Thank you for your comment. Please note that in a former career I was an astrophysicist publishing papers. When I was an Honours students I knew some of the best students faked their data for research reports (sure, the stakes were low, but it showed me that even some very good people do not possess the same ethics that you and I share - where it is unthinkable to be anything other than brutally honest).

Medical science is no stranger to fraud:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
I might add that much of political "science" and social "science" are naught but obfuscation and fraud (I jest - kind of).

Really? I find your dismissal not credible. Working on acquiring and renewing grants takes up a significant part of any working researchers time. Missing out on too many grants means yourself and associates can miss many opportunities to continue your research (which is the thing you actually care about). Therefore, if you have to place emphasis some interpretation that sounds good to a grant committee then you'll do it.

Most scientists are more ethical than the average Joe. However, science has its fair share of charlatans, and a great deal more who don't intend to mislead but simply have an incorrect interpretation they they will defend *despite* the presence of contrary facts.

The site I referenced points out some of those scientists that selectively remove some data points. Without the data points you get Global Warming. Leave the data points in and you get normal variability. I'm not asking you to take my word for it (basing arguments solely on presumed authority should be avoided) - I suggest you review the evidence presented at that linked site, specifically the articles that show the data sets before and after James Hansen and Michael Mann adjusted them. Then you can make up your own mind as to whether the editing was 'creative' to reinforce a theory, or legitimate to remove outliers (always a dodgy thing to do without evidence of instrument or system malfunction; most of the time outliers should be left in an a robust fitting method used instead, such as 'least sum of squares' rather than the usual 'least squares' that has no robustness [is always skewed by outliers]).

I stand by my statement as a former research scientist. Science is not about consensus, it is about finding theories that match the observed facts (*all* the observations, not just the 'convenient' ones).

Fair enough :) I meant at the North Pole, but you rightfully pointed out what I had written was stooopid. Apologies.

Oops, sorry, my point about 'winter ice' was for the Arctic. Thanks for your comments on the Antarctic - I'll look at the data. Meanwhile, would you agree that the assertion that the 'science is settled' does not appear to be true? and that more investigation is required before instigating energy policies that will hurt modern economies and cause all sorts of problems (from food price increases to deaths of old people from lack of heating)?

You are correct about a mere missed prediction as not being evidence of fraud. I agree with you here. However, if you check the references I gave you will see articles covering the fraud (showing the raw data and the tampered measurements). I'm not telling you what to believe, I'm just pointing you in the direction so you can evaluate for yourself :) Is this not a better system? Thanks for presenting your numbers. Surely after 17 years we'd expect more of a downward trend by now, yes? Look not at the summer numbers (that always have big variability) but the winter ice cover. If Global Warming were true then the *winter* season cover would be declining, but there is *zero* evidence for this (AFAICS).

Actually the significant part for me is the winter ice is not declining (as it must if Global Warming is true). I would expect a great deal of variability in summer ice - which is what we see. Small number statistics also increase the proportion of variability in the summer ice level from year to year. That's why it is the constant winter ice level that is actually the significant measurement, AFAIK.

What land is there in the Arctic?

I understand your point of view. Do you have any observational data to counter those that I posted in links? The Scientific Method requires me to look at any counter-facts you can produce. So I'd be grateful if you have any additional data - especially data that could invalidate my current point-of-view.

Science is not performed by "consensus". There was a consensus against Galileo, but guess who was right? What matters are observations and explanations of the observations that account for all the known facts. "Almost every climatologist" simply believes the data they are given by people like James Hansen and Michael Mann - both of which have been tampering with the data (they remove "outliers" that don't fit their preconceived hypothesis - which is hideously anti-scientific). Fortunately the satellite data is harder to tamper with, and agrees with the raw terrestrial data that has not been tampered with. The site I linked to explains what it going on and demonstrates with the data. You can evaluate the validity for yourself. I'm not asking that you believe me. I'm asking you evaluate unbiased data from multiple sources for yourself.

If the observations are proof of Global Warming then I'm cool with that. However, the data I see (eg. that magnificent sinusoidal graph, or the satellite visual imagery of the massive Arctic ice cover) does not support this hypothesis. I would hope that you also take an objective look at the data I have linked to. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong - but I have not seen any recent data that supports the computer models of the 1990s. Hence, I *must* conclude what the observations are saying. After the mid-1990s there has been no substantial global warming. In fact, it looks like a slight cooling if the Southern Hemisphere data is combined with Northern data.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble. All I ask is that you look with fresh eyes and an open mind at the data I have presented. Or present counter-data if you have it. I simply hope to share with Slashdotters my discovering of *recent* observations and the impact this has on the older and possibly out-of-date Global Warming meme. I hope you check out the links I posted so you can make your own mind up. Thanks.

Slashdotters are smart people. All I'm doing is pointing them at some data they may not have seen before. They can make up their own minds as to whether that data is good or not - and whether the null hypothesis should be chosen over the Global Warming theory.

Antarctica is melting at the moment because it is spring in the Southern Hemisphere (I live not far away from Antarctica, the weather is getting good, yay!).

Overall, Antarctica continues accumulating ice year upon year. Antarctica melts and freezes with the seasons, but the overall trend is that the ice is growing:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/no-warming-in-antarctica-since-the-start-of-satellite-records/
James Hansen has been fraudulently claiming ice loss in Antarctica, and unfortunately his job allows him to tamper with data (although he can't tamper with the satellite records, so his fraud has been exposed):
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/hansen-forecast-peak-ice-loss-in-antarctica-2/

What is also interesting is that the *Arctic* is also putting on ice too. It had 67% more ice in 2013 compared to 2012, and a huge amount looks to be added this winter. This is neatly summarized in the following map and graph:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/67-increase-in-arctic-ice-over-last-year-2/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/2013-death-spiral-vaults-into-first-place/
This graph shows not only that Arctic freezing and melting are normal, but it perfectly summarizes the evidence that there is *no* Global Warming (otherwise the sinusoidal shape would decrease in height with time). In fact, the biased/alarmist British Meteorological office finally had to concede that the computer models from the 90s are wrong and accept the satellite observations that after a little rise in the 1990s there has been *no* global warming for 17 years. Naturally, the British Met still cling to their warming cult, so they just say warming is "paused" (as if they could see the future given their abyssal anti-scientific position so far, and their support of witch hunts for "deniers" that were actually telling the truth). Of course, alarmists are still trying to peddle junk science and get taxpayer funded Carbon Credits and other scams.

The good news for all of us is we don't have to revert to a pre-industrial life style. In fact, it seems there is a sight cooling of the Earth, so not only can be use lots of energy to improve the lives of everyone, but it'll also help the planet too (although, apart from pollution, human emissions are fairly negligible compared to the other effects going on - such as the emissions from volcanic sea vents etc).

There is a great deal more to learn about the climate and the exposes the deliberate Global Warming fraud and how it operated (of course, the shysters have switched to a new meme, "Climate Change" in which case they can win no matter what happens - since the climate has always changed through *natural* processes):
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

Be free people. Don't let your Government tax you or regulate you to death with junk science about "Global Warming" and "Climate Change". Don't pollute though, please - it hurts animals (especially if you are a boatie and chuck stuff out at sea - the plastic ring that joins multiple beer cans together is especially bad).

Yes, but if Lockheed Martin is working on less defence stuff surely US taxers and Government spending should go down, right? Government spending won't go down - it's just misdirected elsewhere (wasteful and counter-productive entitlement programes). The problem is not simply the defence contractors - it is Government spending that citizens cannot constrain (in any country, but especially under the current authoritarian US Administration). The Republicans in the US are trying to take a stand (although clearly when in power they are part of the same spending problem).

The solution is for US citizens to demand Government be limited to enumerated Constitutional functions and ensure that the Congress makes the laws and approves spending and the executive implements the laws. That's what this p!ssing match is really about in Washington - Executive overreach of powers by the White House and its allies in the Senate and demands for unconstrained spending. Because the White House and Senate is not getting their way they refuse to accept any of the four spending bills that House of Representatives has put before the Senate. Hence, the Government shutdown is being caused by the Senate, not the House! defense contractors have nothing to do with this, but look to shed workers to avoid massive ObamaCare costs. ObamaCare is turning into the total clusterfsck is was always destined to be, and is badly hurting the people it was (allegedly) designed to help (US citizens).

There is never a problem that Government cannot make worse. ObamaCare is a prime example of this.

Sorry man, you are looking at the *tampered* data. When you look at the untampered data you get a different picture. It's a shame I'm unable to make a wager with you, do be redeemed in 10 years. And no, I'm not Napoleon - I'm just looking at the data *before* it is tampered with.

btw. claiming everyone who has a difference of opinion with you is implicitly claiming themselves "Napoleon" is anti-scientific, and rather puerile. Take a close look at the data I have referenced, you will see that the 2012 Arctic ice has increased massively, Antarctic ice is still increasing, a record number of US states had below average winter temperatures, the number of hurricanes making land-fall in the US was *zero* in August 2013, the number of wildfires in the US has been decreasing, etc. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to take a scientific approach and look at the data points I linked to. If you can find an explanation for these then I'm all ears. Meanwhile, it is quite anti-scientific of you to dismiss people with silly labels without even looking at the data they reference. "Global Warming" is a cult that requires faith rather than an objective scientific search for counter-evidence (which is essential to science, looking for facts or observational/methodological biases that will slay your pet theory). Get scientific, dude!

Thanks for the site, I'll take a longer look. However, I do see it doesn't account for the huge regrowth of Artic Ice in 2012 and the continuing increase in Antarctic Ice. Care to comment on those data (shown in the graphs I posted) ? I also note that "The Escalator" graph uses NOAO data that is known to be edited by known fraudsters. If Global Warming is real then I'm cool with it, but the 2012 ice cover and admissions by the British Met Office of no significant temperature change for *16 years* !!!!111 seems fairly strong to me. So I welcome any extra insights you can provide. Thanks :)

The data shows that after a spike in Earth's surface temperature two decades ago the temperature has stopped rising for 16 years. Even the British Meteorological Office has finally been forced to concede that the warming predicted from climate models has not occurred. Rather than confess that Global Warming is and always was based on poor science, the British Met Office now says warming has "paused" (as if they knew the future, which they clearly don't, since they've been wrong so far).

Then we have climate 'scientists' like James Hansen and Michael Mann who have been fraudulently manipulating NOAO and NASA data that didn't fit their climate warming alarmist hypothesis.

Yes, I know this information will be a big surprise for many of you. Before you call me a "loon" (or the favorite word of the anti-scientific climate alarmists, a "denier") or mod me down, I urge you to consider the science and analysis displayed here (mixed in with other articles): http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

As an example, check out some of these graphs:
Arctic Sea Ice up 67% this year:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/in-praise-of-nasa/ [This graph is excellent, easy to see how the reported changes reported at the minimum exaggerate the change, good if you intend to freak people out]
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e
Fraudulent scientist James Hansen's predictions vs observation:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/hansen-forecast-0-6oc-warming-from-1997-to-2013/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/arctic-gains-seven-hundred-million-hockey-rinks-of-ice-since-last-year/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-specious-long-term-trend/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/monthly-ncdc-us-fraud-update/ [examples of data tampered with by climate scientists]
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/tennessee-summers-have-cooled-dramatically-since-the-1920s/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/arctic-ice-experts-say-the-arctic-is-past-the-point-of-no-return/

If anyone has any questions about the graphs, or data that contradicts them then I'll be interested to hear it. I have an open mind - I'm just following the Scientific Method and going where the data leads. I hope you do too :)

The simplest explanation for the observed ice cap data, Antarctic ice growth, lack of any hurricanes in the US this August, drop in wildfires in the Continental US, many US States recording below average winter temperatures, etc etc is simply that the predicted "Global Warming" has not continued. In fact, there appears to be a very slight cooling (especially in the Southern Hemisphere). The weather has simply been going up and down as it always does on a year-to-year basis, with no real trend over the hundred year timescale.

Why does it matter? because the current meme of "Global Warming" is out of date. Some shysters have already switched meme to "Climate Change" so they can continue to pilfer your tax dollars - but the reality is that the Earth is not experiencing any climate changes that are abnormal. Even more dangerous than hucksters getting your tax money, are politicians that are making very bad decisions based on out-of-date memes and fraudulent science. This is killing people around the globe as heating and food becomes expensive. It also means that instead of tapping the vast gas reserves of the US and Canada the Western World continues to give money to Middle Eastern countries who use it to wage jihad around the globe and against each other (eg, Syria).

Simply look at the raw observations yourself (before they get tampered with by organizations like NASA and NOAO). You'll see that Climate Change is in defiance of observation. Anyone who says the "science is settled" is lying to you and being anti-scientific. Also, the word "consensus" is used. Remember, Galileo was one man against a "consensus", and who was right? Be like Galileo, and check the observations, not the prevailing opinion/talking points.

BTW: this *is* on-topic (I'm explaining the observations mentioned in the summary); I'm *not* being a troll, and providing quality references is *never* overrated. Just because you disagree with the observations is not a reason to wage jihad on me - instead, I urge you to check the data in the links I have provided.

Thanks, but I think you are well behind the eight ball - so far behind you unfortunately cannot understand the truth when you hear it. In fact, the disinformation (see the excellent: http://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Undermining-Attacking-Promoting-Terrorism/dp/1936488604) is designed to keep smart people like you from asking the right questions.

How about you check out Barry Rubin's analysis? or Stephen Coughlin? or Frank Gaffney? or Robert Spencer? My statements merely reflect the information these giants are saying. These are all people who worked as intelligence analysts for Pentagon (Coughlin and Rubin), or as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence (Gaffney), or gave hundreds of briefings to the FBI and CIA for training (Spencer). Of course you are intimitely familiar with these names and their work, yes? if not, then perhaps you know a lot less than you think you do (since there is so much to know on the subject).

Perhaps, you actually know virtually nothing about the global jihad and the international Leftist alliance that is helping them. As long as the disinformation keeps you from asking the right questions you will never get the right answers - and never recognize when a person is telling you the deep truth. Too bad - the world is an unpredictable place full for random violence until you find out what is going on (not aliens, no lizardmen, no illuminati - just good old fashioned International Socialist and Islamic ideologies working together to subvert the Free World).

FYI the original quote uses the word, "incompetence". However, if you ascribe to incompetence what is actually malicious then you are going to be in a progressive world of hurt, aren't you? Look, you don't have to believe me, just follow some of the references I've given in my earlier posts. Without looking at those references you have no idea as to whether my statements are based on fact or not, yes? Use the scientific method, use my references and find the truth about geopolitics. Or not - if you would like to never see outside the disinformation that cages you. If you want to know the answers as to why Britain's immigration policy was the way it is, why Europeans will be a minority in their own countries within a few generations, why Obama and Bill Clinton used the US to fly as "Al Qaeda's Air Force" in Libya, Kosovo, Bosnia and soon in Syria, as well as Obama supporting the Muslim Brotherhood against the massively popular secular democratic movement in Egypt then I'll be happy to point you to best objective analyzes there are. Until then, please admit to yourself you actually know very little about the subject. Thanks for posting your ideas though.

Actually, it is the Muslim Brotherhood who are infiltrating. They already dictate what can and can't be said in FBI/CIA/DoD and all US Government training manuals - since the US doesn't want to cause "offense" to people whose stated goal to destroy the US using its "own miserable hand" (yeah, madness to let the enemies of liberty dictate your training!). Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't need to infiltrate the security agencies, since it is already setting policy in the White House:
Citattions:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates (reporting from an *Egyptian* source)
Huma Abedin is a Muslim Brotherhood "princess" and Hilliary Clinton's closest advisor
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/more-secrets-from-huma-abedin/
http://culturaljihad.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/strange-bedfellows-white-house-and-muslim-brotherhood/

Ever wonder why the US acted as the "Al Qaeda Air Force" in Libya, and is about to do the same in Syria? It's because of the "Red/Green Alliance". The alliance between the International Socialists (including the US Democrat Party) and the Muslim Brotherhood/Islamists (note: Hamas and Al Qaeda are descendent organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood).

It is not "paranoia" if they really are out to get you. It is not paranoia if the policy of the US has been consistent in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of popular secular democratic uprisings (think the Iranian "Green Revolution" in 2009 where Obama held off commenting until it was crushed; and now the White House and Ambassador Patterson are actively trying to get the Muslim Brotherhood re-instated in Egypt against the popular will).

This is *on topic* as it is describing the general background setting in Snowden's comments about arttempted CIA penetration is being made. I can supply any references you need for any of my statements. I also think people who are concerned about infiltration of the CIA etc should realise they have already been neutered by political correctness. Stephen Coughlin and the Center for Security Policy have several excellent videos where they show the difference in words used between the 9/11 Commission Report and the report into the Fort Hood shooting by Major Nadal Hussein (who is a self-declared jihadi but everyone keeps calling "workplace violence" in the worst outbreak of Marxist Political Correct self-delusion in recent memory).

Oh, looking at your post history I see you in London. Did you happen to miss the Tube and Bus Bombings? Did you miss the beheading of Lee Rigby? these were the little things. Did you miss your Prime Minister lie to your face when he said the beheadings were nothing to do with Islam when the jihadi beheaders clearly, explicitly and repeatedly see they were. Do you not know about the 87 Sharia courts already operating in the UK (Google it! check the facts for yourself). Do you not know all the people who have been told to take down their English flags in case they offend people who voluntarily migrated to the UK? Boy, you must be "awful dumb". No wonder English Culture will disappear within a few generations - if people like you don't even know the basic facts of what is happening (and worse, refuse to believe the *facts* when they are pointed out to you). That really is dumb.