This is topic Global Warming Research Center Hacked in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/13754.html

Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Or was it a whistle blower? Either way, it's not looking good for the AGW crowd. A 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents was dumped onto a Russian server and is making the rounds. It's been confirmed as the real deal:
quote:
The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight ..."It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."
There is a strong whiff of conspiracy and what appears to be attempts to cover up the faults with the AGW theory:
quote:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

Jones says he can't remember the context of “hide the decline,” and that the process was a way to fill data gaps rather than mislead. I've never heard of a scientific method where “tricks” in the context of hiding data are applied.

There is also an email discussion on how to delete inconvenient data in order to emphasize other data that supports their conclusions as well as one where they are admitting that they can’t find the global warming that they’ve been predicting.

Even RealClimate is in on it:
quote:
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidt

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

See that? Gavin and Co. don't want any dissenting views even in their comments section and are coordinating with CRU to make sure the "right" message is the dominant, if note sole, message heard.

It even goes so far as to delete evidence before the skeptics at Climate Audit (CA) can get to it:
quote:

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

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

Finally, let's end with the "cheering news" of the death of skeptic John Daly, a Tasmanian sceptic who did work sea level rises:
quote:
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@vxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004

From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal

Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.

Cheers
Phil

Note that here they are relying on intellectual property rights to deny research data to skeptics.

This may blow over (with a willing media there's a reasonable chance) but it may also be what skeptics need to destroy the AGW hoax once and for all.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
it may also be what skeptics need to destroy the AGW hoax once and for all
You know what would destroy it? Data. Get going on that.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
It would be surprising for an institution (however virtual) as large as the GW consensus bloc to not have some corruption.

As TOm D said, in so many words, this is about science not political culture.

Data rules, ideologues drool.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Yep, those sound like human beings alright. I wonder what the private emails of the skeptics look like?

SPECULATIVE FICTION:

"I know there's overwhelming data in all these studies, but if we focus on this one bad one we can undermine the whole rotten concept of AGW. Make sure you distribute this as much as possible so we can drown out the consensus scientists, and make all their other data look unreliable."
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
it may also be what skeptics need to destroy the AGW hoax once and for all
You know what would destroy it? Data. Get going on that.
If you read the OP, you'll see that any data contradicting AGW is being destroyed and discussion is being censored. Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW. Perhaps you should get going on that.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I knew that would be the response. Any research done independently doesn't count, of course. Note my use of the word 'any'. If one guy can use it in an indiscriminating blanket statement, so can I.

You're my fave poster, G2. Well, today, at least, for I'm a man of ever-changing tastes and passions.

But today, you're IT. That chorus line of dancing ignorebots, that bristling exterior of misconturals and unfounded assertions, that shimmying stack of non sequiturs stacked like wafered wavers...
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW.
Do you also believe in fairies, G2? [LOL]

You don't know that. You know, at best, maybe 10 percent of the information the professionals know about global warming. Which makes your opinions and wild speculations completely worthless.

I know you are going to continue spouting your self-righteous, know-it-all nonsense. But that doesn't mean I have to just sit here and listen to it without calling you on it.

Your faith in your own psychic abilities (knowledge without information, conclusions without facts) is impressive, but not in the way you think it is.

Now post your little criticism about how I'm trying to quell dissent about global warming, even though that isn't what I'm doing with this post.

Read it again before you write it, so you have no excuse for your lack of intellectual integrity.
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
You know what would destroy it? Data. Get going on that.

Obviously the emails are getting all the hype, but the leak also provided a lot of Hadley's temperature records. Whether this is enough information to determine HCRUT's methodology to finding their numbers, I don't know. Nor am I qualified to determine this myself. But with the data out there now, perhaps someone will. Then we will actually have independent verification of their methodology, and can see if they're fudging the numbers or not.

It's not everything, but it'd be a big help. The discrepency between satellite data and surface records is too big to ignore.

As for the emails, I'm more concerned about the attacks on scientific openness and honesty than anything else. There's talk of deleting all emails in reference to specific events as well as trying to bully a journal to fire an editor who accepted a paper they didn't like. Of course, it wouldn't be too hard for the hacker to slip in a few fake emails with the rest of this list, so I take it all with a grain of salt. But it links up to some of the other issues that are already out in the open.
 
Posted by KE (Member # 6535) on :
 
Mariner,

Are you listening to Rush, too? [Smile] If not the timing of your post is excellent. Rush just started going off on this.

Excellent point about the hacker slipping in emails. I wonder if there is a way to prove or disprove that?

I have no horse in the AGW race I'm just curious.

KE
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
But with the data out there now, perhaps someone will. Then we will actually have independent verification of their methodology, and can see if they're fudging the numbers or not.
*nod* This is the part I'm interested in, too.
 
Posted by threads (Member # 5091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
it may also be what skeptics need to destroy the AGW hoax once and for all
You know what would destroy it? Data. Get going on that.
If you read the OP, you'll see that any data contradicting AGW is being destroyed and discussion is being censored. Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW. Perhaps you should get going on that.
By destroy do you mean that AGW will be shown to be wrong or that it will be shown to be unsupported? That's an important distinction.
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
Interesting... I found a very similar quote to the one G2 provided:

quote:
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Found first from slashdot and later from RealClimate.org
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
From:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html

quote:
But let's be clear: Jones is talking to his colleagues about making a prettier picture out of his data, and not about manipulating the data itself. Again, I'm not trying to excuse what he did -- we make a lot of charts here and 538 and make every effort to ensure that they fairly and accurately reflect the underlying data (in addition to being aesthetically appealing.) I wish everybody would abide by that standard.
Also, tangentially for that page, some actual temperature charts going back as far as we have reasonably reliable data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
Sorry LoJ and Pyrtolin, it's still an unethical manipulation of the data.

Here's the gist of it in a simplified manner. You discover that tree ring length corresponds fairly well with temperature. In other words, you can measure tree ring width, plug it into some equation, and get an average temperature for that year. Now you can keep doing this, going back a couple thousand years, and recreate the temperature profile throughout that time. Hooray!

Only one problem. When you do it for the most recent 30 years or so, you find that the temperature you get out of the tree rings is lower than the actual measured temperature. In other words, tree ring length doesn't keep increasing with increasing temperature, but instead starts to decrease. So now, your temperature profile starts to curve downward in the 20th century instead of still going up. Alas and alack! What to do?

Well, just cut out the tree ring data at the end and replace it with the actual temperature data. What's wrong with that? It's more accurate, right? We should always use the most accurate data, correct? So we use the "trick" of splicing in real data with tree rings in order to "hide the decline" that shows up erroneously with the tree ring data. Perfectly legitimate, right?

No. What happens if you don't do that? If you don't do it, then one can plainly see the divergence between tree ring width and temperatures. One can plainly see that the calibration (ie, equation used to convert tree ring width to temperatures) does not hold for the entire range of temperature data you wish to study.

And why is that important? Because some stupid, amateur scientist might look at it and say, "Hey, wait a minute! If your tree ring reconstruction can't possibly find high temperatures, how do you know there weren't high temperatures in the past? Maybe there were high temperatures, but the trees didn't grow that well, just like what's happening now. So this reconstruction doesn't actually tell us anything about past temperatures!"

To which the intelligent, establishment scientist replies: "Duh, of course that's not true. If it were, then we couldn't scare the public into giving us bazillions in funding."

And so to avoid the possibility of people correctly recognizing the faults of bristlecone pine reconstructions, an additional data set is included to hide the faults.

That is why it's dishonest. Nate Silver doesn't know what he's talking about. And while RealClimate claims that everyone knows about this already, the fact is that they didn't all know about this back then (the email is dated from 1999). This was an attempt to hide the fact that their reconstruction was not robust, and to hide the inevitable conclusion that they couldn't prove that the MWP did not exist. Very, very unethical.

But not a shocking revelation, however. We've known that they did this for years.

Oh, and since Pyrtolin brought up the GISS temperature record, I feel the need to point out that GISS and satellite data have been diverging since as long as we've had satellites. So to use GISS as the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth is incorrect (not that I'm claiming Pyrtolin did this, but just pointing it out for the record).
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Actually, Nate does pretty clearly say that what was done was unethical and misleading. His main point is that the focus is somewhat misdirected, but similar "tricks" are used ethically all the time to make data easier to read. People are making a big deal about the rather mundane part of it because of alternate connotations on the word "trick" and not actually doing as you did and explaining the misleading part.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
With contentions like this, a recurrent pattern is that it starts with nut packers and ends with nit pickers.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
And why is that important? Because some stupid, amateur scientist might look at it and say, "Hey, wait a minute! If your tree ring reconstruction can't possibly find high temperatures, how do you know there weren't high temperatures in the past? Maybe there were high temperatures, but the trees didn't grow that well, just like what's happening now. So this reconstruction doesn't actually tell us anything about past temperatures!"

To which the intelligent, establishment scientist replies: "Duh, of course that's not true. If it were, then we couldn't scare the public into giving us bazillions in funding."

It's your last step that fails, Mariner. Scientists simply are not that unethical.

Someone, somewhere would simply point this out in a journal, if only in the letters. If not yesterday, then today, or tomorrow. And the scientists who relied on the logic would be shown to be fools. And a vast majority of scientists are far too proud to allow themselves to be shown to be fools. They'd rather lose their "bazillions" in funding.

You can't hide something that obvious.

Your lack of trust of the scientific community allows you to believe untrue things, Mariner. It blinds you to other explanations.

What is the explanation for this? I don't know off-hand. But I bet with just a little digging you could find out. If you were open to the possibility of discovering it.

Are you?
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
Scientists simply are not that unethical.
Being a scientist doesn't make one a morally superior breed of homo sapiens.

quote:
"Your lack of trust of the scientific community allows you to believe untrue things, Mariner. It blinds you to other explanations."
No... it's trust that always blinds people. Lack of trust doesn't blind them. It might make them paranoid, but it doesn't blind them.

It's you who are proving yourself closed to the possibilities of intentional fraud on the part of scientists.

quote:
What is the explanation for this? I don't know off-hand. But I bet with just a little digging you could find out.
He does have an explanation, and he mentioned it. Since it's you who admit that you don't have an explanation that satisfies you, then shouldn't it be *you* who should be doing the "just a little digging" that will make you find out?

Forcing others to do your legwork to find you an explanation that *you* will be satisfied with, and calling them closed-minded if they are not prepared to indulge you, seems to me rather lame.

No pun intended.
 
Posted by Robert Espy (Member # 6126) on :
 
Search engine for emails and docs here

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php

Bishops Hill Blog offers these summeries. The number following each line item refers the the file number in the set. Read each email for context.

* Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
* Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
* Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
* Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)
* Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
* Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
* Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
* Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
* Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
* Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)
* Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
* Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
* Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
* Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
* Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
* Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
* Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
* Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
* Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)
* Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
* Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
* Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
* Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
* Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
* Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
* Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
* Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
* Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
* Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
* Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
* Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
* Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
* Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
* Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
* Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
* Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
* Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
* Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
* Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
* Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
* Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
* Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
* Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
* David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
* Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
* Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
* Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
We are dealing here with a weird conglomeration of prophecy, science, politics, priestcraft,zealotry, ideal public service, and corruption.

What matters is the data itself. Not data about the data, not data about warring science-priest factions, but data data data.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Being a scientist doesn't make one a morally superior breed of homo sapiens.
True.

quote:
No... it's trust that always blinds people. Lack of trust doesn't blind them. It might make them paranoid, but it doesn't blind them.
Not quite true. Firm belief that the other person will "do wrong" at any opportunity blinds one to other explanations. Just look at how much ill President Bush was accused of, or Clinton, or Obama, or just about any controversial politicial you can name. If you want to, if it fits your world view, you can believe anything evil about another person. And you won't question it.

quote:
It's you who are proving yourself closed to the possibilities of intentional fraud on the part of scientists.
I am open to the possibility of intentional fraud. But I also know it is much harder to do in the sciences than it is in most other realms, such as politics. This is because of four reasons:

1. Information is published. Although many of the miriad facts about global warming are not readily available, most of them are, and are subject to scrutiny. If global temperatures have been dropping for the last few decades, this would show up in the raw data and the analysis of the data, and anyone saying the planet was rapidly warming because of human actions, regardless of their political leanings, would be laughed out of the field, because anyone could see that it was untrue. All theories must conform to the facts, and the facts are known.

2. Analyses are checked. Experiments are replicated. Facts are checked. Just because one scientist, or one group of scientists, come up with a result doesn't mean it stops there. Other scientists do the same work, or use the results to do further work. If the initial results were wrong, or fraudulent, this will eventually show up in the retesting or in the failure of the further research. Sooner or later (and often times sooner), the bad results are found out.

3. Facts are checked by other experts. It is not just some guys who know a little bit about a subject that look over these facts and hypotheses. It's guys whose careers are in the same field. One's who know all the traps and pitfalls, because they've either fell into them themselves or because they daily work to avoid them. You can fool some of the people somoe of the time, and most of the people most of the time, but you can't fool your peers hardly at all. Other experts will see stuff that most people will miss. But also, they will understand subtlities that others may not appreciate.

4. Scientists worry about reputation. Success is science doesn't come from the size of your research grants. No one goes into science to make a fortune. They do it because they want to know about the universe, and, more importantly, they want to prove they are smart. Smarter than the other guy. Smarter than their peers. Sometimes this leads to strange and unusual ideas. Some of them even turn out to be true (while most do not). But it's not the grants that they work toward. It's the discoveries that make them noteworthy. Fraud and deceit will destroy the chances of that happening.

Now, certain individuals may not hold to all (or any!) of these ideals. But a majority of scientists do. Which means that obvious fraud will be found out pretty quickly.

What Mariner describes is obvious fraud. Not just amateur scientists, but even first year graduate students will see the obvious flaws in using the tree rings as she describes. And if there is a large enough group, someone will object. Because each scientist knows that his name will go on the paper, and his reputation will be ruined when the fraud or obvious error is found out. And his career will be shot.

It's not moral superiority. It's self-interest that prevents scientists from practicing fraud, especially obvious fraud. Because more than in most fields, it is easy to be found out.

And you got to admit, people, even scientists, are pretty good at looking after their own self-interest. [Smile]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
" a) No... it's trust that always blinds people. Lack of trust doesn't blind them. It might make them paranoid, but it doesn't blind them.


b) Not quite true. Firm belief that the other person will "do wrong" at any opportunity blinds one to other explanations. Just look at how much ill President Bush was accused of, or Clinton, or Obama, or just about any controversial politicial you can name. If you want to, if it fits your world view, you can believe anything evil about another person. And you won't question it."

But a "Firm belief that the other person will "do wrong" at any opportunity" is simply a form of trust.
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
Well, obviously that line was facetious; I don't know their motivations. But obvious fraud? That might be going a bit too far. It's dishonest and deserves to be considered fraud, but there might be some technicalities involved. I'm sure something was mentioned in the fine print. But they, and every other construction working with bristlecone pines, hid the obvious caveat that the diversion issue contains. I don't remember exactly when this issue came to the forefront, but I remember reading a lot of rather un-scientific-like actions going on. Failure to properly archive series like the scientists were required to. Failure to release archives that clearly showed the divergence happening. Other random crap like that. But the issue finally came to the forefront, and now nobody uses bristlecone pines anymore.

Did Mann et al get fired for it? Obviously not. There was no censure, no nothing. They didn't lose their jobs or their reputation. Sure, one shouldn't lose their job as a scientist if they used data that is later revealed, through no fault of their own, to be incorrect. But that email strongly suggests they already knew the problems and were trying to hide it. And yet nothing bad happened to them.

Which kinda strikes against your belief that self-interest would stop them from doing this. If they knew that their colleagues controlled the process and controlled the information, and if they knew that most of the tangential scientists in the field supported their cause, what did they have to fear? Who's going to out them? Outing this issue suddenly means that you're helping... the enemy. You're helping Steve McIntyre and Sen. Inhofe and the evil mouth-breathing deniers. And you don't want to be seen as one of them!

Welcome to the intersection of politics and science.

Remember, I work in academia in a politically charged field. I've seen stuff that I hate, even coming from people I normally respect. I've seen people refuse to publish their work because they don't support their position. I've seen people judge papers, not on their own merit, but based on the person who wrote them. I've seen people publish bad data they knew were bad. It happens. It's disturbing, it's ugly, and it makes me want to get out of this place as soon as I can (curse you, Recession!!!). But it happens. And global warming is even more politically charged than what I do.

Don't believe me? Take a look at an even worse abuse, also coming from Mann. The post here is long-winded, but is the clearest explanation of how dishonest this one is. If you don't want to click on the link, here's the gist of it.

One proxy Mann used was the x-ray density of layers in lakes that a guy name Tiljander studied. Basically, the greater the density, the more organic matter there was that year. And science says that there tends to be more organic matter when it's warmer. Unfortunately, looking at the actual data shows a huge drop in x-ray density in the last couple centuries. In other words, it's a hockey stick, but pointed the wrong way. If one were to take the data as is, one would be forced to conclude that we're heading for a major ice age. Of course, that's not the case, and the reason is that human farming has screwed up the data, making it useless.

So, did Mann do what common sense dictates, and throw it out? No, here turned the data upside down!. And then used the inverted picture as proof of a hockey stick! When confronted with this, his only reply was that a regression doesn't care about that sort of thing. That's true, but science and common sense do.

As an example, let's say you wanted to correlate temperature data with the number of people buying ice cream from Baskin Robbins. This is fairly logical, as it makes sense for people to buy more ice cream when it's hot. So the first day, it's 80F and you see 10 people per hour buying ice cream. The next day, it's 70F, but there's 30 people buying ice cream! Turns out B-R had a huge sale that second day that people were taking advantage of. In other words, the logical thing to do is to throw out the data. However, you can create a regression, and say that people buy more ice cream when it's colder. You can then use B-R's sales data to prove that summer is colder than winter.

Sounds like an incredibly stupid thing to say, right? But that's what Mann did. (It gets sillier: apparantly Steig et al in their Antarctica paper flipped actual thermometers upside down, so seeing the mercury go up "really" means it's getting colder!) But it's not outright fraud, since they deal with it in the "fine print" (supplemental information). They admit that the Tiljander series is corrupted and do a sensitivity analysis where they remove it from their data. They claim it makes no difference, but IIRC McIntyre got a different result (last time I checked, CA was still getting hammered thanks to the hacks, so I don't want to search for everything right now). So it's still not clear whether it made a difference in the results. But it does make a difference in the methodology: the series should never have been included in the first place. Forgive me for being accusatory, but that does strike me as dishonest.

I've become a "skeptic" not necessarily because it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that AGW isn't happening. As far as I can tell, there's too much uncertainty, and there's just enough uncertainty to not be able to rule out the (probably incorrect) assumptions the modelers use. But, quite frankly, the more I look into the works of the AGW crowd, the less confident I am of their scientific integrity. And I have absolutely no confidence in the scientific integrity of the IPCC. Many of these emails, if true, further confirm their biases are affecting the science.

You claim this sort of thing is rare in science. Perhaps. But it's very, very common in politics. So what happens when the two of them meet?

quote:
What Mariner describes is obvious fraud. Not just amateur scientists, but even first year graduate students will see the obvious flaws in using the tree rings as she describes.
Is that meant to be me? Because unless I've had an operation recently I'm unaware of, I think you used the wrong pronoun [Smile]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I'm amused that people think scientists are more honest or logically rigorous for being science. It isn't scientists that are more honest and logically rigorous as it is science itself. The peer re view process tends to sort out most of the hogwash.

A similar thing happens but less officially in cooking, where recipes need to be reliably replicable (and Good!) for them to be replicated on a large scale. Most cookbooks are crap; theories of cuisine that will soon be discredited.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW.
Do you also believe in fairies, G2? [LOL]

You don't know that. You know, at best, maybe 10 percent of the information the professionals know about global warming. Which makes your opinions and wild speculations completely worthless.

I know you are going to continue spouting your self-righteous, know-it-all nonsense. But that doesn't mean I have to just sit here and listen to it without calling you on it.

Your faith in your own psychic abilities (knowledge without information, conclusions without facts) is impressive, but not in the way you think it is.

Now post your little criticism about how I'm trying to quell dissent about global warming, even though that isn't what I'm doing with this post.

Read it again before you write it, so you have no excuse for your lack of intellectual integrity.

You know how I know AGW is falling apart? You write mindless personal attack bull**** like that. It's OK, I know it's going to get uglier as this unwinds and more and more of you realize you've been played for witless fools. Look at that list Robert Espy compiled, that's what you've been defending as science and consensus. The wages of your faith are coming due, and that right soon.

You whine about intellectual integrity and hypocritically show us the perfect example of how a real self-righteous, know-it-all without it behaves. Well done.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Espy:
Search engine for emails and docs here

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php

Bishops Hill Blog offers these summeries. The number following each line item refers the the file number in the set. Read each email for context.
....
Lots and lots of detail
....

Thanks for the post RE. It was info laden and much food for thought. [Smile]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
As people dig through the evidence, we find more and more good stuff. LIke comments in the programming code:
code:
; Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

What this is saying is growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”. This code was written around the same time as the emails talking about Mike's nature trick to hide the data. Coincidence?

[ November 23, 2009, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
More email results:
quote:
From: Phil Jones
To: santer, Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc: mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler

Ben,

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on –

and:
quote:
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

What they're talking about (and actually did in some cases) is deleting government data that is subject to a Freedom of Information Act or FOI so that skeptics could not review it. That's not science, that's a crime.

As one blogger wrote:
quote:
Anyone who relies on control and suppression of information to win a debate is suspect in my book. If the skeptics are wrong, then the data should make it more obvious, not less. What is Phil Jones afraid of?

 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Just the recap from the current take:
quote:
1.Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.

2. The scientists then orchestrate attacks on the dissidents because of their lack of scholarly material published in scientific journals.

3. The scientists block from the UN’s report on global warming evidence that is harmful to the anthropogenic global warming consensus.

4. The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.

5. The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate.

This is what some here call "real" science.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Out of interest: if it could be shown that opposing scientists engaged in the same behavior, would you refuse to call that real science, as well?
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Just the recap from the current take: 1.Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.

I don't really know a huge amount about this field. Are these actually "Prominent environmental scientists"?

quote:
Originally posted by G2:
4. The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.

Did they actually delete data? I saw the comment where it was mentioned that someone might, but not where they actually did. This latter would seem to be a crime.

quote:
Originally posted by G2:
5. The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate.

And of course, fabricating data is usually considered the worst crime among scientists.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Out of interest: if it could be shown that opposing scientists engaged in the same behavior, would you refuse to call that real science, as well?

A scientist fabricating data isn't a "real scientist".
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I would agree. I'm curious whether G2 would.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I would agree. I'm curious whether G2 would.

This is a rather snarky and underhanded attempt at trying to derail G2's point simply because you are trying to imply that G2's a hypocrite. Lame. [Roll Eyes]

I get the distinct impression that many of the Ornerian's that have been preaching about the First Church of Scientific Consensus and it's Holy Writ that AGW is very real and must be addressed post-haste politically for the last several years are having trouble facing up to these new revelations.

Yeah, a lot of you hate G2 and his gleeful schadenfreude. But this latest is certainly giving merit to the idea that AGW consensus and the whole movement to shape political governance on it is a fraud.

Look at the evidence directly in it's face.

Than re-evaluate your previous arguments and support for a theory you are now actually finding out is based on willful fraud and deceit.

If you were wrong, and you know it, than man up and admit it.

But this garbage of trying to catch G2 into a rhetorical trap of hypocrisy is transparent and contemptible.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
TOm D was just coyly pointing out what most of us already know, D. No need to 'trap' G2 in hypocrisy. He regularly goes there voluntarily, although I'm not saying he does this purposely. What is done voluntarily is not necessarily done informedly.

The topic needn't be AGW. Most anything that has partisan aspects will do.

Not that G2 is unique in so doing. Virtually all of us do this here and there.

There are those of, BTW, who approach GW with an open mind and choose no particular side. Many of us, however, have little patience for a side of the debate that bases itself almost entirely on disputing a rather enormous body of evidence without providing much of its own. It's much like the Evolution/ID debate.

Politics have most definitely entered the GW debate. Politics were hugely influential in 50s/60s atomic safety discourse as well. But the hard data prevails. Pointing to examples of corruption serve well to, well, point out examples of corruption.

The data, and interpretations thereof, continue.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
You write mindless personal attack bull**** like that.
Mindless? Hardly. Everything I wrote is, I believe, absolutely true.

Personal? Only because I tire of your "self-righteous, know-it-all" attitude. You speak as if you know something. You don't. Yet you call others "witless fools."

I mock you because you mock those who know more than you, are more educated than you, are more knowledgable than you. I mock you because you speak with authority, when you have no more authority than anyone else on this board, and far less authority than the experts you mock. I mock you because you do not listen to criticism and make grandiose pronouncements based on little more than prejudice.

I haven't commented on these "revealed posts" because I see no use in evaluating them. I don't have the expertise to understand exactly what they mean. I can only read them through the filter of my own prejudices. And, I strongly suspect, that you can only read them through yours. While I may see harmless hyperbole, you will see a smoking gun admitting grand deceits. I can never convince you that your view is wrong, since you appear to be impervious to even mathematical refutation. And it is highly unlikely you will ever convince me, since I find your reasoning suspect.

But what I can do is point out when you overstep the boundaries of what can be concluded from the information at hand. And I do this by mocking you. Because in humor the weaknesses and fallicies of your arguments become most clear.

You don't know that "Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW." You can't know that. Because either all the data isn't known, and thus you don't know it either, or it is known and has been judged insufficient to destroy AGW. Either way, you're talking out of your ***.

This should be obvious to even the most disinterested observer. Which means the only good way to point it out is through humor.

You may find it "mindless personal attack," but that is because you are not mindful of your own logic. You draw conclusions when none are justified. And rather than considering that you might be jumping to conclusions, you counterattack instead.

Well, be my guest, G2. Mock me as much as you like. After all, you'll mock me for disagreeing with you anyway. I have nothing to lose. And your logic is still so tainted by your prejudices and biases that your pronouncements are meaningless. They are shouts in the wind, based on nothing but hot air.

Make better arguments, and maybe I won't resort to "mindless personal attack bull**** like that." [Smile]

[ November 24, 2009, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
"You know how I know AGW is falling apart? You write mindless personal attack bull**** like that."

So what an uninformed person says means...what? I'm saying, even if we accept your characterization at full value. How does that prove anything about whether a theory is correct or not?

This isn't about "us vs. them".
 
Posted by PSRT (Member # 6454) on :
 
For G2, everything, and the only thing, is "us vs them."

[ November 24, 2009, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: PSRT ]
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
An article looking at some of the data released in the emails:
examiner.com

quote:
quote:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers

Phil

But what most readers do not generally appreciate is that, one month earlier, Dr. Tim Osborn, also of the CRU, sent an e-mail to Michael Mann (File 0939154709.txt) containing two columns of data from his study of tree-ring densities. That e-mail begins thus:

quote:
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure the same filter was used for all curves.
After the last paragraph, his data set appears. Associated with each year is a quantity called a temperature anomaly, which was the difference between the average temperature in that year from a baseline average of temperatures in the period 1961-1990. Note carefully the emphasized line about stopping the series in 1960.

A line graph of those data, prepared by this Examiner using the OpenOffice spreadsheet program and employing cubic-spline smoothing from one year to the next, appears at right. This graph shows a clear decline in temperatures beginning in 1960, to a low reached in 1978, followed by an uptrend, and then another downtrend.

You can see the actual graph at http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID28973/images/OsbornMann.jpg
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
You write mindless personal attack bull**** like that.
Mindless? Hardly. Everything I wrote is, I believe, absolutely true.

Personal? Only because I tire of your "self-righteous, know-it-all" attitude. You speak as if you know something. You don't. Yet you call others "witless fools."

Why don't you take a hard look in the mirror.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QUOTE]I mock you because you mock those who know more than you, are more educated than you, are more knowledgable than you. I mock you because you speak with authority, when you have no more authority than anyone else on this board, and far less authority than the experts you mock. I mock you because you do not listen to criticism and make grandiose pronouncements based on little more than prejudice.

You mock because you fear. You're being proven more and more wrong every day while I'm being proven right. The planet has cooled and those oh so knowledgeable authorities you trust have been exposed for the fraud they are. You mock because that is the way you deal with disagreement, you have a long history of posts here proving that.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QUOTE]
You don't know that "Open, honest scientific debate of *all* the data will destroy AGW." You can't know that. Because either all the data isn't known, and thus you don't know it either, or it is known and has been judged insufficient to destroy AGW. Either way, you're talking out of your ***.

I can indeed know that. Because the knowledgeable authorities you trust have been caught destroying any data that contradicts the theory. If the data proved the theory, they wouldn't need to hide and destroy it.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QUOTE]You may find it "mindless personal attack," but that is because you are not mindful of your own logic. You draw conclusions when none are justified. And rather than considering that you might be jumping to conclusions, you counterattack instead.

Take another look in the mirror.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QUOTE]
Make better arguments, and maybe I won't resort to "mindless personal attack bull**** like that."

Sure, so far that's all you do.
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
This isn't about "us vs. them".

Actually Ricky, if you read the emails, that's the EXACT mentality that the AGW scientists had. It comes through as clear as day.

Of course, we all know that that attitude is only bad when one random poster on a forum has it, and not when science (or, for that matter, trillions of dollars) is at stake. [Smile]

Meanwhile, George Monbiot, one of the largest cheerleaders for global warming in the MSM, is calling for Phil Jones to resign, as well as publicly apologizing for not being a good enough journalist to show some skepticism. If you lose Monbiot, you know this is big.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
The more we dig, the worse it gets (emphasis is mine):
quote:
From: "Tatiana M. Dedkova" <****@insec.quorus.e-burg.su>
To: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk
Subject: schijatov
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500
Dear Keith, March 6, 1996
.
.
.
Of course, we are in need of additional money, especially for collecting wood samples at high latitudes and in remote regions. The cost of field works in these areas is increased many times during the last some years. That is why it is important for us to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money. I and Eugene have a possibility to participate in the Cambridge meeteng in July, but we need extra many and special invitations.

If you do not have enough money to invite both of us, Eugene does not insist upon this visit.

The best wishes to you and Phil.
Yours sincerely Stepan Shiyatov


They want money transferred into personal accounts in amounts under $10,000 to avoid reporting.
They're defrauding the tax man and appear to be trying to get the money for personal use ... why else put it in your personal account? With any luck, a few of the big names in AGW research will get some jail time but with this kind of evidence there should at least be a criminal investigation.
 
Posted by KE (Member # 6535) on :
 
quote:
avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible
From that you got "(They) appear to be trying to get the money for personal use...why else put it in your personal bank account?"

Oh, I don't know, read the letter. "To avoid big taxes..." which would cut into the amount they had to use for their "work".

They may be guilty of defrauding the tax agency but you are reading into this stuff that is not there.

And I work in the oil industry I'm not for global warming legislation. I'd rather my kids eat today than my grandchildren breath.

KE
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
You're focusing on the wrong thing. This is the problem, "it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD".

I tell you what you might try, talk to a company you're trying to work with and ask them to transfer money into your personal account - or alternatively suggest you transfer money into theirs.

Promise to do it in increments that will avoid reporting. What's that look like? It looks like something criminal ...

[ November 24, 2009, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by KE (Member # 6535) on :
 
Oh, I agree it looks criminal. I just think they were doing it to maximize dollars for their work, not their own personal finances. Definitely looks shady and should be investigated.

KE
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
From Phil Jones' email to Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor and Peter Gleckler Dec 3, 2008 regarding a request for information:
quote:
About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little so have very little – if anything at all.
That was then, this is now. From today's Guardian:
quote:
Jones accepted, though, that the contents of some of the emails were cause for embarrassment: "Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that."
So when Jones is talking via email to his co-conspirators, he's deleted "loads of email". When he's talking to the press, he's not deleted any.

So was Jones lying to Mann, Schmidt, Taylor and Gleckler or is he lying to us now?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
As this gets sifted, we start getting a picture of what's been going on:
quote:
In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:
quote:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

I bet if you searched this forum for "peer review" you would find exactly what Mann and the other conspirators wanted people to say - that the plethora of peer reviewed science supports AGW, ergo AGW *must* be the reality. Little did all those champions of peer review know that contradictory articles were actively, and successfully, being suppressed.

On the corruption of peer review:
quote:
Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.

Don't think this is just one small incident, the conspiracy is large and involved RealCimate - supposedly an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. Except:
quote:
But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.
quote:


I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.
RealClimate was essentially an arm of the CRU with full veto power over any comments not fitting the AGW party line.


Robert Tracinski has it right:
quote:
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.



[ November 24, 2009, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
This is turning out to be bigger than I initially thought. There's quite a few smoking guns here, and while it may not be enough to say AGW is wrong, it does call the integrity of many of the scientists involved into question. I would hope, at the very least, that all of them become more forthcoming and honest after this. I would also hope that there's some changes in the IPCC as well. In any case, here's the biggest problems:

- There are several emails strongly suggesting Jones et al. destroyed data and in other ways interfered with a lawful FOI request. This is a criminal act in the UK. Sure, it may not say anything about the science, but it does say something about their integrity. This deserves to be investigated and, if found to be true, deserves quite a few firings.

- The manipulation of the peer review process by threatening boycotts, picking reviewers who "know the right thing without prompting", colluding with peer reviewers to reject papers, demanding the firing of editors who accept papers they don't like, and changing the rules of the IPCC to suit their purpose. Obviously unethical, and is a gross misuse of science.

- The us vs them mentality, while not necessarily a problem in and of itself, does call into question their objectivity in the manner. Given their hatred of certain people (up to and including cheering their deaths), how can we expect them to adequately judge the science?

- And finally, there appears to be a good case that the whole temperature data that the CRU uses is a bumbling mess and should be discarded. CBS has a good summary if you'd prefer an "objective" look, but there are other summaries as well. In brief, the zip file contained a file called HARRY_READ_ME.txt, which was basically a log/diary of Harry's (whoever he was) adventures with the climate data. They're entertaining to read in a geeky sort of way if you've got a good sense of humor. He's basically trying to fit the programming to published results to see how they did it, and can't. Along the way, he discovers garbage data, horrible code, undocumented files, unexplained paranormal phenomena, and piles upon piles of errors. Hadley earlier this year stated they can't release the original data because they lost it. If this file is true, then the current code is useless too, as it contains too much garbage, fudging, and improper procedures.

In other words, the entire purpose of the CRU is based on data that should never, ever be used.

Given this last bit, and if the first impressions hold up, we have every reason to demand GISS's code and procedures as well to see if this happened to them too. Of course, GISS is just as bad as CRU at responding to FOI requests, and after this latest batch of revelations it looks like they might be getting sued for it.

If HadCRUt, GISS, and NCDC data turns out to be garbage (given the collusion between climate scientists, there's a non-insignificant chance of this being so), what then? Well, for starters, any ethical approach to global warming studies would be forced to use satellite data, and adjust all their models for that. Suddenly, global warming won't look so bad...

This isn't over yet. Not by a long shot.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
The cliff notes version of the emails - 3 things to understand about what the emails reveal:

1) First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results.

2) Second, they discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication.

3) Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.

This is how "Consensus" was reached, than used to declare that 'the debate is over' and that skeptics and critics are "deniers" (equivalent to holocaust-deniers), and all sorts of legislation put forth by BOTH the GOP and DNC are based on the idea that AGW has been proven.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
This is how "Consensus" was reached
That's rather a sweeping statement. Are you suggesting that this selection of email constitutes the entire history of modern climatology?
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Constitutes? Hardly.

Rather a much more revealing insight into the inner dynamics of how a select group of scientists with an agenda and compromised motivating factors can promote an unproven hypothesis as "settled science."
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
So you're saying that you can draw conclusions about the body of climate research from these emails? What conclusions are those?
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KE:
Oh, I agree it looks criminal. I just think they were doing it to maximize dollars for their work, not their own personal finances. Definitely looks shady and should be investigated.
KE

You might be right, no one can easily attest to their motives. But either way the IRS won't care, they're generally not forgiving about this kind of behavior.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
No. The emails just confirm what I've already known all along.

The fact is, in the past here, I and many others have put forth all sorts of articles, arguments and other sources that have more or less indicated that AGW was a fraud promoted for political purposes, not actual, hard science. The "AGW is Already Proven" crowd have always been able to marginalize, ignore or derail any of those arguments as subjective, biased sources.

But now these emails are something quite different - they substantiate all of those claims the AGW believers marginalized and ignored based on source bias.
I've been arguing here for years now that AGW has always been a political movement masquerading as "science."

These emails are merely confirming what I and others have been contending for quite some time now.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
I think the basic AGW science is sound.

1)It seems probable that humanity is increasing the CO2 ratio in the environment.

2)It also seems likely this will increase the global environmental temperature.

3)There also seems to be some circumstantial evidence supporting global warming, glaciers melting, ice caps receding, etc.

However, at this point I always wanted a rational discussion on what was the best approach for humanity. What is the cost of adapting to the hotter temperatures? What is the cost of reducing CO2 output? What are the ramifications both ways?

Instead, the argument seems to break down into religious fervor at this point.

I personally expect the optimal path for the human race is a long term gradual reduction in CO2 output, combined with a practical approach to accommodating warmer temperatures.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
One year ago, I started a thread that had the following contentions in it that have since been confirmed by this latest:

quote:

9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.

---

15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.

---

16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.


We can now add to that: Scientists charged with a FOIA request deliberately colluded to try and delete incriminating emails.
 
Posted by KE (Member # 6535) on :
 
quote:
I bet if you searched this forum for "peer review" you would find exactly what Mann and the other conspirators wanted people to say - that the plethora of peer reviewed science supports AGW, ergo AGW *must* be the reality. Little did all those champions of peer review know that contradictory articles were actively, and successfully, being suppressed.
I bet you are right.

And here is the biggest problem with that kind of fraud.
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
Constitutes? Hardly.

Rather a much more revealing insight into the inner dynamics of how a select group of scientists with an agenda and compromised motivating factors can promote an unproven hypothesis as "settled science."

It lowers science to the level of "religion" and scientists to that of believers and fanatics. [Frown]

I hope these 'scientists' are investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If for no other reason than to discourage other scientists from using science and fraud to champion their 'cause' and further endangering the vital roll true science plays in the world. If I as an atheist 'were' guilty of treating science like a religion then it seems these guys have committed apostasy.


KE

[ November 24, 2009, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: KE ]
 
Posted by KE (Member # 6535) on :
 
D,

I don't remember you ever saying anything about Global Warming one way or the other.


[Razz] [Smile] [Smile]

KE

[ November 24, 2009, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: KE ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
And I don't remember you professing your love for Bob Dylan, either. [Razz] [Wink] [Smile]
 
Posted by KE (Member # 6535) on :
 
[LOL]
 
Posted by KE (Member # 6535) on :
 
Stacy laughed and gave you an "Amen!", D. (She is no Dylan fan, and may be a little tired of him at this point. [Smile] )
 
Posted by Sauurman (Member # 6467) on :
 
Wow when I first saw this story I thought it had a couple of "gotcha" moments about the term "trick" and how they wanted to knock one of the skeptics out. But hearing about the attempts to fire editors they don't like and subvert the peer review process... yikes. This IS a big story.

Frankly if they haven't don't so already FOI and the equivalent type of information requests in other countries should be done on ALL major climate studies organizations. A few audits would be great on a personal level since there is mention of funds going directly to personal accounts.... [Wink]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"So you're saying that you can draw conclusions about the body of climate research from these emails? What conclusions are those?"

Well, he can draw *political* conclusions. It's hardly a secret that AGW has become highly politicized. Must be that A in AGW?
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Kind of why this debate is kicking in the 1st place
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
So you're saying that you can draw conclusions about the body of climate research from these emails? What conclusions are those?
Well for one thing, it does prove what many of the skeptics have been complaining about for years: that at least some of the research going on has become politicized to the point where the conclusions are highly suspect.

Beyond that, it does serve as tangible proof that overwhelming scientific consensus, which is really the cornerstone of AGW theory, can, and indeed has been corrupted in at least one prominent and significant case.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, and I'm not saying I believe that this story disproves or defeats AGW, but one could envision a situation where due to the inherent incestuousness of scientific research, the misfeasance of a few key players could corrupt an entire body of research.

As I've observed many times on this board, the stakes are very high in this case, due to the increasingly absolutist and hostile rhetoric coming from AGW proponents.

Alot of funding and in many cases, peoples' professional reputations are now on the line. If AGW turns out to be anything less than advertised, the consequences will be dire for many, and will be horrendous for the credibility of science in the public arena.

This kind of evidence does not bode well for anyone.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
I'd like to make a few points here, folks.

I almost never participate in these AGW debates on Ornery because, with all due respect, 95% of you are talking out of your collective arses on this issue. You're not climate researchers, and, however much you may be convinced otherwise, you do not know what these emails mean.

Any fool can sit there in an armchair and come to an "obvious" conclusion about what is meant by certain, supposedly incriminating plain-English words - but without the proper context, your conclusions are empty conjecture. Scientists in any field say this kind of stuff all the time, it most of the time it does NOT mean what the layman on the outside thinks it means.

Who here can explain why "Delaunay triangulation[...]renders the station counts totally meaningless." Anyone? Anyone care to tell me why this scientist thinks it should have been "coded up in Fortran." Daruma? G2? Jason? And what are the "counts," exactly? I want an explanation that does not rely on presumption or inference -- only demonstrable fact.

Oh, we can find all kinds of meanings in these emails to confirm our biases, if we want to. I for instance read this:

quote:
They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure the same filter was used for all curves.

-and *I* am inclined to see this as a legitimate attempt to refine and purify data - there is interference in the 1960 + results which needs to be filtered out. A "non-temperature signal" is something you do not want mixed in with temperature measurements. Of course, I don't know for sure, but I suspect that none of you do either.

I have a great deal of sympathy for scientists in this and related fields - I know a few and have met many - because for the last 25 years they have had to cope with a popular media that is, in a word, retarded. Journalism has so completely skewed and obfuscated the numerous, very complicates issues involved in scientific research -- scientists have been forced into a box of one extreme or the other, and have had to manage all kinds of PR bull**** just to keep their research afloat. They did not create the mass stupidity with they have to contend.

These emails could be evidence of deception. OR, they could just as easily be very normal geek-talk in pursuit of careful and responsible research. I've heard enough scientist-banter to know that appearances can be deceiving.

So, until some Ornerian can explain exactly what these emails mean in plain English, I humbly submit that this is nothing but a great big ignorant wankfest.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
This kind of evidence does not bode well for anyone.

I fear you are too right on this issue.

It's possible that the pro-AGW fanatics have acted to corrupt the scientific process while at the same time vociferously claiming the other side was guilty of corruption. If the issue had been fought without so much hype or publicity, it wouldn't matter as much, but in this case the pro-AGW scientists have literally made a series of globally catastrophic claims.

The general public will probably respond by increasing skepticism of all science if these claims turn out to be highly exaggerated, even if AGW turns out to be correct. General science will suffer a PR backlash even if AGW is technically correct, but not of a disastrous magnitude.

Hopefully, these emails, the people involved and the underlying institutions will be vigorously investigated by an impartial body and any wrong doing publicly and transparently addressed.

Any other course of action will appear to be nothing other than a cover up.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
Anyone care to tell me why this scientist thinks it should have been "coded up in Fortran."

I'm an engineer. I've had multiple classes in Fortran and am familiar with the language.

I can't answer your question, but I can speculate. Fortran is often used by NASA and sometimes used by the DOD, but it is generally considered a very old and nearly obsolete computer language.
Fortran

At a guess, I'd say that the code was written up in some kind of software specific scripting language. This is generally always a bad idea, but happens often enough. So if the person was an "old-school" government programmer, he might have considered Fortran an acceptable improvement, particularly since a lot of numerical modeling is done in Fortran.

As to the gist of the rest of your post, it boils down to an "appeal to authority".

The mighty priests (Scientists) have declared it to be so and No One Else may question their claims!

quote:

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

Appeal to Authority
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
My impression is that AGW theory is the lovechild of fear of nuclear apocalypse and growing awareness of human environmental impact.

Both nuke and environmental propaganda were rife with falsehood of all kind: denial, exaggeration, in all directions.

When the Cold War relaxed (does that make it now a Tepid Standoff?), half a century of anthropocentric annihilation fear infused our new growing fear, which is that Progress is not all Good and may even be Very Bad.

Hence the current politicization of prognostic climatology. This politicization is at least as old as Atomic Energy Commission experts telling us that atomic energy is perfectly safe and would provide power too cheap to bother metering.

The politicization is separate from the science. climatology is still a growingly important science for a species projected to populate the plant with ten billion members come midcentury and to still be almost entirely dependent on agriculture to feed them.

There are liars, apparently, in both camps currently polarizing climatology. There are those who use specious data to (and logic) to say that we shouldn't concern ourselves with this unprecedented release of energy and gases into the atmosphere. There are those who use specious data to say we should.

Yippee-do. If you want to make an informed decision on the matter, inform yourself. Just as one doesn't trust the DNC or RNC for one's politically relevant information, same with the various camps proclaiming 'the world she is-a getting hotter!' and 'the world she is-a not!.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
These emails could be evidence of deception. OR, they could just as easily be very normal geek-talk in pursuit of careful and responsible research. I've heard enough scientist-banter to know that appearances can be deceiving.
I don't disagree with any particular point, but I do echo what JWatts is saying: if there is reason to believe that scientists may be systematically and deliberately cooking the books, it's not much assistance or comfort to us laypeople to tell us that we are ignorant of science, and therefore should just shut up and trust the experts, namely the very scientists who are accused of cooking the books.

Incidentally, while some of the technical matters may be beyond the layperson's capacity to judge, we can certainly comment as well as anyone else on the other non-technical aspects of the e-mails, particularly those pertaining to the deliberate black-balling of scientific views that do not confirm to those of the authors. That does not require a scientific education to spot.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"it's not much assistance or comfort to us laypeople to tell us that we are ignorant of science, and therefore should just shut up and trust the experts, "

which is probably why hardly anyone here, if anyone here at all, has suggested we "should just shut up and trust the experts".

There have been those who've suggested that, if one wasn't willing to learn how to parse the data in an adequately informed way, then the next best thing would be to side with the camp that has the largest # of experts on its side. This camp has been the AGW is real side, or so I understand.

Let us note a simple truth: whether or not here has been fraud committed by some of the AGW is real camp does not of itself prove anything regarding the concept of AGW.

This conversation is ultimately not about AGW but about the military/industrial/research complex. (The majority of science funding came, last I knew, from agencies dominated by the Dept of def.)

[ November 25, 2009, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Let us note a simple truth: whether or not here has been fraud committed by some of the AGW is real camp does not of itself prove anything regarding the concept of AGW.
I disagree. The "concept" of AGW, as you call it, is premised on an overwhelming scientific consensus, the very factor that you state (understandably) should tilt us layerpeople's assessment in favour of a specific theory.

Certain highly embarassing and inflammatory evidence has now been introduced demonstrating that certain prominent scientists on the AGW are guilty of "cooking the data" and perhaps most significantly, seeking to blackball dissenters from the process. This latter part is clear to anyone, and does not require any technical expertise to spot.

This does not prove that the consensus is a fraud or a conspiracy, but it does at least validate some of the claims of many on the anti-AGW side have been making for years, claims that were scoffed at and derided as being scurrilous and devoid of merit.

The real issue isn't whether these were a few bad apples. The issue is, how many of these bad apples are there, and how widely has their work been disseminated?

As proponents of AGW have stated many times on this forum, it takes a very specific kind of expertise to do this kind of work. There aren't millions of people out there capable of reading this data and understanding it in a meaningful way. There are not that many globally that do this kind of work, and the work they do is probably heavily influenced by each other because of the incestuousness of the scientific process. It does not a require a massive conspiracy of millions or even thousands to seriously erode the credibility of the "consensus". A few bad apples in key positions could, plausibly, do the trick I think. I may be wrong on this point, but I think the issue definitely merits serious inquiry.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
As to the gist of the rest of your post, it boils down to an "appeal to authority".
Nonsense. There is no one "authority" or "Source A" as you would have it. There are many thousands of sources, who are free to criticize each other and find flaws in research. These people *live* for proving themselves right, and others wrong. As an Ornerian, I'm sure you can appreciate that. [Smile]

So when a vast majority of contrarian nerds from around the globe come to a general consensus -- in my book, that is something to be taken very seriously.

quote:
while some of the technical matters may be beyond the layperson's capacity to judge, we can certainly comment as well as anyone else on the other non-technical aspects of the e-mails, particularly those pertaining to the deliberate black-balling of scientific views that do not confirm to those of the authors. That does not require a scientific education to spot.
Maybe. It's all too easy to be misled by your intuitions if you don't know exactly what you're looking at. Without context, you may come to a common-sense conclusion based on plain-English words that could, in fact, be way off the mark. And this is true as well for the political infighting - which exists in any research field, especially where international collaboration is concerned.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
These emails could be evidence of deception. OR, they could just as easily be very normal geek-talk in pursuit of careful and responsible research. I've heard enough scientist-banter to know that appearances can be deceiving.
That is certainly the claim ... bogus but the spin has to come from something. How about we look at the code in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt Mariner mentioned, from multiple locations within the released code:
code:
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

code:
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;

code:
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline

code:
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

code:
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline

The programmer is, on multiple occasions, aborting the algorithm that calculates temperature trends because it does not conform to the theory. In all the instances where this occurs, the temperatures will be "artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

The code comments are full of these efforts:
code:
  
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’

code:
printf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'
printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'

What we have here, plainly documented in the code, is the attempt to suppress data that does not support the theory. I'm guessing the tree ring data refreenced works with the Yamal tree ring data that was exposed a little over a month ago as essentially fabricated (everyone remember all the coverage of that? No, not so much huh?). You can see some discussion in the emails about that incident and how they will cover it up.

The more we dig into this, the worse it looks. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Maybe. It's all too easy to be misled by your intuitions if you don't know exactly what you're looking at. Without context, you may come to a common-sense conclusion based on plain-English words that could, in fact, be way off the mark. And this is true as well for the political infighting - which exists in any research field, especially where international collaboration is concerned.
Which is why I'm not jumping to any conclusions.

However, absent a very clear and convincing explanation of the mitigating circumstances and context, I've seen enough to be convinced that these specific scientists were guilty of some very serious dishonesty bordering on fraud.

When it comes to reading those e-mails, particularly the non technical parts, I believe my intuition is as good as anyone else's.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
This is how "Consensus" was reached
That's rather a sweeping statement. Are you suggesting that this selection of email constitutes the entire history of modern climatology?
You decide:
quote:
In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it “relies on most heavily” when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.
It may not constitute the *entire* history of modern climatology but it's damned close.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
G2,

That is not computer code. It's just a text doc.

quote:
The programmer is, on multiple occasions, aborting the algorithm that calculates temperature trends because it does not conform to the theory.
You have a reasonable chance of being correct up the word "algorithm." "Calculates" is questionable and everything following "because" is pure conjecture.

As I understand it, the the problem is that the winters have been deviating from the mean to a greater extent than before (consistent with GW theory, I believe) to that they no longer provide an accurate baseline, if you are using this particular tree-ring method of collecting data. I'm not *certain* that's what's happening, but it is very common in collecting empirical date that distortions appear in certain parts of the pool that aren't there otherwise, and you have to correct for it. Interferometry, I believe it's called.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
This suggests to me that they are running a batch of data to calibrate the instrumentation, and that the programmer is warning that the output is not accurate. In other words, this could be a routine activity in some sort of test-run.

See what I mean about context?
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
However, absent a very clear and convincing explanation of the mitigating circumstances and context, I've seen enough to be convinced that these specific scientists were guilty of some very serious dishonesty bordering on fraud.


Guilty until proven innocent?

Give me one example of obvious dishonesty, in your opinion.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
So when a vast majority of contrarian nerds from around the globe come to a general consensus -- in my book, that is something to be taken very seriously.


Oh please Kid. Your being absolutely naive here. To say that all of these scientists around the world, whose entire careers is based upon grant funding from Foundations, Corporations and Governments as "contrarian" is laughable.

Your entire argument most certainly rests upon genuflecting to the high priesthood of the church of AGW.

In fact, I believe your entire argument is PRECISELY what those that conspired to promote the theory as "fact" to achieve a political agenda are counting on.

It's the "Noam Chomsky" effect.

Use enough big words and technical jargon as possible so the average sheeple just throws up their hands and leaves it up to their betters to tell them what to think.

I don't have to know jack **** about Fortran to see the transparent hypocrisy of the political agenda they've been trying to promote using AGW as the justification.

Kyoto protocols? Yeah, all first world countries must reduce their carbon emissions...but all the developing countries are exempt.

Ooooohh that'll really make the difference! [Roll Eyes]

All the first world countries that have the advanced technology to use power while limiting or cleaning up the emissions...while all the developing Third World countries are exempt, and using the most polluting power methods possible (coal) and almost no attempts to even try and mitigate pollution.

And "carbon credits" and trading schemes?

Oh please...someone does not need to be a rocket scientist to see that these political rackets are all based on an agenda that has nothing to do with "saving the environment." Therefore the "urgency" that all of the AGW are paying lip service to is rather obvious. If these douche bags REALLY thought the whole 'emissions' was a true threat, they would certainly push towards limiting the worst offenders (China, India) with the least effective pollution mitigating technology rather than focusing on the First World countries who have the most advanced.

[ November 25, 2009, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
I mentioned the Yamal tree ring data, here's the gist of it:
quote:
Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa’s small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.
In other words, it has been proven that the data showing unprecedented warming in the 20th century was cherry picked to prove just that (i.e. the data was falsified). When you use all the data, there is no warming. You can see it graphed here.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
G2,

That is not computer code. It's just a text doc.

Not all of it, some of it is from Harry's notes which is a text document but that does not invalidate the comments. Some of it is indeed from comments embedded directly in the code, see here for example.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
quote:
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
This suggests to me that they are running a batch of data to calibrate the instrumentation, and that the programmer is warning that the output is not accurate. In other words, this could be a routine activity in some sort of test-run.

See what I mean about context?

Sure, when you snip that one line out of context you can make it mean that. Put in the overall context of the emails and other code comments, it's much harder to spin this to mean what you want it to mean.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Not all of it, some of it is from Harry's notes which is a text document but that does not invalidate the comments. Some of it is indeed from comments embedded directly in the code, see here for example.

When you look at the all data part of that graph, the last century has a distinctly hight center than the rest of the data- the highest peaks and lows that don't cross the .5 line, where the rest do.

It's not as pronounced as the hockey stick graph, but a distinct elevation is still there.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
Oh please Kid. Your being absolutely naive here. To say that all of these scientists around the world, whose entire careers is based upon grant funding from Foundations, Corporations and Governments as "contrarian" is laughable.

No, Daruma, quite the opposite. I speak to you as an insider. I grew up in and around this world - scientists and engineers involved in space and climate research. The whole Harvard-Smithsonian/JPL/MIT nexus. All those uber-nerds in all of their dribbling nerdiness. And you are spouting pure drivel.

Foundations and corporations compete, as do governments. They have distinct agendas - they are not a monolith of singular interests.

Scientists do not win grants if they do not produce actual science. They are there to provide information to governments who would not know *anything* otherwise. They are not empty mouthpieces.

The issue for decades has not been whether the Earth is getting hotter, but rather to what extent the warming is man-made, and whether the proscribed measures are beneficial. I have heard this topic hotly debated over restaurant tables more times than I can count. This notion you have that scientists are constrained by The Overlords is, to me, laughable.

In any one department, you will hear more disagreement from one office door to the next than pretty much anywhere else in the world. I suspect you are completely unfamiliar with this world, so you have a hard time believing it -- but I'm telling you, these people get to where they are by thinking of ways to disagree with their colleagues as much as possible. That's how the science gets done.

quote:
I don't have to know jack **** about Fortran to see the transparent hypocrisy of the political agenda they've been trying to promote using AGW as the justification.

I have one question: how much progress have you made convincing people with statements like that? Do you think you are communicating intelligently and presuasively?

[ November 25, 2009, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
When you use all the data, there is no warming. You can see it graphed here.
The bottom graph tracks upwards.

quote:
Sure, when you snip that one line out of context you can make it mean that. Put in the overall context of the emails and other code comments, it's much harder to spin this to mean what you want it to mean.
Well, all of these emails are just snippets of a larger whole. So...
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
I have one question: how much progress have you made convinving people with statements like that? Do you think you are communicating intelligently and presuasively?

Your right, I probably don't convince people persuasively communicating like that.

On the other hand, I'm sick to death of the variation of argument you put forth. That I'm too dumb, ignorant or uninformed to understand the scientific jargon, so I should just shut up and accept the dictates of those "who know better."

There are things that are transparently obvious, and I don't need to genuflect before the Consensus
to see the blatant political manipulations being done in the name of AGW.

This notion you have that scientists are constrained by The Overlords is, to me, laughable.

Yeah it's so laughable, we now have the emails of prominent scientists - key promoters of the "Consensus Paradigm" colluding to keep skeptical papers from being published in peer review journals, as well as collusion to destroy any incriminating evidence counter to their AGW narrative when presented with a FOIA request....
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
Yeah it's so laughable, we now have the emails of prominent scientists - key promoters of the "Consensus Paradigm" colluding to keep skeptical papers from being published in peer review journals, as well as collusion to destroy any incriminating evidence counter to their AGW narrative when presented with a FOIA request....

A frequently repeated mistake on this thread seems to be the assumption that articles a published for the sake of reviewing them. That's not how the journals work- the articles published are the ones that have passed the review process as a precondition to publication. The gist of the messages presented is that they were upset with a journal for publishing articles that had not been properly reviewed, thus lending them legitimacy that they didn't deserve.

They're not interfering with the review process, they're attacking a journal that they felt was not using it.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
A frequently repeated mistake on this thread seems to be the assumption that articles a published for the sake of reviewing them. That's not how the journals work- the articles published are the ones that have passed the review process as a precondition to publication. The gist of the messages presented is that they were upset with a journal for publishing articles that had not been properly reviewed, thus lending them legitimacy that they didn't deserve.

TRANSLATION: Those contrarian articles were not reviewed by the "right" peers. [LOL]

Response from the GRL Editor:

quote:
In your recent email to Chris Reason, you laid out your concerns that I
>> > presume were the reason for your phone call to me last week. I have
>> > reviewed the manuscript by McIntyre, as well as the reviews. The editor
>> > in this case was Prof. James Saiers. He did note initially that the
>> > manuscript did challenge published work, and so felt the need for an
>> > extensive and thorough review. For that reason, he requested
>> reviews from
>> > 3 knowledgable scientists. All three reviews recommended
>> > publication.
>> >
>> > While I do agree that this manuscript does challenge (somewhat
>> > aggresively) some of your past work, I do not feel that it takes a
>> > particularly harsh tone. On the other hand, I can understand your
>> > reaction. As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but
>> rather as
>> > a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to
>> > look it over. And I am satisfied by the credentials of the reviewers.
>> > Thus, I do not feel that we have sufficient reason to interfere in the
>> > timely publication of this work.

Read the actual emails. They are not interested in countering or responding to a contrarian viewpoint. They were trying to silence opposition rather than address it directly. They were actually discussing a way to get an editor fired and replaced with one that adheres to their narrative. That is not the mark of someone confident in their "science backed" position.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
This thread shows me that perhaps the only zealots more fanatical than true Believers are True Unbelievers.

Reminds me of hard core atheists.
 
Posted by KE (Member # 6535) on :
 
Hey! [DOH]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
TRANSLATION: Those contrarian articles were not reviewed by the "right" peers. [LOL]

Response from the GRL Editor:

In other words, the journal stood up for its process and pushed back.

Welcome, as KidB has tried to point out, to the politics that go on behind the scenes in every branch of science.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Oh please Pyrt. This is a rather flimsy argument you're making to justify what's going on.

What is Peer review again?

Wiki defines it as: the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.

Now, was the CRU emails indicative of public scrutiny to test or disprove the skeptics public submission?

No...they instead sought to silence and censor the debate and skepticism.

That's not science.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Daruma, yet again you are confusing what is being said with the particular axe you wish to grind. (It's really not all about you, I swear.)

Pyrt is saying that some among the establishment in question were willing to deceive, and others opposed them.

His point is that both elements are present in this establishment.

I know how much you like color-coded labels, preferably in primary color like red, blue, and green, but you just can;t stick a Bad Science label on such a large body of data and scientists any more than one can place a Good Science label on it.
 
Posted by Robert Espy (Member # 6126) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Daruma, yet again you are confusing what is being said with the particular axe you wish to grind. (It's really not all about you, I swear.)

Pyrt is saying that some among the establishment in question were willing to deceive, and others opposed them.

His point is that both elements are present in this establishment.

I know how much you like color-coded labels, preferably in primary color like red, blue, and green, but you just can;t stick a Bad Science label on such a large body of data and scientists any more than one can place a Good Science label on it.

I'm in and out here, but I've pretty much kept up with the thread. I don't get your point about Daruma not getting Pyrt's point, as I think Pyrt's point was a hand-wave at the massave corruption taking place in THIS group of scientist; it's not such a big deal because all scientists have sinned at some point.

Still, I think these guys need jesus just a wee bit more more than most.

But I guess that goes to for my understanding of Kidb's argument that I'm just taking things out of context and besides, I'm not really smart enough to understand the context anyway.

pffft.

Let's get down to something we can all understand, in terms of both knowledge and context.

The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%E2%80%A6/

A forwarded sequence of events by one Willis Eschenbach, a Steve McIntyre co-conspirator in getting to the truth, to Watts Up With That. In it, Willis shows his official FOIA's to them, their (non)responses, and the emails between them based on these requests.

Utterly and completely in context.

This made me smile:

quote:
“Ben,

Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. “…


The rest makes me weep…

Clear cut criminal activity, completely in context.

Of course, if Phil's emails are altered in some way, it's not clear cut criminal. But I'm sure Phil would have said something by now if they were not authentic.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Guilty until proven innocent?
I wasn't aware that this was a court of law, or that "dishonesty" is a crime that attracts a presumption of innocence. I don't need to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of dishonesty to rightly consider them dishonest.

quote:
Give me one example of obvious dishonesty, in your opinion.
I would prefer to cite from the raw text, but I can't seem to find anything other than excerpts in blogs and newspaper articles. Here is one that has already been referenced on this thread:

quote:
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
We can quibble over whether or not blackballing journals and individual scientists with opposing viewpoints is "dishonest" per say, but it's unethical at the very least, and distorts what I thought the peer-review process was supposed to be about.

I find this kind of behaviour particularly troubling in a field where overwhelming scientific consensus has been the keystone of a whole range of dramatic changes in public policy.

I am also troubled by e-mails suggesting that these scientists were attempting to resist and stonewall freedom of information requests. That does not strike me as the kind of thing an honest person would do.

I'm not going nearly as far as Daruma or G2 by suggesting that they are the cornerstone of some massive conspiracy. But reading these e-mails, it's pretty obvious that these specific scientists have alot of dirty laundry to air out. You may think that it's innocuous, but to me it looks very bad for these guys.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"I don't need to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of dishonesty to rightly consider them dishonest."

You do interesting things in the name of verbal logic. That sentence looks like an I Luv U Mommy Valentine bowl made by a 2nd grader in art class.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
You do interesting things in the name of verbal logic. That sentence looks like an I Luv U Mommy Valentine bowl made by a 2nd grader in art class.
Are you disagreeing with the point I made, which is that outside of a criminal court, there is no "presumption of innocence"?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
I'm not going nearly as far as Daruma or G2 by suggesting that they are the cornerstone of some massive conspiracy. But reading these e-mails, it's pretty obvious that these specific scientists have alot of dirty laundry to air out. You may think that it's innocuous, but to me it looks very bad for these guys.

What would it have to be to convince you there is a conspiracy? They email each other and talk at length about ways to circumvent the FoI laws and plot about successfully suppressing peer review - including getting one "unfriendly" editor out of a job. These discussions go from unethical behavior to illegal and include quite a few people from multiple organizations. This is the very definition of conspiracy:
quote:
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Is it massive? Yes. The data these guys artificially manipulated is relied upon to build the very foundational support of AGW theory. As I posted upthread, the IPCC and the EPA rely on it heavily:
quote:
In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it “relies on most heavily” when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
When it rains, it pours. New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research is now being accused of CRU-style temperature faking. Their data looks highlu suspect and they refuse to provide any rational or the method for adjustments they made to the data:
quote:
Straight away you can see there's no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.

Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?

Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?

It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA's web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger's colleagues.

Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.


One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there's no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It's a disgrace.

NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.


 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
" a) I'm not going nearly as far as Daruma or G2 by suggesting that they are the cornerstone of some massive conspiracy.

b) What would it have to be to convince you there is a conspiracy?"

Just as in interpreting raw data accurately or inaccurately, according to bias or true to empirical trends, there is a huge difference between that which is massive and that which merely is.

But bias of any stripe will overlook such distinction in order to make its case, be it for or against the prevailing bone of contention.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Hey!"

You're not hard core atheist. You're hard core anti-religion. Totally different thing. Besides, god loves a fool. [Wink]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
More from New Zealand NIWA, they respond:
quote:
Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.

NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

As of right now, NIWA’s chief climate scientist David Wratt, an IPCC vice-chair on the 2007 AR4 report is refusing to release data they claim to have justifying adjustments on other weather stations, meaning the science cannot be reviewed.

Just what "internationally accepted techniques" are these? The same ones established by University of East Anglia's CRU? Something maybe established by the IPCC? Hey, trust them. They're scientists and this is the way science is done, right?

Of course, we could submit NWIA findings for peer review ... except we know that's a bogus process now so that would tell us nothing. Maybe NIWA could just release all their data and a little something on the "internationally accepted techniques" they used? Nooo, that's crazy talk! Whoever heard of scientists releasing these things so others could review or duplicate the findings? That would be stupid. [Roll Eyes]

Hey, anybody notice that NIWA’s chief climate scientist David Wratt was an IPCC vice-chair on the 2007 AR4 report? And notice something else I posted, "... the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. " Hmmmmm, coincidence?

[ November 27, 2009, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Out of interest, G2, what do you do for a living?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Out of interest, G2, what do you do for a living?

Sorry, since I am routinely the target of personal attacks and have more than once been subjected to threats of violence by members of this forum, I think it best I avoid revealing personal details when I can.

Now, back to our regular programming... want to see something that will be great news for the AGW debate? Check this:
quote:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

That means we have no way of verifying the data. None. We're simply supposed to accept it. Given the total corruption of the peer review process, the successful suppression of opposing views and the now exposed fraudulent data, we should simply trust them? Is this what passes for science now?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Sorry, since I am routinely the target of personal attacks and have more than once been subjected to threats of violence by members of this forum, I think it best I avoid revealing personal details when I can.
Not a problem.
But since I'm absolutely certain that you have personally never been involved in any research, can you tell me whether you know anyone who has? Because I need to know how much I'll need to explain to you as groundwork before I can get to the rest of it.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I feel sorry for anyone who thinks G2's ass would even be *worth* the kicking.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
You know, I can to a certain extent get behind the notion that published scientific studies ought to be intelligible in some basic sense to the lay public. If a scientist learns some things, and publishes them in a peer-reviewed journal, certainly the intended audience is her peers; however, it is reasonable to think that an educated and intelligent nonspecialist might be able to read the report and glean some accurate understanding from it. I mean, I read articles about fields in which I am not a specialist all the time, or at least I read the introduction and discussion and look at some graphs. I still would not necessarily trust my own interpretation of what is going on over that of someone with more background in a given field, but I would for instance feel myself qualified to ask intelligent questions about what is going on and what is signified.

But it's a little different to make the contention that of course the lay public will be able to accurately assess meaning in a collection of private emails that were, in fact, illegally acquired.
Guys, those weren't meant for you to read - they were meant as communications between colleagues and probably often between friends and between enemies. You don't know what shared jokes and discipline-specific shorthand references are assumed; you don't know what conversations over beers at conferences or frustrated telephonic sharing of concerns preceded or were interspersed with these communications.
If they had been intentionally published for others to read, it might be reasonable to assume that you can figure out what is going on in them. But they weren't, and as well as being in flagrant and kind of icky violation of the privacy of others, a lot of you guys currently just look like idiots grasping at straws.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"...frustrated telephonic sharing of concerns preceded or were interspersed with these communications."

You verbophile, you. [Wink]

As for the admirably nuanced content of your post, OP: these guys don't want reason to interfere with what is essentially a partisan/ideological mud-slinging contest.

Well, the mud-slinging is and has been primarily from the nay-saying side. The yea-saying side tends to return mud-volleys primarily to show the original slingers that, even after considerable aeration via ballistic flight, their **** still stinks.

[ November 29, 2009, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
You know, I can to a certain extent get behind the notion that published scientific studies ought to be intelligible in some basic sense to the lay public. If a scientist learns some things, and publishes them in a peer-reviewed journal, certainly the intended audience is her peers; however, it is reasonable to think that an educated and intelligent nonspecialist might be able to read the report and glean some accurate understanding from it. I mean, I read articles about fields in which I am not a specialist all the time, or at least I read the introduction and discussion and look at some graphs. I still would not necessarily trust my own interpretation of what is going on over that of someone with more background in a given field, but I would for instance feel myself qualified to ask intelligent questions about what is going on and what is signified.

But it's a little different to make the contention that of course the lay public will be able to accurately assess meaning in a collection of private emails that were, in fact, illegally acquired.

Guys, those weren't meant for you to read - they were meant as communications between colleagues and probably often between friends and between enemies. You don't know what shared jokes and discipline-specific shorthand references are assumed; you don't know what conversations over beers at conferences or frustrated telephonic sharing of concerns preceded or were interspersed with these communications.
If they had been intentionally published for others to read, it might be reasonable to assume that you can figure out what is going on in them. But they weren't, and as well as being in flagrant and kind of icky violation of the privacy of others, a lot of you guys currently just look like idiots grasping at straws.

Unlike you OP, I am much less confident in my ability to intelligently assess the data and the findings and conclusions one should draw from it. You'll note that nowhere in this debate did I even try to explain how these e-mails pertain to the actual substantial science at issue. I'm not qualified to talk about that.

However, I am more than qualified to look at some of these e-mails pertaining to the blackballing of other scientists and publications and make very rational inferences from those e-mails. I do not need to have any expertise to do that. Many of these e-mails are damning, plain and simple. Some of them even suggest illegal activity, such as attempts to circumvent or stonewall freedom of information requests for ideological purposes.

Your suggestion that these e-mails could be innocent, while perhaps true in the strictest sense, requires far greater conjecture on my part to believe than the other conclusion suggested by G2 and others, which is that these scientists were corrupt and possibly even engaging in illegal activities. This latter interpretation is supported by a plain and common sense reading of the e-mails. If there is an explanation that contradicts this reading, then these scientists are free to raise it and I might change my mind if the explanation is plausible.

In this particular debate, we have enormous stakes, resting on a scientific consensus that has been repeatedly been used by its advocates to push through a host of highly controversial and major changes in public policy effecting all sectors of the economy. There are huge stakes. Further, proponents have attacked, insulted and bludgeoned aside anyone who has questioned this consensus. I have been observing this for years.

If there is evidence of any collusion to manufacture that consensus, it has to be rooted out and the perpetrators exposed. I couldn't care less about the legality of how it was obtained. Even if such evidence were inadmissible in a court of law (and that's hardly certain) it is certainly highly relevant to any discussion about the "consensus" and how it has been obtained / maintained. If you believe that AGW is happening, then you should be interested too, because this kind of bull**** these scientists were pulling is exactly the kind of ammunition the skeptics need to blow the entire AGW train off the rails. The more you try to make excuses for and rationalize their misfeasance, the worse it will be. Everyone on both sides should be demanding a very good explanation from these scientists, and absent that, we should be demanding their heads on a silver platter.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
Your suggestion that these e-mails could be innocent
Well, if it sounded like I was suggesting that, I made a giant error in communication.

I am suggesting that there is not any reliable way for us (where "us" is pretty much the entire world, at this point) to know what the writers of the emails meant or didn't mean to communicate. We are not the intended audience. Pretending that we are all qualified to make some sort of important judgment about something (anything) based on a partial and illegally-obtained sample of someone else's private correspondence is stupid.

There might be a sub-suggestion that even if other people's private correspondence were our business (which it is not), and even if we could tell what this all means (which we can't), it wouldn't be terribly important in the grand scheme of things (since it's not as though this actually reflects on the state of climate science in any meaningful way).

This is absurd, and a giant waste of all of our time.

I mean, continue to discuss it ad nauseum if you feel like it, certainly. Just because I personally think it's boring and idiotic doesn't mean everybody else has to share my opinion.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
I am suggesting that there is not any reliable way for us (where "us" is pretty much the entire world, at this point) to know what the writers of the emails meant or didn't mean to communicate. We are not the intended audience. Pretending that we are all qualified to make some sort of important judgment about something (anything) based on a partial and illegally-obtained sample of someone else's private correspondence is stupid.
What relevance does the legality of the means by which the e-mails were obtained have to the interpretation of the e-mails' content?

Of course we weren't the intended audience. That's a key factor in judging these e-mails. A person will swear under oath that ever since his motor vehicle accident he can't life a weight greater than 5 pounds. In a surveillance video, that same person is caught moving a fridge. Is the video less damning if it turns out it was illegally obtained? Did he intend that we see him moving the fridge? Well of course not. Does that make the video less pertinent?

quote:
There might be a sub-suggestion that even if other people's private correspondence were our business (which it is not), and even if we could tell what this all means (which we can't), it wouldn't be terribly important in the grand scheme of things (since it's not as though this actually reflects on the state of climate science in any meaningful way).
Out of curiosity, were these e-mails sent using the scientists' private e-mail accounts or were they sent using e-mail accounts issued by their academic institutions / employers? I ask because round these parts, any e-mail communication you make on company equipment is not private or confidential. Your employer is free to read it at his will. If those e-mails were being sent on servers owned by an employer using private and public funding, then I dispute your assertion that there was some expectation of privacy in the communications. If the taxpayer was funding this research, then the privacy arguments becomes even weaker. This is especially the case where some of the e-mails demonstrate willful intent to stonewall / circumvent the disclosure of data that members of the public were legally entitled to view through freedom of information requests. The scientists are treading on thin ice if they cite their own privacy concerns as reason to discount evidence of their intent to illegally conceal / bury data under the veil of that privacy right. They are not coming into this with clean hands, are they?

quote:
This is absurd, and a giant waste of all of our time.

I mean, continue to discuss it ad nauseum if you feel like it, certainly. Just because I personally think it's boring and idiotic doesn't mean everybody else has to share my opinion.

The fact that it is being plastered on the news and threatening to derail this debate should be evidence that your pronouncement is inherently flawed. High profile scientists whose work is being relied on (in part) to justify massive changes in public policy effecting billions of people have to be extra careful to ensure that their work is above reproach and that they meet the highest ethical standards.

If there has been misfeasance, then these scientists are liabilities that will only discredit and undermine AGW in the public eye. For that reason alone, they should be eliminated and examples should be made of them.

[ November 29, 2009, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by PSRT (Member # 6454) on :
 
quote:
What relevance does the legality of the means by which the e-mails were obtained have to the interpretation of the e-mails' content?
Well, one reason that evidence must be collected by certain mechanisms is to ensure that the evidence is a true representation of the situation being examined. For example, are you certain these emails and documents have not been edited or manufactured? I'm not saying the documents and emails are not genuine... I'm saying that the fact they were obtained illegally means that their veracity can't be taken for granted.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Sorry, since I am routinely the target of personal attacks and have more than once been subjected to threats of violence by members of this forum, I think it best I avoid revealing personal details when I can.
Not a problem.
But since I'm absolutely certain that you have personally never been involved in any research, can you tell me whether you know anyone who has? Because I need to know how much I'll need to explain to you as groundwork before I can get to the rest of it.

Holding onto the faith to the bitter end I see.

Why don't you go ahead and lay out the groundwork starting with the scientific method. I'm especially interested in the part where you think experiments and results from collected data should be restricted and not allowed to be reproduced or reviewed.

The fact is, I have been involved in research efforts, albeit small ones. One of the basic requirements of those efforts was that I had to show *all* my work, allow others to review it and give them a chance to discredit it or reproduce it, thus proving the theory or falsifying it. Have you ever heard of that before? It may sound crazy to you but it's kind of a basic thing so I think you really should start at the most fundamental levels and get up to speed. [Wink]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
I am suggesting that there is not any reliable way for us (where "us" is pretty much the entire world, at this point) to know what the writers of the emails meant or didn't mean to communicate. We are not the intended audience. Pretending that we are all qualified to make some sort of important judgment about something (anything) based on a partial and illegally-obtained sample of someone else's private correspondence is stupid.

There is a way to put these in a greater context and some people are doing just that. These emails discuss interactions with skeptics on a number of occasions and those people are recreating the entire thread of conversation with the responses they received along with the internal commentary that was generated. That puts a great deal of context around the emails relating to those conversations. However, many of the emails and code don't require a great deal more context to determine that something drastic was going on within the peer review process so that skeptical views were successfully being suppressed and data was being deleted to avoid FoI requests.

As for these being illegally obtained, it's the favored theory because it makes CRU look like a victim which allows them to deflect criticism. That theory is losing steam fast. One alternate possibility is this data was collected as part of a FoI request - one that was eventually denied - and it was accidentally left on a public FTP server. CRU has done something similar before so it would be no surprise they did it again. The other theory is that a whistle blower stepped up when the FoI request was denied and released the "raw" data that was collected for the request. I tend to believe we don't need to ascribe malice to something that can be explained by simple human error, especially when we've seen them do it before, so I think the release was most likely accidental. Although I welcome an investigation of everything associated with this information and CRU, including the "science". My initial guess is an in depth investigation of everything is the last thing someone pushing AGW would want though ...

[ November 29, 2009, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
Guys, I don't know how else to tell you -- you're just headed for a dead-end if you think you can conclude what any of these emails "actually mean." As far as I can tell, they sound completely normal.

If you hang around these folks long enough you will realize that most of this is just normal conversation. There are always issues, contentions, disagreements, cold shoulders, people not wanting to "have anything to do with" such-and-such editor or administrator. JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE AT ANY OTHER JOB.

What's it like where you work? G2? Daruma? Everybody? Right, exactly.

As for "evidence" of data manipulation -- these emails are worthless. You can learn nothing from them without the context. It is extremely common to have to re-calibrate, adjust, and "add in" or "correct" data which comes from disparate sources. When these emails speak of making these changes, there is absolutely no basis for concluding anything nefarious, because you don't know the specific nature of the project or the problem.

I am not saying anyone needs to "genuflect" before some scientific priesthood. I *am* saying that you have to refute science with science, not innuendo and suspicion.

But no one on this thread even has even demonstrated that they understand what these emails are about. Before you can criticize a scientists work, you must first be able to state, in plain english, what you are criticizing.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
Jason,

The passage you quote as an example of "blackballing" -- you're leaping to a completely unreasonable conclusion.

It is entirely possible that person X has a gripe with person Y for valid scientific reasons - analytical methods and so forth.

In fact, I have never heard of an editorial board or an oversight committe that *didn't* have someone throw a tantrum over someone else's managerial decision at some point. This is just how science works. People disagree.

Does it never occur to you that these emails in fact show the very opposite of an enforced consensus? Clearly, there are editors letting the "skeptics" through. Cleary, there are open and vigorous debates. This is the exact opposite of some groupthink conspiracy.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
One of the basic requirements of those efforts was that I had to show *all* my work, allow others to review it and give them a chance to discredit it or reproduce it, thus proving the theory or falsifying it. Have you ever heard of that before?
I have. But that's not actually very likely in a professional lab, especially not when the "work" here is mostly the analysis of other people's fieldwork. That's actually one of the reasons I asked whether or not you were familiar with professional research; what the emails reveal here isn't some kind of monolithic conspiracy, but rather the exact sort of give and take that most people who talk about peer review are, well, talking about.

But the thing is, I can't imagine you're surprised by this. So why are you feigning shock and surprise and dismay, like scientists have somehow betrayed you?
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/25/climate-czar-says-e-mails-dont-change-anything/?feat=article_top10_read

Climate 'czar' says hacked e-mails don't change anything

"...Ms. Browner initially shrugged when asked about the e-mails, saying she didn't have a reaction. But when a reporter followed up, she said she will stick with the consensus of the 2,500 climate scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change who concluded global warming is happening and is most likely being pushed by human actions."

-------------------------------------

My personal opinion is that I have no idea whether man-made global warming is real or not, but I definitely don't trust the people saying it's definitely real.

They obviously have other agendas.

Kind of like a lot of the vegans.

I wish they'd just come right out and say they are against capitalism as well as pollution whether there is global warming or not just like they are against killing animals for food whether or not they provide good nutrition. Just slap it down on the table. Let's see what you got, because I know you're bluffing anyway.

-----------------------------------

I suppose I should confess that I believe we should be polluting a whole lot less regardless of global warming and we should be a lot more economical in our use of fossil fuels, and I've said it many times. But people always want to go for the fear factor hype just like with the corporate bailouts. They bluffed, we folded, and they walked away with the pot.

That sounds a lot like what's going on with global warming too. I'm all for cleaner air, but not just trying to throw a lot of money at a lot of people and hoping a problem which doesn't exist goes away.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/30/money-may-help-lead-to-climate-accord/

By Charles J. Hanley ASSOCIATED PRESS

"NEW YORK | Money on the table -- perhaps $10 billion a year or more -- could help close a deal in Denmark next month and keep climate talks moving toward a new global treaty in 2010. But if poorer nations see too little offered up front, the U.N. conference could end in discord.

... Although talks will now be extended, Copenhagen was originally meant to culminate years of negotiation centered on two pillars: emissions reductions and financial aid for developing countries to adapt to climate change."

-------------------------------------------

Wouldn't it be funny though if we spend all this money on global warming adaptations and then we really experience global cooling? That would be just about par for the course for government spending of our hard earned tax dollars.

If you just stick with the basics like limiting pollution in the air that makes it hard for people to breath, and cleaning up mercury in the water so our fish aren't dangerous to eat, that's something measurable and worthwhile regardless of the temperature outside.

But maybe doing that makes it harder for people to line their pockets with our money. And that's the real problem.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
have more than once been subjected to threats of violence by members of this forum
G2, I was one of those that you erroneously believed to be threatening you with violence (I was making a point about my inability to direct your focus in a conversation that occurred virtually, and you blew it all out of proportion). Dude, chill, we all take the words here with a certain seriousness, but this is not life-and-death.

As for the rest of this thread, can we have a general principle here? Such as:
(1) if any group on one side of an issue tries to suppress its rivals, then their position is automatically wrong?
(2) the (potentially falsified) data from this group is critical to the case for global warming

KidB made some points that seemed consistent with my experience with climate scientists (and scientists in general). In general, they care more about their science (and their scientific reputation) than about politics, and a fairly high fraction of them love to find ways to make their colleagues look like idiots. In general, world class scientists tend to be rather ornery individualists, they are largely incapable of forming large conspiracies because most of them would rather be leaders than followers.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Oh, and if the answer is (1) above, what kind of emails do you think that we would see if we could read the internal email of Exxon-Mobile on this issue?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
My personal opinion is that I have no idea whether man-made global warming is real or not, but I definitely don't trust the people saying it's definitely real.

They obviously have other agendas.

More accurately, some of them have agendas with which you disagree. Lots of people who say global warming certainly isn't real have obvious agendas, but I never hear you complaining about those.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Jason,

The passage you quote as an example of "blackballing" -- you're leaping to a completely unreasonable conclusion.

Here is the passage:

quote:
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” “It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Here is the definition for blackball:

quote:
black⋅ball  /ˈblækˌbɔl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [blak-bawl] Show IPA
–verb (used with object) 1. to vote against (a candidate, applicant, etc.).
2. to exclude socially; ostracize: The whole town blackballed them.
3. to reject (a candidate) by placing a blackball in the ballot box.

Looks precisely like blackballing to me.

quote:
It is entirely possible that person X has a gripe with person Y for valid scientific reasons - analytical methods and so forth.

In fact, I have never heard of an editorial board or an oversight committe that *didn't* have someone throw a tantrum over someone else's managerial decision at some point. This is just how science works. People disagree.

The pertinence of the quote above is not with respect to disagreement, but with respect to blackballing as a legitimate means of responding to disagreement.

quote:
Does it never occur to you that these emails in fact show the very opposite of an enforced consensus? Clearly, there are editors letting the "skeptics" through. Cleary, there are open and vigorous debates. This is the exact opposite of some groupthink conspiracy.
I never suggested that there was a "conspiracy". Even if there was, such a conspiracy would not be perfect or airtight.

What I suggested was that the e-mails demonstrate that certain very prominent scientists were proposing blackballing other scientists as a means of squashing dissenting views in a matter of the utmost public importance, one where "consensus" has been the lynchpin of massive changes in public policy. Secondly, they suggest that those same scientists were illegally stonewalling freedom of information requests.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
More accurately, some of them have agendas with which you disagree. Lots of people who say global warming certainly isn't real have obvious agendas, but I never hear you complaining about those.
There is no need to complain about those, nor is there a need to "expose" them because we all assume they are biased from the beginning. Nobody would be surprised to find e-mails of this nature coming from Exxon Mobil.

We are, however, surprised to find them coming from scientists supposedly committed to truth, rather than some specific profit-driven agenda.

We are also deeply disturbed when we read such e-mails, because the work of these scientists helps form the foundation for massive changes in public policy that effects us all. AGW is no longer some esoteric theoretical question. Now that real policy is being formed on the basis of AGW, the issue is, by its very nature politicized. It cannot be any other way. Those who work in this field had better get used to being under this kind of scrutiny.

[ November 30, 2009, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
"I wish they'd just come right out and say they are against capitalism as well as pollution whether there is global warming or not just like they are against killing animals for food whether or not they provide good nutrition. Just slap it down on the table. Let's see what you got, because I know you're bluffing anyway. "

Except that would be a completely non-sequitur, especially as the most viable solutions on the table are completely found in capitalism. Cap and trade is pure capitalism- it just puts a price on environmental impact. (It's only real shortcoming is that it doesn't go ahead and cover all forms of pollution; we used it very well for sulfur, but we continue to displace the cost of other cleanups- like mercury, by pretending that there's no need to price in the impact from the start.

Putting pressure on the supply/demand curve to help promote renewable technologies before eventual shortages or other crises makes brings the market into a place that makes the R&D overhead worthwhile is also really just a direct application of capitalism- it's just providing a degree of forethought that the market by itself is incapable of while it's easier to believe that such emergencies are not pressing in day to day transactions.

People don't like change and transition to new industries- going to clean.renewable sources, limiting emissions from oil/carbon based sources represents a major change and that's where most of the actual resistance seems to lie- all the fear mongering about changing our standard of living our bing force to reduce consumption levels seems to be born out of trying to justify fears of that change, when the results will more likely be just the opposite on almost all counts: more, cleaner energy that will scale better to growth, more people employed not only in the creation of the technology needed to harness that energy, but also in production of the technology or carrying out the processes needed to compensate for or outright reduce active environmental dangers.

The only losers are the large, entrenched industries that would be displaced by newer ones, so we see them investing as much in nurturing those fears and taking advantage of the opening for misinformation while paying some halfhearted lip service to developing technologies, or, if they do better invest in it, doing their best to keep the barrier to entry for new companies too high so that they position won't be threatened.

Those are the truly corporatist, anti-capitalistic forces at work here; the ones that, bay far, have the power needed to get their way. But their way, so far, has simply resulted in the US falling off the leading edge of development. We're squandering an opportunity to be the industrial leader in such technologies by allowing them to manipulate our markets and attitudes in favor of their services and displacing a major portion of their real operational costs.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
We are, however, surprised to find them coming from scientists supposedly committed to truth...
Do me a favor and ask cherry, Daruma, or G2 if they're surprised. Or, for that matter, yourself.

quote:
Those who work in this field had better get used to being under this kind of scrutiny.
May we ask why Exxon-Mobil -- just as an example -- gets to write policy but is able to avoid this kind of scrutiny?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Do me a favor and ask cherry, Daruma, or G2 if they're surprised. Or, for that matter, yourself.
I admit that I am not surprised that these scientists were engaged in this kind of behaviour. But I wouldn't have been surprised either if they turned out to be completely on the level too. That's the honest truth. I can't speak for the others you mentioned.

quote:
May we ask why Exxon-Mobil -- just as an example -- gets to write policy but is able to avoid this kind of scrutiny?
First of all, I don't support Exxon-Mobil writing policy. Very few rational people think that the oil industry should be able to write environmental policy given their obvious financial incentive to torpedo any hope of progress in this area.

Secondly, Exxon's misfeasance has nothing to do with what is going on here. These scientists weren't working for Exxon. What Exxon does or does not do, isn't relevant.

These scientists deserve exceptional scrutiny because (1) their e-mails demonstrate that they were engaging in ethically questionable and possibly illegal activities; (2) unlike a scientist working for Exxon, they are not expected to nor is it assumed that they would have an ideological agenda that would influence their research to this degree; and (3) if their work directly influences and supports highly controversial government policies which directly impact on the public, then they deserve the highest scrutiny from the public. This is particularly the case if the research is being funded by tax dollars.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
What Exxon does or does not do, isn't relevant.
Except that isn't true. It's absolutely relevant. These scientists are, in their research and in their reputations, opposed by the full weight of a lobby supported in both funding and research by Exxon and similar organizations (including the federal government), with the explicit intent of advancing contrary policy. And yet no one is demanding that this opposing lobby prove that its scientists are somehow working without an "agenda."
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Except that isn't true. It's absolutely relevant. These scientists are, in their research and in their reputations, opposed by the full weight of a lobby supported in both funding and research by Exxon and similar organizations (including the federal government), with the explicit intent of advancing contrary policy. And yet no one is demanding that this opposing lobby prove that its scientists are somehow working without an "agenda."
Firstly, no one demands such proof because it is already self-evident that a scientist being paid by Exxon has an agenda.

But if there is a scientist being secretly funded by Exxon with a hidden agenda, then no one (including me) will object to that scientist being exposed.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that one of those most common tactics I've seen used by AGW supporters to squelch debate is to make suggestions of bias and allegiance to some shady benefactor (like the oil industry) usually with no evidence to back up this claim.

For years now, I've seen AGW supporters rely on the ad hominem attack as pretty much the central tactic for dealing with anyone remotely skeptical of their beliefs. I objected to this tactic frome day 1, not because it had any impact on my assessment of the merits of AGW as a theory, but because it was an illegitimate, dogmatic, and highly unethical method of debate and not a proper way to comport oneself, regardless of the rightness of one's beliefs.

If these scientists are receiving unfair or unduly harsh scrutiny, then they (and others like them) have only themselves to blame. When you attack the integrity of everyone who disagrees with you, you should make sure that your own integrity is above reproach.

In any event, I still don't see how any of this is pertinent. Are you suggesting that if the allegations against these specific scientists are borne out, we should ignore them because some other scientists working for Exxon were also guilty of misfeasance?

[ November 30, 2009, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
jasonr, you made some valid points, but it's interesting that you did so after TomD smacked you down for saying something so blatantly... inane?... as:

"What Exxon does or does not do, isn't relevant."

Anyway, congratulations, although I don;t know why you return to self-defeating inanity like this:

"In any event, I still don't see how any of this is pertinent. Are you suggesting that if the allegations against these specific scientists are borne out, we should ignore them because some other scientists working for Exxon were also guilty of misfeasance?"

You're shadow-boxing with yourself, not responding pertinently to what TomD said.

Why u do dat?

[ November 30, 2009, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:


I suppose I should confess that I believe we should be polluting a whole lot less regardless of global warming and we should be a lot more economical in our use of fossil fuels, and I've said it many times. But people always want to go for the fear factor hype just like with the corporate bailouts. They bluffed, we folded, and they walked away with the pot.

That sounds a lot like what's going on with global warming too. I'm all for cleaner air, but not just trying to throw a lot of money at a lot of people and hoping a problem which doesn't exist goes away.

1) Carbon dioxide is the primary emission of burning coal, oil and natural gas.
2) Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have drastically increased since we started burning coal and oil in large amounts.
3) Carbon dioxide is a green house gas.

All of those are facts. The debate is about how the Earth responds to increased levels of carbon dioxide. Some models show a runaway warming effect (feedback loop) when carbon dioxide levels reach certain critical values for too long. The models are imperfect. They may not account for many ways the climate system can return to an equilibrium despite increased carbon dioxide levels. They probably assume relatively constant solar activity. Add any number of what complex what ifs here that are probably treated as constants in the model or ignored entirely.

There are many ways in which such complicated models can break particularly when trying to extrapolate out 50 to 100 years. What they do represent is an estimate to what will happen.

Many of the scientists have a political agenda because their model (their science) shows rising sea levels, drought, large storms and other disastrous effects of global warming. They believe the science so they feel obligated to warn the public and prevent the predicted negative consequences.

quote:

Wouldn't it be funny though if we spend all this money on global warming adaptations and then we really experience global cooling? That would be just about par for the course for government spending of our hard earned tax dollars.

If you just stick with the basics like limiting pollution in the air that makes it hard for people to breath, and cleaning up mercury in the water so our fish aren't dangerous to eat, that's something measurable and worthwhile regardless of the temperature outside.

But maybe doing that makes it harder for people to line their pockets with our money. And that's the real problem.

No technologies being proposed would lead to global cooling. They all just seek to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that is being pumped into the atmosphere.

All the money for reducing carbon emissions comes down to basically a few ideas. Note that almost all of this money would go to someone other than climate scientists. While a few may have invested in some companies the majority are scientists not entrepreneurs.

1) Generate power without burning fossil fuels: solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and hydro.
2) Conservation: better insulation, more efficient cars, light bulbs, computers, heat pumps, etc.
3) Carbon sequestration: pumping carbon dioxide back into the holes left by pumping oil out.

Only the third is a waste of money if global warming isn't real. Alternative energies and conservation are good long term investments. You seem to agree with this so there is no reason to oppose those two. If you don't believe global warming enough to support the third then oppose spending money on that.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
What Exxon does or does not do, isn't relevant.
Except that isn't true. It's absolutely relevant. These scientists are, in their research and in their reputations, opposed by the full weight of a lobby supported in both funding and research by Exxon and similar organizations (including the federal government), with the explicit intent of advancing contrary policy. And yet no one is demanding that this opposing lobby prove that its scientists are somehow working without an "agenda."
Let's look at the reality of this funding and research, from The Science and Public Policy Institute:
quote:
Over the last two decades, US taxpayers have subsidized the American climate change industry to the tune of $79 billion.
That was money spent in support of AGW. How much was spent in research that contradicted AGW?
quote:
Exxon Mobil gave a mere $23 million, spread over ten years, to climate sceptics.
This "full weight of a lobby supported in both funding and research by Exxon and similar organizations" amounts to a drop in the bucket compared to the pro-AGW camp. We know from the emails released that Jones all by himself managed to access 13.7 million in funding for his or CRU's research. All of this with the explicit intent of advancing AGW policy that we now know had significant issues and was withheld from proper peer review.

Is the "lobby supported in both funding and research by Exxon and similar organizations" also withholding their data? Is this cabal manipulating the peer review process so that their view is very nearly the only view published? Is this organization you speak of engaged in criminal acts in order to circumvent FoI requests?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
jasonr, you made some valid points, but it's interesting that you did so after TomD smacked you down for saying something so blatantly... inane?... as:

"What Exxon does or does not do, isn't relevant."

It's relevant perhaps insofar as it gives us needed context with which we can better understand what motivated the scientists to misbehave. I don't think it excuses their misbehaviour which is what Tom was insinuating.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
1) Carbon dioxide is the primary emission of burning coal, oil and natural gas.
2) Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have drastically increased since we started burning coal and oil in large amounts.
3) Carbon dioxide is a green house gas.

All of those are facts. The debate is about how the Earth responds to increased levels of carbon dioxide

There are a lot of facts your missing though.

1) Despite what CRU, GISS and RealClimate tell you, the Medieval Warming Period did occur. The MWP shows that the earth can heat rapidly and cool just as rapidly without the influence of CO2 from anthropogenic sources.

2) CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been shown to have no correlation to temperature increases and CO2 is actually a lagging indicator of warming, not a driver.

3) CO2 is a bit player in the scheme of greenhouse gases. Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect. 3.5% of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 or which only 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. Even if we scrubbed all CO2 from human activity from the atmosphere and didn't emit another molecule of it with all the greenhouse gases from all other sources remaining, 99.883% of the greenhouse effect from those gases would remain.

[ November 30, 2009, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I thin you have serious misinterpretation of text issues, jasonr. Or perhaps basic reading comprehension problems.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
He has provided a calm, reasoned response to every post pertaining to his comments. Tom has tried to use an illogical argument of pointing to bad behavior by someone not in the discussion (exxon). And now Ken, you are trying to discredit him by insulting his reading ability. It seems to me that rational discourse would be better served by addressing the issue at hand, which is the seemingly bad behavior by these scientists.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Over the last two decades, US taxpayers have subsidized the American climate change industry to the tune of $79 billion.
How exactly are you determining an "industry," here? Are we assuming that every publicly-funded scientist working in the field or doing climate research is on board?

quote:
Exxon Mobil gave a mere $23 million, spread over ten years, to climate sceptics.
Note that we're now talking about one corporation's unverified totals for the narrowly-defined group of "climate sceptics."

This is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
I thin you have serious misinterpretation of text issues, jasonr. Or perhaps basic reading comprehension problems.
Sometimes I do misunderstand what I read. Of course, rather than just making pronouncements about it, it would be better if you just came out and explained clearly what aspect of Tom's argument I inappropriately (or failed to) address.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
Jason,

As you know, a person has a right to resign and/or refuse to deal with an editorial board or a journal at any time for any reason, and to make those reasons known to his or her collegues.

You are implying that the author of this email is doing something wrong. That hinges entirely on whether they are motivated by political concerns, or scientific ones.

If the motives are purely political, then yes, there is a problem.

But if the author of the email has a legitimate, professional issue with how the editorial board is evaluating the scientific worthiness of what they publish - i.e., if he feels they are publishing bad science, and he can support his claims empirically - then he would be remiss if he didn't take this action - even if he turns out to be wrong. A scientist should always defend the scientific method.

Furthermore, you need to understand that this is "bottom up" political pressure. He is talking about a journal, it seems. Journal editors occupy a very powerful position.

[ November 30, 2009, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
There are a lot of facts your missing though.

1) Despite what CRU, GISS and RealClimate tell you, the Medieval Warming Period did occur. The MWP shows that the earth can heat rapidly and cool just as rapidly without the influence of CO2 from anthropogenic sources.

2) CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been shown to have no correlation to temperature increases and CO2 is actually a lagging indicator of warming, not a driver.

3) CO2 is a bit player in the scheme of greenhouse gases. Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect. 3.5% of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 or which only 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. Even if we scrubbed all CO2 from human activity from the atmosphere and didn't emit another molecule of it with all the greenhouse gases from all other sources remaining, 99.883% of the greenhouse effect from those gases would remain.

1) Irreverent, just because warming can occur without carbon doesn't tell us anything about carbon and global warming.

2) We certainly have incomplete data about the average temps and carbon dioxide levels throughout all of history. Nor do we know about all the other factors that play into global climate at the time. Lack of data to show a causation does not mean one does not exist nor does it mean one does exist.

3) Yes there are other greenhouse gases. This is one of the reasons why raising carbon dioxide levels may have a disproportionate impact on the climate. Warmer air can hold more water vapor leading to more warming (ie the positive feedback loop).

The current climate models predict that increasing carbon dioxide levels will have a substantial impact if everything else stays the same. I'm not an expert on all the assumptions that go into those models. They may or may not be accurate at predicting what happens as carbon dioxide levels continue to rise. I simply hold the position that the models are one likely scenario for the future climate. Those consequences are dire enough that I believe some actions to alleviate the problem are warranted.

How do you conclude that only 3% of carbon dioxide is from human activity? The numbers I've seen are closer to 30-40%. At that level using your claim that carbon dioxide accounts for about 3.5% of the greenhouse effect then we get that the Earth would retain about 1% more heat than before. Maybe 1 or 2 percent will not through off the balance of the Earth but what are you willing to bet on it?
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
[QB] [QUOTE]We are, however, surprised to find them coming from scientists supposedly committed to truth...

Do me a favor and ask cherry, Daruma, or G2 if they're surprised. Or, for that matter, yourself.

Of course I'm not surprised. I've been arguing for years here now that "Global Warming" was nothing more than a grand hoax perpetuated to impose a global tax, subvert nation-state soveriegnty and is nothing more than a stalking horse for the movement towards global governance.

And most of you simply think I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist for believing that.

And that's fine...because from where I sit, most of you are useful idiots for that exact cause.

You who genuflect before the holy priesthood of "CONSENSUS" are what truly sicken me.

You condescendingly deride those of us that are skeptical..as if we don't understand "SCIENCE."

Sorry useful idiots, but CONSENSUS is not science.

The scientific method calls for testable, reproducible results to prove a scientific fact indisputably. I remember that much from my High School science class. Funny how that simple, basic definition of the Scientific Method got corrupted, the more "educated" you scientific types have gotten.

The fact that so many of you self-identified "scientists" and "researchers" have placed CONSENSUS above this just goes to show how corrupted true science has been by the political/ideological process.

"Consensus" is nothing more than a lie, and it's based on an appeal to authority, so that the average sheeple is intimidated into blindly following the dictates of the "science" community.

The more personal research I've done into a whole host of topics and issues, the more I've come to realize that most of the biggest frauds, lies and deceits committed on the populace are almost always based on "IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE."

Yeah Tom, you can try and divert the debate onto Exxon Mobile...because everyone KNOWS they would certainly LIE to achieve there agenda...

...oooh...but publicly funded/foundation supported researchers would NEVER be corrupted to promote lies as "SCIENCE" because they are untainted by the evils of capitalism's pursuit of profit...right?!?! [Roll Eyes]

Some of you act like just because you are a scientist, or you are student studying science...or your work involves working with scientists...that you have some greater insight into this whole debate. That those of us that are not "scientists" should just shut up and accept what our betters tell us is SCIENCE.

That we cannot read these emails for ourselves and plainly see what is blatantly obvious.

What I see are more than a few of you that simply cannot get over your FAITH in the holy church of Consensus Science to objectively look at a plainly discerned effort to promote a LIE to achieve various political agendas.

How is:

If you deny Jesus Christ is the son of God...you will go to HELL!

Really any different from:

If you deny that AGW is real...you will DESTROY THE EARTH!

I proudly blaspheme all that is associated with the Holy Church of Secular Scientific Consensus! [LOL]
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
The scientific method calls for testable, reproducible results to prove a scientific fact indisputably.
Well, not so much.

But good try!
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Sorry useful idiots, but CONSENSUS is not science.
*sigh* My wife is a researcher in this very field. I have several friends and professional acquaintances in this field. I can guarantee you that they do not sit around and go, "Oh, what is everyone agreeing on today? Is that it? Well, good! Let's make sure our data matches!"

The reason I asked G2 about the research process is that I genuinely didn't know how much he already knew about the topic. I haven't asked you because I know you know nothing about it, and are aggressively disinterested in learning.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Sorry Ops....The scientific method calls for testable, reproducible results to prove a scientific fact indisputably - unless a bunch of scientists agree to form a consensus opinion by faking test results, falsifying data and subverting the peer review process.

Better? [Razz]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
*sigh* My wife is a researcher in this very field. I have several friends and professional acquaintances in this field. I can guarantee you that they do not sit around and go, "Oh, what is everyone agreeing on today? Is that it? Well, good! Let's make sure our data matches!"

Oh please Tom.

I understand quite well how the system works, and I know damn well that your caricature of what you think my ignorance is construed of is not how it works either.

Instead, grant funding (from private foundations, government grants and/or corporate interests) all fund a mulititude of research entities, each one scientifically investigating one small piece of the giant puzzle.

In this way, every scientist that researches there one, tiny piece of the overall big picture can conduct their own research with 100% integrity. So one researcher can conduct a study on comparing the amount of Co2 emissions of diesel versus regular gasoline. They can carry out the research on that study precisely and completely, and publish their results. And have 100% integrity.

But another scientist, who is corrupt, and has an agenda above and beyond the pure pursuit of scientific truth, can take those results and use other, compromised research to produce the grand narrative meant to achieve the political agenda.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
Better?
Well, certainly more entertaining.
[Smile]

We might try "The scientific method calls for the proposition of falsifiable hypothesis and the testing thereof by replicable experiment, followed by the rejection of the hypothesis in question if such is warranted."

I mean, there are about nine thousand ways to phrase that, many of them less silly.
But though I agree about the replicability of experiments, it is inappropriate to talk about proving a fact at all, let alone indisputably. (When was there EVER a result that scientists didn't dispute? Honestly.) It is also a little bit strange to talk about testable results, but I think that is just a semantic problem.

In the scientific method, we falsify or don't falsify hypotheses. We don't prove facts.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Fair enough Ops, I understand the distinction you are making here.

In your opinion, has the AGW hypothesis been adequately falsified or not?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
I mentioned people putting these emails in the context of events and this is a good example. Since almost nobody here follows links, I shall quote the relevant portions. It stems from urban heat island effect and it's overall impact.
quote:
It starts with the question of urban heat islands, and their effect on the temperature record. It is well known, and easily measured, that the centres of cities may be up to 4 C warmer at night than the countryside around them. This happens especially on clear, windless nights, and is a result of tall buildings blocking radiation to space. The problem is that when thermometers were placed on the outskirts of towns a hundred years ago, the cities were much smaller, and as they have grown, the temperature where the thermometers are has risen.

That there must be some sort of effect hardly seems in doubt, but the question is, how much? And therefore, how much of the 0.8 C warming we saw over the 20th century is illusory? The IPCC relied on a particular paper published in 1990 by Phil Jones in Nature that basically said the UHI effect was trivial, which in turn relied in large part on data from China supplied by professor Wang of Albany, State University of New York.

In describing this data, Jones et al. said “The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.” which in turn was based on the similar statement in Wang et al. “They were chosen based on station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times…” The truth of these statements was essential for the papers to be valid, which in turn was relied on in part by the IPCC report.

The output from 84 stations was used to make this official determination. After significant effort by Climate Audit through FoI requests, a mathematician named Doug Keenan and others were able to trace these stations. What did they find? Of the 84 stations used, there were in fact no records of station location for 49 of them, 8 had inconsistent histories, 18 had substantial relocations, 2 had single-year relocations, and only 7 were known not to have been relocated at all. There were no records for over half the stations used.

Keenan wrote to Jones and Wang inviting them to comment. No response. Keenan wrote again setting out the facts, inviting them to retract the paper or otherwise set the record straight, and said that if they did not, then he would submit an allegation of research misconduct to Wang’s university. No response. Keenan did submit the complaint. The university sided with Wang but in a very curious way. As the complainant, Keenan should have been allowed to review the findings according to the university's policies (the university has clearly violated a number of its policies in this matter). The university withheld its report. Although it did ask Keenan to comment on it without allowing him to see it. Keenan has since submitted a formal complaint to the Public Integrity Bureau at the Office of the Attorney General of New York State, alleging criminal fraud.

We now have some internal commentary on how they decided to deal with this. Kevin Trenberth suggests:
quote:
So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.
That strategy sound familiar? It should, it's common practice in these debates.



Later, there is an email from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones:
quote:
Phil,

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 (WCW [Wang] at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect.

Whether or not this makes a difference is not the issue here.

Tom.

I agree with Tom, someone had to have known that records for over half the stations did not exist - i.e, that those stations did not exist. What do you think? Over half the data appears to be fabricated, would that make a difference?


In another email from Tom to Phil:
quote:
Phil,

Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are …

“Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally, there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997) explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program.”

and

“Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available.

I was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud.”

You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was not possible to select stations on the basis of …

“… station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”

[THIS IS ITEM "X"]

Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above selection method could not have been applied (but see below) — unless there are other “hard copy” station history data not in the DOE report (but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.

What is the answer here?

The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn’t make the hard copy information available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist — if it did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the datado not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?

Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers — so where does it come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?

(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.

(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched.

ITEM X really should have been …

“Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”

Of course the real get out is the final “or”. A station could be selected if either it had relatively few “changes in instrumentation”

OR “changes in location” OR “changes in observation times”. Not all three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science here — it would be better to have all three — but this is not what the statement says.

Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start?

Perhaps it’s not too late?

-----

I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so
I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I
*am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of
CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.

Best wishes,
Tom

P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples' troubles might make
him happier about his own parallel experiences.


 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
Daruma,

What experience do you have with climate research aside from what you read online? Why do you think you have a better grasp on this than anyone else here?

quote:
Instead, grant funding (from private foundations, government grants and/or corporate interests) all fund a mulititude of research entities, each one scientifically investigating one small piece of the giant puzzle.

In this way, every scientist that researches there one, tiny piece of the overall big picture can conduct their own research with 100% integrity. So one researcher can conduct a study on comparing the amount of Co2 emissions of diesel versus regular gasoline. They can carry out the research on that study precisely and completely, and publish their results. And have 100% integrity.

And who is responsible for the vast project of compiling all this data and drawing conclusions from it? You?

Under what circumstances would you accept that such a project as having integrity?

You leave us with no options. I cannot imagine some body of people charged with arriving at a final answer in a way you would approve of. We already have a system in which completely disparate bodies and institutes collaborate and argue, and take decades to reach a conclusion. What more do you want?

I'm sorry, consensus *is* a part of science. If you smell conspiracy anytime scientists agree on a general premise or conclusion, you will never be satisfied.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:


I'm sorry, consensus *is* a part of science. If you smell conspiracy anytime scientists agree on a general premise or conclusion, you will never be satisfied.

If this were true, geocentrism would have been proven. For that matter, we would have been stuck with the flat earth model. There was enormous consensus for those. I guess it's a good thing heretics like Galileo and Copernicus did not believe that consensus *is* a part of science ...
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
And who is responsible for the vast project of compiling all this data and drawing conclusions from it? You?

You mean you don't know? Apparently the IPCC has already taken that responsibility, and they've already drawn their conclusions from it. Question is, why do you give the IPCC's conclusion the stamp of veracity so willingly?

Under what circumstances would you accept that such a project as having integrity?

Perhaps when it isn't accompanied by blatant political agendas and outright hypocrisy.

You leave us with no options. I cannot imagine some body of people charged with arriving at a final answer in a way you would approve of.

Kid where have the IPCC and all the scientists that jumped on the consensus bandwagon...where have they come to this final answer? They have computer models that predict ecological disaster....that is not a "final answer." That is a final guess.

We already have a system in which completely disparate bodies and institutes collaborate and argue, and take decades to reach a conclusion.

Have you actually read the emails, kid?

It's an inside look into the corruption and fraud endemic to this system you've placed so much trust and faith in.

I'm sorry, consensus *is* a part of science. If you smell conspiracy anytime scientists agree on a general premise or conclusion, you will never be satisfied.

Your blind faith is amusing.

Kid, do you yet understand exactly what these emails reveal?

That THE primary data used by the IPCC to formulate their political agenda to "save the Earth" was from the CRU? How could you read these emails and at least not even begin to question this 'consensus?'
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"If this were true, geocentrism would have been proven."

Um, it was. For over 1000 years. 'proven' is a subjective thing. But heliocentrism snipped all those Ptolemaic epicycles, and within a few hundred years, heliocentrism was the new prevailing consensus.

And yes, Galileo and Copernicus DID believe consensus is a part of science, even a part of verification. They just didn't believe that consensus *alone' proved anything but consensus.

Consensus in science exists and has its functions for good and ill.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:


I'm sorry, consensus *is* a part of science. If you smell conspiracy anytime scientists agree on a general premise or conclusion, you will never be satisfied.

If this were true, geocentrism would have been proven. For that matter, we would have been stuck with the flat earth model. There was enormous consensus for those. I guess it's a good thing heretics like Galileo and Copernicus did not believe that consensus *is* a part of science ...
You do realize that your response has nothing to do with the words that KidB actually used in that quote, right?
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
In your opinion, has the AGW hypothesis been adequately falsified or not?
I am pleased that you asked!

Though the question is not phrased in a way that is the most meaningful for me, I will do my best to answer.

We have a pretty good understanding of the physical properties of carbon dioxide and the way energy behaves as it comes to the earth from the sun and radiates away again. We also have a pretty good (though always being further refined) understanding of a lot of things about how the atmosphere and the ocean move around and exchange heat.
All of our understanding about all of these things predicts that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to a net increase in energy retained by the surface of the earth, which will eventually lead to some sort of climatic disruption.
I have heard a number of convincing stories about what kind of form the disruption might take, all of them based on interpretation of data that we understand pretty well.
The best available data we have is not in any way (as far as I can tell) inconsistent with this big picture of accumulating heat energy.

So falsification of the overriding hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change would require falsification of one or more of the underlying canons of well-understood things (for example, we have drastically misunderstood the way carbon dioxide absorbs and emits radiation).

Alternatively (and this is not really falsification, but would still be interesting), someone could provide an explanation as to how our understanding of basic science could be correct without increased atmospheric carbon dioxide causing anthropogenic climate change - what I mean is, where is that heat supposed to be going?
I mean, the problem for me with most of the arguments of the "skeptics" is that in a big-picture way, they don't really make sense. It is all very well to postulate that other greenhouse gases have an effect, or that solar something causes some kind of fluctuations, but that doesn't really mean that we would expect NOT to see a greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. And it is one thing to argue that the data don't show a clear increase in temperature (unconvincing, perhaps, but the argument is nonetheless made [Smile] ), but in that case it is really necessary to make some kind of argument about why not.

Does that make sense?

[ November 30, 2009, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: OpsanusTau ]
 
Posted by stayne (Member # 1944) on :
 
It need not be all one way or another, Greg. What is certainly true is that a level of politics and chicanery is shown by the release. It does not make them wrong, but it most certainly makes their science suspect, and damages their credibility. It brings into question whether their methods were rigorous, or whether they were tainted by politics and clinging too strongly to a desired outcome.

I agree with you that there is quite a bit of 'reputation protection' amongst scientists. It's endemic to academics in general. But is that not the very definition of politics?
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
it most certainly makes their science suspect, and damages their credibility
I totally agree. The only caveat I make is that "their" refers to a specific group of scientists and not to all scientists.
 
Posted by stayne (Member # 1944) on :
 
Greg, the point a lot of people ignore here is that Science(TM) is largely magic, even to practitioners. It is simply impossible to know everything, so we MUST trust. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, but there is still only so much time in a day. Even he, or Einstein, or Newton must trust that others are being rigorous, and the peer review and scientific method are the only real measures we have.

With AGW, we have seen a group pushing for social and political change, and have asked us to trust them. I call myself a scientist, but my field is computers. I cannot possibly verify the data. I am left, as is pretty much everyone else, to sort out who to trust.

AGW adherents ask people to change their way of life, to invest in things that are new and strange. Their suggestions would cause some industries to suffer tremendous hardship, from fatcat CEO's down to the little guys turning wrenches on oil pumps. Surely, we must all admit that it is difficult to sway people to take such measures.

AGW adherents have said "Trust us, we're the good guys." Now we are confronted with the fact that at least a portion of those who asked for our trust do not merit it. We do not know they are wrong or not, and have no real way of determining it.

AGW adherent do themselves and their cause a grave disservice to dismiss this or try to sweep it under the rug. Credibility is the ONLY coin being exchanged, and AGW's, right or wrong, has been seriously devalued by this incident.

IMO, the proper course is for a grand and genuine mea culpa, followed by a real effort to do work in as transparent a manner as possible. The standard academic 'go to the mats' practice is not going to work. Such is ever the case when science is attempting to make social and political change.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
"Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, but there is still only so much time in a day. Even he, or Einstein, or Newton must trust that others are being rigorous, and the peer review and scientific method are the only real measures we have."

Actually, most scientists know and pretty much expect that science has been rife with the same human politics and egotism that colors human affairs all the way back to when Aristotle first defined the basic method.

There would have been more surprise if something like this contained little, if any such maneuvering- especially when it came to dressing data to be more compelling to legislators with their fingers on the "grant money" buttons and the public at large.

It's easy, when you put a narrow batch of data like this to gloss over the fact that the entire process is designed specifically to account for such behavior- to allow such factors working independently to ultimately neutralize each other such that the points that they all do agree on are accepted as the most likely to be true.

That's the nature of the "Consensus" which Daruma so blithely misdefines as he sneers as at it, and it's the way that all science outside of the most basic of Newtonian physics works to advance itself.

If this one organization was the only proponent of AGW, then there would be more substance to the claims, but since many independent groups have arrived at similar conclusions, all that this really shows is the flaws in how they attempted to measure it and the lengths they went to in trying to dress them up to avoid losing face (which would have been blown equally out of scope as it is now due to how heavily politicized the issue is; one hundred supporting statements pass by without notice or comment, but one skeptical statement gets treated as it has more relevance and importance that the entire rest of the body of evidence combined.)

These guys absolutely should take flack for what's been uncovered, but it says nothing about the rest overwhelming body of evidence that favors the basic AGW and similar human-cause environmental impact positions.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
G2 said.
quote:
If this were true, geocentrism would have been proven. For that matter, we would have been stuck with the flat earth model. There was enormous consensus for those. I guess it's a good thing heretics like Galileo and Copernicus did not believe that consensus *is* a part of science ...
I’m curious why you think a “consensus” enforced by law to conform with the Bible is a scientific consensus.

I’m also curious to know why you accept the current consensus among astronomers and physicists as valid. Why isn’t that group-think?
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
@Daruma

quote:
You mean you don't know? Apparently the IPCC has already taken that responsibility, and they've already drawn their conclusions from it. Question is, why do you give the IPCC's conclusion the stamp of veracity so willingly?

I was asking hypothetically. In what circumstance would you trust an international community of scientists to come to a broad consensus on a subject?

Incidentally, I’m an agnostic on AGW. I’m merely rejecting your theory of deliberate falsification.


quote:
Under what circumstances would you accept that such a project as having integrity?

Perhaps when it isn't accompanied by blatant political agendas and outright hypocrisy.

You’ve proven neither of these.

quote:
Kid where have the IPCC and all the scientists that jumped on the consensus bandwagon...where have they come to this final answer? They have computer models that predict ecological disaster....that is not a "final answer." That is a final guess.

It’s not a “bandwagon.” There is continuous debate about what percentage of the warming trend is natural - I trust that you know and accept the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles - and what percentage is man-made. This has been vigorously debated for decades. It has never been all or nothing.


quote:
Your blind faith is amusing.

Kid, do you yet understand exactly what these emails reveal?

That’s just the point, Daruma. They don’t “reveal” anything to me. At most, they are unusual in degree of vehemence, but not in kind. It’s just the familiar debates and disputes that are quite normal in scientific research. I’ve been hearing about this stuff my entire life.

If there were some vast suppression of the opposing views, this scientist/emailer in question would have nothing to complain about, because there would be no “skeptics” on any editorial boards. But there are. There are prominent scientists all over the world who openly question and even completely refute AGW - and clearly they get published in journals important enough to make non-skeptics angry. They retain their prominent positions, their tenure, and their fame. They just happen to be a very, very small minority.

I give scientists on both sides, even most of those in the 1% fringe, the benefit of the doubt that they come by their views professionally, not via the purse strings or the iron fist of Big Brother Al. I think Carl Sagan came by his beliefs in favor of AGW honestly, and I think Freeman Dyson comes by his skepticism honestly. Like I say, I’m an agnostic on the issue...but if I had to bet money, I’d put it on what 90% of the scientists say versus what 10% say, because they know their work better than I do, and because I do not like losing money.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
Greg, the point a lot of people ignore here is that Science(TM) is largely magic, even to practitioners. It is simply impossible to know everything, so we MUST trust. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, but there is still only so much time in a day. Even he, or Einstein, or Newton must trust that others are being rigorous, and the peer review and scientific method are the only real measures we have
Actually, what I find admirable about empirical science is that it recognizes that determining the truth is difficult and that you can't use faith to determine what is right. Instead, it starts from a skepticism that disbelieves in virtually everything except scientific method, and then starts building upon observed and measured data. Even where the data supports a given hypothesis, that merely makes it a theory that is provisionally accepted until compelling data proves some element of that theory wrong. Science is the opposite of magic, even though not all of us can understand it (Chinese language is also not magic, even though I can understand none of it)

There are some challenges with scientific method. It's intellectually complex and requires significant training and experience in order to be fluent. However, you don't have to be an Einstein to understand empirical science - from an empirical perspective, obscure 11-dimensional hypotheses about the nature of the universe are less important than specific testable properties that those hypotheses might suggest. Einstein's big break-through came when he predicted that mass affects light and thus the observed position of Mercury during an eclipse (when it was in line with the edge of the sun) would be different from the position when calculated based on what we knew about Mercury's orbit. So a team went to the jungles of South America to make an astronomical observation, and when the results matched Einstein's prediction, it was compelling evidence that his hypothesis was a valid explanation for how the universe worked.

When I hear the AGW arguments, they sound to me to be similar to the arguments raised on behalf of intelligent design, the arguments against the hypothesis that CFC's were destroying atmospheric ozone, and the arguments against the carcinogenic effects of cigarettes funded by the tobacco companies. They use the language of science, but as a tool for creating doubt rather than for determining fact. Now, other scientists can also be spoiled babies - there's a wide range of personalities in the scientific profession, and not all of them are particularly appealing. But the scientific enterprise is structured to let the data do the talking (in particular, a comprehensive look at all the data, not a focus on subsets that are inconsistent with the full data record).
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Greg, the point a lot of people ignore here is that Science(TM) is largely magic, even to practitioners. It is simply impossible to know everything, so we MUST trust. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, but there is still only so much time in a day. Even he, or Einstein, or Newton must trust that others are being rigorous, and the peer review and scientific method are the only real measures we have.

With AGW, we have seen a group pushing for social and political change, and have asked us to trust them. I call myself a scientist, but my field is computers. I cannot possibly verify the data. I am left, as is pretty much everyone else, to sort out who to trust.

AGW adherents ask people to change their way of life, to invest in things that are new and strange. Their suggestions would cause some industries to suffer tremendous hardship, from fatcat CEO's down to the little guys turning wrenches on oil pumps. Surely, we must all admit that it is difficult to sway people to take such measures.

AGW adherents have said "Trust us, we're the good guys." Now we are confronted with the fact that at least a portion of those who asked for our trust do not merit it. We do not know they are wrong or not, and have no real way of determining it.

AGW adherent do themselves and their cause a grave disservice to dismiss this or try to sweep it under the rug. Credibility is the ONLY coin being exchanged, and AGW's, right or wrong, has been seriously devalued by this incident.

IMO, the proper course is for a grand and genuine mea culpa, followed by a real effort to do work in as transparent a manner as possible. The standard academic 'go to the mats' practice is not going to work. Such is ever the case when science is attempting to make social and political change.

Yes!
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
" They use the language of science, but as a tool for creating doubt rather than for determining fact."

A most crucial distinction. DOubt is essential, without a doubt [Wink] , but the job of science is to raise facts into the light and then find understanding that fits.

Naysaying isn;t science; it's opinion sometimes applied to science.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
G2 said.
quote:
If this were true, geocentrism would have been proven. For that matter, we would have been stuck with the flat earth model. There was enormous consensus for those. I guess it's a good thing heretics like Galileo and Copernicus did not believe that consensus *is* a part of science ...
I’m curious why you think a “consensus” enforced by law to conform with the Bible is a scientific consensus.
You're refining that from "consensus" to "scientific consensus". Maybe that's what you meant in the first place? Either way, makes no difference. I'm curious why you think any consensus is scientific proof. When I look at the scientific method, I don't see the step that says consensus is considered proof of the theory. If you think going back to the classic examples is invalid for some obscure reason, we can go modern. Continental drift was rejected by the consensus for over 50 years, bacteria causing stomach ulcers was rejected by the consensus. Yet both were true.


We are not far off in climatology from laws enforcing consensus. These scientists used unethical and illegal means to build and enforce a consensus. That consensus in turn was used to create policy and ultimately would lead to laws, we just needed a little more time didn't we? No matter what way you spin this, that's not science.

quote:
Originally posted by KidB:

I’m also curious to know why you accept the current consensus among astronomers and physicists as valid. Why isn’t that group-think?

What consensus would that be?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
We are not far off in climatology from laws enforcing consensus.
Really? You think we're close to passing laws forbidding the publication of research that contradicts greenhouse claims?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
The money trail:
quote:
... Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.
$19 million, that's a lot of incentive isn't it?
quote:
Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
That's right gang, the bigger the crisis, the more money that poured into the coffers of those that could study and fabricate the solutions.
quote:
Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.
Billions of dollars floating out there for the taking as long as the alarm rings and the longer and louder it rings, the more money they get. Jobs are created, livelihoods begin to depend on the crisis and ever more funding. Consequently, you better find the scary man-bear-pig or start looking for another job. Although, finding one where billions are thrown at it is going to be tough.

Any wonder these guys hid and destroyed data and broke laws? They needed the money train to keep rolling.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
We are not far off in climatology from laws enforcing consensus.
Really? You think we're close to passing laws forbidding the publication of research that contradicts greenhouse claims?
You have a short memory. Do you remember way back, maybe, gosh, all of 2 years ago? I know that's a long time but there were calls for climate change deniers to be put on trial, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their crimes against humanity. Fire up the way back machine and take a look for yourself. Threats of loss of funding, and now we know loss of publication ability, etc.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
Continental drift was rejected by the consensus for over 50 years
And what ended that rejection? Oh yeah, data regarding the continental boundaries.

Now, it is true that scientific consensus is not always correct - that's an intrinsic part of the scientific process (as well as human nature). Sometimes establishment organizations anchor on incorrect hypotheses (see some of my discussion about mainstream economics - although in that particular case there is a paucity of empirical tests of fundamental propositions). And sometimes popular theories are dis-proven (for example, 19th century phrenology - the science of intelligence as measured by skull shape).

So it is theoretically possible that the vast majority of the community of climate scientists is in error, just as it is possible that the AGW groups are in error. For those of us not professionally fluent in the specifics of climate science, we tend to resort to shorthand arguments that capture some talking points of one side or the other.

For me, I was given specific predictions in a 1985 class lecture in grad school about what the increase in atmospheric carbon was likely to do over the next 65 years, and almost 25 years later those predictions were pretty damn good (when a highly unlikely prediction such as a navigable northwest passage comes true, it reinforces the credibility of the predictor).
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:

For me, I was given specific predictions in a 1985 class lecture in grad school about what the increase in atmospheric carbon was likely to do over the next 65 years, and almost 25 years later those predictions were pretty damn good (when a highly unlikely prediction such as a navigable northwest passage comes true, it reinforces the credibility of the predictor).

You don't know if those predictions were good or not. You only know what people like Phil Jones and gang tell you. We now know that anything contradicting those predictions was suppressed with only a bare minimum getting out. The corruption of the peer review process made sure as little information as possible the could contradict AGW theory got out. When that didn't work, destroying the data did. If not for the internet, we would have seen damn near, if not totally, nothing that contradicted those predictions.

The Northwest Passage was sailed before - in 1906, 1940, 1944, 1957, 1969, 1977, 1984 (a cruise ship no less), 1986, etc. It's not a earth shaking prediction that it would be done again when it's been done of half a dozen times already.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
And what ended that rejection? Oh yeah, data regarding the continental boundaries.
I think the danger here, as illustrated by G2's post, is the intersection between science and public policy. That intersection is turning previously obscure areas of science into multi-billion dollar industries being fuelled by enormous interest from governments and other organizations.

While the intersection between science and profit is nothing new, there are some unique properties to this situation that merit special mention. Firstly, the amount of money being spent in this area is staggeringly high. That degree of expenditure is only justified so long as the science supports theories that posit disastrous and even apocalyptic scenarios stemming from AGW. Secondly, due to the inherent complexity of the systems involved, it is extremely difficult to falsify some of the claims being made in respect of AGW. If it's hot one year, then it's hot because of AGW. If it's cold the next year, then it would have been even colder but for AGW. It is very difficult for scientists, let alone lay-people, to test some of the predictions being made. This makes us all uniquely vulnerable to the expertise of a handful of individuals with an unusually large profit motive to ensure that certain theories are suppported and others are rejected.

I believe the danger is that some of these unusual factors (above) may be distorting the usual safeguards built into the scientific method.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I know that's a long time but there were calls for climate change deniers to be put on trial, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their crimes against humanity.
By whom, exactly?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The Northwest Passage was sailed before - in 1906, 1940, 1944, 1957, 1969, 1977, 1984 (a cruise ship no less), 1986, etc. It's not a earth shaking prediction that it would be done again when it's been done of half a dozen times already.
Wow. This really smacks of bull-headed revisionism.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
stayne,

quote:
Greg, the point a lot of people ignore here is that Science(TM) is largely magic, even to practitioners. It is simply impossible to know everything, so we MUST trust. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, but there is still only so much time in a day. Even he, or Einstein, or Newton must trust that others are being rigorous, and the peer review and scientific method are the only real measures we have.
Actually we have covered the 'faith' issue before ad naseum. Not required, because results are independently verifiable, and replication of a subset of results can result in a statistical inference of the trusthworthiness of other results. Also psychology and rational self interest can be used to infer that lies will be infrequent - and primarily only occur in specific areas. For most of science it is the competence and meticulousness of the fellow practitioner that is the real concern not corruption.

Of course corruption is a huge issue in some areas, medical research related to drug testing is notoriously corrupt and prone to influence.

LetterRip
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
stayne,

quote:
Greg, the point a lot of people ignore here is that Science(TM) is largely magic, even to practitioners. It is simply impossible to know everything, so we MUST trust. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, but there is still only so much time in a day. Even he, or Einstein, or Newton must trust that others are being rigorous, and the peer review and scientific method are the only real measures we have.
Actually we have covered the 'faith' issue before ad naseum. Not required, because results are independently verifiable, and replication of a subset of results can result in a statistical inference of the trusthworthiness of other results. Also psychology and rational self interest can be used to infer that lies will be infrequent - and primarily only occur in specific areas. For most of science it is the competence and meticulousness of the fellow practitioner that is the real concern not corruption.

Of course corruption is a huge issue in some areas, medical research related to drug testing is notoriously corrupt and prone to influence.

LetterRip

In this case, the results have *not* been independently verified nor are they able to be replicated because they data and methods used to derive results have been withheld. In more than once case, we're finding the data used as the foundation for the hypothesis has been cherry picked (Briffa, et al) and simply fabricated (Wang and Mann). When demanded through FoI requests, data has even been deleted. Any attempt to publish results not conforming to the hypothesis have successfully been suppressed through the now well documented corruption of the peer review process.

You think psychology and rational self interest can be used to infer that lies will be infrequent but psychology and rational self interest can also be used to infer that whatever needs to be done to keep the money and influence growing will be done. We've caught the lies, the fraud and even criminal acts via these emails. Which way do you think they went in the pursuit of self interest?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I know that's a long time but there were calls for climate change deniers to be put on trial, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their crimes against humanity.
By whom, exactly?
See here.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The Northwest Passage was sailed before - in 1906, 1940, 1944, 1957, 1969, 1977, 1984 (a cruise ship no less), 1986, etc. It's not a earth shaking prediction that it would be done again when it's been done of half a dozen times already.
Wow. This really smacks of bull-headed revisionism.
What you're doing here is exactly what AGW proponents have been trained to do. Insult, personal attack, etc. Predictions of transiting the Northwest Passage were proof that these predictions are true when actually this has been done before. You think pointing that out is stubborn and should be dismissed. You should apply for a job with Phil Jones ...
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
What you're doing here is exactly what AGW proponents have been trained to do.
Trained, eh? By whom?

quote:
Predictions of transiting the Northwest Passage were proof that these predictions are true when actually this has been done before.
You miss the point. It's not that someone would get a boat through the passage; it's that the passage would open up enough to permit regular shipping, which has happened. You may have missed the bit where Canada and Russia went to a subtle form of war with each other over access to the resources under the pole, which are now available to us for the first time in recorded history.

[ December 01, 2009, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Predictions of transiting the Northwest Passage were proof that these predictions are true when actually this has been done before.
You miss the point. It's not that someone would get a boat through the passage; it's that the passage would open up enough to permit regular shipping, which has happened. You may have missed the bit where Canada and Russia went to a subtle form of war with each other over access to the resources under the pole, which are now available to us for the first time in recorded history.
Open to regular shipping for the first time in recorded history? Let's look at the idea of being open to regular shipping:
quote:
... the Canadian commercial marine transport industry does not anticipate the route as a viable alternative to the Panama Canal even within the next 10 to 20 years.
That was in 2007, so you might be right that it actually could open up to regular shipping in a few decades. Or maybe it won't with the current global cooling. At any rate, it ain't open to regular shipping now if we are to believe Canadian commercial marine transport industry.

How about the first time in recorded history? The G2 guesses that depends on what you mean by "recorded history":
quote:
National Geographic reports the Passage “is ice free for the first time since satellite records began in 1978 ...
Do you mean it's open for the first time since 1978? That's when we really have reliable records but it seems to The G2 that "recorded history" should encompass more than the last 30 years. The G2 can go back a little further, say to AD 1000 to 1200, where there are records talking about Norse explorers sailing the Northwest Passage. Those guys had some pretty dinky little boats for them to work as ice breakers, seems unlikely to The G2.


The G2 abides.

[ December 01, 2009, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
@G2

quote:
You're refining that from "consensus" to "scientific consensus". Maybe that's what you meant in the first place?
Of course that's what I meant. Don't be obtuse.

quote:
I'm curious why you think any consensus is scientific proof.
I don't. I think that the consensus of scientists on a matter in which they specialize is more likely to be true or closer to the truth than the opinions of people who have no training in the subject, for much the same reason that I'd prefer a licensed pilot fly me to Tokyo...rather than you.

quote:
If you think going back to the classic examples is invalid for some obscure reason, we can go modern. Continental drift was rejected by the consensus for over 50 years, bacteria causing stomach ulcers was rejected by the consensus. Yet both were true.
But that's my point...why do you accept them as true now? Why do you accept the heliocentric model proposed by Galileo and Copernicus as true?

There's a process, usually over a period of decades. It begins with a period of intense debate, but usually ends when, after endless conferences and papers, the majority have independently arrived at the same or similar conclusions. Debate continues over specifics - as still happens with evolutionary theory, but a general premise is agreed upon.

It's not about "absolute truth," but rather "best possible explanation."

[ December 01, 2009, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
Some hit and run comments (I think my last post was on page 2 or something; no way to take everything since then):

LetterRip:
Not required, because results are independently verifiable, and replication of a subset of results can result in a statistical inference of the trusthworthiness of other results. Also psychology and rational self interest can be used to infer that lies will be infrequent - and primarily only occur in specific areas. For most of science it is the competence and meticulousness of the fellow practitioner that is the real concern not corruption.

"independently verifiable" - not in this case, because the code is a mess, CRU refused to release their methodology, and the original data is gone. If GISS and NOAA are half as bad, then we don't even have any data to verify.

"replication of a subset of results" - If GISS and NOAA are half as bad, and without time travel, we can't replicate the temperature history of the last 100-150 years. Without it, there's nothing to calibrate the gw models. Without that, there's no results. Period.

Yes, I mean that. Because of this scandal, the entirety of global warming analysis goes kaput. It's possible.

"Also psychology and rational self interest can be used to infer that lies will be infrequent" - Actually, studies suggest there's a lot of lying in science literature. Rational self-interest says that most of them won't be caught, and rational self-interest says that you need exciting results in order to get funding.

Given how much money has gone to GW research, can you really say it wasn't in there self interest to inflate its importance?

Greg:
Instead, it starts from a skepticism that disbelieves in virtually everything except scientific method, and then starts building upon observed and measured data. Even where the data supports a given hypothesis, that merely makes it a theory that is provisionally accepted until compelling data proves some element of that theory wrong.
And that is precisely what the IPCC doesn't do. The IPCC starts with the assumption that AGW is true and adapts its data to it.

When I hear the AGW arguments, they sound to me to be similar to the arguments raised on behalf of intelligent design
Then you're reading the wrong arguments. There are solid, peer reviewed alternatives to some of the AGW hypotheses; there are serious, unexplained gaps in the theory; there are fundamental flaws with the data that is presented. That's not what I see with ID or anything else.

They use the language of science, but as a tool for creating doubt rather than for determining fact.
So pointing out where the hypothesis doesn't fit the data isn't science? Pointing out where assumptions are made without verifiable evidence isn't science? Because that's what is being done.

For me, I was given specific predictions in a 1985 class lecture in grad school about what the increase in atmospheric carbon was likely to do over the next 65 years, and almost 25 years later those predictions were pretty damn good (when a highly unlikely prediction such as a navigable northwest passage comes true, it reinforces the credibility of the predictor).
A) That ain't science. Correlation does not equal causation. All these silly arguments about ice melting or shifting migratory trends or whatever are completely irrelevent to the roots of AGW theory, even though they're constantly thrown in to the discussion.
B) Actually, the predictions from the 80s were off.

It's easy, when you put a narrow batch of data like this to gloss over the fact that the entire process is designed specifically to account for such behavior- to allow such factors working independently to ultimately neutralize each other such that the points that they all do agree on are accepted as the most likely to be true.
Again, that's the whole point of these emails. There are know independent factors. There's no neutralization happening. All temperature data is funneled through a few groups with agendas, and said temperature data is processed using unknown methods. There's no way to check the method, there's no way to check the data. You only can trust these people to be honest. Yet there's no reason to trust them.

Opsanus:
Alternatively (and this is not really falsification, but would still be interesting), someone could provide an explanation as to how our understanding of basic science could be correct without increased atmospheric carbon dioxide causing anthropogenic climate change - what I mean is, where is that heat supposed to be going?
I mean, the problem for me with most of the arguments of the "skeptics" is that in a big-picture way, they don't really make sense. It is all very well to postulate that other greenhouse gases have an effect, or that solar something causes some kind of fluctuations, but that doesn't really mean that we would expect NOT to see a greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. And it is one thing to argue that the data don't show a clear increase in temperature (unconvincing, perhaps, but the argument is nonetheless made ), but in that case it is really necessary to make some kind of argument about why not.


Opsanus, I agree that the question phrased to you is not the best. Here's the problem I have noted time and time again when it comes to "skeptics" and "AGW theory" and "the science is settled" and all that.

Your answer dealt entirely with the direct result of carbon dioxide increase. Naturally, that seems to be what we're talking about when we refer to the big picture of AGW theory. But it's actually only step 1, and step 2 is more important. Here's how it goes:

1) Mankind is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere due to fossil fuel consumption (fact, no arguments)
2) This CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere (fact that CO2 is accumulating, strong consensus that it's due to us)
3) CO2 reabsorbs outgoing radiation, slowing heat transfer down and thus warming the earth (pretty much settled science)

This is what people tend to think of when we hear that the science is settled, but the conclusion from that is that the Earth won't warm much (~1-1.5C per doubling of CO2). What the IPCC banks on (but is never ever heard in public) is the next step

4) The warming from CO2 causes feedbacks to occur in the Earth's climate, causing 2-5 times more warming than the direct warming from CO2.

It is that last part that is key, and the last part that is not settled in the slightest. This conclusion basically comes from "well, we can't think of anything else, and it sounds right, so we'll go with it."

So what would it take to falsify that? Actually, the more important question is, what would it take to accept that as enough of a fact to invest trillions of dollars on?

This is what I hate about lumping everything together in one barrel. I changed from "agnostic" to "skeptic" when I studied #4 in more detail, but because of that I end up getting lumped together with silly arguments like "CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, so it can't make a difference!" Unfortunately, people have done a terrible job of educating the public of how GW really works. Whether that's done through malice or just simplifying things, I don't know. But you see it all the time. There's no need to change everything we know of radiation and CO2 in order to "falsify" AGW, because when it comes to the only thing that matters (whether or not to spend money on stopping it), the direct effect of CO2 is irrelevent.

There might be a sub-suggestion that even if other people's private correspondence were our business (which it is not), and even if we could tell what this all means (which we can't), it wouldn't be terribly important in the grand scheme of things (since it's not as though this actually reflects on the state of climate science in any meaningful way).
Actually, there's a very good chance these are our business. You'll note that the emails are all associated with business, nothing to their families or whatever. There's serious speculation that these were compiled internally in case the CRU lost their attempt to destroy the FOI request, as the thought of a lone hacker sorting through everything and picking out thousands of emails is rather silly. Remember, this is government funded. We have a right to know what they're doing. These emails are not private property, no matter how much people think they are. And while the FOI request was denied, one of these emails suggests that the denial was on illegal grounds.

You're right that we can't know everything about what they mean. But that's irrelevent. When people talk about deleting emails, we can assume they're talking about deleting emails. When people talk about planning on deleting data rather than letting someone else see it, we can assume they're talking about deleting data. Is there enough to convict them? No. But there's more than enough to warrant more investigation.

KidB:
I was asking hypothetically. In what circumstance would you trust an international community of scientists to come to a broad consensus on a subject?
That's easy enough:
1) Everything is laid out clearly. All assumptions are clearly stated.
2) The reasons for these assumptions can be universally accepted, due to one or (preferrably) both of the following tests:
2a) The assumption matches with experimental data with enough evidence to eliminate the null hypothesis and all other competing hypotheses
2b) The assumption is based on careful application of well understood scientific principles
3) All reasonable objections to these assumptions have been thoroughly rejected in a repeated manner
4) There are no key gaps in the assumptions that would insure that the complete picture is not taken into account
5) When all assumptions and information is combined, the result is consistent with nature and thoroughly reproducible.

So, until some Ornerian can explain exactly what these emails mean in plain English, I humbly submit that this is nothing but a great big ignorant wankfest.
Hey, I thought I did a good job of explaining "hide the decline" in plain English. Is there anything else you'd like to know? [Smile]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
So, until some Ornerian can explain exactly what these emails mean in plain English, I humbly submit that this is nothing but a great big ignorant wankfest.

Translation: Until an Ornerian can resolve the cognitive dissonance in my own mind due to the emails actual content and my bedrock belief that AGW theory has already having been proven, I will refuse to acknowledge the contents of these emails as relevant.

Sorry Kid, those emails are damning, and yours and everyone else that refuses to concede this point merely shows the depth of your blind faith here.

If anything, it is all you who continue to preach the sacredness of SCIENCE in guiding our human behavior that should be screaming for the CRU scientist's blood here...not blithely excusing, justifying or ignoring these "scientists" who have deliberately corrupted the process you claim to hold so dear!

Just how much stock can you put into "peer-review" when you excuse/justify/rationalize and/or ignore what these emails reveal about how they manipulated the process?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
Why do you accept the heliocentric model proposed by Galileo and Copernicus as true?

The G2 accepts it because G2 can do the math, he can read what led Galileo and Copernicus to their conclusions and pull out a pair of binoculars and confirm their observations. The G2 can do it, you can do it, anyone can do it - the heliocentric model is readily verifiable by others.

Contrast that with modern climatologists that push the AGW hypothesis. We cannot read most of what led to their conclusions, only the conclusions themselves, because they refuse to allow the data to be distributed. When forced by law, they delete and obscure data rather than allow it out. On the rare occasions it is released, we have seen their conclusions falsified (Mann hockey stick, Yamal tree ring series) and outright fraud (Wang and Mann) with others highly suspect (NIWA temperature series, data still withheld). The G2 cannot check the data, you cannot check the data, nobody can check it - the AGW hypothesis is not verifiable and the predictions it makes are failing.


The G2 abides.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
It seems to me that until we get the full set of data released that led to the conclusions, the conclusion are not science -- they're the pronouncements of oracles.

I hate conservatives being correct as much as the next liberal. Especially since I'm guessing they were correct merely by luck, not by any sort of intellectual rigor.

But right now they seem to be correct: If the data leading to that conclusion aren't released (or if they've been destroyed), then AGW is about as much science as Scientology is.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
I have amazingly little patience for arguments that boil down to "I do not understand the information and techniques by which the experts came to their conclusions; therefore the conclusions of the experts are not ever to be trusted."

I also have pretty much entirely run out of patience for people who claim to be "skeptics" while in fact appearing to believe, on little to no evidence, the most spurious pseudoscientific crap.
You know what "skepticism" is? It's being thoughtful and openminded, gathering as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion, and being always ready to change your conclusion if new information warrants such a change.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Except that you can do the math, G2.

All you need to do is search the scientific literature and come up with the best estimates you can of the historical temperatures. It won't be conclusive, of course, but do the best you can with the best math we have.

Then create a model of our climate. You need to factor in the various forcings out there, including CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Yes, you will need to make some approximations and some fudging, but do the best you can.

Then run the model a number of times. (You'll probably need a supercomputer to do so, but it can be done.) Take the sums of the reading. See if they pretty much agree. Then compare them to your best estimate of what the historical temperatures were. Repeat until you get a fairly good match to the historical estimates.

Makes some predictions of how the climate will vary in the future. Then see how well the model holds up. Tweek as necessary.

The point is, you can do it. Sure, it's not as easy as checking Galileo's work, but science has advanced a bit in the last few hundred years. [Smile]

After all, something like 10 teams have done it. They may have consulted with each other to figure out the tougher parts, but that doesn't mean you can't do it independently. You can do it, too. [Smile]

Just because it's too difficult for you to do on your own doesn't mean it's untrue. And just because some climate researchers have done unethical things does not automatically mean that the models and the results are untrue, too.

You can independently verify or contradict the results.

(BTW, G2. In reference to your last post to me: You realize that just because my face may be an ugly mug doesn't mean your face is any prettier. [Wink] [Razz] )
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
I have amazingly little patience for arguments that boil down to "I do not understand the information and techniques by which the experts came to their conclusions; therefore the conclusions of the experts are not ever to be trusted."

Au contraire Ops. The argument boils down to "I understand that the most influential group of scientists producing reports for which the IPCC used to justify various political actions were exposed in trying to rig the peer review process, control attempts at having a legitimate debate, destroying evidence, and ignoring FOIA laws...AND YET SOME OF YOU INSIST THAT WE SHOULD STILL TRUST THEM?!?!?!

quote:
I also have pretty much entirely run out of patience for people who claim to be "skeptics" while in fact appearing to believe, on little to no evidence, the most spurious pseudoscientific crap.
So are you saying that the practices of the CRU scientists, as revealed by these emails, should not involve any skepticism on your part whatsoever?

quote:
You know what "skepticism" is? It's being thoughtful and open minded, gathering as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion, and being always ready to change your conclusion if new information warrants such a change. [/QB]
So have you read the emails Ops? Because if you actually did, you'd see that all of these things that raise your ire, the CRU scientists are absolutely guilty of.

They were not open minded, they dismissed any skepticism or dissent out of hand, conspired to keep it from being published and undergoing peer review, conspired to have a man fired from his job simply for daring to publish a dissenting point of view...and they certainly demonstrated a complete unwillingness to even consider the possibility that there may in fact be new information that would possibly force them to change their own conclusions.

How is pointing all this out considered "psuedo-scientific?" One doesn't need to "understand science" one bit to see the apparent malfeasance and deliberate deception these people colluded in.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
rig the peer review process, control attempts at having a legitimate debate, destroying evidence, and ignoring FOIA laws
You realize, I'm sure, that these conclusions about the nature of the activities are contested. The "rig[ging] the peer review process" is argued, by their side, as an attempt to do something about papers which were published without going through proper review or otherwise flaunting accepted methodology. It wasn't necessarily the position advocated by the papers, but the method by which they were published.

I'm not advocating either side of that argument, just noting that there *is* an argument there. And complaining about a crappy reviewer isn't, in itself, an indication of professional misconduct. Should a scientist who believes an editor is shirking their duty *not* act on that belief?

Just out of curiosity, what does non-conspiratorial climate science look like to you? Pretend that anthropogenic global warming were a real phenomena. How would you distinguish between scientists living in that world from the ones you see living in ours?

[ December 01, 2009, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Just out of curiosity, what does non-conspiratorial climate science look like to you?

Let's start off with scientists who willingly and gladly provide their research and their data for a transparent and open review process.

Let's also consider how the political process plays in funding their research, and what political agendas are being implemented in the name of the research being conducted.

If AGW were the absolutely proven threat it's supposed to be, I think the biggest proponents of fighting the imminent threat of it should be practicing what they preach, no?

Like flying private jets to environmental conferences, living in massive mansions that require more power than a whole neighborhood of proles...than preaching that we all need to reduce our carbon footprints.

Instances of transparent hypocrisy from the foremost proponents of action don't help in promoting the veracity of what they claim.

And complaining about a crappy reviewer isn't, in itself, an indication of professional misconduct. Should a scientist who believes an editor is shirking their duty *not* act on that belief?

That is a very most charitable interpretation of the emails content.

Look at Ops' last post about what gets her ire up as a scientist.

If the CRU had such a strong case of evidence of AGW, why wouldn't they welcome debate? What are they afraid of?

If they had a strong case that clearly shows the skeptics arguments as mistaken or wrong, why not publicly engage them in debate with their evidence? Isn't that supposed to be what the "peer-review" process is supposed to be about?

Or is it supposed to be an exercise in groupthink and an ideological circle jerk?
 
Posted by stayne (Member # 1944) on :
 
It is all fine and well to note that it is technically possible to verify research, but it is hardly the same thing as saying it is practical. The simple truth is that the vast majority of people lack the tools, training, or even motivation to do so.

What most will do is choose a group engaged in such research and subscribe to their views. Some will choose their alignment based on preconceived reasons, others on who seems to be honest and skilled. I suppose some will simply roll dice or perhaps throw up their hands and say they have no clue. Vanishingly few will or are even capable of doing the research themselves.

This is a known problem with science. Hawking has spoken about the difficulties when science outpaces philosophy, due to advancements taking place so rapidly that the public cannot absorb even the simplified versions. Too much foundation is required to appreciate the connections.

Scientists do science. Philosophers and politicians are the ones who end up digesting the results and cementing social views. Where the two meet, it's a mess at the best of times. Politicians meddle, scientists curry favor to receive grants, philosophers go off half cocked and create odd belief sets.

The mess we are seeing on this issue is directly related to the above. Denying there IS a mess simply makes it harder to clean up.

Anyone who is convinced by the evidence that AGW is real needs to appreciate that moving forward is a political problem, one made substantially more difficult by recent events. Isolated event? Perhaps. But then, so are MANY political bombs. How many representatives who are opposed to gay marriage are actually in bathrooms tapping feet with cops? Probably very few, and yet one was enough to have a strong effect on public sentiment.

As with any other political matter, when your allies are busted with stacks of cash in a freezer, or in compromising positions with underage girls, you have to move quickly to distance yourself from them. Right now, ALL of AGW is being looked at with a jaundiced eye because of the behavior of this single group.

Defending them, minimizing their actions, or making excuses is not going to help. Calling them out and excoriating them for their bad science will.

Birds of a feather hang together. (shrug) True or false, it IS how people think when faced with choices of whom to trust.
 
Posted by KE (Member # 6535) on :
 
quote:
If anything, it is all you who continue to preach the sacredness of SCIENCE in guiding our human behavior that should be screaming for the CRU scientist's blood here...not blithely excusing, justifying or ignoring these "scientists" who have deliberately corrupted the process you claim to hold so dear!


Amen. I for one already have. Figuratively anyway.

KE
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I subscribe to the camp that says we are releasing an unprecedented amount of fossil fuel combustion byproducts and that this will likely have some kind of noticeable effect. Beyond that, I let folks have at it per their predominating biases
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Right now, ALL of AGW is being looked at with a jaundiced eye because of the behavior of this single group.

The most relevant aspect here is that this single group is the one that provided the primary source for the IPCC to move forward with all of their recommendations and actions.

From the Telegraph article: Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

quote:


A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

This single group, had a vested financial and political interest to control the narrative...and the IPCC's actions, recommendations and publicly promoted political platform has been wholly endorsed and supported by a wide variety of groups, scientists, organizations, foundations, corporations and governments all rested on the "science" put forth by the CRU.
 
Posted by stayne (Member # 1944) on :
 
Ken, I subscribe to the camp that says they are all scum, and I don't trust a one of them. I reckon it is a self correcting problem. If we screw things up too bad, we'll die back enough so it won't be a problem anymore. The Earth will keep spinning, with or without us.

Ah, the long view. [Big Grin]

And, yes, to those taking this more seriously, I recognize that is a useless truth. More wine, wench!
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Except that you can do the math, G2.

All you need to do is search the scientific literature and come up with the best estimates you can of the historical temperatures. It won't be conclusive, of course, but do the best you can with the best math we have.

Then create a model of our climate. You need to factor in the various forcings out there, including CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Yes, you will need to make some approximations and some fudging, but do the best you can.

Then run the model a number of times. (You'll probably need a supercomputer to do so, but it can be done.) Take the sums of the reading. See if they pretty much agree. Then compare them to your best estimate of what the historical temperatures were. Repeat until you get a fairly good match to the historical estimates.

Makes some predictions of how the climate will vary in the future. Then see how well the model holds up. Tweek as necessary.

The point is, you can do it. Sure, it's not as easy as checking Galileo's work, but science has advanced a bit in the last few hundred years. [Smile]

After all, something like 10 teams have done it. They may have consulted with each other to figure out the tougher parts, but that doesn't mean you can't do it independently. You can do it, too. [Smile]

Just because it's too difficult for you to do on your own doesn't mean it's untrue. And just because some climate researchers have done unethical things does not automatically mean that the models and the results are untrue, too.

You can independently verify or contradict the results.

(BTW, G2. In reference to your last post to me: You realize that just because my face may be an ugly mug doesn't mean your face is any prettier. [Wink] [Razz] )

The problem you're missing is that G2 cannot "search the scientific literature and come up with the best estimates you can of the historical temperatures". That information is not published and has been the subject of a number of FoI requests. In fact, much of the data out there now is being shown to be deeply flawed and even fabricated. That anyone can independently verify or contradict the results has been proven false.

[ December 01, 2009, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Excellent write up of the issues can be found here.

It's a 43 page pdf, well worth the read to get a full accounting of just how deep the hoax is and just how badly screwed up the "science" is.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Lest anyone think that "scienceandpublicpolicy.org" is a good place to get a fair accounting of the issues: it is not.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
So have you read the emails Ops?
No way, dude. Reading private correspondence without permission of the author or recipient is wrong. No matter how many other people have done it.

I *have* seen a couple of the emails reposted on the blogs of some of the scientists in question, with the parts that some people found upsetting pointed out. I can't say I found them terribly upsetting, but that is just me.

I will say that I have pretty much run out of patience for a LOT of people on BOTH sides of this debate; I didn't mean to imply that the denialists are the only irritating ones. And particularly irritating are most of the people (on both sides) claiming that particular policy choices will necessarily lead to the End of the World (ecologic, economic, what have you) - for me, kenmeer's cogent summary above is good enough.

Who REALLY thinks we're going to cut back on fossil fuel use in any meaningful way until we have to, anyways? Yeah, right.
Welcome to the giant, uncontrolled climatic experiment of the 21st century (a subset of the giant uncontrolled ecological experiment of the 21st century), performed without forethought on the only earth we'll ever have. I'm excited to see what happens.
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
Mariner has a point that the more alarming predictions of the effects of the increase in carbon dioxide depend on speculation that other factors - such as release of methane from Arctic permafrost - will magnify the effects of the increase in carbon dioxide alone. Such very large effects could happen, but the underlying science is too little understood to say they will necessarily occur.

OpsanusTau has the better point that, whether climate researchers get a lot of funding or not, nothing meaningful will be done to cut back on fossil fuel use unless and until the disastrous consequences of present policies become obvious to everyone.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
By way of comparison, BTW, here's an article I think is fairly even-handed:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
If we accept the hypothesis that the availability of funding will influence scientists to falsify results, then the most likely outcome would be that the majority of scientists would falsify results to minimize the evidence for global warming.

There is a large and specific commercial business interest in avoiding efforts to reduce carbon pollution. There is no group that captures anywhere near the equivalent amount of revenue for steps to combat carbon pollution. And there is no similar compelling financial interest in government to push this issue one way or another (ie; no one gets millions of dollars of personal wealth based on the direction that research takes).
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
Mariner and G2,

what I was describing is the logical reasoning behind faith not being a necessary precondition for doing science.

I'm more skeptical of experiments where data isn't readily available. I'm more skeptical of results that don't have adequate information about methodology published. I'm more skeptical of results that have signficant corrections or that use statistical methods that I'm unfamiliar with.

Of course being skeptical doesn't mean I reject the result out of hand, just that I'm more tentative in my acceptance of the result.

Regarding the emails at hand - I haven't read much of it but the brief snippets I have read are certainly concerning at least regarding the obstruction related to data release. Personally I think journals need to set a firm deadline after which all papers that have not released the data for their research the paper will be withdrawn.

G2,

quote:
In more than once case, we're finding the data used as the foundation for the hypothesis has been cherry picked (Briffa, et al) and simply fabricated (Wang and Mann).
Do you have links to these specific accussations? I tend to find that the sources you rely on for such information tend to have rather dubious interpretations and are rather free with false accussations. So I'm not willing to take such claims at face value.

quote:
When demanded through FoI requests, data has even been deleted.
If so there should be serious sanctions. That said I've found getting 'raw data' from the 'skeptics' extremely difficult and have received excuses equivalent to 'the dog ate my data'.

quote:
Any attempt to publish results not conforming to the hypothesis have successfully been suppressed through the now well documented corruption of the peer review process.
This is of course crap, I've seen plenty of 'skeptic' research published. Although usually instead of trying to get published in a respectable journal they tend to go for journals that have no serious peer review process. Some of the dodgiest most poorly written papers I've seen have been 'skeptic' research papers.

quote:
You think psychology and rational self interest can be used to infer that lies will be infrequent but psychology and rational self interest can also be used to infer that whatever needs to be done to keep the money and influence growing will be done. We've caught the lies, the fraud and even criminal acts via these emails. Which way do you think they went in the pursuit of self interest?
I don't think we have solid basis to say what we've 'caught' via these emails. The only major thing I've read that sounds quite damning is the apparent threat to delete data.

I know that many skeptics really want to believe that it is all hogwash and the only way the results achieved were through incompetence, lies, deciet, and fraud.

I think the interpretations of these emails is somewhat different from those with significant non adversarial relationships with scientists than those of others. The vast majority of the quotes while sounding bad can easily be attributed to shop talk and such.

I think that any paper without the full and complete raw data set made available should be withdrawn from publication. (I'm not sure if there is some way to allow exceptions for commercially held data, but it seems such a slippery slope that probably not).

The less replicable the experiment the greater the skepticism that is reasonable. The greater the self interest of the funder of the research or the researcher the greater the skepticism is reasonable. The more controversial the topic the greater the skepticism is reasonable.

LetterRip
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
G2,

the Wang et al accusation of misconduct does seem to be credible, or at least certainly deserves more investigation, this site provides a reasonable summary

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/03/climate-science-fraud-at-albany-university/

LetterRip

[ December 02, 2009, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
I also have pretty much entirely run out of patience for people who claim to be "skeptics" while in fact appearing to believe, on little to no evidence, the most spurious pseudoscientific crap.
You know what "skepticism" is? It's being thoughtful and openminded, gathering as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion, and being always ready to change your conclusion if new information warrants such a change.

I have tried to be as open-minded as possible on this issue. I have given AGW every benefit of the doubt, for the reason that I usually trust the scientific method and trust the objectivity of scientists. I do this even though, as Stayne rightly observes, it isn't really possible for someone with my training to understand AGW in a meaningful way or to independently verify the conclusions of scientists practicing in this area.

You know what I am sick of? Being told to ignore every single person who criticizes or questions AGW, not because they are wrong, but because they are cranks with political agendas, or because they are beholdent to shady oil industry lobbyists.

Meanwhile, I read e-mails like these, and find out that data is being suppressed or destroyed, dissenting views are being blackballed, and suddenly my trust is shaken. I ask the AGW proponents to explain this to me, and what do I get? People who insult my intelligence by telling me that the e-mails mean nothing, that they say nothing, that I should just trust that everybody knows what they're doing.

There's a nice latin phrase I'm fond of, and it comes up not infrequently in the area I do have expertise in: Omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem - All things are presumed against a wrongdoer.

In this case, all things are presumed against the party that suppresses or destroys information. You know what happens if I find evidence that the other side in a lawsuit was destroying documents pertaining to the litigation in direct contemplation of litigation? The court presumes that those documents were damaging to the other side's case. In some cases, the spoliator's entire case may be thrown out. That's because courts don't like being manipulated by liars and cheats.

I completely understand why they may be reluctant to share their data, as Tom's linked article notes:

quote:
In the context of the stolen CRU e-mails, one can infer that some key scientists were uncomfortable with providing basic data to their critics, partly because they did not wish to explain and defend various filtering techniques. I am sure that in many specific instances involving politically motivated critics who are determined to magnify every discrepancy in order to knock down what they deem a house of cards, explaining these techniques is indeed a waste of time.
Yet, as the same article concludes, the cure in this case is worse than the disease. When Rush Limbaugh spouts off some quasi-scientific explanation about how AGW is a flawed house of cards, I can filter that out, the same way I filter out equally plausible sounding theories coming from the 9-1-1 conspiracy camp. But when I see hard evidence confirming that FOI were being circumvented, data was being destroyed or suppressed, and dissenters were being blackballed, that erodes my inherent trust in the integrity of all scientists.

The stock price of the AGW consensus has just taken a nose-dive in my mind. And until I get a really good honest explanation of what's going on here, I'm going to pay just a little bit more attention every time I hear a skeptic talking about AGW.

[ December 02, 2009, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
If we accept the hypothesis that the availability of funding will influence scientists to falsify results, then the most likely outcome would be that the majority of scientists would falsify results to minimize the evidence for global warming.

That does not follow. If you get paid to find warming, you'll find warming (the converse is also true). People do what they're incented to do, always have and always will. That's why transparency and peer review was so important. That's why the corruption, data hiding/deletion, etc is such a big deal. If Exxon scientists came out with anti-AGW research conclusions and refused to tell anyone how they came to that conclusion, you'd scoff - probably already have. This is no different.

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
There is a large and specific commercial business interest in avoiding efforts to reduce carbon pollution. There is no group that captures anywhere near the equivalent amount of revenue for steps to combat carbon pollution. And there is no similar compelling financial interest in government to push this issue one way or another (ie; no one gets millions of dollars of personal wealth based on the direction that research takes).

Check with Al Gore, among many others, on that personal wealth thing. How many billions need to be poured into pro-AGW research before you think it's equivalent to the millions poured into anti_AGW?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
The problem you're missing is that G2 cannot "search the scientific literature and come up with the best estimates you can of the historical temperatures". That information is not published and has been the subject of a number of FoI requests. In fact, much of the data out there now is being shown to be deeply flawed and even fabricated. That anyone can independently verify or contradict the results has been proven false.
Do you mean that all historical temperature estimates are unavailable? That you can't come up with some estimates based on published research?

Then how did you know there was a Medievel Warming Period? [Smile]

You don't need exactly the same data set as all the other models. You can come up with your own. If someone disputes it, they can show you why. And that's where science really gets fun.

Sorry, that's not an excuse. Information is out there. Get to work. [Smile]

Or find someone else to do it. When we get a good model that shows that human-induced greenhouse gases are not affecting our climate, then the anti-AGW movement will have gone a significant way to proving their contention. Just pointing out the flaws in AGW does not prove that.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
Wayward son, "Get to work" seems to me an assholish argument. Especially when it's coupled with those smug smileys.

AGW is itself a position and those defending it need to defend it better than "you can't prove it false, so you must accept it true".

It's not the doubters that need to prove their doubt. Doubt should be the DEFAULT position. It's the believers (either for or against) that ought substantiate their belief.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
AGW is itself a position and those defending it need to defend it better than "you can't prove it false, so you must accept it true".

It's not the doubters that need to prove their doubt. Doubt should be the DEFAULT position. It's the believers (either for or against) that ought substantiate their belief.

If your position is "there is not enough evidence to indicate AGW is happening," then you are correct, Aris.

If, like G2, your position is "AGW is not happening, and the evidence will soon prove it to be true," then asking him to prove it is quite reasonable, since he is making a positive statement.

Remember, I am specifically criticizing his statement that he "cannot do the math," i.e. that there is no way he can independently verify the AGW statements and models. He (or, more precisely, the anti-AGW movement) can, by creating their own legitimate models. Ones that are as thorough and detailed as the ones that indicate that AGW is occurring. And then showing that these models do not show AGW.

But as long as you are open to the possibility of AGW occurring, you can default to the doubt position. But you also have to keep an eye on rising global temperatures, melting glaciers, rising ocean acidity, melting ice-caps, etc, etc. You do have to wonder, and worry, that theere may be something to all this. [Frown]
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
But as long as you are open to the possibility of AGW occurring, you can default to the doubt position. But you also have to keep an eye on rising global temperatures, melting glaciers, rising ocean acidity, melting ice-caps, etc, etc. You do have to wonder, and worry, that theere may be something to all this.
How pray tell, does a layperson such as myself "keep an eye" on such factors?
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
I'm more than open to the possibility of AGW: I still consider it more likely than not.

But if the data leading to that conclusion are not made available, then AGW isn't a conclusion supported by science. It's merely an as-yet unsupported GUESS. A likely guess but still a guess.

Same as you might claim extraterrestrial life to exist in the universe, and I'd say your guess is more likely to be true than not -- but it's still just a guess. It being a likely conclusion doesn't make it science.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
But if the data leading to that conclusion are not made available, then AGW isn't a conclusion supported by science. It's merely an as-yet unsupported GUESS. A likely guess but still a guess.
Except that the data IS available. That was my last point to G2.

Which data were used for the computer models apparently isn't available, for some strange reason. But the general information is out there, from various sources. Anyone can use that data to make their own models if they have the time, resources and desire. The basic data isn't hidden.

So it is a bit more than a guess, since the process and conclusions can be tested. Although admittedly it would be a LOT easier to test if all the data and algorithms were available.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
How pray tell, does a layperson such as myself "keep an eye" on such factors?
And there's the rub. How does people like us, who are not experts in the field(s), judge the work of those who are experts?

As Stayne and you rightly observe, it comes down to a matter of trust. Practically, those like us do not have the time, resources, or skills to evaluate all the articles, statistics, computations and such that are coming out about this subject. We can discuss particular points--specific papers, specific claims, etc.--but the overall picture is simply beyond you and me. We cannot really know the synthesis.

We have to rely on those who know more than we do, just like we have to rely on doctors, auto mechanics, and a whole slew of other experts in life.

So who is more trustworthy: AGW advocates or deniers? There is no clear answer to that.

So far, most of the denials that I have seen have been unconvincing. Many of them are outright distortions or lies. Many are counterindications of global warming which are not definitative. Many are simple political accusations, which say little about the science.

The basics of AGW seem to be legitimate. CO2 levels have been measurably rising. Historical data indicates that they have reached unprecidented for the last 400,000 years or so. Temperature measurements indicate that global temperatures are rising. Glaciers are melting. Polar ice caps are receding. Plants and animals are changing their traditional ranges. Something is happening.

Can I be sure it's all due to AGW? No. I'm not positive. I still have doubts. It could still be all coincidence, that CO2 levels have little to do with the noted temperature rises, that there are other factors that are causing it. It is not established beyond doubt.

But can I be sure it isn't happening? No, I can't. Not while temperatures continue to rise. Not while the different models all come to similar conclusions. Not while CO2 levels stay at unprecidented levels. That last one alone has to have some effect!

Doubters I understand. I have my doubts myself. Deniers I don't understand. They have to ignore all sorts of indications that something is happening. They have to pretend that CO2 can't have a significant effect (in a non-linear system, at that!) They have to believe that all significant scientists are "in on it," and are distorting the science for their own gains.

These e-mails fuel the fire of belief that there is a conspiracy that to "pull a fast one" on us. Some of them, unfortunately, appear to legitimately fuel that fire. But for those who believe, it is going to be all the proof that they need. Now any study supporting AGW can be brushed off as being "part of the conspiracy." Any conclusions that are not part of their belief can be ignored as coming from "those conspirators." Now they have legitimate reasons not to trust those they never trusted before.

That's sad, because most scientists (as Kid tells us) are more interest in the science than the politics, more interested in the truth than the results. They are stubborn, hard-headed, and back-biting just like any other human being. Not everything they say can be trusted on face value. But they are still more committed to science than the non-scientists, and far more committed than the politicians and political punduts.

But there's no use trying to convince the AGW deniers of that anymore. [Frown]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
But if the data leading to that conclusion are not made available, then AGW isn't a conclusion supported by science. It's merely an as-yet unsupported GUESS. A likely guess but still a guess.
Except that the data IS available. That was my last point to G2.

Which data were used for the computer models apparently isn't available, for some strange reason. But the general information is out there, from various sources. Anyone can use that data to make their own models if they have the time, resources and desire. The basic data isn't hidden.

So it is a bit more than a guess, since the process and conclusions can be tested. Although admittedly it would be a LOT easier to test if all the data and algorithms were available.

You're trying to make the case that G2 can simply go get hos own tree rings going back 5,000 years or collect the temperature records for all of Europe throughout history or launch my own satellite measuring system, etc. It's a ridiculous thing to say but technically accurate. [Roll Eyes]

The thing is, the public has already paid for this data to be collected. A great deal of it was funded with public dollars so we've already essentially done what you suggest - that's why FoI requests apply.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Which data were used for the computer models apparently isn't available, for some strange reason. But the general information is out there, from various sources. Anyone can use that data to make their own models if they have the time, resources and desire. The basic data isn't hidden.

So it is a bit more than a guess, since the process and conclusions can be tested. Although admittedly it would be a LOT easier to test if all the data and algorithms were available.

So what you're saying is that the raw data that was destroyed is only one of several sets of data covering the same issues, and that these other equally comprehensive data sets, when analyzed, support the conclusions set out by the pro AGW climate scientists.

If this is true, and the data that was destroyed by these scientists was, in some respects, redundant, then that changes things signicantly.

G2, how do you address this point?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
So what you're saying is that the raw data that was destroyed is only one of several sets of data covering the same issues, and that these other equally comprehensive data sets, when analyzed, support the conclusions set out by the pro AGW climate scientists.

If this is true, and the data that was destroyed by these scientists was, in some respects, redundant, then that changes things signicantly.

G2, how do you address this point?

How does G2 know the data is redundant? How does anyone look at the conclusions of these scientists and determine they were generated from data that is supported by other data sets when the data sets are secret or destroyed? Even if G2 knew the entirety of some of the data sets, how could he compare it to one he has no access to? There is no way to compare them.

The fact is, the IPCC reports and a great deal of of public policy and proposed policy was based on the data set held secret and ultimately deleted by CRU. One data set that supported CRU's conclusions, Briffa's Yamal tree ring study, has been discredited. Another data set supporting CRU's conclusions about UHI is fraudulent. If G2 was to somehow be able to examine CRU's dataset, based in part on those other two, what could he expect to find?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[But can I be sure it isn't happening? No, I can't. Not while temperatures continue to rise. Not while the different models all come to similar conclusions. Not while CO2 levels stay at unprecidented levels. That last one alone has to have some effect!

Doubters I understand. I have my doubts myself. Deniers I don't understand. They have to ignore all sorts of indications that something is happening. They have to pretend that CO2 can't have a significant effect (in a non-linear system, at that!) They have to believe that all significant scientists are "in on it," and are distorting the science for their own gains.

You've got a number of incorrect assertions in that.

Temperatures do not continue to rise. They have not risen for over a decade and have actually begun to decline rapidly. The emails released from CRU show this to be a matter of significant concern among the pro-AGW scientists. In fact, unadjusted data set like those at NIWA show that nothing unusual is happening. Only when secret manipulations are applied and/or cherry picked data do we see the temperature increases.

CO2 at unprecedented levels? That's not true unless you define all of planetary history as the last few decades (or since the end of the MWP is the common starting point for planetary history among AGW supporters). Levels have been as high as 7,000 ppm and average roughly 1,500 ppm. To say that the current 385 ppm is unprecedented is simply not true. In fact, it's some of the lowest concentrations ever measured. If anything, we should be concerned about the lack of CO2 because plant life starts to suffocate around 280 ppm.

Different models all come to similar conclusions because they are all based on similar hypothesis, methodologies and flawed data sets. Measuring reality against those models has show the models to be off by orders of magnitude. The come to similar incorrect conclusions when compared to the reality of what they predict.


The G2 abides.

[ December 02, 2009, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
But the general information is out there, from various sources.
Look, there's a theory (AGW) that was supposedly supported by data.

If these data have already been accumulated and they support the AGW conclusion, then they should be available to us in a handy http link. Do you have such a link?

But if the necessary data (and model and methodology) to support AGW are not available, then by definition they can't support AGW. They can't do *anything*. They are not there.

The same way that a pile of randomly thrown bricks doesn't support a house. You can say "oh, go collect the bricks yourself, and build your house (model), and then you'll see that the bricks do indeed support the roof."

Yes, if I do repeat the whole process, perhaps I'll discover that the roof is supported by the bricks, that the data support AGW. Or perhaps I'll discover the opposite, that they can't support it.

But until someone does accumulate these bricks, the bricks do NOT support the roof. They may *potentially* support the roof, but they aren't doing so yet.

In that manner, unless the data/model/methodology is available to us, AGW is not supported by them in any scientific manner.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
How does G2 know the data is redundant? How does anyone look at the conclusions of these scientists and determine they were generated from data that is supported by other data sets when the data sets are secret or destroyed? Even if G2 knew the entirety of some of the data sets, how could he compare it to one he has no access to? There is no way to compare them.
I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that Wayward was suggesting that there were several independently obtained sets of raw data i.e. actual information gathered from satellites, weather stations, etc... While the raw data from one particular source in one particular case may have been destroyed, I believe Wayward suggests that there are alternative sources of raw data that are untainted (as far as we know) and that this data is publicly available in its raw unfiltered form. Further, he suggets that work performed by other scientists with respect to this other raw data reaches similar conclusions to those generated by scientists using the tainted filtered data.

Does that cover it Wayward?

By the way, why are you suddenly talking in the third person now G2?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
You want the data? Look here:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/wdc/list.shtml

The only thing that was discussed being deleted were local copies. Since they were not an actual archive they had no responsibility to maintain those copies and were the wrong people to ask for the data anyway.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
A jump-off page to several sources of raw data, models, visualization tools, source code, etc:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You want the data? Look here:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/wdc/list.shtml

The only thing that was discussed being deleted were local copies. Since they were not an actual archive they had no responsibility to maintain those copies and were the wrong people to ask for the data anyway.

Let's take a look at some raw data out there. G2 can look here and get a chart of the raw, unadjusted data going back to about 1850 for New Zealand. That gives us 0.06C warming per century since 1850 (yes, six hundredths). That leads us to a few questions about NIWA's methodology:
Here's a sample of the adjustments made. Researchers in NZ have found nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments, no resiting or UHI issues, etc. NIWA refuses to tell anyone why the adjustments were made.

So when others, like G2, do the work, there is no warming much less any that can be attributed to man.


The G2 abides.

[ December 02, 2009, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
NIWA refuses to tell anyone why the adjustments were made.
This isn't true. NIWA has issued statements about the adjustments and resiting is one of the reasons they cite. You may disagree with their reasoning or think they are lying, but they haven't been silent on the matter as you claim.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
By the way, why are you suddenly talking in the third person now G2?

On another thread, KE accused someone of pulling a G2. Whatever that meant it did actually signal to G2 that, after many threads in tribute to him and his posting style and hundreds of posts discussing him personally (like this one) and now some kind of debate tactic named in his honor, G2 was simply too big to be in the first person. One individual could not handle the fame an accolades of an entire forum. Consequently, G2 will now be in the third person. There has been some discussion that G2 should also be a title, such as "The G2™". G2 is on the fence about that one and currently thinks he will use them interchangeably but that is subject to his whim. G2 also like the trademark symbol and may use that for his name as well as title, e.g. G2™

At the same time, G2 decided to give a signature a try - similar to those several on this forum use:

The G2™ abides.

No wait, perhaps a copyright? As in The G2 ©

[ December 02, 2009, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
NIWA refuses to tell anyone why the adjustments were made.
This isn't true. NIWA has issued statements about the adjustments and resiting is one of the reasons they cite. You may disagree with their reasoning or think they are lying, but they haven't been silent on the matter as you claim.
The last G2 saw, NIWA has issued a statement about one station. They still do not reveal anything else about their methodology or rationale for adjusting all the other sites.

The G2™ abides.

[ December 02, 2009, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
Who else is using a sig?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Does that cover it Wayward?
Basically, yes. Michael Mann did not generate all the data for historical temperatures. (Correct me if I'm wrong here, G2.) He had to get it from somewhere. And those sources should be public, in journals and such. So it's simply a matter of gathering all the pertinent data on historical temperatures and figuring out how to interpret it. Not as easy as it sounds, I strongly suspect, since some sources are better than others. But doable.

The only reason someone needs to see what Michael et al. used is to run a direct comparison using identical data. But you don't need to do that. You can use the data out there and run a completely independent test, using your own data and your own software. If done well, you should then have an equally valid model with equally valid results. A lot of work, but if you're worried about contamination from AGW supporters, just about the best way to do it, IMHO.

quote:
Temperatures do not continue to rise. They have not risen for over a decade and have actually begun to decline rapidly.
That is only true if you start your measurements in 1998 (IIRC), the hottest year on record. Temperatures have declined slightly since then, but they are still significantly higher than those from more than 20 years ago. And, as the recent historical data shows (since 1900, IIRC), there have been similar short-term (during a decade or so) drops in temperture which have then bounced back up and continued to climb.

Although the current drop in temperature from the all-time high year is heartening, it is far from conclusive at this time.

quote:
CO2 at unprecedented levels? That's not true unless you define all of planetary history as the last few decades (or since the end of the MWP is the common starting point for planetary history among AGW supporters). Levels have been as high as 7,000 ppm and average roughly 1,500 ppm.
I specified for the last 400,000 years, which is more than sufficient when discussing modern climate conditions.

If you want to consider how global warming would affect the dinosaurs, perhaps not, but I don't think anyone is currently worried about that. [Smile]

quote:
If these data have already been accumulated and they support the AGW conclusion, then they should be available to us in a handy http link. Do you have such a link?
No, there is no such link, because the amount of data that goes into analyzing global warming is enormous.

You have various papers on historical temperatures. You have various papers on atmospheric gases. You have various papers on the physical interactions of sunlight, clouds, ocean waters, polar ice, forests and jungles, deserts, sands blown into the Atlantic, etc. etc. We are talking about the contents of numerous journals. To provide an answer to each of these questions would basically take the full-time work of at least a single individual, if not a team. So to properly do this, you would need several teams of scientists to analyze each question to come up with the best answer.

Then you need to create software to model all this data.

You can find links which summarize what certain scientists believe for these questions. But to find the raw data, you'd have to go to the university library and start pouring over the various journals. That's where you should find it. Not in a single link.

quote:
Yes, if I do repeat the whole process, perhaps I'll discover that the roof is supported by the bricks, that the data support AGW. Or perhaps I'll discover the opposite, that they can't support it.

But until someone does accumulate these bricks, the bricks do NOT support the roof. They may *potentially* support the roof, but they aren't doing so yet.

The situation is more like a few groups saying that they built around 10 houses and this is what they all look like. Others are saying that, no, a house would look completely different--but have not actually built it themselves. It would be far more compelling if they had an actual house to point to to prove that the house would look the way they describe.

In a similar way, after 10 or so climate models all indicate that the current climate rise is at least partially caused by human-generated greenhouse gases, it would be far more compelling for the nay-sayers to have an actual model that shows the opposite. And it is doable.
 
Posted by PSRT (Member # 6454) on :
 
quote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Someone above already linked to it, but its worth doing again. The claim that "the data is not public," is the worst sort of lie.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
Incidentally, why on earth did you start talking about your personal problems with one localized data set?

The topic under discussion was whether or not multiple sets of data from all over the world are available for scrutiny, which they are. Shoot, your own tangential and truth-challenged analysis (here is NIWA's discussion of the adjustments they made to their data) of the data from New Zealand is support for that. So where, exactly, do you get off arguing that all the scientists are hiding their information from you, when you can clearly find it well enough to talk foolishness about it?

eta two things:
1) finding NIWA's discussion of their adjustments took me all of fifteen seconds. Honestly - if you are going to repeat a lie, maybe check it out to see if it's even barely plausible first?

2)
quote:
all of planetary history
You mean the history where in the past, there was a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; then plants learned how to turn it into cellulose and lignin, and nobody could digest lignin, so it all got sequestered in layers of sediment?
Until we started digging that up and burning it and putting it right back into the atmosphere.

[ December 02, 2009, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: OpsanusTau ]
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
But to find the raw data, you'd have to go to the university library and start pouring over the various journals. That's where you should find it. Not in a single link.
You speak as if the Internet doesn't have the capacity to contain the data contained in all the papers ever written.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
You speak as if the Internet doesn't have the capacity to contain the data contained in all the papers ever written.
You speak as if all of this information were in the public domain, which is distinctly different from being publicly available. Most of it is available online, but if you don't want to pay the journal fees you're better off going to a good university library.
 
Posted by PSRT (Member # 6454) on :
 
And, has been posted twice now, there is a link for you that contains links to much of the raw data!

Much of it really is only available in journals that have not been uploaded to the internet yet, because they were written decades before the internet existed. And someone has to go through and spend the time to get that online, and have you ever been in a university stacks? THere is a LOT of raw information out there. And as Matt points out,much of it is also pay for access online.

[ December 02, 2009, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: PSRT ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Fascinating to see all you AGW "supporters" keep dancing around the primary issues here:

1) the CRU was the primary source of data cited by the IPCC to justify such things as the Kyoto Protocols, the upcoming Copenhagen treaty for carbon reduction, and a host of other actions (including an attempt to introduce a "global tax" to "fight" AGW).

2) The emails reveal that the CRU deliberately sought to corrupt the peer review process, destroy data and violate the UK's FOIA.

Whether or not there is substantial data to support the AGW hypothesis from a multitude of other sources is irrelevant to the primary issue: the "science" used to support UN attempts at imposing Global Governance mandates that supersede any nations Sovereignty is from a source that at the very least has raised a substantial cloud of suspicion as to the integrity of the science.

Finally - there are several premises that are always assumed when this debate is undertaken here:

That Co2 is "pollution."
That Oil is proven to be a 'fossil fuel.'
That Fossil Fuels are all running out. (there's a reason it's called the "Peak Oil THEORY")

You seriously cannot produce any factual evidence that PROVES that oil fields are all the product of decayed bio-matter. There is substantial evidence that Oil is in fact abiotic - produced from high pressure processes deep at the Earth's core, and that the oil produced there continuously wells upward through the crust. This is why previously "dry" oil fields have been known to become productive again years later.

I personally believe after doing extensive reading on the topic myself, that Oil is just like the Diamond Cartel situation. By creating artificial scarcity, they maintain the high market prices of diamonds.

Same goes for Oil.

You get everyone to buy into the idea that Oil is a "fossil" fuel, and that it is eventually going to run out, and you have artificial scarcity, which profits the Big Oil cartel (not too mention any entity invested in alternative energy) tremendously.

All of you that blithely accept "fossil fuel" as a fact, should actually read up on the predictions of the "Peak Oil" theory. We were supposedly supposed to run out of oil already...yet mysteriously we are not.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
Thanks for the link, PSRT - sorry for not acknowledging it earlier but I've not had the time to check it yet: I sometimes only reply to certain posts when I'm hurrying; it doesn't mean I intentionally ignored you.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

quote:
CO2 at unprecedented levels? That's not true unless you define all of planetary history as the last few decades (or since the end of the MWP is the common starting point for planetary history among AGW supporters). Levels have been as high as 7,000 ppm and average roughly 1,500 ppm.
I specified for the last 400,000 years, which is more than sufficient when discussing modern climate conditions.

Your claim of unprecedented levels of CO2 remains false. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski compiled more than 90,000 direct chemical measurements in the atmosphere at 43 stations, between 1812 and 2004. This is not proxy data via ice cores or tree rings or whatever you prefer, this is real, actual measured CO2 levels. Between 1880 and 1940 CO2 increased from 290ppm to 440ppm. Between 1949 and 1970 the CO2 level dropped to 330ppm. Only 70 years ago, CO2 levels were higher than today. The rise and fall of CO2 levels like we've seen is nothing new and nothing unprecedented - unless you take the altered data from places like CRU as gospel.
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
Daruma, I read the article you linked to and another one that it referenced. There was nothing definitive there to substantiate anything one way or another. Just because we fart methane not octane isn't any kind of proof that oil doesn't come from decaying organisms. They just claimed oil isn't formed at standard temperature and pressure. That is true. Even if you talk to people who believed that oil is formed by decaying organic material they would tell you that high pressures underground are needed.


On a separate note every resource on earth is finite. Luckily the Earth recycles many resources for us (water for example). That doesn't mean oil exists in unlimited supply even if their theory were correct. So unless the Earth has some kind of way to recycle the C02 back into oil (quickly) then oil is very much a finite resource and will run out eventually.

One of the reasons peak oil predictions have been wrong are because of improved drilling techniques. Brazil just found a lot of oil but it is deep in the Atlantic. Just because we have become very effective at finding oil throughout the world and pumping it from harder to reach places doesn't mean the supply is unlimited.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
yossarian - I did not provide that thread as definitive proof, as I'm well aware that it does not provide it as such. I merely provided it as an example that many assumptions that people accept as a base premise are often not iron clad or proven beyond a reasonable doubt as one might think.

I for one find the idea entirely plausible that big money interests interconnected with Governments around the world actively collude to keep the price of oil much higher than it would be if there were no fears of artificial scarcity constantly being promoted in the mass media.

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Peak Oil theory did NOT predict we would have run out of oil by now. It predicted, quite correctly, that we would reach a point where available supplies would be outstripped bt growing demand.

It is a gradual process. Currently we are at a 'hover point' where a patch of economic downturn can temporarily suppress oil prices but soon, the scarcity of oil relative to demand asserts itself no matter what.

Greedy rich men will also pretend that there is *more* oil than there is so folks won;t panic and convert to alternative energy formats the greedy rich men don't completely own... yet.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Zbigniew Jaworowski"

Good luck with the credibility factor regarding this guy. His track record makes these CRU email extracts sound unimpeachable.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
There is substantial evidence that Oil is in fact abiotic - produced from high pressure processes deep at the Earth's core, and that the oil produced there continuously wells upward through the crust. This is why previously "dry" oil fields have been known to become productive again years later.
I wonder, Daruma, if you are familiar with the principle of "crank magnetism"?

[Smile]

A thoughtful analysis.

eta - a quote from the above:
quote:
However, in fact universities and oil companies are staffed with thousands of “competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics” who not only subscribe to the biogenic theory, but use it every day as the basis for successful oil exploration. And laboratory experiments have shown repeatedly that petroleum is in fact produced from organic matter under the conditions to which it is assumed to have been subjected over geological time. The situation is actually the reverse of the one Kenny implies: most geologists assume that the Russian abiotic oil hypothesis, which dates to the era prior to the advent of modern plate tectonics theory, is an anachronism. Tectonic movements are now known to be able to radically reshuffle rock strata, leaving younger sedimentary oil- or gas-bearing rock beneath basement rock, leading in some cases to the appearance that oil has its source in Precambrian crystalline basement, when this is not actually the case.
This one is just thoroughly ridiculous.

eta (again!) - though I do LOVE the idea of a "deep, hot biosphere." Thinking about the center of the earth and how we completely don't understand it is wonderful for me.

[ December 02, 2009, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: OpsanusTau ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Interesting....
quote:
Predictably, the IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri reacted angrily citing the IPCC 2007 climate change reports which asserted that the (Himalayan) glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate ( of melting) continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps even sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate. Several other Indian scientists and glaciologists have got into the debate now with some of them criticizing the Indian Government with an ostrich-like attitude in the face of impending disaster.

What is the reality? Let us take a closer look:

First, where did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?

According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!

So we have a raging debate about impending glacier melt-down because of sloppiness of some IPCC authors! Further, according to Kotlyakov, the present glacier area of some 500,000 km2 could shrink to 100,000 km2 and this could happen NOT in 2035 but in 2350, if the current rate of warming continues.

[Eek!] [LOL] A typo! Is there anything left in the IPCC reports that can be remotely considered accurate?

The G2™ abides.

[ December 02, 2009, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
I wonder, Daruma, if you are familiar with the principle of "crank magnetism"?
Touche!

Are you familiar with the term "scientific tribalism?" [Smile]

I get that abiotic oil theory is considered fringe conspiracy theory. I don't argue that it's TRUTH. Rather, I don't believe all oil comes from decaying fossil matter has been proven incontrovertibly...but it's often discussed as if it has. Perhaps Oil comes from both sources? Even your link admits that possibility.

And ken...

" It predicted, quite correctly, that we would reach a point where available supplies would be outstripped bt growing demand."

"Available supplies" under the Peak theory was predicated on a finite amount of total oil in known and unknown fields would begin to run out. The only problem with availability right now is OPEC's ability to drive up the price by controlling production through collusion.
 
Posted by stayne (Member # 1944) on :
 
What I find troubling about many on either side is the vociferous approach they take to arguing a theory that several have conceded is beyond their ability to actually verify themselves. It takes on the color of religion rather than science.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Underlying the GW debate is all kinds of hoogymoogy hysteria and ideology on both sides. They feed off each other. Some guy says 'we should curb our carbon emissions because there's this possibility...' and some other guy goes 'GW is total BUNK!' and the fight is on.

Over here we have environmental prudence qwrapped in shrill homo sap is Dah Debbil and over here we have laissez faire free markets are GOD!!!.

Meanwhile we're losing a huge amount of arable farmland every year, typically to concrete pavement.

One thing I feel certain of: any major looming crises will find humanity stunned, fully unprepared, incapable of seeing the lightning and hearing the thunder.

[ December 02, 2009, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
yossarian - I did not provide that thread as definitive proof, as I'm well aware that it does not provide it as such. I merely provided it as an example that many assumptions that people accept as a base premise are often not iron clad or proven beyond a reasonable doubt as one might think.

I for one find the idea entirely plausible that big money interests interconnected with Governments around the world actively collude to keep the price of oil much higher than it would be if there were no fears of artificial scarcity constantly being promoted in the mass media.

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

The problem was there was almost nothing credible at all about their argument. Half of the paper was talking about graphite and diamonds and the other parts generally had stupid comments like you fart methane not octane. I can propose all kinds of crazy theories and through down a few equations and put in some sciency terms but that doesn't mean that there is reasonable doubt about standard theories.

I find it more likely that rich men would downplay any future shortage of oil to prevent alternatives from being adopted. We spend over 300 billion a year on buying oil from overseas. If we invested in windmills, solar, batteries and natural gas we could end our dependence on foreign oil in a decade or two. By investing in these technologies our country could gain energy independence, drastically reduce our trade deficit and free our hands in dealing with the middle east. It also helps to reduce CO2 emissions (if you care).

I guess we both agree the oil companies would lie for their own benifit.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
One thing is for sure. Whoever hacked or leaked these emails needs to be found, prosecuted, and put in jail for a very, very, very long time.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70249-boxer-hacked-climategate-emails-may-face-criminal-probe

Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate'

By Michael O'Brien - 12/02/09 03:26 PM ET
Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting. "Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I'm looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public."


The e-mails, from scientists at the University of East Anglia, were obtained through hacking. The messages showed the director of the university's Climate Research Unit discussing ways to strengthen the unit's case for global warming. Climate change skeptics have seized on the e-mails, arguing that they demonstrate manipulation in environmental science.

Boxer said her committee may hold hearings into the matter as its top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), has asked for, but that a criminal probe would be part of any such hearings.

"We may well have a hearing on this, we may not. We may have a briefing for senators, we may not," Boxer said. "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.

"This is a crime," Boxer said.

--------------------------------------

It's almost like she feels this criminal revealed some sort of state secrets that compromised national security or something.

"This is a crime," said Boxer, pointing at the released emails and then stunned the crowd with her candor as she continued, "And this is an idiot," pointing at herself.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
Meanwhile we're losing a huge amount of arable farmland every year, typically to concrete pavement.
And nobody wants me to get started again about the worldwide loss of topsoil to erosion. Now THERE is a looming disaster.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Homo myopic.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
quote:
Meanwhile we're losing a huge amount of arable farmland every year, typically to concrete pavement.
And nobody wants me to get started again about the worldwide loss of topsoil to erosion. Now THERE is a looming disaster.
I was under the impression that the loss of topsoil was predominantly a third world problem. Is it broader than that?
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
We live on one planet. One. Population currently skyrocketing upward at about 1.5 billion per decade.

If too many people in other nations go hungry, we will discover (again) that a collapsing global economy leads to global warfare of pandemic proportions.

Only this time the war will be started with nukes not ended with one.

We're all in this together. Those cute boundaries we see on maps, and those idealistic constitutions (owner's manuals) on which run the nation-states contained by those cute boundaries, mean little to starving hordes.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
On the assumption that KL was responding to the perhaps-implicit suggestion from JWatts that 3rd world topsoil loss might not be a worldwide concern: I think J was probably just curious about the extent of the topsoil loss, not incredulous of the global significance of such a problem.

(See, I've gone and layered enough assumptions together there to practically guarantee I'm wrong. I make it so easy on you people.)
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
We're losing topsoil in the 'states too. erosion is global. Agriculture as practiced 10k years ago and as practiced today is inherently erosional.

Part of the monoculture cash crop beast, which raises a crop (which absorbs its share of soil, nyet), then sells it far away, after which it typically leaves the soil nude to face wind dispersal and water runoff until next spring.

Plus there's -- what shall I call it? -- additive erosion: taking huge amounts of formerly arable farmland and covering it with concrete so we can park our SUVs in yet another 2.3 car garage.

One might argue that the concrete protects the soil from erosion, and I suppose it does, but to yield crops from that soil we must first remove the people, houses, and concrete. That's a LOT of energy to expend and material to discard before you can even start planting to raise crops to consume for, um, energy and material?

[ December 03, 2009, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely.
Over half of Americans think there's a reasonable chance AGW research has been fraudulent. Over one third think it almost certain. Believe it or not, that's the good news in this Rasmussen poll:
quote:
This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely.
This story is starting to get out into the mainstream media. What do think will happen once the average American sees what's been going on? G2 thinks that 35% will go up pretty significantly.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I wonder what reasons the 35% had for feeling that way prior to the leak.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
"Over half of Americans think there's a reasonable chance AGW research has been fraudulent."

As a sidenote these are about the same percentages of Americans that don't believe in evolution.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I imagine there's some overlap.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Good one from Obama:
quote:
Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security.

The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.

That was from his press release on 3/9/2009. G2 wonders if Obama will now adhere to that lofty standard.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
"Over half of Americans think there's a reasonable chance AGW research has been fraudulent."

As a sidenote these are about the same percentages of Americans that don't believe in evolution.

quote:
Among weekly churchgoers, 24 percent believe in evolution, while 41 percent do not and 35 percent have no opinion. Among those who seldom or never attend church, 55 percent belief in evolution, while 11 percent do not, and 34 percent have no opinion.
This non sequiter, of course, means nothing.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
"Over half of Americans think there's a reasonable chance AGW research has been fraudulent."

As a sidenote these are about the same percentages of Americans that don't believe in evolution.

As a sidenote, it never ceases to amaze me how snide, arrogant secular humanist liberals never pass up a chance to try and cast aspersions on people of genuine religious faith as backward, ignorant idiots.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
May be spreading:
quote:
The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

G2 doesn't know about that "highly damaging" assumption but given what's been going on at CRU and the stonewalling now at NASA, who knows?

[ December 03, 2009, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
it never ceases to amaze me how snide, arrogant secular humanist liberals never pass up a chance to try and cast aspersions on people of genuine religious faith as backward, ignorant idiots
I think you're confusing the intersection of two sets. There are backward, ignorant idiots, and there are people with genuine religious faith. Not all people who do not believe in evolution have genuine religious faith; they are all, however, backward and ignorant idiots.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
"Over half of Americans think there's a reasonable chance AGW research has been fraudulent."

As a sidenote these are about the same percentages of Americans that don't believe in evolution.

As a sidenote, it never ceases to amaze me how snide, arrogant secular humanist liberals never pass up a chance to try and cast aspersions on people of genuine religious faith as backward, ignorant idiots.

[Roll Eyes]

You prefer calling 95% of the population idiots at once, of course. [Smile]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
it never ceases to amaze me how snide, arrogant secular humanist liberals never pass up a chance to try and cast aspersions on people of genuine religious faith as backward, ignorant idiots
I think you're confusing the intersection of two sets. There are backward, ignorant idiots, and there are people with genuine religious faith. Not all people who do not believe in evolution have genuine religious faith; they are all, however, backward and ignorant idiots.
Oh yes...thank you for enlightening us on this particular point, oh paragon of enlightenment!

TomDavidson makes it quite clear: unless you believe that the THEORY of evolution is PROVEN FACT, you are an ignorant idiot!

Thanks for proving my point about the snide, arrogant part.
[LOL]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
"Over half of Americans think there's a reasonable chance AGW research has been fraudulent."

As a sidenote these are about the same percentages of Americans that don't believe in evolution.

As a sidenote, it never ceases to amaze me how snide, arrogant secular humanist liberals never pass up a chance to try and cast aspersions on people of genuine religious faith as backward, ignorant idiots.

[Roll Eyes]

I am surprised at how often people do pass up the chance to cast aspersions. I am a person of, I hope, "genuine religious faith"and I find it difficult, myself.

Please don't conflate faithful people and those who actually are backward, ignorant idiots. Faith is no excuse.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
"Over half of Americans think there's a reasonable chance AGW research has been fraudulent."

As a sidenote these are about the same percentages of Americans that don't believe in evolution.

As a sidenote, it never ceases to amaze me how snide, arrogant secular humanist liberals never pass up a chance to try and cast aspersions on people of genuine religious faith as backward, ignorant idiots.

[Roll Eyes]

You prefer calling 95% of the population idiots at once, of course. [Smile]
No...there is a difference between USEFUL IDIOTS and plain old idiots. Useful idiots in fact are much more effective in achieving the agenda of those using them if they are highly intelligent.

Plain old idiots are just dumb and incapable of even understanding why they are an "idiot" in the first place.

As a reformed Useful Idiot myself, I could hardly condemn others for following the herd of sheeple I myself blindly followed for so long. [DOH]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
quote:
Meanwhile we're losing a huge amount of arable farmland every year, typically to concrete pavement.
And nobody wants me to get started again about the worldwide loss of topsoil to erosion. Now THERE is a looming disaster.
Here here. No disagreements there.

Mono-culture Industrial Agriculture has been been an unmitigated disaster on a whole host of fronts.

It makes me laugh out loud whenever I read another deluded vegetarian writing into letters to the editors and commentary sections of magazines and newspapers, making the argument that we all need to become vegetarians to save the planet...
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
TomDavidson makes it quite clear: unless you believe that the THEORY of evolution is PROVEN FACT, you are an ignorant idiot!
Yes, that's pretty much the long and short of it. People who hurl themselves off buildings because they don't realize the theory of gravity is a proven fact are idiots, too.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Oh, I'd withhold the "idiot" judgment for more specific cases, but "ignorant"? Ubetcha.

More than anything, I feel sorry for those who don;t realizing they're conflating politics with science while accusing science of conflating politics with science.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Right Tom. Thanks for deigning to enlighten the ignorant idiots with your supreme intellect.

Anyone can see the Law of Gravity in effect for themselves.

Evolution, on the other hand, simply cannot be proven...anymore than intelligent design can.

Even amongst evolution-believers, there is still significant debate between Darwinian gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium.

Evolution is not PROVEN. It's simply accepted as scientific consensus....which in the light of the very basis of the topic for this thread, can show just how deluded scientific tribalists can be.

Blind faith idiocy is not the sole provenance of the religious. [LOL]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Even amongst evolution-believers, there is still significant debate between Darwinian gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium.
Yes. In the same way, the actual mechanism of gravity -- as opposed to the fact of gravity -- is very much in dispute. But the actual fact of evolution is, as I pointed out, a proven fact. For that matter, both it and intelligent design can be proven. Evolution has the benefit of having been proven, of course, whereas intelligent design advocates have not yet proven that the complexity of life on this planet precludes the possibility of evolutionary process. They're working on it, though (albeit lamely.)

What is not proven, I might add, is that humans showed up on this planet as a direct result of evolutionary processes. But that's a different question altogether, and it's one that the idiots don't know enough to ask. Like I said, though, they're idiots, so we can't expect too much from them.

[ December 03, 2009, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Daruma, apparently, believes in conspiracy. Life is a great conspiracy.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
As a sidenote, it never ceases to amaze me how snide, arrogant secular humanist liberals never pass up a chance to try and cast aspersions on people of genuine religious faith as backward, ignorant idiots.
1. Snide: Daruma, the tone used by you and G2 is at least as snide/negative/pejorative as that of your liberal critics. Same goes for arrogance

2. Genuine religious faith: I attend religious services on a weekly basis, observe the sabbath, etc. But I am right there with the secular humanists in criticizing the use of religious faith in matters such as the scientific nature of the world we live in.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
As a sidenote, it never ceases to amaze me how snide, arrogant secular humanist liberals never pass up a chance to try and cast aspersions on people of genuine religious faith as backward, ignorant idiots.[/QB]
No, I only call people who disbelieve in evolution "backward ignorant idiots".

The fact of evolution is a reality that has been observed. To deny evolution is to deny gravity or the rotation of the earth.

(These may of course also be wrong: perhaps we all live in a huge Matrix-like simulation, and the evidence for evolution, gravity, or the rotation of the earth are just a programmed trick.)

The Catholic Church btw, has no problem with evolution, and has accepted that even human beings may have physically evolved from animals.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
You know it's getting bad, Michael Mann has thrown Phil Jones under the bus:
quote:
One of the scientists to whom the emails were addressed, Professor Michael Mann, the Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University has moved to distance himself from some of the comments in the emails that suggest scientists did not want the IPCC, the UN body charged with monitoring climate change, to consider studies that challenged the view global warming was genuine and man-made.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: "I can't put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email."

Prof Mann also said he could not "justify" a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.

"I can't justify the action, I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that's clear."

Prof Mann then argued however that there was "absolutely no evidence" that he too had manipulated data, while he also said "I don't believe that any of my colleagues have done that".

Yes, it's all Jones - he did it! Now that they're turning on each other, this should get really entertaining.
[Cool] [LOL]

[ December 04, 2009, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Lots of things happening as people pull this apart (no doubt that's why Mann decided it was time to stab Jones in the back!). Let's read some code! G2 will add line numbers so you can follow along with the critique provided by Robert Greiner:
quote:

#0 ;
#1 ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
#2 ;
#3 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
#4 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
#5 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
#6
#7 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

Lines 0-2 are comments (note VERY ARTIFICIAL correction!).

Line 3: yrloc is a 20 element array containing: 1400 and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in increments of 5 years. So yrloc = [1400, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1919, 1924, 1929, ... , 1964, 1969, 1974, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994].

findgen() creates a floating-point array of the specified dimension. Each element of the array is set to the value of its one-dimensional subscript. For example: F = indgen(6) ;F[0] is 0.0, F[1] is 1.0….. F[6] is 6.0.

Line 4: valadj, or, the “fudge factor” array as some programmer likes to call it is the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings

Line 5: Just a check to make sure that yrloc and valadj have the same number of attributes in them. This is important for line 7. It will throw an error if they don't match up.

Line 7: Calculate the yearly adjustment to temperatures by interpolating (the interpol function) the values between points to create a smoothing effect on the data. The main thing to realize here, is, that the interpol() function will cause the valid temperature readings (yrloc) to skew towards the valadj values.

Now look at the number series in valadj (at line #4). Notice no skewing in the past but as we move forward in time, it skews the data down slightly then up dramatically. What this does is creates a relatively level line that dips slightly then has a very steep sudden increase in recent times. Now go back up to the comment on line #1 - this is "a VERY ARTIFICAL correction". That, boys and girls, is how a hockey stick style graph is created where none exists.

[ December 04, 2009, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Now, to be fair, you also need to report on the stated motivation for that value adjustment. I mention this because, just as an example, my wife does this all the time when reporting data; her lab bought a new machine in 2003 that occasionally flips out and reports everything but the standard about 3 SDs off. It's very noticable when it appears in a run, and because she's running it against a non-renewable resource they can't just scrap all the data from the run. Instead, she has a value by which she adjusts that data series back down to the baseline. This value can vary, depending on how wonky the machine got, so she has to track it individually per run.

I'm not saying that this is what's happening here; for all we know, this could very well be a textbook case of scientific dishonesty. On the other hand, "making the data fit" is often not in fact dishonest but is rather a way of compensating for a known bad factor. Until you determine which is true, it's not just enough -- when trying to ascertain ill intent -- to note that a fudge factor has been inserted.

[ December 04, 2009, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Now, to be fair, you also need to report on the stated motivation for that value adjustment.

This has been discussed but here's the breakdown again:
quote:
The true meaning of Professor Jones’ “trick” to “hide the decline” in the data proxy series from 1960 onwards is all too clear from the three above examples. The real purpose of Michael Mann’s Nature trick (one of the many artifices and devices that the Team had used in fabricating the graph that had falsely abolished the medieval warm period) was to “incorrectly imply the reconstruction [from the tree-ring proxies] is more skilful [i.e. accurate as a representation of pre-industrial temperatures] than it actually is”.

Why does this matter so much? The reason is that if a “divergence” or discrepancy exists not merely between the magnitudes but even between the signs (i.e. the directions, towards warming or cooling) of measured temperature trends on the one hand, and those derived from tree-ring proxy data from the 1960s onwards on the other, then discarding only the post-1960 figures will have the effect of concealing that, during much of the period when instrumental temperatures are available to demonstrate the extent to which parallel tree-ring proxy data for the same period are producing accurate temperature reconstructions, the tree-ring proxies are producing flagrantly inaccurate and erroneous temperature reconstructions. In short, the tree-ring proxies are no good, as the UN had long stated, but the “Nature trick” was intended to “hide the decline” – and did so, until the whistleblower came along.

The very existence of a “divergence” between proxy and instrumental data covering the same period betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring densities. If the relationship between proxy and instrumental data breaks down beyond a certain date, then any honest men of science would instinctively question whether the relationship was sound even before that date.

The entire basis for the Team’s purported abolition of the medieval warm period, and hence for the UN’s assertion that today’s temperatures are unprecedented in at least the last 1000 years, was false. And the Team’s attempt to “hide the decline” in the tree-ring proxy data compared with the post-1960 rise in instrumental global-temperature data, so as to conceal the inadequacy of the tree-ring proxies on the basis of which it had tried to abolish the medieval warm period, was – and there is no other way to put this – scientific fraud.

"Hide the decline" is talking about post-1960 temperature. Count through the arrays and you see that upward adjustments were done starting around 1960. Hence the comment about the decline.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
It is historical fact that palm trees grew on the SW coast of England 400 years ago (or so I remember reading).

It is also, I presume, historical fact that massive coastal flooding was not a major problem at the time. I haven't read anything to that effect, anyway.

Google doesn't recognize the text G2 cited. I wonder where it's originally from?
 
Posted by Brian (Member # 588) on :
 
G2:
quote:
"Hide the decline" is talking about post-1960 temperature. Count through the arrays and you see that upward adjustments were done starting around 1960. Hence the comment about the decline.
Except the last six adjustments are all the same. If, as Robert Greiner contends, the results are skewed toward the valadj numbers, it wouldn't be a hockey stick, it would be a plateau: gradually rising to 2.6 and then holding steady from 1964 on.
The only way to get a hockey stick from these numbers is if the underlying (pre-valadj) numbers were already increasing.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
Google doesn't recognize the text G2 cited. I wonder where it's originally from?
Bing found it:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
 
Posted by Sauurman (Member # 6467) on :
 
quote:
Boxer said her committee may hold hearings into the matter as its top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), has asked for, but that a criminal probe would be part of any such hearings.
Why would there be a criminal probe in the hacking of another countries university? [Confused]

This wasn't an American university that was hacked. Is she completely clueless?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
Lots of things happening as people pull this apart (no doubt that's why Mann decided it was time to stab Jones in the back!). Let's read some code! G2 will add line numbers so you can follow along with the critique provided by Robert Greiner:
The code that actually uses those numbers is commented out. In later commented out code, where the series would be plotted should they have decided to use it, it was clearly labeled as "corrected". Finally, in the only known paper published with output from this code, the corrected numbers were not used.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

[ December 04, 2009, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
Why would there be a criminal probe in the hacking of another countries university?
Because she's a grandstanding politician. This stuff isn't rocket science.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
I remember Pelosi talking about a secret government program that she wasn't at liberty to divulge the details of but still she was going on and on about it to all of the media. I remember saying that if you have a secret, the best way to make sure people don't find out what it is is to not tell them you have a secret. Sure enough, now we know all about it. And this is the same lady now putting some sort of red dot from a laser targeting scope onto the forehead of courageous global warming hoax whistle blowers? She has no credibility whatsoever, and she's writing healthcare legislation? Jeez are we in big trouble...

Well, it's snowing in Houston. Thanks Al Gore! Thanks for being wrong! And thanks for helping to invent the internet too.

Yes, I know it's now climate change, so this early snow in Houston is futher proof that we haven't yet been able to set the thermostat of the entire Earth at a specific temperature.

"Houston this morning broke a record with the earliest snowfall ever recorded in the city's history."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//6750042.html

------------------------------------------

I just kind of like this guy's take on it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2007/03/12/liberals_a_very_modest_proposal?page=full&trackbacks=true

"The last time I argued with a left-winger about global warming, he actually said, “But what if we’re right?”

What logic! What insight! I felt as if I were arguing with someone transported from the Dark Ages, someone convinced that the earth was flat. Even if you showed him photos taken from outer space, showing the curvature of the earth, he would still say, “But what if I’m right?”

Funny, isn’t it, that these alarmists are always anxious to play the “what if” game when it comes to global warming, but not when it comes to global terrorism. Ask them, for example, what happens if we simply pull our troops out of Iraq, leaving it ripe for Al Qaeda? What happens if we ignore Iran and its threat to nuke its enemies?"

-------------------------------------------

I've seen this floating around no where in particular but still get a kick out of it:

Universal gravity - still a theory

Big Bang - still a theory

Evolution - still a theory

Global Warming - The debate is over. The verdict is in.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
Ask them, for example, what happens if we simply pull our troops out of Iraq, leaving it ripe for Al Qaeda?
Most of those people believe that our presence in Iraq has swelled the ranks of Al Qaeda. To have a valid analogy, the global warming skeptics would have to believe that reducing CO2 emissions would cause more warming.

quote:
What happens if we ignore Iran and its threat to nuke its enemies?"
The disagreement there is on *how* Iran should be engaged, not whether they should be ignored or not. That's akin to saying we all agree about global warming but we disagree on the best mitigation strategy.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
I've seen this floating around no where in particular but still get a kick out of it:

Universal gravity - still a theory

Big Bang - still a theory

Evolution - still a theory

Global Warming - The debate is over. The verdict is in.

Of course, a theory in science is the highest level of certainty there is. There is no serious debate in scientific circles about gravity, the big bang or evolution.

So the joke is really on the guy who puts this together. [Smile]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Well, there's some serious debate about the Big Bang and Universal Gravity, actually.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
The joke is also that man made global warming is more certain than gravity, the big bang, and evolution.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I would say that we're certain enough about gravity and evolution to legislate things like air traffic control and "miscegenation." There hasn't been a Big-Bang-related policy proposal yet, and I'm not sure what one would be. [Smile]
 
Posted by PSRT (Member # 6454) on :
 
quote:
Well, there's some serious debate about the Big Bang and Universal Gravity, actually.
Yeah, but in about the same way there is debate about evolution and AGW.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
I would say that we're certain enough about gravity and evolution to legislate things like air traffic control and "miscegenation."
Who still legislates miscegenation?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I'm not saying we DO. I'm saying we COULD.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
I'm not saying we DO. I'm saying we COULD.
Not to nitpick, but what does knowledge of evolution have to do with legislating miscegenation?

Okay, I lied, I am nitpicking. Nothing really turns on it. Just seemed like a strange statement to make.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
"what does knowledge of evolution have to do with legislating miscegenation?"
Well to quote from Time Cube:
"Midday is a light race Day. Sundown is an Asian race Day. Midnight is a Black Race Day and Sunup is an Indian Race Day."
and in the 2nd page
"No law can mix night and day colors in America's coming deterioration. America is but another 'Tower of Babble', besieged by racial singularity."

Now if the guy had some knowledge of evolution, he'd know that high melanine content is a reasonable evolutionary result of sunlit climates, rather than nature's way of telling us that the races should remain distinct.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
Not to nitpick, but what does knowledge of evolution have to do with legislating miscegenation?
Well, people used to make arguments in favor of legislating against miscegenation that were spurious; it is my opinion (based on no real evidence at all) that a proper understanding of human evolution probably helped lead to the removal of those laws from the books.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Now if you're gonna cite the theory of evolution as a positive development in race relations...you cannot forget that the Nazi's based their notion of Arayan racial superiority on Darwinian theory....and that the theory of evolution is the lynchpin for the Eugenics movement.
 
Posted by stayne (Member # 1944) on :
 
Interesting code snippet. It reeks of deliberate mock up to produce a curve that matches some specific, external data set. The hardcoded bias values are pretty telling. Whether it made it to production or not, there was a reason this code was written, and the specific comments applied. In my experience, this sort of thing is done when production wants to show a product prior to release, for marketing or to secure funding. An "E3 Demo', if you will.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Evolution has been grossly misapplied as a justification for spurious eugenics just as Hitler grossly misapplied Nietzche as a justificationn for racial supremacism.

I myself have misapplied perfectly good BBQ sauce to what proved to be throughly ill-cooked meat. For that matter, I long ago heard the vpice of Andy Williams, quite fine voice when properly applied (Miles Davis was rather impressed by the early Andy Williams) so poorly misapplied in a lousy rendition of James Taylor's Fire and Rain I would rather have heard Tiny Tim sing Smells Like Teen Spirit.

But I have also seen evolution applied positively in human relations, particularly to refute those egregious notions of race that late 19th/early 20th century eugenics endorsed.

I still think pork tastes best when cooked initially and briefly very hot, then long and slow at slightly under boiling temp, then very hot again for a final sear at the end.

I do not, however, feel this justified the Nazi's gas oven treatment of Jewish long pig.

Barbecue, for all it has served as a fine focus for social harmony, was grossly misapplied by Hitler's goons, who wouldn't know good BBQ or social harmony if it goose-stepped them in their butt cheeks.
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stayne:
Interesting code snippet. It reeks of deliberate mock up to produce a curve that matches some specific, external data set. The hardcoded bias values are pretty telling. Whether it made it to production or not, there was a reason this code was written, and the specific comments applied. In my experience, this sort of thing is done when production wants to show a product prior to release, for marketing or to secure funding. An "E3 Demo', if you will.

I've been avoiding climate change threads like the plague, but got bored and started scanning this one - may regret it...

Here's the thing: temperature reconstructions based on tree rings are used as a proxy measurement of temperatures in to the past. But from about 1960 onwards this relationship suddenly falls apart, for reasons discussed extensively in the literature over many years.

What this means is that if you plot temperatures from tree data, you start to see a decline in 1960. But there was no such real decline, as we know very well since actual direct temperature measurements exist.

So the question of what to do when plotting historical tree data arises: do you plot it with the decline (which means discussing it, when that is extensively discussed already elsewhere and is nothing to do with the paper at hand), or use corrected values or use the direct temperature measurements in its place (with a note about the existence of the problem and reference to sources discussing it).

That is what the talk of 'hiding the decline' is about.

And you'll note incidentally with the discussion of keeping certain sceptic papers out of the IPCC review, that all the papers they wanted excluded were actually included in the IPCC report and discussed.; the lobbying activities of these scientists were certainly wrong, but didn't have any effect. No succesful suppression of dissenting viewpoints was actually achieved.
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
The joke is also that man made global warming is more certain than gravity, the big bang, and evolution.

Except that the debates were over and the verdict in on evolution and general relativity long long ago, which is where the 'joke' reveals itself as mere misrepresentation by using semantics to pretend than anyone has ever claimed that climate change is more certain than any of those theories.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
Cherry is intentionally pretending to be dumb. That's his modus operandi. I've never understood what he gains by it: he merely helps further the stereotype of conservatives as idiots.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I don't think inferring motivation is a good thing, but we are certainly entitled to judge the relative intelligence we perceive to be expressed by another poster. Therefore, I don't think it's kosher to accuse cherry of *pretending* to be dumb.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Well the way I see it, the differences are:

BIG BANG: we don't know that the Big Bang is what started everything, it may be something else entirely. We don't know if it ever existed. I'm useing the term "existed" in this context even though that term is not really accurate.

GRAVITY: We don't know how it works exactly, but we are 100% that there is something holding us on the planet. 100% sure it exists, just not sure on the details.

EVOLUTION: Sounds great, makes sense... but there are some holes here and there and a lack of some particular evidence...so we don't know if it even exists, although it seems very likely.

GLOBAL WARMING: Not sure if it even exists, Not sure that man is having any kind of affect on Global temperature one way or another.

On the list of theories, Global Warming is the least "theory-ee" of them all. I think its a big mistake to lump Global Warming into the same category as Gravity or even Evolution. This is all according to how I see it. I would say feel free to add your own opinion here, but I am sure that is forthcoming...

Off subject:
quote:
he merely helps further the stereotype of conservatives as idiots.
There's a secret someone else in here who does that too. (Hint: He's from Greece...)
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
On the list of theories, Global Warming is the least "theory-ee" of them all.
Why would you say that Global Warming is less "theory-ee" than the Big Bang?
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
It's close for sure..., but at least in the Big Bang theory, we know 100% that the universe began at some point, and now we are just trying to determine when and how. With Global Warming, we don't even know if the globe IS warming...or cooling.

That's why I used the word "exists". To compare directly, using that terminology, we know the universe's beginning exists, we just don't know the details. We do not know that global warming exists, nor do we know the details.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
we know 100% that the universe began at some point
Oh really?
I want vulture to talk about this. Vulture, will you?
 
Posted by PSRT (Member # 6454) on :
 
Yeah, we definitely do NOT know that the universe began at some point. There is the possibility that it is meaningless to talk about time zero, and there is the possibility that the universe stretches back infinitely far. The big bang theory is about a rapid expansion, but that could be the result of interactions between fields, it could be one in an inifinetly long string of expansion/compression cycles.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
We know that reverse extrapolations of observed cosmic behavior, as interpreted through reliable laws of physics, coherently arrive at a point of concentration, before which point all our models collapse.

Seriously, people, this is science, not time travel. No one was *there* (that we know of) so no one *knows*.

We'll never have a worthwhile scientific conversation here is we repeatedly commit the same sins of epistemological nomenclature. We'll constantly sleaze across the border into philosophy, and wake up in that same Tijuana bordello time and again.
 
Posted by PSRT (Member # 6454) on :
 
quote:
We know that reverse extrapolations of observed cosmic behavior, as interpreted through reliable laws of physics, coherently arrive at a point of concentration, before which point all our models collapse.
This is an excellently phrased.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
egmatt, you misunderstand evolution (it has been observed, so we definitely know it exists), you confused Global Warming with Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the thing you are sure 100% about (that the Universe began at some point in time) is as yet unproven.

quote:
he merely helps further the stereotype of conservatives as idiots.

There's a secret someone else in here who does that too. (Hint: He's from Greece...)

Not many Americans consider me a conservative, though with their weirdo definitions perhaps they should, given how often I've advocated a smaller government and voted for libertarians.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Hint: He's from Greece..."

Omigod: you're just *too* subtle! And cute! we should make you the mascot of our debate team! Polly the Parrot! (Yeesh...)
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"This is an excellently phrased."

I'm sorry, PSRT, but how can I not enjoy a giggle at how you fall on your own sword praising my phrasing? [Wink]

Typos are, I think, the way god reminds us He really does love a fool...
 
Posted by PSRT (Member # 6454) on :
 
Wow. That's brilliant on my part. [DOH]

Actually, that resulted from changing my mind about what I was typing half way through the thought and forgetting to come back and edit the first half so it matched the second half.
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
quote:
we know 100% that the universe began at some point
Oh really?
I want vulture to talk about this. Vulture, will you?

Incoming waffle alert. Maybe this should move to another thread...

I wouldn't say that we know it 100%.

What we do know about the universe (that is relevant): All galaxies in the universe has a redshift, and for those galaxies whose distance from us we can measure by a variety of methods, the redshift is proportional to the distance. It is important to distinguish between the actual universe (relevant details summarised here) and mathematical models that happen to lead to model universes that match ours to some extent (and despite the fact that everyone talks about models matching the expansion of the universe, to be pedantic what we actually want are models that match observations rather than interpretations of them: such things as the distribution of galaxies and the redshift-luminosity relationships or other redshift-<distance proxy observation>. If they happen to do so without any expansion, then that's fine too).

Possible explanations for a redshift are limited. If you'll forgive a little oversimplification, they break down to being due to strong gravitational fields and being due to velocity away from the observer. No remotely plausible gravitational redshift models exist. Interpreting it as a velocity redshift means that galaxies are moving away from us (and each other) with a speed that depends on their distance from us, which in turn can be extrapolated back in time to imply that at one point all galaxies were in the same location at the same time. It should be emphasised that this isn't actually a model of the universe, but a largely hand-waving argument that suggests what kinds of models we might look at to explain the observations.

The important caveats apply that a) gravity continues to operate as we understand it in the regime in which everything is hot and sticky, and b) that no other forces come in to play.

As it happens, neither assumption is entirely safe.

Firstly there is the aforementioned redshift (this will be a little circituitous). At a given time, the universe has a certain energy-momentum density of matter, and a different energy-momentum density of radiation (photons). If you double the scale factor of the universe (i.e. double its linear size, but expressed in a way that can cope with an infinite sized universe too, where doubling its radius is meaningless). then you multiply the matter density by 1/8 (if you double the linear size of an object, then you increase its volume by a factor of 8). But.... you multiply the energy density by a factor of 1/16 - the number density of photons does indeed change as expected by a factor of 1/8, but each photon also loses energy to the cosmological redshift, and has half as much energy.

The dynamics of the universe are broadly speaking driven by energy densities. As the universe expands, the ratio of matter density to radiation density increases, and matter dominates the dynamics more and more; at the current epoch it dominates totally. Conversely as you go back in time, the radiation density becomes more and more significant, and there has to be some scale factor of the universe at which the two densities become equal. When the universe is more compact than that, radiation dominates the dynamics of the universe, and things behave differently. Not least because we now have a significant pressure accelerating expansion as well as gravity decelerating it.

The point of all the long-windedness is that while relatively simple arguments can be made that the universe is expanding, and extrapolation backwards leads inexoriably to a big bang, equally simple arguments exists that show why that conclusion is not guaranteed.

All of which means, we actually have to look at detailed models. But then you have to bear in mind that any model is only a model: it assumes a certain theory is true and uses some horrific simplifications to make the problems mathematically tractable. Any number of models can be proposed and they get judged entirely on how well they match up the with actual current observations (and the extent to which the theory is valid in other areas of physics).

And so finally we get to general relativity. It is a theory that generates useful (and in some cases very precise) predictions in a number of ways, so is accepted as the best bet for a universal theory of gravitation. When applied to the universe as a whole it can generate any number of cosmological models, some of which involve a 'big bang' - a universe with a finite past - and some of which don't. In the case of simple GR, I think that all the models that actually match up with current observations involve a big bang; the more exotic options of oscillating universes and the like require sets of parameters that are far from those required to make a model that turns in to our current universe. Although I have no idea what odd models could conceivably be generated in the future, or what the properties of more realistic models might be if someone finds a way to deal with more complex model universes.

So the summary is more or less this: all current plausible theories of gravity that match with local observations generate models of the universe that have a 'big bang' (at least within the constraints of matching current cosmological observations).

For our purposes here, I'd consider any model where the densities and temperatures get high enough for protons and neutrons to break into their constituent particles as having a 'big bang' even if you actually get some crazy model result like an infinite time in that extreme state before it cools enough for recognisable particles to form (yeah, there are philosophical problems as well with a universe that spends an infinite time expanding; but then there are philosophical problems with a universe with a finite history and with an infinite steady state too...).

But once again I'd emphasise that the presence or absence of a big bang is a property of the mathematical model, not of the actual physical universe. All the currently plausible models of the universe involve a big bang. As to what the universe actually did however...
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
<sigh of deep happiness as I read it>

Thanks! This totally made my weekend.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I think it is also wise to remember that the discovery of the universe as the currently ridiculously vast thing we measure and ponder, is fairly recent.

The concept of a galaxy is at most a few centuries old. The concept of galaxies is much younger still.

The red shift observations vulture speaks of are not yet 100 years old.

Add to these notions the fact that the very laws of physics on which we rely to make this here internet work, your toaster run, the satellites in space to twinkle properly in rounds, and H-bombs to go bump in the (suddenly brilliant) night, all strongly indicate that we will NEVER go back in time to see for ourselves, nor will we be able to visit the stars to measure them in more direct manners.

So the idea of the Big Bang being proven or true is an idea that itself must nestle entirely in extrapolations many many conjectural steps removed from verifiable physical reality as we know it.

Unless something very crucial changes in the nature of human reality, the Big Bang will always remain, for men, only an idea in the minds of men. That said, that idea may well prove reliable enough to make atomic toasters an affordable household reality, and for this I think we should all show respect.

"(yeah, there are philosophical problems as well with a universe that spends an infinite time expanding; but then there are philosophical problems with a universe with a finite history and with an infinite steady state too...)"

Well hell, there are philosophical problems with philosophy, period. Philosophy is the delight in systematic vexation.

[ December 06, 2009, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Incoming waffle alert. "

Well, it IS Sunday morning, after all. I suppose I shall have to make waffles...
 
Posted by d'Yer (Member # 6506) on :
 
I'll admit I'm on the fence with AGW, I wish I knew enough to make up my mind, but I cannot.

On the one side, How can 2000+ (?) scientists (and AL Gore) be wrong. On the other hand I continue to see evidence (or the illusion of evidence) of science having an agenda.

I've recently heard someone argue that the burden of truth lay with the proponents of the theory, and I couldn't agree more. Yet whenever I see this issue being discussed the expert, upon being questioned almost always becomes irritated, as if its inconvenient for him to share with us less informed, what should be obvious to us. Such condescension annoys me.

If the science is in, as I hear that it is, lets have it explain. Without patronizing me or becoming defensive when being questioned about it. I have a right to be hesitant your asking me to stomach a lot of changes.

I personally work in the power generation field, and I've recently had some 200 coworkers and friends lose their jobs because they work at coal plants. (Exelon, who I work for, does not come out and say its relate to their Co2 reduction plans, but is seems obvious to me.) So can my friends' joblessness (did I make up a word?) be justified because it will save the world?
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by d'Yer:
(did I make up a word?)

Google finds about 226,000 occurrences of the word, so I'd say not.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
I'll admit I'm on the fence with AGW, I wish I knew enough to make up my mind, but I cannot.

On the one side, How can 2000+ (?) scientists (and AL Gore) be wrong. On the other hand I continue to see evidence (or the illusion of evidence) of science having an agenda.

I've recently heard someone argue that the burden of truth lay with the proponents of the theory, and I couldn't agree more. Yet whenever I see this issue being discussed the expert, upon being questioned almost always becomes irritated, as if its inconvenient for him to share with us less informed, what should be obvious to us. Such condescension annoys me.

If the science is in, as I hear that it is, lets have it explain. Without patronizing me or becoming defensive when being questioned about it. I have a right to be hesitant your asking me to stomach a lot of changes.

Seconded.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
If the science is in, as I hear that it is, lets have it explain. Without patronizing me or becoming defensive when being questioned about it.
The problem is that it is frequently very difficult for specialists in a field to explain complicated technical concepts to people who don't have the appropriate background. This problem is compounded by how often scientists are sub-par communicators; by which I mean to say, not very good with words in the first place.

So when it comes right down to it, explaining requires a choice between going over the heads of the audience (which defeats the purpose) or oversimplifying things (often to the point of making statements that are of more metaphorical than actual veracity, which defeats the purpose in a different way). Ideally, the audience would be interested and receptive and have a base level of scientific understanding. However, it's not always easy to tell, and so one usually has to ask some questions and/or make some assumptions about what one's audience is capable of absorbing, which almost inevitable comes off as patronizing. (People are frequently extremely resistant to the idea that someone else knows more than they do, especially in the age of ignorant arrogance that comes with Google University.)
The other choice is to essentially dumb things down so that everyone (even Al Gore) can understand them. The problem with this is that once you have done that, the things you say aren't exactly true anymore. Which leads to a certain amount of defensive behavior, especially when people who don't even come close to understanding the underlying science start accusing you of lying for personal gain.

There are a couple of additional concerns as well. One is that it can be VERY difficult for someone who has spent the last twenty or thirty years immersed in a particular study (and may have spent his or her entire childhood in a state of inquisitive investigation) to even imagine what it would be like not to know, for example, how a dynamic equilibrium works. Another is that even when scientists make their absolute best effort in good faith to explain, they are frequently either ignored, accused of being patronizing, or misunderstood; this is not even taking into account the people with genuinely adversarial agendas. And the elapsed time before another such request is made, as though it had never been made before and as though no scientist had ever tried to explain anything before, is frequently very short. So that's a little frustrating.

It's a hard one. I understand why nonscientists are upset, I really do - but I don't know what the answer is. People are understandably resistant to being told that they do not and may never comprehend things that policy decisions are being based on, but I have grown to believe that might be the truth.
I don't understand a lot of things about climate modeling, and I don't want to; I am busy learning about other important things. I'm okay with the idea of people who have put in the effort to try to understand what's going on having a louder voice in these policy decisions than I do.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
It's a hard one. I understand why nonscientists are upset, I really do - but I don't know what the answer is. People are understandably resistant to being told that they do not and may never comprehend things that policy decisions are being based on, but I have grown to believe that might be the truth.
As long as it was just a few naysayers or corporate stooges making accusations, most of us could put our trust in the experts. But these e-mails have lifted the veil and exposed to the public some really disturbing evidence of intentional misconduct that we the public really can understand.

I am 100% sympathetic with the problems you identified, but you do understand why it is very difficult to go back to simply trusting the experts, when substantial evidence has been brought forward suggesting that at least some of the experts are not trustworthy. These e-mails demonstrate a breach of trust with the public. Things can't go back to the way they were without a real accounting and far greater transparency in how this science is being conducted.

Any attempt to sweep this under the rug or pretend that the e-mails don't mean precisely what they appear to mean will backfire.

[ December 07, 2009, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
you do understand why it is very difficult to go back to simply trusting the experts
FWIW, I recall that you were openly skeptical of those experts well before the emails were leaked.
 
Posted by d'Yer (Member # 6506) on :
 
@TomDavidson: (I know your comment was not directed at me, but I thought I'd reply)

Why not be openly skeptical, I'd say its unhealthy to be anything less than hesitant when faced with such dire scenarios.(continents falling into the sea, global flooding etc..)
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
FWIW, I recall that you were openly skeptical of those experts well before the emails were leaked.
I am not surprised that you think that, since I was always critical of using dogma and ad hominem attacks in place of reasoned debate. However, that pertains to the tactics employed, not to the underlying truth of AGW. On that latter point I was nominally on board with AGW, or perhaps agnostic. These e-mails do push me more into the skeptic camp now.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

Great news for those that insist on transparency and that we follow the scientific method because:
quote:


The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

<snip>

The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.

However, the pro-AGW forces still want the "science" to be "right":
quote:
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.
You know what will be seized upon by climate change skeptics? Refusing to allow the re-examination simply because it would be seized upon by climate change skeptics.
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
So when it comes right down to it, explaining requires a choice between going over the heads of the audience (which defeats the purpose) or oversimplifying things (often to the point of making statements that are of more metaphorical than actual veracity, which defeats the purpose in a different way). Ideally, the audience would be interested and receptive and have a base level of scientific understanding. However, it's not always easy to tell, and so one usually has to ask some questions and/or make some assumptions about what one's audience is capable of absorbing, which almost inevitable comes off as patronizing. (People are frequently extremely resistant to the idea that someone else knows more than they do, especially in the age of ignorant arrogance that comes with Google University.)
The other choice is to essentially dumb things down so that everyone (even Al Gore) can understand them. The problem with this is that once you have done that, the things you say aren't exactly true anymore. Which leads to a certain amount of defensive behavior, especially when people who don't even come close to understanding the underlying science start accusing you of lying for personal gain.


I can sympathize with that argument, but I'm not sure that I can agree with it. Maybe it's just me and my background (being an engineer rather than a pure scientist, having spent plenty of time doing chemistry shows and demos and lectures to kids, etc), but it is my experience that you can sufficiently explain research to the general public without sacrificing much. No, you're not going to get into the nitty gritty details or the calculations or whatever. Yes, you're going to have to get people to accept some things on faith because of that. But you should be able to explain enough to lead people through all the major logical steps involved. You should be able to explain enough to ease any concerns. Look at how popular Stephen Hawking's books are. There are thousands, perhaps millions of people who are not in any way experts in the higher forms of physics, but can follow the general gist of what he's saying. Sure, if anything he's saying is wrong, we'd have no idea what or how to prove it. But there are other people who do know, and can explain it in just the same way.

That's not what I see with climate science. Some of the basics have been explained in great detail, in a way I think any reasonably educated person can understand. But a lot of it isn't. Conveniently enough, that's the part that isn't as well understood. Likewise, when reasonable objections are brought up, they are also not explained in a reasonably understood manner, but instead just dismissed offhand. That doesn't help maintain their credibility.

Given that our lives are (supposedly) at stake, and given the billions in funding it has already had, surely there's someone out there who could do an honest, open explanation of global warming and explain things to everyone's satisfaction. And certainly there's people knowledgeable enough on both sides who could sign off on these explanations as correct. It really isn't that hard to do.

The problem is doing it honestly, and that's where it'll never happen, of course.

Speaking of which...

I'm okay with the idea of people who have put in the effort to try to understand what's going on having a louder voice in these policy decisions than I do.
While having policy decisions being decided based on science alone is bad, it's certainly preferable to what is happening in this "debate". Rather than taking the conclusions of an objective scientific community to create a policy, we have a political entity taking the scientific data and organizing it in a way to support a predetermined policy. The most glaring example of this is that the IPCC considers any positive impacts of global warming to be outside of their scope, but negative impacts are perfectly fine to present. It's not objective science. And since this is the "authoritative" report, there's nothing to argue with. We get the appearance of a policy backed by science, but only because the science is controlled by the politicians. So while it may seem fine to let policy be determined by the experts, that idea breaks down when the experts themselves are politicians.

On the one side, How can 2000+ (?) scientists (and AL Gore) be wrong.
Well, if it makes you feel better, you're not disagreeing with 2000+ scientists. It's my experience that scientists tend to be devoted specifically to their particular field, and tend not to have much more knowledge on the overall picture than the knowledgeable public. So most of those 2000+ are working on items that are peripheral to the global warming debate, and aren't really important pieces of evidence. Heck, depending on how you want to define it, you could probably claim that I'm a proponent of AGW theory based off my papers and scientific presentations. Obviously that's not the case. I'm sure that at least a few of those 2000+ actually disagree with the conclusions, but keep their heads down and their mouths shut so as to not disrupt their own research.

So the question of what to do when plotting historical tree data arises: do you plot it with the decline (which means discussing it, when that is extensively discussed already elsewhere and is nothing to do with the paper at hand), or use corrected values or use the direct temperature measurements in its place (with a note about the existence of the problem and reference to sources discussing it).

That is what the talk of 'hiding the decline' is about.

Vulture, I mentioned this already all the way back on page 1, but your explanation misses a key reason why hiding the decline is dishonest. Namely, that the fact that your calibration is horrible for a large chunk of your calibration period calls into question how accurate it is for the rest of the study. And so to avoid the possibility of people correctly recognizing the faults of bristlecone pine reconstructions, an additional data set is included to hide the faults. Also, you stated that the idea is "extensively discussed already elsewhere" but IIRC the problem wasn't widely known back in 1998 (the time period in question). The divergence issue wasn't even brought up until 1995, and that's not enough time to become extensively discussed.

Great news for those that insist on transparency and that we follow the scientific method
Only if it's done transparantly, of course. I get a sinking feeling that (even assuming this is done in the first place), this will all be done behind closed doors, and all we will be left with is the final result with no knowledge of how they got there. In order to be truly transparant, all raw data, including temperatures, locations, and documentations of any changes to the sensors, must be included, as well as all adjustments and explanations for these adjustments. I doubt that'll happen.

Personally, I'd love to see someone ask Obama if he'll order a complete release of NASA's and NOAA's temperature profiles. Given his supposed committment to being the most transparant administration in history and given his assurance that Climategate is meaningless, it'd be an excellent gesture of goodwill. Of course, if GISS (and/or NCDC, but we have more evidence of GISS) has been tampered with to exaggerate the warming, then that'd be a big problem for the AGW belief.
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mariner:

So the question of what to do when plotting historical tree data arises: do you plot it with the decline (which means discussing it, when that is extensively discussed already elsewhere and is nothing to do with the paper at hand), or use corrected values or use the direct temperature measurements in its place (with a note about the existence of the problem and reference to sources discussing it).

That is what the talk of 'hiding the decline' is about.

Vulture, I mentioned this already all the way back on page 1, but your explanation misses a key reason why hiding the decline is dishonest. Namely, that the fact that your calibration is horrible for a large chunk of your calibration period calls into question how accurate it is for the rest of the study. And so to avoid the possibility of people correctly recognizing the faults of bristlecone pine reconstructions, an additional data set is included to hide the faults. Also, you stated that the idea is "extensively discussed already elsewhere" but IIRC the problem wasn't widely known back in 1998 (the time period in question). The divergence issue wasn't even brought up until 1995, and that's not enough time to become extensively discussed.

I agree that simply hiding it is dishonest. A scientific paper should at least acknowledge the problem and provide references to discussion and review articles. This isn't my area obviously, so I have no idea of how much discussion there has been (just going on the quote of someone who is much more familiar with the relevant science; I wouldn't swear that he wasn't trying to underplay the problem though).

But if you listen to some of the reporting of these emails, it sounds like a) there has been a real decline in temperatures that is being covered up (false) and b) papers conflicting with the standard view were suppressed (false - the dissenting view were discussed, although it appears that these particular scientists involved in the emails were indeed trying to suppress dissenting opinions, which is obviously wrong).

Yes, it does call in to question the overall calibration of the tree ring data. But the calibration of the data, and the (estimated) reliability of the reconstructed temperatures
for various epochs is obviously a major research question in itself. Since it is outside the scope of a paper on a different subject, standard practice would be to use the widely accepted calibration method, or to (briefly) examine how different calibrations affect the conclusions.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
Any attempt to sweep this under the rug or pretend that the e-mails don't mean precisely what they appear to mean will backfire.
This statement made me laugh out loud - not in a mean way, you understand, just a surprised way.

They "appear" to mean something to you, but any attempt to "pretend" they don't mean that will backfire?

Fact: the only way to know what someone's words mean is to ask them. Normally, in words intended for public review, there's reason to assume that someone would have thought carefully about potential misunderstandings and reworded to be most clear. But not in private correspondence; I know that my friends and colleagues will know what I mean, because we've been talking about the same things for a long time and I know that they know exactly where I stand and what words are or are not to be taken at face value. People communicate differently in private words meant for people they know than they do in words meant for the public. No conclusions can be safely drawn by reading words that weren't meant for you.
 
Posted by PSRT (Member # 6454) on :
 
Fact: I used the word "Trick," yesterday to describe the process of solving a problem by understanding what the geometry of the situation described has to be in order to avoid having to set up and solve a multi-equation system.

Sorry. Just one word that has been getting highlighted as "Evidence," that the involved scientists are up to no good. TO me, just demonstrates the ignorance of the people making that claim.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Sure, but that is just spin you are using to deflect attention away from the facts obvious to any non-biased observer.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
quote:
Any attempt to sweep this under the rug or pretend that the e-mails don't mean precisely what they appear to mean will backfire.
This statement made me laugh out loud - not in a mean way, you understand, just a surprised way.

They "appear" to mean something to you, but any attempt to "pretend" they don't mean that will backfire?

Fact: the only way to know what someone's words mean is to ask them. Normally, in words intended for public review, there's reason to assume that someone would have thought carefully about potential misunderstandings and reworded to be most clear. But not in private correspondence; I know that my friends and colleagues will know what I mean, because we've been talking about the same things for a long time and I know that they know exactly where I stand and what words are or are not to be taken at face value. People communicate differently in private words meant for people they know than they do in words meant for the public. No conclusions can be safely drawn by reading words that weren't meant for you.

Ops, you posted a few pages back that you refused to read the emails out of a moral principle of respecting individuals privacy.

Therefore it's highly amusing to see you turn around and try and argue that the contents of the email should not be considered on their own merit, since we cannot know the context.

You see dear, I've read the emails. Any objective, unbiased person who does the same would clearly see the correspondence for what it is...active collusion. Your argument essentially boils down to an appeal to authority (scientific tribalism) and a call for people to avoid taking literal meanings from something taken potentially out of context.

Yet, how would you know...you haven't read them! [LOL]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
And where in heaven's name would we find one, Donald? [Wink]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Well, Heaven would be a good place to start looking...
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
Therefore it's highly amusing to see you turn around and try and argue that the contents of the email should not be considered on their own merit, since we cannot know the context.
Why? I am not sure I understand you.

I have not read the emails under discussion because I would feel like a slimy, prying scumbag if I did.

Moreover, I don't even see the point of reading them, because I know that they are private correspondence and that reading private correspondence is most frequently a source for misunderstanding and confusion rather than enlightenment unless one is the intended recipient.

You talk about "any objective, unbiased person reading..." but Daruma, that's exactly my point. It is not safe to assume that the meaning of a letter or email meant as a private communication from one colleague to another will be preserved in the reading of such an "objective, unbiased" person (whatever that means). Personal communication is highly informed by subjectivity and bias.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Salvation from indecision on this contentious topic lies in removing the politics and viewing it as a scientific possibility.

Politics enter because AGW/GW, if true and severe, require us to take action yesterday.

But such urgency ill aids rational analysis. To build on a Churchill quote, I'll say that to determine that which is urgently necessary it is necessary to remove notions of urgency and strictly examine the facts.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
quote:
Therefore it's highly amusing to see you turn around and try and argue that the contents of the email should not be considered on their own merit, since we cannot know the context.
Why? I am not sure I understand you.

I have not read the emails under discussion because I would feel like a slimy, prying scumbag if I did.

Moreover, I don't even see the point of reading them, because I know that they are private correspondence and that reading private correspondence is most frequently a source for misunderstanding and confusion rather than enlightenment unless one is the intended recipient.

You talk about "any objective, unbiased person reading..." but Daruma, that's exactly my point. It is not safe to assume that the meaning of a letter or email meant as a private communication from one colleague to another will be preserved in the reading of such an "objective, unbiased" person (whatever that means). Personal communication is highly informed by subjectivity and bias.

Ops, the debate of this thread boils down to this:

AGW proponents argue for support of a variety of actions based on the idea that we all need to "do something" based on this threat to the planet and humanity.

The foremost proponents have been arguing that the "science is settled" and that people who are skeptical are 'deniers' language meant to impugn anyone that doesn't toe the line of the scientific groupthink.

You yourself are one of those folks that has basically used the 'appeal to authority' argument...that those of us who are non-scientists should simply take the "consensus" at face value and accept what our eminently wiser and more knowledgeable scientists tell us to do. Which includes dramatically altering our economic situations, re-ordering our entire way of life, and submitting our national sovereignty to a global entity...all based on the supposed legitimacy of the threat of AGW. The proposals being done in the name of this supposed threat are radical and will affect many many people if they are implemented.

So when the foremost proponents of this theory of "consensus" have their emails hacked and publicly released, and those emails PLAINLY show they were conspiring to falsify results, avoid FOIA by deleting data and colluding to corrupt the peer review process, I think one can make a strong case for ignoring the breech of privacy here...given that so much is at stake regarding these scientists and the movement they are supporting.

To IGNORE what these emails reveal in the name of some imagined higher morality is just plain ludicrous.

If this were the case of some Big Oil henchmen deliberately colluding to hide info that indicted their actions as environmentally destructive, the hackers would be hailed as a WHISTLEBLOWER and called a hero.

It seems your whole argument here is that because this is a personal correspondence, we cannot gain ANY sort of accurate understanding of what they were discussing.

That's rather obtuse when one can easily read such discourse such as instructing a colleague to destroy data in the face of a FOIA request...one doesn't need to be "highly informed" or consider some kind of personal context is necessary to see precisely what they were conspiring to do.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
those emails PLAINLY show they were conspiring to falsify results, avoid FOIA by deleting data and colluding to corrupt the peer review process
They don't "PLAINLY show" anything if your interpretation correlates strongly with your opinion about AGW prior to reading the emails. Most of the instances of malfeasance that have been alleged have been "PLAINLY" wrong in my view. *shrug*

The FOIA stuff is troubling to me, but it's still no smoking gun. Jones seemed to have enough animosity for his rivals to do something like that out of spite, not because the actual contents of the data was damaging to them. The tone of the emails suggests as much. Petty and unethical, perhaps, but hardly the "last nail in the coffin."

I'm still looking for some evidence that the actual science produced was invalid. Can someone point to a published paper which should now be retracted because the data contained in it has been proven to be fraudulent?
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
MattP: it's about politics not science, don't you know!
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
To add to what MattP said- all that has really been shown for sure is that there are problems using tree ring data to estimate temperatures. That's something that was already pretty well known, even if the data had been patched together to make graphs that appeared more compelling.

Even if you assume the worst here, the reaction is equivalent to catching one Exxon gas station engaging in price gouging and then using it as evidence that not only do all Exxon stations gouge, but stations from all other companies as well.

To say that there was an effort to block FoI against the data is absurd, because the data itself is public domain, controlled by data stores that will release it to anyone who asks.

And the only thing that was shown about peer review was that it's definitely a tug of war between the journals and scientists to make sure that standards are adhered to. We saw evidence of the system working as intended journals implementing their review processes and scientists pressuring them to not let their standards drop. No corruption, just the process which has made it effective.

quote:
Which includes dramatically altering our economic situations, re-ordering our entire way of life, and submitting our national sovereignty to a global entity.
And then you have claims like that which start at gross exaggeration and end in complete fantasy.

Certainly using more efficient appliances does change your economic situation a bit, given that it leaves you with more money to spend on other things, and with things like harnessing solar and geothermal energy, people end up being more self sufficient and less dependent constantly feeding energy corporations.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html

http://www.desmogblog.com/elizabeth-may-informed-look-east-anglia-emails

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35297_Video-_Dissecting_the_Phony_Climategate_Scandal

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35289_Video-_Smacking_the_Hack_Attack
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
You yourself are one of those folks that has basically used the 'appeal to authority' argument...that those of us who are non-scientists should simply take the "consensus" at face value and accept what our eminently wiser and more knowledgeable scientists tell us to do.
I'm not sure I would summarize my position that way, though I see why you would. I would be more likely to say that in my opinion most of us are never going to understand the science that climate scientists use to come to their conclusions. This doesn't mean that the best idea is to follow the policy recommendations of anyone with a PhD, but I don't know what the best idea is. So while I might doubt the policy recommendations, and you might too, it makes people look silly when they loudly and repeatedly make bold statements about the underlying science, which they do not really understand.

I think I've also said (perhaps even in this thread) that in my opinion it's all a moot point; I don't for one second believe that we are going to quit emitting as much carbon dioxide as we darn well please until something really bad happens to make us.

quote:
That's rather obtuse when one can easily read such discourse such as instructing a colleague to destroy data in the face of a FOIA request...one doesn't need to be "highly informed" or consider some kind of personal context is necessary to see precisely what they were conspiring to do.
Did they do it? Because that's an important distinction.

Oh [LOL] Is this the one email I did see? Because I read one of them on the front page of something before feeling gross about it and quitting. The one that says something like "I would rather destroy the data than let these fools get ahold of it!"
Right, that is TOTALLY a statement that can only be taken at face value.

My point is that you can know (if you choose to read other people's illegally-obtained private correspondence) what was said, but you can't know what was said with what degree of seriousness. I, for instance, communicate via deadpan sarcasm all the time. This is effective because my friends and colleagues know what I think and the cognitive dissonance makes it funny and/or thought-provoking. However, in the event that a stranger were eavesdropping on a conversation or reading some of my email, the stranger might think things about me that were not true.
I am not the only person in the world who uses sarcasm, or exaggeration, or misstatement of mutually-known facts, or overdramatic word choice to enliven my communication and make it clearer. However, the very facets of communication that can make it clearer for someone who knows me can also make it more easily misunderstood by someone who happened to be reading it without my permission.

So, maybe one can learn something by reading those emails - but it is certainly inappropriate to pretend that there is one unequivocal reading and you know what it is. If you want to know what it mean, you will have to ask the authors - who, since the emails were stolen in the first place, may not always be sympathetic to these requests for better understanding.

quote:
To IGNORE what these emails reveal in the name of some imagined higher morality is just plain ludicrous.

If this were the case of some Big Oil henchmen deliberately colluding to hide info that indicted their actions as environmentally destructive, the hackers would be hailed as a WHISTLEBLOWER and called a hero.

Well, some people are hailing these hackers as whistleblowers and heroes. I am not one who would do so in either case. And the higher morality that theft of private correspondence is wrong might be "imagined" to you - in fact there are all those interesting conversations to be had about how morality might be entirely "imagined" - but actually I would have thought you, Daruma, to be more behind the idea that theft of what is privately yours is wrong.
Surprising!

Besides which, as far as I can tell, the emails don't actually reveal anything of particular importance. They don't reveal that all the data is fabricated; they don't reveal a global conspiracy; they might reveal that some scientists behaved unprofessionally in their private correspondence (or at least talked about behaving unprofessionally), but that's not really convincing to me, and even if it were it is certainly not a justification for theft.
I am pretty sure that if we stole almost anyone's email, we would find evidence of that person expressing unprofessional thoughts, possibly in a petty and childish manner. Probably we would find many people discussing potentially illegal or unethical activities. Does that mean it's right to steal everyone's email?

I don't think so.
Maybe you do.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
In a legal sense, since this information was obtained illegally, it is deemed "fruit of the poisoned tree". Therefore, everyone has to ignore it now.

> The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial.

So to be fair to global warming we must pretend that this never happened. I love it when they tell the jury that. The global warming jury will disregard this information about fraud because it was obtained illegally.

I know it sounds absurd but that's basically the impression I'm getting from people freaking out about the "hacking" angle of this story.
 
Posted by d'Yer (Member # 6506) on :
 
@ Pyrtolin
This legislation will do much more than encourage us to buy more efficient appliances. Two coal plants in my area have already been slated to close, laying off over 250 workers, this before any real legislation is even past.

Now lets look at the potential implications these closures hold:

Less power generation, in an environment of ever increasing demand, means higher energy prices.
Higher energy prices, while ten percent of the nation's population is unemployed is bad for those jobless.

I couldn't imagine losing my job in this economy, good luck finding anything when your competing against ten percent of the population for an opening.

Perhaps their loss will be justified, and they will get employed by the next solar farm that is built. However it is naive to say that this legislation will simply mean more efficient appliances.

I know specifically in my little corner of the world, there are no plans to build any new power generation in this area, green or otherwise.

Not to say that your naive Pyrtolin, I am merely suggesting you had not thought of some of the serious implications of this potential legislation.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
If those plants have been slated to close even in the absence of "real legislation", why do you assume that this is anything other than a strictly business-related decision by a business?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Also, IF (and it is obviously a big, disputed IF) releasing CO2 in some way has a cost to the general environment, why should that cost NOT be incorporated into the price of coal in the first place?

If you want to subsidize coal (bacause that is what not building in the cost of CO2 actually is) shouldn't that decision be made consciously and transparantly? Because right now, those jobs in the coal industry are currently being subsidized by everybody else.
 
Posted by d'Yer (Member # 6506) on :
 
@ DonaldD:
I assume because I work for this company in question, and closing these two plants falls in line with their (our?) Co2 reduction plans.

I'm not disputing whether or not coal should be subsidized. I'm only showing Pyrtolin that there are more implications than what he originally suggested.

As you said if the release of Co2 is detrimental to the environment, then steps need to be taken to offset that impact, but I am yet to be convinced either way.

There are ways to "wash" or "scrub" the emissions of these plants, that are to some extent already employed, however to reach levels some speculate may become mandated, very expensive equipment would have to be added to the plants. These costs would have to be considered while adding cost to coal.
Adding cost to coal to offset the cost of Co2 emission makes sense to me, but understand that adding cost to coal only adds to the cost of electricity, because the utility will simply pass the extra costs along.
So couldn't you still make the argument that coal is still being subsidized by the end users of the, now more expensive, electricity? (or everybody else)

Also, not to nitpick but they were not jobs in the coal industry, they were power utility jobs. The generation plants the employees worked at just happened to be coal fueled.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
(if you choose to read other people's illegally-obtained private correspondence)
I don't dispute that they were illegally obtained, but I'm still a little dubious about your use of the "private" adjective. This implies that they were highly "personal" e-mails about personal matters like a family pregnancy or a parent's illness. Yet the subject-matter under dispute was not personal, but work-related, and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) they were not sent from private e-mail accounts i.e. they were sent on company / university servers.

If my supposition that these were work accounts and not personal accounts is correct, then at a bare minimum, these scientists could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of their employers, or whoever was paying their bills. Indeed, I'd argue that legal or not, as the ones paying (in part) for this research, taxpayers have a definite interest in the content of those e-mails, and perhaps even a moral right to see them, given the public policy implications.

The privacy argument is mighty thin and your moral objections to reading the e-mails are somewhat overblown, in the circumstances.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
I assume because I work for this company in question, and closing these two plants falls in line with their (our?) Co2 reduction plans.

So it is just an assumption... did the plants specify that these closures were due to possible future CO2 rules or to comply with their CO2 reduction plans? BTW, which plants were these, anyway? Maybe there are some company announcements that we can look up to get more details. Also, are these publicly or privately owned plants?

As to the the implications of associating a cost to CO2 emissions, I think everyone is already aware (since resistance to AGW concepts is so often accompanied by claims that AGW supporters are out to ruin the economy and put people out of work [Smile] )
quote:
So couldn't you still make the argument that coal is still being subsidized by the end users of the, now more expensive, electricity? (or everybody else)
Well, I wouldn't use the term "subsidized by" but rather "payed for by". But that is the whole point: to build the true cost of all externalities into the end product - in this case, coal-generated electricity. Will such changes be painful? Sure. But that's why even the toothless proposals coming from governments talk about plans spanning decades. And it's why no such changes will successfully be implemented until large numbers of people start feeling comparable (or more) amounts of pain due to inaction.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:

I don't dispute that they were illegally obtained, but I'm still a little dubious about your use of the "private" adjective. This implies that they were highly "personal" e-mails about personal matters like a family pregnancy or a parent's illness

You can have private mean whatever you want it to mean. For me, it means "not public."

Your argument that because there are public policy implications to communications, the taxpayers have some sort of automatic right to read them is pretty questionable.

But that aside - and the moral implications of it aside, because obviously people want to read the emails so bad that they will construct ethical systems to allow them to no matter what - the fact that they were not intended for public consumption quite simply limits the amount of information that public consumers can get out of them.

To pretend otherwise is just ludicrous.

Tangentially related, I recently read this paper about how ignorance/incompetence in a particular arena necessarily leads the person who is less competent to vastly overestimate his or her capabilities and performance in that arena.
"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Justin Kruger and David Dunning."
Fascinating, and with a lot of implications for the larger current discussion.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
In a legal sense, since this information was obtained illegally, it is deemed "fruit of the poisoned tree". Therefore, everyone has to ignore it now.
What an excellent summary of what I have said!
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
See, it's only because we know and love you that we can tell that was rebuttal sarcasm [Smile]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
quote:
In a legal sense, since this information was obtained illegally, it is deemed "fruit of the poisoned tree". Therefore, everyone has to ignore it now.
What an excellent summary of what I have said!
Am I for theft of private emails?

Of course not.

But neither am I the sort to excuse corrupt malfeasance that is exposed to the light of day, even if that exposure was unethical.

I.E. - if the hacker gets caught, by all means, throw the book at them.

But to absolve these "scientists" for their actions simply because the hacker was unethical?

That's just silly. That's like saying a mass murderer should be let off the hook for his crimes because the cop forgot to read him his miranda rights. [Roll Eyes]

Pyrtolin - nice try. You continue to try and deflect and basically say: "Those emails don't say what you think they say, so shut up and say your hail Gaia's to the high church of AGW!"

I get it. To read these emails objectively would just be too damaging to your FAITH! [LOL]
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
the fact that they were not intended for public consumption quite simply limits the amount of information that public consumers can get out of them.
I'd say that it increases this amount, rather than limits it: Emails intended for the public can only reveal what these people want revealed, while private correspondence can also reveal what they don't want revealed.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
Donald, I knew SOMEONE would get it. And I hoped it would be you.
 
Posted by Lloyd (Member # 6118) on :
 
Opsanus Tau -- you say these email weren't intended for the public, but they were all subject to the FOIA requests that had been filed.

Lloyd
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
OT: Oh, go on, you silver-tongued devil you [Wink]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
Opsanus Tau -- you say these email weren't intended for the public, but they were all subject to the FOIA requests that had been filed.
Really? I'd be surprised if every email would be considered responsive to a specific FOIA request. Presumably you can't just ask for all of the email ever produced by an individual at an organization regardless of content.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
That kinda misses the point. OT just provided a perfect example of a message/post that only made sense to some, not all, of the people actively posting on Ornery. This post was "not intended for the public" in that only some of us would get the underlying sarcasm.

Her point was not that they could never be requisitioned by government, but rather that they were not intended to be understood by anyone but the recipients.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
Opsanus Tau -- you say these email weren't intended for the public, but they were all subject to the FOIA requests that had been filed.
Really? I'd be surprised if every email would be considered responsive to a specific FOIA request. Presumably you can't just ask for all of the email ever produced by an individual at an organization regardless of content.
You are correct, there are exemptions:
quote:


(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;[5]
related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;[5]
specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;[5]
trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;[5]
inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;[5]
personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;[5]
records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;[5]
contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;[5] or
geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells


 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Dr. William Gray, Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane forecasting specialist and the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University weighs in:
quote:

Had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.

There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.

<snip>

The last century's global warming of about 1 degree F is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation. These ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the globe's temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and into a generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global climate of the Medieval Period. We can do nothing but adapt to such long period natural temperature changes.

The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public.

Gray is a very heavy hitter in the climate department. Anyone want to argue he's not a "real" scientist or that he's in the pocket of big oil or something?
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Here is a clear discussion that cuts through all the BS on this topic, written by an astronomer friend of mine who writes science textbooks. In language we can all understand (yes, that's me too, I am not a climate expert), with real data, and a focus on the important, overarching issues:

1. There is no doubt that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide make planets warmer.
2. There is no doubt that human activity has been raising the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
3. There is no serious doubt that the Earth's temperature has risen roughly 1.4 degrees f in the past century
4. There is strong evidence that natural cycles are not responsible for the level of warming that has been experienced
5. The remaining uncertainty is in regards the timing and consequences of global warming

That's a very brief summary, but he also addresses questions of skeptics far better than I could. He added an addendum over "climate-gate", where he summed up the situation as follows
quote:
the failings of these individual scientists do not change the laws of physics

 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Good summary, Greg. It fits all the basic tghemes I;ve encountered since the topic first arose many decades ago.

Funny: if not for the attempt to goad we the people into preventative action, AGW would probably spontaneously have by now become a large grassroots movement.

But because it has been politicized, the actual science and probable implications have been subsumed by classic left/right politics, polarizing itself therein via each sides' most salient ideologies.

So we see the right tending to denounce AGW and Peak Oil (two neatly linked phenomena) in favor f small guv/free market notions while the left endorses collective action to mitigate potential damages that would affect all.
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
quote:
To add to what MattP said- all that has really been shown for sure is that there are problems using tree ring data to estimate temperatures. That's something that was already pretty well known, even if the data had been patched together to make graphs that appeared more compelling.

Even if you assume the worst here, the reaction is equivalent to catching one Exxon gas station engaging in price gouging and then using it as evidence that not only do all Exxon stations gouge, but stations from all other companies as well.

quote:
3. There is no serious doubt that the Earth's temperature has risen roughly 1.4 degrees f in the past century
Hey, I know my posts are boring, but I already mentioned this. This meme that Climategate is only about a couple scientists behaving like jerks and that one paper 11 years ago should be rescinded is wrong. Completely wrong.

The biggest and most important thing we got out of this release and the fallout is what most skeptics already knew or suspected: that the temperature data is useless. Let me repeat that: We do not know the temperature of the last 130 years.

CRU admitted they lost vitally important data. We know from the release that the code is a mess and extremely poorly documented. We know from the emails that some people were attempting to manipulate it to make it look good. We also know from experience that it is very, very easy to manipulate temperature data.

Yes, that's right. Most people probably assume that getting the temperature of the Earth just involves reading a bunch of thermometers. But the surface temperature record of the Earth comes from two things: the raw data (thermometers) and adjustments (manual manipulations of the thermometers). There's good reason that these adjustments need to be done. But it also gives people a nice easy way of making the data say what it wants to. Just make up adjustments, and you can turn a flat temperature profile into a hockey stick without any problems whatsoever. And with no documentation and a mysterious loss of data, who's to argue?

Before you roll your eyes, go do some reading on this yourself. A HUGE chunk of the warming in the temperature profiles comes from these adjustments, NOT the thermometers.

Given the poor documentation, the loss of data, and the known propensity of these people to play fast and loose with the truth if it fits their agenda, any reasonable scientist would consider the data useless for further analysis. I am absolutely convinced on that.

This is the temperature profile that every single climate model is based on. Again, let me repeat: The entirety of global warming science is based on a data set that is not up to scientific standards.

And you say that this is no big deal? Even the Met agrees; they're planning on redoing the entire data set (of course, it'll probably be done in secret, but whatever...) They know how bad this looks. And it looks bad because it is bad.

Greg's astronomer friend is wrong. We don't know the temperature change of the past 130 years, not to any reasonable accuracy. And without knowing that, we know absolutely nothing about the climate.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Here is a clear discussion that cuts through all the BS on this topic, written by an astronomer friend of mine who writes science textbooks. In language we can all understand (yes, that's me too, I am not a climate expert), with real data, and a focus on the important, overarching issues:

1. There is no doubt that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide make planets warmer.
2. There is no doubt that human activity has been raising the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
3. There is no serious doubt that the Earth's temperature has risen roughly 1.4 degrees f in the past century
4. There is strong evidence that natural cycles are not responsible for the level of warming that has been experienced
5. The remaining uncertainty is in regards the timing and consequences of global warming

That's a very brief summary, but he also addresses questions of skeptics far better than I could. He added an addendum over "climate-gate", where he summed up the situation as follows
quote:
the failings of these individual scientists do not change the laws of physics

There's a problem with your assertions, for #1:
quote:
Building on a methodology published 15 years ago in Nature, climatologist and NASA medallist John Christy and colleague David Douglass studied global temperature impacts of volcanic activity and ocean-atmospheric oscillations (the "El Nino" effect) and separated these from global temperature trends over the past 28 years.

The result of their analysis is a CO2-induced amplification factor close to one, which has implications clearly at odds with the earlier IPCC position.

Does it make the planet warmer, barely.

For #2, that's quite literally a crop in the bucket. A paltry 0.117%. There is no evidence to suggest this minimal amount does anything of significance - and with an amplification factor of one, we can probably ignore it.

For #3, this is now highly questionable. Recent reviews of raw data show that past temperature records are inexplicably adjusted downward and more recent temperatures are adjusted upward - in one case in Australia the adjustment is almost 6 degrees upward per century. So far, there is no justification for these adjustments. When looking at records from well sited stations, we see warming so small that it remains with historical variability. The end result of these adjustments is to create warming where none existed.

For #4:
quote:
Pearson's work [recently published in Nature ] contains a couple of remarkable results.

First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days.

We can't be sure what triggered the Earth to cool despite, or because of, its changing green-house atmospheric blanket, but once it did, cycles of ice cap formation and glaciation commenced, apparently governed by the same variations in the Earth's orbit that govern the ice ages of the past million years.

Second, while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 first dropped in association with the cooling, then rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle.

CO2 levels 3-4 times present day levels, and the result was global cooling. While continuing to cool, CO2 rose dramatically. Certainly these global temperature swings and CO2 levels from those periods cannot be assigned to man.

For #5: That uncertainty is ridiculously high. Remember, we're supposed to be warming now but we're cooling; hurricanes should be Katrina-like every year with more of them but the opposite happened, sea levels should be rising but are at best increasing 2-3mm per year, etc, etc, etc. we could get better predictive results by literally throwing darts at a board or letting a chicken at the local county fair make them based on which square it pecks.

Not a single one of the apocolyptic predictions is working out. The hypothesis of AGW is being directly contradicted by observed results. Normally observed data contradicting a hypothesis would result in throwing out the hypothesis. Instead, we've had a cabal of scientists and politicians alter the data so that the hypothesis looks real.

[ December 09, 2009, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Just how out of touch is the climerati on the Climategate issue? Al Gore, a.k.a. "The Goreacle" being interviewed in Slate:
quote:
Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus. But the noise machine built by the climate deniers often seizes on what they can blow out of proportion, so they’ve thought this is a bigger deal than it is.

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.

Gee Al, maybe just this once you should get a handle on what the hell you're talking about. The most recent emails in Climategate were from November 2009. Last month, this year. G2 is looking at one right now from Phil Jones dated Nov 12, 2009 10:18:54. There are dozens, hundreds even, from this year and the last 10 years, not "more than 10 years old" as Al wants you to believe.

But you know what? More than a few people are going to believe what Al just said. You will see this parroted on blogs and probably in the media. It's a complete fabrication but it supports the great lie so it's too good to check.

[ December 09, 2009, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Wow, it's spreading! Via ClimateAudit:
quote:
An alleged series of attempted security breaches at the University of Victoria in the run-up to next week's Copenhagen summit on climate change is evidence of a larger effort to discredit climate science, says a renowned B.C. researcher.

Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.

"The key thing is to try to find anybody who's involved in any aspect of the IPCC and find something that you can ... take out of context," Mr. Weaver said, drawing a parallel to the case of British climate researcher Phil Jones, who was forced to step down this week after skeptics seized upon hacked emails they allege point to a plot to exaggerate the threat of climate change.

"People don't like it, so they try to discredit it, and the way they try to discredit it is by attacking the individual responsible for it," Mr. Weaver said.

<snip>

"The real story in this is, who are these people and why are they doing it?" Mr. Weaver said, noting the Jones controversy was not the result of a "lucky hack" days before the Copenhagen conference. "They're trying to find anything. They don't care what it is."

He believes the campaign is driven by the fossil-fuel industry, citing "a war for public opinion."

Those dirty, evil skeptics! Will they stop at nothing!?!?!

Meanwhile, in related news also from the University of Victoria, the Department of Anthropology issued an urgent warning about numerous break-ins throughout the campus, an excerpt from which follows:
quote:
Subject: FW: Urgent/Campus break-ins
Hello all,

I’ve just learned that there have been a number of office and lab break-ins across campus in recent days–initially Science & Engineering buildings, but now Cornett & BEC. Psychology has had several offices and labs broken into, and last night there were break-ins in second-floor offices in BEC. Entry seems to be happening by jimmying/forcing locks.

In the short term, you need to ensure that small, portable valuables are NOT LEFT IN YOUR OFFICES, particularly at night when the break-ins appear to have been happening. Consider what would happen to your teaching and research if your laptop went missing–back important files up today …

Keep an eye open and report suspicious activity

Steve McIntyre has it nailed:
quote:
GCM (General Crime Modelers) believe that the break-ins at the Psychology Department at the University of Victoria are the proverbial “smoking gun” that proves the teleconnection between American fossil fuel interests and the Russian secret service, that resulted in Climategate.


As crime vigilante Weaver asks:

“The real story in this is, who are these people and why are they doing it?”

[LOL] [LOL]

[ December 09, 2009, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I'ma hack G2's porn accounts and private correspondences and share them with the world. Prove he's really just an AI agit-bot. I'm a skeptic too!
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
G2, I wrote a long response but I will replace it with a shorter one. Based on my experience with your postings, I don't have faith in anything you say. And it's not worth the time to point out why you are wrong.

Life is too short.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
It sill astounds me that there is such a thing as Borg porn. O brave new world that has such wondrous TV pilots in it!
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
So are you saying that arguing in defense if your positions regarding AGW is a waste of time Greg? I only ask because in a forum like this your posts are out there for everyone to see, not just the person you are arguing directly with. It seems to me that you are either avoiding stress at the expense of defending a position you seem to be passionate about, or you are engaging in the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm right, you're wrong, now go away and let the grownups talk". If you post arguments in support of what you are saying you just might reach an open-minded reader. On the other hand, if you treat your opponents like they are not worth engaging in debate you are likely to turn away open-minded readers.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
G2, I wrote a long response but I will replace it with a shorter one. Based on my experience with your postings, I don't have faith in anything you say. And it's not worth the time to point out why you are wrong.

Life is too short.

Your problem is that G2 quoted, in his last posts, several scientists and their work. It's not just G2 you have to dismiss so you can continue to hold onto the great lie.

You can say it's not worth your time, call G2 names, threaten G2 again, whatever you want to do, but the truth has a way of getting out and it is finally getting out in a way that cannot be simply dismissed. G2 will continue putting that truth out whatever you do, or don't do.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Yup, waste of time. The G2 abides in self-satisfied and apparently self-sustaining ignorance.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Interesting video here done by a 6th grader and his father. He found some of the rural sites which are presumably well sited and compared them to a nearby urban sites within the US. They walk you through it so you can replicate their experiment ... novel concept!

They found that the rural sites show no significant heating over the last 100 years.

Only when the data is adjusted as part of homogenization are we able to create a heating trend. This homogenization process relies on the idea that the urban heat island effects are inconsequential. This video shoots a pretty big hole through that theory.
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
Oh, crud. Looks like I had the last post on the page. Pyrtolin, MattP, Greg, Opsanus, and anyone else that thinks that ClimateGate doesn't matter in terms of the underlying science behind AGW, make sure you read it. I'm sure it'll be ignored anyway, but I won't let the forum software be used as an excuse.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
So are you saying that arguing in defense if your positions regarding AGW is a waste of time Greg?
The problem is that G2 is doing a AGW denier gish gallop. He's not presenting and defending a position, he's just copying and pasting excerpts from multiple articles on skeptic web sites, each of which would take some effort to research thoroughly enough to effectively rebut. It's not reasonable to ask even a passionate lay-person to single-handedly respond to all of it when the response will be ignored and another barrage of copy/pastes will follow.

G2 isn't making an argument to be countered. He's not even making someone else's argument in his own words (which is about the best most of us can manage on the topic.) He's just pasting stuff from people who's opinions he would prefer to be correct.

When you stick to one basic, easily verifiable factual claim (such as the New Zealand adjustments mentioned earlier) it's easy to show whether a given claim is correct.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
CRU admitted they lost vitally important data.
What vitally important data was lost. CRU doesn't produce climate data - they are a consumer of it. Anything they have "lost" would have been local copies of other peoples data or (potentially) adjusted versions of other people's data.

quote:
We know from the release that the code is a mess and extremely poorly documented.
All code is a mess and poorly documented. I wouldn't expect scientists to be better at this than professional programmers. The better question is whether the code did what the programmer wanted it to do and did it do so reliably. I'd be interested in seeing a particular snippet of code that you think is representative of the problem. The ones that I've seen so far have not seemed problematic to me.

quote:
We know from the emails that some people were attempting to manipulate it to make it look good.
This is the anti-AGW spin. No email said "I'm manipulating this to make it look good." Perhaps you could quote what you are specifically referring to.

quote:
We also know from experience that it is very, very easy to manipulate temperature data.
How so?
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Dave at Work, I would be happy to think hard about a critique written by anyone else here other than G2. Only G2 has passed below my filter for worthwhile discourse.

And actually I am not enormously passionate about climate change. I have not followed every comment in this thread (as I might do if the topic were Keynes, NASA, cancer, or the Dallas Cowboys)
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
...or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
dailytelegraph.au

quote:
We modern humans are lucky to live towards the end of the most recent of the intermittent but welcome warm interludes. It is a 10,000 year-long period called the Holocene, during which our civilisations have evolved and flourished.

The cores tell the story that this period is only a short interlude during a long-term decline in global temperature - they also warn of the imminence of the next glacial episode in a series stretching back more than 2 million years.

quote:
Climate, it seems, changes ceaselessly: sometimes cooling, sometimes warming, oft-times for reasons we do not fully understand.

Similar cores through polar ice reveal, contrary to received wisdom, that past temperature changes were followed - not preceded but followed - by changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.

Yet the public has been misinformed to believe that increasing human carbon dioxide emissions will cause runaway warming; it is surely a strange cause of climate change that postdates its supposed effect?

quote:
Despite all the efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the expenditure of about $100 billion of research money since 1990, no scientific paper exists that demonstrates that the late 20th century warming, or the past 10 years of cooling for that matter, fall outside the rates and magnitudes of past (geological) climate change.

 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
philnotfil,
Your source, Professor Bob Carter, has his Ph.D in Palaeontology. A person's background does not render their arguments invalid, but he offers no arguments other than his expertise, and in that instance, his expertise is relevant. As reported in this news article, his case that there is no global warming rests solely on his assertion that "no scientific paper exists that demonstrates that the late 20th century warming, or the past 10 years of cooling for that matter, fall outside the rates and magnitudes of past (geological) climate change"

My source is also not a climatologist by degree, but at least he cites data (and shows the data on his website).

quote:
Question 3: Is there any doubt that Earth has been warming up during the past century?

Answer: Not any more. For awhile, there were questions concerning whether temperature data were being analyzed correctly, but those doubts have been almost entirely dispelled (see the "postscript" section below). For the past several decades, we've had satellite data from which to make measurements of Earth's global average temperature. Data from earlier times were local rather than global, which means there are greater uncertainties in converting them to a global average. However, by studying a great variety of data sources (ranging from newspaper temperature reports to natural records like those in tree rings), the uncertainties have been reduced enough to make the trend quite clear. The graph below shows the results: The global average temperature has increased about 0.8°C (1.4°F) in the past century.

Key point for Question 3: You will no longer find any serious disagreement about the fact that Earth's global average temperature has warmed about 0.8°C (1.4°F) in the past century. What about the claim that the warming trend has stopped during the past decade? A look at the graph shows that the warming has indeed slowed or stopped during this period — but you can also see that 10 years on a graph like this are not enough to establish a trend, and that the past decade has still been the hottest on record. Indeed, the fact that the warming slowed or stopped during this time fits well within the expected range of variability that can occur due to natural effects. The well-understood theory of the greenhouse effect clearly predicts that the warming trend will resume, and at this point there is nothing in the data that suggests otherwise.



 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
It may be that he is only implying and the basis for his article doesn't actually come from there, but it seems like he is using the core samples being dug up by the team on this boat to support what he is saying.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:

G2 isn't making an argument to be countered. He's not even making someone else's argument in his own words (which is about the best most of us can manage on the topic.) He's just pasting stuff from people who's opinions he would prefer to be correct.


G2 provides considerable data to support his argument and opinions. The professional opinions of scientists in the field, the results of their studies and historical records, all are important and provided by G2 to support his opinions. If G2 did not provide that support, guys like Greg Davidson (and presumably you now) would say it should be dismissed because it's just G2's uninformed opinion. So you are trying to play it both ways here, a bit of a lame tactic but one that no doubt plays well to the Greg Davidson's of the world.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:


quote:
We know from the emails that some people were attempting to manipulate it to make it look good.
This is the anti-AGW spin. No email said "I'm manipulating this to make it look good." Perhaps you could quote what you are specifically referring to.

Tricks to hide the decline, code where "very artificial" adjustments were made to force data to conform to desired results. You must have seen these talked about in some detail here.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
G2 knows that MattP and perhaps some others don't like it when he refers to the results of studies and other hard data but he's going to do it anyway so that people can understand what's going on. What we have here is the temperature record from a central Greenland ice core. As the author says, "it gives us about as close as we can come to a direct, experimental measurement of temperature at that one spot for the past 50,000 years." We are looking at the actual, unadjusted data. The real temperatures over the past 50,000 years.

What is clearly shown is that any current warming is well within the range of past warming events. The current temperatures are actually on the low end of the average over the last 12,000 years and the rate of increase is within normal rates. In short, nothing unusual is happening. Everything is within the normal variation that has occurred over the past 400,000 years. It is only when we cherry pick the time to start at the end of the little ice age that it begins to look like something unusual is happening.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
philnotfil,
If he has core sample data, then he should present that data (with enough background evidence to indicate that that data represents global and just not local temperature trends). I would tend to think that is is very hard to get global coverage with core samples, and most climate models predict that localized sampling will not be adequate to measure global trends.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
And, now, here is the information that G2 doesn't want you to see. Click on the detailed analysis of the e-mail contents and their significance.

Enjoy. [Smile]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Complete apologetics. Simple, biased, pseudo-analysis in a failed attempt to right the sinking ship.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Thank you, Donald. I can't believe I missed that.

I guess I was suckered in by those point-by-point discussions, many with specific examples.

What really fooled me was this first one:

quote:
In an emal dated Nov. 12, 1999, Prof. Phil Jones stated that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline." The email doesn not say what decline he was talking about, so it has been widely misreported that he was hiding a decline in temperatures. Those reports are not correct, nor is it accurate to say that he was actually hiding data, even though he chose the word. The word "trick" was used as it is in common parlance to mean a clever solution to a problem (e.g. "I know a trick to get that stain off your shirt."). The decline he said he was hiding referred to one series of high-latitude tree ring data from 1960 to 1994 that did not follow measured temperatures at the same locations, even though they had followed measured temperatures for about a century before 1960. That set of tree ring data incorrectly implied a downward temperature trend after 1960. It cannot be said that Jones was literally hiding this fact because two years before he wrote this email he was co-author on the first paper to document this "divergence" issue. That paper, published in Nature in February of 1998, concluded publicly that these post-1960 tree ring data produce inaccurate temperature estimates... Hence, "hiding" this decline simply meant following the advice that Jones and colleagues had already aired in peer-reviewed literature two years earlier. Many more papers have since been published on the same topic.
How foolish I am! Just because something is published in Nature and then in many papers since doesn't mean it isn't being kept secret. Only an idiot would find that explanation plausible in any way.

That you again, Donald. Your statement revealed how unbelievable it all is.

[Wink]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Actually, G2 does want that read ... once again you've let your bias dictate your beliefs. It's a 15 page pdf so G2 will have to wait to read it all when time allows but rest assured he will and encourages everyone to do so. G2 prefers that all the facts and data come out and be open to review - something the AGW crowd has worked to suppress.

As for the "trick" to "hide the decline", your snark is not entirely accurate. If you look back through this thread, you'll see it mentioned exactly that way. We were well aware here that it was about the divergence and discussed why we should rely on tree ring data for past temperatures - perhaps they provide false readings more often than just this once? Why is it inaccurate only after 1960 but considered reliable for all past readings?

No, "it cannot be said that Jones was literally hiding this fact". Notice the weasel word there, "literally"? It can't be "literally" said. Why do you think the author felt compelled to add that word?

BTW, do you know why this "trick" was done" The reason, as explained on Sep 22, 1999 by Michael Mann to coauthors in 938018124.txt, was to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”.

[ December 10, 2009, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”.
I can't imagine why they'd do that. As we know, the skeptics are very good about determining full context before jumping to conclusions about a the ramifications of given piece of information.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Why is it inaccurate only after 1960 but considered reliable for all past readings?
Perhaps because there is a high correlation with the measured temperatures before 1960, and perhaps because it is not the only way temperatures were estimated before 1960.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
A prophesy, or two: nobody who previously believed that Jones was in fact hiding 'the decline' will be swayed by the discovery that Jones was one of several people who initially observed the tree ring/summer temp divergence and who subsequently published said observation for all the world to see.

And years from now, people will still be citing how Jones was in fact using a trick to hide the decline in global average temps.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
"As we know, the skeptics are very good about determining full context before jumping to conclusions about a the ramifications of given piece of information."
If you start using "skeptic" as an insult, then goddess Athena will smite you, and rightly so.

The full context can only be perceived by *revealing* information, not by hiding it.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
If you start using "skeptic" as an insult, then goddess Athena will smite you, and rightly so.
I'm only using the term there in response to a sentence using the same term, to avoid confusion. I don't think skeptic is a bad word and I consider myself to be, broadly speaking, a pretty skeptical person.

quote:
The full context can only be perceived by *revealing* information, not by hiding it.
All of the information was revealed, as has been pointed out multiple times. The only people who are likely to be thrown off by the "hide the decline" stuff are those who are looking at individual data in isolation, attempting to cherry pick evidence to support a political agenda rather than intelligently comment on the science. Climate scientists - even the skeptical ones - are aware of the "divergence problem."

It would be best, of course, to make sure that the "trick" is disclosed in the methodology summary of any papers that includes it. And, for all I know, it has been.

[ December 10, 2009, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
G2 wrote:
quote:
BTW, do you know why this "trick" was done" The reason, as explained on Sep 22, 1999 by Michael Mann to coauthors in 938018124.txt, was to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”.
quote:
So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don't think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!
quote:
THe key point we emphasize in this paper is that the low-frequency variability in our hemispheric temperature reconstruction is basically the same if we don't use any dendroclimatic indicators at all (though we certainly resolve less variance, can't get a skillful reconstruction as far back, and there are notable discrepancies at the decadal and interannual timescales). A believe I need to add a sentence to the current discussion on this point, since there is an unsubstantiated knee-jerk belief that our low-frequency variability is suppressed by the use of tree ring data.

We have shown that this is not the case: (see here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_datarev.html
and specifically, the plot and discussion here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_nodendro.html
Ironically, you'll note that there is more low-frequency variability when the tree ring data *are* used, then when only other proxy and historical/instrumental data are used!



[ December 10, 2009, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
I continue to note with amusement that the BELIEVERS continue to either do what some have accused G2 of doing (merely posting links to the arguments of the holy Priests of the church of AGW) or seizing upon one tangent or another as some sort of reason to throw out the entire bigger picture that the sum totality of what these emails reveal.

This is why I find the term "useful idiot" so apropos. [Exploding]

"Hide the decline?"

What about HIDING, DELETING and/or LOSING the Raw Data so that no one else may attempt to duplicate their models?

Dear Ornery scientists, what about applying the most sacred principle of the Scientific Method and Peer Review?!??!

In which your raw data is provided so that other scientists can also test your hypothesis?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
Which raw data, specifically, do you allege to have been deleted or lost? For that matter, what raw data do you believe that CRU produces?

[ December 10, 2009, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
I continue to note with amusement that the BELIEVERS continue to either do what some have accused G2 of doing (merely posting links to the arguments of the holy Priests of the church of AGW)...
So the Pew Trust is part of the Holy Church? Could you provide a list of all of those who are part of the Church?

OTOH, it might be easier for you to list those who aren't part of the Church. [Smile]

quote:
What about HIDING, DELETING and/or LOSING the Raw Data so that no one else may attempt to duplicate their models?
As explained previously, the Raw Data is out there. None of the modellers created Raw Data. They only utilized it.

In fact, some even published papers about some of the Raw Data that was deleted (such as Jones above). How's that for "deleting" raw data? [LOL]

Yes, all of the computer code is not available for examination. But that doesn't stop anyone from creating their own computer code and duplicating the work that way. From what others have reported, something like nine or ten teams have managed to do so. And all have come to similar conclusions.

So duplication of the experiment is not only possible, but has been successfully done, satisfying the Scientific Method. So where are your models showing the other ten to be wrong?

I would toss back to you the phrase "useful idiot," but that wouldn't be fair. After all, I don't think the first part of the term really applies. [Wink]
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
MattP:
quote:
What vitally important data was lost. CRU doesn't produce climate data - they are a consumer of it. Anything they have "lost" would have been local copies of other peoples data or (potentially) adjusted versions of other people's data.
Here's what CRU says: Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

So in order to validate the adjustments they did, we need to know what adjustments they did. But we don't know what adjustments they did!. Without the raw data, there's no way of knowing. Yes, presumably the raw data can be obtained from the original sources, but how can we be sure exactly what data sets were used? How can we tell what adjustments were used?

quote:
The better question is whether the code did what the programmer wanted it to do and did it do so reliably. I'd be interested in seeing a particular snippet of code that you think is representative of the problem. The ones that I've seen so far have not seemed problematic to me.
The Harry_Read_Me file is sufficient evidence of that, I think. From what I could tell, Harry was attempting to replicate the data and finding it nearly impossible. So if someone inside the CRU who presumably has access to a lot more resources than we do can't do it, then how are we supposed to?

quote:
This is the anti-AGW spin. No email said "I'm manipulating this to make it look good." Perhaps you could quote what you are specifically referring to.
Gah, I don't remember off the top of my head. Basically, someone was talking about ocean temperatures in 1940, and picking a number (0.15C?) to adjust it down so that it'll still be there but not be as problematic. It was basically an example of choosing an adjustment to fit what you want, rather than based off a set of algorithms or whatever they do. I may have misinterpreted this email, but I'm too lazy to look it up. In any case, it's basically irrelevent.

Take this as an example. For those that don't click on links, it's basically a comparison between the raw GHCN data for a specific site in Australia and the adjusted data. The raw data shows a slight cooling trend, which actually looks like a step change in 1940 (the city was bombed in 1941, for what it's worth). However, the adjustment not only deals with this step change, but also adds plenty of other adjustments as well, turning a stable or cooling record into a hockey stick.

Why? How? It's impossible to calculate the reasons for this without adequate documentation or without the code. This is NOAA, of course, but you can assuredly find the same sort of thing in CRU as well. If there's no original code, or if everything's too much of a mess to make it work, how can you justify this scientifically? You basically have to assume the original adjustments were correct. But how can you assume there's warming in this town that saw no warming with five different temperature records? Where did that warming come from, and why didn't it show up in their thermometers?

Can you see why this is suspicious?

Again, the adjustments make up a very large part of the overall warming trend. We've seen in CRU's code for 1000+ year reconstructions artificial fudge factors that were applied to make the data look like what it wants. Without the code, without the raw data, without the documentation, how do we know it didn't happen here? We've seen GISS readjust the 1930s downward well after the fact. Obviously it's not due to any new temperature data, so why the change? How can you change the past like that?

If you see one trend in the raw data and see an entirely different trend in data that has been aggregated, manipulated, and adjusted in certain ways, are you going to accept that blindly? Or are you going to scrutinize every step you took to make sure you didn't make a mistake?

Greg, your astronomer friend is wrong. Simply asserting that there's no debate about the warming doesn't make it true. For one, there's an error present which makes one question how much he knows (he suggests that tree ring data is included in the NOAA graph he shows; this data is solely from raw thermometers and adjustments). For two, he doesn't mention a thing about the issue at question here, which is whether these adjustments are reasonable (NOAA actually shows how much of the warming is due to adjustments, and IIRC it's about 40%). So if nearly half the warming comes from manipulating the data and we have no idea how it was manipulated, how can there be broad consensus? It's impossible, other than to have a leap of faith. And for three, his only comment on the discrepency between satellites and warming was in regards to the troposphere, but doesn't even mention the drift that is occurring between satellite surface data (both UAH and RSS) and surface station data (NOAA, CRU, GISS).

Wayward, when I first saw the explanation for "hide the decline" from the AGW folks, I was a bit confused. They claimed it was all there in the article, but I seemed to recall that the brouhaha was because it wasn't (remember, it was discovered that this was what they did several years ago). In fact, I distinctly remember Mann himself angrily denying that grafting real records onto reconstructions was never done. But I figured I was wrong, and that some word on the issues was mentioned in the fine print. But after both you and vulture brought this up as vindication (ie, that it was adequately mentioned in the original Nature paper), I decided to look up the original.

It's not there. The explanation of what they did, I mean.

Here's the only mention of tree ring limitations:

quote:
Standardization of certain biological proxy records relative to estimated growth trends, and the limits of constituent chronology segment lengths (for example, in dendroclimatic reconstructions), can restrict the maximum timescale of climate variability that is recorded9, and only a limited subset of the indicators in the multiproxy network may thus 'anchor in' the longest-term trends (for example, variations on timescales greater than 500 years). However, the dendroclimatic data used were carefully screened for conservative standardization and sizeable segment lengths.
I suppose one can reasonably argue that that is sufficient discussion of the divergence phenomenon, but I doubt it. There's nothing specifically there about divergence, and since he saw a divergence from 1960 on then the statement that the data was "carefully screened for conservative standardization" seems false. The divergence happened. We know it did from these emails and their explanation. But from the paper, it sounds like they're saying "it's tough to estimate temperature from ring growth, but we were careful and made sure it was done correctly". Yet we know that it wasn't, and that temperature did not correlate with tree rings for an important part of the data set.

But did they discuss it in their results? They mention some sensitivty in terms of the types of proxies used, including the dendroclimatic ones (where the issue lies). So surely, if (as your quote states) the paper "concluded publicly that these post-1960 tree ring data produce inaccurate temperature estimates", then it should be here, right? Here's what they say (emphasis mine):

quote:
But certain sub-components of the proxy dataset (for example, the dendroclimatic indicators) appear to be especially important in resolving the large-scale temperature patterns, with notable decreases in the scores reported for the proxy data set if all dendroclimatic indicators are withheld from the multiproxy network. On the other hand, the long-term trend in NH is relatively robust to the inclusion of dendroclimatic indicators in the network, suggesting that potential tree growth trend biases are not influential in the multiproxy climate reconstructions.
Nothing in there specifically mentioning the post-1960 divergence. Nothing about inaccurate temperature aspects. On the contrary, they say it doesn't matter. Yet if it didn't matter, why did they have to hide the decline?

Even more damning is their claim that grafting the temperature record onto the reconstruction was known. I pored through the methods section and managed to not fall asleep in the process. I don't understand half the statistics, but I know I'd be able to find something that important. It wasn't there. Anywhere.

There is no mention anywhere in this article about grafting temperature data on to the reconstruction. On the contrary, they state several times that their reconstructed temperature after 1960 was high, even though we know it was actually low before they hid the decline. Their method section doesn't even begin to mention it. There's nothing in there at all. Anyone reading this paper would assume the 1960+ part of the reconstruction was determined in the same manner that the rest of it was. Why? Because the methods didn't state what they did!

All this talk about "trick" being synonymous with "technique" may be true, but it's also true that you need to document your tricks or techniques in your manuscripts. Mann didn't.

In other words, CRU's explanation of this email is still bunk.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Yet we know that it wasn't, and that temperature did not correlate with tree rings for an important part of the data set.
I believe the answer to this is in the e-mail that G2 referenced (above). After 1960, the tree-ring data diverged from the measured temperatures, while before 1960, they correlated nicely. Why it suddenly diverged, they don't know. So they threw out the data after 1960, since they knew that it didn't reflect the real temperatures.

Why didn't they throw out all the data? Because, before 1960, it seems to correlate well, so they wanted one more "data point" (points?) in their historical reconstruction.

What I find most telling is the paragraph I quoted above from the private e-mails (not intended for public scrutiny):

quote:
We have shown that this is not the case: (see here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_datarev.html
and specifically, the plot and discussion here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_nodendro.html
Ironically, you'll note that there is more low-frequency variability when the tree ring data *are* used, then when only other proxy and historical/instrumental data are used!

If I'm reading this right (and, admittedly, I do not fully understand the term "low-frequency variability--perhaps our more learned members can explain?), what the author is saying is that including the tree-ring data makes their temperature estimations more uncertain than without it! If the tree-ring data was omitted, there would be less variability of the temperature ranges as indicated from the other sources.

So throwing out tree-ring data that they knew was inaccurate, and including tree-ring data that apparently increases the uncertainty of their estimations, does not indicate cherry-picking the data to fit their hypothesis. Rather, it shows integrity in trying to use as much good data as possible.

If I am correct in the above, then it also vindicates the authors concern that highlightig this would just provide fodder for the nay-sayers. After all, look what happened when the nay-sayers found out--"the skeptics [had] a field day in casting doubt." This in spite of the explanations in the very same e-mail.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
but doesn't even mention the drift that is occurring between satellite surface data (both UAH and RSS) and surface station data (NOAA, CRU, GISS).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1114772v1

That's old news. They forgot to calibrate the satellite readings to account for the fact that they've drifted further away from earth over time. The further away the satellite is, the cooler the readings were. Once they properly corrected for that drift, the temperature trends matched the projections reasonably well.
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
[DOH]

"but doesn't even mention the drift that is occurring between satellite surface data (both UAH and RSS) and surface station data (NOAA, CRU, GISS)."

"skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm"

The surface is not the troposphere, Pyrtolin.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
We don't call things that sit on the ground to measure temperature "satellites".

G2 was inaccurate in describing the nature of the measurements that had seemed to diverge. That doesn't change the fact that the problem that he was referring to has been tracked to a mathematical error and resolved.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
I find the course of this conversation a little frustrating, but it is also somewhat intriguing. My contribution was to quote a few basic principles a little while ago:

quote:
1. There is no doubt that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide make planets warmer.
2. There is no doubt that human activity has been raising the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
3. There is no serious doubt that the Earth's temperature has risen roughly 1.4 degrees f in the past century
4. There is strong evidence that natural cycles are not responsible for the level of warming that has been experienced
5. The remaining uncertainty is in regards the timing and consequences of global warming

No one has argued points 1 and 2, which seem to drive the basic physics of the situation. Assertion 3 about global temperatures has not been countered by global data indicating the that there has been no increase. There is a lot of angry argument asserting that some scientist used a bogus argument and therefore there's no climate change. Many of these can be clearly refuted (I loved Wayward Son's example of the "conspirator" scientist publishing a paper on the very topic that he was alleged to be hiding).

It's interesting that the climate-gate argument is that if scientists who believe in global warming engage in bogus arguments*, that is evidence that the science is wrong, whereas no number of bogus arguments made against climate change seem count against the case for the climate change deniers.

*more realistically in some cases, taking shortcuts which do not invalidate their science - and in once case cited above actually dilute the case for global warming.
 
Posted by Lloyd (Member # 6118) on :
 
quote:
No one has argued points 1 and 2, which seem to drive the basic physics of the situation. Assertion 3 about global temperatures has not been countered by global data indicating the that there has been no increase.
Except for G2. go back a page and read what he was saying.

#1 At low concentrations of CO2 small variances make a big difference in temperature, but the correlation between temperature and CO2 is logarithmic. (see this unrelated graph for an example of a logarithmic curve Grinnel University) Where we are now doubling of CO2 will barely raise temperatures half a degree.

#2 The percentage of human released CO2 in the air is minuscule compared to the naturally released CO2. Add this to the logrithmic relationship outlined in #1 and you get gar nichts from human contributions.

#3 This has been argued convincingly. Please go check the surfacestations.org website. Fully 80% of US stations sitings fail by NOAA's own grading outlines. Mr. Mann says that he is adjusting for the poor siting, but when 80% are incorrect you are seeing more adjustments than actual data.

#4 Daily more evidence is coming out about natural cycles. The biggest evidence right off the top of my head is that there has been a noticeable lack of warming, or even cooling since 1998 despite CO2 levels continuing to rise. If you don't like that go take a look at the GCR studies being done that are validating Mr. Svensmarks theories regarding cloud formation.

Someone said above that they think it is only fair that coal not be "subsidized" by making the end users pay extra for its impacts because of the CO2 that it releases. In my opinion we should be subsidizing energy. This is one area where AGW supporters and I can sort of agree. We should be doing everything we can to get off foreign oil. I think that should include coal, home grown oil, shale oil, solar, nuclear, geothermal. Probably the more diversity we have in generating sources the better it is.

One of the most ridiculous notions of the proposed solutions to global warming is the assumption that curtailing America's or even all the current first world nations economies will have an impact world wide on CO2 output. India, South America, and China are not going to slow down, indeed they cannot their populations won't stand for it.

My view on all this is that probably humans can have an impact on climate, but I think it is a pretty small impact. If we want to spend trillions of dollars on environmental causes there are so many more important to spend them on.

The problem with that is that we can't afford to spend trillions of dollars on anything at this time. If you haven't noticed we are about to go bankrupt as a country. We are rapidly headed for a Weimar republic type inflationary period. If interest rates stay at their current levels within 10 years of our current spending rates we will be spending $800 billion a year just on debt service. And if we lose our AAA credit rating which is becoming more likely every day then that amount starts becoming higher than we can even imagine it. We need to wake up and smell the what is coming our way and it isn't coffee or roses.

Probably the most beneficial thing for the earth and our environment in my opinion would be for rampant economic growth to occur worldwide. When there are large surpluses, it is a lot easier to spend money on things like environmental issues then when you are most worried about where your next meal is coming from.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
We are rapidly headed for a Weimar republic type inflationary period.
No we're not. Our production capacity is at historical lows, and we're very explicitly not just printing money to pay down imposed debts that take the money out of the economy. We're only just barely staving off deflation because of all of the money that's been lost in the current crisis, so most possible inflation has already been priced in.

Before we experience that king of inflation we'd need to drive production up to nearly 100% of capacity (The Weimar Republic's other big problem was that their surrender term included pretty much shutting down their industry completely, so there was no way for supply to keep pace with demand) We're currently in no danger of crossing that line any time soon.

This isn't the 70's when demand was rising faster than our industry could expand. Right now it can easily match anything we can pull from it, so every dollar that brings us closer to what was accounted for before the crash brings us closer to stability, and preferably a rate of economic growth that's in line with population growth. (Slightly more, rather, to make up for what we've lost)
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
No one has argued points 1 and 2, which seem to drive the basic physics of the situation. Assertion 3 about global temperatures has not been countered by global data indicating the that there has been no increase. There is a lot of angry argument asserting that some scientist used a bogus argument and therefore there's no climate change. Many of these can be clearly refuted (I loved Wayward Son's example of the "conspirator" scientist publishing a paper on the very topic that he was alleged to be hiding).

It's interesting that the climate-gate argument is that if scientists who believe in global warming engage in bogus arguments*, that is evidence that the science is wrong, whereas no number of bogus arguments made against climate change seem count against the case for the climate change deniers.

*more realistically in some cases, taking shortcuts which do not invalidate their science - and in once case cited above actually dilute the case for global warming.

You have to cut us laypeople some slack. Everybody knows that C02 is a greenhouse gas. I learned that one in Grade 7 Ecology class. No one disputes that. Similarly, no one disputes that humans dump vast quantities of C02 into the atmosphere, although already we're forced to clearly define what the word "vast" means on a global scale. If you told me that the temperature will increase 10 degrees over the next 50 years my instinctive reaction would be "super! Time to stock up on sun tan lotion and little umbrellas for my pina collatas!" It isn't a matter of "common sense" that this would mean the end of human civilization as we know it. These things are not self-evidence to us peons on the ground.

The problem is, G2 et al. have addressed every argument you and others have made. No point you are making is being ignored. You don't accept G2's explanation or you think it's bunk. Fair enough, but I can't reasonably evaluate it on the merits; I just have to take your word for it. I can't prove G2 wrong. You think the flaws in his logic are obvious. They aren't. Every argument he makes seems cogent, accepting the premises he asserts, premises that I am not equipped to verify. So it all comes down to trust. Who should we (the laypeople) trust? That's why I find these e-mails disturbing. They erode the underpinnings of that trust, without which I am cast adrift in a sea of scientific gobbledegook.

As to why the deniers can get away with making bogus arguments and the proponents cannot? Well I suppose it's like assymetrical warfare. The proponents have occupied the city and have taken over. The deniers are guerilla fighters in this. When the U.S. kills a random Taliban fighter, that's not news and no one celebrates. When the Taliban bring down a U.S. helicopter, that's news and the Taliban dance in the streets. What can I say, being the 800 lbs gorilla makes you a big target.
 
Posted by Lloyd (Member # 6118) on :
 
quote:
Just how much money is the U.S. government printing to meet its debts? Steven Horwitz, professor at St. Lawrence University, and co-author of The Austrian Economists blog, explains that the amount of money printed in the past few months since the October economic crisis, has been absolutely unprecedented in U.S. history. “Since September, the 'monetary base,' which is the measure of currency plus bank reserves, has doubled from about $850 billion to $1.7 trillion, about $600 billion of which is in the form of bank reserves,” he says.
From CNN
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Alright, a little discussion on "the trick" that some of you seem hung up on. We are fortunate to have someone like Steve McIntyre that can deconstruct it and put it in terms everyone can understand. See it here. G2 encourages everyone to read it, it's quite good and easy to follow. Some of the highlights for those that simply refuse to follow the links:


About that disclosure:
quote:
Yes, there had been previous discussion of the problem in the peer-reviewed literature (Briffa et al 1998) – a point made over and over by Gavin Schmidt and others. But it was not made in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. Not only was the deletion of the declining values not reported or disclosed in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the hiding of the decline was made particularly artful because the potentially dangling 1960 endpoint of the Briffa reconstruction was hidden under other lines in the spaghetti graph ... [see the graph at the link]
If you read the link, you will be fully informed on the "trick" and how to "hide the decline" and able to come to your own conclusions as to what happened and why and if it was appropriate or not.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
And, again, all this show is that on particular data set based on tree rings aren't reliable for historical temperature mappings, even if there were periods where the seemed to correlate. It says nothing about other data sources, like historical records, GISS, current satellite data, and other methods that have provided more reliable records or reconstructions.

This isn't some single sources monolithic data here- this is the agreement of many different records. That one that's long been held to be inaccurate is, in fact, inaccurate isn't news and doesn't speak to the validity of the other records at all.

The problem is not the fact that tree ring data showed a decline, it's that the decline didn't line up with the fact that the actual temperature was rising. Tree rings are invalidated, not the overall warming trend.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
There was considerable discussion among Jones, Briffa, Mann, et al on how best to hide the data (i.e. the decline)
The Jones trick consists of replacing the tree ring data with temperature data after 1960 – thereby hiding the decline...

Once again, the important question here is did the tree-ring data accurately reflect the surrounding temperatures?

The only reason the tree-ring data was used as a temperature indicator is because, for a long period of time, the tree-ring growth correlated well with the measured temperatures in the regions. As long as this is true, the tree-rings are a good "thermometer."

But according to the e-mail you referenced, G2, Mann, et al did not find it to be true after 1960. Before 1960, the correlation between meausured temperatures and the tree-ring data appears good. After 1960, it did not.

Which means the decline in temperatures recorded in the tree rings after 1960 was NOT real. Let that sink in for a moment. It was NOT REAL.

So this comes down to criticizing them for not including known bad data. Why should they include a decline that isn't real?? Does that make any sense??

Once you acknowledge that the tree-ring data after 1960 is not a good indication of temperature, all this criticism falls to pieces.

[ December 11, 2009, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Once again, you miss the important question; did the tree-ring data *ever* accurately reflect the surrounding temperatures? Was the rise in temperatures recorded in the tree rings prior to 1960 REAL? We're relying on historical temperature reconstructions from these proxies and we know of at least one instance where the proxy is invalidated. Let that sink in for a moment.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So this comes down to criticizing them for not including known bad data. Why should they include a decline that isn't real?? Does that make any sense??

You think it's not big deal but if was no big deal then why all the debate and final attempt to hide it? If it really didn't matter, as you say, why did they have prolonged discussions over the best way to hide it so as to avoid giving "fodder to the skeptics"? Does that make any sense??

What they ended up doing was deleting data that didn't tell the story they wanted and then surreptitiously grafted on data that did and presented it as if it all came from one source in order to present a “nice tidy story” of “unprecedented warming”. That's what happened.

Once you acknowledge what happened, all this criticism becomes signficant.

[ December 11, 2009, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Once again, you miss the important question; did the tree-ring data *ever* accurately reflect the surrounding temperatures? Was the rise in temperatures recorded in the tree rings prior to 1960 REAL? We're relying on historical temperature reconstructions from these proxies and we know of at least one instance where the proxy is invalidated. Let that sink in for a moment.

The tree ring data was inaccurate, you have that much right. Your assumption that the tree ring data was the only source is what's bogus here. The tree ring data does not correlate to all of the other sources of historical data, do the tree ring data is invalid, not the other sources, which all point to a warming trend.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Once again, you miss the important question; did the tree-ring data *ever* accurately reflect the surrounding temperatures? Was the rise in temperatures recorded in the tree rings prior to 1960 REAL? We're relying on historical temperature reconstructions from these proxies and we know of at least one instance where the proxy is invalidated. Let that sink in for a moment.

The tree ring data was inaccurate, you have that much right. Your assumption that the tree ring data was the only source is what's bogus here. The tree ring data does not correlate to all of the other sources of historical data, do the tree ring data is invalid, not the other sources, which all point to a warming trend.
How sure are you of that? There is a side effect of the "trick":
quote:
In conclusion, they appear to have truncated the problematic series, and spliced or grafted it in some way to the instrumental series. There is a subtle side effect here, the whole series moves down because the overlap with instrumental temperatures is now different.

This version [a picture of the published IPCC graph is here] seems to have been acceptable to the IPPC, and is now part of history.

I also show below an overlay of the two versions, showing how in a short period of time the expression of our knowledge of historical temperatures has been changed. Since these data are only shown in printed graphs, it is impossible to cleanly reconstruct the comparison – I have had to manually emphasise the green line which represents the modified Biffra series (clearly there has been some re-claibration of this series, it is not even of the same shape.

In a nutshell, the "trick" did not just append temperature data onto proxy data and go on from there but it also reduced the historical temperatures of the proxy data and otherwise rather dramatically changed the shape of the plotted data - in effect, it re-wrote history in a way that made it match more closely what Mann, Jones, et al wanted it to be.

So these scientists undeniably rewrote history in one data series to make it tell a “nice tidy story” of “unprecedented warming”. What makes you so sure it was only this once?

[ December 11, 2009, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Once again, you miss the important question; did the tree-ring data *ever* accurately reflect the surrounding temperatures? Was the rise in temperatures recorded in the tree rings prior to 1960 REAL?
Good question. As I stated before, apparently before 1960 there was a good correlation between measured temperatures and the tree rings. So there is some confidence in the tree ring data, although obviously not perfect confidence. When it obviously was inaccurate, they threw out the data.

Is there 100 percent confidence? Of course not. We can never know down to the tenth of the degree what the actual historical temperatures were. But these proxies are good within a certain range. Before 1960, the tree rings seemed to be good indicators of the temperature. After 1960, they were shown to be bad.

Now, you agree that the tree-ring data after 1960 should not have been used. Correct? Let's settle that point, at least. Because the measured temperatures (more accurate than tree rings, you must agree) did not correspond with the tree rings.

So the only real question is: should they have used the tree-rings for historic temperatures.

They could have omitted it. But I suspect that it would have left a gap of temperature estimates in certain regions of the world. The tree rings are probably the best they have right now for estimates.

And what was the result of them not omitting the tree-ring data from the historic record? If I read your referenced e-mail corrrectly, the result was a curve that more uncertain. IOW, a record that told the story they "wanted" less well than it could have.

Does this sound like the actions of people trying to manipulate the data to their bias?

quote:
What they ended up doing was deleting data that didn't tell the story they wanted...
This is entirely your spin. Rather, they deleted data they knew was inaccurate.

quote:
If it really didn't matter, as you say, why did they have prolonged discussions over the best way to hide it so as to avoid giving "fodder to the skeptics"?
Gee, I don't know why they'd worry about that. Look how well the skeptics took the news now. [Wink]
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 682) on :
 
Greg, as for whether there is any correlation between CO2 emission and temperature change, here is a chart which plots both over the past ten years:
http://inlinethumb42.webshots.com/11497/2598948920037686397S600x600Q85.jpg

Note that since 1998, there has been a global temperature drop--which is what the CRU Climategate bad boys were trying to deny or suppress--and at the same time CO2 output has steadily increased. This chart does not show the correlation that AGW proponents need to validate their thesis.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:


And what was the result of them not omitting the tree-ring data from the historic record? If I read your referenced e-mail corrrectly, the result was a curve that more uncertain. IOW, a record that told the story they "wanted" less well than it could have.

Does this sound like the actions of people trying to manipulate the data to their bias?

Yes, that's exactly what it sounds like.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

quote:
What they ended up doing was deleting data that didn't tell the story they wanted...
This is entirely your spin. Rather, they deleted data they knew was inaccurate.
No, if they had done just that, they would have deleted all of it. Instead, they deleted *only* the portion that did not tell the story they wanted told. The rest was manipulated to make the story even better. Big difference.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
If it really didn't matter, as you say, why did they have prolonged discussions over the best way to hide it so as to avoid giving "fodder to the skeptics"?
Gee, I don't know why they'd worry about that. Look how well the skeptics took the news now. [Wink]
But that's not how science is supposed to be done. Hiding and deleting data to avoid criticism of a theory is not science.

[ December 11, 2009, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
G2, I assume you've read the whole e-mail in question, so why do you continue to misrepresent it? You wrote (and then justified again)
quote:
why did they have prolonged discussions over the best way to hide it so as to avoid giving "fodder to the skeptics"?
Again, the relevant portion of the e-mail in question follows
quote:

So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don't think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!

So, when talking about "[giving] it fodder" Mann is not talking about hiding anything, but rather explaining, and making sure the explanation is sufficient. It's more than a bit dishonest to conflate Jones' "hiding" e-mail with Mann's "fodder" e-mail and trying to make something out of it. Are you doing this on purpose, or were you not able to follow along?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Donald, obviously you did not read the link G2 provided or you would know that there was "a flurry of correspondence between Mann, Briffa, Jones and Folland". Not just one email as you assert. So let G2 ask you ... Are you doing this on purpose, or were you not able to follow along?

[ December 11, 2009, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Just show the where the "hiding" is suggested as a method to "avoid giving 'fodder to the skeptics'".

It really shouldn't be hard.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
G2 did. Click on the link.

Seriously, it really shouldn't be hard.

[ December 11, 2009, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Yes, that's exactly what it sounds like.

Huh? So what would you call adding data that would make their curve more certain? Closer to what they "wanted" it to be? Would that be manipulating data, too?

Does this mean that, regardless of whether the data makes their curve closer to what they want or further from what they want, they are trying to "manipulate the data to their bias?" That no matter what data they use, or how it affects their graphs, they are trying to manipulate the data?

Is there any way they can use data without you thinking they are manipulating it? [Confused]

quote:
No, if they had done just that, they would have deleted all of it.
Not if they needed it to make a more complete picture.

quote:
Instead, they deleted *only* the portion that did not tell the story they wanted told. The rest was manipulated to make the story even better.
No, they kept the parts they believed made their story worse, but for which they had more confidence, if I understand the e-mail correctly. They only deleted the parts that they knew did not represent the real temperatures.

quote:
But that's not how science is supposed to be done. Hiding and deleting data to avoid criticism of a theory is not science.
On this we agree. They should have put it all out and weathered any criticism. But I can understand why they would be hesitant to do so, and why they might have tried to avoid the criticism.

Now let me ask again: do you agree that they should not have used the post-1960 tree ring data, and that the decline it shows is untrue?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
G2 did. Click on the link

As usual, you seem unable to support your claims.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Greg, as for whether there is any correlation between CO2 emission and temperature change, here is a chart which plots both over the past ten years:
http://inlinethumb42.webshots.com/11497/2598948920037686397S600x600Q85.jpg

Note that since 1998, there has been a global temperature drop--which is what the CRU Climategate bad boys were trying to deny or suppress--and at the same time CO2 output has steadily increased. This chart does not show the correlation that AGW proponents need to validate their thesis.

That graph shows satellite data that hasn't yet been corrected to account for the fact that the satellites are drifting away from Earth and thus getting gradually cooler readings because of the increased distance.
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
Round and round and round we go. I feel like I'm spinning my wheels here, not getting through to anyone what's importantPersonally, I think I'm going to exit this thread after this last post.

Greg:

quote:
1. There is no doubt that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide make planets warmer.
2. There is no doubt that human activity has been raising the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
3. There is no serious doubt that the Earth's temperature has risen roughly 1.4 degrees f in the past century
4. There is strong evidence that natural cycles are not responsible for the level of warming that has been experienced
5. The remaining uncertainty is in regards the timing and consequences of global warming


No one has argued points 1 and 2, which seem to drive the basic physics of the situation. Assertion 3 about global temperatures has not been countered by global data indicating the that there has been no increase. There is a lot of angry argument asserting that some scientist used a bogus argument and therefore there's no climate change. Many of these can be clearly refuted (I loved Wayward Son's example of the "conspirator" scientist publishing a paper on the very topic that he was alleged to be hiding).

Analogy time. Claim: I can ride a bicycle past the sound barrier. Proof? No one disputes that the faster you pedal, the faster your bike goes. Stupid supersonic bicycle deniers, denying the obvious...

I'm sure it doesn't take a climate scientist to realize the absurdity of that analogy. But that is precisely what your astronomer is doing, and precisely what the IPCC and the rest of the AGW crowd does. CO2 causes temperatures to rise, we're increasing CO2, therefore anybody who doesn't trust our models is an idiot.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; hopefully people will get the implication behind it: Human emissions are only a small component of the warming in AGW theory. If we go by the science that is truly (more or less) settled (your #1 and #2 points), then there is no political debate. The Earth will warm, but not by much, so there's no need to curb emissions. Period.

Needless to say, there's an extra component of AGW theory. Part one is that human emissions will cause a slight increase in temperature. Part two is that the slight increase in temperature causes a big increase in temperature. Got it? Conveniently, despite the fact that this is vital to AGW, it's not listed in your bullet points that supposedly so neatly sums things up. And why is it convenient that it's left out. Because this point is not settled. There is a massive amount of uncertainty here. Nobody in good conscience could claim that there's no doubt of massive positive feedback. That's because it practically boils down to a wild guess, since that way it fits their preconceived notions. Or at least it did.

So there you go. Happy? I agree with points 1 and 2. I just don't think they're relevent.

Next stop, point 3. Your statement that an alternative temperature profile showing no increase must be supplied before one can refute point 3. That's absurd. For starters, it involves my bicycle fallacy as well; there is plenty of difference between no temperature change and a 0.8C temperature change. If the temp increase was, say, 0.3C per century, that would be a significant blow to conventional AGW theory, and we can stop having Kyoto protocols and other nonsense. Secondly, that statement basically boils down to a "we have to trust it, there's nothing else out there!" argument, which is also fallacious. A temperature profile should stand on its own two legs, not in comparison to anything else. If I claim the temperature of Michigan is currently 70F based on the thermometer sitting in my apartment, you would rightly call my study stupid, even if you don't have any other thermometers outside to give you a better idea of what the temperature is.

It's all irrelevent though. Here's a little homework assignment for you. Go find MSU data for temperatures. Get the full dataset. Yes, the corrected ones; you can't use the old mistake as an excuse. Now go find one of the surface temperature sets. Subtract one from another. Plot that difference on the y axis, and the date on the x axis. See if there's a trend. See what the trend is. Determine if it's significant. Then consider the implications of this trend.

For those too lazy to do it, you will find that MSU is finding ~1/3 to 1/2 less warming than the surface temperature data. So what does that mean for the global climate models?

Point 4 is bull. The "strong evidence" is basically the GCMs. And I've explained this before. The models were rigged to find huge positive feedback for CO2 based on their assumptions, and because of that there was no need to find any other natural phenomena. So the "strong evidence" is that they can't think of anything else. But we know full well that we don't know everything about the climate.

For example, everyone was caught by surprise by this latest decade of no warming. Sure, the AGW folks say it's within the error, but they still have no idea why it happened. So if we can stall in our temperature increase for a decade, why is that? Do you know? I don't. Nobody does. So clearly there's something out there that we don't know about the climate. So how can there be "strong evidence" that natural variation can't account for it? It certainly did (in the opposite direction) for a decade.

Example #2: the Medeival Warm Period. As much as the AGW crowd tries to deny it, there's a great deal of evidence it existed. And a great deal of evidence of warming in earlier periods as well when there wasn't much CO2 in the atmosphere. We have evidence of rapid temperature rises as well, certainly as rapid as the last century. So clearly, it can happen naturally. So how can there be strong evidence that it can't happen now?

And, of course, if the temperature record overstates warming, then even the known natural factors will have a bigger role in the warming.

Point #5 is missing the most important part, which hopefully this post is helping to drill into people's heads. The uncertainty isn't just in the consequences, but also the magnitude. Global warming may be huge. Or it may be minor. And if it's minor, then it's no big deal. And no, the possibility of only minor global warming has not been eliminated.

Pyrtolin
My apologies, I thought the original problem with the MSU satellites was only on their mid troposphere data; apparantly it was also their lower troposphere as well (which goes down to the surface, hence what I was talking about). And as I pointed out above, that data still diverges with satellite data.

Also, you said "The tree ring data does not correlate to all of the other sources of historical data, do the tree ring data is invalid, not the other sources, which all point to a warming trend." The concern regarding the temperature reconstructions is less about the current warming (which we know is happening anyway), but more about the temperature in the past. There's a difference between a hockey stick and a sine wave. The concern, including the concern about hiding the decline, is that it artificially flattens or cools the past, thus eliminating any warm periods (like the MWP) and thus making the 20th century look more unnatural.

Wayward
One more time. You know the tree ring data after 1960 or so was bad. Now here's the million dollar question:

Was that data bad because of the time period, or because of the temperature?

If it was bad due to the time period (ie, like the Tiljander series, where changes in farming practices in the area changed the growth of sediment for that proxy), then deleting that bit of data is no big deal. If it's do to temperature however (ie, tree rings don't grow with temperature at high temperatures, and temperatures were higher after 1960), then it's a huge deal. Because if that's the case, then you can't possibly use it for temperature reconstructions, because you no longer have a function! Even if the temperature was high in the past, you will never ever be able to see it by looking at tree rings.

Please, do you understand why that's significant, and why splicing historical data without telling anyone about it in order to ignore a potentially serious flaw in their method is incredibly dishonest?

---

If there's one thing I learned from this thread, it's that I really need to write a dissertation on the skeptics guide to global warming. It's clear that there's so many bad arguments out there on both sides that everyone ends up talking past each other. It's most unfortunate, really, as it's one of my favorite topics here. But it's hard to write on the subject (especially if you want to be brief!) when what you think is important is entirely different from what the next person thinks, and is entirely different than what the next person thinks. Makes things scary.

So unless something exciting happens or unless someone asks me a specific question, here's my last post on the thread. My apologies for bowing out, but just think, now you can be assured of getting the last word in [Smile]
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
How do you know if he is unable to support his claims if you won't even read what he provided?

Everyone has always complained that G2 doesn't provide links to back up his claims. G2 has always complained that when he does provide links no one reads them. He provided a link this time, so why not read it instead of complaining about it? Unless I'm mixing him up with some other poster, but the principle is still the same.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Here are some better looks at the data from 1998 onward. There's been no attempt to hide a slight cyclical dip that hasn't even remotely reversed the overall rise:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Additionally here's a bit of a sampling of many different lines of evidence of warming:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Everyone has always complained that G2 doesn't provide links to back up his claims. G2 has always complained that when he does provide links no one reads them. He provided a link this time, so why not read it instead of complaining about it? Unless I'm mixing him up with some other poster, but the principle is still the same.
If you are referring to G2's response to Donald--"G2 did. Click on the link."--it is because it is not a response.

Donald was asking how he came to his conclusion. G2 points at the link, but does not specify his reasoning using that information. He makes it sound like anyone reading the e-mails would automatically come to the same conclusion, using the same reasoning.

This may work for a link with a few paragraphs, but not for several pages worth of e-mails. Because two people can read the same link and come to completely different conclusions.

What Donald wanted was a list of the specific e-mails G2 is using to come to his conclusion, preferably in logical order so you can see his reasoning. This would be useful, because then we could point out any areas where his reasoning might be wrong.

Instead, he provides a hand-waving reference to a bunch of e-mails, asking us to find the e-mails he is thinking of and link them together the way he has. Which is basically useless in a discussion.

We are quite happy that he is referencing his material again. It allow us to find little things that he might have missed, like my little discovery of Mann et al. saying that they included the pre-1960 tree-ring data in spite of the fact that it makes their AGW theory less certain--the EXACT opposite of what G2 claims they are doing. (If I understand them correctly.)

But just referencing is not enough. You also have to highlight what parts you are using to come to your conclusion.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
This may work for a link with a few paragraphs, but not for several pages worth of e-mails. Because two people can read the same link and come to completely different conclusions.

What Donald wanted was a list of the specific e-mails G2 is using to come to his conclusion, preferably in logical order so you can see his reasoning. This would be useful, because then we could point out any areas where his reasoning might be wrong.

Instead, he provides a hand-waving reference to a bunch of e-mails, asking us to find the e-mails he is thinking of and link them together the way he has. Which is basically useless in a discussion.

What Donald wanted was a list of the specific e-mails G2 is using to come to his conclusion, preferably in logical order so you can see his reasoning.

[FootInMouth]
Obviously you did not follow the link either because it's clear you're totally clueless about what is there. Before you comment further, maybe you should take a look at it. [Wink]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Additionally here's a bit of a sampling of many different lines of evidence of warming:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html

Notice something about those graphs? The first 3 start only after 1500. Know why? To eliminate the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). That, my friend, is known as cherry picking.

The final image simply eliminates the MWP altogether as if it never occurred - something that has been shown to be invalid.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
This may work for a link with a few paragraphs, but not for several pages worth of e-mails. Because two people can read the same link and come to completely different conclusions.
I seem to remember getting hammered the last time I suggested that it was bad form to answer a substantive and specific question with a link to a mountain of pages of prior posts and being told to "read the link".
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:
How do you know if he is unable to support his claims if you won't even read what he provided?

Everyone has always complained that G2 doesn't provide links to back up his claims. G2 has always complained that when he does provide links no one reads them. He provided a link this time, so why not read it instead of complaining about it? Unless I'm mixing him up with some other poster, but the principle is still the same.

No, you got it right. Complain there are no links but refuse to go when they are provided (although to be fair, they sometimes do go just to get the author's name for the keyword search at RealClimate). Provide the relevant quotes to support your opinion and you're not making an argument just pasting things that may agree. In all cases, this is an attempt to avoid any actual discussion of the science and instead only squash dissent. This is how the conspiracy is created and maintained among the rank and file true believers.

Anyone not believe that? Just go back through the last page or so of this thread.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
G2,

I just read the whole link from your post. I present my summary, below - please tell me if I read it as you do:

As I understand it, there are 5 slopes on the graph. Of these, 4 show a rise in temperature, and 1 shows a decline post 1960 - the one which is drawn exclusively from tree-ring data.

The scientists involved debate whether or not to include the declining graph in their presentation.

Arguments in favor: It would be honest. The "divergence" issue should be explained up front.

Arguments against: It is too complicated to go into an up-front explanation, and it will give ammo to the skeptics.

So, as a result, they decided to not include the post 1960 decline, and buried the cut-off with a graphical trick.

Is that your reading as well?

[ December 11, 2009, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:

The final image simply eliminates the MWP altogether as if it never occurred - something that has been shown to be invalid.

It occurs to G2 that some of you may not know what the Medieval Warm Period is. G2 provides another link, this time to a graph that was published on page 202 in the first progress report of the IPCC from 1990. Briffa wrote it out of history with ... wait for it ... tree ring data. That's right, the same Briffa that has been discredited for his tree ring studies.

The MWP happened, it was undisputed until the mid 1990's (what a coincidence huh?) and there is ample record for from multiple sources ( see here). It's only when a “nice tidy story” of “unprecedented warming” needed to be told that it magically and inexplicably disappeared.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Obviously you did not follow the link either because it's clear you're totally clueless about what is there. Before you comment further, maybe you should take a look at it.
OK, I'll bite.

There are over four links you've mentioned in the 11 pages (so far) of this thread. Which specific link are you referring to?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
If it's do to temperature however (ie, tree rings don't grow with temperature at high temperatures, and temperatures were higher after 1960), then it's a huge deal. Because if that's the case, then you can't possibly use it for temperature reconstructions, because you no longer have a function! Even if the temperature was high in the past, you will never ever be able to see it by looking at tree rings.
There is one other thing that should be looked at before make a huge deal out of it. How much of an effect did it have on the reconstruction.

If it had a minor effect (made little to no difference in the outcome), then it simply isn't that big a deal. Throw out the data, and you still have practically the same conclusion from the other data.

From the referenced e-mail, the historic tree-ring data appears to have had little effect on the outcome. In fact, if I read it right (would someone please check this? [Smile] ), it appears to have made the conclusion a bit less certain.

If this is the case, then it isn't a huge deal. It fits in with the other data (not changing it significantly), which increases the confidence in the data, and doesn't change the outcome signficantly. It appears to make no difference.

Now if something else comes along that is more reliable for making an estimate that contradicts the tree-ring data, then it should be thrown out. But right now, it appears to make no difference.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
Btw, G2, your second link on the MWP isn't very convincing. I've looked at about 20 different graphs on the chart, and the "period" of warming drifts back and forth about 500 years dependin on which graph you look at, and in many the indicated period is not the warmest period.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
A little further investigation - the anomalous "Briffa" graph appears to be the narrowest data-set of the 5 curves. Note that it is labelled "tree-ring density only, summer, extra-tropical.

I did a little research on this and found the following:

--Tree-ring density depends on several variables. One variable is summer temperature - not year-round temperature. This can account for anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3rd of the density.

An abstract for a scientific paper referencing the Briffa data set explains the following:

quote:
Résumé / Abstract
[1] We construct an extratropical reduced temperature-depth profile for land areas north of 20°N latitude from the global borehole temperature database compiled for climate reconstruction. The mean reduced temperature profile compares well with a time series constructed from an initial baseline temperature (0.6° ± 0.1°C) and the last 140 years of gridded annual surface air temperature data diffused into the ground. This analysis yields a root-mean-square misfit of only 15 mK and indicates warming of 1.1 °C over the past 500 years. In contrast, a tree ring analysis from the same area (Briffa et al., 2001) indicates considerably less warming over the same time period. The recognition that tree rings correlate most strongly with warm season temperatures (April-September), while boreholes reflect annual temperatures, offers an explanation for the discrepancy in warming estimates. This analysis yields a reconstruction of surface temperature over the past 500 years that is consistent with both the borehole and tree ring analysis and also provides an estimate of long-term cold season temperature. We estimate that continental extratropical Northern Hemisphere annual and cold season (October-March) temperatures have warmed by 0.2° ± 0.1°C and 0.3° ± 0.3°C, respectively, between 1500 and 1856, prior to the start of the instrumental surface air temperature record.

And this research paper explains that measurements of ring-density in northern regions are much harder to correlate to overal climate trends. Because ring-density essentially takes a summer-only snapshot, data from these regions can be misleading because summers are more mild compared to the year-round average, and tree growth can be hampered by increasing forest density, as trees compete for light and nutrients.

It is therefore not at all inconceivable that tree-ring data from "extratropical" zones, taken only during the summer, could show a cooling trend when the opposite is in fact happening.

[ December 11, 2009, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
G2 linked to Steve McIntyre's analysis of the e-mails in question on Climate Audit. The analysis spans about 7 screens, touches on numerous subjects, and bizarrely (or conveniently, rather) chooses to redact the e-mails in such a way as to remove the very context that we were discussing above. In this way, McIntyre tries to link the purpose of the "fodder" remark to the "hiding" activity elsewhere. But even by heavily redacting that e-mail, McIntyre isn't exactly successful. McIntyre used the following, redacted version of the e-mail
quote:
So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case.…Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!
Compare it with the full paragraph, with the snipped pieces in bold
quote:
So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don't think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!
So, exactly that part of the e-mail that makes it clear that Mann proposed more explication is the part that McIntyre left out, and he instead used the butchered e-mail to pull the wool over the eyes of the likes of G2.

And as to G2's repeated reluctance to engage in honest debate: this methodology is par for the course for G2. He either regurgitates other people's work without attribution, or he regurgitates other peoples work without clarification (in this case, a link to someone else's argument) and expects his interlocutors to delve into the dark recesses of his mind and figure out which pieces of the usually tepid arguments he feels are relevant to the subject at hand. When challenged on this technique, he hides behind this long suffering persona of "ooh, when I give links, you don't bother to read them", ignoring the fact that links/references are not replacements for one's own arguments; rather, they should provide clarification of an argument actually presented.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
You know how to tell they're getting desperate? The personal attacks start:
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
And as to G2's repeated reluctance to engage in honest debate: this methodology is par for the course for G2. He either regurgitates other people's work without attribution ... blah blah blah

DonaldD is like these guys:
quote:
Tim Wirth, a former senator and now chairman of the United Nations Foundation, once said: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” New York Times columnist and prominent warm-monger Thomas Friedman has repeatedly said (most recently this week) that he doesn’t care if global warming is a “hoax” because, even if it is, the fear of it will force us to do what we need to do.
Take a look at G2's efforts here. He has provided links and visited the links of others and routinely encouraged others to do so. He has provided relevant quotes and addressed the issue directly. He has asked questions and encouraged others to find answers.

Contrast that with DonaldD and his little buddies here. They refuse to see anything provided until they're caught out making comments on it that make no sense. They engage in personal attacks and do anything they can to suppress any search for the truth or open discussion. They discourage any questioning and vehemently oppose any answer that does not agree with their ideology.

As anyone reading this tries to evaluate the theory of AGW, keep in mind they are no different than Tim Wirth, Thomas Friedman, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Keith Briffa. They do not care about the truth. Never lose site of that, evaluate everything they say with that in mind.

[ December 11, 2009, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
An author in The Economist spent the time to thoroughly debunk yet another climate change denier (the case is made in this article in The Economist)

But I particularly resonated with this quote:

quote:
So, after hours of research, I can dismiss Mr Eschenbach. But what am I supposed to do the next time I wake up and someone whose name I don't know has produced another plausible-seeming account of bias in the climate-change science? Am I supposed to invest another couple of hours in it? Do I have to waste the time of the readers of this blog with yet another long post on the subject? Why? Why do these people keep bugging us like this? Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong? At what point am I allowed to simply say, look, I've seen these kind of claims before, they always turns out to be wrong, and it's not worth my time to look into it?
In America today, even a simple (but boarder-line crazy) issue like the President's legal birth-place can infect public discourse for months (the media and Ornery). It's much more challenging to address a complex issue like global climate. And while there never has been a secret conspiracy to insert a foreigner into the Presidency, either in the United States or in any other country in all of history that I have ever heard of (making the anti-birther position consistent with everything that has gone on before), AGW does assert something that has never happened before on as large a scale. So before reviewing any evidence, I can understand the legitimate need for far more skepticism about climate change than about the President's birth certificate.

But the science (at least at the level of public debate, as in: the Earth is warming over the last century) is not in question. The tactics typically employed by anti-AGW people here such as G2 are merely filibustering. These are the tactics that Republicans often criticize in trial attorneys, just throw a bunch of crap up, and force reasonable people to wade through the poop. Even if valid, the whole notion of climate-gate, that some partisans on either side are personally flawed or argue disingenuously, does not determine which side is right. When anti-AGW advocates are shown to be flawed (multiple times just on page 11 of this thread) it never seems to slow down the ardor of the anti-AGW partisans.

And ultimately I end up where the author of the Economist does; it's not worth more precious ticks of time to argue against those who want to believe it's all a conspiracy.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
G2,

I did not insult you, have read the full text of the link you provided, have replied to its assertions, and would appreciate a response.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
I think the term "climate change denier" shouldn't be used in a reasonable discussion on this subject. Can we agree to not use that term in describing someone?
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Edgmatt, you make a reasonable point for reasonable people. And usually I would prefer referring to people by the label that they prefer to use themselves. But would you similarly think that "birther" is an inappropriate term to refer to those who still posit that Obama is not an American citizen? In other words, are you in favor of us never using a derogatory term for opponents in debate (I'm on the boarder-line on that, you might be right)?

Not all those who are skeptically reviewing the arguments regarding climate change are doing so in a manner that emulates the characteristics of birthers. I would not wish to tarnish such people with comparisons with birthers. And so on balance, the risk of unintentionally insulting genuine skeptics with a derogatory term probably outweighs the limited value of more accurately characterizing those with less intellectual integrity.

So, you make a good point. I will stop using variations of that phrase.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Additionally here's a bit of a sampling of many different lines of evidence of warming:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html

Notice something about those graphs? The first 3 start only after 1500. Know why? To eliminate the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). That, my friend, is known as cherry picking.

The final image simply eliminates the MWP altogether as if it never occurred - something that has been shown to be invalid.

The final image very specifically does include the MWP- you can see the small plateau that it represented in the graph, and there was even a link there to direct discussion of it:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

OF most note is that the MWP was a fairly local phenomenon, not a global one; it only holds as a significantly warm period of you consider Europe and North America to be the entire world.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
G2,

I did not insult you, have read the full text of the link you provided, have replied to its assertions, and would appreciate a response.

I would also like to see G2 respond to KidB. I do think that what G2 said about Donald's tactic is accurate -- personal attacks being used to suppress data, and that's a foul. But if G2 imputes this foul by Donald and some others to KidB, then G2 is committing something very much like the same foul that he complains of.

It is a sad thing to see real scientists behaving like typical social scientists. But this thing happens every few decades, and there's always been some big shakeup and self-examination by the scientific community. That's a good thing.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Please do explain how I used personal attacks to "suppress data", Pete. Notwithstanding the blatant motive speculation on your part, your reading comprehension is usually better than that. I analyzed the specific e-mail as written (twice now) and showed exactly how no honest reading of the e-mail could link Mann's "fodder" comment to "hiding" anything - in fact, that e-mail, when read in full, suggested quite the opposite.

G2, for his part, simply regurgitated other people's analysis, provided a link but no supporting argument for his position, and when shown how the analysis in his link was flawed, chose to play the victim card rather than address the flaws in the argument that he supposedly supported previously.

I do think it interesting that G2 addressed the latter, secondary part of my post rather than the meat of it, a technique that you have often employed in the past, Pete. (BTW, you will note that this post also comes in two distinct parts)
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
G2,

I did not insult you, have read the full text of the link you provided, have replied to its assertions, and would appreciate a response.

G2 agrees, you've been a straight shooter on this thread. Unfortunately, G2 is doing his weekend thing (if G2's wife walks in as G2 types this, G2's in big trouble .... sshhhhhh). G2 also has a week on the road coming up which will slow up his posting and consume free time. To address your post properly will take some time so if you would be patient enough to wait until G2 can provide it appropriate consideration. If you don't mind, please don't let it slip off G2's radar and fire off a reminder for G2 next time you see G2 post. G2 appreciates your patience and looks forward to continuing the discussion. Until then, the G2 abides.

[ December 12, 2009, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Greg - If the term used to describe someone also declares or implies they are wrong in the discussion, then I think it shouldn't be used. "Climate change denier" implies that the argument is over and that people who are on one side of the argument are in a state of denial and have no real argument. "Birther" doesn't really do exactly that, but there is certainly a hint of sarcasm in there, so yea I guess I'd have to say it should go too.

We're *supposed* to be having a discussion, not a fight. Insults and condescension don't further a discussion. That's really what I was getting at I guess.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
G2,

KidB abides. [Smile]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
This being the bleak midwinter, no crickets, alas. we'll have to settle for old steam radiators clacking as we wait for this momentous response...
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Good news, depending on your perspective. G2's wife is out Christmas shopping which gives him time but she's spending money so not so good news for G2. Anyway, as promised:
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
G2,

I just read the whole link from your post. I present my summary, below - please tell me if I read it as you do:

As I understand it, there are 5 slopes on the graph. Of these, 4 show a rise in temperature, and 1 shows a decline post 1960 - the one which is drawn exclusively from tree-ring data.

The scientists involved debate whether or not to include the declining graph in their presentation.

Arguments in favor: It would be honest. The "divergence" issue should be explained up front.

Arguments against: It is too complicated to go into an up-front explanation, and it will give ammo to the skeptics.

So, as a result, they decided to not include the post 1960 decline, and buried the cut-off with a graphical trick.

Is that your reading as well?

There are 5 reconstructions on the graph however none show a decline post 1960 because any data showing a decline was deleted - without explanation. We know from other sources that not only was the data deleted but in the final version of these reconstructions the pre-1960 data that was kept was altered so as to better fit the “nice tidy story” of “unprecedented warming”.

The scientists do debate whether or not to include Briffa's data. Mann, it seems though not 100% sure, simply wanted to avoid publishing the entire series. Jones argues for publishing 2 charts, one with Briffa's data and one without but Mann did not like that because they would have to explain it and not have their “nice tidy story”.

As a result, Briffa created a new reconstruction with more “low-frequency” variability and sent that to Mann. However, the version Briffa sent is not exactly like what the IPCC published: the decline was simply deleted, the filter reportedly used on the data appears to be incorrect, the temperature series appear to have been padded with instrumental readings rather than the 25 year mean as reported and there are unexplained changes in scale. All together, those prevent reconciliation of raw data to what was published - i.e. it cannot be duplicated.

The data was deleted without any explanation or notification and it was essentially hidden in plain site by burying it in the "spaghetti" of other reconstructions which makes it difficult to see (the graphical trick you mentioned). Even now that you know it's there it can be difficult to spot in the original chart.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Donald, it seems like gloating hypocrisy for you to accuse me of motive inferences, when this is the statement of yours that I was responding to:

quote:
Donald: And as to G2's repeated reluctance to engage in honest debate: this methodology is par for the course for G2.
quote:
G2: Take a look at G2's efforts here. He has provided links and visited the links of others and routinely encouraged others to do so. He has provided relevant quotes and addressed the issue directly. He has asked questions and encouraged others to find answers.

Contrast that with DonaldD and his little buddies here. They refuse to see anything provided until they're caught out making comments on it that make no sense. They engage in personal attacks and do anything they can to suppress any search for the truth or open discussion. They discourage any questioning and vehemently oppose any answer that does not agree with their ideology.

quote:
Pete: I would also like to see G2 respond to KidB. I do think that what G2 said about Donald's tactic is accurate -- personal attacks being used to suppress data, and that's a foul. But if G2 imputes this foul by Donald and some others to KidB, then G2 is committing something very much like the same foul that he complains of.
quote:
Donald: Please do explain how I used personal attacks to "suppress data", Pete. Notwithstanding the blatant motive speculation on your part,
Please make up your mind, DonalD. Do you want me to explain, or do you want to suppress my statement of agreement with a previous statement as "blatant motive speculation"?
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
G2,

Let's just make sure we're on the same page before we debate...

quote:
There are 5 reconstructions on the graph however none show a decline post 1960 because any data showing a decline was deleted - without explanation. We know from other sources that not only was the data deleted but in the final version of these reconstructions the pre-1960 data that was kept was altered so as to better fit the “nice tidy story” of “unprecedented warming”.
My understanding is that only 1 of 5 curves are the subject of deletion and/or alteration in this email exchange -- the tree-ring data. Am I wrong?

quote:
The scientists do debate whether or not to include Briffa's data. Mann, it seems though not 100% sure, simply wanted to avoid publishing the entire series. Jones argues for publishing 2 charts, one with Briffa's data and one without but Mann did not like that because they would have to explain it and not have their “nice tidy story”.
I think I'm with you here.

quote:
As a result, Briffa created a new reconstruction with more “low-frequency” variability and sent that to Mann. However, the version Briffa sent is not exactly like what the IPCC published: the decline was simply deleted, the filter reportedly used on the data appears to be incorrect, the temperature series appear to have been padded with instrumental readings rather than the 25 year mean as reported and there are unexplained changes in scale. All together, those prevent reconciliation of raw data to what was published - i.e. it cannot be duplicated.
Do you agree that the controversy here is confined to the Briffa graph data exclusively, and not the other 4 trend lines? If so, I'll go more into what happened there in my next post - and re-read the link.

quote:
The data was deleted without any explanation or notification and it was essentially hidden in plain site by burying it in the "spaghetti" of other reconstructions which makes it difficult to see (the graphical trick you mentioned). Even now that you know it's there it can be difficult to spot in the original chart.
My issue here is with "explanation and notification." But this depends on how we resolve the points I listed above.

I do agree the visual "trick" was meant to bury the cut-off. I also concede that this was, at the very least, a bad choice (it seems to me), but I am not yet prepared to assign far-reaching motives to it yet.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
There are 5 reconstructions on the graph however none show a decline post 1960 because any data showing a decline was deleted - without explanation. We know from other sources that not only was the data deleted but in the final version of these reconstructions the pre-1960 data that was kept was altered so as to better fit the “nice tidy story” of “unprecedented warming”.
But you do agree, G2, that the post-1960 decline SHOULD BE deteled since it is obviously false.

So why is this a problem? [Confused]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Pete, not to further derail, but observing that someone has repeatedly engaged in less than "honest debate" is not speculating on motive. It might be impolitic, it might be inflammatory, but it does not speculate on motive. Here, however:
quote:
I do think that what G2 said about Donald's tactic is accurate -- personal attacks being used to suppress data
you are clearly attributing a motive ("to suppress data") to my action ("Donald's tactic"). That you decided to gratuitously take a dig before having added any on-topic value to the thread is rather unsurprising, though it was a bit funny that you did so while ostensibly playing unbiased referee.

Oh, and yes - please do answer the question I actually asked you: how exactly did I use personal attacks to "suppress data"?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
As most of you probably know by now, the Associate Press has chimed in with their analysis of the e-mails and have found nothing particularly damning about them. Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University, called them “normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds.” But Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, found "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

PolitiFact.com at the St. Petersburg Times also comes to the same conclusion.

So I guess the Associated Press, St. Petersburg Times, Dan Sarewitz, Mark Frankel, and all the other scientists quoted in the articles can be added with the Pew Trust to the list of “useful idiots” or worse. But apparently, even after Climategate, the scientific consensus has not changed about global warming.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Donald, do I understand your request correctly as:

Donald Redux:
Pete, what you said violates forum rules.
Do it again.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Not "why" Pete - "how". How did my posts actually supress data, regardless of the intent of the posts?
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
But you do agree, G2, that the post-1960 decline SHOULD BE deteled since it is obviously false.

So why is this a problem? [Confused]

There's a huge problem if you just delete a portion of the data that forms an inconvenient truth. If data doesn't agree with your hypothesis, then you've got a problem with your hypothesis.

If the tree ring data is invalid then you can either:
a) Say so, and not use any of it.
b) Publish it, but indicate why it's invalid data.

But to only use a portion of the data, and to drop the portion of the data that conflicts with your hypothesis and hide that fact is completely intellectually dishonest.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
But to only use a portion of the data, and to drop the portion of the data that conflicts with your hypothesis and hide that fact is completely intellectually dishonest.
It should be noted that the reason the data was dropped after 1960 was NOT because it "conflict[ed] with [their] hypothesis" but because it was measurably inaccurate during that period. When you know the data is bad, you drop it. To do otherwise is just plain stupid.

I don't know why they felt it necessary to use the data before 1960. My guess is that they didn't have any other data for certain regions during certain time periods. I bet that, for completeness sake, they included it, even though apparently it hurt their hypothesis (if I understood the referenced e-mail correctly).

Yes, they should have put all of this up-front and not quietly hide it. That was stupid and somewhat unethical. Scientists aren't supposed to try to pull "a fast one."

But it doesn't change the outcome. It doesn't change the science. Temperatures still rose in the past few decades from all other measurements, overcoming the tree-ring data which did not agree as well with that conclusion.

The bottom line is that characterizing the removal of the tree-ring data after 1960 as removing data that conflicts with "their hypothesis" is wrong. No responsible person would have included that data, since it was blatantly contradicted by better measurements--the actual temperature measurements. It was bad data. So to criticize Mann et al. for removing it from their analysis is blatantly trying to manipulate the data to fit a predetermined "hypothesis"--in this case, that there has been no temperature spike in the 20th century.

If the data is bad, you don't include it. And you don't criticize someone for not including it, unless you want to hide the reality of the situation. End of story.
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
But you do agree, G2, that the post-1960 decline SHOULD BE deteled since it is obviously false.

So why is this a problem? [Confused]

There's a huge problem if you just delete a portion of the data that forms an inconvenient truth. If data doesn't agree with your hypothesis, then you've got a problem with your hypothesis.

If the tree ring data is invalid then you can either:
a) Say so, and not use any of it.
b) Publish it, but indicate why it's invalid data.

But to only use a portion of the data, and to drop the portion of the data that conflicts with your hypothesis and hide that fact is completely intellectually dishonest.

That depends. If you know why the data is largely useless after 1960, and can have demonstrable confidence that data in other epochs is more or less reliable (for reasons other than its correlation with directly measured temperatures), then it makes sense (and is intellectually honest) to use the data from the valid epochs.

Wanders off to see what he can find about validity of tree ring data...
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
... wanders back in with a link to

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Jones_etal_2.pdf

under his arm...

Jones, Briffa et al. published earlier in 2009.
High-resolution palaeoclimatology of the
last millennium: a review of current
status and future prospects


It covers the reliability and calibration issues of dendrochronology (tree rings), corals and ice cores in reconstruction the climate prior to direct measurements.

The tree section ends with the following (bear in mind that this is merely a summary paper outlining the current thinking; if you want details you need to dig up the references):

quote:


Recent divergence between tree-ring growth and
temperature


The final aspect of tree-ring studies that needs to be highlighted is what has become known as the ‘divergence’ issue. This refers to the apparent failure of some (established as temperature-responsive) tree-ring data to follow the trend in instrumental temperatures observed over the latter part of the twentieth century. Chronology time series that vary largely in parallel with changing temperature in earlier periods progressively fail to show the increasing trends that would represent a continuing positive response to the strong warming observed during recent decades. Originally this was noted primarily in certain northern high-latitude areas for ring-width data in Alaska (Jacoby and D’Arrigo, 1995) and in ring-width and particularly ring-density data, in more extensive regions of northern Europe and Russia (Briffa et al., 1998). In the earlier work, it was suggested that the cause of the North American observations was a shift from a direct dominant temperature control on tree growth to one where lack of available moisture becomes increasingly influential, possibly to an extent where the sign of the temperature influence becomes negative rather than positive (Jacoby and D’Arrigo, 1995; D’Arrigo et al., 2004).

Subsequently, various studies focused mainly on recent tree growth in Alaska and Canada support the idea that current tree growth may no longer be responding positively to increased warming (Barber et al., 2000; Lloyd and Fastie, 2002; Davi et al., 2003; Wilmking et al., 2004; Driscoll et al., 2005; Pisaric et al., 2007). Other suggestions have been offered as the cause of the widely observed loss of temperature response over northern Eurasia. The increasing influence of drought has also been suggested as the cause (Jacoby et al., 2000), though other suggestions include possible reduced atmospheric clarity, localized persistence of spring snow cover and seasonal changes in ozone-related surface UV concentrations (Briffa et al., 1998, 2004; Vaganov et al., 1999; D’Arrigo et al., 2008).

The IPCC recently laid particular stress on this issue, pointing out that any significant shift in the recent growth response of trees would invalidate the assumptions that underlie the simple regression-based approach to reconstructing past temperature changes. This would imply an inability to recognize potential underestimates of the degree of warmth in earlier periods of reconstructions (Jansen et al., 2007). It is important to stress that not all high-latitude regions display this apparent decoupling between observed and dendroclimatically estimated temperatures (Briffa et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2007). However, the issue remains a crucial one. Unfortunately, a comparative scarcity of recent (ie, post-1980) tree-ring data remains a major obstacle to further exploration of the extent and causes. Hence we stress the vital requirement for widespread updating of major tree ring networks, as well as for the acquisition of data for new regions.


 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
There's a huge problem if you just delete a portion of the data that forms an inconvenient truth. If data doesn't agree with your hypothesis, then you've got a problem with your hypothesis.

If the tree ring data is invalid then you can either:
a) Say so, and not use any of it.
b) Publish it, but indicate why it's invalid data.


The emails show that this is exactly what the scientists considered doing. They were weighing whether or not to include it and explain it, or whether that would be a matter of diminshed returns - covering all the bases, but risking that hard-core skeptics would that little nuggett of uncertainty, completely misappropriate it, and use it as ammo.

The post 1960 section is the part considered invalid - because it decreases while every other method of measurement shows a rise. As I and others have allready shown - tree-rings are affected by many factors, not just temperature, and other changes in the climate can destroy the correlation, or at least change it enough so as to require major recalibration.

[ December 16, 2009, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
The Russians just chimed in. It is, afterall, thier data at question here.
From the The Telegraph quoting the Russian article. My Russian is entirely too rusty to read much of the original articel.
Maybe Viking can take a look?
quote:
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.


 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
I have a question: Why is it assumed that the current average global temperature is the *normal* temperature for the globe?
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
I have a question: Why is it assumed that the current average global temperature is the *normal* temperature for the globe?

I don't think it is assumed; I don't think it makes the slightest difference what the 'normal' temperature for the globe is (assuming such a concept is meaningful).

It's more the case that humans have spread and adapted to conditions at the current temperature. A change in temperature can (potentially) change the survivability of humans, and the viabilities of cities etc., in ways that cause big problems, such as coastal cities being flooded, food producing areas losing fertility to encroaching desertification etc.

It is entirely possible that humans could have spread quite cheerfully in a climate several degrees warmer or cooler than the current one; they just would have spread differently, and civilisations would have grown up in different places. And that would have been fine. It is the transition from one state to the other when you already have ubiquitous civilisation that might lead to famine, death and war (human migrations are pretty universally a cause of war...)
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
It's not that it is assumed to be "normal."

The important question is why temperatures appear to be rapidly rising. What is causing it? Increased solar radiation? The Earth being closer to the sun? Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases? Or some other reason?

Our lifestyles (where and when we plant crops, where we build our houses, how much water we expect from rivers) is based on the historic temperatures. If the climate changes, we have to change our lifestyle.

So "normal" temperatures are the ones we are used to. They may not be "normal" for Earth, especially if you consider geological history. But for our societies, they are the ones we expect.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
OK that makes sense. So if the temperature cooled too much that would be bad also. Has this been taken into account by the people who are advocates of preventing further global warming?

I do not believe that A) there is enough evidence to show that the earth IS getting warmer or B) that there is any evidence that man is the cause....but I want to know if the people who do believe it is, would advocate us polluting heavier if the world was cooling?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
I do not believe that A) there is enough evidence to show that the earth IS getting warmer or B) that there is any evidence that man is the cause...
How confident to you feel in that conclusion? You are still asking some pretty basic questions, like "Why is it assumed that the current average global temperature is the *normal* temperature for the globe?" which suggests that you aren't particularly familiar with the relevant issues.

quote:
I want to know if the people who do believe it is, would advocate us polluting heavier if the world was cooling?
If it got bad enough, sure. That's a significant branch of proposed global warming mitigation strategies - releasing pollutants into the atmosphere that have a cooling rather than warming effect. There are concerns though about unintended consequences. Releasing sulfates into the atmosphere may reduce heat, while simultaneously increasing acid rain.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Not to mention that any active program to influence the climate would be inherently require time and money to accomplish, i.e. be "expensive."

That's why conservation often makes more sense than mitigation. Better not to cause the problem than to try to find ways to solve it. [Smile]
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
I'm pretty confident Matt, but the burden isn't on me to prove.

For the moment, I am conceding that the Earth is getting warmer. I am questioning the intentions of the leaders in Denmark right now. I hear phrases like "..haven't paid their fair share.." talking about industrious countries and how we need to pay money to other countries that haven't industrialized as much. I am wondering, if the situation was reversed, if the world was found to be cooling, would there be gathering of world leaders somewhere pronouncing that the U.S. and China have done MORE than their fair share of keeping the world warm, and those other non-industrialized countries need to foot the bill and pay us some money? It seems more likely to me that the argument would be that we need to give money to them so they can become more industrialized and help keep the planet warm.

This indicates to me that the goal of the meeting in Copenhagen, and other *going green* ideas is not primarily to "save the planet" but a money grab.

quote:
There are concerns though about unintended consequences. Releasing sulfates into the atmosphere may reduce heat, while simultaneously increasing acid rain.
I am a huge fan of taking into account side effects and unintended consequences. I do not see any mention of them in the current talks about global warming.
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
I am a huge fan of taking into account side effects and unintended consequences. I do not see any mention of them in the current talks about global warming.

Mostly because the unintended consequences are good. Switching to solar, wind, nuclear and natural gas in place of coal and oil improves our economic position in the world. A large portion of our trade deficit comes from buying oil from foreign countries. The dependence on oil also hamstrings our foreign policy.

Conservation measures are likewise good long term investments. If $1000 today saves you $100 a year for the next 30 years because of lower energy costs then its a good thing environmentally and economically.

Reducing carbon emissions won't have the side effect of man made global cooling. It is just an effort to limit our impact on global warming.

[ December 17, 2009, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: yossarian22c ]
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
I am talking about the unintended consequences that are bad. MattP was quick to mention the bad consequences of my hypothetical, I am asking the same of our leaders. Of course there will be a positive effect if we lower emissions. What will be the negative effect? What will be the negative effect of giving billions of dollars to third world countries. I am not saying focus on only the negative, but it certainly should be taken into consideration, and it doesn't seem to be.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
The post 1960 section is the part considered invalid - because it decreases while every other method of measurement shows a rise. As I and others have allready shown - tree-rings are affected by many factors, not just temperature, and other changes in the climate can destroy the correlation, or at least change it enough so as to require major recalibration.

If the post-1960 data is invalid, then you can't include the pre-1960 data. You can't magically say the data was valid when it's convenient for your argument and then cut out and ignore the part that disagrees (and apparently this is exactly what happened).

To assume that the pre-1960 data is anything more than coincidentally valid is incredibly bad science.

Include all of the tree data or leave out all of the tree data is fine. Even better if an appropriate explanation of why you did this.

But to intermingle clearly bad data with other data totally invalidates any results you might present.

[ December 17, 2009, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
But to intermingle clearly bad data with other data totally invalidates any results you might present.
Not if the data does not significantly effect the results.

And since the correlation between temperature and tree-rings was pretty good before 1960, it is not "clearly" bad data.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Not if the data does not significantly effect the results.

In that case there is no reason to include it.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And since the correlation between temperature and tree-rings was pretty good before 1960, it is not "clearly" bad data.

How do you know its good? You've already taken the position its "bad data" post-1960 when it doesn't agree with your hypothesis. Why would an independent observer believe it's good data just because some portion of it agrees with your hypothesis.

At best it's just coincidentally in agreement. A more critical observer, might say I believe all of the tree data, therefore your ground temperature data is all invalid (due to the well documented heat island contamination). Thus the evidential rate of global warming is much slower than hypothetically contended.
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
I am talking about the unintended consequences that are bad. MattP was quick to mention the bad consequences of my hypothetical, I am asking the same of our leaders. Of course there will be a positive effect if we lower emissions. What will be the negative effect? What will be the negative effect of giving billions of dollars to third world countries. I am not saying focus on only the negative, but it certainly should be taken into consideration, and it doesn't seem to be.

Giving billions of dollars to third world countries will probably result in them purchasing products from western corporations and corruption. It may do a small amount of good in increasing the amount of electricity available but there is likely to be a lot of waste/corruption in many countries.

Are there any negative consequences you were thinking of?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Not if the data does not significantly effect the results.

In that case there is no reason to include it.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And since the correlation between temperature and tree-rings was pretty good before 1960, it is not "clearly" bad data.

How do you know its good? You've already taken the position its "bad data" post-1960 when it doesn't agree with your hypothesis. Why would an independent observer believe it's good data just because some portion of it agrees with your hypothesis.

At best it's just coincidentally in agreement. A more critical observer, might say I believe all of the tree data, therefore your ground temperature data is all invalid (due to the well documented heat island contamination). Thus the evidential rate of global warming is much slower than hypothetically contended.

Except that by what seems to be in the messages, the tree data actually indicated less consistent warming than other sources, and there was some talk of throwing out out completely because it weakened the evidence when included even where it did seem to correlate.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
I am talking about the unintended consequences that are bad. MattP was quick to mention the bad consequences of my hypothetical, I am asking the same of our leaders. Of course there will be a positive effect if we lower emissions. What will be the negative effect? What will be the negative effect of giving billions of dollars to third world countries. I am not saying focus on only the negative, but it certainly should be taken into consideration, and it doesn't seem to be.

More economic competition from them? More consumers from them? Increased political stability?

It might be a bit too much to hope for some degree of gratitude for returning the resources that we drained out of them during our own industrialization, but we can at least help them skip the more wasteful and painful parts of it.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
In that case there is no reason to include it.
Probably not. I've all ready speculated on a reason why they did include it, but I don't know the specific reason why. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a reason.

quote:
You've already taken the position its "bad data" post-1960 when it doesn't agree with your hypothesis.
No, I've explained that before. The data was taken out when it didn't agree with the measured temperatures. The correlation between temperature and the tree rings doesn't exist after 1960, although it did before 1960.

Regardless of whether the data agreed or disagreed with the AGW hypothesis, it's bad data.

Please stop characterizing it as being dropped only because it didn't agree with the hypothesis. It had to dropped regardless.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
quote:
No, I've explained that before. The data was taken out when it didn't agree with the measured temperatures. The correlation between temperature and the tree rings doesn't exist after 1960, although it did before 1960.
Is there a paper or some other source that describes the methodology and assumptions in using tree ring data as a proxy for temperature that you can point us to?

I understand that they measure density and width of tree rings to get raw data, and I understand that the environment a tree is growing in will affect how dense and wide those tree rings are each year. It would be interesting to know how they determine what the contribution of various environmental factors such as temperature, moisture, soil nutrients, and so forth are and how they get a proxy signal for temperature and know how it is affected by other environmental factors.

Considering that we can literally get thousands of years of data from some trees but can only compare with instrumentation back to maybe sometime in the 1800's how do we know that the proxy is accurate? Apparently for the last 50 years it hasn't matched up with instrument records, and presumably it did match up with instrument records for a similar if longer time prior to that. I'm not certain how far back we have temperature records, but I believe that it is more than 100 years and less than 150 years. Going with the longer timeframe, about 33% of the instrument recordings do not match up with the corresponding tree ring data, and those instrument recordings can only confirm or refute the last 10% or so of the tree ring data. Has anyone gone back and reexamined the assumptions and methods involved with using tree ring data as a historical temperature proxy since the instrument recording showed that they do not always match up? Have they refined those methods and assumptions based on new insights from such a reexamination and if so is there a paper on that?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the
tree-ring evidence and possible causes


So yeah, people seem to be looking into it. One hypothesis in this paper suggests that beyond a certain threshold additional heat stresses the trees rather than leading to more growth.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
Thanks Matt. I'll read it tonight.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
If the post-1960 data is invalid, then you can't include the pre-1960 data. You can't magically say the data was valid when it's convenient for your argument and then cut out and ignore the part that disagrees (and apparently this is exactly what happened).

To assume that the pre-1960 data is anything more than coincidentally valid is incredibly bad science.


You missed the implication of what I was saying earlier. There's a threshold - presumably past 1960 - at which environmental conditions cause the correlation to be lost.

Let's say tree-ring data is influenced by 3 factors (drawing from the paper I quoted earlier) - summer temperature, moisture, and forest density. For a long period pre-1960, you find that "moisture" and "forest density" are within a certain boundary, such that tree-rings are able to respond with accurrate correlation to summer temperature.

But, past a certain point, the forest becomes too thick, causing both an increase in moisture and greater competition for soil nutrients. It is entirely plausible that this would happen, as many countries - including the U.S. and Russia, are not logging their northern regions as much as they used to (there used to be a lot more "open space" in the U.S. than there is now, in many sections). So once this threshold is crossed, the greater moisture and lack of nutrients and lack of sunlight (because of greater crowding, more and bigger trees in the same amount of space) substantially reduces the growth-rate each year. Hence, you lose the correlation that used to be there, because other factors have over-shadowed them. Just like you have a steady correlation between your speedometer and your odometer...until you shift gears.

In other words, there are conditions in which they accurately correlate, and others in which they don't.

[ December 17, 2009, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
You missed the implication of what I was saying earlier. There's a threshold - presumably past 1960 - at which environmental conditions cause the correlation to be lost.

No, I didn't miss the implication. I rejected it. While that might be true, it also might not. Hence it's completely hypothetical.

And you don't casually use hypothetical data to support another hypothesis. If you do, you had better very carefully spell out why you did and what the limitations are. In this case they didn't do either, they just manipulated the data and hoped no one would notice.

That's BAD science.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
No, I didn't miss the implication. I rejected it. While that might be true, it also might not. Hence it's completely hypothetical.


It's not *my* hypothesis. I already put up a link from a scientific paper explaining that this is why the correlation is no longer there.

Even if that paper is not conclusive, it means that the data past a certain point is *in doubt* because of the changed factors. It therefore makes sense that it should not be included.

What you are doing is imputing from that that if it's bad post-1960, then it must be bad pre-1960. I'm pointing out that it's not necessarily true at all.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
In this case they didn't do either, they just manipulated the data and hoped no one would notice.

The only "manipulation" I've seen here so far is a graphical trick to hide the premature end of the Briffa curve.

What other manipulation are you contending has occurred?

[ December 17, 2009, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by Lloyd (Member # 6118) on :
 
quote:
What you are doing is imputing from that that if it's bad post-1960, then it must be bad pre-1960. I'm pointing out that it's not necessarily true at all.
Actually I am thinking that if it is bad post-1960 and we can't prove that it correlates with temperatures before our thermometer record begins then we can't use it to support a hypothesis.

It's not necessarily true that it is bad pre-1960 but it isn't necessarily true that it is good pre-1830. Maybe the correlation only existed for the period 1800-1960.

That's why it is dishonest to not put that kind of disclaimer into the graph and just paste on temperature records.

You can't just discard one set of data without showing that the reasons that you are discarding that data didn't exist in the other periods

And at this point it just become assumptions rather than "settled science."
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
quote:
In this case they didn't do either, they just manipulated the data and hoped no one would notice.

The only "manipulation" I've seen here so far is a graphical trick to hide the premature end of the Briffa curve.

What other manipulation are you contending has occurred?

I laugh with contempt at ALL of Orneries "SCIENCE" advocates that fail to see the blatant attempts by these asshats at the CRU to manipulate THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS.

The most sacred tenet of the secular humanist scientist folks that think they've achieved the pinnacle of human enlightenment by accepting the rule of SCIENCE in determining how they should live their lives, always cite THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS as the very reason why all of us unenlightened rubes should do as SCIENCE tells us.

These emails now show us just how sacrosanct the Peer Review Process is... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
I laugh with contempt at ALL of Orneries "SCIENCE" advocates that fail to see the blatant attempts by these asshats at the CRU to manipulate THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS.

The most sacred tenet of the secular humanist scientist folks that think they've achieved the pinnacle of human enlightenment by accepting the rule of SCIENCE in determining how they should live their lives, always cite THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS as the very reason why all of us unenlightened rubes should do as SCIENCE tells us.


All this tells me is that you have absolutely nothing of substance to add to the conversation.

Instead, as you always do these days, you want to blow smoke up my ass.

Tell me what you think data means.

Tell me what should have been done with the tree-ring data.

Tell me what SPECIFIC "manipulation" occurred since it is so obvious to you.

Respond to my point with a rebuttal that is actually relevant, and does not include emoticons, or please just shut the hell up.

This is 100% troll behavior. I don't want to be around it any more.

Involve yourself in a civilized conversation as JWatts and even G2 is doing, or go away.

You've gone from being someone capable of conversation, and are turning into a hysterical goblin in the corner of the room that points and laughs at everyone.

Is that what you want to be?

Do you think you are winning people over this way?

[ December 17, 2009, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Kid, I've read these emails. The entire substance of the rebuttal has either been: They don't mean what you think they mean...or to bog the whole debate down into focusing on individual data discrepancies like the TREE RING.

I'm not a scientist (duh).

But the entire direction of this thread has turned into one big joke.

You guys are arguing about singular points here without addressing the big picture.

And to me, the single most important thing this entire "CLIMATEGATE" episode has done, was to pull away the curtain and show us the little midget pulling the levers.

We see how these scientists deliberately colluded to hide, destroy and stonewall a FOIA.

They deliberately avoided providing the raw data to other scientists that requested it. Scientists who wanted to try and replicate what the CRU claimed was their results.

Am I the goblin in the corner pointing and laughing hysterically?

Sure.

I'm getting highly annoyed at the obtuse nitpicking some of you are engaging in to try and obfuscate the big picture here.

You asked: "
What other manipulation are you contending has occurred?"

Have you read the emails? Do you not see the attempts at manipulating the Peer Review Process? Above all else, that should be the most damaging info to come out of all this.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
@ Lloyd

quote:
That's why it is dishonest to not put that kind of disclaimer into the graph and just paste on temperature records.

You can't just discard one set of data without showing that the reasons that you are discarding that data didn't exist in the other periods


As I said before, I think it was a bad choice. They should have left it in and explained it.

However, I understand the choice. It's similar to what happened when many evolutionary biologists decided to stop debating creationists in public -- it was too easy for the uneducated laymen to be manipulated by the creationists.

Anyway, I haven't seen the whole presentation. The email correspondance makes it sound like this is one graph in a much larger chartpack. Often, the numerical data will all be there in the back pages.

I think the bigger point is that what we see here is not "data manipulation" which discredits the whole theory and everyone involved but rather a poor choice made in one part of a presentation.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
Have you read the emails? Do you not see the attempts at manipulating the Peer Review Process? Above all else, that should be the most damaging info to come out of all this.
Yes, I have read them. I already answered this question.

As you can tell from the emails, a "skeptic" is *actually serving* on the editorial board of the journal, apparently with substantial influece. The scientist is threatening to resign from his position over a disagreement with how this editor practices science. Whether he's right or wrong, it's entirely within his rights to do so, and far from unheard of in this world. Conflict is normal. I see nothing here which shows that he exerts undue authority over the skeptic, or that his "pressure" or "balckballing" has any more effect than a stongly-worded letter to a collegue would normally have. This guy does not seem to control the other's pursestrings.

quote:
They deliberately avoided providing the raw data to other scientists that requested it. Scientists who wanted to try and replicate what the CRU claimed was their results.

WHICH raw data? Tell exactly what data was suppressed.

quote:
You guys are arguing about singular points here without addressing the big picture.
You are drawing a big picture based on a singular point.

Science is ALWAYS about singular points.

Specific contentions have been put forth as evidence, and I'm addressing them. I can only address points. I can't address your overall impression of something, except to the extent that that impression is drawn from specific pieces of evidence that you have before you and that you offer for my consideration as well.

[ December 17, 2009, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Have you seen this blogpost by Willis Eschenbach, the guy who filed the FOIA request in the first place?

quote:
To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.

Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.

This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.

As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data out of which they built the global temperature record.

So Willis sent a letter to Phil at the CRU -

quote:
I would like to obtain a list of the meteorological stations used in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 global temperature average, and the raw data for those stations. I cannot find it anywhere on the web. The lead author for the temperature average is Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit.

Many thanks, Willis Eschenbach

I got no response from Phil Jones or anyone at CRU or UEA. So I filed a Freedom of Information act request for the data.

This is apparently the genesis of all the emails between the CRU and others about eluding the FOI, deleting emails and other actions.

So what "raw data" am I referring to?

quote:
I don’t understand why this is so hard. All I am asking for is a simple list of the sites and where each site’s data is located. Pointing at two huge piles of data and saying, in effect, “The data is in there somewhere” does not help at all.

To clarify what I am requesting, I am only asking for a list of the stations used in HadCRUT3, a list that would look like this:

WMO# Name Source
58457 HangZhou NCAR
58659 WenZhou NCAR
59316 ShanTou GHCN
57516 ChongQing NMS

etc. for all of the stations used to prepare the HadCRUT3 temperature data.

That is the information requested, and it is not available “on non-UEA websites”, or anywhere else that I have been able to find.


 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lloyd:

It's not necessarily true that it is bad pre-1960 but it isn't necessarily true that it is good pre-1830. Maybe the correlation only existed for the period 1800-1960.

That's why it is dishonest to not put that kind of disclaimer into the graph and just paste on temperature records.

As opposed to publishing a number of papers addressing just that issue, like they did?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
More on tree ring correlation with/divergence from real temperatures.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
More fuel for the fire:

Russians claim their data was fudged
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
Yeah, Colin posted about that yesterday but it got buried. I haven't checked it out much yet, but there are rebuttals in circulation already.

quote:
The problem here is the IEA report does not support the claims made in the news story. I've reproduced the final graph from the report below. The red curve is the temperature trend using the 121 Russian stations that CRU has released data for, while the blue hockey stick is from a larger set of 476 stations. I've put them on top of the CRU temperatures for northern extratropics. The red and blue curves agree very well in the period after 1950, thus confirming the CRU temperatures. Well done, IEA!
quote:
The red curve shows warming in the 19th century before there were significant CO2 emissions, so it weakens the case that global warming is man-made. If CRU (not HAdley as claimed in the Russian news story) have "tampered" with the data, it would seem that they must have been trying to make a case against AGW.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php

[ December 18, 2009, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
It looks like the claim is coming not from "The Russians", which makes it sounds like perhaps Russian climatologists, but from a non-governmental organization called the "Institute of Economic Analysis". My previous link referred to them as a "right wing think tank", which I haven't been able to confirm, but they do appear to be a policy organization, not a scientific one.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
Daruma,

As far as I can tell, hadcrut 3 doesn't just compile data - it compiles compilations of compilations. There are several thousansd stations feeding into the dataset, and several levels of aggregation that occur before hadcrut3. So asking for a list of all the stations used in Hadcrut 3 is like asking the CEO of Ford for a list of every dude in Mexico hammering his automobiles together for him - not so easy to come by in a pinch.

Nonetheless, a list including 98% of the stations was eventually furnished. SOURCE There are apparently some erros in the list, but this is not surprising, given that no one person had a *single* list in one place handy.

The CRUs initial response is as follows:

quote:
Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate & Global Dynamics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/ Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA Climate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The latter, NCAR site holds the raw station data (including temperature, but other variables as well). The GHCN would give their set of station data (with adjustments for all the numerous problems). They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple station number counts), but the extra are almost entirely within the USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they do, in fact, possess all our data.

In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are as stated below

The climate audit site does not include the "stated below" section - why on earth not? - but it rather an excerpt from a later email which cites FOI sec 41.

Information on the two relevant FOI provisions can be found HERE and HERE . The gist is that the responsibility to disclose publicly held information resides in the insitution from which it originates. As for the remaining 2% of the stations, the FOI provides a confidentiality exemption in sec. 41- those stations (in scattered parts of the world) allowed for the use of raw data, but not its full public disclosure in the agreements they signed with the data aggregators. Unless you are contending that that 2% is the origin of all "inflated" temperature readings, this hardly amounts to a conspiracy to destroy and manipulate the data. Keep in mind, "raw data" includes everything that the measurement facility puts out about the atmosphere in its vicinity - would you be surprised if Yemen or China what have you felt there was some confidential info in there, especially if the research was done near a military base or on a surveillance vessel (just guessin'). This is an interantional effort, and sometimes treaties and other non-environmental concerns get in the way.

Also, please remember, these stations are all over the world.

Try to see the "bigger picture" here. The request for a simple, standardized list was actually very, very big project, because the addresses were in many different forms and come from different sources. This guy is bitching basically because the CRU told him to go compile the data himself - it correctly observed that it was not obliged to do so itself, and that the info was publicly accessible.

Nonetheless, they did eventually provide a list. That has be de-loused and error-checked (they had to standardized the irregular naming conventions), and the author of Climate Audit (first link above) now notes:

quote:
it should be possible to now develop a reasonable concordance for the CRU stations to GHCN where applicable and to identify provenances for the oddball stations to make a concordance up to a very small number of stations – at which analysis can begin.

That was two years ago.

All I see here is a battle against red-tape. I don't see any evidence of manipulation and suppression.

[ December 18, 2009, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
The Russian thing is interesting for several reasons. They're talking about Hadley Centre, not East Anglia. That's huge. When you look at global warming representations, they typically show Russia as being the area with the most heating, well outstripping other areas of the globe.
quote:
They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.

The emails show there was a very aggressive effort to suppress any contradiction about Siberian weather. The hoax is unraveling.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Another reason so many have been duped is they rely on Wikipedia. It's not supposed to be definitive but everyone knows it has a pretty significant impact (how often has it been quoted here?).
quote:
In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming.
William Connolley had influence at Wikipedia:
quote:

Instead, the band members turned to their friends in the media and to the blogosphere, creating a website called RealClimate.org. “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds” in aid of “combating dis-information,” one email explained, referring to criticisms of the hockey stick and anything else suggesting that temperatures today were not the hottest in recorded time. One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

Connolley was part of how the mythical "consensus" was built and how the hoax was pushed into mainstream on the internet and given a thin veneer of legitimacy.

[ December 20, 2009, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
And now, more reality from the Telegraph:
quote:
No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.

It is remarkable how only very recently has the staggering scale of Dr Pachauri’s links to so many of these concerns come to light, inevitably raising questions as to how the world’s leading ‘climate official’ can also be personally involved in so many organisations which stand to benefit from the IPCC’s recommendations.

Why so much pressure to go "green"? Because just like Al Gore, these people were getting rich off the scam. Just follow the money ...
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
G2,

If you assert that pressure and lies follow the money, can you explain to me why the >$100B in annual oil company profits don't have a stronger influence than the tens of millions of $ of profits on green energy?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Do you think 100% of all oil company profits are being spent trying to influence the debate? But let's get a liitle perspective here:
quote:
According to the study "Climate Money" by Joanne Nova, it revealed that the US Government alone spent more than $79 billion since 1989 on climate change science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

<snip>

If we count the entire world, global warming research expeditures such as carbon trading, it accounts for US$ 128 billion just in the year 2008 alone.

There's billions being funneled into "green" research and initiatives. Gore has become fabulously wealthy off the scam. Pachauri, through his position at the IPCC, is trying to duplicate that. If this were a company, you can be sure the SEC would be all over it.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Building the context, check it out.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
Thanks for the link G2, a fascinating case study using the leaked emails.

The intro:
quote:
The CRU e-mails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a team* of global warming scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor. The team spent nearly a year preparing and publishing a paper that attempted to rebut a previously published paper in IJC by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer (DCPS). The DCPS paper, reviewed and accepted in the traditional manner, had shown that the IPCC models that predicted significant "global warming" in fact largely disagreed with the observational data.

We will let the reader judge whether this team effort, revealed in dozens of e-mails and taking nearly a year, involves inappropriate behavior, including (a) unusual cooperation between authors and editor, (b) misstatement of known facts, (c) character assassination, (d) avoidance of traditional scientific give-and-take, (e) using confidential information, (f) misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the scientific question posed by DCPS, (g) withholding data, and more.


 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
According to the study "Climate Money" by Joanne Nova, it revealed that the US Government alone spent more than $79 billion since 1989 on climate change science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks
Comparing apples to apples, and just looking at tax breaks over the same period, oil in the USA was subsidized via preferential tax rates to the tune of 6 billion dollars annually (in the early 90's, $4.1B State and Local, $2B Federal). Link. So over that same period (1989-2008) tax breaks on oil were roughly double the total of all expenditures on 'green stuff'[ (according to G2's link). And that's not even getting into the government expenditures and externality costs (of oil) which dwarf the tax break dollars.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Building the context, check it out.
So a journal treated some scientists more favorably than others. This is news?

Notice that there was no suppression of data. Although it took 11 months for the paper in question to see print, it was available on-line for the entire time. There was no significant delay (that I noticed) in releasing the information.

While it may show that anti-AGW scientists are not as well-treated as pro-AGW scientists (and it does not address any other possible reasons for the unequal treatment, such as status of the particular scientists or the preceived importance of the respective papers), it also shows that their views are heard. At least, in this instance.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
So a journal treated some scientists more favorably than others. This is news?

Notice that there was no suppression of data. Although it took 11 months for the paper in question to see print, it was available on-line for the entire time. There was no significant delay (that I noticed) in releasing the information.

While it may show that anti-AGW scientists are not as well-treated as pro-AGW scientists (and it does not address any other possible reasons for the unequal treatment, such as status of the particular scientists or the preceived importance of the respective papers), it also shows that their views are heard. At least, in this instance.

A fundamental premise of the AGW movement for the past 5-10 years has been "scientific consensus". This is the battering ram that has been used to brush aside all criticism and to firmly entrench AGW as a "done deal" in the minds of policy-makers and governments.

In the normal course, the issues raised by these e-mails would be of little consequence overall. However, in the context of a debate that has been effectively shut down by "consensus", any evidence that even hints at collusion among scientists to enforce or manufacture consensus is vastly magnified in importance.

This is what the AGW movement gets for adopting a dogmatic approach to the subject. This is what they get for calling everyone who disagrees with them an idiot, liar, or collaberator with the oil industry.

A little less arrogance and a little more humility would have gone a long way toward making these e-mails effectively irrelevent. It's apt that someone suggested the scientists had been "swift-boated". It's an apt enough analogy, because of course it was John Kerry's own imprudent showboating and bragging about his war record that made him that much more vulnerable to the swift-boaters.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
It might also help, jason, if the anti-AGW movement wouldn't call everyone who disagrees with them conspirators, liars and collaberators with one-world goverment advocates and environmental fascists. Not to mention distorting the science and overly emphasizing minor and questionable science.

Neither side is clean in this mud-throwing contest.

What is important is the weight of evidence. Does the science indicate one conclusion over the other?

Complaining about other irrelevancies sheds no light on this basic question.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
It might also help, jason, if the anti-AGW movement wouldn't call everyone who disagrees with them conspirators, liars and collaberators with one-world goverment advocates and environmental fascists. Not to mention distorting the science and overly emphasizing minor and questionable science.
Much like terrorists or guerilla fighters, the anti-AGW movement uses whatever tools it has available. That part is unavoidable. But the AGW crowd has made itself especially vulnerable to these tactics because of some of its own tactics. Ever heard the expression, "it's not paranoia if everyone really is out to get you". Well there's no better way to justify the conspiracy theorist's paranoid rantings by actually conspiring to silence him.

Instead of trying to crush all opposition via a "consensus" and through the repetition of dogma, the AGW side should be calmly and reasonably addressing criticism and should ramp down the rhetoric and stop relying on ad hominem attacks to silence critics.

That's the burden the AGW movement, as the occupying army, bears. It's up to them to win over the hearts and minds of the natives, not to burn down the City in the hopes of killing the few remaining insurgents.

Put another way: when you are the one in the limelight organizing conferences and forming policy on which trillions of dollars are at stake, you are also the one who has to bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. That's the burden of being the one who people with power and influence are actually listening to and basing policy on.

[ December 21, 2009, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by ken_in_sc (Member # 6462) on :
 
DonaldD, when you refer to preferential tax rates for oil companies, what exactly are you referring to? Are you referring to the oil depletion allowance? If so, this is the same as the depreciation allowance all companies are allowed to take on productive assets. There is nothing preferential about it.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Instead of trying to crush all opposition via a "consensus" and through the repetition of dogma, the AGW side should be calmly and reasonably addressing criticism and should ramp down the rhetoric and stop relying on ad hominem attacks to silence critics.
Have you ever followed the anti-evolution debates? Have you ever seen how useless it is to "calmly and reasonably address criticism" to those who will not listen?

You can still hear critics asking, "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" [Roll Eyes]

Similarly, you can still hear global warming critics ask, "If the Earth is heating up, why was there a huge blizzard along the East coast this week? Huh?" [Roll Eyes]

When you can't even move beyond the simple questions, how do you even begin to address the far more complex ones??

Have you ever seen an anti-AGW question that has been satisfactorially answered? A question that, once answered, is never brought up again? Can you provide me an example?

And how do you respond so someone who, after repeated attempts, refuses to understand the simple answers? Or constantly asking you to spend your time providing them more and more data, not trying to understand how you came to your answers but to find some imagined "error" they can to use to ignore everything that you've done, whether it affects it or not. (E.g. ignoring all historic temperature data because of questions with tree-ring data. [Wink] )

Other than ignoring them or calling them out on it (which immediately becomes an ad hominem attack).

Much of AGW "criticism" is guys trying to find "gotcha" questions, without really trying to understand the actual science. Answering those people, constantly, repeatedly, is simply a waste of time.

quote:
Put another way: when you are the one in the limelight organizing conferences and forming policy on which trillions of dollars are at stake, you are also the one who has to bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. That's the burden of being the one who people with power and influence are actually listening to and basing policy on.
That's all well and good, but how can you do that when you are dealing with literally hundreds (if not thousands) of researchers? People are people. They will not always act fairly or responsibly. Even (or especially) those in power.

You can't even get Congress to pass that test. And, sure, you can toss out anything Congress has to say because of it, but you won't get much done that way. [Wink]

And you still won't have the answer to the most basic, most fundamental, most important question: are humans affecting the climate? That answer is independent on the actions of scientists on either side of this debate.

The AGW side may not hold as high a moral ground as you'd like, but that doesn't indicate that they are wrong.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
ken_in_sc: The link is not specific on all the different federal credits and deductions available to the oil companies, but in summary the authors claim that the effective tax rate for the oil industry is 11% as compared to the non-oil industry average effective rate of 18%. This is not exclusively related to an oil depletion allowance. As you say, one would expect depletion/depreciation to be consistent across industries (broadly speaking); so yes, either that means preferential rates even for depletion allowances, or additional preferential credits and deductions that make up the 7% difference.

As to the larger state and local number, that is simply the result of lower sales tax rates (not user fees) on fuel in the USA than on the average of non-fuel sectors.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
ken_in_sc: The link is not specific on all the different federal credits and deductions available to the oil companies, but in summary the authors claim that the effective tax rate for the oil industry is 11% as compared to the non-oil industry average effective rate of 18%.

That's a very bad comparison. Resource depreciation allowances are only "greatly" applicable to resource extraction industries. So if you want to compare the oil industry with the coal industry or copper mining or something similar you'll have a valid comparison, but comparing it with the non-oil industry average is essentially just gaming the numbers.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Have you ever followed the anti-evolution debates? Have you ever seen how useless it is to "calmly and reasonably address criticism" to those who will not listen?
I reject any parallel between this debate and the evolution debate. Creationism is religion masquerading as science and intelligent design is scarcely any better - it's a thin veneer of science used to as a trojan horse for Jesus. In that debate, the "deniers" have no coherent, scientifically testable theory of their own - they simply seek to poke holes in the only available scientific theory and throw around some nebulous circular trash about "intelligent design" to help support their religious views.

By contrast, in this debate, there is nothing circular about the proposition that the central thesis of AGW does not accurately explain the observed phenomena. This is a perfectly testable and scientific proposition. I have heard very plausible-sounding explanations for why the earth isn't really warming, or why it is warming, but the warming is not caused by man - there is no hocus pocus in this line of argument.

Moreover, since the AGW have gone so far as to declare their theory as being fact, practically beyond any reasonable doubt, it is entirely open to skeptics to seek to test the sturdiness of such grandiose pronouncements of settled truth. I have never heard scientists speak with such absolute dogmatic certainty as in the AGW debate.

quote:
You can still hear critics asking, "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

Similarly, you can still hear global warming critics ask, "If the Earth is heating up, why was there a huge blizzard along the East coast this week? Huh?"

I don't think any intelligent person finds such arguments credible. I do note that even G2 has not made such an argument on this thread. I think someone is beating up a straw man.

quote:
That's all well and good, but how can you do that when you are dealing with literally hundreds (if not thousands) of researchers? People are people. They will not always act fairly or responsibly. Even (or especially) those in power.
I believe this e-mail scandal deals with a handful of researchers, who happen to be at the head of one of the most influential institutions and players in this debate, literally being part of the spearhead of the consensus. I don't doubt that there are thousands of scientists who do this kind of work, but I doubt there are thousands with the same level of influence as the ones who wrote those e-mails. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
That's a very bad comparison. Resource depreciation allowances are only "greatly" applicable to resource extraction industries. So if you want to compare the oil industry with the coal industry or copper mining or something similar you'll have a valid comparison, but comparing it with the non-oil industry average is essentially just gaming the numbers.

Not really. The end result is that the oil industry is being taxed at a lower rate than other industries. There are certainly reasons why this is so, having everything to do with jump starting large scale energy and mineral production in WWI, but it is still the case - specific policies have been enacted to reduce the tax burden of oil companies. Even if you assume that 100% of the federal difference is due to depletion allowances (which is not the case) and if you also ignore that such allowances are policy decisions aimed at providing a favorable business environment to oil companies, the larger portion of the difference is still state and local sales tax based.

And again, this doesn't even touch on any of the other costs of oil production that are being subsidized (not tax related) by government and/or other entities, both directly and indirectly.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
I reject any parallel between this debate and the evolution debate. Creationism is religion masquerading as science and intelligent design is scarcely any better - it's a thin veneer of science used to as a trojan horse for Jesus. In that debate, the "deniers" have no coherent, scientifically testable theory of their own - they simply seek to poke holes in the only available scientific theory and throw around some nebulous circular trash about "intelligent design" to help support their religious views.

By contrast, in this debate, there is nothing circular about the proposition that the central thesis of AGW does not accurately explain the observed phenomena. This is a perfectly testable and scientific proposition. I have heard very plausible-sounding explanations for why the earth isn't really warming, or why it is warming, but the warming is not caused by man - there is no hocus pocus in this line of argument.

Remember that not all AGW denials are equal. Some are from those who have alternative hypotheses, and they are published (AFAIK) and are weighed according to their data and against other hypotheses. These may not have the respect that the authors and anti-AGW supporters may want to them have, but they are considered published papers and are considered science (even if some are bad science [Smile] ).

Then there are those who have specific questions about specific papers. Those, too, qualify as scientific criticisms.

Then there are those who look for anything that they can criticize in papers. They frequently harass the researches for "more data," even though some of it is available in journals. They often do not have the specific expertise to make worthwhile criticisms of the papers, and often do not care which alternative theory may be true. They are more like creationists, who only want to poke holes in evolutionary theory, regardless of the quality of their criticisms. These are the ones I am specifically comparing.

Then there are those who rely on the secondary literature of denialists, who don't care anything about the truth about global warming. They immediately embrace any article, paper, or rumor that supposedly shows AGW to be false, without a care about whether such news has any substance to it. They are the ones who would point out the current East-coast blizzard as proving that AGW is false. You can see them on the internet or hear them on the radio every day.

So while some AGW "doubters" are legitimate and should be heard and considered, others are simply "deniers" who do not care about substance, but only defending their bias. Arguing with the former is about as fruitful as arguing with creationists.

(This is not to imply that AGW supporters don't fall into the same categories. They do. But since the majority of climatologists and other involved scientists believe in some amount of AGW, I would think that there is a larger number who fall into the first two categories.)

quote:
I believe this e-mail scandal deals with a handful of researchers, who happen to be at the head of one of the most influential institutions and players in this debate, literally being part of the spearhead of the consensus. I don't doubt that there are thousands of scientists who do this kind of work, but I doubt there are thousands with the same level of influence as the ones who wrote those e-mails.
That is a legitimate concern. You're right, these are pretty big Apples. The only thing I can point to is the analyses of the e-mails from Pew, A-P and PoliticalCheck that I referenced earlier in this thread. If these three disparagate organizations did not find anything too worrisome, it may simply be because there isn't anything too worrisome.

I would definitely like to see all players act ethically and responsibly. But we can't discount all the science just because some of the scientists may not be playing absolutely fair.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I would definitely like to see all players act ethically and responsibly. But we can't discount all the science just because some of the scientists may not be playing absolutely fair.

Very few people "discount all the science", but they definitely object to making decisions that will cost trillions of dollars based on an unproven and currently shaky looking premise.

Granted you can never prove it to the nth degree, but I personally think we obviously need a lot better models than the one's currently produced. None of the models I've seen account for the current decade long temperature plateau without a fudge factor large enough to make them useless as any kind of predictor.

These same groups predicted significant temperature gains in the 2000's, instead we've had a static temperature and maybe even a slight drop. Until they can do a better job, no significant amount of resources should be devoted to the problem. Sure keep the research going, but don't re-structure the economy around an unproven hypothesis.

quote:
The only thing I can point to is the analyses of the e-mails from Pew, A-P and PoliticalCheck that I referenced earlier in this thread. If these three disparagate organizations did not find anything too worrisome, it may simply be because there isn't anything too worrisome.
The fact that you are quoting PoliticalCheck in a "science debate" says a lot.

[ December 22, 2009, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
I believe the two of you meant to say "PolitiFact.com".

I don't even think an entity called "PoliticalCheck" exists, so why are you so dismissive of its findings? [Wink] (as an aside, PolitiFact won a Pulitzer prize for National reporting in 2008).

For what it is worth, PolitiFact was checking the accuracy of a statement made by Senator James Inhofe, where he overplayed his hand and made a silly remark about how the e-mail controversy 'debunked' the science behind climate change theories. Therefore, checking the accuracy of that specific statement was well within PolitiFact's mandate (although the question it addressed was pretty limited in scope, so how helpful it is to anyone is questionable).
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Very few people "discount all the science", but they definitely object to making decisions that will cost trillions of dollars based on an unproven and currently shaky looking premise.
Now here, I cannot strongly disagree with you.

Although I am far more forgiving of the lack of precise predictions for the past few years (the nature of chaotic systems make short-term behavior impossible to predict on a practical level--for instance, you must know the precise initial conditions to do so [Eek!] ), I agree that there are still a significant number of factors that are unknown to turn everything upside-down. We shouldn't panic.

OTOH, it is the best guess that we currently have for how climate behaves. It has a significant amount of science behind it, and is the accepted conclusion by a large majority of climate scientists. Further research may change the results, but right now, AGW is the hypothesis that fits the facts the best. To ignore it would also be irresponsible.

Working in that direction, taking whatever steps we can that would not seriously hurt the economy, is entirely reasonable.

And declaring that, since the science is not totally settled (no science is: if it were, it would be engineering [Smile] ), it couldn't possibly be occuring, is not reasonable.

quote:
The fact that you are quoting PoliticalCheck in a "science debate" says a lot.
As Donald pointed out, I meant "Polifact.com" and I was specifically referring to your reference to the "Climategate" e-mails. No one can prove "scientifically" that these e-mails show a conspiracy to defraud; that is the realm of politics. [Smile] But those links I referred to did consult with working scientists about the nature of the e-mails, and they all reached the same conclusion. Although it's not a perfect technique, I still content that the opinion of the majority of experts in a field has the best chance of being right. And apparently the majority believe that the e-mails do not show significant amount of collusion to distort the science.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
We shouldn't panic.

I couldn't agree with this statement more. However, the quotes like this:

quote:
Our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control.
Prince Charles

quote:
Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
Lead me to believe that high level politicians are in a state of panic.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
Wayward Son and JWatts are taking reasonable positions. However, they acknowledge that there are potentially fundamental factors that haven't been fully analyzed or understood, some of which may well be completely unknown at this point.

Although we don't know everything, we know a lot. That means that those who deny and/or doubt the import of the the preponderance of evidence supporting GCW are taking the greater risk. Given what we do know, we should act decisively or we could indeed pass the point of no return and have no one to blame but ourselves. If the evidence that comes later proves the dire warnings wrong, we will still have done good by whatever efforts we apply to conservation and energy efficiency in the meantime. Think of it as spending $$ now to save $$$$ later.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
If the evidence that comes later proves the dire warnings wrong, we will still have done good by whatever efforts we apply to conservation and energy efficiency in the meantime. Think of it as spending $$ now to save $$$$ later.

Two points to this:

1) The cost of the conservation and energy efficiency are highly relevant to the conversation. If the US spends an extra $1 billion per year on these, I doubt many people truly care. If the US spends $100 billion a year then a great many people care.

2) Think of it as spending $$ now to save $$$$ later. - That's an unproven assertion that a lot of money will be saved in the future. We don't know that to be the case and the science that's quoted has too much of a margin of error to have a good idea. So rather than spend a lot of money reacting to a questionable problem, we'd be much better spending a moderate amount of money over the next 10-20 years doing research.

If the AGW proponents are correct, we should be able to have a far more accurate trend with-in the next 20 years. This panic mode, where something must be done right now is merely political theater.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
Are we really going to introduce a new acronym at this point? What does GCW stand for? My initial guess is Global Climate Warming, but I don't really know. I don't think that anyone disagrees that the average temperature has had a net increase in the last century or so. What the "climate deniers" are claiming is that there is not enough scientific support for an anthropogenic cause to this warming. Note the acronym being thrown around this and related threads is AGW which stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I noticed something this weekend when I was poking around. The CO2 concentration as recorded an the Mauna Loa Station since the 1950's has a linear slope. I need to see what other CO2 concentration data is available to compare. If human activity resulting in the release of CO2 into the atmosphere has been increasing at an ever increasing rate since the industrial revolution shouldn't we see that in the CO2 concentration data if it is a significant contributor to atmospheric CO2 concentrations? If so, I would think that there should be a polynomial or even an exponential best fit curve rather than a linear one.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
I should have said appears to have a linear slope. That was based on looking at a chart of the data. I just found a site that has the actual data from Mauna Loa and other monitoring sites. I will download the data this week, if I can, and see if the data supports or refutes my observation.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
Dave at Work: Sorry, I was too rushed to proof-read what I wrote. There are dozens of GW acronyms, but I meant to say AGW.

JWatts: When will "right now" be too late? The most extreme alarmists say we've already passed that point; others say the time frame is 5-10 years. Many climate scientists (a majority?) say the worst effects will begin to be felt in 30-50 years or even less, but very few say that we should wait until those things happen to address the issues that will bring them on.

I don't see why 10-20 years of research to prove or disprove an eventual catastrophe can't go on at the same time that strong direct measures are taken to deal with the problems we already know about. What do we gain by arguing that we should wait until we know "for sure"?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
Although we don't know everything, we know a lot. That means that those who deny and/or doubt the import of the the preponderance of evidence supporting GCW are taking the greater risk. Given what we do know, we should act decisively or we could indeed pass the point of no return and have no one to blame but ourselves. If the evidence that comes later proves the dire warnings wrong, we will still have done good by whatever efforts we apply to conservation and energy efficiency in the meantime. Think of it as spending $$ now to save $$$$ later.

It's also worth nothing that the $$ now don't just vanish into the ether- money spent on the problem now would translate directly into sustainable economic growth- long term industries and jobs, as well as individual cost savings and overall energy independence. Even if AGW is wrong, we'd be left with a stronger, more independent economy and useful, maturing technological advances. All of the best techniques to prevent it have heavy returns on the investment across the board.

Waiting to see if there will be a crisis not only raises the price tag on addressing it, but would mean that we're trying to attack it from an economically weaker position along with the pressures from crisis and dependence.

Let's say, though, that both AGW and peak oil turn out to be untrue and we do nothing that would have addressed them. Then in 30 or 40 years,at best, we'll be in no better position than we are now. At worst we'll see much higher energy prices and be much more beholden to the monoliths that provide said energy.

There is no real benefit from doing nothing about AGW and potentially some very high risks. While on the other hand there are large benefits to be realized across the board in working to address it as soon as possible, whether or no it is an actual factor, with little to no actual risk.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
I don't see why 10-20 years of research to prove or disprove an eventual catastrophe can't go on at the same time that strong direct measures are taken to deal with the problems we already know about. What do we gain by arguing that we should wait until we know "for sure"?

Bad analogy follows:

You go to the doctor.
He thinks you might have cancer.
The test results will take several weeks.

Do you start Chemo therapy now, just in case?

That's essentially the argument your putting forward.


Logically, the reason for waiting is we're not sure. Spending a lot of money and incurring the lost opportunity cost is a formidable proposition to a problem that we might be able to essentially ignore.

Let's put it this way, assume that the developing world starts spending $100 billion per year on combating global warming, today. That money could be spent to feed an additional 100 million people per year. So is doing something now worth the lost opportunity cost of doing something else with the money?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Bad analogy follows:

You go to the doctor.
He thinks you might have cancer.
The test results will take several weeks.

Do you start Chemo therapy now, just in case?

That's essentially the argument your putting forward.


Logically, the reason for waiting is we're not sure. Spending a lot of money and incurring the lost opportunity cost is a formidable proposition to a problem that we might be able to essentially ignore.

Let's put it this way, assume that the developing world starts spending $100 billion per year on combating global warming, today. That money could be spent to feed an additional 100 million people per year. So is doing something now worth the lost opportunity cost of doing something else with the money?

Better analogy: you go to the doctor and he says that you have dangerously high blood pressure, clogged arteries, and could have a heart attack any day. You can only reverse the problem by making a drastic change in your diet and lifestyle(cutting out unhealthy foods, working out, etc...) and even then it might be too late to prevent the heart attack.

Do you (a) go for a second opinion and continue eating bad foods and not working out in the 3 months it takes to get the appointment or (b) immediately start on the new exercise and diet regime knowing that even if the first doctor was full of crap, you'll be ultimately much healthier if you follow his advice.

I would even add to scenario B the prospect of paying a significant amount of money for expensive medication that will hurt your wallet, but otherwise isn't likely to harm you - but could definitely save your life.

Most people would choose scenario B because even a change in lifestyle and a hit in the wallet is worth it to curb even the risk of death. We also recognize that it's a win-win proposition, because it is never a bad thing to eat healthier and work out.

If the underlying science of AGW is even remotely credible, (that is to say, there is even a credible possibility that some of the worst scenarios could occur) then it's basically insane to do nothing while we study the problem for a many years.

[ December 23, 2009, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
Lets follow your analogy a bit more.

The doctor is fairly sure you have cancer, the results will take several months to get back, if you actually have cancer the odds of your survival go down with time but unfortunately it is not clear by how much, it could be enough that initiating chemo after you get the results back will be too late. There are a couple of strategies you can adopt to reduce your risk of dying from cancer - some such as diet change don't have any negative side effects in fact they are even beneficial to you if you don't have cancer. Others can have some negative side effects in low doses.

LetterRip
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
Not related to ClimateGate, but I figured I would stick it here anyway.

dailyprincetonian.com

quote:
Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change. He asked last month to be added to a list of global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report. The list includes more than 650 experts who challenge the belief that human activity is contributing to global warming

Though Happer has promulgated his skepticism in the past, he requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, “stated that carbon dioxide is a pollutant” and that humans are “poisoning the atmosphere.”

Happer maintains that he doubts there is any strong anthropogenic influence on global temperature.

“All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,” Happer explained.

This was the really interesting part:
quote:
Happer explained that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research. Managing a budget of more than $3 billion, Happer said he felt compelled to make sure it was being spent properly. “I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics,” Happer explained. “They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in.”

The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said.

“They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings … I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker,” Happer said. “This guy looked at me and said, ‘What answer would you like?’ I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ”

Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable “religious cult,” noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.



[ December 23, 2009, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Let's put it this way, assume that the developing world starts spending $100 billion per year on combating global warming, today. That money could be spent to feed an additional 100 million people per year. So is doing something now worth the lost opportunity cost of doing something else with the money?

Except for the fact that that money they're spending to combat global warming is giving their people jobs, increasing they farm production, lowering their energy costs, and improving their overall health and safety.

So there is no actual opportunity cost- even if global warming turns out to be a non-issue, they get a solid economic foundation out of the deal.
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
Global warming is only one of many possible threats facing the world today, so measures to slow it must compete with other priorities. And the danger remains sufficiently in doubt so any agreement reached now might be repudiated by some later administration. That might do more harm than never starting such measures at all. As the current health care debate illustrates, making a major policy change requires that nearly everyone agree that change is necessary, and even then effective action may be postponed for decades because people can not agree on what to do and how to do it.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Luboš Motl is a physicist that has done some work with the UAH data set. The UAH data is the satellite measurement which is easily the most accurate and reliable temperature measurement we have. He calucalted the slope and standard deviation of the temperature trend and found:
quote:
The UAH 1995-2009 slope was calculated to be 0.95 °C per century. And the standard deviation of this figure, calculated via the standard formula on this page, is 0.88 °C/century. So this suggests that the positivity of the slope is just a 1-sigma result – a noise.
If that's not enough:
quote:
The 99% confidence interval is (-1.59, +3.49) in °C/century. Similarly, the 95% confidence interval for the slope is (-0.87, 2.8) in °C/century. On the other hand, the 90% confidence interval is (-0.54, 2.44) in °C/century. All these intervals contain both negative and positive numbers. No conclusion about the slope can be made on either 99%, 95%, and not even 90% confidence level.

Only the 72% confidence interval for the slope touches zero. It means that the probability that the underlying slope is negative equals 1/2 of the rest, i.e. a substantial 14%.

We can only say that it is “somewhat more likely than not” that the underlying trend in 1995-2009 was a warming trend rather than a cooling trend. Saying that the warming since 1995 was “very likely” is already way too ambitious a goal that the data don’t support.

In other words, over the last 15 years we don't really know if there was any warming at all. There is a 14% chance we've been cooling for the last 15 years - that's not a huge chance but it tells us that there is no way to say with confidence we've been warming over this time frame. As Motl points out, we can't draw any conclusions from the data.

By the way, there were 877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week. According to NOAA, October was the third coldest on record in the US, with almost every state showing temperatures from one to ten degrees below normal. December is set to repeat that feat with temperatures ranging from one to fifteen degrees below normal. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center forecast that most of the US would have above normal temperatures from October through December, and perhaps more importantly did did not predict that any areas would have below normal temperatures.

The data does not support theory in any way. The models based on this theory are 180 degrees out of phase with reality. When we look at the real world, there is nothing to indicate the theory of global warming is true. The only way we are able to see any indication of warming is through the corruption of the peer review process, faking data and the hijacking of Wikipedia. It is truly the greatest hoax in human history.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Let me guess - Motl is a physicist not trained in a discipline directly related to climate science.

Quoting USA snowfall records as an argument for or against global warming appears to be showing ignorance of what global warming is or what it predicts.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
[QUOTE]Except for the fact that that money they're spending to combat global warming is giving their people jobs, increasing they farm production, lowering their energy costs, and improving their overall health and safety.

So there is no actual opportunity cost- even if global warming turns out to be a non-issue, they get a solid economic foundation out of the deal.

Of course there is an Opportunity cost. As soon as anyone makes a mutually exclusive choice, you've incurred an opportunity cost.

Either you invest in carbon reduction (pumping CO2 into the ground for example), which yields little other benefits or you don't. If you do you can't spend the money on anything else.

Sure someone will have to be paid to perform the task, but that someone will not be performing another valuable task.

As for increasing farm production, no you're doing the opposite. Farm production increases in a high CO2 environment. So by capping or cutting it you will negatively effect crop growth.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!

[ December 28, 2009, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
"Sure someone will have to be paid to perform the task, but that someone will not be performing another valuable task."

What other task? It's not enough to say that they could be doing *something* else, since they and everyone else are already doing *something*. If the other opportunity was a publicly or privately funded job to help the environment in some way, it would be another "opportunity" for another "opportunity cost" argument to be made. You might not make it, but someone certainly would. There's enough unemployment right now that there are plenty of people with relevant skills and experience who can't find that other opportunity, so there is no real "cost" to putting them to work on this problem.

"Luboš Motl is a physicist that has done some work with the UAH data set. "

Motl was a string theory physicist at Harvard who left in disgrace after a series of unprofessional attacks on other physicists with whose ideas he disagreed. He has no particular credentials in climatology research, but you think a 14% chance that the conclusions based on his 95% confidence interval measurement could be wrong justifies completely rejecting the 86% chance that they are right. Looking around the web, I can't find any scientists who have chimed in to support any of his climate pronouncements. If you were even part-way objective about this, you would be using the 86% to make the opposite argument from what you are making.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Let me guess - Motl is a physicist not trained in a discipline directly related to climate science.

Quoting USA snowfall records as an argument for or against global warming appears to be showing ignorance of what global warming is or what it predicts.

Is it more ignorant than logical fallacies like appeals to authority? You seem to be willing to trust the head of the IPCC and his ramblings - he's a railroad Why do you think a railroad engineer more knowledgeable than a physicist? [FootInMouth]

Maybe you should think it through a little more before you try to accuse someone of ignorance and end up proving your own. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
Motl was a string theory physicist at Harvard who left in disgrace after a series of unprofessional attacks on other physicists with whose ideas he disagreed. He has no particular credentials in climatology research,

This is another logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well". You guys consistently rely on such logical fallacies to make your case. You combine this with Greg's favorite, the appeal to authority with the need for credentials in climatology. It appears that such "credentials", whatever they are (G2 doesn't think anyone really knows), are that you agree with AGW. Agree with AGW, and suddenly you're an expert no matter how much you fake your data or corrupt the peer review process or even if your only technical training was to be a railroad engineer.

Unfortunately for your argument, Motl did not do any climatology work regarding what I quoted. He took some data and did some pretty simple calculations on the slope and standard deviation - I'm pretty sure he can do that despite any past tiff with other Harvard researchers (it's pretty basic mathematics, he used built in functions in Mathematica to do it). Why do you believe someone would need some kind of special credentials do do such simple calculations?

[ December 28, 2009, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Of course there is an Opportunity cost. As soon as anyone makes a mutually exclusive choice, you've incurred an opportunity cost.

And that "if" is key. You're pushing a false dichotomy here.

quote:
Either you invest in carbon reduction (pumping CO2 into the ground for example), which yields little other benefits or you don't. If you do you can't spend the money on anything else.


Or you invest in solar/wind powered farm equipment. Water and geothermal power as well. Weatherization projects. More advanced building design such that less direct heating or cooling is needed and, perhaps, that it generates some of its own power. More energy efficient equipment. Why try to sequester carbon when you can work toward not producing it in the first place?

Greener irrigation techniques. More advanced greenhouse technology- maybe ones that even allow you to pump in explicitly captured CO2 where you can't eliminate the need for its production in the first place.

And really, increase crop yields are only a secondary problem overall- shortages come far more from politics preventing the distribution of food from more agriculturally rich areas to less fertile ones than any localized shortage does.

quote:
Sure someone will have to be paid to perform the task, but that someone will not be performing another valuable task.


So then they can now pay someone else in turn to do that work. Your implication that there's any area in the world right now that suffers from maximized employment and full automation doesn't hold up; money doesn't just stop at the first or second person in line- in fact, its aggregate value increases the more times it changes hands. Higher employment. And the best part is that if the money you're paying for energy is going to a wind farm or solar array in town, then it stays in town even longer to get spent over and over again, rather than being shipped off to an oil baron's coffers.

Ideally the plan should be to help developing countries build an infrastructure on modern, renewable technology form the start instead of trying to make them play catch up and develop the same fossil fuel legacies in the process.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
"This is another logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well"."

I don't understand what you mean. Why are you citing the work of someone outside the field of expertise to draw conclusions from some small amount of data, while at the same time rejecting the conclusions of scientists trained to do that work?

Your arguments seem entirely based on a belief that the scientific data is wrong or the scientists are corrupt or both, and that anyone who doesn't realize it is somehow part of an unreasoning social conspiracy. Meanwhile you cite someone with (apparently) serious personal issues that caused him to leave the Harvard faculty either by being pushed or jumping and insist that he is being reasonable.

" He took some data and did some pretty simple calculations on the slope and standard deviation - I'm pretty sure he can do that despite any past tiff with other Harvard researchers (it's pretty basic mathematics, he used built in functions in Mathematica to do it). "

So simple even someone trained in climatology could do it, but they use much more sophisticated methods and the vast majority of them came up with different conclusions. Arguing that a theoretical physicist can build a case for or against AGW because he knows how to use builtin functions on a small amount of data in Mathematica is like saying an architect who knows how a hammer works and has pounded a boxful of nails should be trusted to give advice on how to build a house.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
AGW is directly caused by the hUGE AMOUNTS OF BOVINE BLOVIATION EXPRESSED ON THE TOPIC.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
dang CAPS key.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Global warming is only one of many possible threats facing the world today, so measures to slow it must compete with other priorities. "

Why do I never hear any synergistic approaches? A *global* phenom must have a huge array of tangential interfaces.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
According to NOAA, October was the third coldest on record in the US, with almost every state showing temperatures from one to ten degrees below normal. December is set to repeat that feat with temperatures ranging from one to fifteen degrees below normal. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center forecast that most of the US would have above normal temperatures from October through December, and perhaps more importantly did did not predict that any areas would have below normal temperatures.

And what about September and November - is there any reason you left those numbers out of your observation? I only ask because NOAA showed that, globally, September 2009 was the 2nd warmest September ever and November was the 4th warmest November ever.

Not that monthly numbers mean much of anything, and taking one country's temps over the monthly period is even less meaningful...
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
"Global warming is only one of many possible threats facing the world today, so measures to slow it must compete with other priorities. "

Why do I never hear any synergistic approaches? A *global* phenom must have a huge array of tangential interfaces.

I've heard synergistic approaches.

Nuclear power is the biggest one. It emits far less carbon than coal, has a long term fuel source, has a small plant footprint, the fuel can be obtained from Canada and the technology is proven and widely deployed.

Currently it's the best approach we have right now and anyone that thinks that AGW is a very serious issue would be pushing it strongly.

However, most AGW advocates don't like it.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
According to NOAA, October was the third coldest on record in the US, with almost every state showing temperatures from one to ten degrees below normal. December is set to repeat that feat with temperatures ranging from one to fifteen degrees below normal. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center forecast that most of the US would have above normal temperatures from October through December, and perhaps more importantly did did not predict that any areas would have below normal temperatures.

And what about September and November - is there any reason you left those numbers out of your observation? I only ask because NOAA showed that, globally, September 2009 was the 2nd warmest September ever and November was the 4th warmest November ever.

Not that monthly numbers mean much of anything, and taking one country's temps over the monthly period is even less meaningful...

You ask so that you can ignore the entire point to target what you think is a weak point - another logical fallacy (straw man). Go back and look at the NOAA predictions, then check reality again. Notice the difference? It's yet another example of reality not conforming to the alarmist predictions.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
"This is another logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well"."

I don't understand what you mean. Why are you citing the work of someone outside the field of expertise to draw conclusions from some small amount of data, while at the same time rejecting the conclusions of scientists trained to do that work?

Outside the field of basic mathematics? Is only someone ordained by some nebulous authority in the church of climatology able to comment on basic mathematics.

quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
Your arguments seem entirely based on a belief that the scientific data is wrong or the scientists are corrupt or both, and that anyone who doesn't realize it is somehow part of an unreasoning social conspiracy. Meanwhile you cite someone with (apparently) serious personal issues that caused him to leave the Harvard faculty either by being pushed or jumping and insist that he is being reasonable.

The data is consistently being show to be wrong and there has been a conspiracy exposed. Your continued attempt to poison the well is simply not worth pursuing.

quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:


So simple even someone trained in climatology could do it, but they use much more sophisticated methods and the vast majority of them came up with different conclusions. Arguing that a theoretical physicist can build a case for or against AGW because he knows how to use builtin functions on a small amount of data in Mathematica is like saying an architect who knows how a hammer works and has pounded a boxful of nails should be trusted to give advice on how to build a house.

Arguing that only someone trained in what you call climatology is the only one that can do simple math related to temperature is absurd. And yes, I think you should take from an architect on how to build a house - whether he's good at swinging a hammer or not.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
"Outside the field of basic mathematics? Is only someone ordained by some nebulous authority in the church of climatology able to comment on basic mathematics."

I was saying that a physicist who uses simple arithmetic does not have the right tool to judge the whole of the AGW subject, just like an architect who imagines his knowledge of hammers is sufficient to tell someone how to make construction decisions is probably a few shingles short of a roof.

Has a conspiracy that previously escaped detection really been exposed by Motl's simple use of simple mathematics? Is it so vast that it has perverted the whole field of climatology? I think you would answer yes.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
You ask so that you can ignore the entire point to target what you think is a weak point - another logical fallacy (straw man). Go back and look at the NOAA predictions, then check reality again. Notice the difference? It's yet another example of reality not conforming to the alarmist predictions.

The problem with this statement is that you continue to fail to understand that confidence levels for such predictions are necessarily low due to the inherently variable/chaotic nature of short and even mid-range weather. And especially so for such a small region. This is the same mistake you have made numerous times in the past when you claim that a given month or even one-year period of lower temperatures means that a warming trend does not exist. It might not, but using such a small data set as 'your proof' is simplistic and incorrect.

But my point about September and November is also valid: honest analysis of any hypothesis necessarily addresses the data that does not support it. In this case, to 'prove' your point that NOAA doesn't know what it is talking about, you should have acknowledged that yes, part of the prediction was correct, but that overall it was not due to A, B and C. But you did not do that. Instead, you cherry picked the bits that supported your position and ignored the rest.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"I've heard synergistic approaches.

Nuclear power is the biggest one. It emits far less carbon than coal, has a long term fuel source, has a small plant footprint, the fuel can be obtained from Canada and the technology is proven and widely deployed.

Currently it's the best approach we have right now and anyone that thinks that AGW is a very serious issue would be pushing it strongly.

However, most AGW advocates don't like it."

Firstly, please examine the semantic logic of "AGW advocates". That's messed up. I'm unaware of any AGW advocates except maybe Dr. Evil?

Problem with nukes is 60 years later the discussion on how to deal with the enormously toxic waste nukes produce is perhaps even less scientific than that about AGW.

Also, nukes are a known entity. We have very clear ideas of how much energy they can produce and how cleanly.

What we don't have is 60 years of massively government-funded research in the many other modes of energy discharge technologies.

Indeed, that nukes are where they are now despite being almost entirely funded by the military is perhaps a damning comment on What Nukes Can Do For us.

Fifty years from now, if we need nukes that badly, we'll build them in a heartbeat. A decade of rampant nuclearization. But nukes alone are far from enough answer for the problem of changing our energy base to one that is sustainable and not potentially globally catastrophic.

Meanwhile there's this nonsensical foorah about 'the weather she is a changing/the weather she is a notchanging!'. None of which can be proven conclusively using current methods.

But the world oil supply is steadily shrinking compared to growing global consumption? That equation is challenged only by ardent Big Bucks conspiracy theorists and a certain kind of crackpot geobiologist.

Think of it: we;re running out of oil. AGW problem solved! Not as well as we'd like, but still: we WILL reduce carbon emissions one way or another! We have a fairly clear timeline!

Will we replace petroleum sufficiently to prevent a global energy depression (far worse than a mere monetary depression)? There's no disputing this simple fact of our energic reality as a planetary species.

But still, as ever, we prefer to argue about the weather (although this time, contrary to Twain, some of us are itching to do something about it).

Since carbon emission is doomed to be over by century's end, period, let us work on replacing what emitting carbon does for us (keeps us fed and warm, to be precise) rather than spanking global carbon monkey models for the bad we believe they'll do.

It seems to be my plight to see levels of absurdity not commonly visible.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Firstly, please examine the semantic logic of "AGW advocates". That's messed up. I'm unaware of any AGW advocates except maybe Dr. Evil?

That's pedantic on your part, but yes, I actually meant "AGW theory advocates".

quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Fifty years from now, if we need nukes that badly, we'll build them in a heartbeat. A decade of rampant nuclearization.

I believe we should wait 10 to 20 years to gather further evidence before spending a lot of resources curtailing AGW. However, Nuclear plants take 5-10 years to build and they will be just as useful if we don't need them for that reason, and still far cheaper than solar power or ethanol will be. So if we start building, new generation nuclear plants soon, we'll be able to ramp up to full production linearly and cost efficiently.

quote:

Meanwhile there's this nonsensical foorah about 'the weather she is a changing/the weather she is a notchanging!'. None of which can be proven conclusively using current methods.

True

quote:

Think of it: we;re running out of oil. AGW problem solved! Not as well as we'd like, but still: we WILL reduce carbon emissions one way or another! We have a fairly clear timeline!

Also true, but limited by the fact that coal plants produce far more CO2.

quote:

Since carbon emission is doomed to be over by century's end, period.

And that's not close to true, as Wood, coal and possibly, natural gas, all have more than 100 years of reserves.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Also true, but limited by the fact that coal plants produce far more CO2....And that's not close to true, as Wood, coal and possibly, natural gas, all have more than 100 years of reserves."

True. I should've added my conjecture that within a century of work on the problem, we'll have devised ways of pulling energy from coal et al without producing loose CO2.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Fifty years from now, if we need nukes that badly, we'll build them in a heartbeat. A decade of rampant nuclearization.

I believe we should wait 10 to 20 years to gather further evidence before spending a lot of resources curtailing AGW. However, Nuclear plants take 5-10 years to build and they will be just as useful if we don't need them for that reason, and still far cheaper than solar power or ethanol will be. So if we start building, new generation nuclear plants soon, we'll be able to ramp up to full production linearly and cost efficiently.
The same goes for solar and wind power technology. For energy efficient devices and hybrid or electric vehicles. For weatherization projects and green farming techniques. All of them have upfront costs that are hard to overcome given the inertia of current established technology, but many are useful in the long term, and more than that, many pay back more than their cost in terms of energy savings.

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Executive_Summary.pdf

Presents a good look, specifically this graph:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2009/12/Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Executive_Summary.pdf%20-%20Google%20Docs_1262106150597.html

Which shows that nearly half of the major proposals have an overall negative cost, and the biggest of those are very highly profitable (better than $90/ton of CO2 abated).

And while many of the things that do have a cost associated with them are problem specific (Carbon capture and the like, other things like solar and wind power, reforestation, and HVAC efficiency are still useful investments no matter what the actual case in relation to CO2.

Also, many of those costs are probably higher than they should be, given that once the incentive exists to use them, much more active work will be put into lowering their costs; there will be real active economic pressure to bring them down, rather than the casual, specialized interest we see now, because the biggest players have more interest in maintaining the status quo that pushing those technological directions.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Presents a good look, specifically this graph:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2009/12/Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Executive_Summary.pdf%20-%20Google%20Docs_1262106150597.html

Which shows that nearly half of the major proposals have an overall negative cost, and the biggest of those are very highly profitable (better than $90/ton of CO2 abated).

First, very nice graph. I book marked it under my Alt Energy folder for future reference.

The only quibble with the graph, and it's not a fault of the graph itself, is it only deals with pure CO2 costs. Obviously plug-in hybrid cars are coming soon, not for CO2 reasons but because the cost of gasoline savings make their net cost either negative or very low.

All items below the zero cost line of the graph will be corrected by a free market. Indeed, my company does the "Industrial process improvements" for as long as they can keep us working per week. They are a self correcting issue as companies are always trying to reduce recurring costs.

It is items above the zero cost line ($$$) that everyone is concerned with. The two I support, (Nuclear power and Wind Turbines) are also the two big ones that are relatively cheap.

The US currently produces more nuclear power than any other nation. If we tripled our current nuclear power generation we could effectively replace our coal consumption. As long as we are phasing out coal plants as they reach a certain age (say 50 years or so) and we reduce the Nuclear red tape (roughly 33-50% of the cost), we could:

1) Cut our CO2 production in half
2) Cut our oil importation cost significantly, with the use of plug-in hybrids powered by nuclear generation.
3) Remove the volatility from the US energy cost market.

Combine that approach with increasing Wind power generation from the current 1.5% to roughly 10%. This would reduce the use of natural gas in power production and allow it to be used for transportation. Particularly trains and long haul trucking which can't be easily electrified.

Solar power we can ignore, since with current and likely future cost it will never amount to anything.

Efficiency improvements should be limited to those that cost no more than wind power.

All this can be achieved at the $20 per ton mark. Which optimistically, would cost the US government roughly $20-40 billion per year over the next 10 years in subsidies.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
All items below the zero cost line of the graph will be corrected by a free market. Indeed, my company does the "Industrial process improvements" for as long as they can keep us working per week. They are a self correcting issue as companies are always trying to reduce recurring costs.

In the near term? Some, perhaps. More in the longer term, but there are still many barriers in upfront adoption, not the least of which is the ongoing attempt to convince people that such are a waste of time and money or would represent lifestyle sacrifices.

The bigger point here is, though, that casting attempts to fight global warming as wasteful across the board simply isn't true. Most of the avenues are either strictly profitable once you overcome the market barriers (The savings only come after a high upfront price tag) or will eventually result in better overall savings.

Programs like the one now being referred to as "Cash for caulkers" would be big wins across the board; money that puts people to work on projects that represent long term savings (and on projects that don't significantly reduce future demand because one of the big barriers here is not people waiting to afford it, but people figuring that they won't own the property long enough to see actual return on the investment.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
The only quibble with the graph, and it's not a fault of the graph itself, is it only deals with pure CO2 costs. Obviously plug-in hybrid cars are coming soon, not for CO2 reasons but because the cost of gasoline savings make their net cost either negative or very low.

I think that would fall under fuel economy packages, while "hybridization" on that graph probably refers to converting existing vehicles to hybrids, which would map pretty well to it being a very high cost proposition with only a small margin of effect.

What I'd really love to see progress on would be combining newer clean diesel engines with plug in electrics. I'm guessing that diesel engines must be too heavy to work well at the moment, but they seem like a natural overall combination to maximize overall efficiency.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
What I'd really love to see progress on would be combining newer clean diesel engines with plug in electrics. I'm guessing that diesel engines must be too heavy to work well at the moment, but they seem like a natural overall combination to maximize overall efficiency.

Diesels in the US have never been very popular due to the high sulfur content of US oil. Europe relies on middle east oil which doesn't suffer from the same problem.

Now that all US diesel fuel is mandated to be low sulfur and the refineries have already implemented it, we may see a resurgence of small diesel engines in the US.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
Interesting analysis of temperature data from Northern Australia.

Essentially looking at the raw data, it's clear the area has been cooling. However the homogenized data from GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network) shows a strong warming. It's a pretty thorough and detailed analysis with lots of pretty graphs.

Link
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends
Lots of smoke, hardly any gun. Do climatologists falsify data?

[ January 12, 2010, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
I couldn't copy and paste but I did put this in favorites file 'Climate'.

This is the best I have seen as far as specific data in a raw form. No lies no hiding.

Good. Tie this with what Hobsen says and crank up the coal. Get the farmers making ethanol. Drill everywhere. Build nuclear power. Get Reid out and finish Yucca Mountain.
Sorry, Pete, but its waste mixed in concrete, hermetically sealed in airtight drums and stored a mile down. Take one for the team, Pete. Help get people back to work.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Who are you responding to?
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
The following was included in the comments section on the first link in MattP's posting.
It was comment #72.

Can anyone see an agenda? Science, please. No hysterics.


Have you ever herd someone claim "overpopulation is a myth"?

That would have to be one of the nuttiest of religious wack-job ideas (up there with condoms are wrong, and condoms won't stop HIV). All of which will continue to bring terrible suffering and scaring on the ecosphere and humanity.

I can't think of a worse set of lies to perpetrate. Denying climate change will delay action and produce a compounding the effect ombined with over population.

Instead of a soft landing, this compound denial will cause the worst type of crash, famine, dislocation, and violence.
The most vulnerable will suffer, as they are suffering with HIV due to lies put out by the head of the Catholic church.

A price on carbon will bring some beneficial social opportunities; I will also bring us closer to longer term sustainability. Thought this also involves bring forward realisation of the some of the real costs of living that we have been able to defer. That will mean that the lies about the population level not being a problem will be harder to maintain.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | December 10, 2009 6:07 AM
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
Donald,

Sorry. This post by Hobsen:

Global warming is only one of many possible threats facing the world today, so measures to slow it must compete with other priorities. And the danger remains sufficiently in doubt so any agreement reached now might be repudiated by some later administration. That might do more harm than never starting such measures at all. As the current health care debate illustrates, making a major policy change requires that nearly everyone agree that change is necessary, and even then effective action may be postponed for decades because people can not agree on what to do and how to do it.
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
The author of the second link in MattP's post is a nuerobiologist.

There are close to a hundred comments. Lots of contraversy.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends

The headline is Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends, but no where in the article does the author provide any real evidence.

He says this:

quote:
He Eschenbach claims that for Darwin "the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling"

quote:

The adjustment procedure used is described here, with the the authors noting:

A great deal of effort went into the homogeneity adjustments. Yet the effects of the homogeneity adjustments on global average temperature trends are minor (Easterling and Peterson 1995b). However, on scales of half a continent or smaller, the homogeneity adjustments can have an impact. On an individual time series, the effects of the adjustments can be enormous.

This is in no way a lie. Eschenbach's statement is exactly correct.

"the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling"

The trend was "artificially increased" to give a "false warming" where the "raw data shows cooling."

Now you might take exception to the adjective false and say the scientist meant it to be a "true artificial" increase. But it's clearly a huge adjustment and it's clearly artificial.

Crikes just look at the graph in the article you linked. I urge everyone to look at the article MattP linked and look at the black line on the graph. That line is the homogeneity adjustments. It literally takes the raw data "blue" from a downward slope to adjusted data "red" with an upward slope.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bringer:
I couldn't copy and paste but I did put this in favorites file 'Climate'.

This is the best I have seen as far as specific data in a raw form. No lies no hiding.

Good. Tie this with what Hobsen says and crank up the coal. Get the farmers making ethanol. Drill everywhere. Build nuclear power. Get Reid out and finish Yucca Mountain.
Sorry, Pete, but its waste mixed in concrete, hermetically sealed in airtight drums and stored a mile down. Take one for the team, Pete. Help get people back to work.

I'm nervously OK with Yucca mountain. Not OK with trucking nuclear waste during the post-911 period, through crowded civillian areas like Las Vegas, which Al Quaeda has targeted as "the city of whores." Given what's at stake, I think the team should pay for a different transport route.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
No- the cooling was false because it was not the result of actually cooler temperatures but of differences in the equipment, location of measurement, and other such factors.

Imagine that you've been measuring a line regularly with a certain ruler over and over. Then you switch to a different ruler which claims to be the same scale but is slightly longer, so all the divisions on it are a little further apart. When you measure with that ruler, you get a shorter length for the line.

Did the line get shorter? No. The difference was one of the accuracy of the measuring device.

But if compare the the lengths of the two rulers, you can figure out the difference in scale and apply that factor to all measurements taken with the new ruler.

The same goes for the temperature data. The raw data doesn't account for the fact that different thermometers, different shelters, different locations were used for the measurements. So the raw data, uncorrected to account for those variations is, in fact, the false data. It shows trends based on measurements of differing accuracy, not actual temperature trends. You only see the real trend when you properly account for those differences.

The homogeneity adjustments _remove_ artificial effects, like changing the housing on the thermometer, or moving it from one location to another, and the construction of buildings that changed the shade or airflow on the thermometer.
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
I'll accept any homogeneity adjustments made by scientists before, say 1992, when Goremania infected the IPCC, and "70's Iceage" Schneider and his ilk made the Medieval Warming Period disappear from climate history.
After that I'm a gonna have to leave it in the hands of a higher power, say the shaman of an aboriginal tribe that casts bones and reads entrails.
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
Pete,
I think I might be able to drive truck. Guess I should put my money where my mouth is.
Because my info says 100 million gallons are in temporary storage and they have no plan without Yucca.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
I'll accept any homogeneity adjustments made by scientists before, say 1992
Did you look at the links?
Adjustments made by scientists, overall, do not have an effect of adding a warming trend to the data.

Incidentally, it is interesting to read what Schneider himself has to say about that paper he published in the 70s. Scientists never tried to raise alarm about global cooling - the credulous and hyperbolic press may have, and inattentive idiots might have believed them (and might still continue to believe that scientists in the 70s were freaking out about cooling trends).
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
Adjustments made by scientists, overall, do not have an effect of adding a warming trend to the data.
This is worth highlighting. What's happening here is that a AGW skeptic is cherry picking a station that has a particularly large adjustment and using it to indicate fraudulent science without noting that even the unadjusted raw data from the complete set of stations over the entire continent still shows warming.

It is the nature of such things that some stations will require greater adjustments than others, and it's easy enough to find one station among many with a particularly large adjustment, but doing so to try to illustrate a larger point is disingenuous - yes, even lying.

Is there any doubt that if temperatures were never adjusted, but that site relocations or other changes produced artificially warmer temperatures in the raw data, that the anti-AGW faction would be complaining about scientists not accounting for these changes by adjusting the data? Hasn't that in fact actually happened in other criticisms of the science - claims that warming trends in some areas are the result of urban development around monitoring stations rather than climate change?

It's not the adjustments that people seem to have a problem with, but the warming. If adjusted data shows warming then it must be fraudulent adjustments. If raw data shows warming than it must be a lack of adjustments for factors that are artificially influencing the instruments.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
Ops, I totally agree. MattP, I think you summed up the issue with "skeptics" neatly. They aren't skeptical at all, but are bound to a belief that rules out any scientific findings that go against it. They lie both by omission and commission, both willfully and sometime unconsciously.

There will always be some evidence that goes against the majority of other evidence in any even slightly complex system. It is a mystery why those people are driven to insist that the small amount of non-supporting evidence found anywhere in the incredibly complex Earth must be true and the rest is false.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:

It's not the adjustments that people seem to have a problem with, but the warming. If adjusted data shows warming then it must be fraudulent adjustments. If raw data shows warming than it must be a lack of adjustments for factors that are artificially influencing the instruments.

That is completely incorrect. In the case of the Darwin station, the homogeneity adjustments created a warming trend of 6º C per century. Do you really believe the planet is warming at that rate? The raw data from 222 stations in the area does not show anything unusual but with a little homogeneity adjustment we can get to a warming rate 6º C per century.

Even in the most fevered dreams of the most rabid true believer nobody has proposed a rate 6º C per century. Blindly accepting the data simply because it shows warming is just as bad as what you accuse others of.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
No- the cooling was false because it was not the result of actually cooler temperatures but of differences in the equipment, location of measurement, and other such factors.

So this station got new equipment so often that 15 adjustments were necessary and almost all of them were upward. And what kind of new equipment causes a 50 year upward slope. Was the new equipment being replaced every 5 years and getting continually worse each time?

Seriously look at the graph again and ask yourself if your premise is anything other than pure rationalization.

AGW Link

Sceptic Link


quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
Did you look at the links?
Adjustments made by scientists, overall, do not have an effect of adding a warming trend to the data.

Am I missing something? The linked graph clearly shows a huge warming trend to the graph. (The black line) Without the adjustment the graph actually shows the area cooling.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
Do you really believe the planet is warming at that rate?
No. But again you are extrapolating the data of a single station to a global conclusion. Global warming of 6 degrees is ludicrous. Local warming of 6 degrees does not strike me as that outlandish.

The reason global warming is a worry is not because we expect that there will be uniform 1 or 2 degree increase in temperature everywhere, but because such a relatively small change on a global scale can mean dramatic changes in regional temperature and weather patterns.

All of that aside, the warming is still there even without this station. Whether it's an outlier because of valid adjustments in combination with unusual local temperatures or it's an outlier because of fraud doesn't change the fact that it's an outlier that's being cherry picked as a "smoking gun" representative a systematic problem.

Scientists conclude warming based on hundreds of stations. You can't counter that conclusion by attempting to indict a single station.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
Was the new equipment being replaced every 5 years and getting continually worse each time?
quote:
I spoke earlier today with Blair Trewin, a climatologist at the Australian BOM's National Climate Center. He said the BOM was trying to reconcile its own adjustments for the Darwin station with those of the GHCN. The BOM's "current data set does have a number of small adjustments over that period that are step functions. And all of those are attributed to there being quite a number of stationary locations within the Darwin Airport boundaries between 1970 and 1990s.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists

That whole article is a good discussion of this station in particular and the adjustment issue in general.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
"Even in the most fevered dreams of the most rabid true believer nobody has proposed a rate 6º C per century. Blindly accepting the data simply because it shows warming is just as bad as what you accuse others of. "

This will be completely lost on the G2, but this kind of rhetoric is exactly why people who think about this issue critically have no interest in talking or listening to you.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
Do you really believe the planet is warming at that rate?
No. But again you are extrapolating the data of a single station to a global conclusion.
You have that backwards, this was the result of a global conclusion being extrapolated and applied to a single station. In fact, it was applied to multiple stations with the Darwin station being the most absurdly overdone. This is one of the best examples of a conclusion being used to create the data. The mistake here was they went too far and it's now obvious that something inappropriate is being done.

[ January 14, 2010, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
"Even in the most fevered dreams of the most rabid true believer nobody has proposed a rate 6º C per century. Blindly accepting the data simply because it shows warming is just as bad as what you accuse others of. "

This will be completely lost on the G2, but this kind of rhetoric is exactly why people who think about this issue critically have no interest in talking or listening to you.

Al, this will almost certainly be completely lost on you, but perhaps you should go back through this thread and many many others to see just what kind of rhetoric passes for critical thinking here. G2 has been called names, insulted and personally attacked and on more than one occasion been the target of threats of violence by members still active on this forum. Entire threads are created and supported for the sole purpose of targeting G2 with these attacks and threats. G2 is mild by comparison.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
I've been reading here for months. I don't think I've insulted you (except perhaps by calling you "the G2" once or twice, which I'll stop doing). The tone and quality of your arguments speaks for itself, and I'm not surprised that you irritate people enough that they respond to you that way.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:

It's not the adjustments that people seem to have a problem with, but the warming. If adjusted data shows warming then it must be fraudulent adjustments. If raw data shows warming than it must be a lack of adjustments for factors that are artificially influencing the instruments.

That is completely incorrect. In the case of the Darwin station, the homogeneity adjustments created a warming trend of 6º C per century.
Where do you get that from? The adjusted chart in question shows 1.2C/century, not 6C.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
I've been reading here for months. I don't think I've insulted you (except perhaps by calling you "the G2" once or twice, which I'll stop doing). The tone and quality of your arguments speaks for itself, and I'm not surprised that you irritate people enough that they respond to you that way.

G2 suspects you've been here a lot longer and did more than just reading ... [Wink]

But see Al, you're part of the problem. The tone of G2's posts is generally the same as the posts to which G2 is responding. G2 spends time cutting and pasting the posts of others with just enough alteration to put G2's point of view in it so G2 can, as perfectly as possible, capture the tone of others. That you, as well as many others, don't like that look in the mirror is understandable. That you believe it's only G2 doing it is typical.

BTW, calling G2 "the G2" is not an insult so please feel free to use the honorific form of G2's name if you like. In fact, when G2 was first elevated to third person status (as far as G2 knows, G2 is the first to obtain such an exalted position here), G2 considered using "the G2" as well but ultimately found it too cumbersome.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
I don't think so.

In your very first post in this thread (2 months ago, a month before I joined), you wrote:

"This may blow over (with a willing media there's a reasonable chance) but it may also be what skeptics need to destroy the AGW hoax once and for all. "

True "skeptics" would seek out the debate and strive to win the argument, not devote themselves to "destroy" the hoax. Get it? The best you can do is show contempt for people who support AGW, and as others have pointed out, cherry pick or misrepresent data to hammer your point home. Just sticking to the two months this thread has been around, you have almost nothing useful to say on the subject and you say it over and over.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
I don't think so.

In your very first post in this thread (2 months ago, a month before I joined), you wrote:

"This may blow over (with a willing media there's a reasonable chance) but it may also be what skeptics need to destroy the AGW hoax once and for all. "

True "skeptics" would seek out the debate and strive to win the argument, not devote themselves to "destroy" the hoax. Get it? The best you can do is show contempt for people who support AGW, and as others have pointed out, cherry pick or misrepresent data to hammer your point home. Just sticking to the two months this thread has been around, you have almost nothing useful to say on the subject and you say it over and over.

Well Al, it is a hoax. These leaked emails show how it was created and maintained through the corruption of the peer review process to suppress anything that contradicts AGW and the manipulation of Wikipedia by a member RealClimate among other tactics. The specific merits of a hoax do not require debate once the hoax is exposed. Get it?

G2 shows the same contempt for people who support AGW as those people show for "deniers". Do we really need to rehash the threats and intimidations people labeled deniers have been exposed to through the entire timeline of the AGW hoax? From calls for being tried in court for crimes against humanity to threats of loss of professional accreditation to outright bullying and you want to moan about G2's contempt? Get real.

The willing media is obvious with "Green Week" on prime time shows and alarmist photos that actually mean nothing of polar bears on ice flows, nightly newscasts with the latest apocalyptic scenario, Nobel prizes, Oscars, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum. The media is indeed a willing supporter of the hoax because a looming apocalypse sells and it aligns with their political views so they polish it just right. Ever see the MSM report on potential problems with AGW theory? Notice how much time they've spent on the leaked emails? Yeah, G2 hasn't seen much of it either. It's almost 100% one way, pro AGW.

The AGW supporters are repetitive so G2 seems repetitive as well when addressing the same AGW points over and over again. G2 is accused of cherry picking while encouraging others to review the entire timeline of planetary history (and providing links, data and quotes for it) rather than only the last century as AGW supporters prefer. G2 is accused of misrepresenting data while AGW supporters manipulate peer review and Wikipedia entries and do a little historical revision to remove the Medieval Warming Period from history and falsify tree ring studies. Your accusations of cherry picking and data manipulation are as false as they are hypocritical.

[ January 14, 2010, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
Well, don't call yourself a skeptic then, since you are an absolute denier who does not believe that any evidence can prove you wrong. And perhaps you should reserve your discussion of AGW for an evangelical or advocacy thread, instead of one that pretends to "discuss" the subject.

There are plenty of people who are willing to debate the quality of the data, the conclusions as well as the apparent (but not yet actually proven) deceit of the British Climate Research Unit, but without the strident name calling and denunciations.

Personally, I think AGW is real simply because I can't imagine where the heat generated from the last 100-150 years of energy usage (mainly through combustion) could have gone. But I'm not a scientist, so I can't quantify it or its effects. I believe it anyway because it seems undeniable that the global climate is heating up roughly in proportion to our energy usage. There is some kind of saturation point that we passed a few decades ago so the effects are more readily apparent. I don't really know where it goes from here (accelerate, constant growth), so I listen to the debate to learn more. Listening to someone dismiss it as a hoax in the way you do does nothing for me.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
Well, don't call yourself a skeptic then, since you are an absolute denier who does not believe that any evidence can prove you wrong. And perhaps you should reserve your discussion of AGW for an evangelical or advocacy thread, instead of one that pretends to "discuss" the subject.

There are plenty of people who are willing to debate the quality of the data, the conclusions as well as the apparent (but not yet actually proven) deceit of the British Climate Research Unit, but without the strident name calling and denunciations.

Al, has G2 called you names? Denounced you in any way? We've had our little exchange here and while you nibble around the edges you've stayed relatively decent. Consequently so has G2. G2 does indeed try to mirror the tone of those G2 converses with.

The majority of AGW supporters are in the same boat regarding the evidence and we should probably all be reserving discussion of AGW for an evangelical or advocacy thread, instead of one that pretends to "discuss" the subject. But here we are.

quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
Personally, I think AGW is real simply because I can't imagine where the heat generated from the last 100-150 years of energy usage (mainly through combustion) could have gone. But I'm not a scientist, so I can't quantify it or its effects. I believe it anyway because it seems undeniable that the global climate is heating up roughly in proportion to our energy usage. There is some kind of saturation point that we passed a few decades ago so the effects are more readily apparent. I don't really know where it goes from here (accelerate, constant growth), so I listen to the debate to learn more. Listening to someone dismiss it as a hoax in the way you do does nothing for me.

Al, that's the same logic that gets people to buy lottery tickets. Somebody's gotta win, it could be you! We created a lot of heat and CO2, it must do something! However there is no evidence that it has. The fluctuation of temperature over the past 150 years falls within the realm of statistical background noise. It's only when these "homogeneity adjustments" occur that we can create heating - heating that is not unprecedented either.

It is not undeniable that the planet is heating. If you look over the past 150 years, there have been heating and cooling cycles and we just ended the heating cycle and are now entering a cooling phase that is projected to last 20-30 years. If all these things AGW worries about is is doing anything, it's not doing enough to affect the natural cycle of the planet.

[ January 14, 2010, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Personally, I think AGW is real simply because I can't imagine where the heat generated from the last 100-150 years of energy usage (mainly through combustion) could have gone.
I think you might be misunderstanding the mechanism of the greenhouse effect, which is the basis for AGW.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
Of which a major component the CO2 that results from burning carbon based fuels?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Of which a major component the CO2 that results from burning carbon based fuels?
Sorry, your post implied that it was the "heat generated" from burning fossil fuels that was the issue.

My understanding was that the heat from the burning of the fossil fuels is irrelevant. The gas produced (mostly C02) traps solar radiation in the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space. Thus, it is the sun's heat that causes a greenhouse effect, not the heat from combustion due to cars and factories.

At least, that was my take on it from Grade 7 Ecology class.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Al, your wording was definitely wrong, and I think your understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat is also wrong. Jasonr has got it closer, though solar radiation isn't trapped so much as infrared radiation, mostly emitted by the earth's surface, is absorbed in part by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases then re-emit via infrared (in all directions, not just 'upwards') as well as pass the heat to other atmospheric gases via molecular collision.
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
Jason, Donald, thanks...I wasn't thinking it through in what I wrote.
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
What's the clinical name for a hysterical delusion that causes its victims to 'not' see or feel some huge radiating energy directly within their field of perception?
Until a few years ago I would have said, "Why, atheism of course."

Now however we have this new psychosis of denial. Yes, denial. You heard me right.
I throw your stone back a you. You hit me with it once. Because I was looking up. At the sun.

I almost bought it. I thought about moving to high ground in Alaska. I had a sister there. Yes, she approved highly of her mayor.

But before taking such action I thought I might consider the evidence. Like Sen. Inhofe did, as I found out later.

I actually totaled up the volume of the ice then estimated to cover the earth. I calculated what effect its melting would have on our globe. Its just math. I did it again and again. I got a two foot rise by using every worst scenario.

Then I saw John Stossal interviewing school children. And it made me angry.

Then I read the excerpt from the interview that Al Gore gave an English science journal, letting it slip that at times, paraphrasing but close, it is necessary to 'overstate' the effects so that action would be taken.

I considered the argument made by Michael Crichton and he seemed reasonable. I mourn his passing. Al Gore alluded to Mr. Crichton in congressional hearings, attesting that AGW is not 'science fiction'. To bad that hearing wasn't held outdoors. Mr. Gore seems to be making the presence of the sun 'science fiction'.

And on and on. All the MSM and the IPCC and the CRU splitting hairs and obfuscating to build a case against the sun.

It's the sun. Its heat effect on the earth dwarfs man's output by astronomical scales. Its interaction with atmospheric CO2 is not understood well enough to enact legislation which paralyzes development in economies all over the world.
The US will be hated the world over for this more than anything, for funding and enabling the stopswitch by which economies are killed until the Greens can institute and implement their radical unproved experiment.
Now it will be a race to fill our pantries and our graneries with enough to survive the seven year famine made by man to spite the sun.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
If you want to learn about medicine, you should talk to a doctor.

If you want to learn about automobiles, you should talk to a mechanic.

If you want to learn about law, you should talk to a lawyer.

And if you want to learn about Global Warming, you shouldn't talk to...
writers of science fantasies,
Senators (neither Gore nor Inofe),
MSM, nor
popular denial sites.

If you want to learn about science, talk to scientists.

Try The New Scientist,
Scientific American,
U.S. government sciencists,
or any other of the various sources.

Of course, you can dismiss it all as being part of a conspiracy or political bias. But don't criticize others for not looking at the evidence.

And don't blame me if you go to your car mechanic for an appendectomy. [Smile]
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
From Ops:

"Incidentally, it is interesting to read what Schneider himself has to say about that paper he published in the 70s. Scientists never tried to raise alarm about global cooling -"

Ops, you must not be aware of the video file of the young Schneider looking in dismay over the frozen city of Denver(?) ironically then the sun was a factor in the equation.

And why do you exonerate the accused based on his own spun revision? Too quickly, I believe, for a proper scientist such as yourself.

From Ops:
" Did you look at the links?"

Yes, Ops. Reading is fundamental. In fact I read the links and commented on them. Then I read the comments in the links. Then I commented on the comments. Now I am commenting on your comment, which indicates that you did not read my comment commenting on the comments to the links about which we are both commenting.

But if reading is fundamental then so is objective observation. You know, the premise of "The Emperors New Clothes". Which I read. And whose premise I now attempt to apply to my daily investigations.
Proving that I value reading comprehension skills and cognitive ability.
But you have only the testimony of me, the accused (of not reading, comprehending, or cognating) on that.

Perhaps you might give me as much benefit of the doubt on this matter as you do Mr. Schneider.
 
Posted by bringer (Member # 6546) on :
 
Son,
And if the Emperor needs new clothes he then should talk to a tailor. Any will do. Please read the tale again, dear Son, and cognate on it.

Son said:

"If you want to learn about medicine, you should talk to a doctor.

If you want to learn about automobiles, you should talk to a mechanic.

If you want to learn about law, you should talk to a lawyer."

Son, Son, dear Son. I am older than you think. I have talked to many doctors. Many mechanics, and many lawyers as well. But my outright belief in them has been betrayed many times. And my skeptical belief in them, when professed to them, has served me well. And my outright denial of a few of them saves both me and and the unwitting who follow me.
You might speak with Ralph Nader about this concept, except that I ironically and tragically do not completely trust him either.
You might consider the Parable of the Fisherman, who bringing in his nets is then obliged to sort through his catch throwing out the bad and keeping the good.
That being a cognative ability.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
bringer...keep on bringing it!

Wayward is merely repeating the mantra of the true believers of the holy church of scientific consensus!

Let me rephrase Wayward's premise into a more accurate rendition:

If you want to learn about science, talk to scientists....but only those scientists who treat AGW as factual; those scientists who approach the study of AGW as if it were a LAW like observing the LAW of gravity in effect. If you want to learn about science, talk to only those scientists who support CONSENSUS as the equivalent to the scientific method...

...and please don't talk to scientists who are skeptical, don't buy into the idea that "consensus" is a valid aspect of scientific inquiry and methodology...see scientists like these, are not REAL "scientists" unless they stop that pesky habit of skeptical inquiry and just buy into the groupthink political movement!

...and most of all, don't talk to scientists unless they've been bought and sold by the granting and funding zeitgeist that funds entire careers to support AGW consensus while blackballing, slandering, and de-funding any scientists who do not go along with the group think.

Remember, those emails don't show you anything of the sort is going on!

Everyone knows THOSE "deniers" are not REAL scientists! [DOH]
 
Posted by vegimo (Member # 6023) on :
 
Just throwing around <a href="http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html" target="_blank">links</a>.

Maybe even references to <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=DJxlzuOdK2IC&dq=unstoppable+climate+change&source=gbs_navlinks_s" target="_blank">books</a>.
 
Posted by vegimo (Member # 6023) on :
 
ouch, that was painful.

Ok,
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
and
http://books.google.com/books?id=DJxlzuOdK2IC&dq=unstoppable+climate+change&source=gbs_navlinks_s
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
I must say, Daruma, your logic is irrefutable.

After all, if ten doctors examine a case, and nine of them agree on a diagnosis, the dissenting doctor must be right.

If nine car mechanics agree that the problem is with the transmission, the tenth who says it's the carborator must be right.

And if nine climatologists agree that the Earth is warming and it is primarily due to human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, the tenth scientist who disagrees must be right.

It's obvious that those other nine scientists must be more worried about funding and careers and politics than that tenth scientist is. How could it be any other way? Sure, they work in different countries, with different funding schemes, and the funding for research is just a small fraction of total spending on AGW. Sure, politics differs from country to country. And sure, coming up with solid data that overthrows an established theory is a sure way to lose your job (or win a Nobel Prize, I forget which [Smile] ). But it is always that one guy who forgoes all that who is ALWAYS right. The one guy who bucks the trend never does it for less-than-pure motives.

So only listen to the guy who dissents.

And please, don't read any of the refutations of the dissenters views. Don't consider that the guy might--just might--be wrong. No, no, no! Dissenters are never wrong.

So what if eighteen climate scientists thought that Michael Crichton's criticisms were bunk. One thought he did a pretty good job. He must be right.

So what if all but a small minority of scientists think that the data shows the Earth has been warming. They've bought into GroupThin