You mean an [old] model underestimates the warming observed in the U.S.: “The annual U.S. mean changes are still large compared to any CO2 effect.”

It says later:

“And sadly, the global (not the U.S.) data now available showed that the model, if anything, was underestimating the effect.”

No data set by itself will show CO2 warming, just warming, period. The various models predict a certain effect which is matched with the observed results. If the results are bigger than predicted, this may mean the [old] model needs tweaking, but this is not evidence of no CO2 effect.

What’s more, they do not expect to see any evidence of AGW in the US for 2-4 more decades!

They would have (in the global data, not U.S. data), with the old model. That they’re seeing something now is not evidence of no effect.

Cheers,

Didn’t GISS just this week say that the southern hemisphere experienced the hottest year ever in 2009?

I guess if they can’t find it here then…. : )

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

Yes, esp. for PeeB.S., silence is golden– Except when it comes to out and out propaganda. In the lead up to Copenhagen, on the PBS Newshour Margaret Warner interviewed the UN’s de Boer and she stated [18 September NewsHour] that “this huge team of scientists from all over the globe issued these unanimous warnings about the really extreme danger to the planet.”

But not a word has been heard about Glaciergate now that 2035 has been shown as a sham, and Climategate was only grudgingly noticed long after the event.

Now PBS, as an agent of Minitrue, certainly subscribes to the Newspeak of AGW. But if enough of us would complain about their coverage, I believe that they would have to change a bit.

We need to send them articles like this.

Here is the link to Newshour feedback:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/letters.html

email: onlineda@newshour.org

And link to the PBS Ombudsman:
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023449/wow-uk-parliamentary-investigation-into-climategate-may-not-be-a-whitewash/

Here’s a direct link to the names of investigators.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/1/22/whos-on-the-select-committee.html?lastPage=true

Marc Sheppard at American Thinker is clearly suggesting that the answer is yes: Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating w…