Saturday
Jan082011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Toronto Sun on Climate Files
Jan 8, 2011 Books Climate: CRU Climate: Jones Climate: Oxburgh Journals Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun asks if maybe climate science shouldn't be just a bit more open, and citing Fred Pearce's The Climate Files as evidence. The tone of the article is interesting, with Goldstein noting that Pearce is not a "denier", but pointing out his criticisms of the climatology community's failure to check its findings.
As well as taking pot shots at climatology peer review, he also has things to say about the Climategate inquiries:
Simply having panels of sympathetic academics (or politicians) take a cursory look at the work of climate scientists and pronounce it sound — what happened following Climategate — doesn’t cut it.
Reader Comments (160)
I don't (as a UK citizen) know the paper or the lady author. Does anyone know if this represents a shift in its or her posture on climate change?
I'm getting the impression that the media as a whole is very slowly shifting to at least appreciate that there is uncertainty around the issue, but maybe I am seeing what I wish to see?
Ian E. Quite right; it's not the absolute position, it's whether there is a shift of position and if it continues.
Well don't count on the UK Telegraph to shift too much.
"Sudden death for thousands of trees"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/8247580/Sudden-death-for-thousands-of-trees.html
"Already 4 million trees have been felled or marked for destruction.
"More are expected to be chopped down in the coming years because the warmer, wetter conditions expected with climate change encourage the spread of the disease."
Last line in the article..."If so, it’s hard to imagine why any rational person would object."
If that had been posted here it would have been followed with "Sarc Off"!
"Indeed. And absent credible peer review, how can the public possibly have confidence in the work of the very climate scientists who insist peer review is the rock upon which their research is built"
And yet Fred Pearce assures us that the vast majority of climate science is accurate.
Perhaps he doesn't need the raw data.
Yes - you would think that last line was something all could agree on. But is it all about that "arrogance" that permeates AGW thought or just the desire to cover up the bent data?
Whichever way it is, members of the Team appear to be unrepentant, as Steve McIntyre told us a couple of days back.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/06/more-data-refusal-nothing-changes/
I see Steve has the cartoon up today.
pfff we know the science is good. Because we follow the subject closely right? We aren't joe public who only get their climate science from the daily fail. We follow it closely on blogs and go to original science sources. Right?
So we know the global surface temperature records have been replicated AND reproduced. We know that Jones losing some of the raw data doesn't cast a shadow on the validity of the global surface temperature records. We can see the bigger picture because we follow this issue closely. Right?
It would only be people who didn't follow this issue closely who would need some insight and investigation into "climategate" to assure them that such things as the surface temperature records were produced in an acceptable and reproducible way. Right?
Or are we all trying to pretend there's a problem for political reasons? That seems to be the GWPF's objective to be honest. To create a big fuss for the sake of driving a no emissions reductions policy (hence the word "policy" in their title).
Lorrie is a "he!"
This does not represent a shift in Lorrie's position. He is one of the very few Canadian journalists who insisted on reporting demonstrable facts about climate change topics in general and Climategate in particular.
Lorrie has consistently been highly critical of the Canadian MSM's alarmist herd mentality.
Cthulhu,
"So we know the global surface temperature records have been replicated AND reproduced."
Could you enlarge on this a little, ah, er, replicating and reproducing records?
j ferguson
Why they used a xerox copier, one of the best. Absolutely perfect copies, they are.
"Could you enlarge on this a little, ah, er, replicating and reproducing records?"
The GISTEMP source code and input data is available. ClearClimateCode has ported it to Python and thus replicated GISTEMP, as well as demonstrating various tests can be made against GISTEMP (ie adding in missing Canadian stations, comparing airport stations with non-airport).
Other people have taken the station input data GISTEMP uses and analyzed it themselves showing a similar result to GISTEMP - therefore reproducing the result. Some have even used other station input data than the data GISTEMP uses.
Everything required by science is there. Reproducibility, the ability to test different problems and most important of all - the ability to conduct an independent analysis to double check the surface warming.
Yet skeptics played heavily on the whole "Jones lost the raw data" angle to try and unjustifiably undermine public confidence in the global temperature records, under the feign of pretending they were concerned about public confidence in the science. Anyone slightly clued in on this matter knows that Jones losing a copy of raw station data doesn't affect any of the above, so the motives of the skeptics are truely exposed by this episode.
If you sniff around at their other campaigns (anti met office, wanting more climategate investigations) you see the same pattern. They are just out to smear, their motive in fact is denial of manmade global warming and smearing science is just one means to that end)
Laurie indeed is all male and has all male dangly bits . . .he has been a voice of sanity about global warming hysteria since forever here in the Great White North.
He really annoys the oh so smarty pants progressive tree hugging latte liberal AGW hysterics.
He's an excellent guy . . . can be contacted here . . lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca
So its Ok that Phil Jones published papers used data he refused to release which he then lost, and it ok for these papers still to be cited when there is no data.
And no sympathy for Harry who nearly had a nervous breakdown trying to sort the mess out and admitted to using fudge factors when he was lost.
Its not science is the only sane conclusion.
What's a 'climate denier'?
Chulthu,
Maybe your comment would make more sense if you substituted some other word for "records." I think Don P has nailed it. You can only copy (or misplace, or In Dr. Jones' case - lose) records. they cannot be replicated or reproduced but maybe reassembled or reacquired.
I'm thinking insulting thoughts about your grasp of the issues.
I thought Chthulhu was being sarcastic at first - surely someone who visited here (regularly?) could not be so ill-informed as to think the climategate investigations were in any way independent (Have you looked at the vested interests of the various inquiry boards, Mr Chthulhu?), impartial, honest, thorough or believable. It seems however from the follow-up posts that he is genuinely representing the warmistas - wonders never cease!
Pearce is an AGW believer that has made his living partly off selling books on climate doom that is how far from sceptic he is. Which is why when he critics the reviews as being poor you see how really poor than actual were.
Arrogance of just a total detachment from reality, but there has to be some reason why these reviews were so poor in all ways? How did anyone think that allowing CRU to control the evidenced was going to go down well in the real world , no actuate recordings of the interviews nor the questions asked and in once case not even a written outline for the review procedures.
Sadly a real opportunity was missed, a chance to clarify and bring objective values into the area was throw away to in the end do nothing but attempt to save face. A mistake we may all come to regret.
Cthulhu , Jones is not alone in beign simply unable to provide the data he claism rest on , and if you can't do that your views have real scientific value.
Cthulhu must be unfamiliar with the extensive analyses of land temperature data made by EM Smith here http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
The subject of GISSTEMP also came up recently (25 December 2010) where EM Smith contributed several posts about the inadequacy of this record. It can found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/25/do-we-care-if-2010-is-the-warmist-year-in-history/
It is a long read, as there are over 200 posts, but you will discover that he speaks with the authority of someone who actually has examined and probed the records in great detail and found them wanting.
KnR -
Can you be specific about which data you think Jones (or anybody else for that matter) is unable to provide? And why you think he is unable to provide them?
Cthulhu
It is the arrogant, we know best - go away and leave us alone attitude that is part of the problem, and it still exists.
Your easy dismissal of poor scientific work is another example.
It worries me that any scientist who has read the Climategate emails could be happy with the way this crowd have been operating without any real peer-review, just mate-review tickbox , blocking dissenting peer-reviewed work from publication, intimidating magazine editors and even bullying colleagues.
We just except the emails now as public domain information, but we still don't know how they came to be in the wild. An expert (I thought this was meant to suggest that he knew how to hack) recently commented that - it had to be an inside job, which was said by another expert very early on.
He said it was unlikely that you get enough access to collect all the emails etc.and get out without leaving a trace - his analysis of what would be required was interesting.
I like to think, but does it really matter, that someone on the inside had a conscience and couldn't take it any more. Given the bullying displayed in some of the emails, perhaps someone decided on revenge.
Whoever it was - thank you
KnR -
Can you be specific about which data you think Jones (or anybody else for that matter) is unable to provide? And why you think he is unable to provide them?
THE WANG AFFAIR AND JONES' URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT PAPER [48]
JONES is the lead author of a September, 1990 paper that concludes there is no relevant urban heat island effect ( i.e.,
localized temperature increase) in and around urban centers. [46]. However, 3 months later, his co-author Wei-Chyung
Wang publishes another paper using the very same Eastern China data, concluding that there is a significant UHI effect
and temperature studies must this take into account to avoid skewing results in favor of warming. [47] (Also see
{WIGLEY 11.Nov.09}.)
Aside from producing contradictory conclusions, the data set used by the authors poses other problems. The 84
stations from which it allegedly derives were chosen because of a supposed history of "few, if any, changes in
instrumentation, location or observation times." [48]
In February, 2007, mathematician Doug Keenan learns that data are available for only 35 of the stations, and of those, "at
least half have undergone substantial moves." [48] Keenan asks JONES about the source of location information of the
other 49 stations. JONES replies that Wang "selected the stations ... based on his 'extensive knowledge of those networks.'" [48]
Keenan writes to Wang, who replies that Zhao-Mei Zeng (a co-author of [47]) has "hard copies of station histories."
However, the authors, including Zeng, of a U.S. Department of Energy and Chinese Academy of Sciences study detailing
station moves note that the copies to which Wang referred were "'not currently available.'" [49]
Later in 2007 Keenan publishes "The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang," setting
out the matter, but despite an investigation by the University at Albany (where Wang is employed), the "hardcopies of
station histories" are never produced. Neither are the results of the university's investigation. In his paper, Keenan notes
that though JONES may not have known about the fraud in 1990, in 2001 he co-authored a study that "considered two
meteorological stations in China (at Beijing and at Shanghai). This study correctly describes how the stations had undergone
relocations, and it concludes that those relocations substantially affected the measured temperatures-in direct contradiction to the
claims of Wang. Thus, by 2001, Jones must have known that the claims of Wang were not wholly true." [49]
"The [1990 JONES et al] paper has been the major evidence presented by JONES in all of the IPCC reports to
dismiss the influence of urban change on the temperature measurements, and also has been used as an excuse
for the failure to mention most of the unequivocal evidence that such urban effects exist. The paper was even
dragged out again for the 2007 IPCC report." [39] In fact, determining the UHI is not complicated at all. (See "Picking
out the UHI in climatic temperature records - so easy a 6th grader can do it!" [61]. See also [149].)
On August 31, 2007 WIGLEY e-mails JONES that Keenan is correct: "Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point.
The statements in the papers that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone ([Wang] at the
very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect." [1188557698.txt] [1241415427.txt]
And here is a more recent one from 2010
http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/06/more-data-refusal-nothing-changes/
j ferguson
A bright lad yer are! Taking the same mysterious data and computer program and running it on another computer is akin to running it through a xerox machine -- except it was done digitally and has a much lower noise to signal ratio.
Cthulhu
Like many others contributing to this blog, I have advanced degrees. I also have a good deal of experience in computational computing, statistics and the scientific method. The way you replicate a scientific finding is to have somebody INDEPENDENTLY take your method (which you completely explain), collect fresh data independently of original researcher, and using appropriate and generally accepted analysis come to the same conclusions. This has not been done in Climate "Research".
And given the amount of snow falling on the entire northern hemisphere this winter, the validity of the gloom and doom predictions have no face validity. As for their statistical validity, it is totally absent. In a word, bogus.
oldtimer -
I had a quick look at your link to Smith's article on WUWT, and almost immediately found this
"Also note that total Global Warming, over the past 131 years, has been, according to the IPCC, GISS and CRU, in the range of 0.7ºC to 0.8ºC. So, if 1934 was more than 0.5ºC warmer than 1998, that is quite a significant percentage of the total."
But he's already told us that the 1934-1998 comparison he was talking about was for the US only. So the comparison with the IPCC figures for Global warming is meaningless.
So, although you claim that Smith speaks with "authority", I found almost straightaway a comment that displays a marked lack of scientific rigour. If I had time to go further into the piece, no doubt I'd find many more.
Just as it's the clouds, so it's the UHI. Jones is going to regret ever meeting Wang someday.
===================
Breath of Fresh Air
OK, so you cut and pasted a quote from something called "The Vail Spot" which itself has cut and pasted from Joanne Nova's site.
Since Nova presumably has an agenda, I have to assume that her interpretation of events, her decisions about what to put in and what to leave out of the story, are coloured by that agenda, and that Jones would put a different slant on events.
But my main point is this. I don't deny that some of the raw data has been lost. Considering its heterogeneous origins, it would be very surprising if that hadn't happened. The point is, does that affect the reliability of the global temperature records or the story they tell, and I'd say no it doesn't. As you go back in time, of course, the instrumental record becomes more sparse, less reliable, more like a proxy if you like, so the error bars will increase, and there is more scope for re-interpretation.
So no doubt if a re-interpretation appears to increase the apparent warming trend, it can be added to the list of alleged "tricks" and if a re-interpretation does not appear to increase that trend it can be ignored, so the list of "tricks" looks biased. That only happens, of course, because the people who compile the list of "tricks" have an anti-AGW agenda.
The fact remains that since 1980 the satellite record is pretty much identical to the land based surface temperature records, making allegations of systematic fraud look pretty weak.
You asked for where data was not provided and you got it and cannot refrute it either, this 'Study' is used to show that there is little affect of UHI and justification for the lack of proper adjustment for UHI in the modified temp records. However even with this the adjusted global temps have flatlined in the last 12 years which confirms CO2 is not being reinforced with positive feedbacks to caused unprecedented warming as some would have use believe.
Cthuhul
The various GISTEMP replications and parallel exercises did seem to show that if you ran the same dataset through similar exercises, the results would be similar. And several of these exercises were done by recognized sceptics, and with care and, I think, creativity.
BUT.... The datasets were the same collections of partially QA'd "records" accumulated by CRU. Therein lies the rub, if I too may be permitted to invoke the bard.
The yet unresolved issues with these data sets is firstly whether their locations in relation to changes in urbanization have been accurately identified and secondly whether the urbanization effects on temperatures reported from these locations over many years has been reasonably included in the adjustments made before calcs are done to arrive at a "global" change in temperature.
So no Cthulhu, I don't think that simultaneous processing of the same data-set using alternative protocols and massaging and getting results very similar to those produced by GISTEMP,. proves anything other than that if there is a problem, it is likely somewhere else. And also that the good faith of the nasa people might be established in this one area.
Also, I don't imagine that The NASA folks wouldn't very much like to have their temperature history data-sets cleaned up and the urbanization impacts better known and quantified. It's that so doing would be very very expensive and their budgets can sustain the costs.
I suspect that one of the other frequenters of this wonderful site may be able to put this more succinctly.
Breath of fresh air -
This paper "Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China (Jones et al 2008)"
which is summarized here
shows only minimal UHI. If you have a different view, then you (or somebody) needs to publish it in the peer-reviewed literature.
sorry, that should be "their budgets CANNOT sustain the cost."
"If you have a different view, then you (or somebody) needs to publish it in the peer-reviewed literature."
Paul B,
No they don't.
And FYI, an appeal to "Peer-Reviewed Litterachur" has become kind of a signal of a person's lack of personal understanding of an issue.
Andrew
Cthuhu and Paul B
Both missing the point:
UK CO2 emissions = 1.84% global annual total.
China and the US = 42.41%
The very concept of emissions reduction as a meaningful policy response by the UK to climate change is fatuous.
Disagree? Show me the physical mechanism by which any reduction the UK could make will have any measurable effect on GAT now, in 20 years time or by mid-century. (Remember, Chinese emissions grow annually by more than the annual UK total).
Emissions reduction policies in the UK simply damage the national economy, and very specifically, result in dangerously misguided energy infrastructure planning.
The shrill, illogical and endless focus on CO2 has led to something really inimical to the UK which will have no effect on climate.
Such policies need to be scrapped, and those who advocate them should be duly reviled for the harm they have done.
Future climate change caused by CO2 emissions will be driven by China and other industrialising nations, not Western economies.
That is where climate policy focus needs to be. Although how anyone proposes to limit, slow or stop world industrialisation is beyond me.
All I can be categorical about is the sheer nonsense + harm factor in pushing emissions reduction in the UK now or at any point in the future. All harm; no good.
Finally, you are underplaying the huge uncertainty about the net effect CO2 actually has on GAT. Yes, it seems 'very likely' to force T, but by how much?
Things we really don't know:
No-feedbacks climate sensitivity for CO2 (given as +1K or +1.2K per doubling of pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2). Certain? Actually rather wobbly. See:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/14/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity-part-ii/
Then there’s the vexed question of validating GCM projections. See:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/01/climate-model-verification-and-validation/
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/18/climate-model-verification-and-validation-part-ii/
Then we must consider what we really do and really don’t know about feedbacks in the climate system. See:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/29/climate-feedbacks-part-i/
I could go on, but I’m sure you are getting the general picture.
All the alarmist 'certainties' are based on very little ‘settled science’ indeed. It’s time you lot took five minutes out from sceptic-bashing to have a think about this.
Perhaps the arrogance and uber-certainty are misplaced.
As far as I can see, you are pushing your political/environmental agenda under the guise of ‘science’ and that is every bit as bad as the worst you accuse the sceptics of.
@Paul B - would the Jones et al paper 2008 paper be based on the Jones et al paper 1990, which is the source of the dispute over missing data and consequent allegations of academic fraud?
Here's a useful link for you to peruse too with lots of links and so forth.
In 2008, Jones and two colleagues (neither of which was Wang) published a study that claimed to verify the conclusion of the 1990 study. Jones, and others, have since cited the 2008 study to argue that issues with the 1990 study are therefore immaterial.
The 2008 study, however, relies upon the same station histories as the 1990 study. The histories that are not extant. Indeed, Jones discussed my fraud allegation in an interview with Nature (published on 15 February 2010), and in the interview Jones acknowledged that the histories had been lost long ago. In the same interview, however, Jones reasserted that the 2008 study verified the conclusions of the 1990 study—which is obviously impossible.
Moreover, in 2008, Wang made a submission to the University at Albany during the university's investigation of my allegation against him. His submission (which was leaked as part of Climategate) included a letter from a colleague in China who co-authored the DOE/CAS report. The letter stated that the relevant histories had been lost long ago. Indeed, it is manifest that if the histories were available in 2008, Wang would have produced them to defend himself.
Jones' story about the 2008 study is plainly false. Jones changed that story in a second interview with Nature (published on 15 November 2010). In the second interview, Jones claimed that the histories had not been lost, but “the authorities [in China] have not released the full station-history data”. Jones' change of story seems highly suspicious. Moreover, the changed story has a problem: what reason do the authorities have for not releasing the histories? The histories are not state secrets; their release, if they were extant, would benefit science; and CAS undertook a project with DOE to publish them.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6818
Until the likes of Phil Jones share their data in a transparent manner I can't be persuaded by any of their research. Sorry, but he is STILL publishing research (under under government grants?) using proprietary data unavailable to other scientists who may wish to try to replicate (and validate) his findings. This isn't science.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/06/more-data-refusal-nothing-changes/
Per my post above, I should have made clear that the wording in bold is from Douglas J. Keenan's submission to the House of Commons Science and Technology committee last month.
@Bad Andrew : "And FYI, an appeal to "Peer-Reviewed Litterachur" has become kind of a signal of a person's lack of personal understanding of an issue."
Well, this site being what it is, we probably have some kind of culture clash on this issue. But I'd be more impressed if you knew how to spell "Literature" :-)
Paul B - more on the matter here -
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/06/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-3/
Paul B
Snark not content:
Boring.
Read and learn:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/03/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-1/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/04/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-2/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/06/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-3/
Woodentop – sorry, semi-duplicate of your comment.
@BBD
Well, no. Neither Cthulhu nor myself were discussing that issue at all. So its you who has missed the point
I think if you look back over my posts, you'll see that I'm not expressing any "certainties" that are not back up by references. I'm not, for example, claiming that there haven't been issues around data availability in the past - and maybe there still are (We need to see how the recent issue described by McIntyre resolves itself before jumping to conclusions). And sure, I think that large chunks of the science - especially where they relate to feedbacks - are far from "settled".
But on the other side of the coin, if you look at many of the contributions to this site, they seem to be driven by an overriding "certainty" that there is some sort of conspiracy going on to massage the data to show that there is more warming than is actually the case. There is actually no evidence whatsoever that such a conspiracy exists. I don't bash genuine sceptics, but I do criticize those who wilfully misinterpret poor data control and an occasionally robust response to criticism as evidence of deliberate fraud.
And here's another example of misplaced "certainty" with no actual evidence whatsoever:
Paul B
You referenced Jones et al. 2008 FFS.
Evasive and disingenuous to a fault.
Paul B
You referenced Jones et al. 2008 FFS.
Evasive and disingenuous to a fault.
Really. So what is the 'point' of all this 'debate' if not climate policy? You said that (for example) the GWPF was muddying the waters to delay decarbonisation... did you not?
I think we are all talking about the same thing.
Paul B says:
So what exactly are you doing then?
Paul B,
And another thing, you obviously believe the Global Warming propaganda, so it's incumbent on you to provide the evidence that your beliefs are true. That you are demanding evidence from others is a signal that you have little or no evidence to present.
Andrew
@Bad Andrew - I'm now waiting for the usual litany of evidence - the IPCC's conclusions (set up to find man-made CC with the summary conclusions effectively pulled out of a hat and given statistical sounding authority), 97% of climate scientists (ie 77 out of 79 after the figures were massaged) etc.
It's akin to the fake charity phenomenon, whereby apparently independent bodies issue reports which are then relied on by their government paymasters as evidence for promoting certain policies.
Entirely circular (tree-ring!?) reasoning.
Point of fact - I didn't say anything about GWPF or decarbonisation. Perhaps Cthulhu said it.
Of course, projections about the future extent of climate change should feed into government policies. That's why it is important to make the models are reliable as they can be.
Since the scope of private enterprise is limited to short term profits, I'd argue (and I don't think there is any unusual or unreasonable political/environmental agenda here) that it is a function of government to address issues on longer timescales and to take account of a more extensive range of interests.
So for example, we know that oil companies achieved record breaking profits after oil prices spiked a couple of years ago. This indicates that it is in the interests of those companies that oil prices should be high, and therefore it is also in their interests that alternatives to oil should not be developed.
But is that in the interests of society as a whole? I'd argue that it is the duty of government to be aware of potential economic shocks in the future. In the same way, they need to prepare a response in advance to potential impacts of human activities on the environment (and that includes impacts on the climate).
Reference my earlier comment about the lack of discomfort by warmists over the ClimateGate emails. It tends to suggest that they have not read them or read only the excuses of those exposed.
I was rather taken by these comments by James Lovelock who has been quite agnostic and even warmist at times.
James Lovelock’s reaction to first reading about the CRU emails in late 2009 was one of a true scientist:
“I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.
I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.
Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”
And in March this year to the Guardian he said
“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing…We do need skepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.”
Well, no. All the evidence is in the scientific literature. (See references in the IPCC report (thanks woodentop!))
Your problem is that your "evidence" takes multiple, often mutually inconsistent, forms and is spread over various blogs of varying quality. If you have an alternative to the AGW hypothesis, you need to build up a cohesive body of evidence for that alternative and start to publish it.
But of course, you need to approach the alternatives with the same skeptical attitude as you approach the AGW theory.
@Paul B - what was the alternative to the cold fusion hypothesis?
Presumably all the other ways of obtaining energy ...
@Paul B - oh dear.
FAIL.