Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Dan26]

Why do the media never mention it

The media are mainly left-wing types. It is full of journalists that toe the Labor/Greens line, and wouldn't know about the scientific case for the sceptics which is far more persuasive. It's ignorance, rather than bias.

The climate change debate has died off, as people have realised it is a giant con. Look at the U.S presidential race. In three debates, do you know how any times cliamte change came up? NONE.

Yes, that's right. None. This so-called all important issue which is going to kill us all, because of these scary "tipping points" and other such rubbish has not rated a mention in the worlds biggest economy. So much for an important issue.

There is no empirical evidence. People know this now, are and running away from the issue.

Upton, the naive Green that he is, posts a whole bunch of links purporting to be evidence. How stupid would one have to be to think that something as complex as climate change is "proved" weekly with a whole bunch of links? Does he honestly think it's that simple? He probably doee.

How can he explain the hundreds of scienitsts that have changed their opinion. How can he explain the fact that NO scientist has gone form sceptic to alarmist, but heaps have gone the other way.

You probably think that an exaggeration. Surely there must be one scientist somewhere who used to be sceptical but has changed his opinion into becoming alamist? Nope. Not even one. Everyone is changing to sceptical.

The impact that humans have with our own C02 is so wafer-thin-small that still not one peer-reviewed paper can provide empirical evidence that these emisisons by these hated humans are the main driver of warming or that they are dangerous in any way. Not one peer-reviewed paper. NOT ONE.

That destoys the alarmists. Empirical evidence is all they need for their case to be right. But they don't have it.

 

[OldBlueFan]

The media are mainly left-wing types.

The level of willful ignorance required to utter this preposterous claim renders the rest of the post completely meaningless.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

I sense this thread needs the old disclaimer...

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I honestly thought that any objective person would have twigged after climategate 2

copy to a safe place!!and leave original there

Briffa to Ian Harris the IT guy.

Warmer in the past check


MWP check



Not much warming in the 20th century check



Plenty more at the link.

My personal favorite

OK, this is going nowhere. I believe we were discussing whether or not it has warmed in x period of time, I showed you two lines of evidence that refute the claim:

1. A definitive statement from the Met Office that assemble the HADCRU data disavowing the notion that you can cherry pick your way to a statistically valid trend.

2. Clear evidence (published in a journal, not a blog) showing that the planet has continued to accumulate at an ever increasing rate, that the oceans absorb the vast majority which accounts for the clear energy flux imbalance (heat energy equivalent to detonating half a billion Hiroshima bombs every year, the oceans are heating at a rate equivalent to detonating 150 million bombs in the oceans every year), trying to use the surface temp as the arbiter of what constitutes AGW is like assuming that the tip represents the sum total of the iceberg.

Your response was to try and divert from that by pointing to some amateur bloggers analysis of two individual temp stations in WA, without any kind of context to show exactly what relevance it was supposed to have to anything.

Now you're trying to divert in a big way by trying to use cherry picked quotes relating to palaeoclimatology to... to what exactly?

What relation do you think tree rings from the medieval era have to whether or not it has warmed over the last 16 years or not?

Its just a Gish Gallop through the usual set of denier talking points, if you get caught out on one you just jump to the next one. The denier playbook has become so boringly predictable.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

.

Upton, the naive Green that he is, posts a whole bunch of links purporting to be evidence. How stupid would one have to be to think that something as complex as climate change is "proved" weekly with a whole bunch of links? Does he honestly think it's that simple? He probably doee.
.

Yeah, stupid links to actual research! Dan knows its not simple, oh no, its much more complex than that and only he and the bloggers he reads have the wit to understand how to unpick the conspiracy and find the truth that the corrupt scientists have so elaborately hidden from the world.

Thank God Captain Denier, the caped crusader , is on the case!

Proof is for mathematics and liquor, science is about evidence, of which you have none. You deny evidence and point to opinions of people who aren't qualified to hold such opinions. You're a complete Muppet who doesn't have the first clue about the relative weight of evidence and what actually constitutes expert opinion.

 

[Ripper]

OK, this is going nowhere. I believe we were discussing whether or not it has warmed in x period of time, I showed you two lines of evidence that refute the claim:

1. A definitive statement from the Met Office that assemble the HADCRU data disavowing the notion that you can cherry pick your way to a statistically valid trend.[/qoute]

Did you read your own link? I agrees that there has been no warming (sorry .03degrees) for 16 years in Hadcrut4. Differences between Hadcrut3 & hadcrut4

2. Clear evidence (published in a journal, not a blog) showing that the planet has continued to accumulate at an ever increasing rate, that the oceans absorb the vast majority which accounts for the clear energy flux imbalance (heat energy equivalent to detonating half a billion Hiroshima bombs every year, the oceans are heating at a rate equivalent to detonating 150 million bombs in the oceans every year), trying to use the surface temp as the arbiter of what constitutes AGW is like assuming that the tip represents the sum total of the iceberg.

Now whose being alamist

Your response was to try and divert from that by pointing to some amateur bloggers analysis of two individual temp stations in WA, without any kind of context to show exactly what relevance it was supposed to have to anything.

The relevance is that they are comparing the temperature recorded by the BOM with what they end up being in the HADcrut database. Note what years are used and what years arn"t.
Note the effect the Adjustments have on the 1961-1990 baseline
Note that nothing is used between 1900 and the mid 1940's
Note that not one but two stations have been adjusted down in 1940's
Have you located either station in the GHCN database yet?
These are just a couple there are more.

Here is Halls Creek for example,
This also compares with what the UK Met office released after climategate that is purports to be
“Based on the original temperature observations sourced from records held by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology”.
Note that the CRU2010 record actually shows cooling from 1950.
Note that Halls creek temerature is extrapolated over conservatively 1M sqr km or 15% of Australia's land mass
I even emailed the BOM to get copies of the original observer sheets to start from scratch but was directed to their website.

That was not a surprise when you read what David Jones had to say

Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also
easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single
station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them)

Now you're trying to divert in a big way by trying to use cherry picked quotes relating to palaeoclimatology to... to what exactly?

What relation do you think tree rings from the medieval era have to whether or not it has warmed over the last 16 years or not?

Its just a Gish Gallop through the usual set of denier talking points, if you get caught out on one you just jump to the next one. The denier playbook has become so boringly predictable.

Feel free to read the links to the whole email. We know that there has been consistent adjusting down the past that continues to this day.

So much so that BOM discarded it's "High Quality" site so as the Auditor general didn't need to Audit it.

Note that there was NO mention of Global warming /Climate Change / Global climate disruption in any of the presidential debates.

Note that In 2010, there are 22 coal or lignite based power plants currently under construction or in detailed planning in Germany, due to start up in the period 2010 -2015. These plants will have a combined capacity of 24,800 MW and emit almost 150 Million tonnes CO2 per year.

Looks to me that this scare has run it's course.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

This is just more diversion and obfuscation, your goal appears to be an overarching poisoning of the well fallacy, you are just trying to prove a conspiracy theory. You think that you can deflect inconvenient evidence by referring back to manufactured scandals by amateurs on the internet posing as "scientists"

Now, to your points, yes I read the Met Office link, in particular the part that pointed out that 0.3 is not inconsistent with models, that every model run shows 15 year periods with negative trends, & that trying to cherry pick your way to a statistically negative trend us a cheap parlour trick that would only fool the terminally gullible.

As for the Hiroshima analogy, its not alarmist, its a very effective means of putting dome very large numbers into perspective.

would like to focus on the total figure at the bottom and try to convert that into numbers that we can all get our heads around. To try and make numbers with lots of zeroes meaningful.

The total heat accumulation in the environment from 1961 to 2003 is estimated as 15.9 x 1022 Joules. Got that? Is that clear in your head? Now read on.

...

Roughly 5 x 1022 Joules since 2003. Since the IPCC's graph above up to 2003 shows that most of the energy from global warming is in the oceans, to a first approximation, Ocean Heat Content change since then is going to be close enough to the Total Heat Content change.

So, total heat content change from 1961 to 2011 - 50 years - is approximately 21 x 1022 joules.

210000000000000000000000 joules

(a joule is 1 watt for 1 second. So a 100 watt light bulb will use 100 joules in 1 second)

A BIG number but somewhat unreal. So how much heat is this. What could it do? What is it in the real world, where we don't routinely look at numbers that big.

That is HOW Big...?
This is a rate of heating of 133 Terawatts. Or 0.261 Watts/m2

133 Terrawatts is 2 Hiroshima bombs a second. Continually since 1961.

Over 50 years it could heat around 500 trillion tonnes of water from 0 °C to 100 °C - around 870,000 Sydney Harbours.

If we now add in the heat needed to boil water dry once it has reached 100 °C and apply this to Sydney Harbour we calculate a very simple answer:

It would boil Sydney Harbour dry EVERY 12 HOURS

As for your HADCRUT conspiracy, sourced entirely from the rantings of Jo Nova, I'm not particularly interested TBH.

Science is 'audited' through the peer review process, I am not am authority in statistics and don't have the expertise to assess the value of methodology used by a blogger. As a layman, any analysis does not bear consideration until it has been given a clean bill of health by people who do have the expertise.

The "scientists" referred to do not have relevant expertise, have not had their methodology tested and some of those mentioned in your links have already had their shoddy work debunked as being useless at best or deliberately misleading at worst in their "analysis" of the Darwin temperature station

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/09/willis-eschenbach-caught-lying/

Until these self proclaimed "scientists" start participating in the scientific debate and submitting their criticisms to the rigours of review by a reputable journal their efforts are not worth the bandwidth it takes to host their blogs.

You can divert and obfuscate all you want, it will never make reality go away, it HAS continued to warm, the majority of the ten warmest years have occurred over the last sixteen years, extreme weather records are being smashed over and over, Arctic sea ice is collapsing before our eyes decades earlier than predicted, Greenland is having never before observed melting events, across the world trees and flowers are blooming earlier, migratory patterns of fish, birds and insects are shifting etc etc etc.

The empirical evidence stacks higher and higher while you dismiss it all on the basis of some cheap statistical manipulation published on conspiracy theory blogs.

The big problem here is that you seem to have a lot of trouble with critically evaluating the weight of expertise applied to various opinions and/or susceptible to accepting opinion that confirms your preexisting political biases

 

[Upton Sinclair]

A must watch - PBS' Frontline rips the denier industry a new one & applies the blowtorch to wannabe demagogues like Fred Singer and Christopher Monckton, holding them to account in way to which they are clearly unaccustomed.

 

[Dan26]

Yeah, stupid links to actual research!

You ignore any evidence (or lack of it, in the case of the alarmists) that goes against your theory. A theory that has been discredited and abandoned to the extent that it has not even been discussed in the US election.

But you won't listen. You will "seacrh for videos, links, to validate your pre-conceived bias instead of truly researching the topic.

I've already "called you out" on your confirmation bias, but naive fool that you are, you don't listen. You just post more videos and links without even looking at the far more persuasive other side of the argument. You just did it again with a government funded PBS (basically a warmist bible) video. Whats next? Videos from the BBC or ABC?

Thank God Captain Denier, the caped crusader , is on the case!

Name calling is the catchcry of the militant warmist. They know they have lost so they resort to discredit the real scientists and others by calling them "deniers." I don't deny climate change. It has been happening for 4.5 billion years.

Whenever the topic of the scientists abandoning the warmist cause comes up, you run like a coward. I can name 31,000 scientists who are against the alarmist theory. You can name 25 who signed the most important chapter of the last IPCC report. It was over 50, but climategate saw even more abandon it.

25. Unbelievable. Are there any scientists NOT funded by the government left, who are alarmists?

You deny evidence

Laughable comment from the man who clings to a theory despite not one peer-reviewed paper supplying empirical evidence to support his whacky green agenda.

This is why your argument fails, and scientists the world over are running away. There is no empirical evidence and all the predictions have been exaggerated.

and point to opinions of people who aren't qualified to hold such opinions.

What, people like Richard Lindzen? It's a moot point that you make, because argument by authority is NOT science.

Science is not a numbers game, Upton. As Einstein said when Hitler commissioned a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein: "If I were wrong, one would have been enough." Nonetheless, I think we should all be quietly encouraged by the recent letter by 50 former NASA engineers astonauts and scientists protesting at the way their once-great institution has been prostituting its name in order to promote the great man-made global warming scam.

The letter says:

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.​

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.​

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.​

You're a complete Muppet who doesn't have the first clue about the relative weight of evidence and what actually constitutes expert opinion.

Says the human hating Greenie who is yet to produce any empirical evidence to support his theory.

It kills you doesn't it? You deeply wish that one peer-reviewed paper existed. You know the one... the one that doesn't exist that shows empirical evidence that human C02 emissions are the main driver of warming or that human C02 emissions are dangerous. It kills you, and you know it destoys you.

The great global warming "catastrophe" (LOL!) is so dangerous and so important the most powerful nation on Earth and biggest emitter of this nasty C02 that makes plants grow has not seen fit to discuss it once during the election.

But we need to act to save the planet!!!

Fools. Naive green fools.

 

[Dan26]

The level of willful ignorance required to utter this preposterous claim renders the rest of the post completely meaningless.

The fact that you would make this above comment so "matter-of-factly" shows you how naive the leftists are to the bias in the media.

It is estimated that about 80% of journalists are left-wing. The left just tends to attract that partcular job-type, in the same way that the military attracts right-wing types. It's just the way it has always been. All the commercial networks, the ABC and SBS (SBS cartoonishly so) are left-wing. The main political guys on the three commercial networks, Bongiorno (Ten), Riley (Seven) and Oakes (Nine) are all left wing.

Where do you think the phrase "liberal media" came from? From nowhere?

Why do you think Fox News is so successful? Hell, it was Rupert Murdochs easiest commericial decision. Make a cable news channel hosted by conservatives, and it will rate? Why will it rate? Because NO WHERE ELSE IN THE TV MEDIA WAS THIS MARKET BEING USED.

The channel filled a void, and as a consequence it rates about 3 times as high as the leftist CNN.

The media are primarily filled with leftist types. It is why conservatives are held to higher standards and are treated totally differently to liberals.

 

[Kram]

Isn't all this global warming guff just a modern day religion?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

What, people like Richard Lindzen? .

No, Linzden is qualified, sadly for him though his ideas have been tested and proven wrong. Poor old guy is still clinging to his flawed worldview. Sadly, the self professed sceptics don't apply the same standards of of scepticism to their acolytes as they do everyone else. But, of course, selective scepticism us a hallmark of denialism.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

It is estimated...

Unfortunately, of course, the person doing the "estimating" is Dan, and Dan's idea of "left-wing" is anything more progressive than David and Charles Koch.

Recites IQ-draining meaningless catchphrase

 

[CM86]

As Einstein said when Hitler commissioned a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein: "If I were wrong, one would have been enough."

Great point Dan. Hitler was basically doing the same as these insane alarmists......

I feel the alarmist have become lost along the way of mass genocide... but they can bring it back! It's almost like they are trying to prevent mass genocide... or even the total obliteration of life....

On top of that, Einstein said the above quote....... So why hasn't one person actually proved false the evidence of human made co2 emissions causing warming?
Where is the one person who has proved it false? as one would be enough.....Why the odd areas, and blurred realities? The nit picking to try and dissuade beliefs? But lets face it. Clearly the money hungry Jews are behind this race for power with global warming alarmism!!!

 

[OldBlueFan]

It is estimated that about 80% of journalists are left-wing.

Do you have a single independent thought in your head, or can you only regurgitate sound bites from denialist blogs?

Every disingenuous point you make is straight out of the denialist obfuscation playbook.

1. "Estimated" by who?
2. Even if this ridiculous stat is true, journalists don't make editorial policy.
3. Even if they do claim to be "left-leaning", that is completely contradicted by the fact that they don't reflect this in their writing.

Here's another challenge for you to ignore. You compile a list of "left-wing" journalists and for every one you can come up with, I'll come up with 2 from right. If, as you claim, the ratio is 4:1 the other way, you should win comfortably.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

And to divert the discussion from the conspiracy ideation that certain people would like to dominate the discussion for just a moment, some more "recent research". Scientists (you know, people who conduct research and collate data, not people who hide behind their computer grandiosely proclaiming to be "auditing" data they are not qualified to assess) have used the GRACE satellite to determine that the Antarctic is losing 190 million tonnes of ice every day, here's how they did it:

http://theconversation.edu.au/weigh-in-reveals-antarcticas-losing-190-million-tonnes-a-day-10254

But the picture is not the same everywhere and scientists are still debating the exact role of Antarctica in recent sea-level change.

Weighing Antarctica

That was the topic of a study that colleagues and I report on in a paper published recently in the scientific journal Nature. We made use of data from the remarkable Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission, which allows us to produce maps of the Earth’s gravity field. Because gravity changes at a particular location when mass moves around, GRACE allows us to “weigh” changes in the ice sheets.


The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)
Our weigh-in reveals how much ice is being shifted into the oceans from Antarctica over the period when GRACE data exist – from 2002 to 2010. It’s a loss of 69 billion tonnes per year, on average. That is about 190 million tonnes per day or, if you spread it evenly across the ocean surface, about 0.2 millimetres-per-year of sea-level change

(...)

The challenge with GRACE is that it doesn’t measure changes in ice mass after all. It measures total mass change in a column extending all the way from the atmosphere to within the Earth. And so to obtain ice-mass change we needed to subtract off the effects of mass changes in the atmosphere, the oceans and, surprisingly to many, the solid earth itself.

While rock seem hard to most of us, it also changes shape as it is subjected to large forces. Twenty-thousand years ago, at the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), much more ice was stored on land than today – often hundreds of metres more. The bedrock beneath the Antarctic ice experienced the force of that extra load. That resulted in gradual flow of mantle material away from the region in a process known as glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

As the ice load reduced over the next thousands of years, the load was removed and the mantle material began to flow back beneath Antarctica. That flow of material is measured by GRACE. Knowing how fast that is happening is the key to understanding ice mass change using GRACE

CONT.

I love articles like this, where real scientists can communicate exactly what climate research entails in simple terms, it really exemplifies the stark difference between what is actually going on on the science compared to the repetitive denier narrative.

While deniers continue hawing about conspiracies to manipulate the observational record and trying to construct statistical trends that are completely at odds withe reality, real scientists are getting in with their job and are constantly advancing our understanding of the planet

 

[Ripper]

And to divert the discussion from the conspiracy ideation that certain people would like to dominate the discussion for just a moment, some more "recent research". Scientists (you know, people who conduct research and collate data, not people who hide behind their computer grandiosely proclaiming to be "auditing" data they are not qualified to assess) have used the GRACE satellite to determine that the Antarctic is losing 190 million tonnes of ice every day, here's how they did it:

http://theconversation.edu.au/weigh-in-reveals-antarcticas-losing-190-million-tonnes-a-day-10254

Ok, you have convinced me, 0.2mm +- ? per year means that sea levels might rise by 80% of an inch in 100 years.

I love articles like this, where real scientists can communicate exactly what climate research entails in simple terms, it really exemplifies the stark difference between what is actually going on on the science compared to the repetitive denier narrative.

While deniers continue hawing about conspiracies to manipulate the observational record and trying to construct statistical trends that are completely at odds withe reality, real scientists are getting in with their job and are constantly advancing our understanding of the planet

So do I Show there is no catastropy. I guess global warming is very powerfull when it can cool the 1890's by over 1 degree C in Southern cross (among numerous other places) between 1990 & 1993.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Ok, you have convinced me, 0.2mm +- ? per year means that sea levels might rise by 80% of an inch in 100 years.

Well that might be true were if that rate remained constant, if it were the only ice melt contributing to sea level rise & if the laws of physics were completely wrong when it comes to the rate water expands as it heats up! Sadly for us though the world doesn't bend to your misconception of how you feel things ought to work. The laws of physics are writ in stone, they won't change no matter how hard you try to wish them away.

. I guess global warming is very powerfull when it can cool the 1890's by over 1 degree C in Southern cross (among numerous other places) between 1990 & 1993.

I guess the real issue you here is your difficulty in understanding the difference between global temperatures & local temperatures. Let me be very clear, no, you will not show there is no problem by pointing to a single siting station. That would be an absurdity of the highest order.

 

[Ripper]

Well that might be true were if that rate remained constant, if it were the only ice melt contributing to sea level rise & if the laws of physics were completely wrong when it comes to the rate water expands as it heats up! Sadly for us though the world doesn't bend to your misconception of how you feel things ought to work. The laws of physics are writ in stone, they won't change no matter how hard you try to wish them away.




I guess the real issue you here is your difficulty in understanding the difference between global temperatures & local temperatures. Let me be very clear, no, you will not show there is no problem by pointing to a single siting station. That would be an absurdity of the highest order.

The global temperature is calculated from the local temperatures.Most have been heavily adjusted downwards early (or 1900-1940's left out) in WA . Does not that concern you?

I see the useless bloggers caused the withdrawal of the Gergis paper after it has passed peer review.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The global temperature is calculated from the local temperatures.Most have been heavily adjusted downwards early (or 1900-1940's left out) in WA . Does not that concern you?

No because unlike your blog analysis HADCRUT methodology is an open book that has been independently verified, is supported by at least three other independent temperature records, and the dara is available for anyone who thinks they can find flaws. If your conspiracy theory had any basis whatsoever then it would be reflected in the real scientific debate, not in the extremist fringe free-market blogosphere.

I see the useless bloggers caused the withdrawal of the Gergis paper after it has passed peer review.

The authors were quite clear that the withdrawal of the paper had nothing to do with McIntyre's blog, despite his considerable delusions of grandeur.

 

[Ripper]

No because unlike your blog analysis HADCRUT methodology is an open book that has been independently verified, is supported by at least three other independent temperature records, and the dara is available for anyone who thinks they can find flaws. If your conspiracy theory had any basis whatsoever then it would be reflected in the real scientific debate, not in the extremist fringe free-market blogosphere.



The authors were quite clear that the withdrawal of the paper had nothing to do with McIntyre's blog, despite his considerable delusions of grandeur.

The majority of the records come from GHCN.

The emails obtained by FOI seem to cast doubt on the fact that they discovered the flaw themselves.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The majority of the records come from GHCN.

The emails obtained by FOI seem to cast doubt on the fact that they discovered the flaw themselves.

"Seem" being the operative in the sentence. It might "seem" that way if you are already coming at the issue from a position of conspiracy ideation and don't know enough about the work being discussed and are being drip fed cherry picked snippets of discussion devoid of any context.

The first release of stolen emails resulted in four separate & independent enquiries, all of which dismissed the allegations being made by conspiracy theorist bloggers.

The second release was such and underwhelming display of trawling through the scraps of what wasn't already released that it was roundly laughed out if the building.

It might "seem" to confirm a conspiracy in your mind because you have a preconceived notion that scientists are working in cahoots to conspire against your political worldview.

 

[Ripper]

"Seem" being the operative in the sentence. It might "seem" that way if you are already coming at the issue from a position of conspiracy ideation and don't know enough about the work being discussed and are being drip fed cherry picked snippets of discussion devoid of any context.

The first release of stolen emails resulted in four separate & independent enquiries, all of which dismissed the allegations being made by conspiracy theorist bloggers.

The second release was such and underwhelming display of trawling through the scraps of what wasn't already released that it was roundly laughed out if the building.

It might "seem" to confirm a conspiracy in your mind because you have a preconceived notion that scientists are working in cahoots to conspire against your political worldview.

Take the blinkers off.
LOL , Gergis is being cited in the IPCC's AR5 despite being withdrawn,

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Take the blinkers off.
LOL , Gergis is being cited in the IPCC's AR5 despite being withdrawn,

It's been resubmitted, actually

Despite the hysterical claims from the conspiro-sphere the withdrawal isn't indicative of the conclusions being wrong or that some conspiracy was exposed, the paper was withdrawn because a disparity in the methodology described and the methodology used to draw said conclusions. As Karoly explains below, there is a real scientific debate (as opposed to the contrived "debate" among conspiracy theory bloggers) as to the best method - long term trends v short term variation).

So here's the REAL story of Gergis et. al.

Update October 2012: The manuscript “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Ailie Gallant, Steven Phipps and David Karoly has been re-submitted to the Journal of Climate and is being reviewed again.

It was originally put on hold after the authors identified an inconsistency between the methodology described and the methodology that was ultimately used to produce the findings.

The lead author, Professor David Karoly, told The Conversation: “The actual method … included the long-term trend in the temperatures over the period from 1920 to 1990. The manuscript describes the method as having removed the long-term trend. So there’s an inconsistency between what is written in the manuscript and the method that was actually used.

“There’s a scientific debate as to which is the best method to use – whether the long-term trend should be included in looking at the relationship between the proxy data [such as data taken from tree rings] and the observed temperatures in the period from 1920 to 1990, or whether it should be removed and you should only look at the year-to-year variations. That’s a scientific discussion we’re not sure about, and we’re looking at both in reprocessing the data. The issue, however, was that the manuscript said one method was used, and another was used.

“Now that we’ve identified this issue, we will be double- and triple-checking everything. So we won’t rush this. We expect it won’t be until the middle of July until all the data processing is completed, and we expect to submit a revised manuscript back to the journal by the end of July.”

http://theconversation.edu.au/post-1950s-warming-in-region-unmatched-in-1-000-years-7081

So not quite the sensationalist story you've been led to believe it is

 

[Ripper]

Pity the FOI'ed emails cast show that they Neukom "found" the error 2hours after Jeans at climate audit.

People should read the link and make up their own minds