Here go. Knock yourself out.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

Nothing there about insolation.

http://sec.gsfc.nasa.gov/sec_science.htm

Nor here.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=37575

Oh! A hit: “The small changes in solar irradiance that occur during the solar cycle exert a small influence on Earth’s climate”

And this links to a page that gives:

“However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.”

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/solar-b/index.html

No, nothing there.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

What? The whole blog site? Can’t you find something specific?

And yes, knowing that NASA is the Grandmaster of Ambivalence, saying yes and no in so many different ways in a single page of type that it becomes mind-numbing I included an additional link to people who are adept at cutting through the doublespeak underbrush.

Here’s a pretty self-explanatory link from NASA:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/deepsolarminimum/irradiance_strip.jpg

Enjoy! And don’t forget to turn up your furnace.

Of course - winter is coming

Apparently only climatology uses statistical methods that include chopping off trends that you don’t like, “losing” decades worth of data (but still claiming your summary valid), and deleting files rather than letting the legal FOI system disseminate them.

> Your stuff about ‘corrupting science in the service of totalitarianism’ and ‘political filters’ certainly have all the hallmarks of the things conspiracy theorists come up with.

Nope. Creationists corrupt science in the name of superstitious bullcrap, but I doubt there’s much “conspiracy” there… they actually *believe.* And like Islamists and Warmists, it’s ok to knowingly corrupt the data you don’t like if it leads to conclusions you *do* like. Doesn’t require conspiracies, just putting faith or ideology ahead of facts.

> my sceptical mind wonders why the ‘delete all the Ar4 stuff’ email wasn’t deleted itself

Some smart people are kinda stupid, especially when they think they’re better than the system.

> as for the ‘fraudulent science’ - that truly is an unsubstantiated statement.

Nope.
http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg
When you ignore data that conflicts with your conclusion, that’s fraudulent science.

No it’s not. There are great differences in the statistical methods used in the varied fields of science, for example the biological sciences have to deal with experimental data where there is great variance in the samples due to the large differences found in living organisms of the same species. In other fields this is not the case.

Ah, there we go. I never mentioned “conspiracy,” but that’s where your mind leads you. There does not need to be a “conspiracy” for groupthink to override reason. That you think in such terms says more about *you*.

Your stuff about ‘corrupting science in the service of totalitarianism’ and ‘political filters’ certainly have all the hallmarks of the things conspiracy theorists come up with.

But by all means, keep excusing fraud, money laundering and fraudulent science.

Not excusing anything - but my sceptical mind wonders why the ‘delete all the Ar4 stuff’ email wasn’t deleted itself. I also wonder why the reply to the Russian scientist was not posted, and as for the ‘fraudulent science’ - that truly is an unsubstantiated statement.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

http://sec.gsfc.nasa.gov/sec_science.htm

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=37575

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/solar-b/index.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

And yes, knowing that NASA is the Grandmaster of Ambivalence, saying yes and no in so many different ways in a single page of type that it becomes mind-numbing I included an additional link to people who are adept at cutting through the doublespeak underbrush.

Enjoy! And don’t forget to turn up your furnace.

Sigh. Data analysis is data analysis. I’ve done rather a lot of it. Had I done the sort of “data enrichment” being discussed here, NASA and the USAF would have been less than pleased.

> this *conspiracy*

Ah, there we go. I never mentioned “conspiracy,” but that’s where your mind leads you. There does not need to be a “conspiracy” for groupthink to override reason. That you think in such terms says more about *you*.

But by all means, keep excusing fraud, money laundering and fraudulent science. This attitude, while damaging to science in general in the`short run, should have the`side effect of making the AGW-proponants look like a bunch of socialist scum to the electorate. This will make passing collectivist, anti-freedom legislation like cap’n'tax more difficult.

So, please, by all means, do go on.

Bollox Scott. Go get yourself a degree in Physics or another climate related discipline and then you can opine on data analysis in the climate science field.

Hacking some emails is, IMO, a much less offensive crime than corrupting science in the service of totalitarianism.

“corrupting science in the service of totalitarianism” - that’s batshit insane. You mean to tell me that all the professional bodies, university departments are either in on this *conspiracy* or are unable to detect it?

As for deleted emails - until context is established all I can say it that it seems an odd request - but the science behind climate change is robust.

But what the hacker has shown is that much of the data has been run through the filter of *politics.* Data that has shown trends they didn’t like was dropped.

> Also, in addition, the data needs expert knowledge to make sense of.

This might be a valid point of view if the original, uncorrupted/unfiltered data was made available. But once it has been massaged, the only people who can speak to the accuracy of it are the people who massaged the data. And while most of the time that’s perfectly fine, there are in this case two damned good reasons to reveal the full datasets:
1) Unlike much of science, this does *not* involve classified data
2) Given the controvercial and life or death nature of the debate, any effort to hide data - for any reason - poisons the debate.

In this case, Freedom Of Information requests were supposed to make such data available. But the emails show efforts to delete emails and data… which would be illegal.

Don’t get me wrong, the hackers broke the law and if they were western hackers, they’d be found and trussed up. But if they are Russian hackers… meh. Doubtful. But the fact that the hackers committed a crime doesn’t mean that we should ignore what they’ve dug up, just as there have been at least two cases I’m aware of of burglars who discovered evidence of worse crimes (child born in one case), and turned that over to the cops.

Hacking some emails is, IMO, a much less offensive crime than corrupting science in the service of totalitarianism.

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK

Ben, the problem is that in almost any scientific field you have to run the original data through statistical processes to eliminate noise and bring out trends. Also, in addition, the data needs expert knowledge to make sense of.