The last part of the Penn State inquiry has now reported unanimously that Mike Mann did not engage in any activity that violated scientific norms. Quoting from the report conclusions,
Conclusion of the Investigatory Committee as to whether research misconduct occurred:
The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University.
More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.
The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.
What we said last time….
#97–Fascinating sidelight on history. I note the somewhat facetious tone of the response–perhaps balanced to a point by an acknowledgement that CC is at least theoretically imiportant.
You find the most intriguing things, Hank!
Re #100 – Things will change eventually. In the USA there is great reticence amongst the more libertarian minded economically via the political process of lobbying and disinformation institutes and individuals to attempt to prevent action on ACC/AGW. Some of the media alos have a libertarian right wing intention and that means only stories on denying ACC/AGW mainly. Clearing Michael Mann of any wrongdoing (like we did not know that anyway)is very good news and one that means that the next IPCC report in 2012 should turn the tide finally. It has to!
Personally I find it quite amazing that staff running this website (all who are heavily peer reviewed in climate science or a related subject and both) are actually conversing in public with the public and even so called skeptics post here and mainly get a response and often many replies. Thats pretty special to me.
The main push now is in the seminal prediction of ACC/AGW from CGMs in the 1990s (I have read) that speaks of amplifications warming effects in the northern latitudes. The effects of which are in the receeding Arctic summer sea ice, its thickness (fy/my) and its overall volume which changes the albedo feedback, might cause methane release via permaforst melt to be increased which is another feedback and change the AO perhaps (guesswork here) that might drag more ice out of the arctic (feedback) as well as effects on the vegetation in the Arctic etc. All known feedbacks to amplify and not dampen the Arctic warming.
The present evidence is quite compelling that this is indeed hapenning.
I posted back in April about the coverage of the accusations vs. the exonerations of Drs. Jones and Mann in Climategate Coverage: Unfair & Unbalanced
Web hits:
Dr. Phil Jones accused of wrongdoing resulted in 64,700 hits in the first two weeks after the story broke.
Dr. Michael Mann accused of wrongdoing resulted in 39,000 hits in the first two weeks after the story broke.
When Dr. Jones was exonerated there were only 22,700 hits in the first two weeks after exoneration.
When Dr. Mann was exonerated there were only 17,700 hits in the first two weeks after exoneration.
News organizations:
Dr. Phil Jones accused of wrongdoing resulted in 263 headlines in the first 42 days after the story broke.
Dr. Michael Mann accused of wrongdoing resulted in 143 headlines in the first 42 days after the story broke.
When Dr. Jones was exonerated there were only 24 headlines in the first 19 days after exoneration.
When Dr. Mann was exonerated there were only 27 headlines in the first 25 days after exoneration.
To see the charts and more details go to the blog post. Truly sad how this whole thing panned out but at least Drs. Mann and Jones can continue doing the science.
The sign of a true pioneer is the number of arrows in his/her back
I am very happy for Dr. Mann. It was good that they had the investigation because now he is officially cleared. I never doubted that he would be cleared.
Maybe the demagogic Attorney General Cuccinelli will back off.
Do you young scientists know about the Doctors’ Plot? Climategate is a bit like that, and like the AIDS propaganda against the “plots” of Pentagon scientists.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/nikita-khrushchev-denounces-stalins.html
“The main push now is in the seminal prediction of ACC/AGW from CGMs in the 1990s (I have read) that speaks of amplifications warming effects in the northern latitudes.” pete best — 4 July 2010 @ 1:44 PM
I think you mean the 1890s –
Svante Arrhenius “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground” (excerpts) Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276 (1896)
“A glance at this Table shows that the influence is nearly the same over the whole earth. The influence has a minimum near the equator, and increases from this to a flat maximum that lies the further from the equator the higher the quantity of carbonic acid in the air. For K=0.67 the maximum effect lies about the 40th parallel, for K=1.5 on the 50th, for K=2 on the 60th, and for higher K-values above the 70th parallel. The influence is in general greater in the winter than in the summer, except in the case of the parts that lie between the maximum and the pole. The influence will also be greater the higher the value of ν, that is in general somewhat greater for land than for ocean. On account of the nebulosity of the Southern hemisphere, the effect will be less there than in the Northern hemisphere. An increase in the quantity of carbonic acid will of course diminish the difference in temperature between day and night. A very important secondary elevation of the effect will be produced in those places that alter their albedo by the extension or regression of the snow-covering (see p. 257 [omitted from this excerpt–CJG]), and this secondary effect will probably remove the maximum effect from lower parallels to the neighbourhood of the poles[12].”
reprinted at http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/arrhenius.html
This vindication of Michael Mann’s work and reputation is excellent news. It won’t stop the shameful cries of lying and cheating, but nothing will.
But let’s hope we’ve seen the last of attempts to “get” Mann and, though him, other climate scientists. Any more calls for “enquiries” will begin to look suspiciousy like a vendetta.
I don’t understand the continued disparagement of FORTRAN, particularly in the light of the alternatives (perl/python/ruby). Compiling with SunStudio/xlf/fort90 and then with gfortran catches just about all incompatabilities and possible problems. Xemacs, ftnchek and a little time is all that is really necessary to move a FORTRAN program between architectures. As for bitwise comparisons: How can a program compiled on a Sun Ultrasparc-IV+ be bitwise comparable to a SGI R10K? The demand for a bitwise identical binary is carnard.
[Response: No one is disparaging fortran, I use it all the time. But like all languages it is neither perfect, nor useless. Discussions that assume either extreme are not particularly interesting. -gavin]
# Brian Dodge on Arrhenius
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/penn-state-reports/comment-page-3/#comment-179780
And thats not all. He got the logarithmic relationship between concentration and forcing, and the rough law that the relative humidity should be independent of temperature thus producing positive feedback. I think he also stood his ground when he was challenged by Angstrom’s son (that could have been obstinacy but is sometimes a sign of superior judgement).
To that you have to add the ground breaking physical chemistry for which he got one of the first Nobel prizes. (I added that ‘irrelevance’ because some deniers have tried running the line that he was an obscure nonentity!).
ZZT@85
> Or does all the scientific fortran-77 on the web only work in the hands of its myriad of authors, and on only their own machines?
Undocumented dependencies and platform inconsistencies plague just about every piece of software development. Yes, even java.
If you’re so worried about about the accuracy and repeatability of FORTRAN, then Clear Climate Code will welcome your contribution of a reimplementation of a paper in Python.
Re #105, No, its was the 1990’s for even though the equations existed the GCMs on a computer anyway did not.
As RealClimate is part of the Guardian;s Environment network. I wonder what RealClimates position/response to this front page Guardian article (Fred Pearce) is:
print edition headline below:
Climategate has changed us for the better, say scientists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell
What has fortran programming got to do with Penn State investigation thread?
Re: 111 I don’t know what RC thinks of this tendentious crap from ‘Fact-free’ Fred Pearce, but it had me spitting my muesli out at breakfast this morning. Judith Curry is presented, straight-facedly as “the climate scientist most associated with efforts to reconcile warring factions…” and then quotes her as saying “the idea of IPCC scientists as self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel Prize is now in tatters.” Torch those straw-men Judy, baby, you great reconciler, you… While, Roger Pielke Jr, Hans von Storch and Jerome Ravetz are given a free-run as ‘honest brokers’. Apparently the blogosphere are the heroes here, and we should applaud the rise of the “citizen scientist”. That would the likes of Anthony Watts, Steve Milloy and “Lord” Monckton then… Jeeezuus… I gave the Guardian another chance after Pearce’s initial twisted Climategate nonsense last year, but it’s not getting another one after putting this egregious crap on the front page.
No, Geoff Wexler, just for the record , it was pointed out that Arrhenius’ climate science was pretty much pooh-poohed, ignored and a near obscure nonentity at the time. Arrhenius himself, as a scientist, certainly was NOT an obscure nonentity.
#112 Bill read #85 and #109. Unfortunately Damien has exactly the wrong solution (python)
Media-gate:
Since I have been and remain critical I must point out that:
Roger Harrabin and Richard Black’s latest offerings on the BBC web site have been more reliable than Fred Pearce’s in the Guardian. But there is news that the former web site is in line for cuts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10507144.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10506283.stm
For some interesting further reading:
Ge, Q.-S., J.Y. Zheng, Z.-X. Hao, X.-M. Shao, W.-C. Wang, and J. Luterbacher. 2010. Temperature variation through 2000 years in China: An uncertainty analysis of reconstruction and regional difference. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L03703, doi:10.1029/2009GL041281.
Perhaps the committee should have done a little more of its own research.
Barry Woods asks: I wonder what RealClimate’s position/response to this front page Guardian article (Fred Pearce) is.
Pearce clearly wants us to view him as a journalistic hero, and he trots out the usual suspects to back him up: Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, Jr. He’s declaring victory for denialists (also, buy his book).
Dutch review backs UN climate panel report
Rod B #114: surely that would be why in Asimov’s “intelligent man’s guide to science” from 1960, Arrhenius’s greenhouse work is extensively presented? I read it in Dutch translation as a schoolkid. Obscure my foot.
Re #113, this probablu belongs more at climate progress rather than here. Of course RC could comment on that article but its not really about the science, more its reporting and false theories with no peer reviewed backup.
re: #107
1) For integer-only program, it is quite plausible to insist on bit-identical output.
2) For floating-point programs, it is possible, but only with great expense, far beyond what makes sense for research efforts. Here are two related examples:
3) Most of he readers use computers whose CPUs were designed with the SPEC CPU benchmarks as input. This has been going on for 20+ years, and SPEC has a fairly extensive set of run rules, which shows what even that takes…. years of effort by software engineers working for profit-making companies.
Various posts in the past have sometimes expressed surprise that compiler options could make a serious difference … but this is all too possible when dealing with high-optimizing compilers that rearrange floating-point computations. For some programs, it is a huge win if you can get away with single precision (32-it); at the other extreme, for some codes, people really wanted quad (128-bit).
From the very first SPEC benchmarks we did in 1989, the output of each benchmark had to be validated by comparison with known “good” output:
a) Integer-only codes: bit-for-bit.
Computer integers are actually integers.
b)_ Floating-point codes: comparison with “fuzz”, i.e., allowing for the low bits to be different.
Computer floating point numbers are *not* real numbers.
Many floating point codes give perfectly *useful* results across a wide range of systems, but with slight differences. With IEEE floating point, it’s better than the days when every product line had slightly different floating point, but some people still have to deal with that.
4) As an example of spending huge efforts to get *identical* results across a wide range of systems, SAS Institute has long had immense software architecture and Q/A efforts to do that, including across platforms like IBM S/360 and VAX, neither of whose floating-point is IEEE. Doing this right involves having complete control of the math libraries, for example, in some cases wanting source. To be willing to do a port, they wouldn’t use dynamic-linked math libraries, because the vendor *might change* them after they’d done their validation. Since they released each new product mroe or less at the same time across platforms, they had a massive Q/A team.
I have never seen research efforts anywhere that could possibly do the SAS approach, and even the SPEC approach is likely hard to justify.
#114
You remind me of a UK listener, in this case a contrarian, who phoned up BBC Radio 4 to ‘contradict’ someone who had just been speaking about climate on the programme, “Any Questions”. He proceeded to read out a load of well known history which did not in fact contradict the speaker. But neither the listener nor the presenter appeared to realise the absurdity and irrelevance of it.
Not quite harmless, because the rest of the numerous listeners might have been persuaded by this rhetorical trick into accepting another kind of agenda i.e. if it could be suggested (by trickery if necessary) that the original speaker was rather ignorant, then his conclusions could not be trusted.
Alistair, thanks for posting this;
—–
“It is time scientists realised that they are in a war. There are no rules in love and war. The sceptics know that. So long as they can get away with their lies and false accusations scot-free, then the battle for the future of the planet will be lost.”
Cheers, Alastair.
Comment by Alastair McDonald — 1 July 2010 @ 3:51 PM
—–
I’m posting this one far & wide, on blogs of all sorts, to show just how crazy and power-hungry you fools are. Scientists work for humanity, not the other way around.
[edit]
As a highly-recognizedand if you don’t have access to different environments, it is environmental scientist, I must warm RC against encouraging this type of incendiary, hate-filled bile. Your positions in society are not nearly as secure as you seem to think they are. We are in an environmental emergency, but you don’t seem to understand that you only have the powers that society gives to you.
#115
> Unfortunately Damien has exactly the wrong solution (python)
Not my intended point, but my original comment was badly written :)
My point was that someone, somewhere, for some motivation of their own has re-written a bunch of FORTRAN code (GISTEMP) from the original papers themselves in Python (of all languages!) and gotten the same outcome.
Result: Let researchers use whatever they’re comfortable with. It’s what’s in the paper that counts and whether the description of the methodology if sufficient to repeat the results found in that paper.
CRS, somehow methinks that the sorts of sites where you will be posting, all you will accomplish is feeding already healthy deluded paranoia–much like your own.
CRS, Dr.P.H. (124) — Incorherent. Alastair McDonald’s opinion is his own; nor is he a climatologist.
Ron says:
Ray, you say in #26, that, “The one weapon our opponents can never weild (sic) against us unless we allow it is the truth.” Do you mean that you must fight hard to prevent your opponents from telling the truth? Just checking.
Ron
Rod, can’t agree with you @ #114 (though Martin V. has probably made the point more forcefully already.)
Arrhenius’s climate science was, as far as I can judge, a subject of fairly lively debate for the better part of a decade–“On The Influence Of Carbonic Acid. . .” came out in 1896, and it was in 1908 that he presented “Worlds In The Making.” Note that it was intended for a mass audience, and that German, French and English translations of the Swedish original were published (I’m not sure about other languages, but probably others, too.)
On the more scientific side, his defence of CO2 theory was in Annalen der physik in ’01 (in two parts.)
While the periodicity of the Ice Ages and Angstrom’s criticisms lead the balance of opinion to downgrade the likelihood of Arrhenius’s theories being correct–ie., Arrhenius “lost” the debate in the immediate context–those theories were not forgotten or ignored throughout the following years. Those theories always had to be mentioned under the heading of “other notable theories.”
That, indeed, was how Guy Stewart Callendar came to read Arrhenius sometime in the late 20s or early 30s. It was part of a program of study culminating in Callendar’as seminal paper of 1938, “The Artificial Production Of Carbon Dioxide. . .”.
Martin Vermeer, your point is accurate but 1960 is not “at the time.”
Kevin McKinney, well, we’ve just been through that in the last month or so, and nobody wants a repeat, I suspect. Check out Spencer Weart’s history of GW (see RC’s Start Here.”)
Rod B #130, very true, and I expected you to bring that up ;-)
My point is that obscure by 1898 would mean forgotten by 1960 — unless something had happened inbetween to prevent oblivion. Nothing that I am aware of: detectable greenhouse warming was still decades in the future. The only change I can think of that mattered was IR remote sensing developing to the point of essentially vindicating Arrhenius’ theory; but that didn’t happen until after WWII.
CRS 124: I must warm RC against encouraging this type of incendiary, hate-filled bile.
BPL: No, no, you want to COOL RC DOWN against encouraging this type, etc. If you warm it up, it will only get more incendiary!
Re #111 Barry Woods, yes I am also wondering why, and if, RC still wants to be a part of the Guardian Environment Network after all this. I mean, it gives the Guardian free respectability — or should I say, the appearance of respectability — in return for what? Frankly, all the membership does is make RC look ridiculous. Time for consequences?
John Mashey (#122) is on the mark for floating point numbers (For floating-point programs, it is possible, but only with great expense, far beyond what makes sense for research efforts.) For integers it is, shall we say difficult, to get a little-endian integer to match BIT-FOR-BIT with a big-endian integer. You can of courses “call swab”, use HDF or netcdf, but that would only provide fodder for the denialist crowd who already think there is BFM ivolved.
re: #132
There is some parallel with Wegener & Continental Drift, as I noted here.,
“Case 3: multiple hypotheses arise and persist for some time, gathering support, being modified, sometimes combining, or failing to accumulate evidence. An issue can stay open decades, and then quickly be resolved if the right new data or explanation appears.
Example:Geologists argued fiercely for many decades over Alfred Wegener’s hypothesis of continental drift, but when enough new kinds of data appeared following World War II, most geologists quickly accepted it.”
and then in that thread:
“2) But it changed, after WW II, when new kinds of data arrived, as Naomi writes (p.308):
“A new era in geology was ushered in not by the elucidation of the ultimate cause of crustal motions, not even by the mechanism by which they occur, but by the availability of a new kind of evidence.”
3) It’s a good illustration of one flavor of paradigm shift, in this case, where plausible hypotheses were identified early, but evidence just didn’t get strong enough for a long time, but when new kinds of evidence popped up, the discipline pretty much changed views in a decade.
But indeed, the evidence for AGW is (by now) immensely stronger than the evidence for continental drift in 1920. After all, Arrhenius was talking about Greenhouse Effect over 100 years ago, and that wasn’t accepted instantly either :-)”
Ron@128, What I mean is that we must always be the first to tell the truth. Our opponents have shown no propensity to tell the truth to dat, but if they started, I would surely welcome it. It can only help the side that cleaves most closely to the evidence.
re: #135 (this is all OT, but since we’re here)
I’m one of the designers of the MIPS architecture, one of the very few that could be run in Big-Endian or Little-Endian mode, and I managed the operating systems work to deal with the various combinations, so I am slightly familiar with the issues.
SPEC checks the ASCII output of programs, which for pure-integer programs *better* be bit-for-bit compatible, and no one ever had trouble doing that, unless there were compiler bugs.
Programs may keep purely-intermediate datasets and internal data in whatever form they like, but if several different CPU types need to read/write those datasets, they have to match, bit-for-bit, and *they do.* An obvious case is networking, but big collections of shared network data have the same issue.
Well done Mike Mann (again). Good to see your straightforward telling-it-like-it-is and professional competence recognised (again).
Like others, I cracked a cold beer in quiet, satisfied celebration. Though I concede there was a feedback effect which led to another one or two! Gotta watch those feedbacks. ;)
Ray@137,
Thanks Ray, and I agree when you say, “It can only help the side that cleaves most closely to the evidence.” May I offer the further suggestion that it can certainly help all of us (partisans and non-partisans alike)if both sides concentrate on discovering and sticking to the evidence.
Cheers, Ron
Guardian reporting Phile jones going back to work.
Excellent ‘related’ news
I just wanted to note that CNN’s website has this story as a headliner: “Climategate Review Clears Scientists Of Dishonesty”.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/index.html?hpt=T1
Re 136: The difference for AGW (compared with continental drift) is the amount of money at stake. Fossil fuel companies have a huge financial interest in keeping AGW from general acceptance. That will continue even after the worst effects of AGW become obvious. Why? The potential financial liability for those effects. The denial machine will go on, and on, and on… There will alwys be other explanations that sound plausible to the general public. Also, it will always be the case that one of the most effective ways to deny the science is to discredit the scientists.
Congratulations, Mike, for the overdue satisfactory conclusion of this affair, but it probably is not the end of this sort of thing. The inherent imbalance of evidence versus sound-bite falsehoods makes it all too easy to mount such attacks, especially with media no longer capable of or interested in exploring these issues in depth.
However, stick to the evidence and believe that, somehow, the truth will win out in the end. It is still the only way. And God bless you, Phil Jones, Jim Hansen, and so many other here at RC, for the courage to do so.
CRS, somehow methinks that the sorts of sites where you will be posting, all you will accomplish is feeding already healthy deluded paranoia–much like your own.
Comment by Ray Ladbury — 5 July 2010 @ 7:22 PM
—–
Thanks for the feedback. I’ve been at this game longer than many of you (biomethane mitigation at University of Illinois, 1979). I certainly share your concerns about warming, although oceanic acidification is far more immediate and likely to impact humanity before the deleterious effects of warming take place. I rarely see this discussed on sites such as RC, and my associates at Scripps Institution share my frustration.
This “us against everybody else” attitude serves all of us poorly. Declaring “war” against skeptics is very unprofessional and unnecessary. Not all skeptics are lay people nor poorly trained in these sciences. Our job is to sell the public on vast and painful changes that need to be made.
Mine is not paranoia, but a realistic reading of how public opinion has changed dramatically. We need technological and political fixes for mitigation and control, and the public must be engaged and sold on the many sacrifices this will entail. This blog is widely viewed as a legitimate forum for thought of like-minded individuals skilled in the sciences, so please know that your words here carry much weight.
Battle for the future of the planet? A lofty cause, but one likely to be lost unless we change tactics. Despite the various reports of the CRU emails, the public remains highly skeptical not only of the facts and science, but now of the scientists themselves. The recent posting on RC about how to explain this to the public is a very good first step, but the lay public is very confused, and the bickering back & forth doesn’t help.
Scientists do not live in a vacuum, and we work to serve humanity. If humanity doesn’t listen, it’s our failing, not theirs. Learn to communicate to your peers and stakeholders, otherwise we will lose the tiny bit of progress we have already accomplished. Peace.
The CRU has been cleared in the latest inquiry — this BBC article has the details: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm
Unfortunately, the BBC article continues the media’s unfortunate tradition of giving airtime to incompetent hacks (Benny Peiser).
The excerpt shown below, however, is revealing. The CRU investigators obviously became quite disgusted with the CRU’s critics, and they let it be known very clearly (without naming names).
We find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it,” it says.
“We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis”.
Writing computer code to process the data “took less than two days and produced results similar to other independent analyses. No information from CRU was needed to do this”.
Sir Muir commented: “So we conclude that the argument that CRU has something to hide does not stand up”.
Asked whether it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone claiming instrumental records were unavailable or vital code missing was incompetent, another panel member, Professor Peter Clarke from Edinburgh University, said: “It’s very clear that anyone who’d be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it.
“It’s also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance.”
Well, CNN’s demoted the story and while the article title hasn’t changed, the link text on the website to take you to the story now reads: “Climategate Scientists mostly cleared”. So now what all the deniers will grab and hang onto is the word “mostly”. Thanks, CNN.
#138 John we are now getting into the arcania of formats. Obviously if you output your results in ASCII the results will be bit for bit compatible, but how often do you see a WRF/CCM3/ELDORA/SPOL/DRAS/ECMWF data set written in ASCII? Doppler radar UF and DORADE format files are written with header that allows the user to determine the endian-ness of the data. Hence any code written to read a UF/DORADE/DRAS format file MUST read the header to determine what the endian-ness of the 32-bit int’s is. Reading a 32bit int written on a little-endian machine on a big-endian machine will give you garbage. The same problem occurred with MM5. Researchers ran the model on one endian-ness machine and tried to analyze the results on a different endian machine much to their frustration. Hence a raft of utility programs to convert endian-ness. WRF solved the problem by using NETCDF which self-described the endian-ness and automagically does the conversions. Back in the early 80’s when we were creating the UNIDATA program, then endian problem was significantly worse as DEC/SUN/IBM/SGI were commonly used machines by members of UNIDATA, but they all had different endian-ness, but none the less had to exchange data. NETCDF was the solution. NOAA solved the problem with the GRIB format, which again is self descibing and allows easy conversions
RC gets a shout-out in this article:
“So what’s the answer? Well, at the very least climate scientists need to be more upfront with the public about their methods, data and conclusions. Science—especially when you’re dealing with an issue as vital to the future of the planet as global warming—has to be done in the open now, transparently. (Blogs like the great RealClimate, which feature actual climate researchers talking to the public, are a step in the right direction.)”
Read more: http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/07/07/climategate-researchers-cleared—but-dont-expect-the-controversy-to-end/#ixzz0t1Q7dlkk
Keep the faith, and engage your critics, even the ugly ones! In science, truth wins out every time. Cigarettes cause cancer, and atmospheric carbon deposition causes many deleterious effects.
I just listened to Dr. Lee, the chemistry Nobel prize winner speak at the International Sociology Conference in Gotoborg, Sweden. He doesn’t think it is a hoax. He is greatly concerned. I suggest that the skeptics try to counter the evidence in Book 1 of the free ebook series “In Search of Utopia” (http://andgulliverreturns.info) with heavy evidence of their own. Doubting and spouting the words of the oil companies does not prove that warming is a hoax. By the way, this is the warmet year on record.