Gore’s speech at Bali was political hot air containing more than 50 errors, inaccuracies and mis-truths. Just a few ‘problems’: (1) The evidence that warming is occurring AT ALL is disappearing; land-based thermometer stations are so screwed up their measurements are just not credible, and satellites show the planet cooling since 1998, (2) Sea level is not actually rising at all, and one leading Swedish scientist is accusing the IPCC of faking their sea level data, (3) It’s increasingly clear that CO2 cannot affect future temperatures, because raising the CO2 concentrations would not raise temperature much at all, (4) The climate models do not fit anymore, they’re drifting farther and farther from the real data, (5) Greenland is not melting, it’s thickening, and so is Antarctica, (6) Polar bears are increasing in numbers, and historically they have survived huge climate changes without problem, (7) Consensus is falling away, and more than 100 scientists have dropped out of the game to send the UN and all country heads a letter saying global warming theory is politically biassed, the data is full of errors, and efforts to stop this non-problem will just waste money.

I work in statistics and theoretical model building, and I am ashamed my fellow scientists would have let weeping political fools railroad them so far from the truth.

WELL, MY FRIENDS, IT HAS COME TO THIS.
In my opinion, everyone who has any interest in AGW should fight to the death to prevent these efforts to silence debate.

Honestly, if we do not speak up to defend our colleagues now, our names will be mud tomorrow.

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTk4OTEzMDU1YjdiMmVlYWJjYTE4MzY2ZGU5ZmNkZDQ=

More precisely, there is no relationship between global temperature data sets. They are often uncorrelated. If they are uncorrelated, then there is not sufficient evidence to claim that these temperature data sets arise from the same source. That is, they are not caused by the same climate system. One may hypothesize that they are, but one cannot prove that they are. The null hypothesis insists on compelling evidence.

The problem with AGW theorists is that their research seems to show a fundamental ignorance of the null hypothesis and how it works. For example, the IPCC documents mention the null hypothesis, but they act as if they can put it to bed once, and never have to deal with it again.

There many null hypotheses in AGW theory. Here are just a few: (1) there is no global climate, (2) there is no single global temperature, (3) there is no single sea level, (4) sea level is not related to surface temperature, (5) there are no upward or downward trends in global temperature, (6) there are no greenhouse gases which influence global climate (7) any observed and verified changes in local temperatures contain a very large proportion of error variance. Therefore, these local temperature changes will regress to the mean over time. In other words, they will go back to where they started out, (8) there are no interaction terms which would change the pace or trend of global temperature, and (9) there are no multivariate predictive models which predict future global climate, (10) humans do not and cannot influence global temperature, (11) any effort by humans to change climate or climate trends would not be cost-effective, (12) humans can adapt to any change in climate, (13) no predicted change in climate is outside the range of historical records.

All of these 13 null hypotheses must be disproved for AGW theory to be considered true. All disproofs must be robust and convincing, such that no reasonable scientist would dispute any part of AGW. There can be no substantive observations which confirm any part of the 13 null hypotheses.

THERE IS NO SINGLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
To prove that there IS a global temperature, one must resolve orthogonalities. Data sets are orthogonal if they show zero correlation with each other. That is, they are statistically and stochastically independent. They are not causally connected. If two data sets are only somewhat correlated, then they are also mostly orthogonal.

For example, if Northern and Southern hemisphere surface temperature data are only poorly correlated, they are mostly orthogonal, and they are mostly not causally connected. But this happens all the time in climate research! Surface temperature data varies up and down and all over the place, even if you exclusively focus on the most reliable data sets. AGW theorists are constantly implicitly confirming the lack of ‘Globality’ in their data.

For example, Northern hemisphere temperature is thought to be different from the tropics, and observationally it does appear to be different from the South. Greenland is (falsely) thought to be melting, but Antarctica is not. Some ocean areas are thought to be heating, others cooling. Fine, but this all disproves ‘Globality’. That is, if global warming is occurring, temperatures throughout the globe MUST move together, they MUST be correlated in a non-trivial way. Otherwise, one cannot disprove the null hypothesis that there is no ‘Global Temperature’.

I think we need to get real with the state of the science instead of launch an attack on the poor people of the planet to satisfy our out of touch Planet Hollywood ideas.

Christy was actually the scientist who identified the problems with the satellite data, why he’s now using the data himself
is a bit of a mystery. The basic problem with this paper is that old data was used (RAOBCORE v1.2 vs v1.4) and that the
error in the models and the data aren’t reported. If proper statistical methods were used, there would be no significant
difference between the models and the data.

Models aren’t perfect, but they are our best means to predict the consequences of increasing GHG in the atmosphere. Even if
the models do have problems, this doesn’t change the fact that ice core records link increasing GHG to global warming, and
that the increase in GHG in the atmosphere can be directly attributed to human activities. It’s time to wake and start doing
something about the problem instead of repeating the claims of scientists who represent a small minority.