that the largest fraction of the CRU's funding is from the European Commission.
I'm sure the US DoE is also a major contributor on specific projects, such as the Land surface climate station records but it certainly doesn't fund all their activities.
Interestingly, they also acknowledge funding from sources such as Shell, British Petroleum, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Sultanate of Oman and many more.

Anyway, that's beside the point.

The narrative that you give relies on the idea that everyone relies upon the gridded/derived datasets put out by the CRU. However, I'm finding it very difficult to find evidence of this. I'm sure a lot of people do use their datasets, but many also use data from the GHCN, nor do you mention the raw datasets held at the National Climatic Data Center. I cannot tell whether all these datasets have have all been 'tainted' by the gridded datasets produced by the CRU? Have you any evidence of this or is it just a story?
The data from the Americans is free for educational or governmental institutions ("affiliated" or not), unfortunately private users have to pay. But seriously, most unaffiliated 'private users' have better things to do with their time and bandwidth?

The idea that "US taxpayers" would sue the University of East Anglia and 'others' is pure hyperbole and highly risible.
But then again, I don't like being duded either, I prefer a rougher look, and I'm sure many Americans do to.

Havn't had time to read all the posts here so this might have been mentioned before. The author states that in the mid pliocene period that global warming allowed humans to migrate. I may be wrong but as far as i am aware humans were not around 3-5 million years ago.