Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You're wasting your time with this crowd.

...the debate is over. In fact, it is so ever that now, today, even if we stopped 100% of our carbon emissions... we're still screwed. It's that bad.

Sooooo.... if that's the case... then why change anything now? The damage has already been done. As long as we can get another 75 years out of the planet - that'll be good enough.

Because some folks are deranged and actually want a so-called apocalypse. I think most of the deniers don't understand the idea of consequence, and they have no respect for or knowledge of the scientific process.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If it were only that simple. There's a ton of derivative work based on EAU-CRU. For example, we learned this week that NASA and Univ. of Alabama Huntsville sattelite-based temperature measurements for

You're right. All scientists are bad. Oh, and I hear the glaciers are now rapidly rebuilding themselves in response to this recent discovery. And to the residents of Kiribati, ignore the sea level ris

I had to do it. * 1. Conservatives believe that human beings are fundamentally bad and that they are constantly evolving into something better unless they are christians. Moreover, they believe

Because some folks are deranged and actually want a so-called apocalypse.

No.. some of just don't believe Al Gore's apocalypse is upon us.

and they have no respect for or knowledge of the scientific process.

You're talking about the consensus of climate experts pushing the lie, right ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because some folks are deranged and actually want a so-called apocalypse. I think most of the deniers don't understand the idea of consequence, and they have no respect for or knowledge of the scientific process.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that too many universities gloss over the study of the philosophy of science. This should be core material that is taken more seriously than any amalgam of data from any field as it pertains to any particular topic, yet that's usually not the case it seems. Instead, such students who ought to be living breathing monuments to logic and reason buy into vapid rhetoric, such as that someone who is skeptical of a theory is a "denier" of it. It's a pathetic situation, really, one that is too easily solved to be excused.

There are too many instances in the annals of science where forward-thinking creative thinkers and skeptics were dismissed (both in ancient times and in the modern era) for me to believe that the scientific mainstream is an impregnable and monolithic force of reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because some folks are deranged and actually want a so-called apocalypse. I think most of the deniers don't understand the idea of consequence, and they have no respect for or knowledge of the scientific process.

Someone claimed we have 100 degree days with 100% humidity today. That's rather apocalyptic, don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about the consensus of climate experts pushing the lie, right ?

I'd like to know what exactly the lie is. The only story seems to be that some illegally obtained emails are being read out of context by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-government think tank and outspoken opponent of any regulations pertaining to global warming. And even if these scientists at the University of East Anglia are exaggerating their findings, isn't this just an isolated incident, and not a global conspiracy?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a mighty big claim you've put out there. Explain it thoroughly.

I could, but I'm not not. It would not be an efficient use of my computer's CPU cycles, which requires electricity, which strains the earth's resources, contributing to global climate change.

Hey - I'm on your side now. There's no need to conserve anything, or change course - no matter what the scientists say. At this point, all they are telling us is that the damage is occurring faster than initially projected... and that it is pretty much irreversible now. We've past the point of no return, so damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!

Screw the future. The next generation won't miss what they don't have. They'll just get used to a warmer planet and 1 foot of water in their living rooms... because that will be all they know... it will be their "normal." No harm, no foul.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could, but I'm not not. It would not be an efficient use of my computer's CPU cycles, which requires electricity, which strains the earth's resources, contributing to global climate change.

Hey - I'm on your side now. There's no need to conserve anything, or change course - no matter what the scientists say. At this point, all they are telling us is that the damage is occurring faster than initially projected... and that it is pretty much irreversible now. We've past the point of no return, so damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!

Screw the future. The next generation won't miss what they don't have. They'll just get used to a warmer planet and 1 foot of water in their living rooms... because that will be all they know... it will be their "normal." No harm, no foul.

If you're right, then it doesn't matter how wasteful you are of CPU cycles.

Humor me.

The next generation won't miss what they don't have. They'll just get used to a warmer planet and 1 foot of water in their living rooms... because that will be all they know... it will be their "normal." No harm, no foul.

So, what it sounds like is that an average of 18 inches of water will cover the enter land area as we know it, denying future generations the capability of owning a dry living room. And if they put it on tall piers or build levees, the water will just rise up in a rising mound underneath the targeted object until its objective of submerging all (or perhaps just the vast majority of) living rooms is accomplished. The higher we'd build, the more pissed off the water would get at us and the more it'd be motivated to flood out our living rooms. Do you think this might have something to do with the surface tension of water? And if so, what happens if I disrupt it, say by poking it with a fork? Would that cure the effects of global warming?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could, but I'm not not. It would not be an efficient use of my computer's CPU cycles, which requires electricity, which strains the earth's resources, contributing to global climate change.

Hey - I'm on your side now. There's no need to conserve anything, or change course - no matter what the scientists say. At this point, all they are telling us is that the damage is occurring faster than initially projected... and that it is pretty much irreversible now. We've past the point of no return, so damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!

Screw the future. The next generation won't miss what they don't have. They'll just get used to a warmer planet and 1 foot of water in their living rooms... because that will be all they know... it will be their "normal." No harm, no foul.

03rdowner3.jpg

Edited by barracuda
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're right, then it doesn't matter how wasteful you are of CPU cycles.

Humor me.

So, what it sounds like is that an average of 18 inches of water will cover the enter land area as we know it, denying future generations the capability of owning a dry living room. And if they put it on tall piers or build levees, the water will just rise up in a rising mound underneath the targeted object until its objective of submerging all (or perhaps just the vast majority of) living rooms is accomplished. The higher we'd build, the more pissed off the water would get at us and the more it'd be motivated to flood out our living rooms. Do you think this might have something to do with the surface tension of water? And if so, what happens if I disrupt it, say by poking it with a fork? Would that cure the effects of global warming?

Waterworld.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Global Warming Scientists caught fudging data

If this doesn't prove to you that these "researchers" have forgotten what science is then you need to go back to college.

It does not take a scientist to step back and look at the whole picture realistically. These Climate Change scientists would not have a job and all the money that they have if the world were not ending because of climate change. Because they want a job and money, the world must end, or else the money would be spent on something actually useful.

These scientists have an agenda - they want warming to exist so they can try to figure out why.....they manipulate data to prove their points, they ignore data that refutes their hypothesis, and they team up and use "peer review" as a way to call any denier of their theory a nut job, skeptic.

I have no doubt the world has gotten warmer. I do however doubt that humans have caused it. Its a natural cycle of warming and cooling caused by sun activity and other unknown factors...its funny that our global temperatures have risen and fallen in approximately the same percentages of our nearby planets...yet we are not there destroying those planets.

Im not saying we should not conserve resources here....b/c we should - there is no point in being wasteful - but these nut jobs who are supposed climate change scientists are nothing more than political hacks who try to use data to get their way instead of votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know what exactly the lie is. The only story seems to be that some illegally obtained emails are being read out of context by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-government think tank and outspoken opponent of any regulations pertaining to global warming. And even if these scientists at the University of East Anglia are exaggerating their findings, isn't this just an isolated incident, and not a global conspiracy?

No, because clearly if one scientist is an unethical @$$hole, then they're all unethical @$$holes. A single example makes a rule. Didn't you know that?

Clearly, this single example (or even a handful) out of literally millions of pieces of evidence collected being brought to bear out the presumed fault of science, indicates how little understanding of science is held by many of the people debating against this issue.

But, the fact remains this debate has turned from "Hey, there's some stuff happening that's abnormal!" to "Scientists are evil liars, the whole lot of 'em, and they need to be punished!". Frankly, I'm aghast anyone would suggest scientists should be punished for their conclusions, regardless of how a person feels about the implications of those conclusions. Understanding peer review and how that works would go a long way further to address the skeptics' skepticism than anything else. Then again, it might not. Most of the "skeptics" hear the sentence, "God sent his only human son to be born to a Jewish virgin, and then had him sacrificed to atone for everyone's sins (because obviously there was no better way for an omnipotent being to go about solving this problem), but while that son was here, he did some really cool things like walk on water, turn water to wine and turn two loaves of bread and five fishes into enough food to feed thousands," and those skeptics think, "Sure, that makes sense.". But the skeptics hear, "Glaciers and ice caps are melting at an alarming rate, and we need to figure out exactly what's causing this and change it before it's too late," and those same skeptics think aloud, "Wait a minute... I've never seen a glacier nor do I really understand what exactly you're saying so forget it... your whole suggestion sounds utterly preposterous... I'm going to go back and think about that water-walking fella and about how much sense that story makes."

These personal attacks on scientists and the quality of their science is insane, especially considering the people generally leveling these attacks have no understanding, or an impotently limited understanding, of which they speak. For those of you who suggest the unethical behavior of East Anglia's prof is indicative of a massive fraud, ask yourself why the rest of the world's Earth scientists want a public inquiry into the alleged misdeeds. If manipulating data was so widespread, don't you all think a public inquiry would expose even more? Obviously, there's no widespread cover-up. This is an isolated incident.

Also, so everyone knows, the view of the vast majority of scientists is never expressed as an absolute (except in private conversation). Most Earth scientists use words like probably and likely to describe our impact on the environment. No definitive conclusions have been drawn because there is so much more data to collect. However, with that said, the evidence already collected does overwhelmingly point to us deserving the blame for what's been occuring. Unfortunately, so many of you have decided that since the world of science hasn't answered every question in this debate, and because the esteemed geniuses who created Southpark don't believe any of the evidence, then nothing said must be true.

"Ha ha! Manbearpig! Man, scientists are such idiots."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because clearly if one scientist is an unethical @$$hole, then they're all unethical @$$holes. A single example makes a rule. Didn't you know that?

Clearly, this single example (or even a handful) out of literally millions of pieces of evidence collected being brought to bear out the presumed fault of science, indicates how little understanding of science is held by many of the people debating against this issue.

But, the fact remains this debate has turned from "Hey, there's some stuff happening that's abnormal!" to "Scientists are evil liars, the whole lot of 'em, and they need to be punished!". Frankly, I'm aghast anyone would suggest scientists should be punished for their conclusions, regardless of how a person feels about the implications of those conclusions. Understanding peer review and how that works would go a long way further to address the skeptics' skepticism than anything else. Then again, it might not. Most of the "skeptics" hear the sentence, "God sent his only human son to be born to a Jewish virgin, and then had him sacrificed to atone for everyone's sins (because obviously there was no better way for an omnipotent being to go about solving this problem), but while that son was here, he did some really cool things like walk on water, turn water to wine and turn two loaves of bread and five fishes into enough food to feed thousands," and those skeptics think, "Sure, that makes sense.". But the skeptics hear, "Glaciers and ice caps are melting at an alarming rate, and we need to figure out exactly what's causing this and change it before it's too late," and those same skeptics think aloud, "Wait a minute... I've never seen a glacier nor do I really understand what exactly you're saying so forget it... your whole suggestion sounds utterly preposterous... I'm going to go back and think about that water-walking fella and about how much sense that story makes."

These personal attacks on scientists and the quality of their science is insane, especially considering the people generally leveling these attacks have no understanding, or an impotently limited understanding, of which they speak. For those of you who suggest the unethical behavior of East Anglia's prof is indicative of a massive fraud, ask yourself why the rest of the world's Earth scientists want a public inquiry into the alleged misdeeds. If manipulating data was so widespread, don't you all think a public inquiry would expose even more? Obviously, there's no widespread cover-up. This is an isolated incident.

Also, so everyone knows, the view of the vast majority of scientists is never expressed as an absolute (except in private conversation). Most Earth scientists use words like probably and likely to describe our impact on the environment. No definitive conclusions have been drawn because there is so much more data to collect. However, with that said, the evidence already collected does overwhelmingly point to us deserving the blame for what's been occuring. Unfortunately, so many of you have decided that since the world of science hasn't answered every question in this debate, and because the esteemed geniuses who created Southpark don't believe any of the evidence, then nothing said must be true.

"Ha ha! Manbearpig! Man, scientists are such idiots."

It think the outrage that has began to coalesce around the issue has more to do with the manipulation of media by certain interest groups to promote a social and political agenda than it does with a backlash against scientists, generally. Both sides of the issue shamelessly rely on opposing scientists and accuse the other side of trying to buy the issue.

The scientific pursuit of knowledge is a noble concept, but so is the notion that a residential appraisal is supposed to protect consumers from bidding too high on homes...and we all see how well that policy works out. Scientists are human and aren't above the fray (some than others). They make emotional decisions and are susceptible to greed (some more than others). They also aren't philosophers, policy-makers, or economists; the moment that they start moralizing over the fate of humanity, they're talking beyond their zone of expertise. They may as well be Chron Forum participants.

There almost definitely is an anthropogenic component of global warming, although the extent of it is debatable. Very few people are actually arguing that there is no effect. That's the science. But in between science and policy-making, there has to be a moral judgement. Is global warming good, bad, or neutral. Who wins, who loses, and how are the impacts inequitable to various populations as compared to the status quo? What combination of prevention and mitigation should we undertake as a society? Maybe a warmer Earth is worth it for the economic enjoyment of fossil fuels; it's not a question that can be answered by a climate scientist.

And don't get me wrong, there is an anti-intellectual current in our culture, but it was there long before global warming became a hot-buttom issue. The anti-intellectualism manifests itself in different ways on both sides of the debate, which is what South Park's manbearpig was meant to poke fun at. Al Gore is not a scientist; he's a fearmonger and propagandist; his proposed "solutions" are myopic, extreme, and short-sighted.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Gore is not a scientist; he's a fearmonger and propagandist; his proposed "solutions" are myopic, extreme, and short-sighted.

...and that is what has clouded all reason on your side of the debate: Al Gore, the hated Democrat... was right!

...and it just burns you guys to the core.

...I believe... that had Al Gore had nothing to do with this subject... had no interest in it (his name no where near it, no movies, nothing)... you'd have much less uninformed and dismissive opposition to this issue than what we see today... but just because a famous Democrat recognizes global climate change as a problem... all others of the opposite political ideology automatically dismiss the issue at hand. Not even trying to understand what may be going on...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The scientific pursuit of knowledge is a noble concept, but so is the notion that a residential appraisal is supposed to protect consumers from bidding too high on homes...and we all see how well that policy works out. Scientists are human and aren't above the fray (some than others). They make emotional decisions and are susceptible to greed (some more than others). They also aren't philosophers, policy-makers, or economists; the moment that they start moralizing over the fate of humanity, they're talking beyond their zone of expertise. They may as well be Chron Forum participants.

Oh come on, I expect better than this from you. I'm thinking of all people you would recognize that those best capable of forming an opinion about what this means are those with the most intimate knowledge of it. Comparing them to Chron Forum participants is just silly, and you know it. Chron posters have no knowledge of the situations they post on, and they have had no training in how to process it. Besides that, almost every graduate and post-graduate level program in the sciences requires theory courses. You can't get your MS or PhD without understanding the philosophies of science. I'm not sure if you're just trying to further the discussion or what, but I'm certain you already knew everything I just wrote. And you're absolutely right about one thing, they aren't policy-makers or economists, but you should also recognize policy-makers and economists aren't scientists.

There almost definitely is an anthropogenic component of global warming, although the extent of it is debatable. Very few people are actually arguing that there is no effect. That's the science. But in between science and policy-making, there has to be a moral judgement. Is global warming good, bad, or neutral. Who wins, who loses, and how are the impacts inequitable to various populations as compared to the status quo? What combination of prevention and mitigation should we undertake as a society? Maybe a warmer Earth is worth it for the economic enjoyment of fossil fuels; it's not a question that can be answered by a climate scientist.

On the same token, that's not a question that should be answered by an economist.

As to your question of whether or not climate chage is good, bad or neutral, ultimately, it's neutral. No matter what, the climate changing won't affect whether or not Earth survives. How it affects us and the rest of the species on the planet, on the other hand...

And don't get me wrong, there is an anti-intellectual current in our culture, but it was there long before global warming became a hot-buttom issue. The anti-intellectualism manifests itself in different ways on both sides of the debate, which is what South Park's manbearpig was meant to poke fun at. Al Gore is not a scientist; he's a fearmonger and propagandist; his proposed "solutions" are myopic, extreme, and short-sighted.

Grouping everyone and every argument into one bag and associating all reasoning and solutions into one person's platform is what's myopic and extreme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and that is what has clouded all reason on your side of the debate: Al Gore, the hated Democrat... was right!

My side?

...and it just burns you guys to the core.

Us guys?

...I believe... that had Al Gore had nothing to do with this subject... had no interest in it (his name no where near it, no movies, nothing)... you'd have much less uninformed and dismissive opposition to this issue than what we see today... but just because a famous Democrat recognizes global climate change as a problem... all others of the opposite political ideology automatically dismiss the issue at hand. Not even trying to understand what may be going on...

Al Gore is peripheral to the issue but makes for some awesome comic relief at times, for instance when South Park pokes fun at him for the reasons I outlined above. And I'm just using him as an example of that both extremes are susceptible to anti-intellectual tendencies. No group of people of any ideology or background has a monopoly on dumbassery.

As a disclaimer, I myself have never seen his movie and I've only listened to him on TV or radio long enough to figure out what I have about him...which is that he's not really a credible source for much of anything. Just like Sean Hannity or Rick Perry. Information about climate science is readily available from alternate sources.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on, I expect better than this from you. I'm thinking of all people you would recognize that those best capable of forming an opinion about what this means are those with the most intimate knowledge of it. Comparing them to Chron Forum participants is just silly, and you know it. Chron posters have no knowledge of the situations they post on, and they have had no training in how to process it. Besides that, almost every graduate and post-graduate level program in the sciences requires theory courses. You can't get your MS or PhD without understanding the philosophies of science. I'm not sure if you're just trying to further the discussion or what, but I'm certain you already knew everything I just wrote.

I'm sorry, but a scientist that studies weather patterns is not the least bit qualified to develop public policy. You may as well ask a theoretical physicist to design a spacecraft. Their initial input is helpful, but it takes an engineer to make it happen. And even then, not just any kind of engineer.

And you're absolutely right about one thing, they aren't policy-makers or economists, but you should also recognize policy-makers and economists aren't scientists.

Anybody who practices the philosophy of science is a scientist. If you understand and embrace it (and its limitations), then you're in the club; just because you're in the club, though, doesn't mean that you're any good at it. Specialization of skills is useful. (South Park has made fun of the popular conception of scientists this way, too.) BUT, if someone who is not a specialist can apply an understanding of science to the findings of the specialist, they can do wonderful things with the knowledge. (i.e. physicist ---> findings ---> aerospace engineer ---> spacecraft design).

On the same token, that's not a question that should be answered by an economist.

When it comes to the application of economics, public policy is one of the very few things that an economist is any good at. But not unlike "scientists", the public has a pretty warped view of economists; they think it's basically a subset of the business school.

True enough, though, when it comes to moralistic issues of what is equitable and just, there's really no such thing as an expert.

Grouping everyone and every argument into one bag and associating all reasoning and solutions into one person's platform is what's myopic and extreme.

Agreed, but I don't see what you're getting at. Was the comment directed at me?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It think the outrage that has began to coalesce around the issue has more to do with the manipulation of media by certain interest groups to promote a social and political agenda than it does with a backlash against scientists, generally. Both sides of the issue shamelessly rely on opposing scientists and accuse the other side of trying to buy the issue.

The scientific pursuit of knowledge is a noble concept, but so is the notion that a residential appraisal is supposed to protect consumers from bidding too high on homes...and we all see how well that policy works out. Scientists are human and aren't above the fray (some than others). They make emotional decisions and are susceptible to greed (some more than others). They also aren't philosophers, policy-makers, or economists; the moment that they start moralizing over the fate of humanity, they're talking beyond their zone of expertise. They may as well be Chron Forum participants.

On an individual basis, you can find folks of any profession who make emotional or greedy decisions. But the vast majority of scientists believe the global warming phenomenon to exist. This would seem to rule out the idea that those scientists are driven by greed or emotion.

There almost definitely is an anthropogenic component of global warming, although the extent of it is debatable. Very few people are actually arguing that there is no effect. That's the science. But in between science and policy-making, there has to be a moral judgement. Is global warming good, bad, or neutral. Who wins, who loses, and how are the impacts inequitable to various populations as compared to the status quo? What combination of prevention and mitigation should we undertake as a society? Maybe a warmer Earth is worth it for the economic enjoyment of fossil fuels; it's not a question that can be answered by a climate scientist.

I have agree with Attica. While there will be economic winners and losers as a result of global warming, I don't think economic reasons should be the primary driver of related policy. Is it moral for us to determine the fate of the world for the sake of our own economic gain? And just to point it out, I'm not suggesting that we tax heavy industry out of existence, but I think we may all end up having to pay our small share, as unhappy as that will make some folks.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

and neither is Red.. or Attica, or Bryan to name a few more.

Actually, my MS is in multiple-disciplinary Earth Sciences, of which Archaeology was my focus, though not the only thing I learned. The university I attended for my graduate degree placed archaeology in the Earth Sciences department rather than the Anthropology department, breaking with the American tradition. I am in fact well versed in the science of climate studies. These days I'm not a scientist as I realized the average $30k/year the typical archaeologist makes wasn't enough to live on, let alone plan for the future on. So, while you're correct that I am not an Earth scientist as of right now, this minute, this doesn't speak to the fact I was indeed a practicing scientist as lately as two years ago this past August.

I'm sorry, but a scientist that studies weather patterns is not the least bit qualified to develop public policy. You may as well ask a theoretical physicist to design a spacecraft. Their initial input is helpful, but it takes an engineer to make it happen. And even then, not just any kind of engineer.

Ok, fair enough, but if that theoretical physicist says, "You need to put some kind of protective barrier around the spaceship or the astronauts will be cooked by solar radiation," the engineer better listen to the theoretical physicist or some astronauts will/do die. Likewise, if a climatologist says, "All this carbon pollution is causing the Earth to heat faster than it would on its own, which could have devastating effects on the Earth's inhabitants, the scale of which we aren't yet 100% clear on, but we do know it'll probably be pretty bad," it's wise to listen to them. It shouldn't be a matter of whether or not the scientists are right or wrong, especially since the people actually doing the debating don't have any idea what they're talking about, the debate should now be about what the proper next step is. Unfortunately, that isn't what the debate is. We've gotten so mired in the question of whether or not scientists have an agenda or whether or not Al Bore is an alarmist snake-oil salesman trying to turn a quick buck and/or make himself feel relevant, the true question has been lost. For the record, people who genuinely study this subject for the sake of studying it are not arguing over it. The Earth's climate is changing, and while the exact trigger is still being debated, the result isn't.

Anybody who practices the philosophy of science is a scientist. If you understand and embrace it (and its limitations), then you're in the club; just because you're in the club, though, doesn't mean that you're any good at it. Specialization of skills is useful. (South Park has made fun of the popular conception of scientists this way, too.) BUT, if someone who is not a specialist can apply an understanding of science to the findings of the specialist, they can do wonderful things with the knowledge. (i.e. physicist ---> findings ---> aerospace engineer ---> spacecraft design).

Agreed. The implication of this is we must first listen to the specialist.

When it comes to the application of economics, public policy is one of the very few things that an economist is any good at. But not unlike "scientists", the public has a pretty warped view of economists; they think it's basically a subset of the business school.

True enough, though, when it comes to moralistic issues of what is equitable and just, there's really no such thing as an expert.

I don't disagree with your first couple of sentences here, and this is precisely the point of summits like this one. It doesn't help when the biggest polluters like China and the US refuse to commit to attending, let alone agree to participate in any of the solutions that climatologists, policy-makers and economists have agreed upon as worthy steps in the right direction.

Agreed, but I don't see what you're getting at. Was the comment directed at me?

The point is the debate isn't about Al Gore, which is what South Park and many others have lost sight of. Poking fun of him or his methods don't prove or disprove a damned thing other than perhaps he's a glory hound. And what a revelation that is! He's a politician who enjoys the limelight... shocker. That said (and has been said here before by others - most recently by Bryan S), that doesn't make his message wrong. Is it full of hyperbole? Sure, but despite his overblown doomsday scenarios, the science is still right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On an individual basis, you can find folks of any profession who make emotional or greedy decisions. But the vast majority of scientists believe the global warming phenomenon to exist. This would seem to rule out the idea that those scientists are driven by greed or emotion.

Yeah, no kidding. But you've set a hurdle so low that it might be most appropriately measured in milimeters.

Does human activity impact the climate? Yes (but if it can't be disproven, then its not science). Does human activity cause atmospheric warming, adjusting for interfering variables? On average, almost certainly yes (but if it can't be disproven, then its not science), but not necessarily in some regions.

Where the hurdle gets pretty high is when you start looking at regional impacts and scenario-based modeling. And for atmospheric scientists, trying to figure out what is the appropriate public policy is going to be nearly impossible. They can contribute to the conversation, but theirs should not be the final word.

The policy debate is being influenced the most by bought-and-paid-for scientists. I'm not saying that all the data is misrepresenting the evidence, but I am saying that the data that the greatest number of people are exposed to is probably the data that is the least trustworthy, and that just because a scientist is backing it doesn't make the evidence unassailable.

I have agree with Attica. While there will be economic winners and losers as a result of global warming, I don't think economic reasons should be the primary driver of related policy. Is it moral for us to determine the fate of the world for the sake of our own economic gain? And just to point it out, I'm not suggesting that we tax heavy industry out of existence, but I think we may all end up having to pay our small share, as unhappy as that will make some folks.

What is an economic reason, to you? What is not an economic reason, to you? How do we make reasoned decisions with respect to public policy?

Is it moral for us to determine the fate of the world for the sake of our own economic gain? And just to point it out, I'm not suggesting that we tax heavy industry out of existence, but I think we may all end up having to pay our small share, as unhappy as that will make some folks.

I think that the more appropriate question is whether the developing world has that prerogative, not us (i.e. Americans or first world countries, whichever you meant). They stand to lose the most from restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Will they cooperate with our environmental desires...when we, ourselves, haven't developed a reliable model to describe and either prevent or mitigate the impacts (whether by reducing emissions to reduce the impacts or by building new infrastructure to cope with the impacts) of anthropogenic climate change on our own country, much less theirs? Diplomatically speaking, ours is a weak position. Cooperation will not come easily.

...but no, we can't discuss details like this because you all are apparently too damned ADD to read through a lengthy and thought-out post and think I'm trying to debate you on a yes/no answer to whether human activity causes climate change. :wacko:

That's it, bitches, I'm back on sabbatical.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the more appropriate question is whether the developing world has that prerogative, not us (i.e. Americans or first world countries, whichever you meant). They stand to lose the most from restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Will they cooperate with our environmental desires...when we, ourselves, haven't developed a reliable model to describe and either prevent or mitigate the impacts (whether by reducing emissions to reduce the impacts or by building new infrastructure to cope with the impacts) of anthropogenic climate change on our own country, much less theirs? Diplomatically speaking, ours is a weak position. Cooperation will not come easily.

Cooperation won't come at all if we don't all grab a seat at the table. So far, the US has been intractable in our unwillingness to make any compromises that would potentially disrupt the majority power share our corporations currently hold on the world stage.

...but no, we can't discuss details like this because you all are apparently too damned ADD to read through a lengthy and thought-out post and think I'm trying to debate you on a yes/no answer to whether human activity causes climate change. wacko.gif

That's it, bitches, I'm back on sabbatical.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you and I were debating this in a point-by-point manner. And, I'm pretty sure our discussion had already moved beyond whether or not you personally thought humans have a hand in what's happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it, bitches, I'm back on sabbatical.

OKie dokie... just because people, other than me (I've given up trying to have reasoned conversations on this issue)... tried to have a conversation, and defend an opposing viewpoint? That causes TheNiche to leave? Such a delicate flower...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm pretty sure you and I were debating this in a point-by-point manner. And, I'm pretty sure our discussion had already moved beyond whether or not you personally thought humans have a hand in what's happening.

I got dogpiled by a bunch of folks who weren't capable of paying attention to the very post they were responding to. I had to repeat myself too much. Not worth the effort.

I've given up trying to have reasoned conversations on this issue

Really? I hadn't noticed. :wacko:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is an economic reason, to you? What is not an economic reason, to you? How do we make reasoned decisions with respect to public policy?

Let's take ExxonMobil as an example. As a purveyor of fossil fuels, they stand to lose some of their tens of billions of profits each year if climate regulations are put into effect. So, ExxonMobil has spent years funding discredited climate skeptics working for groups like the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The fact that science is not on their side wasn't a problem; they simply misrepresented the facts using some of those unethical scientists you mentioned to work the system.

But to take a different perspective, some folks stand to benefit from climate change by having their land become more productive for farming. The shipping industry stands to gain by crossing the Arctic Ocean unabated by icepack. My question, which I thought was a reasonable question, is whether it's moral to seek these benefits out (in ExxonMobil's case) or even stand idly by. We already know some of the costs -- increasing extinction rates, Bangladesh going 1/4 under water, some island nations go completely underwater, massive migration due to land becoming unproductive or underwater, etc. And it seems like those who might stand to gain economically from global warming will be the small minority, most of them living in developed countries.

I think that the more appropriate question is whether the developing world has that prerogative, not us (i.e. Americans or first world countries, whichever you meant). They stand to lose the most from restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Will they cooperate with our environmental desires...when we, ourselves, haven't developed a reliable model to describe and either prevent or mitigate the impacts (whether by reducing emissions to reduce the impacts or by building new infrastructure to cope with the impacts) of anthropogenic climate change on our own country, much less theirs? Diplomatically speaking, ours is a weak position. Cooperation will not come easily.

So I think the argument is that we (the West) enjoyed the increasing wealth and prosperity that came with industrialization without much in the way of environmental regulations, which we engaged in much later, after much damage was done. And so, why shouldn't China, India, and third-world countries follow the same path, without the expense of environmental restrictions?

I think it's a dangerous idea, fair of not. I don't think fairness is a good reason to allow unabated environmental damage, especially now that we have the knowledge and technologies to avoid many of our past mistakes. It sucks that so many people still live in poverty, but destroying the environment isn't going to help in the end. Education will.

...but no, we can't discuss details like this because you all are apparently too damned ADD to read through a lengthy and thought-out post and think I'm trying to debate you on a yes/no answer to whether human activity causes climate change. :wacko:

That's it, bitches, I'm back on sabbatical.

I don't think anyone is picking on you. Sorry if you feel our dumb replies are too simplistic.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take ExxonMobil as an example. As a purveyor of fossil fuels, they stand to lose some of their tens of billions of profits each year if climate regulations are put into effect. So, ExxonMobil has spent years funding discredited climate skeptics working for groups like the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The fact that science is not on their side wasn't a problem; they simply misrepresented the facts using some of those unethical scientists you mentioned to work the system.

Tha's funny. Because the UEA-CRU guys were working with Exxon too. From one of the hacked emails...

From: John Shepherd <j.g.shepherd@sxxxxxxxx.uk>

To: t.d.davies@uxxxxx.uk

Subject: Re: ESSO

Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:00:43 +0100

Cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uxxxxxx.uk>

Trevor

I gather you're going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree witrh Mike's analysis : i.e. there's room for some constructive dialogue...

See you on the 1014 from Ipswich (0940 from Norwich), for a kick-off at 12 noon ??

John

They were also taking funding from Siemens and some other corps who have large interests in alternative energy business. This would be the same conflict-of-interest the skeptics have, just the other direction. You can read ALL of the emails at this link: http://www.eastangli...s.com/index.php Some pretty egregious stuff in there. I'll work up some exerpts this evening and let y'all decide for yourselves...

Edited by Gooch
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is an economic reason, to you? What is not an economic reason, to you? How do we make reasoned decisions with respect to public policy?

Here's a good economic reason to take global warming seriously.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the leading insurer Allianz SE released a report today warning that sea level rise could dramatically increase risks to buildings, transportation infrastructure and other assets exposed to severe storm surges in coastal areas of the U.S. The study estimates that current assets at risk to a 1-in-100-year storm surge amount to $1.4 trillion. A mid-century global sea level rise of 0.5 meters (20 inches), with an additional 0.15 meter (6 inches) localized rise along the northeast U.S. coast, could jeopardize assets worth close to $7.4 trillion.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2009/WWFPresitem14356.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is picking on you.

"Picking on me" is obviously is not intended on your part, but your response previously and again this time around is indicative of my problem with bothering to take the time to post thoughtful input, which is poor reading comprehension on the part of my audience. You aren't worth the effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tha's funny. Because the UEA-CRU guys were working with Exxon too. From one of the hacked emails...

They were also taking funding from Siemens and some other corps who have large interests in alternative energy business. This would be the same conflict-of-interest the skeptics have, just the other direction. You can read ALL of the emails at this link: http://www.eastangli...s.com/index.php Some pretty egregious stuff in there. I'll work up some exerpts this evening and let y'all decide for yourselves...

That's not surprising. If I were Exxon or one of the many other corporations who supported global warming skeptics, I would do my due diligence and study the science behind global warming, meet with the Climatic Research Unit, etc. It's like Philip Morris conducting research on the addictiveness and side effects of cigarette smoking. It's in their best interests to understand the science in order to raise doubts about it, defend their position in court, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not surprising. If I were Exxon or one of the many other corporations who supported global warming skeptics, I would do my due diligence and study the science behind global warming, meet with the Climatic Research Unit, etc. It's like Philip Morris conducting research on the addictiveness and side effects of cigarette smoking. It's in their best interests to understand the science in order to raise doubts about it, defend their position in court, etc.

The larger point is that if relying on the ad hominem argument... that if funding sources invalidate the skeptics, they would also invalidate those promoting global warming. It's mutually assured destruction of science... Actually, it's not not a scientific technique at all -it's a political technique.

As a numerical modeler... It isn't important who pays for it! What matters are the input data>method>calibration>results. Until this hacking... UEA-CRU were hiding their input data and method. Now it's coming to light and there are significant scientific questions in all four areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The larger point is that if relying on the ad hominem argument... that if funding sources invalidate the skeptics, they would also invalidate those promoting global warming. It's mutually assured destruction of science... Actually, it's not not a scientific technique at all -it's a political technique.

As a numerical modeler... It isn't important who pays for it! What matters are the input data>method>calibration>results. Until this hacking... UEA-CRU were hiding their input data and method. Now it's coming to light and there are significant scientific questions in all four areas.

No doubt, and we're all better off knowing this. But with that said, and has been said numerous times before, this one incident doesn't make a rule.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

...but no, we can't discuss details like this because you all are apparently too damned ADD to read through a lengthy and thought-out post and think I'm trying to debate you on a yes/no answer to whether human activity causes climate change. :wacko:

That's it, bitches, I'm back on sabbatical.

I got dogpiled by a bunch of folks who weren't capable of paying attention to the very post they were responding to. I had to repeat myself too much. Not worth the effort.

"Picking on me" is obviously is not intended on your part, but your response previously and again this time around is indicative of my problem with bothering to take the time to post thoughtful input, which is poor reading comprehension on the part of my audience. You aren't worth the effort.

But nearly all of your recent posts on this topic are focused on raising doubt about the integrity of scientists. Your only recent comment regarding human activity causing global warming is in post #225, where you answer your own question. You haven't exactly been pressing the question, unless we all happened to completely miss it.

Honestly, your frustration is a bit confounding. This has been a civil discussion, and you've made some interesting posts which sparked further discussion. It's been primarily tit-for-tat. Then you suddenly accuse a group of us as having ADD and a lack of comprehension, insinuating that our posts are vacuous and unsuccessful in adequately responding to your lengthy, well thought-out posts. I fail to see much evidence of this, and I think it's unfortunate you feel so dismissive towards other posters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Global Warming Scientists caught fudging data

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

If this doesn't prove to you that these "researchers" have forgotten what science is then you need to go back to college.

Or, after reviewing both the emails Gooch gave a link for and reviewing the IPCC's most recent publications, I see nothing of any real value about the emails, nothing implicating anyone of professional misconduct and most especially, I don't see these "bad" scientists' names anywhere, either as contributors, reviewers or editors of the IPCC publications. Check for yourself if you don't believe me. The emails themselves were mostly concerns with how to answer the questions other scientists legitimately posed concerning methodology, all valid concerns, and all questions they'd damned well better be capable of answering if their hypotheses and conclusions are to hold up under peer scrutiny.

BTW, here's a response from the scientists in question.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt, and we're all better off knowing this. But with that said, and has been said numerous times before, this one incident doesn't make a rule.

Accept the premise, but the emails and data don't cover a single incident. They reach back to 1996 and included cooking the books for the landmark IPCC reports. Mike Mann (Al Gore's personal climatologist) is busted in these emails. Not the first time. He comes across like a complete crybaby twit (not that it matters). Everything at EAU-CRU's questionable from the hacking. At this point any derivative works based on these guys need to be reexamined. Hansen's work (NASA) had been discredited previously. The amount of "validated" work is shrinking rapidly.

It is possible that the same conclusions could be reached if the flaws were "fixed". But it begs the question... why cook the books in the first place? It's kinda like the OJ trial when Furhman got caught giving false statements. As a juror.. what parts of a liar's work is truthful, and how do you determine?

Someone needs to start from fresh. With an open approach. The groundwater modeling community took that approach years ago. And today there are numerous fully documented (incl. flaws), well validated, widely accepted modeling tools available. Until the climate community does... this their validity will always be called into question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, after reviewing both the emails Gooch gave a link for and reviewing the IPCC's most recent publications, I see nothing of any real value about the emails, nothing implicating anyone of professional misconduct ...

I did.

From: GIORGI FILIPPO <giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: Chapter 10 LAs -- Congbin Fu <fcb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, GIORGI FILIPPO <giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bruce Hewitson <hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jens Christensen <jhc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Linda Mearns <lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Jones <rgjones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans von Storch <storch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Whetton <phw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: On "what to do?"

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:58:02 +0200 (MET DST)

Dear All

we heard the opinions of most LAs, namely Jens, Richard, Linda, Peter,

and Hans as well as some interesting interpretations of my email (Linda says:

" You seem to be assuming that the most desirable result is

if the SRES results have no contrasts with the IS92a results.

I don't understand your reasoning on this."

[...]

Given this, I would like to add my own opinion developed through the weekend.

First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions).

I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this.

Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth.

[...]

Cheers, Filippo

################################################## ##############

# Filippo Giorgi, Senior Scientist and Head, #

# Physics of Weather and Climate Section #

# The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics #

# P.O. BOX 586, (Strada Costiera 11 for courier mail) #

# 34100 Trieste, ITALY #

# Phone: + 39 040 2240 425 #

# Fax: + 39 040 2240 449 (or + 39 040 224 163) #

# email: giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx #

################################################## ##############

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Re: quick note on TAR

Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007

Mike

your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - oftenwasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy...

[...]

I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes

Keith

Remenber the IPCC "consensus"?

From: Joseph Alcamo

To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100

Reply-to: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions --

Distribution for Endorsements --

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

Some background, they want to stick with a post '61 time period to avoid the "40's Blip". This was a time period for which many temperature stations reported temps hotter than present. Thus debunking the "hottest decade on record" and "hockey stick" curves. IOW, the current warming we're seeing this last decade have occured (and abated) this century. The raw data was hacked, confirming this.

From: Phil Jones

To: “Parker, David (Met Office)”>, Neil Plummer

Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins

Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005

Cc: “Thomas C Peterson”

Neil,

Just to reiterate David’s points, I’m hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.

The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a different base period is the key one in my mind.

Personally I don’t want to change the base period till after I retire !

Cheers

Phil

At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:

Neil

There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface temperature.

Regards

David

Edited by Gooch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fourth attempt: YES! That's why I'm pissed off.

Well, that's not entirely true. I fully understand that your position is based on economics, but as you yourself intimated, once we delve into issues like costs in relation to morality and ethics, we reach a muddy area where there's no real such thing as an expert. I happen to agree, that's why I didn't argue the point.

Accept the premise, but the emails and data don't cover a single incident. They reach back to 1996 and included cooking the books for the landmark IPCC reports. Mike Mann (Al Gore's personal climatologist) is busted in these emails. Not the first time. He comes across like a complete crybaby twit (not that it matters). Everything at EAU-CRU's questionable from the hacking. At this point any derivative works based on these guys need to be reexamined. Hansen's work (NASA) had been discredited previously. The amount of "validated" work is shrinking rapidly.

It is possible that the same conclusions could be reached if the flaws were "fixed". But it begs the question... why cook the books in the first place? It's kinda like the OJ trial when Furhman got caught giving false statements. As a juror.. what parts of a liar's work is truthful, and how do you determine?

Someone needs to start from fresh. With an open approach. The groundwater modeling community took that approach years ago. And today there are numerous fully documented (incl. flaws), well validated, widely accepted modeling tools available. Until the climate community does... this their validity will always be called into question.

All good points. Every last one of them. Very curious the timing though, no? Also, there's enough compiled literature about climate change to fill the Houston Public Library, the main branch, several times over. I wouldn't exactly say that valid work is "shrinking rapidly" because the authenticity of a few people's contributions has been cast into doubt. Don't get me wrong. I agree more oversight would be beneficial. Unfortunately, that would require more public funding, which considering some many people refuse to even accept the climate is changing, I doubt that money would be willingly given.

You do bring up a point I'd to clarify definitively though. So everyone knows, the way science works is this: 1) Make an observation. 2) Form a hypothesis about that observation. 3) Devise tests to test your hypothesis. 4) Test your hypothesis. 5) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 6) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 7) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 8) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 9) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 10) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 11) Continue with this process until you've consistently gotten the same results time after time. 12) Submit your conclusions to a peer reviewed publication (ie not Mad Magazine). 13) Peer test. 14) Peer retest. 15) Peer retest. 16) Peer retest. 17) Peer retest. 18) Peer retest. 19) Peer retest. If the same conclusions can't be reached consistently, then the whole conclusion is discarded. The entire thing. And then, you start over, "fresh" as you say. Trust me, had CRU's numbers been anomalies that were impossible to replicate, they would hold no merit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More info on the "40's Blip"...

Here's what Phil Jones had to say about it

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600

Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>

Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly

explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the

land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,

then this would be significant for the global mean -- but

we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately.

[...]

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,

but we are still left with "why the blip".

Keep in mind they are discussing how to remove actual measured temperatures. As a modeler, measured data is your best friend, not something to impeach.

The raw data is in this ...PDF File... UEA-CRU fought against releasing this data for years, including evading FOI requests. The reason's pretty obvious. It looks nothing like a hockey-stick curves included in the IPCC and Al Gore's movie. While some stations show spikes in the 2000's, many stations show hotter decades in the '40's than the '00. IOW the temperature rise we've seen over the last decade could very likely be an anomoly rather than a trend. There's observed climatic precendent for it. This is a direct contradiction of the IPCC conclusions that the present warming is unusual, and will continue going forward.

Edited by Gooch
Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone knows, the way science works is this: 1) Make an observation. 2) Form a hypothesis about that observation. 3) Devise tests to test your hypothesis. 4) Test your hypothesis. 5) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 6) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 7) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 8) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 9) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 10) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 11) Continue with this process until you've consistently gotten the same results time after time. 12) Submit your conclusions to a peer reviewed publication (ie not Mad Magazine). 13) Peer test. 14) Peer retest. 15) Peer retest. 16) Peer retest. 17) Peer retest. 18) Peer retest. 19) Peer retest. If the same conclusions can't be reached consistently, then the whole conclusion is discarded. The entire thing. And then, you start over, "fresh" as you say. Trust me, had CRU's numbers been anomalies that were impossible to replicate, they would hold no merit.

Thats a great summary! Unfortunately... these guys actively tried to subvert Step 12 by stacking the review boards. There were so many examples I don't know how to whittle them down to quote them here. These are two famous ones...

“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.

Blah. That's not so bothersome. It happens all. the. time. in peer reviews. Bothersome is subverting Steps 13...?? Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have for years been trying unsuccessfully to duplicate the published results coming from the UEA-Hadley and Mann. They are referred to as "the two MMs" and "M&M" in many of the hacked emails. They asked for help, because they could not reproduce the results and were stonewalled by UEA-CRU. They asked for input data and were told No! After filing FOI requests they were told the data had been accidently deleted. Then suddenly it was located, but they still couldn't have it, because it was too dangerous that the data would be used "incorrectly".

Phil Jones said:

I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

This was all reported by BBC earlier this year. Jones refusal to disclose set off alarm bells in the scientific community. Perhaps that inspired the hacker/whistleblower? Finally they said they didn't have permission to disclose. That's where it stands today. Behind the scene; the emails tell a different story....

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!

The CRU station data is believed to be the the data on the graphs I posted above.

From: Phil Jones

To: Gavin Schmidt

Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper

Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008

Cc: Michael Mann

Gavin,

Almost all have gone in. Have sent an email to Janice re the regional freshening. On the boreholes I've used mostly Mike's revised text, with bits of yours making it read a little better. Thinking about the final bit for the Appendix. Keith should be in later, so I'll check with him - and look at that vineyard book. I did rephrase the bit about the 'evidence' as Lamb refers to it. I wanted to use his phrasing—he used this word several times in these various papers. What he means is his mind and its inherent bias(es).

Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don't want to give them something clearly tangible. Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond —advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn't want to have to deal with this hassle.

The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on.

Cheers

Phil

From Ben Santer:

We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; [...] I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues.

We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.

They didn't like publications that required data submission for review very much either... (For context: RMS=Royal Meterological Society)

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Re: See the link below

Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009

Ben,

I don't know whether they even had a meeting yet - but I did say I would

send something to their Chief Exec.

In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London's UHI

and the effect that it hasn't got any bigger since 1900. It's easy

to do with 3 long time series. It is only one urban site (St James Park),

but that is where the measurements are from. Heathrow has a bit

of a UHI and it has go bigger.

I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained

about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't

be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS.

The paper is about London and its UHI!

Cheers

Phil

At 16:48 19/03/2009, you wrote:

Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I'm really sorry you have to deal with that kind of crap.

If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.

Cheers,

Ben

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently, this group and these scientists involved in this email scandal are key contributors to the IPCC report and run one of the key models used by the report and others. "Oh, its only a few scientists.. that doesnt mean all scientists are bad"... Yah, that excuse is rapidly being flushed down the toilet.

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). - Full link

Furthermore, programmers and other independent parties that have been pouring over some of the leaked data/code/reports. They've basically determined that the CRU's main model that the IPCC uses to estimate the costs of global warming is a joke. - Full link

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...