If he had removed anything they'd just claim that the removed emails contain the evidence that they were looking for, and more people would be inclined to believe them because they now have evidence that he's hiding something. Frankly, I suspect even if he opened up his email voluntarily and didn't remove anything personal they'd claim that obviously he'd already hidden the evidence they were looking for. Witch hunts don't end just because you're co-operating with your would-be executioners.

Using the numbers from Venus Atmosphere Temperature and Pressure Profile:
Average Earth temperature: 14 degrees x 1.176 = 16 degrees Celcius
Average Venus temperature at 1 atmosphere (49.5 km above the surface): 66 degrees Celcius

It appears that you shouldn't be able to do so, and that's ignoring the question of whether the surface temperature on Earth should even be directly comparable to the temperature 49.5 km above the surface of Venus.

No, generally speaking anyone who denies that global warming is occurring is labelled a "denier", because the evidence is conclusive that it's happening. The people who deny that catastrohpic climate change could occur because of global warming ir more properly lablled as a "luke-warmer", because they generally don't believe it will get "that hot".

No one (but you) is using it for that purpose.

Surprisingly, close to half of Americans don't actually believe that, they think that there's no consensus on whether global warming is occurring. Probably because their primary news sources are under the control of Rupert Murdoch who personally stands to lose money from his portfolio if it's widely acknowledged that global warming is occurring and that human emissions are a key factor. Rupert, in case you didn't know, has a lot of money invested in coal companies which would bear the brunt of the effects of regulation, carbon taxes, or carbon trading markets.

Tech companies want to make sure the Zuckerbergs make a gazillion dollars, but tech wages get driven down. 501(C) organization like FWD.us are all about getting "immigration reform" which includes a lot more H1B, which means you distort the intellectual capital market by bringing in more workers and thus driving down pay. Why pay money to an american with school loans when you can lobby government to get someone who can work for less as an H1B serf.

Paying kids is a new twist on this game. So, why even pay people who have careers, lets pay our employees even less by hiring children?

It is a race to the bottom, and make no mistake, it is so the rich can get richer. I don't want to sound like an "occupy wall street" loony, but don't workers deserve reward for their work just as much as industrialists. 40 years ago, CEOs only made a few hundred times more than their average employee, and that was scandalous.

These guys complain about the "economy," but that facts are clear, the U.S. economy was better when we had more wealth distribution, stronger unions, and a growing middle class. They want us to be China, and unless we figure out how to stop it, we will be.

Wait...Blackberry? These guys are still in business?

The "small percentage" I mentioned was in reference to this. You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2 is widely acknowledged to be based on a geometric progression.

As I've said, we've increased CO2 by ~40% but your link refers to the CO2 rise between 1900 (290 ppm) to 2000 (369 ppm) which is an increase of ~27.24%. But we're actually living in 2014, and CO2 in real life is now at ~400 ppm because we're increasing it so rapidly that even NOAA websites rapidly go out of date. That's a ~37.93% increase even if you take "1900" to be the start of the the Industrial Revolution.

Also, climate sensitivity is logarithmic, not geometric. But it's hard to remember that our CO2 emissions are probably more rapid than any events in the last 300 million years. Even logarithmic climate sensitivity allows for accelerating warming if the CO2 concentration rises faster than exponentially. Since 1960, atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen faster than exponentially. Tamino showed this by taking the logarithm of the Mauna Loa measurements and noting a statistically significant acceleration.

We also need to keep in mind, though, what percentage that is of the overall atmosphere: (CO2 % of all atmosphere [wikimedia.org]. Which is a very small percentage indeed, even though Wikipedia puts it higher than NCDC does in the above page.

Why do we need to keep that in mind, any more than we need to keep in mind the very small percentage of alcohol or LSD in the bloodstream? The same percentage increase of ~40% also occurs when we notice that before 1850 there were ~4 kg of CO2 over each square meter of Earth's surface. Now there are ~6. We did that.

This is a reply to several comments Jane posted at Dumb Scientist and at the bottom of this thread which shows that Jane Q. Public is a man named Lonny Eachus. I've copied it here because Jane asked to be notified.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:17

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.

First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.

My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.

No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.

I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.

Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?

I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:26

I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.

The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.

First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.

Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?

Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment. At least, I did until you politely requested that I post without replying to you. Now you've switched back to complaining that I don't notify you. And you're recursively complaining that I said you're complaining.

So I suspect that even if I quoted your endless comments in their entirety, you'd just switch to complaining that I quoted your comments in their entirety. After all, the fair use four factors include "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" so larger portions would more strongly affect Lonny Eachus's potential market or value for all his Jane Q. Public gems.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 16:56

(Ed. note: I distorted Jane's words by fixing his blockquotes.)

Jane and Lonny Eachus’s conspiracy theory ignores all the evidence showing that our carbon pollution is responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

So, you are pretending here that I meant something OTHER THAN the simple fact that carbon and CO2 are different things? But if so, where did I say that? By now you seem incapable of doing anything BUT distorting my meanings.

My point — as I made very clear — was that putting CARBON (not CO2) into the environment has not caused a significant global pollution problem. You are proving beyond doubt now that you have distorted my meaning. I was referring to the POLITICAL MOTIVATION for conflating carbon with CO2.

Do you deny that regulating CO2 output would be a significant increase in governmental control of private industry? Yes or no?

Do you also deny that our progressive government would love to have this control? Yes or no?

I was discussing two: [A] that carbon is not CO2. [B] that there is a clear motivation for this administration’s habitual conflation of carbon and CO2: simple political exigency. Conspiracy was YOUR word, not mine. I neither said it or meant it.

THEN, you kind of non-sequitur straw-man my point about “oxygen pollution”. No, the reason people don’t talk about oxygen pollution is not because oxygen concentration is decreasing (because most people have no idea whether it is). People don’t talke about oxygen pollution because under normal everyday circumstances, oxygen isn’t considered a pollutant. Just as under normal everyday circumstances, carbon isn’t considered a pollutant. Even if YOU consider CO2 to be.

Your comment is in fact a great example of how you distort other people’s words to fit your own ego. And I have no reason to think it was accidental. (Especially since it was a reply to a comment about something else altogether.) It appears to be nothing more than a very transparent attempt at ad-hominem, as a response to a legitimate criticism.

Which has — alas — backfired. It merely served to prove my point yet again.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 17:29

I will also add — just to prevent the possibility of someone DELIBERATELY misconstruing my words again — that I was referring to carbon pollution not being a problem FOR MOST COUNTRIES, TODAY.

It CAN be if for example fine particulates are spewed into the air in large quantities. But first, that is a rather special case (it’s not the same, for example, as just dumping it in a pile outside), and second, our current pollution controls have it well under control in most industrialized nations.

So, I say again: under NORMAL, EVERYDAY modern circumstances, carbon is simply not considered a pollutant.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-02 at 09:44

BURNING organic substances can create CO2. So much is clear. But that still doesn’t make carbon a pollutant. Burning is a chemical process, and many, many chemical processes that use carbon can create polluting chemicals. That still doesn’t make carbon a pollutant. Via reductio ad absurdum, the argument that it is leads to YOU being a pollutant.

As I have mentioned before, the only other way that carbon is NORMALLY considered a pollutant to any significant degree is when it is turned into fine particulates and dispersed into the air in large quantities. That kind of pollution USED TO BE a big problem in many industrialized areas. But today’s stack scrubbers and other such procedures have generally rendered it far less of a problem today.

But even if it is somewhat of a problem in some areas, the point is that it is a “special case”, and does not support the argument that carbon is a “pollutant” because almost anything that can be turned into fine particulates and dispersed into the air in large quantities can be a pollutant. Sulfur compounds are one example, but it even applies to common rocks which anyone who has ever experienced volcanic fallout can tell you first-hand. And in fact, in many ways its worse than carbon. So carbon is nothing special in that regard, and I’d like to see someone try to argue that most common rocks are “pollutants”.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-02 at 11:45

You make a good point about Humlum. Or at least you seem to. It’s hard to tell, and the reason for that deserves a comment:

Not only the Humlum paper itself, but all the criticisms I have found that claim to be actually substantive are behind paywalls. So how does one who does not have academic or professional access to these publications access them and properly evaluate them without spending a fortune?

So people “on the outside” — who will ultimately decide on these issues — have no choice but to take someone else’s word on the credibility of the papers.

You say:

A real skeptic would wonder why Humlum et al. analyzed the long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 by taking its time derivative. Differentiation is a high-pass filter because it amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

A real skeptic would try to read the paper, in order to personally evaluate the methodologies used. That avenue was not available to me (and many others) at the time. Or even now. Unless I want to spend a good bit of money.

So who to believe in that case? I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others.

The point I am getting at here is that this reflects the oft-lamented lack of openness in science today. That is a situation that is in sore need of improvement.

As a side note, you mention Watts and his characterization of PSI as “a cult”. I was aware of this and find it rather amusing, since Watts tried to perform the thermodynamic experiment challenge posed by Latour and O’Sullivan, and completely botched both attempts. Because HE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND the principles the challenge was intended to demonstrate.

**

You make a good point about Humlum. Or at least you seem to. It’s hard to tell... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Thank you. All progress is admirable. The ability to admit a mistake and move on is the mark of a true scientist.

Not only the Humlum paper itself, but all the criticisms I have found that claim to be actually substantive are behind paywalls. So how does one who does not have academic or professional access to these publications access them and properly evaluate them without spending a fortune? ... A real skeptic would try to read the paper, in order to personally evaluate the methodologies used. That avenue was not available to me (and many others) at the time. Or even now. Unless I want to spend a good bit of money. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Googling the title along with "PDF" leads to a free PDF of Humlum et al. 2013.

You fail to distinguish between carbon and CO2, which I have repeatedly told you was my whole point. ... I'll repeat what I asked you elsewhere: do you deny that elemental or molecular carbon, versus CO2, are different things? Yes or no? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Only Jane/Lonny Eachus could quote my explanation that oxygen is decreasing because the CO2 rise is due to our burning carbon rather than ocean outgassing, then ask if I deny that elemental or molecular carbon is different from CO2. I deny that "carbon" always has to refer to fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon, instead of the carbon in CO2.

JPL's new Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) studies CO2 rather than fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon, and it's nearly identical to OCO-1 which was lost in a failed launch just over a month after Obama was sworn in. So the first Orbiting Carbon Observatory was built and named before Obama took office.

Folks, re: Obama's "energy policy": CARBON is NOT a pollutant. Even if you believe the global warming hype, it's still CO2, NOT CARBON. Even if you buy everything the AGW supporters say, then it's still only CO2 that is a pollutant, not "carbon". Obama is calling for more regulation of COMPLETELY FICTIONAL "carbon pollution". CARBON IS NOT A POLLUTANT. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-28]

Obama is still talking about "carbon pollution" as though it were a real thing. What a tool. Carbon is simply not a pollutant. Period. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-31]

... there is a clear motivation for this administration’s habitual conflation of carbon and CO2: simple political exigency. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-01]

Obama clearly travelled back in time to force JPL to "incorrectly" name OCO-1, then decades into the past to force scientists to discuss the "carbon cycle" which refers to atmospheric CO2 rather than fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon in the atmosphere. After reading Jane's endless comments, it's clear that Jane/Lonny Eachus can't admit he's advocating a conspiracy theory. But that conspiracy is even bigger. Obama also clearly travelled into the past to force Jane to refer to carbon when Jane was actually referring to CO2 rather than fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon in the atmosphere.

That's another reason to worry that Jane is backsliding further from reality. Ideally, learning curves point up.

Again you make a specious argument that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Apparently for no reason other than to try to make me look bad. Whether CO2 is due to burning carbonaceous materials is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a straw-man, nothing more. And a pretty ridiculous one, at that. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

I pointed out decreasing oxygen for three reasons. First, it answers Jane's questions about ocean solubility. It's another independent way to see that our carbon emissions overwhelm ocean outgassing.

Second, decreasing oxygen is another independent way to see that Humlum et al. 2013 was wrong to claim that "Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."

Again, Humlum et al. made a calculus mistake. But if Lonny Eachus doesn't find that point convincing or doesn't have access to the papers, consider this. If Humlum et al. were right, their "substantial" ocean outgassing would increase CO2 without using up oxygen. If this were happening, the O2 vs. CO2 measurements on p206 would be "substantially" horizontal. They're not.

Third, the fact that the O2 vs. CO2 measurements actually point down at such a steep angle is yet another independent way (in addition to simple accounting, etc.) to see that our carbon emissions are responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Not a "few percent" like Jane and many others have claimed.

That's why I asked if you'd retract your misinformation and acknowledge that our carbon emissions are responsible for the CO2 rise, rather than dismissing it as disingenuous. If not, will you at least acknowledge that many people you know of have disputed this fact, including you and Lonny Eachus? I'm trying to see if you're actually learning, rather than backsliding like with the warming you're now denying.

Loaded statement. I do not retract my comment, because it was honest and true. It was not "misinformation", it was correct in both a scientific and common-sense context. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Again, I first asked that question after debunking misinformation you and Lonny Eachus have been spreading.

Do you still dismiss flat statements like "the CO2 increase is attributable to human activity" as disingenuous and claim that we're only contributing a small percentage despite the fact that ~200% of the CO2 increase is attributable to human activity? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

Do you still link to "PSI" blog posts accusing scientists of fraud because Dr. Salby said accumulation of human emitted CO2 is somehow unphysical? Do you acknowledge these "PSI" accusations of fraud are baseless, or do you think they're honest, true and correct?

Do you still repeat O'Sullivan's "PSI" misinformation about CO2 emissions now that you know he "forgot" to show the winter fluxes? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

Do you still repeat Humlum's "PSI" misinformation about CO2 lags now that you know he ignored decreasing O2 and made a calculus mistake which caused him to "discover" summer and winter? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

Addressing more complex questions would be pointless unless we can agree on the fundamental fact that our carbon emissions are responsible for ~200% of the CO2 rise.

Since Jane asked to be notified, I'm also posting this comment here.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:17

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.

First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.

My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.

No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.

I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.

Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?

I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:26

I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.

The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.

First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.

Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?

Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment. At least, I did until you politely requested that I post without replying to you. Now you've switched back to complaining that I don't notify you. And you're recursively complaining that I said you're complaining.

So I suspect that even if I quoted your endless comments in their entirety, you'd just switch to complaining that I quoted your comments in their entirety. After all, the fair use four factors include "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" so larger portions would more strongly affect Lonny Eachus's potential market or value for all his Jane Q. Public gems.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 16:56

(Ed. note: I distorted Jane's words by fixing his blockquotes.)

Jane and Lonny Eachus’s conspiracy theory ignores all the evidence showing that our carbon pollution is responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

So, you are pretending here that I meant something OTHER THAN the simple fact that carbon and CO2 are different things? But if so, where did I say that? By now you seem incapable of doing anything BUT distorting my meanings.

My point — as I made very clear — was that putting CARBON (not CO2) into the environment has not caused a significant global pollution problem. You are proving beyond doubt now that you have distorted my meaning. I was referring to the POLITICAL MOTIVATION for conflating carbon with CO2.

Do you deny that regulating CO2 output would be a significant increase in governmental control of private industry? Yes or no?

Do you also deny that our progressive government would love to have this control? Yes or no?

I was discussing two: [A] that carbon is not CO2. [B] that there is a clear motivation for this administration’s habitual conflation of carbon and CO2: simple political exigency. Conspiracy was YOUR word, not mine. I neither said it or meant it.

THEN, you kind of non-sequitur straw-man my point about “oxygen pollution”. No, the reason people don’t talk about oxygen pollution is not because oxygen concentration is decreasing (because most people have no idea whether it is). People don’t talke about oxygen pollution because under normal everyday circumstances, oxygen isn’t considered a pollutant. Just as under normal everyday circumstances, carbon isn’t considered a pollutant. Even if YOU consider CO2 to be.

Your comment is in fact a great example of how you distort other people’s words to fit your own ego. And I have no reason to think it was accidental. (Especially since it was a reply to a comment about something else altogether.) It appears to be nothing more than a very transparent attempt at ad-hominem, as a response to a legitimate criticism.

Which has — alas — backfired. It merely served to prove my point yet again.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 17:29

I will also add — just to prevent the possibility of someone DELIBERATELY misconstruing my words again — that I was referring to carbon pollution not being a problem FOR MOST COUNTRIES, TODAY.

It CAN be if for example fine particulates are spewed into the air in large quantities. But first, that is a rather special case (it’s not the same, for example, as just dumping it in a pile outside), and second, our current pollution controls have it well under control in most industrialized nations.

So, I say again: under NORMAL, EVERYDAY modern circumstances, carbon is simply not considered a pollutant.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-02 at 09:44

BURNING organic substances can create CO2. So much is clear. But that still doesn’t make carbon a pollutant. Burning is a chemical process, and many, many chemical processes that use carbon can create polluting chemicals. That still doesn’t make carbon a pollutant. Via reductio ad absurdum, the argument that it is leads to YOU being a pollutant.

As I have mentioned before, the only other way that carbon is NORMALLY considered a pollutant to any significant degree is when it is turned into fine particulates and dispersed into the air in large quantities. That kind of pollution USED TO BE a big problem in many industrialized areas. But today’s stack scrubbers and other such procedures have generally rendered it far less of a problem today.

But even if it is somewhat of a problem in some areas, the point is that it is a “special case”, and does not support the argument that carbon is a “pollutant” because almost anything that can be turned into fine particulates and dispersed into the air in large quantities can be a pollutant. Sulfur compounds are one example, but it even applies to common rocks which anyone who has ever experienced volcanic fallout can tell you first-hand. And in fact, in many ways its worse than carbon. So carbon is nothing special in that regard, and I’d like to see someone try to argue that most common rocks are “pollutants”.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-02 at 11:45

You make a good point about Humlum. Or at least you seem to. It’s hard to tell, and the reason for that deserves a comment:

Not only the Humlum paper itself, but all the criticisms I have found that claim to be actually substantive are behind paywalls. So how does one who does not have academic or professional access to these publications access them and properly evaluate them without spending a fortune?

So people “on the outside” — who will ultimately decide on these issues — have no choice but to take someone else’s word on the credibility of the papers.

You say:

A real skeptic would wonder why Humlum et al. analyzed the long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 by taking its time derivative. Differentiation is a high-pass filter because it amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

A real skeptic would try to read the paper, in order to personally evaluate the methodologies used. That avenue was not available to me (and many others) at the time. Or even now. Unless I want to spend a good bit of money.

So who to believe in that case? I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others.

The point I am getting at here is that this reflects the oft-lamented lack of openness in science today. That is a situation that is in sore need of improvement.

As a side note, you mention Watts and his characterization of PSI as “a cult”. I was aware of this and find it rather amusing, since Watts tried to perform the thermodynamic experiment challenge posed by Latour and O’Sullivan, and completely botched both attempts. Because HE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND the principles the challenge was intended to demonstrate.

**

You make a good point about Humlum. Or at least you seem to. It’s hard to tell... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Thank you. All progress is admirable. The ability to admit a mistake and move on is the mark of a true scientist.

Not only the Humlum paper itself, but all the criticisms I have found that claim to be actually substantive are behind paywalls. So how does one who does not have academic or professional access to these publications access them and properly evaluate them without spending a fortune? ... A real skeptic would try to read the paper, in order to personally evaluate the methodologies used. That avenue was not available to me (and many others) at the time. Or even now. Unless I want to spend a good bit of money. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Googling the title along with "PDF" leads to a free PDF of Humlum et al. 2013.

You fail to distinguish between carbon and CO2, which I have repeatedly told you was my whole point. ... I'll repeat what I asked you elsewhere: do you deny that elemental or molecular carbon, versus CO2, are different things? Yes or no? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Only Jane/Lonny Eachus could quote my explanation that oxygen is decreasing because the CO2 rise is due to our burning carbon rather than ocean outgassing, then ask if I deny that elemental or molecular carbon is different from CO2. I deny that "carbon" always has to refer to fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon, instead of the carbon in CO2.

JPL's new Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) studies CO2 rather than fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon, and it's nearly identical to OCO-1 which was lost in a failed launch just over a month after Obama was sworn in. So the first Orbiting Carbon Observatory was built and named before Obama took office.

Folks, re: Obama's "energy policy": CARBON is NOT a pollutant. Even if you believe the global warming hype, it's still CO2, NOT CARBON. Even if you buy everything the AGW supporters say, then it's still only CO2 that is a pollutant, not "carbon". Obama is calling for more regulation of COMPLETELY FICTIONAL "carbon pollution". CARBON IS NOT A POLLUTANT. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-28]

Obama is still talking about "carbon pollution" as though it were a real thing. What a tool. Carbon is simply not a pollutant. Period. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-31]

... there is a clear motivation for this administration’s habitual conflation of carbon and CO2: simple political exigency. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-01]

Obama clearly travelled back in time to force JPL to "incorrectly" name OCO-1, then decades into the past to force scientists to discuss the "carbon cycle" which refers to atmospheric CO2 rather than fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon in the atmosphere. After reading Jane's endless comments, it's clear that Jane/Lonny Eachus can't admit he's advocating a conspiracy theory. But that conspiracy is even bigger. Obama also clearly travelled into the past to force Jane to refer to carbon when Jane was actually referring to CO2 rather than fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon in the atmosphere.

That's another reason to worry that Jane is backsliding further from reality. Ideally, learning curves point up.

Again you make a specious argument that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Apparently for no reason other than to try to make me look bad. Whether CO2 is due to burning carbonaceous materials is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a straw-man, nothing more. And a pretty ridiculous one, at that. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

I pointed out decreasing oxygen for three reasons. First, it answers Jane's questions about ocean solubility. It's another independent way to see that our carbon emissions overwhelm ocean outgassing.

Second, decreasing oxygen is another independent way to see that Humlum et al. 2013 was wrong to claim that "Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."

Again, Humlum et al. made a calculus mistake. But if Lonny Eachus doesn't find that point convincing or doesn't have access to the papers, consider this. If Humlum et al. were right, their "substantial" ocean outgassing would increase CO2 without using up oxygen. If this were happening, the O2 vs. CO2 measurements on p206 would be "substantially" horizontal. They're not.

Third, the fact that the O2 vs. CO2 measurements actually point down at such a steep angle is yet another independent way (in addition to simple accounting, etc.) to see that our carbon emissions are responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Not a "few percent" like Jane and many others have claimed.

That's why I asked if you'd retract your misinformation and acknowledge that our carbon emissions are responsible for the CO2 rise, rather than dismissing it as disingenuous. If not, will you at least acknowledge that many people you know of have disputed this fact, including you and Lonny Eachus? I'm trying to see if you're actually learning, rather than backsliding like with the warming you're now denying.

Loaded statement. I do not retract my comment, because it was honest and true. It was not "misinformation", it was correct in both a scientific and common-sense context. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Again, I first asked that question after debunking misinformation you and Lonny Eachus have been spreading.

Do you still dismiss flat statements like "the CO2 increase is attributable to human activity" as disingenuous and claim that we're only contributing a small percentage despite the fact that ~200% of the CO2 increase is attributable to human activity? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

Do you still link to "PSI" blog posts accusing scientists of fraud because Dr. Salby said accumulation of human emitted CO2 is somehow unphysical? Do you acknowledge these "PSI" accusations of fraud are baseless, or do you think they're honest, true and correct?

Do you still repeat O'Sullivan's "PSI" misinformation about CO2 emissions now that you know he "forgot" to show the winter fluxes? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

Do you still repeat Humlum's "PSI" misinformation about CO2 lags now that you know he ignored decreasing O2 and made a calculus mistake which caused him to "discover" summer and winter? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

Addressing more complex questions would be pointless unless we can agree on the fundamental fact that our carbon emissions are responsible for ~200% of the CO2 rise.

Actually, the graph you posted was quite cherry-picked, I moved the start date of each trend to the start of the indicated year or to the previous year (if it was already at the start of a year) and now they all show an upwards slope.

You're just playing games with the data.

Those nagging doubts? They're the manifestation of your political identity conflicting with the science.

And this is how you rationalize your refusal to accept the science. You use selective thinking to focus on minor issues while ignoring what should be the glaring obvious parts.

Are you referring to this? It seems like a rather minor bug.

Except that it hasn't been shown to be "nothing but statistical bullshit". I have yet to see a credible refutation of their claim that 97% of the published scientific articles that take a position on climate change support the consensus position that global warming is happening and driven by human activity. The argument that I'm assuming that you are referring to is the one made by Anthony Watts that they should not have excluded papers that do not discuss global climate change or global warming. However, it seems fair to me that when you are looking at positions taken on a issue to only look at papers which discuss the issue.

That's a very interesting interpretation of the IPCC report, but one that most people do not get after reading the report. I strongly suspect it is a result of more selective thinking. You place undue emphasis on minor details of the report like a decrease in confidence of the link between severe weather and global average temperature and the lower of the top end of reasonable climate sensitivity, while ignoring the increase in the bottom end of reasonable climate sensitivity to conlcude that the "position is weaker than ever" while I think unbiased readers generally come away with the impression that uncertainty has decreased (because both the upper and lower limits have tightened).

Personally, I didn't believe in global warming when I first heard about it in the 90s, but since then I have been convinced that it is true. My experience with so called "skeptics" like yourself has played no little part in that belief. I have found that the actual scientific proponents tends to have well researched and detailed explanations for why and how it's happening, but the so-called skeptics tend to have arguments based on emotion and finger-pointing. Time and again you, in particular, have disappointed me with claims that were poorly backed up. Invariably when I investigate your claims I find them to be blown out of proportion, mistaken, or referencing some kook's incomprehensible arguments*.

I could, in theory, be falling for the same blinded by personal ideology issue (in your case, I believe it is your libertarian political beliefs), but fortunately (in this case) I don't have many strong political beliefs, I don't identify strongly with greens, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists or communists. So I'm inclined to believe that my personal views aren't filtering my view on this issue. Are you sure you can say the same?

* My personal favourite was when you linked to a kook who claimed the greenhouse effect didn't exist because greenhouses are encased in glass and the planet is not.