Defending the Tribe
This is a really interesting email string form the CRU emails, via Steve McIntyre:
June 4, 2003 Briffa to Cook 1054748574
On June 4, 2003, Briffa, apparently acting as editor (presumably for Holocene), contacted his friend Ed Cook of Lamont-Doherty in the U.S. who was acting as a reviewer telling him that “confidentially” he needed a “hard and if required extensive case for rejecting”, in the process advising Cook of the identity and recommendation of the other reviewer. There are obviously many issues involved in the following as an editor instruction:From: Keith Briffa
To: Edward Cook
Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
Date: Wed Jun 4 13:42:54 2003I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please
KeithCook to Briffa, June 4, 2003
In a reply the same day, Cook told Briffa about a review for Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences of a paper which, if not rejected, could “really do some damage”. Cook goes on to say that it is an “ugly” paper to review because it is “rather mathematical” and it “won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically”. Here is the complete email:Hi Keith,
Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).
Cheers,
Ed
A couple of observations
- For guys who supposedly represent the consensus science of tens of thousands of scientists, these guys sure have a bunker mentality
- I would love an explanation of how math can have theoretical deficiencies but be better in a practical sense. In the practical sense of … giving the answer one wants?
- The general whitewash answer to all the FOIA obstructionism is that these are scientists doing important work not to be bothered by nutcases trying to waste their time. But here is exactly the hypocrisy: The email author says that some third party’s study is deficient because he can’t demonstrate how his mathematical approach might change the answer the hockey team is getting. But no third party can do this because the hockey team won’t release the data needed for replication. This kind of data – to check the mathematical methodologies behind the hockey stick regressions – is exactly what Steve McIntyre et al have been trying to get. Ed Cook is explaining here, effectively, why release of this data is indeed important
- At the very same time these guys are saying to the world not to listen to critics because they are not peer-reviewed, they are working as hard as they can back-channel to keep their critics out of peer-reviewed literature they control.
- For years I have said that one problem with the hockey team is not just that the team is insular, but he reviewers of their work are the same guys doing the work. And now we see that these same guys are asked to review the critics of their work.
Waldo:
Now be fair C.S. you didn’t bold this part of the email:
“…but it [the ABES paper] suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense.”
In other words, the paper has some good complicated math in it, but it has serious flaws. You certainly must have read this part. Cook then goes on to write:
“So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced.”
Thus Cook’s problem is that the ABES paper uses some deceptive mathematics [monte carlo stuff] but fails to indicates how their methods would alter Briffa’s conclusion.
I suspect that eventually Climategate will blow away and the blogosphere will be screaming cover-up / white-wash for years.
December 16, 2009, 5:13 pmstan:
The biggest scandal of all is that every scientist in the climate field knew that the hockey team refused to provide the data, etc. [as supposedly required by the journals as a condition of publication], knew that the IPCC and other assessments were slanted, and knew that GISS, CRU, et al essentially operated in secret, and almost none of them spoke up. They are all willing partners to this corruption.
December 16, 2009, 5:16 pmWaldo:
Stan, how do you know any of this?
December 16, 2009, 5:34 pmtony:
6. It is completely unethical for a reviewer to contact a colleague to ask for advice to assist the reviewer in rejecting a submitted manuscript.
December 16, 2009, 5:41 pmastonerii:
Waldo,
You must have a PhD, cause when I read that what I saw was, in laymans terms…
Their math is correct, but it has some ‘monte carlo stuff’ which must be scientist speak for it is complicated enough that if we can jumble it a bit more, add in a critique from you, perhaps we can convince the editors that it is wrong and adds nothing to the science. He goes on to say, ‘Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into the melting permafrost of northern Sweden’, which I guess is scientist speak for, we all know that your work cannot stand up to real scrutiny, so you better come up with something for me to torpedo this paper, or your reputation will be on the line, as well as my personal work that uses your information.
I mean seriously Waldo, what kind of fools do you think people are that you can come here and try to tell them that 2+2 = what-ever-waldo-says-it-is?
December 16, 2009, 5:45 pmWaldo:
Um…I didn’t actually understand that comment, astonerii. I think the email is pretty clear. Look at it. And yes, I do actually have a Ph.D. (but not in climate science, thank God).
December 16, 2009, 5:58 pmRoss:
I agree, Waldo, the e-mail is extremely clear- and damning- it doesn’t matter what you highlight and what you don’t. I am involved in the peer review process for an academic journal. What we are seeing here is not science, it is not peer review, it is politics. These men are on a mission. I have no doubt that they sincerely believed in their cause, but that is exactly why they have become so blinded to objectivity.
By the way Waldo, please look at what the Russians are now saying about the cherry-picking of their data. I suppose you regard the cherry-picking of data normal scientific practice as well. If you do, it is extremely difficult for us to communicate, because our ethical standards do not in the least coincide.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/12/russians-accuse-cru-of-cherry-picking-station-data.html
And no, I do not believe everything either the sceptics on the one hand or the AGW proponents on the other say, but I do try and look at all the evidence critically and dispassionately, paying particular attention to the arguments of those who disagree with me, asking myself if I could be wrong. If we all did that science could move forward and out of this mess (and integrity re-established within the peer review process). Sincerely.
December 16, 2009, 7:03 pmRoss:
In connection with my last post- here is more of their so-called peer review process, this time from Mann in connection with the very data that appears to have been cherry picked:
“Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.”
Again, I can assure you, this is not the normal peer review process at work. It is something else. You will have to make up your own mind what it is.
December 16, 2009, 7:21 pmRoss:
Yesterday, an AGW activist was weeping for the GW cause:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/14/mckibben-faith-and-work/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
No, my friends, if you wish to weep for anything today, read the account of the cherry-picking of Russian data. The implications are huge. If you then wish to weep for anything, weep for science. Weep for the collossal waste of resources that has gone into this industry. And do what it takes to correct this mess.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/russian-iea-claims-cru-tampered-with-climate-data-cherrypicked-warmest-stations/
December 16, 2009, 7:40 pmAllan Connery:
Waldo, first comment “…Thus Cook’s problem is that the ABES paper uses some deceptive mathematics [monte carlo stuff]”
Not so. From Wikipedia:
“Monte Carlo methods are a class of computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to compute their results. Monte Carlo methods are often used when simulating physical and mathematical systems.”
December 16, 2009, 7:52 pmastonerii:
Waldo,
That PhD happen to be in progressive liberal group think?
You see the email as being a normal moral scientist doing the right thing.
I think anyone with unbiased (aka not progressive liberal group think disorder) look at this email will see that this is a ’scientist’ with a lack of moral character, trying to protect his pet project with malice and with no regard to the truth.
Thanks for playing, hope you keep up the lost cause, since I feel you make it plainly obvious how little you are willing to look at new evidence.
If I am wrong, show me, and if your arguments and evidence are strong enough, I will review your information and come to a new conclusion.
December 16, 2009, 7:59 pmSB7:
Don’t interpret this as a defense of Briffa & Cook; I think their actions and attitudes are antithetical to the entire Scientific endeavor. However, I want to address this:
Wanting to see the practical application, at least at the proof-of-concept level, is pretty common among reviewers of journals that aren’t entirely theory focused. (At least it is in the fields I’ve read — Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Psych and Business.)
This can be really annoying, but it’s not in itself evidence of wrong-doing. A little of it is even healthy. It doesn’t do anyone any good to work up a complicated statistical model of a process if it can’t model the process any better than a Naive Bayesian approach. Yes, you want a model that’s theoretically sophisticated, but you also want one that’s parsimonious, so theoretical sophistication is not unambiguously a benefit.
The problem still remains that these people defined “model the process better” as “gives the results we want.”
December 16, 2009, 9:16 pmkdk33:
Where’s Waldo?
December 16, 2009, 9:32 pmKevin S. Van Horn:
Shouldn’t somebody be crying foul over the fact that these guys are serving as reviewers for papers that dispute their own findings? This strikes me as a massive conflict of interest. It’s as if the author of a book was given veto power over which reviews of his book would be published.
December 16, 2009, 9:33 pmKevin S. Van Horn:
Waldo writes:
<>
Read it again — that’s not what the email says. The author of the email is saying, “OK, so they found some theoretical deficiencies in our work, but they haven’t proven that these deficiencies matter.” BIG difference.
Also, the whole peer review process is being subverted when the reviews aren’t independent (we have here a reviewer drumming up support for rejecting the paper) and, even worse, a researcher gets assigned to review papers critical of his own work — a massive conflict of interest!
<>
What the hell? Monte Carlo simulation is a standard technique that has been used in statistical computing for decades; is not “deceptive mathematics”. There are, in fact, many computational problems in statistics that have no other practical solution. If Cook is uncomfortable with Monte Carlo techniques, that suggests to me that his background in statistics is weak.
December 16, 2009, 9:47 pmKevin S. Van Horn:
[I had some formatting problems, so I'm trying again.]
Waldo writes:
{ “…but it [the ABES paper] suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense.”
In other words, the paper has some good complicated math in it, but it has serious flaws }
Read it again — that’s not what the email says. The author of the email is saying, “OK, so they found some theoretical deficiencies in our work, but they haven’t proven that these deficiencies matter.” BIG difference.
Also, the whole peer review process is being subverted when the reviews aren’t independent (we have here a reviewer drumming up support for rejecting the paper) and, even worse, a researcher gets assigned to review papers critical of his own work — a massive conflict of interest!
{ Thus Cook’s problem is that the ABES paper uses some deceptive mathematics [monte carlo stuff] }
What the hell? Monte Carlo simulation is a standard technique that has been used in statistical computing for decades; is not “deceptive mathematics”. There are, in fact, many computational problems in statistics that have no other practical solution. If Cook is uncomfortable with Monte Carlo techniques, that suggests to me that his background in statistics is weak.
December 16, 2009, 9:49 pmhunter:
Waldo,
December 16, 2009, 9:50 pmDefending the undefendable is not a sign of objective or fair minded thinking. yet here you are, looking down on skeptics and your main strategy is to do exactly that.
kdk33:
“If published as is, this paper could really do some damage”
This is the giveaway – because, how can it be? I mean, there’s an overwhelming consensus, right. 97% of honest hard working climatologist have agreed, right. And one (bad) theoretical paper with no practical example is a threat?
You get the sense that these guys are terrified. Like the whole ball of string is gonna come unwound any second. That is one of the most damning aspect of the E-mails. IMO.
December 16, 2009, 9:53 pmWaldo:
“These men are on a mission. I have no doubt that they sincerely believed in their cause, but that is exactly why they have become so blinded to objectivity.”
And on this issue are you objective, Ross? Is this blog objective?
“Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.”
“You will have to make up your own mind what it is.”
Okay. Sounds to me like the reader did not like the two papers and gave the authors hell. Simple enough. It is the job of the reader to evaluate what is sent to her or him, after all. Was he supposed to like the two papers? What if these were two lousy papers? Should we automatically assume that Mann was exercising censorship simply because he didn’t like a couple of papers he was asked to review? Really folks? Seems to me that there are a number of scientific and academic types on this thread – do you assume you are being censored every time you get turned down from a journal?
If he was cheeky it was probably because it was a private communication. What if we made a number of the responses on this thread widely public? Any of us (myself included) can sound pretty demented if we don’t expect to see ourselves on the world stage. (Ex. “That PhD happen to be in progressive liberal group think?” – smart, objective.)
This is the thing about Climategate – I read a lot of excited stuff in the blogosphere which, when I look closely at it, sounds fairly mundane to me.
December 16, 2009, 10:37 pmWaldo:
“Defending the undefendable is not a sign of objective or fair minded thinking.”
Hunter, do you think you have a fair and objective mind when you write something like this? Undefendable?
December 16, 2009, 10:40 pmRoss:
Waldo- there is no point in my claiming to be objective, I doubt you would accept that. My objectivity is not the issue here. In my view, the e-mails speak for themselves. Your own objectivity can be assessed by reviewing your posts.
December 16, 2009, 10:49 pmWaldo:
No Ross, in all honestly, I would probably not accept you as an objective observer. And I agree, the emails speak for themselves.
But just in case there is a question, Phil Jones and the rest should lose there jobs if there is *PROVEN* data scrambling. I would hope any of us would be extended the same benefit of the doubt in our professional lives.
December 16, 2009, 11:00 pmRoss:
Waldo, thanks, but slow down on one issue. I have never, on any blog suggested that Phil Jones should be dismissed. I loathe witch-hunts and as you may have noted from my post above “I have no doubt that they sincerely believed in their cause, but that is exactly why they have become so blinded to objectivity.”
I agree, I always prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. I used to accept what I was being told on this issue, but then I started to investigate the science and eventually concluded that the AGW hypothesis was at best, highly unlikely. All of us care about the environment and helping developing nations (I happen to work in one). It just seems to me that cap and trade is a colossal mistake that is based on another colossal mistake.
December 16, 2009, 11:13 pmWaldo:
“I have never, on any blog suggested that Phil Jones should be dismissed.”
No, I said that. He should be dismissed if he has deliberately misled the public and his colleagues and should be banned from using public monies.
“witch-hunts”
However (and I am not accusing you Ross) I suspect Climategate will go down in history in exactly these terms. I don’t know it will and may be proven wrong, but I suspect it will.
December 16, 2009, 11:21 pmWaldo:
“I started to investigate the science and eventually concluded that the AGW hypothesis was at best, highly unlikely.”
Ross, may I ask, without asking you to reveal too much of yourself, do you have enough of a background in the subject to make this determination? You very well may be a climate physicist for all I know so I am just asking.
December 16, 2009, 11:29 pmRoss:
No, like you, I am not a climatologist, but like you I have a PhD, understand the scientific method, hypothesis testing and falsification. Furthermore, earlier in my life I was a defence lawyer and dealt with many cases of fraud, so have certain advantages in forming judgments on lengthy correspondence.
If you are asking me if I am qualified to write an academic paper on climate science, the answer is certainly no. I will be giving an academic paper on the ethical issues raised by the incident however (whether or not the allegations are substantiated).
As to making a determination on the science, I think we are all forced to read the arguments of those scientists who are in favour and of those who are against, with as open a mind as is possible. Ultimately, we then have to form a judgment as best we can.
December 17, 2009, 12:27 amOnlooker:
Why is it that the “alarmists” carry on despite knowing in their hearts that they aren’t being straight with the world? Because they are like the priests of old who told everyone that the sun wouldn’t come up unless the king, supported by those priests, performed a predawn ritual. No skeptic in their right mind would want to take the risk of testing the theory. Even a tiny risk is not worth taking if it might mean the end of the world! The priests were on safe ground as long as nothing disrupted the ceremony. Of course it did eventually get disrupted and even in ancient Egyptian times very few people actually believed in their gods. No pyramid was ever properly finished once the proposed occupant had died!
It appears that the “alarmists” have hitched themselves onto a much less secure wagon than the priests of old. This unfolding climate saga is a lesson to us all.
December 17, 2009, 5:20 amhunter:
Waldo,
December 17, 2009, 7:10 amAnd you are holding yourself out as objective? And on top of that, the arbiter of objectivity?
I think one of the real issues is whether or not Briffa engaged in unethical manipulatoin of the peer review process?
Reasonable people seem to think so.
Another is objectivity not withstanding, are the claim made about AGW theory correct?
The evidence says ‘no’; The Earth is not showing signs of impending doom caused by CO2.
Is the data offered by those promoting AGW theory reliable?
We see, as the records and methods have been audited time and again by outsiders, the answer is ‘no’.
is the work done with that data by AGW promoters yielding reproducible results?
Since random numbers inputted into Mann’s hockey stick produces hockey sticks, and Briffa used basically one tree to offer as proof of AGW, and since the specific weather manifestations predicted ahve failed to occur, the answer there would be ‘no’, as well.
You are doing what lawyers do when stuck representing very bad cases: dissembling, fillibustering, appealing to authority, etc. but you are not going to prevail.
hunter:
Waldo,
December 17, 2009, 7:21 amYou keep challenging people as to their qualifications to assess if AGW claims are accurate.
Is AGW such a special theory that a reasonably interested person studying it is not entitled to an opinion?
What is, for example, Gore’s qualifications to have an opinion?
When social scientists and philosphers look at AGW and see a social movement that exhibits certain negative characterstics, are they not entitled to an opinion?
What are your qualifications to judge whether or not someone’s opinion is ‘qualified’ besides your reliance on the stated authority of those whom you hold out as experts?
ADiff:
“[I]t suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense”.
Since when can theory only be show lacking if one can offer a better? That’s completely off the mark, and clearly shows the ideological corruption of Science at the CRU (and across vast swaths of those ’scientists’ effectively acting as evangelists for one theory instead of objective investigators!) This communication reminds me of the corrupt, self-serving ’scientists’ depicted in the movie “Dark Matter”.
No, I think it’s clear the intent here is to seek conformity with pre-conceived notions and to try to enforce a kind of political correctness.
The question increasingly becomes: Just how extensive is the moral corruption and scientific bankruptcy that increasingly seems to have afflicted so many ’scientists’ and scientific establishments associated with this whole ‘Global Warming’ craze?
December 17, 2009, 9:36 amADiff:
Waldo,
Do you actually have anything beyond redundant and hollow Appeals to Authority? So would (and did!) academics of his day have dismissed William Harvey that the most respected authorities of the science, from Galen on, all disagreed with his outlandish notions. Scholasticism like that, as is inherently much of the modern ‘Environmental Movement’, is fundamentally anti-Scientific and Reactionary.
December 17, 2009, 9:42 amNormD:
Why cannot Waldo see the obvious:
The best scientific process would be where a scientist puts out their work in a blog-like public forum and both Waldo(s) and anti-Waldo(s) discuss the paper in public where all can see.
I hate the idea that some small group of editors and reviewers can stifle any idea.
The only thing that would be extremely useful is a way to eliminate name-calling and off-topic comments.
I don’t see anybody discussing the fact that the current process is probably distorting science in many areas. I listened to a podcast a few years back where an author was complaining that much that we “know” about computer science is not correct because nothing is ever archived and no source code control is used so nothing is replicated.
December 17, 2009, 10:07 amWaldo:
“As to making a determination on the science, I think we are all forced to read the arguments of those scientists who are in favour and of those who are against, with as open a mind as is possible. Ultimately, we then have to form a judgment as best we can.”
Very good and very reasonable. Personally I will have to default to the climate scientists but I respect what you are saying. I hope that you do not do this with, say, your doctor or your vet. I do have to wonder why you frequent a blog which really has few to no scientists on it.
What I am more fascinated with is this kind response:
“Why is it that the ‘alarmists’ carry on despite knowing in their hearts that they aren’t being straight with the world? Because they are like the priests of old who told everyone that the sun wouldn’t come up unless the king, supported by those priests, performed a predawn ritual.”
December 17, 2009, 10:23 amWaldo:
In response to my man Hunter:
“You keep challenging people as to their qualifications to assess if AGW claims are accurate.”
Yes.
“Is AGW such a special theory that a reasonably interested person studying it is not entitled to an opinion?”
Once again: Never said that. You said that. And anyone in the free world can have an opinion.
What bothers me is that pro-AGW and anti-AGW (for lack of better terminology) people very often consider their own quasi-educated opinions as equal to that of a scientist who has spent her or his life studying the phenomenon (or lack thereof). One may have an opinion on the cause of cancer, for instance, but you, me, and the world should defer to the oncologist for issues of treatment (in fact, we’d better not try and treat a cancer patient!) and the cancer researcher for causes. I cannot see how AGW is different except that we now have any number of commentaries, such as Mr. Meyer’s blog, who cloud the atmosphere with amateur “opinion” on a subject best left to science. What is more, very often these blogs are simply clearing houses for other bloggers of equal or even less qualifications.
“What is, for example, Gore’s qualifications to have an opinion?”
None. I do not listen to him and wish he would shut the hell up. I sometimes wonder if bloggers react more toward an anti-Gore sentiment than to an anti-AGW sentiment.
“When social scientists and philosphers look at AGW and see a social movement that exhibits certain negative characterstics, are they not entitled to an opinion?”\
Sure. As long as they stay out of the actual scientific debate. And as long as they recognize an equal response from camps such as this one.
“What are your qualifications to judge whether or not someone’s opinion is ‘qualified’ besides your reliance on the stated authority of those whom you hold out as experts?”
None. But I know I do not know. That is perhaps the biggest difference between us.
December 17, 2009, 10:35 amWaldo:
Adiff:
“Do you actually have anything beyond redundant and hollow Appeals to Authority?”
No. I defer to expert opinion. I suggest you should to unless you too are an expert.
December 17, 2009, 10:38 amWaldo:
NormD:
“The best scientific process would be where a scientist puts out their work in a blog-like public forum and both Waldo(s) and anti-Waldo(s) discuss the paper in public where all can see.”
I believe IPCC and NASA stuff is online for all to see. So does James Hansen.
“I hate the idea that some small group of editors and reviewers can stifle any idea.”
Well, NormD, are you suggesting we do away with peer-review?
First of all, you would lost the filter of expert opinion and then anyone could publish anything – including me. I might come up with an opinion on AGW this evening!
Secondly, these journals don’t quash anyone’s idea, they simply say, ‘We will not publish this.’ The idea is still free to find a home. And since experts generally read experts (these journals are not written for the popular press) you need someone to weed out the poorly done article or the plain bogus article or the disingenuous article if for no other reason than the expert readership would catch a poorly done or bogus article anyway.
Thirdly, these journals are a mark of well done science that can pass peer-review. Not to be too snarky here, but this is why so many anit-AGW proponents dislike peer-review – their science would not pass actual inspection.
“I don’t see anybody discussing the fact that the current process is probably distorting science in many areas. I listened to a podcast a few years back where an author was complaining that much that we “know” about computer science is not correct because nothing is ever archived and no source code control is used so nothing is replicated.”
I think you need more proof than simply a pod-cast listened to many years ago.
December 17, 2009, 10:47 amWaldo:
Oh yeah -
“And you are holding yourself out as objective?”
Well…since frequenting the blogosphere I find myself leaning more and more toward believing the so-called “alarmists.” So no, I’m not entirely objective – or rather, I try to be objective but I have a sneaking suspicion that we may have really screwed the pooch here. Still (and I cannot imagine how many times I shall write this), I have to believe people like Roger Pielke who, if you read his stuff, is very convincing. Pielke does not do away with AGW, by the way, but he is very critical of the way the science is being conducted.
I can say that I sure hope we are in the middle of an interglacial climate up-swing.
December 17, 2009, 10:55 amhunter:
Waldo,
December 17, 2009, 11:52 amI know you don’t go to doctors anymore, which is too bad, but I do.
My take, to use your medical analogy, is that I do not go to doctors whose diagnostic tools I have reason to question and who find that any symptom is proof of a need for double leg amputation.
AGW promoters are from my perspective, doing exactly that.
You can ignore it, and perhaps in your area of expertise cheating, hiding data, and doctoring results are OK, but wiht most people that is not acceptable.
The track record of apocalyptic predictions, which AGW is, is .000.
And you are stuck with Gore. He hoed the tobacco, he chopped the tobacco, ….oh sorry, wrong Gore quote.
hunter:
BTW,
December 17, 2009, 12:53 pmPielke, Sr. does not disagree that CO2 is a ghg, or that CO2 as a first order forcing is real.
But his opinions do not include the apocalyptic hype that is standard fare for the vast majority of what we can all agree is ‘AGW’.
Fwiw, I am firmly in agreement with Dr. Pielke Sr.
mbabbitt:
The above email conversations and the replies herein pretty much encapsulate why I don’t trust the experts. The bunker mentality is obvious in reading the emails — not just because of disagreements but for its over the top defensiveness — and yet this obvious fact is denied by many. I think of the history of the theory of continental drift first proposed by Wegener in 1915 (later morphed into plate tectonics) and the history of how his theory was greeted by the consensus:
December 17, 2009, 1:22 pmhttp://tinyurl.com/yeqwbs2: “…espoused by German meteorologist and lecturer Alfred Wegener in the early 20th century. Although the scientific community of the time ridiculed Wegener and flatly rejected his theory, current-day geologists, geophysicists, and oceanographers live by much of what he had to say about our planet.” I believe it was not till the 50’s and 60’s when Carey and Holmes changed minds. 30 years of consensus and what was the result?
And remember these guys did not have a money bonanza at their feet anywhere near what we have today with CAGW hysteria. Even dictators are going to get billions. Could you imagine a political and social climate more poisonous to objectivity and free thinking?
An Inquirer:
Waldo,
December 17, 2009, 1:40 pmI think that you have tried to be polite, so I commend you for that. However, I think that you give an excessive amount of deference to experts. It was not a biologist who found the problem with DNA summaries in the Duke LaCrosse case; it was a lawyer. It was not an IT specialist who found the problem with Hansen’s US temperature algorithm; it was a geologist — without the code and without the data set! It was a truck driver who discovered that NASA had plugged in September temperatures when they reported highest-ever October temperatures. It was lay people who discovered that satellite-fed data had gone awry in Cryosphere’s images. And I could go on.
Yes, we must turn to experts for their role, and I have served as an expert witness in court cases, so I know my role AS WELL AS my limitations. I have also seen how personal preferences can tilt an expert’s interpretation. Therefore, ability to examine data bases and algorithms are vital, and I must vehemently disagree with you “that IPCC and NASA stuff is all online for all to see.” It took three years to get Biffra’s data – but it took only three days to explode his published conclusions. Even when the data become available, it was horribly organized without metasets, etc. So – it might have taken only one day had not the data been tossed in a way that suggests obfuscation. Regarding the famous hockey stick, it literally took action by Congress to get the data, and when the data became available, I had no doubt about why Mann did not want to realease it. It doesn’t take a “climatologist” to find those errors. Do you know the story behind the release of the GISS code? When that was finally released, and although it took many months to get the code to compile and work, we have found opportunistic decisions that have produced its results. No, I do not conclude that many climate scientists have entered fraudulent numbers, but we have seen them make programming decisions that have given them the results. (In the GISS code, choice of hinge points and back-filling of decade-old files are critical to its ability to bring 1930s temperatures down to present day temperatures.)
These opportunistic choices appear not only in the temperature calculations, but also in the GCMs. I do hold multiple graduate degrees, and my Ph.D. work in economic modeling and physical sciences have enabled me to follow what is being done in GCMs. Their backcasts would be terrible if they did not plug in convenient numbers for aerosols, but their plugs are more arbitrarily chosen than scientifically chosen.
Of course, I could go on, but I need to close. So I make a concluding remark about Pielke. Yes, read his work! And please observe his concern about land-use. He believes that land-use choices are driving GW, not so much CO2. We are wasting resources and actually harming the environment by focusing on CO2.
Waldo:
“I think that you give an excessive amount of deference to experts”
Yes I do. I do not know about the examples you give but will take your word for it.
But now we are talking about several decades worth of work, no? Certainly someone somewhere along the line is going to make a mistake. Does the infamous “hockey stick” (even if we accept it is flawed) discount the multitudes of other work done on the subject?
What actually bothers me is that so much found in the blogosphere is uncritical acceptance of questionable sources and outright anger directed at the scientific community; I imagine much of this is politically motivated, which is terribly ironic if one thinks about the kinds of accusations generally found in the denier camp.
“These opportunistic choices appear not only in the temperature calculations, but also in the GCMs. I do hold multiple graduate degrees, and my Ph.D. work in economic modeling and physical sciences have enabled me to follow what is being done in GCMs.”
So? Publish. I will listen to you if you are, in fact, an expert who passes peer-review.
I have said numerous times already that I am happy to listen to dissenting voices as long as they are legitimate. I am not convinced of AGW. But these statements always seem to fall on deaf ears on these boards.
“[Pielke] believes that land-use choices are driving GW, not so much CO2. We are wasting resources and actually harming the environment by focusing on CO2.”
Yes, this is what I too understood. Why is Piekle not on these boards?
December 17, 2009, 2:14 pmhunter:
Waldo,
December 17, 2009, 2:26 pmIf there is no hockeystick, there is no looming apocalypse.
There is just some warming, well within historical variations, even by the slanted standards of AGW promoters.
You claim to have read quite a bit.
The graphs which are out- at this blog- that show current climate trends in temperature are actually incredibly normal.
why would an informed person such as yourself dismiss the clear evidence that AGW promoters have ignored history and have opted for a skewed view, in the face of evidence that they have, in fact done just that?
Are they immune to error becuase they are scientists?
My doctor of over 15 years, who has been pracicing medicine over 25 years, loves to tell me how when he was in med school giving beta blockers to a patient with cardiac problems was direct evidence of mal practice.
Now, to not give beta blockers to patients in cardiac trouble, is mal practice.
Your dogged defense of the people exposed in the climategate e-mail/data/code leak is bizarre and indicates you are not really here to discuss anything.
hunter:
Pielke is on his own board. Why should he be here?
December 17, 2009, 2:29 pmYour distraction by pretending that only peer reviewed articles are real is stupifying on your part.
As soon as someone lists a journal here, like E&E, that will publish skeptics, you are going to dismiss those out of hand, as you do all other crtique of AGW.
Clear evidence of peer review corruption of AGW is offered, and you demand that any objections be peer reviewed.
Does that make you feel clever?
Wally:
Waldo,
Its become painfully clear why you defer to experts to such a large extent.
What did you say you got that Ph.D. in?
December 17, 2009, 3:22 pmWaldo:
“E&E, that will publish skeptics, you are going to dismiss those out of hand, as you do all other crtique of AGW.”
Sigh. Oh, hunter, hunter, hunter – how many times do I have to list off the AGW skeptics I follow …oh never mind. My friend, I believe you are simply going to continue to lambaste me for dismissing critics of AGW no matter what I say, so I shall not say it again. (Staw man!!!) Nothing will penetrate this perception…which might say something.
And are you referring to “Energy and the Environment,” hunter? You do know that this is a coal industry trade journal, right?
“Clear evidence of peer review corruption of AGW is offered…”
Well if it is the email posted above, I do not see clear evidence. Perhaps you do, but I am not convinced.
“…and you demand that any objections be peer reviewed.”
I don’t demand anything [beside, no one would listen if I demanded anything], but I sure would feel a lot more comfortable if they were.
“Does that make you feel clever?”
Not particularly.
December 17, 2009, 3:45 pmWaldo:
“Its become painfully clear why you defer to experts to such a large extent.”
Why?
“What did you say you got that Ph.D. in?”
Didn’t. But, before I do, I’m just curious what difference you think it might make? I’ve admitted to being a layman and I wouldn’t have mentioned a Ph.D. at all except someone upstairs said “you must have a Ph.D.” which struck me as kind of funny since I do.
Are you about to imply that I am biased toward people with advanced degrees?
December 17, 2009, 3:48 pmADiff:
Waldo, with your attitude we’d all still be back in the Dark Ages deferring to the same “experts” deferred to then.
Defer to whom you please, I defer to no man in my own judgment.
Welcome to the Scientific method…to representative republican government…to capitalism. Based on your deference to so-called “experts”, I take it you prefer alternatives?
December 17, 2009, 4:02 pmWaldo:
And you, my dear ADiff, would be setting fire to witches.
But now we are just into name calling…
I did not understand the last part of your riposte. But for the record I believe in the free market, in democratically elected governments, in America, in the scientific method, free speech, and rock’n'roll.
And now I’m off to believe in pizza and good company. Cheers.
December 17, 2009, 5:10 pmEric:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/
December 17, 2009, 7:21 pmhunter:
More for AGW shills and such to ignore:
December 17, 2009, 7:55 pmhttp://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60033/IDO60033.2007.pdf
Sea levels not rising.
ADiff:
And so apparently sea levels aren’t rising and temperatures don’t seem to be increasing…. Interesting.
December 18, 2009, 12:53 amhunter:
Eric,
December 18, 2009, 6:29 amI like the way they used wicked looking color for the skeptic’s view.
They give the CO2 lagging a great try, but fail.
Thanks,
Wally:
Here’s a pretty good list of the sacred peer review journal articles supporting skepticism about AGW: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
December 18, 2009, 7:51 amWally:
Waldo,
If you’re still here, here’s a nice review of how our established experts, or the authority f-ed up the peer review process: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html
This is one of the main issues with the peer review process, it requires that those doing the reviewing act ethically. Just isn’t always going to happen. And in small fields, you only need a few people to overly support their biases before the peer reviewed journals themselves become biased. I’d bet most of the scientists here have run into a situations where they have done research that conflicts with the general line of thinking coming out of the top couple of labs in that field, only to find that their paper ends up being reviewed by the heads of those labs, where it then gets shot down. This is probably the biggest flaw in the peer review process. It tends to reward people that support the conventional wisdom and makes it difficult to publish papers debunking accepted thought. This means the “authorities” can often go unchallenged in the peer review process, thus making them look like more of an authority because they have 200 papers to your 20. Its our good old positive feedback loops that AGW advocates are so worried about.
December 18, 2009, 10:54 amAn Inquirer:
Waldo, I thank you for your level of civility, and it is questionable that that same level of civility is always returned to you on this blog. Naturally, I understand the frustration of other posters, and I realize that the civility on this blog – particularly toward legitimate posters — is much better than typically found on pro-AGW sites, but nevertheless, I call upon all posters to engage in useful and uplifting dialogue.
December 18, 2009, 12:17 pmThat being said, I am becoming more concerned about your view of experts. One has to smile when you said in your reply to me “Yes I do [give excessive amount of deference to experts].” But moving beyond such word picking, I do not believe that you have a grasp on what is meant by mistakes. First of all, it is not a good sign of the status of climate discussion in MSM or elsewhere when you say that you “do not know about the examples.” These are not little innocent mistakes that make no difference. There are not “multitudes of other work” that independently support the hockey stick. The lead author of the hockey stick is Professor Mann from Penn State; he and his colleagues form what is called “The Team” in Climate Science. They have produced most of the studies that support the hockey stick conclusion, and they overwhelmingly rely on a couple of controversial proxies that drive the conclusion. (Have you heard of Yamal trees, bristlecones and inverted proxies? If not, please read up on them.) The vast majority of multi-century proxy studies (and I mean over 90% of them) contradict the hockey stick, and yet the hockey-stick mentality is key to people’s opinions on climate change.
Please do not listen to me because I am an “expert who passes peer review.” Rather listen to me because I present reliable data and solid analysis. Actually, I did publish – before AGW became highly politicized. In fact then, I accepted the AGW premise. (After all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and in laboratory conditions, doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels will have approximately a one degree impact on temperature. I still accept those components of the AGW premise, but now I question whether the feedback /amplification is strongly positive or whether GCMs produce reliable results or whether an ideal level of CO2 existed back in the 1700s.) Several years ago, I was invited to join others in publishing another paper. There were aspects of the paper about which I had qualms, but my colleagues astutely pointed out that those aspects needed to be in there in order to get future funding. I bowed out, explaining that my sense of integrity did not allow me to go forward on such a motive. Of course, my colleagues proceeded to publish the paper . . . and get the funding. (The love of funding is the source of all sorts of dysfunctions in the scientific process.)
Waldo, I fear that you may lack a handle on what the peer-review process has become in the climate change industry. Although dozens of skeptical studies have been published, there are a few journals that do not accept skeptical studies, and when one is submitted, the editorial board sends it to analysts whose work is being question – hence, it never passes peer review.
To further our discussion on experts, I hope we both would agree that we should not rely on the expert Bob Jones when he tells us to drink the Kool Aid. Also, we both would agree that we would comply with the expert doctor when he tells us to put a splint on a broken arm. Now, in the middle of those extremes, reasonable people can disagree, and I encourage you to be more questioning of experts. I told my doctor there was no need to send me or X-rays of my healed bones to an orthopedic specialist. I could tell and my doctor could tell that the bones were healed, and we did not have to spend the money on more confirmation. Would you follow the Russian expert scientists supporting Lysenkoism? Would you follow the experts in the Catholic church condemning Galileo? Would you question the actions of Mike Nifong’s experts in 2007? In 1999, I questioned the recommendations of IT experts pushing for more drastic actions in the Y2K scare, and I saved my organization hundreds of thousands of dollars — if not millions — plus embarrassment.
Time for me to quit writing! (I warn my students at the start of each semester that I love to talk! And I can keep going! That reminds me: I give my undergraduate students challenges to find what is wrong with the scientific analysis behind some of the more famous climate change studies. Amazing that they can find the errors when the peer-review process cannot!)
One question in conclusion: What do you mean when you ask “Why is Piekle not on these boards?” Are you asking why he doesn’t post on these blogs? He has his own blog, and logically he cannot post on many other blogs.
ADiff:
An Inquirer,
Thank you for the wonderfully concise summary of some of the limits and perils of technocracy (and deference to perceived expertise in general)!
That an academician would sacrifice funding to intellectual integrity is reassurance to my flickering faith in the sustainable productivity of our Academic institutions.
Thanks for that, too!
December 18, 2009, 12:28 pmWaldo:
Woof. Nice Inquirer! I am actually somewhat amazed at a thorough and thoughtful response. Almost always these boards devolve into adolescent insults and cliches (and usually I give as good as I get but decided to tone it back here), which is what has started to happen. But an actual discussion!? Oh joy!
There is a lot there and I’m actually on the job, so let me just answer the “Why is Pielke not on these boards?” question with my own little amount of pontification –
I simply always have to wonder why so much mental energy is expended on cross-posting and then defending blogger-statements when you have a genuine scientist with impeccable credentials out there that posits some very credible but complex arguments? Why aren’t Pielke articles all over this board?
Which leads me to another observation (which will probably spark another round of “climate science is a religion” comments from people who obviously have a very dogmatic relationship to the subject) -
I’ve been looking at Wally’s 7:51a.m. posting of “peer-reviewed” anti-AGW literature.
Now, I’ve numerously (and pointlessly, as it turns out) stated that I do not believe in AGW – there’s clearly science and scientists out there who offer counter-theories – but as I go down Wally’s list I repeatedly see “Energy and the Environment” (coal industry publication), “Iron & Steel Industry,” a number of “submitted” papers, a great number of papers that are now over a decade old, and a number of journals that do not seem to have a web presence. As a test run, I put a random title into Academic Search Premier and came up with no citation for this particular journal in question. It is entirely possible that I need to search more and in other databases, but it also gives me pause…
Why, An Inquirer, do you suppose that certain people are so uncritical of their sources? Most of the people here seize on any NASA error or actively seek incriminating statements as absolute proof or will deride expert opinion because money might be involved…but will happily cite an article in E & E. Why are these people so incredibly unidimensional in their criticism?
If you would expect me to be critical of AGW statements (which is perfectly fair), why not be critical of anti-AGW statements also?
December 18, 2009, 1:12 pmWally:
Waldo,
I expected more from you:
“as I go down Wally’s list I repeatedly see “Energy and the Environment” (coal industry publication), “Iron & Steel Industry,” a number of “submitted” papers, a great number of papers that are now over a decade old, and a number of journals that do not seem to have a web presence.”
Regardless of how old the paper is (and really a decade? that’s too old?) or where it came from, that doesn’t mean its a bad source, presents incorrect data or unsupported conclusion. Each argument stands on its own and should be evaluated independent of the journal it was published in. Didn’t we just get through pointing out how the peer review process can be flawed, and was especially flawed in climate research. Maybe these papers are showing up in lesser journals because they got snubbed out of a few more high visible journals thanks to the likes of Mann, et al.?
Also, in side the list you’ll see papers from Nature, Nature Geosciences, Science, Climate Research (yes even that one). I’m by no means saying every paper in there is without flaws, but to discredit the entire list based on some subset coming from what you believe to be suspicious sources is just ridiculous.
“Why, An Inquirer, do you suppose that certain people are so uncritical of their sources?”
Some people, who? When? Where? Talk about being critical. This is a non-starter.
“Most of the people here seize on any NASA error or actively seek incriminating statements as absolute proof or will deride expert opinion because money might be involved…but will happily cite an article in E & E.”
In case you missed it, this is blog for AGW skeptic arguments, so that’s what its going to be about. And if I have good reason to deride expert opinion, I will. Just making the blanket statement that we do this because money is involved is a huge straw man. We have evidence for manipulating the peer review system, they lost their raw data (which in itself is enough to totally ignore any work based on that data), with what data we do have its been shown that either you can get the same result with randomized raw data, or no one can replicate the result. The argument against several of these “experts” go far beyond “because money might be involved.” To state such a thing right before you claim, “why are these people so incredibly unidimensional in their criticism?” Is terribly hypocritical, as you’re obviously not paying attention to the criticisms being levied in the first place, nor are you being critical, as you proudly defer to any expert you deem worthy based on unknown criteria and apperently regardless of the argument by those people.
“If you would expect me to be critical of AGW statements (which is perfectly fair), why not be critical of anti-AGW statements also?”
I won’t speak for all people here, but I try my best to be equally critical of everything I read. You seem to be all bent out of shape because E&E appears in that list of papers fairly frequently. Well take them out if you like (not that I’d actually do this, but just for argument sake). There are some 147 other journals sited (look at the bottom of the link for a complete list) and roughly 350 articles from papers not out of that journal. So, what exactly is your point. Where exactly am I not being critical. Point to something specific, otherwise this is just rhetorical ping-pong, as you like to put it.
December 18, 2009, 2:15 pmTony Hansen:
Waldo,
I see you are willing to defer to authority on matters that you do not feel fully capable of judging for yourself. Michael Tobis (Only in it for the Gold)and Ben Hale (Cruel Mistress) also promoted this same idea.
I have always wondered how one can make the choice of who is/is not an expert, if one feels unable to judge any/enough of the work themselves.
If you have the time I would appreciate your perpective on how one can sensibly and reasonably choose which authority to defer to (and/or which to ignore).
December 18, 2009, 3:45 pmRegards
Waldo:
Hmmm…wasn’t sure I understood all of that, Wally, but okay…
**”Regardless of how old the paper is (and really a decade? that’s too old?)”
Weeeeelll…if you are talking about Beowulf scholarship, no. But science moves so fast that is actually quite old for scientific paper, wouldn’t you say? This is what I was taught, in any event, and this is why citation styles such as APA always contain the year (2009) so that reviewers and readers can be sure that the science is up-to-date.
**”where it came from, that doesn’t mean its a bad source,”
This I’m going to have to disagree with you on. Yes, absolutely, the source does matter. The coal industry has an iron in the fire as does the steel industry. It should be fairly self-apparent why the source should matter. And again I find this acceptance of industry papers rather hypocritical on a forum that has roundly condemned CRU scientists for being, essentially, self interested.
**”to discredit the entire list based on some subset coming from what you believe to be suspicious sources is just ridiculous.”
Weeeeeell…I did not do such a thing. Sometimes I think there is some deliberate obtuseness on this point, or perhaps I don’t explain well, but…
The problem is that a list like the one above simply lists “500 peer-reviewed papers” without regard to the source, many of which should raise red-flags. It is disingenuous.
**”Well take them out if you like”
Yes, take them out. Quality and not quantity. That is the point.
December 18, 2009, 3:50 pmhunter:
Waldo,
December 18, 2009, 4:05 pmOne of the annoying trollish things you indulge in is to pretend that you are some sort of Margaret Mead, with faux disinterest in what the restless natives are doing.
Using strawmen, as you do in abundance, and then sniffing out a ’see? I told ya so’ snippy remark only makes you more trollish and does nothing to move communication forward.
But addressing your favorite strawman, that skeptics are in it fer unworthy reasons, and the venues they can get published in proves they are unworthy, is addressed rather well in the e-mails of those AGW promoters who themselves talk about how they set out to halt the publications of skeptics.
Rather circular on your part, Waldo.
Speaking of quantity publications, since there is a network that has been documented that reviews each other papers, and they are on the AGW prmotion side of the argument, it seems that the reasonable take would be to review those papers (apparently a large stack) and toss out the ones with conflicted reviews.
I believe that history will show that COP15 is the first large casualty of climategate.
Perhaps it is time for less snark and denial from the AGW community regarding the questions raised by cliamtegate and the review of the data coming from it, and to actually follow the implications?
An Inquirer:
Waldo,
December 18, 2009, 5:27 pmThis posting will not contain any substance — I just wanted to get a quick note out in response to hunter’s posting. Please do not be put off by the tone of hunter’s comment. Although some of hunter’s concepts have merit, his message might easily get lost in his tone. While I urge him to be more civil, there is some room for understanding: he has been repeatedly and viciously attacked by a “troll” — with even a element of identity theft. Therefore, that might be a reason he is overly quick to pounce on others.
astonerii:
Waldo = Micheal Mann, can someone check his IP, and see if it is coming from his university?
December 18, 2009, 5:32 pmastonerii:
Waldo
“Weeeeelll…if you are talking about Beowulf scholarship, no. But science moves so fast that is actually quite old for scientific paper, wouldn’t you say? This is what I was taught, in any event, and this is why citation styles such as APA always contain the year (2009) so that reviewers and readers can be sure that the science is up-to-date.”
I no longer beleive in math, gravity, nor e=mc^2, my god those papers are like hundreds, hundreds and decades old, I think I will go out and jump to the moon, that by my non math calculations and lack of gravity means that I can jump there instantaneously!!
Thanks Waldo, my life will never be the same again, now that I know that anything over 10 years old in science is automatically wrong.
December 18, 2009, 5:36 pmWaldo:
“in response to hunter’s posting”
I kind of quit reading Hunter’s posts. A lot of posts, honestly.
“Waldo = Micheal Mann, can someone check his IP, and see if it is coming from his university?”
You are joking, right? Bawahahahahahaha! You will probably find several IPs since I post from several different places. One is, in fact, a university but nothing nearly so prestigious as Penn St. U and the other is my home. Trust me, your loyal troll is no one quite so infamous as that.
But now I leave you in peace to have some fun. Inquiry, we shall chat again tomorrow, no? Ta-ta.
December 18, 2009, 6:27 pmAlan D. McIntire:
From this quote:
“written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc.” Obviously, their paper was showing that the tree ring proxies were statistically crap.
As to “but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense.” The authors of the rejected papers obvously could NOT apply their methods to tree rings to get better results in a “practical” sense because there is NO way to get non-crap results from tree rings. That argument was in effect saying,
December 18, 2009, 10:47 pm“Okay, you say my method of making predictions from crystal balls is worthless. Your criticism of my method cannot be taken seriously unless you are able to make better predictions using crystal balls than I can.”
Anonymous:
@Waldo:
You seem to show no interest in discussing actual science, your position is that only scientists can do that, and as far as I understand your only argument is that in the question of AGW the opinion of experts is predominantly on the pro-AGW side. It seems to me that it has been shown in this thread that there are many experts who reject the concept of catastrophic AGW (1). It has been pointed out that science is not done by consensus, it only takes one guy to disprove a theory (2). It has also been pointed out that there is evidence of the pro-AGW folks silencing their opponents for years, thus there is reason even for those inclined to judge science on relatively tangential factors such as the number of articles pro- or contra- a particular concept to put these factors aside at least in this case (3).
What exactly are you arguing? Did I not understand your position (if so, I apologize and I stand ready to hear what you have to say)? Which of the (1), (2), (3) above do you disagree with?
December 19, 2009, 3:09 amBrownedoff:
Commenters at CS,
This “Waldo” critter – the best thing is to ignore the loon completely.
If you attempt to engage with it, the loon will just fill up the thread with pompous, boring screeds of rubbish.
As at Dec 19, 3:09am there were 67 comments of which 20 had been sprayed by the loon – see where there 5 one after the other – is that a gang bang?
Possibly Lord Monckton had this loon in mind when he coined the term “bedwetter”.
December 19, 2009, 8:56 amOtter:
JoNova has a nice little detail on her blog comments page. One can vote a posting up or down… after so many downs, the posting is hidden.
Something like that would shorten this particular round by quite a bit.
December 19, 2009, 9:12 ammikep:
A later version of the paper has now been run down. Still not published but given at a high-profile NBER time-series conference. Here is the link.
http://nber-nsf09.ucdavis.edu/program/papers/auffhammer.pdf
Looks like a solid paper that proves (mathematically) that the inverse regression method used in many reconstructions of temperature “provides biased estimates of the reconstructed climate series and underestimates the true variability of historical climate”. Bias is being used in its technical statistical sense as a property of estimators, not as a term of abuse. I can’t see any good reason for suppressing this finding other than damage limitation. The form of analysis is a commonplace in econometrics which devotes reams of space to properties of estimators. Of course the current version may be an improvement of the 2003 version, but the finding is important and should have made it to the published literature by now.
December 19, 2009, 10:11 amhunter:
And I predicted that Waldo, when confronted with tough questions, would just fade away.
December 19, 2009, 11:18 amCya,
Waldo:
Well, my brothers and sisters, just checking back in. Inquiry, I too wax far too verbosely. Sorry. But -
** “Please do not listen to me because I am an ‘expert who passes peer review.’ Rather listen to me because I present reliable data and solid analysis.”***
I guess this is the crux of my problem: I am an admitted layman. I do not know the science. So I am forced to make a choice about who to place my trust in. I would not question that you are who you claim to be, but why, Dr. Inquirer, should you have more reliable data and solid analysis than Mann or, say, Hansen? There is certainly proxy *“controversy”*…but I don’t think that equates to the burden of disproof. The term “controversy” indicates an argument which is underway, a public dispute. The jury is still out, in other words. It is a sad day when “controversy” alone rules our psyches.
And I hate to point this out, but (while I have no doubt that you have impressive credentials of your own) Mann and Hansen are also quite impressive and, were they to log on, would undoubtedly defend their methodology and tree-ring proxies etc. Also, this information is broadly available. Thus I am left wondering why massive governmental agencies, world governments, universities, and even (if CNN poles are to be believed) the majority of climate scientists are quite convinced of AGW. As a layperson who finds most of the controversy in the blogosphere and only with a few select but believable scientists, why should I still not believe the IPCC or NOAA or NASA or the EPA?
In your above examples (DNA in Duke Lacrosse case etc) you seem to be making the argument that the layperson population is capable of pointing out the deficiencies or errors of the scientific community. Very good. I can’t imagine who would have argued that anyway. But is that really what is going on here on “Climate Skeptic”? Or are people uncritically accepting anything that contradicts AGW out of a sense of frustration or conservative ideology or religious affiliation or any number of personal beliefs? Does this blog and ones like it actually damage the credibility of the anti-AGW camps as Hansen’s political activities have damaged his own reputation? This is actually the question I am interested in.
** “I bowed out, explaining that my sense of integrity did not allow me to go forward on such a motive. Of course, my colleagues proceeded to publish the paper . . . and get the funding. (The love of funding is the source of all sorts of dysfunctions in the scientific process.)”**
Bravo. I applaud your integrity. But your colleagues did get funding and publication. I’m sorry to ask this, since I don’t know the specifics, but are you sure your colleagues weren’t correct?
** “Waldo, I fear that you may lack a handle on what the peer-review process has become in the climate change industry.” **
Now…this seems a little hyperbolic to me. And again, the place where I hear the most dire accusations about peer-review is in the blogosphere which usually champions science that is not, in fact, peer reviewed. So please forgive me (this is nothing personal, as I’m sure you realize) but I am not entirely willing to believe that the entire peer-review process is quite so tarnished as yet. Peer-review is still the standard for science worldwide, even if it is not perfect, as nothing that is human ever is.
** “[I]n the middle of those extremes, reasonable people can disagree, and I encourage you to be more questioning of experts.”**
But see, this is where the whole conversation derails. The good people on this board and others like it are not “questioning the experts” – this is wholesale denial, vitriol, vindictiveness, and even on occasion fury directed toward the AGW community. I see nothing wrong with “questioning the experts” as long as one has a certain amount of insight…but I would ask that you be honest about what goes on here.
** “I told my doctor there was no need to send me or X-rays of my healed bones to an orthopedic specialist. I could tell and my doctor could tell that the bones were healed, and we did not have to spend the money on more confirmation.” ***
But see, this is the whole point. Had there been a question you would have sent the X-rays to an orthopedic expert, no? You would not have sent them to an OBGYN or a cardiovascular surgeon or a neurosurgeon – and you would be right to point out that any of these other specialists would certainly have spotted an egregious error and would be more qualified than, say, me or you to issue a diagnosis – but there was never a question that you would defer to an expert opinion. Plus, I might point out, you did not go to a psychologist or economist or climatologist when you were injured, you went to an M.D. Expert opinion matters.
And yes, sometimes experts are wrong (Y2K was pretty funny at the time) but why aren’t we questioning the geologists because the Oregon earthquake has yet to appear? As an undergraduate I was told (by an expert) that around 500 years or so (I may have my timeline off a little), a massive earthquake rocks the Pacific Northwest because of the subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate beneath the continental lithosphere. He, the expert, could demonstrate through the geologic record that a massive geological event occurs on a regular geologic time table and the fault line runs right beneath downtown Portland, Oregon! Clearly this is disaster waiting to happen. Now this was fifteen years ago and clearly no massive .5 earthquake has hit. Should we begin to doubt the peer-review in geology? What about astrophysics? I have never seen a sunspot myself, nor am I convinced that solar radiation fluxes. Where’s the proof? In journals? Do we stop using pharmaceuticals because drug companies sometimes have to recall their products?
Why are we so quick to doubt an entire particular scientific discipline simply because there have been errors and even some duplicity across decades of work?
Why are you people so angry?
December 19, 2009, 12:48 pmTanGeng:
Wow, you guys are just being trolled. Holy crap.
The point of developing trusting in a certain specialty is that the competence in that specialty can be regularly monitored or evaluated. Trust can therefore be place or withdrawn by observation. Payment to these specialists has an observable benefit or a certain level of risk mitigation.
These certain climate scientists have specialized in declaring the end of the world to be imminent but make predictions about 10-45 years. It sounds impressive but it isn’t a competency that can be easily monitored or evaluated. Payment being proposed, carbon cap and trade, isn’t tied to any easily observed benefit or risk mitigation except as measured by the climate models.
Because of the long lag time in observation of climate change, climate science follows a different paradigm. The science is crap until it’s been able to withstand at least 30 years of test and review.
December 19, 2009, 4:50 pmmbabbitt:
TanGeng:
December 19, 2009, 10:46 pm“The science is crap until it’s been able to withstand at least 30 years of test and review.”
Let’s refine that a bit: The science is crap until it’s been able to withstand at least 30 years of fair and objective test and review. 30 years of a stacked deck is meaningless.
wrasslin':
“Wow, you guys are just being trolled. Holy crap.”
The thing about wrasslin’ a pig – you get real diry; and, sooner or later, you figure out that the pig’s just havin’ fun.
December 19, 2009, 11:11 pmTony Hansen:
..’Peer-review is still the standard for science worldwide…’
December 20, 2009, 12:58 amWaldo, it may well be for academic scientists. I doubt that it is equally true for scientists in the business or military spheres. For those I think replicability is more important.
And may I ask again how one can make the choice of who is/is not an expert or authority, if one feels unable to judge any/enough of the work themselves.
Joe Public:
“Why are we so quick to doubt an entire particular scientific discipline simply because there have been errors and even some duplicity across decades of work?”
According to your logic, we should not have democracies. As informed citizens, individuals could never be an expert on all issues the government regulates and taxes. This would leave one to have democracies where even the uninitiated can vote with imperfect information.
I’m a lay person as well. From my perspective, people generally will not be able to argue the fine points of one statistical technique over another. You are correct that they have no expertise. What they are equally qualified for ( and perhaps more so since they don’t live in a Ivory Tower seperated from us unwashed masses), is to identify scammers and charlatans.
It doesn’t help the AGW crowd to have ads with falling polar bears, plans for massive co2 reduction schemes while ignoring cheaper solutions or people telling them they are idiots and should listen to their betters. All of these things will only drive people away from your argument as they are the tools of political manipulation and not reason. People see right through that.
December 20, 2009, 6:36 amhunter:
TanGeng,
Good point. A relatively polite troll, but troll none the less.
Waldo is either ignoring the answers or is declining to answer them.
Tony Hansen,
You are correct: peer review is not the gold standard. Replicability is.
Another good indicator of the validity of an idea is how the people who are attracted to it behave.
December 20, 2009, 7:23 amLook at who got cheered at COP15, and look at who was making the violence and riots in Copenhagen.
Look at how AGW true believers treat people who disagree at their blogs vs. how even trolls are treated at, say, here.
Waldo:
Tony -
** “And may I ask again how one can make the choice of who is/is not an expert or authority, if one feels unable to judge any/enough of the work themselves.”
The same way that one picks a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant, or an auto mechanic. Unless you are all four you must choose at least one of these professions without real insight. So, one looks at credentials, degrees, certifications, associations, etc. In the case of climate science, I am not so paranoid about my government that, when I see that someone is a government scientist, I immediately distrust them. I would say the same thing about scientists in world organizations. I think I’ve answered this many times but I guess this is a long thread.
And, Tony, you do realize that “business or military spheres” rely heavily on “academic scientists” to do their work for them, don’t you? You do realize that companies like Firestone or Eli Lilly spend billions on university researchers and that MIT does a great deal of military design, just to name a few, right?
Joe, I have no idea how you got to your democracies statement, but I might suggest this is a classic straw man argument. As are the implications of “ivory tower” comments.
Hunter, what questions did you want me to answer? I must have missed them.
And who is this “troll” everyone keeps talking about?
December 20, 2009, 9:26 ammalcolm:
A very interesting article at American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html
December 20, 2009, 10:37 amWally:
Waldo,
At this point I’m growing more inclined give up on you. If you’re unable to understand the flaws in picking an authority by awards, or committees, after all that only going to hurt you not me. You bring up picking an auto mechanic for example. How many times have you been burned by an auto mechanic, because you relied on some measure of authority instead of doing a little homework and being willing to get your hands dirty? Like most things our cars actually aren’t that complicated, and smart people given a little time can come to understand them. Or they can at least come to the point where they can do a better job picking a mechanic based on some credential, by talking to them and judging their knowledge on the matter. Which is the issue here. You’re inclinded to just pick from a list of MIT, Harvard, Oxford grads with long CVs. Those of us that are closer to this science than you appear to be and are willing to to the homework are going to take it to the next level and actually evaluate the work done and conclusions drawn from it. So, by all means, do it your way. But do so knowing that the more informed and critical individuals are going to do it their way, and they will be better off in every aspect of life because of there willingness to study up and get critical.
I’d also like to point out you dodged Tony’s question. How many doctors of any given specialty are in your area? Or auto mechs? How do you distiguish between them given equivalent pedigrees? If one doctor from Harvard tell your pregnant wife drinking a glass of wine a week is no big deal and another from UCSF says don’t drink at all, who do you believe? More over, how do you even trust the pedigrees? Do you just assume that UCSF or Stanford is better than UC Davis because some other credential told you so? Its a house of cards with one credential built on another. As my PI has always told me, you get awards for winning awards… So, the trick is winning that first award.
For future note Waldo, the use of “bawhahaha” only reveals your true maturity.
December 20, 2009, 12:34 pmSquidly:
Allan, while Waldo claimed previously to have earned a PhD, not in climate science, but PhD none the less, I would assert that he/she in fact does NOT garnish said ac-credibility. Why? Because I do NOT myself garner such academic credentials and yet I recognized “Monte Carlo” immediately for what, as you state and cite, it really is.
Sorry Waldo, you lost credibility with me.
December 20, 2009, 1:57 pmSquidly:
December 20, 2009, 2:06 pmSquidly:
Waldo, can you tell me the age of the Hockey Stick?
December 20, 2009, 2:23 pmSwami:
Waldo, you and the entire global warming community have completely lost sight of the point.
It is not necessary for the skeptic community to prove anything.
The Global Warming community is the group proposing a radical alteration of all of Humanity’s economics, and the expenditure of potentially trillions of dollars of effort- and those trillions of dollars represent billions of work-days by Human beings. Entire human Lifetimes worth of labor output would be consumed in the policies they advocate. If the Global Warming community is wrong, this represents a catastrophic waste of human effort on a scale not seen since the second world war. Ergo, 100% of the burden of proof falls on them. Contrarian views must therefore be examined thoroughly and competently.
Going back to the original subject, it is therefore more logical to give consideration to the idea that the email’s intent was to squash a challenge to the AGW hypothesis, than it is to handwave it away.
December 20, 2009, 3:40 pmron from Texas:
I saw a lot of rhetoric in here, mainly, of course, in defense of the scientists involved in the emails. Simple fact, they were were trying to refute a critique of their papers by a mathematical treatment sound enough to cause them concern. The fear was that their paper could be discredited. No doubt, that does happen all the time in other areas of science and is not, in and of itself, that dastardly, though it certainly smacks of unprofessionalism and some “bunker mentality.” The primary difference here, though, is that these papers they wish to defend are being used to justify the abolishment of capitalism and the restructuring of the world to a global communism. It really is high-stakes poker. And that’s what makes this particular exchange of emails powerful and important. If it were merely an email confab on the relevance of the EPR event in Quantum Mechanics, no one except me and a few people with degrees would give a hoot. But we are talking about trillions of dollars riding on these “climate” papers.
December 20, 2009, 6:21 pmJoe Public:
What i’m trying to get at with the democracy analogy is that one does not have to have perfect information to have a view point nor is it necessarily irrational. People who vote have imperfect information. They vote based on broad political boundaries and general ‘feel’ for the the candidate. They certainly do not vote based upon a nuanced understanding of law, regulation or economics let alone all three.
When the public, ie. me and 99.999% of the population read and see the political arguments trotted out as fact, you will lose us.
I have a finance back ground and I have a very healthy skepticism of anyone who makes bold statements of modeled projections. One doesn’t need to know how the models were programmed to understand the power of compounding. The AGW crowd is taking a multivariate statistical relationship and forcasting for a 100 years. That is truly unbelievable. When they say they have a 90% confidence, it shows that they either don’t know how to use statistics or have politicized the science. Their confidence assumes that they know ALL factors and can model them ALL correctly. If they are off by even the smallest amount, all of their calculations will generate ever increasing errors(compounding).
I look at all that proxy data, and see an analyst taking individual stock returns and at one specific point, using only data for a user defined time period, say aha see there, they all have a beta of one. Now if I project this out 100 years then they should all have the same terminal value.
Except in this case, only we have to trust only a handful of people for that market data. Not only that but there is reason to believe that they cherry picked which data to use.
-And that cherry picked data has been ‘massaged’ to value added data.
-And some people who are familiar with this field are unable to reconstruct the data that were given to begin with.
-And some people who want to report the goings on in the climate field are told that if they continue not reporting in a AGW friendly way, they’ll get the big Cut Off.
Can you see how Joe Public might have some skepticism about the claims made by IPCC and AGW proponents? I don’t have a clue what goes into the models. What I do know is that if walks like shady business, talks like shady business then it’s probably shady business.
December 20, 2009, 6:24 pmWaldo:
Squidly, the initial hockey stick is ten years old and covers the last millennium. The initial stick is almost ready for the fifth grade but rather old in terms of science. It has, however, been updated as of September 2008 – so it is relatively new science covering a 1,300 year graph. Mann et al understand the importance of keeping the science current and I suspect there will be a newer and better-than-ever hockey stick in the near future. Nice try, though.
And, my squid-friend, there are those that say there is a *proven* connection between CO2 and the environment. My question is always why we disbelieve these qualified people?
And yes, mea culpa, monte carlo is a type of math. Interesting to know. The meaning of the email is still exactly the same though.
And Joe, do you also doubt cancer research?
December 20, 2009, 11:00 pmWaldo:
Swami
“Entire human Lifetimes worth of labor output would be consumed in the policies they advocate.”
How exactly?
And I must disagree – the skeptic community has a lot to prove and is trying its best to do so, even if that includes deception.
December 21, 2009, 12:02 amJoe Public:
“And Joe, do you also doubt cancer research?”
If the researcher behaved like how climate researchers have behaved, no.
If they had a hypothesis, tested on lab animals then tested on humans with a double blind study, then yes.
Not, if they had a hypothesis based on a correlation that indicates the cause and effect is the other way around, and controlled disbursement of/massaged/cherry picked/bully other researchers into accepting their data.
Medical research has a great deal of humility. There are plenty of examples of where drugs tested well in double blind testing and were later removed due to unforseen problems.
If I had cancer and every standard treatment failed, the doctor may suggest joining a clinical trial. He would instruct me on the dangers and let me choose whether to join with full due diligence.
AGW researchers though seem to want to claim “The Science is Settled” and there is “Consensus”. There is a saying to the effect that if you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. I get the sense that the AGW crowd sees every problem as man made co2 and are unable/unwilling to ponder other causes.
December 21, 2009, 5:22 amAnonymous:
@Waldo:
“Hunter, what questions did you want me to answer? I must have missed them.”
Yes, you missed a couple. See my previous post with several very specific questions. Do you have anything else to discuss other than your willingness to blindly submit your position on AGW to whoever you currently consider an authority? If that’s all you have, you’ve been heard and your mission is complete.
December 21, 2009, 8:48 amAnonymous:
To clarify, I am not the same person as ‘hunter’.
December 21, 2009, 8:48 amHockey stick guru:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE
Tell a friend about this travesty…Sickening.
December 21, 2009, 9:11 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTGLpqFGyYM
hunter:
That our newest troll, Waldo, persists in dismissing evidence of AGW promotional corruption and deception, while blindly asserting that deception is used by skeptics, is sort of indicative of why, no matter how nice and well behaved, a troll is still a troll.
December 21, 2009, 9:15 amWaldo’s repetitive question, ‘why should we disbelieve those who claim to be authorities?’ Is as disengenuous, since he ignores the answers and evidence.
Waldo,
I wish you a Merry Christmas, and hope Santa brings you a new personality that includes integrity, this time.
cya,
Waldo:
Anon: sorry, there are a great many ripostes and with yours I thought I’d answered these in various responses, but I will yet again state my very simple case in direct response to your questions on Dec. 19:
*****”It seems to me that it has been shown in this thread that there are many experts who reject the concept of catastrophic AGW (1).”
Yup, there are a few – and I actually helped and posted a couple of names earlier. If you are referring to this blog and others like it, or the list of “500 peer reviewed papers,” look again. Few to no experts and what appears to be a fair amount of deception.
*****”It has been pointed out that science is not done by consensus, it only takes one guy to disprove a theory (2).”
It has also been pointed out that there are a great many scientists who look at the information and come to the same conclusion. I tend to go with the great many scientists. I suspect “consensus” is a dirty word for the anti-AGW camp because they do not have it. Interestingly, the first thing these boards usually do is point out that “that there are many experts” who have their own little consensus. Do you also doubt the scientific consensus that smoking is bad for you?
And who is this “one guy” who has proved AGW a fraud?
*****”It has also been pointed out that there is evidence of the pro-AGW folks silencing their opponents for years, thus there is reason even for those inclined to judge science on relatively tangential factors such as the number of articles pro- or contra- a particular concept to put these factors aside at least in this case (3).”
Again, I think I have answered this, but this has been a long thread. If the “evidence” you cite is the CRU emails, I cannot figure out what the big deal is. In fact, I think there is no big deal but a lot of hype from the anti-AGW blogosphere.
December 21, 2009, 9:57 amWaldo:
Well Joe, we might just agree to disagree on the double blind nature of climate science and the “humility” of the medical community, much less the moral high ground of the pharmaceutical industry (that’s actually extremely funny, Joe – are you really going to argue that?)
But this:
***** “AGW researchers though seem to want to claim ‘The Science is Settled’ and there is ‘Consensus’.”
First of all, no one said “The Science is Settled.” That is a successful deception of the anti-AGW camp. Look it up. And whenever I go to places like NASA or IPCC, they talk about science. Only places like these seem obsessed with the “Consensus” which they do not, in fact, possess.
I got a question: do you folks think you look at this “debate” as an ‘Us-vs.-Them’ proposition? Do you need to have enemies in this discussion? Or is it necessary to demonize people like Mann and Hansen to get your point across?
December 21, 2009, 10:10 amWaldo:
“I wish you a Merry Christmas, and hope Santa brings you a new personality that includes integrity, this time.”
Thanks hunter, and Merry Christmas to you too. Actually, I got integrity several years in a row – so much so that I’ve got some to give away. I will re-gift some of it to you and yours.
December 21, 2009, 10:14 amWally:
“Or is it necessary to demonize people like Mann and Hansen to get your point across?”
And you were just complaining about hyperbole? I’m not sure how much “demonizing” is going on here, but people are being critical of the lack of ethical science coming out of CRU and Penn State. To say we are demonizing them is quite the exageration. No one is talking about these people beating their wives/children, killing cats, or eating babies. So, you should ask yourself that question you possed to others, do you have to rely on hyperbole to make an argument?
December 21, 2009, 10:27 amWaldo:
Well Wally, we are now in the “oh yeah! well…” stage of the game (and sure, I’ll take my fair share of the blame for that). But I might point to this rather mild statement where the author admits he/she does not understand the basic concepts involved but…
“I don’t have a clue what goes into the models. What I do know is that if walks like shady business, talks like shady business then it’s probably shady business.”
“Shady business” may not equate to eating babies (which is hyperbole, by the way), but neither does it give any doubt about the characters involved. To “demonize” is simply to make evil or to suggest culpability. No, it is not too strong a word,particularly since this is a rather restrained blog and yet the posters here have frequently and variously maintained Mann et al are deceiving the public for “trillions” (?) of dollars, getting rich off their scheme, unwilling to let dissenting voices speak, destroying whole industries etc. No use denying that. This is demonizing and propagandist. For instance, how does one “walk like shady business”? What does that even mean? It is deliberately vague so that the author can simply assert that AGW is “shady business” without having to really understand it.
Is this conversation about Us vs. Them?
December 21, 2009, 11:37 amhunter:
Waldo,
December 21, 2009, 12:58 pmEven wikipedia, friend of AGW true beleivers, fails to support your pose on ‘the science is settled’.
But if the science is not settled, why do true beleivers act as if it were?
And please, do save that aftermarket faux integrity of yours for someone who would not know the difference.
Waldo:
“fails to support your pose on ‘the science is settled’.”
Never said that or anything remotely like it. Said we should listen to the experts. In fact, no one said that. Look up the phrase. It is a deception.
December 21, 2009, 1:32 pmhunter:
They said it close enough, and I am not convinced Gore did not use those specific words. Certainly close enough for people who believe that tricks to hid diverging proxies are valid.
December 21, 2009, 3:37 pmBut are you now suggesting that ‘the science is settled’ no longer reflects the rality of what AGW proponents believe?
Just wondering, do you still think ‘apoclaypse’ is a deceptive skeptic term that is not used by AGW believers and promoters?
Anonymous:
@Waldo
*****”It seems to me that it has been shown in this thread that there are many experts who reject the concept of catastrophic AGW (1).”
**”Few to no experts and what appears to be a fair amount of deception.”
Facts, please. How many of the 500 papers are deceiving and how many are not written by experts?
*****”It has been pointed out that science is not done by consensus, it only takes one guy to disprove a theory (2).”
**”It has also been pointed out that there are a great many scientists who look at the information and come to the same conclusion. I tend to go with the great many scientists.”
Do you answer “yes” or “no”? Can one guy disprove a theory or does it take more than one?
**”And who is this “one guy” who has proved AGW a fraud?”
There have been multiple guys who proved that some of the key results are based on cherry-picked data (eg, McIntyre, McKittrick), that some other key results don’t depend on data at all (eg, Motl) and various other things.
*****”It has also been pointed out that there is evidence of the pro-AGW folks silencing their opponents for years, thus there is reason even for those inclined to judge science on relatively tangential factors such as the number of articles pro- or contra- a particular concept to put these factors aside at least in this case (3).”
**”If the “evidence” you cite is the CRU emails, I cannot figure out what the big deal is.”
There are letters that show that folks at CRU have deleted data that were subject to FOIA. Do you deny that or do you not see this as a big deal?
There are letters that show that folks at CRU have cooperated with editors of several key scientific magazines in order to stop papers of their opponents from getting into these magazines at review stage. Do you deny that or do you not see this as a big deal?
There are notes of a software developer in charge of creating HadCRUT3. These notes show a lot of situations where that developer had to fill data with, basically, garbage, because he didn’t know what to fill with and nobody at CRU could help, etc, etc. Do you deny that or do you not see this as a big deal? Keep in mind that HadCRUT3 is *the* central aggregate data set for making hockey sticks.
December 21, 2009, 4:05 pmJoe Public:
“For instance, how does one “walk like shady business”? What does that even mean?”
This was paraphrasing the Duck Test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” But you can google walk like a duck talk like a duck and you’ll see this is used often as well.
I stand by my duck!
In regards to whether or not “Science is settled”, it’s usually attributed to Al Gorical Gore, as well as “the Debate has ended”. Although, I think if you dig, you’ll find that Mr. Gibbs and an Australian official said the same thing.
Regardless, you’re playing a theme and variation. It doesn’t matter which side of the mouth you say it, they all mean the same thing. All of them including such classics as, 2500 IPCC reviewers, 4000 Scientist, Consensus, Skeptics, Deniers, etc. etc. And yes “Said we should listen to experts”. They are all plays to authority and as I mentioned before, people see through that.
You’re trying to marginalize dissent and shut down the debate. It’s the tactic favored most by online debaters from the AGW camp. The reason has to do with my previous posts, most of the people debating online are not experts. They have nearly always fallen back to the “Well you’re wrong and all the scientists and science associations say your wrong. Trust the experts.”
Which brings us to the climategate scandal. What that did was to destroy the experts credibility. Now we hear that there was no consensus, only gatekeeping. What is in the published literature is a function of bullying not objective reviews. Now when you see the debates online, you’ll see the comments myself and others have made on this site and others recently casting doubt on the ‘experts’. No longer will people be left unchallenged when they make the argument that there is consensus and trust the experts.
When you lie, it puts in doubt everything you have or will say. The experts have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and the public discourse has fundamentally changed.
With enough public pressure, maybe the institutions that depend on public financing will be forced to take corrective action to save the climate science field. It will take a great deal to restore the public confidence and credibility of scientists. They over played their cards and are being taken down by their own hubris.
December 21, 2009, 4:15 pmADiff:
Joe,
At this point it’s not just Climate Science that’s endangered. The entire ‘environmental movement’ and even Science itself are at risk of lasting public discredit. Damage to the first is a shame, to the second a tragedy, and to the third a catastrophe. Each is far to valuable to not watch their being suborned by ideology with dismay!
The one saving grace would be renewed awareness that judgment cannot be delegated. If one defers one’s judgment to ‘experts’, of any stripe, then judgment must inevitably ‘go out the window’. Human nature does not change. Whatever their initial purpose or intention, all institutions and ‘movements’ ultimately become their own ends.
December 21, 2009, 5:08 pmWaldo:
“Facts, please. How many of the 500 papers are deceiving and how many are not written by experts?”
An excellent question. I cannot promise I will look up every single citation or source, but let’s take a closer look. And just when things were starting to get boring! My counts may not be exact but the figures are pretty close.
So: 95 papers or thereabouts are published in “Energy and the Environment,” a trade publication of the coal industry, which is by far the single leading publication on this list. I like it because it has Richard Courtney on the editorial board (look him up, he’s an excellent example of why I spend my time on boards like these).
And there are other publications which are pretty obviously industry or neocon mouthpieces.
2 papers are from the AAPG Bulletin
1 is from Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
1 is from Energy Fuels
2 are from the Cato Journal.
2 are from the Electricity Journal
1 is from Chemical Innovation
So there is a fifth of your list right there which should probably be removed for dubious associations with industry sources. I mean, really, do we expect E&E to publish an article which calls for reductions in CO2 emissions?
Some, such as “International Journal of Global Warming,” I could not find. Perhaps I will do a more thorough search later, but for now I could not find a web presence.
Then there are some pretty odd journals for climate change (“Civil Engineering,” “Economics Bulletin”) and one from “Irrigation and Drainage” is published by the World Water Council, which also seems like an industry publication.
And I see a great many engineering journals which I would give the benefit of the doubt to but seem like a rather weird place to publish one’s article on climate change (I mean, who’re their reviewers? What climate scientist wants her or his article in anything but a climate journal? Oh wait – that’s right, someone is censoring them and they have to publish with the honest engineers. You may buy that, as it is your right, but I will remain dubious).
Paper dates.
1 from the 1959.
1 from the 1961..
4 from the 1970s.
9 from the 1980s.
77, give or take, were from the 90s.
The rest, obviously, must be from the 21st century.
While these may have some very good science in them for their times, that is once again about a fifth that are relatively out-of-date, and a few very out of date.
Now, the experts (Part I).
I found Pielke’s name on 21 papers. Bravo. Although I do have to point out that this is about a quarter of the papers from dubious sources…so I hope you can see where I’m going with this.
But after this I am afraid I’m going to have to take a break. At least until tomorrow. Ciao.
December 21, 2009, 7:43 pmhunter:
Waldo,
No, the papers should not be removed simply because they are associated with industry, and especially simply because you deem that it should be so.
The only relevant question, is are they accurate in what they say.
Your approach- to believe at face value anything from sources you like, and weasel out excuses to ignore everything you dislike, is a sort of solitary fulfillment for you, but not really relevant to discovering anything.
If you had something else than faux integrity, you would realize that.
Here is a nice abstract of a typical conversation with a typical AGW true believer:
“Excuse me sir, but your Emperor appears to have no clothes”
“You have raised a valid point, but this observation was dealt with effectively by Dr X in a 4,000 page technical manuscript, reviewed by a group of his peers. Since you cannot refute that document and several other documents have corroborated the original document, when it appeared to have been refuted, we now need money from you to remove the buttons that are being sewn onto his coat, without which the Emperor will die of the heat.”
Meanwhile outside the palace it snows.
December 21, 2009, 8:45 pm- h/t to Bishop’s Hill
Waldo:
Double big sigh. But hunter, hunter, hunter – how do you, who is obviously a layperson as I am, KNOW who is “accurate” and who is not? Have you read these papers? Can you understand them? You are correct in theory, but you cannot tell anymore than I can…and so many of these journals are clearly paid for by people who want a particular conclusion…
I sense there is no point in writing this.
December 21, 2009, 9:33 pmAnonymous:
@Waldo:
I asked how many of the 500 papers are deceiving and how many are not written by experts.
Instead of pointing out an example paper and explain exactly why it is deceiving, which is something that has been done by skeptics to a lot of papers defending catastrophic AGW, you again return to discussing sources. Same with experts.
We go in rounds. I repeatedly ask you to put aside the question of who you’d rather believe (as your point of view has been understood and no logical argument could change it, since it is not based on logic) and discuss actual science. You say “ok” and immediately get back to discussing who you’d rather trust.
Who is the shill here?
December 21, 2009, 11:59 pmhunter:
Waldo,
December 22, 2009, 11:28 amIs receiving money from a source proof that the article is not valid?
I cannot tell, but from your reply, you think you can.
I am suggesting that dismissing a paper by your criteria does not work, if one is after truth. But I am pretty confident you know that.
You are acting out the parable rather well.
>sigh< backatcha,
Waldo:
@Anon.
*****”I asked how many of the 500 papers are deceiving and how many are not written by experts.”
And we’re getting there, my friend, patience, patience; we must look at the list first, no? To date, I personally would put a little over a hundred in the “deceiving” category (see above). You may believe their science if you like, but I would not. I doubt they are telling the truth.
*****”I repeatedly ask you to put aside the question of who you’d rather believe”
Well, no you didn’t – in fact, I think I’ve answered your questions pretty directly before; if there are ones I’ve missed, I’m sorry but it is too late to go back.
Repeatedly I have written that, as a layperson, I have no choice except to decide who I can believe – never said “ok” to anything (in fact, there is some deliberate obtuseness on this point here, my friend, I don’t think you do understand my point of view). The source is all I’ve got to go on and, I suspect, that’s all you’ve got to go on also.
And unless you too are a climate physicist or meteorologist or, at the outside, a geologist, you too will have to make the decision about who you believe and why.
So? Let’s look at our sources. It is all we laypeople can do.
And please, let’s not pretend that it is illogical to want an honest scientist or scientific organization – this whole thread got started because the pundits here declared that Mann et al are trying to deceive the world but will happily cite a coal or petroleum industry publication. If that is the outcome of your version of “logic,” you may have it.
*****”We go in rounds.”
Yes and it’s getting tedious. I cannot think how to make myself any clearer and probably won’t answer this kind of charge again…
December 22, 2009, 11:31 amAnonymous:
@Waldo:
“To date, I personally would put a little over a hundred in the “deceiving” category (see above).”
You present no scientific basis for that. Critics of catastrophic AGW did present such basis for a number of articles. This is what makes their contributions useful to the scientific debate and yours not.
“The source is all I’ve got to go on and, I suspect, that’s all you’ve got to go on also.”
Then let’s stop this pointless talk. I have more to “go on” on than just sources. Some other people in the thread have more to “go on” as well. The fact that you haven’t, yet you are still here, reiterating the same old point about who to trust over and over again, makes you a troll.
Merry Christmas, indeed.
December 22, 2009, 12:18 pmWaldo:
Anon.
So, is it the not agreeing with you part that makes me a “troll” or is it that you keep asking me the same thing over and over again that makes me a “troll”?
It appears that not everyone actually wants to discuss despite this being a discussion board; if this is “pointless,” no one is forcing you to talk (you did ask me which papers were… etc etc after all).
And you and I have the same “sources,” my friend, you simply seem to trust one side of the argument in all cases, despite common sense. I have repeatedly stated my position that AGW is unproven, but what bothers me are the extreme attitudes on both sides of the debate from people who claim the ability to understand the science but who pretty clearly do not, nor do they actually talk science. Look at your boards – here and there someone opines about the actual science involved, most of these comments are about the political nature of events.
Indeed…Merry Christmas.
December 22, 2009, 12:57 pmhunter:
For those still accepting the IPCC at face value, please read
blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/12/must_read_texas_climatologist_gets_to_the_bottom_o.html
The state climatologist of Texas demonstrates the fraudulent nature of the IPCC irt imminent melting of Himalyan glaciers.
Waldo, what makes you a troll is that you decline to answer questions, even when politely repeated.
December 22, 2009, 1:24 pmWaldo:
“what makes you a troll is that you decline to answer questions, even when politely repeated”
Such as?
December 22, 2009, 2:15 pmWaldo:
Now this one off the list is an interesting study:
Landscape and Regional Impacts of Hurricanes in New England
(Ecological Monographs, Volume 71, Number 1, pp. 27-48, February 2001)
- Emery R. Boose, Kristen E. Chamberlin, David R. Foster
It is an article “examining hurricanes since European settlement in 1620.” Has anyone read it? It does not appear to be about AGW per se but I think it is included on the Popular Technology list because of one sentence in the abstract: “There was no clear century-scale trend in the number of major hurricanes.” Tangential to AGW but valuable nevertheless, I’m sure.
The interesting thing is that it a) relies on the historical record and b) uses computer climate models. Can we doubt its veracity for these reasons?
December 22, 2009, 2:26 pmhunter:
Waldo,
December 22, 2009, 2:37 pmThe hurricane study is relevant because one of the tenets of AGW theory is that hurricanes have changed in frequency and strength.
Mann, for instance, claimed last year based on evidence from a very small number sediment studies, that hurricanes were increasing in a (no surprise)hockey stick pattern.
This was a big surprise to people who have studied hurricanes in depth, and they shredded his paper.
Waldo, what makes you a troll is that not only do you not answer questions that are repeatedly asked, but that you pretend to be open minded on the topic.
Waldo:
This one is another interesting study:
Case for Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of Environmental Sciences, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 19-22, May/June 1984)
- Sherwood B. Idso
Argues first that AGW is not observable in nature and, second, that the increased CO2 will be good for the soil. See a contradiction? Idso does have a PhD in soil science so I am willing to buy the second part but it is also a paper that is over 20 years old. Interestingly, I found this on “Sourcewatch”:
“Sherwood B. Idso is the President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. He received in 2003 the Petr Beckmann Award from Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP) for ‘courage and achievement in the defense of scientific truth and freedom’. It was given ‘for his work demonstrating the fertilizing effect of increased carbon dioxide on the biosphere’.[1][2] DDP is closely associated with Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.”
Now, I lived in Oregon for a number of years. There is no OISM – it is a rather odd association which materialized around the time of the Oregon Petition Project – you may draw your own conclusions about either.
And:
“The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) was founded in 1998. It states on its website that its mission is to distribute ‘factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content’ [1]
The Center produces a weekly online science newsletter called CO2 Science Magazine.
In October 1999 Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso mentioned that they had ‘recently completed a project commissioned by the Greening Earth Society entitled ‘Forecasting World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration,’ which we presented at the Second Annual Dixy Lee Ray Memorial Symposium held in Washington, DC on 31 August – 2 September 1999.’ [1] The Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.”
Perhaps someone will now call “Sourcewatch” a “liberal front” or some such nonsense, but one should attempt to check this guy out, nevertheless.
December 22, 2009, 2:39 pmWaldo:
Idso is listed as an author on 10 papers – I personally would remove all from the list.
December 22, 2009, 2:41 pmWaldo:
Okay you science and econ types, what’s the deal here? Below is the abstract for -
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Am I wrong of does this abstract seem to indicate that the paper agrees with IPCC findings?
“ABSTRACT: Monthly surface temperature records from 1979 to 2000 were obtained from 218 individual
stations in 93 countries and a linear trend coefficient determined for each site. This vector of
trends was regressed on measures of local climate, as well as indicators of local economic activity
(income, gross domestic product [GDP] growth rates, coal use) and data quality. The spatial pattern
of trends is shown to be significantly correlated with non-climatic factors, including economic activity and sociopolitical characteristics of the region. The analysis is then repeated on the corresponding Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gridded data, and very similar correlations appear, despite previous attempts to remove non-climatic effects. The socioeconomic effects in the data are shown to add up to a net warming bias, although more precise estimation of its magnitude will require further research.”
This is the sentence that caught my eye:
“The analysis is then repeated on the corresponding Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gridded data, and very similar correlations appear, despite previous attempts to remove non-climatic effects.”
And “the data are shown to add up to a net warming bias” – what is a net warming bias anyone?
Hmmmmm….
December 22, 2009, 2:50 pmWaldo:
“what makes you a troll is that not only do you not answer questions that are repeatedly asked…”
Again, such as?
“…you pretend to be open minded on the topic.”
Never said anything of the sort. I said don’t believe AGW is a proven. What I don’t like is junk science. Not open minded about that.
December 22, 2009, 2:54 pmWally:
Waldo,
“What I don’t like is junk science. Not open minded about that.”
I don’t know about all this being a troll business. Your problem is in how you decide what is junk science. You’re inclinded to completely ignore, to throw out, papers coming out specific journals simply because of an editors connections, or what have you. Or to even discredit a paper because its more than 10 years old. On the issue of changing this faulty behavior that is detrimental to science you are completely close minded. That’s your problem, and I suspect your advancement in the scientific world (if that Ph.D. is in the sciences, which I now doubt) will be hindered by this irrational and illogical behavior. Regardless of that, and to repeat what another poster said, if you’re here to push this attitude toward science on the rest of us, you might as well stop. I don’t think anyone here is going to be convinced that this behavior is better than examining each paper for its credibility (or relivence or impact, or what ever) based on the science done within it, as opposed the name of the journal it appears in (or the year or author, etc). The science, the research itself, the data analysis, the methods of data collection, those are the things that matter when evaluating the work, not any of the names. To be a good scientist, you need to learn this.
December 22, 2009, 3:28 pmAnonymous:
@Waldo:
“Such as?”
Just so you don’t feel all smug about out-trolling everyone, here are the questions I asked that you avoided:
Can one guy disprove a theory or does it take more than one? Yes or no.
There are letters that show that folks at CRU have deleted data that were subject to FOIA. Do you deny that or do you not see this as a big deal?
There are letters that show that folks at CRU have cooperated with editors of several key scientific magazines in order to stop papers of their opponents from getting into these magazines at review stage. Do you deny that or do you not see this as a big deal?
There are notes of a software developer in charge of creating HadCRUT3. These notes show a lot of situations where that developer had to fill data with, basically, garbage, because he didn’t know what to fill with and nobody at CRU could help, etc, etc. Do you deny that or do you not see this as a big deal? Keep in mind that HadCRUT3 is *the* central aggregate data set for making hockey sticks.
When I asked about how many of the 500 papers are deceiving, I meant you to demonstrate the fact of deception using numbers and logic. If that was not clear at the start, I just clarified.
There are other questions that I asked and you didn’t answer, too. But, again, you know it. You simply want to pretend that you are answering questions and participating in the factual discussion, while in reality all you are doing is repeating the same point. The point I asked you to stop bringing because, after being repeated more than 5 (10?) times already, it does not add to the discussion.
December 22, 2009, 4:20 pmWaldo:
Fine Anon. I’ll answer your questions (although I actually think I’ve answered these or very similar ones so far…quite tedious):
Can one guy (or girl) disprove a theory? Sure. Who would possibly argue otherwise? I think I’ve answered this one actually.
If there are said letters at CRU, off with their heads. But only if these charges can be proven as would be the case with any of us in any of our professions. I’ve answered this one too.
If there are said data manipulation at CRU, off with their heads a second time! (Yawn) Already answered…
“I meant you to demonstrate the fact of deception using numbers and logic”
Huh? No, you didn’t really clarify. Let’s look at the papers, right? Let’s see what they say? What do you want here? (Well…to be honest, it doesn’t matter – I plan to take a close look at what is on this list if for no other reason than it is very interesting.)
“The point I asked you to stop bringing”
Fine. We no longer need to rehash it.
And please, Wally, spare me the pious rhetoric.
December 22, 2009, 6:35 pmWaldo:
Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 171, Issue 4, pp. 433-450, February 2004)
- Craig Loehle
“Craig Loehle is the principal scientist with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, which was “established in 1943 by the pulp and paper industry to provide technical assistance for the industry’s goal of lowering the ecological impact of its spent pulping liquors.” [1]. He is considered a “global warming expert” by the Heartland Institute.[2]”
Hmmmmmmm….
December 22, 2009, 9:51 pmWaldo:
Well…
Climate change projections lack reality check
(Weather, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp. 212, December 2006)
- Madhav L. Khandekar
And…
“Listed as an “Allied Expert” for a Canadian group called the “Natural Resource Stewardship Project,” (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An October 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that “a confidentiality agreement doesn’t allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group.”
DeSmog recently uncovered information that two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”
Khandekar and the “Friends of Science”
Listed as a member of the “Scientific Advisory Board” for a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the Friends of Science (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August 2006 Globe and Mail feature , the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.”
Hmmmm….
I’m sensing a trend here…
December 22, 2009, 10:03 pmWally:
Waldo,
Nice responce, I will assume you mean that litterally, and take it as a compliment as well as a sign that you can’t keep up.
December 22, 2009, 10:10 pmWaldo:
“Climate Change Re-examined (PDF)
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
- Joel M. Kauffman”
Hmmmm….
This guy has a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry. His website reads:
“One of my principal research areas of interest is in medicinal chemistry, where the focus is on the design and synthesis of potential new drugs with antiinflammatory and antimicrobial properties.
A second research area of interest is the synthesis of new molecules with defined fluorescent properties. Applications include laser dyes, scintillation fluors, waveshifters, and eye protection. These fluorescent molecules, in addition to having high quantum yields and good chemical stability, must be resistant to the exciting light, and in the case of scintillators used to detect radiation from nuclear process, must be resistant to free radical production.”
His most recent publications include
aduate Student
Joel M. Kauffman, “Malignant Medical Myths”, Infinity Publishing Co., West Conshohocken, PA (2006).
Kauffman JM, “Water Fluoridation: Review of Recent Research and Actions”, Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons, 10(2), 38-44 (2005).
Kauffman JM, “Long-Term Aspirin for Women: What Did the Women’s Health Study Really Show?”, Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons, 10(3), 90 (2005).
Kauffman JM, “New Vaccine for Shingles: Is Prevention Really Better than Treatment?” Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons, 10(4),117 (2005).
He does not list this one on his webpage.
He’s a medical researcher? What the heck is this guy doing writing about climate science?
December 22, 2009, 10:19 pmAnonymous:
@Waldo:
Thanks for the answers. We are making progress. Specifically:
“If there are said letters at CRU, off with their heads.” [showing that folks at CRU have deleted data that were subject to FOIA / have cooperated with the editors of several key scientific magazines in order to stop papers of their opponents from getting into these magazines at review stage]
Yes, there are such letters. Plenty of URLs around, but if you want me to share some, I will do it.
“If there are said data manipulation at CRU, off with their heads a second time!”
Yes, there are said data manipulations. Again, plenty of URLs. Not to mention that CRU themselves say that they have lost track of what kind of manipulations they made to the data, and can now neither say why these manipulations have been made nor what their effect was. See their PDF on HadCRUT – I gave a citation in another thread on this site.
You agree that it only takes one guy to disprove a scientific theory. Good.
Pressing on:
“Let’s look at the papers, right? Let’s see what they say? What do you want here?”
Let’s. I prefer we look at the content, not affiliations of authors though. I think classifying papers as “potentially OK” or “deceiving” based on sources as you do is simply a waste of time. But we can try it both ways.
You seem willing to ignore the paper from a guy who has a PhD in Organic Chemistry. You do realize that William Connolley, which is a member of the core climate team at CRU, an author and a co-author of a number of papers on catastrophic AGW, and an ever-willing censor of all questions related to climate change on Wikipedia is a *software engineer*?
Now, if you want to see a real expert, for which climate research is a lifetime endeavour, take Richard Lindzen. His credentials as a climate scientist match or exceed those of anyone in CRU (now, that, of course, is just a terribly silly contest, but if that’s what you want to look at, so be it). There are many more scientists on the skeptics side as well. You named one (Pielke) yourself.
Can we now conclude that skeptics really have a case which is worth listening to?
December 23, 2009, 2:09 amAnonymous:
To add, when I suggest we look at the content of papers, I meant something like this:
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
The analysis in this critique of a skeptic’s argument is erroneous (I have explained why in another thread on this blog, can provide a link), but that’s at least some kind of math instead of the usual meta-discussion on who says what why.
December 23, 2009, 2:18 amPapa Bear:
Waldo,
The information in this article ( http://tinyurl.com/yc5hzwl ) in the Chron is a perfect example of why we “lay people” do not trust the climate scientists. I will pull a quote out of the article since I suspect you would not want to challenge your reliance on the experts by actually following the link.
Here is the context. Remember the IPCC claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035? What was the source for that conclusion?
“Recall that the IPCC quote referred to a table. The table lists the retreat of 8 Himalayan glaciers. Only one such retreat is as stated in the WWF report. Another retreat, recorded as 2840 m from 1845-1966, is listed as a rate of 134 m/yr, but the actual rate is 23 m/yr. Whoever did the calculation for the IPCC divided by 21 years instead of 121 years! The rest of the values are from other, unnamed sources.”
The IPCC team either failed to check the source for one of their most outlandish claims or they collectively could not pass a grade school math test!
If you really believe that all people who do not hold a PhD in climate science should defer to this type of “expertise”, there is no point in having a discussion. We are not willing to be sheep, happily walking into the slaughterhouse,
I see three possibilities: 1.) I have missed something (if so, please tell me what that is without a reference to authority. Just the referenced facts); 2.) You are a sheep; 3.) You profit from climate scaremongering in some way and are trying to soften the impact of skeptics.
December 23, 2009, 7:26 amWaldo:
*****”Can we now conclude that skeptics really have a case which is worth listening to?”
Oh For the Love of God, man! I know you are not dense because I you write so eloquently and intelligibly but you, like little hunter, seem absolutely bent on the idea that (somehow, despite my numerous protestations to the opposite) I am trying to discredit the entire anti-AGW camp! You entire thought process seems predicated upon a tribal notion of Alarmists vs. Skeptics.
Yes, of course the skeptics have a case worth listening to – I’ve been writing that all along.
My issue is that, mixed in with the legitimate science community (Lindzen, Pielke among others…who are fairly absent from this blog), is a good deal of questionable science done by tangentially qualified people or people who may be working for an organization that stands to lose money or people who are simply charlatans (Tim Ball, for instance, who is on the “500″ list) or who are clearly people writing in the blogosphere who question the scientists but who rely on the blogosphere for their information (Papa Bear above).
My issue is that the skeptic camp takes the word of anyone or any source, usually another blog (see Papa Bear and hunter above, who both posted the same blog) as long as it tells them what they want to hear. The skeptic camps repeatedly calls for a reference to “facts” (ibid.) but will cherry-pick the source of said “facts” (ibid.) ad nauseam.
As for the CRU emails, like the one which began this entire exchange, I have said before and I’ll say again, I think there is a good deal of inference going on from the skeptic camps about these documents (see how many times the American Thinker article uses the word “imply” or makes an inference about what the scientists are writing to each other based upon snippets of emails). I suspect Climategate will blow away, leaving skeptics furious. I admit that I may be wrong about this and, in any event, I’m not sure Climategate discounts two decades worth of work involving hundreds of institutions and thousands of scientists. And it would be interesting to see where you are getting your information about these incidents from. Sure, post them.
And you should look at some of the papers. I’d be interested in what they say. I will continue checking on the sources and reading the abstracts.
Cheers.
December 23, 2009, 11:01 amWaldo:
“To add, when I suggest we look at the content of papers, I meant something like this:
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/”
Why would we look at this? He makes a convincing case for adjusted climate data but – and this is my whole problem with the blogosphere – this guy is a medical biotechnologist. Very smart for sure…but he doesn’t work in climate science.
Why spend time here?
December 23, 2009, 12:15 pmAnonymous:
@Waldo:
“Yes, of course the skeptics have a case worth listening to – I’ve been writing that all along. My issue is that, mixed in with the legitimate science community (Lindzen, Pielke among others…who are fairly absent from this blog), is a good deal of questionable science …”
Oh, so *that* was your point of view. If I knew that before, I wouldn’t have argued. Not that I agree, but the entire question that the skeptics community has its twats (disagree with the examples you give) does not look very interesting to me. It seems rather obvious that when you are talking about a large group of people, you can find a lot of differences across various axes. I guess I have to learn to read.
“Why would we look at this? He makes a convincing case for adjusted climate data but – and this is my whole problem with the blogosphere – this guy is a medical biotechnologist.”
I gave this as an example of the thing I’d like to discuss when talking whether or not a particular paper is deceiving. His case contains several errors, which completely deny the conclusions he makes, by the way.
All right. Merry Christmas. Let’s hope that the science prevails.
December 23, 2009, 4:38 pmWaldo:
“I gave this as an example of the thing I’d like to discuss when talking whether or not a particular paper is deceiving. His case contains several errors, which completely deny the conclusions he makes, by the way.”
This is why we have peer review, journals that will only publish refereed articles, and why we should listen to experts in their fields.
December 23, 2009, 5:08 pmAnonymous:
“This is why we have peer review, journals that will only publish refereed articles, and why we should listen to experts in their fields.”
True. And we also want as much science to be public as humanly possible, so that the peer review process works how it should work and coups like Climategate are impossible.
December 24, 2009, 12:21 amPapa Bear:
Waldo,
So, your total defense for the IPCC’s Himalayan OOPS is “My issue is that the skeptic camp takes the word of anyone or any source, usually another blog (see Papa Bear and hunter above, who both posted the same blog) as long as it tells them what they want to hear.”?
Wow! That is such an elegant defense.
No facts.
No figures.
No references.
You Sir, are a TROLL.
December 24, 2009, 7:54 amWaldo:
Got facts
Got figures.
Got references.
Here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
And here:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
And here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
And here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
This is your science made public as humanly possible.
If you want to play this silly game all over again.
You, Sir BEAR, have got a blog written by a questionable source citing another questionable source.
This, Anon., is why the “source” is all important. Where does one get one’s “facts,” “figures,” and “data.”
December 24, 2009, 12:14 pmWaldo:
Are we going to play this silly game all over again?
December 24, 2009, 12:19 pmWaldo:
Well then, fine.
Got facts.
Got figures.
Got references.
Here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
And here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm
And here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1
And here:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
You have a blog. If Dr. ng has a bone to grind, have him actually publish it. His source is Pielke’s blog, which a guest posting from this guy:
Madhav Khandekar
Who seems to have an interesting association with industry.
Khandekar and the NRSP
“Listed as an “Allied Expert” for a Canadian group called the “Natural Resource Stewardship Project,” (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An October 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that “a confidentiality agreement doesn’t allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group.”
DeSmog recently uncovered information that two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”
Khandekar and the “Friends of Science”
Listed as a member of the “Scientific Advisory Board” for a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the Friends of Science (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August 2006 Globe and Mail feature , the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.
Research background
Khandekar is a retired Environment Canada scientist. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Khandekar has published 19 pieces of research in peer-reviewed journals, mainly in the area of El Nino and climate.”
December 24, 2009, 12:31 pmWaldo:
Got facts.
Got figures.
Got references.
Here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm
And here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
And here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
And here:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
You, Sir BEAR, have a blog. Which comes from a guest posting on another blog
If Dr. ng has an actual breakthrough, have him publish it somewhere where human scientists can examine it as humanly possible. (The science is out there for all to see, Anon.)
Dr. ng’s post comes from Pielke’s blog which had a guest posting from this guy:
Madhav Khandekar
Khandekar and the NRSP
Listed as an “Allied Expert” for a Canadian group called the “Natural Resource Stewardship Project,” (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An October 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that “a confidentiality agreement doesn’t allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group.”
DeSmog recently uncovered information that two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”
Khandekar and the “Friends of Science”
Listed as a member of the “Scientific Advisory Board” for a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the Friends of Science (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August 2006 Globe and Mail feature , the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.
Research background
Khandekar is a retired Environment Canada scientist. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Khandekar has published 19 pieces of research in peer-reviewed journals, mainly in the area of El Nino and climate.
And this is why, Anon., the “source” is all important. Papa Bear wants to argue “facts” but actually has none of his own. He is relying on an “authority” who is somewhat dubious.
December 24, 2009, 12:38 pmWaldo:
Got facts.
Got figures.
Got references.
Here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm
And here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
And here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
And here:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
You, Sir BEAR, have a blog. Which comes from a guest posting on another blog
If Dr. ng has an actual breakthrough, have him publish it somewhere where human scientists can examine it as humanly possible. (The science is out there for all to see, Anon.)
December 24, 2009, 12:39 pmWaldo:
Got facts. Got figures. Got references.
December 24, 2009, 12:40 pmWaldo:
Here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm
And here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
And here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
And here:
December 24, 2009, 12:42 pmhttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Waldo:
Here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm
December 24, 2009, 12:43 pmWaldo:
And here:
December 24, 2009, 12:43 pmhttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Waldo:
And here:
December 24, 2009, 12:44 pmhttp://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
Waldo:
And here:
December 24, 2009, 12:45 pmhttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Waldo:
You, Sir BEAR, have a blog based off a guest poster on Pielke’s blog with a rather dubious background which you can see here: http://www.desmogblog.com/madhav-khandekar. I apologize for the numerous posts but for some reason CS will only post short responses.
December 24, 2009, 12:47 pmWaldo:
And this is why the “source” is all important, Anon.: Papa Bear wants to argue “facts” but his “facts” come from a rather dubious line of sources so may not be “facts” at all. One can look here and see the BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm. on the subject. It indicates a single professor challenges the report which the original authors still stand by. Nothing is proven; there is no verified “OOPS,” only an accusation. Subtleties, I know, but this is why the blogosphere is so problematic: you, Papa Bear, took a blog based off a blog as proof-positive and then you wanted to argue “Facts” because, I strongly suspect, this is what you want to hear.
December 24, 2009, 12:55 pmPapa Bear:
1.) http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm is summary level information and is completely non-responsive to the issue I raised.
2. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html contains nothing about the Himalayan OOPS – again, completely non-responsive.
3. While reading Hansen, J., 2007: Climate catastrophe. New Scientist, 195, no. 2614 (July 28), 30-34 was fascinating, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html provides no further insight into how the IPCC authors seem to be unable to pass 5th grade mathematics (this too is non-responsive).
4. While http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ may contain something deep in its bowels about glaciers or the Himalayan mountains, neither word is mentioned anywhere at the summary level. Again, I must point out that the argument is non-responsive and if it does address the issue at any level, like all the others, the logic is buried.
5. http://www.desmogblog.com/madhav-khandekar – According to the DeSmogBlog website’s own words, they “thoroughly investigates the academic and industry backgrounds of those involved in the PR spin campaigns that are confusing the public and stalling action on global warming. If there’s anyone or any organization, ( i.e. scientist, self-professed “expert,” think tank, industry association, company) that you would like to see researched and reported on DeSmogBlog, please contact us here and we will try our best.”
The idea of you using this website to shoot any messenger is quite laughable. If you cannot read the politics in their own statement, I don’t even know what to say.
Despite this, the best they can say is Khandekar is “Listed as an “Allied Expert” for a Canadian group called the “Natural Resource Stewardship Project,” (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources.” & that his is “Listed as a member of the “Scientific Advisory Board” for a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the Friends of Science (FOS)” that may have about a third of its funding from the oil industry.
If I use that line of reasoning, anyone that gets funding based on proving AGW must be ignored. I suspect that you would not like that applied to your “facts, figures, & references”. However, if we get over the sophomoric appeals to authority, character assassination and misdirection, we come back to facts. Unfortunately, you have not responded to my argument.
6.) Oh wait, there is the last post on 12:55 ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm) …
A.) The headline “Himalayan glaciers melting deadline ‘a mistake’”
B.) The Himalayan OOPS authors response? “The authors deny the claims”
(I have to admit that the words above are a powerful argument). However, there is more refutation from the IPCC:
C.) When asked how this “error” could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
(Wow, what eloquence!)
D.) So where did this information come from? According to the very BBC article you quoted “The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the “outer year” for shrinkage of glaciers.
They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.
Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.
Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers.
But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed – or ‘unpublished’ – documents when assessing the status of the glaciers.”
(Hmmm, doesn’t sound good.)
E.) So what is the “consensus”. Again, according to YOUR article “But in a joint statement some the world’s leading glaciologists who are also participants to the IPCC have said: “This catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology… has caused much confusion that could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected.”
Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich also said the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers had caused “some major confusion in the media”.
“Under strict consideration of the IPCC rules, it should actually not have been published as it is not based on a sound scientific reference.
“From a present state of knowledge it is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades. I do not know of any scientific study that does support a complete vanishing of glaciers in the Himalayas within this century.”"
It is entertaining how you cherry picked the original authors continuing to make completely unsubstantiated claims as the focal point of that article when the BBC was totally backing the argument from the “dubious” blog I originally quoted (and the BBC added more expert opinion backing my original point).
I stand by my original opinion.
December 24, 2009, 2:35 pmPapa Bear:
1.) http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm is summary level information and is completely non-responsive to the issue I raised.
December 24, 2009, 2:36 pmPapa Bear:
2. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html contains nothing about the Himalayan OOPS – again, completely non-responsive.
December 24, 2009, 2:37 pmPapa Bear:
3. While reading Hansen, J., 2007: Climate catastrophe. New Scientist, 195, no. 2614 (July 28), 30-34 was fascinating, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html provides no further insight into how the IPCC authors seem to be unable to pass 5th grade mathematics (this too is non-responsive).
December 24, 2009, 2:37 pmPapa Bear:
4. While http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ may contain something deep in its bowels about glaciers or the Himalayan mountains, neither word is mentioned anywhere at the summary level. Again, I must point out that the argument is non-responsive and if it does address the issue at any level, like all the others, the logic is buried.
December 24, 2009, 2:38 pmPapa Bear:
5. http://www.desmogblog.com/madhav-khandekar – According to the DeSmogBlog website’s own words, they “thoroughly investigates the academic and industry backgrounds of those involved in the PR spin campaigns that are confusing the public and stalling action on global warming. If there’s anyone or any organization, ( i.e. scientist, self-professed “expert,” think tank, industry association, company) that you would like to see researched and reported on DeSmogBlog, please contact us here and we will try our best.” The idea of you using this website to shoot any messenger is quite laughable. If you cannot read the politics in their own statement, I don’t even know what to say. Despite this, the best they can say is Khandekar is “Listed as an “Allied Expert” for a Canadian group called the “Natural Resource Stewardship Project,” (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources.” & that his is “Listed as a member of the “Scientific Advisory Board” for a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the Friends of Science (FOS)” that may have about a third of its funding from the oil industry. If I use that line of reasoning, anyone that gets funding based on proving AGW must be ignored. I suspect that you would not like that applied to your “facts, figures, & references”. However, if we get over the sophomoric appeals to authority, character assassination and misdirection, we come back to facts. Unfortunately, you have not responded to my argument.
December 24, 2009, 2:39 pmPapa Bear:
6.) Oh wait, there is the last post on 12:55 ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm) …
A.) The headline “Himalayan glaciers melting deadline ‘a mistake’”
B.) The Himalayan OOPS authors response? “The authors deny the claims”
(I have to admit that the words above are a powerful argument). However, there is more refutation from the IPCC:
C.) When asked how this “error” could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
(Wow, what eloquence!)
D.) So where did this information come from? According to the very BBC article you quoted “The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the “outer year” for shrinkage of glaciers.
They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.
Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.
Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers.
But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed – or ‘unpublished’ – documents when assessing the status of the glaciers.”
(Hmmm, doesn’t sound good.)
E.) So what is the “consensus”. Again, according to YOUR article “But in a joint statement some the world’s leading glaciologists who are also participants to the IPCC have said: “This catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology… has caused much confusion that could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected.”
Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich also said the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers had caused “some major confusion in the media”.
“Under strict consideration of the IPCC rules, it should actually not have been published as it is not based on a sound scientific reference.
“From a present state of knowledge it is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades. I do not know of any scientific study that does support a complete vanishing of glaciers in the Himalayas within this century.”"
It is entertaining how you cherry picked the original authors continuing to make completely unsubstantiated claims as the focal point of that article when the BBC was totally backing the argument from the “dubious” blog I originally quoted (and the BBC added more expert opinion backing my original point).
I stand by my original opinion.
December 24, 2009, 2:40 pmWally:
Ah, Waldo, you’ve yet to learn anything from you discussion here, uh?
“My issue is …. a good deal of questionable science done by tangentially qualified people or people who may be working for an organization that stands to lose money or people who are simply charlatans .. or who are clearly people writing in the blogosphere who question the scientists but who rely on the blogosphere for their information.”
First, lets deal with the first part, that “questionalbe science” bit. If I recall correctly, you never once argued that the science itself was faulty. Only that the science is coming from authors, journals or years you call into question. That’s a large difference there.
Second, lets deal with this appeal to motive or the “stand to lose money” bit. If cap and trade or any similar legislation are passed, neally all of us stand to lose money. And the few that don’t are likely to gain money or power. So, pretty much everyone has skin in this game. This point is meaningless, just like the last.
Third, there is nothing inherently wrong or faulty about the blogosphere. Similar to the first issue, you need to attack the argument not the arguer. Until you learn this, people are unlikely to listen to you. As you may have noticed, you haven’t exactly convinced anyone here of your point yet, have you?
December 24, 2009, 8:04 pmWaldo:
Au contraire, Wally – I’ve learned a great deal from these discussions and it’s been very interesting. And a great deal that I’ve always thought has held true.
And nooooo Wally, I never argued that any science was faulty; I argued that we, the lay-people (as you put it), are reliant on somewhere for our information since we do not do original research nor do we have the expertise that the people who do do original research have. Therefore the source material is of prime importance when making the sort of pronouncements that CS and blogs like it make. I cannot see any rational way to argue against this since everyone here seems to be a layperson and no one here seems to be doing original research and almost everyone here relies on blogger material.
But there is an extraordinarily stubborn obtuseness on this point that, I suspect, is because bloggers and posters alike are rather self-aggrandizing and, probably, already convinced of the AGW no matter what. Thus to admit that there are people with more firsthand knowledge and expert experience who disagree with them would undercut their whole purpose online. So no, Wally, it never occurred to me that I would change anyone’s mind anymore than you could expect to go to RealClimate and change theirs. RealClimate, by the way, answers a great many of the charges made on this blog…but I doubt you will read them and, even if you did, your mind is set in stone.
Rather, I have been satisfying my own curiosity in the hopes that someone who comes to this blog and reads our repartee will come to his or her own conclusions. And I think anything else I would have to write on the subject is somewhere in this thread, so I shall not rehash it more.
I didn’t quite follow the thread of Papa Bear’s thoughts above, but no matter. Yes, I read the article – If the IPCC did not follow its own criteria and gets burned, then that is their own fault. It is interesting that the paper from the hydrologist (VM Kotlyakov) is not mentioned as an IPCC source…nor is the 1999 New Scientist news report with “might” have contributed to the opinion. Were they part of the IPCC evaluation or not? And if they weren’t, why are they being mentioned?
And actually, Papa Bear, you’ve made an excellent case for peer-review, as have several other people on this blog, even if you and they didn’t mean to. If the IPCC had simply followed peer-review they might have avoided questions of accuracy. Which is what I’ve been arguing all along and which raises so much ire here. Good, we agree, peer-review science rules!
December 25, 2009, 12:53 amWally:
Waldo,
Your statement has proven yet again, that you fail to learn the most basic leason to have come out of this coversation.
“I argued that we, the lay-people (as you put it), are reliant on somewhere for our information since we do not do original research nor do we have the expertise that the people who do do original research have. Therefore the source material is of prime importance when making the sort of pronouncements that CS and blogs like it make.”
“Source material” here is a very loaded phrase. Obviously you’re pointing to some sort of good vs. bad source material. Good being what you believe to be reputable journals from repuatble authors, and bad being basically everything else, as you’ve made clear through our discussion. Only this is an extremely faulty line of thinking. One only gets to being a reputable author (or researcher) by doing good work. Thus, there is a lag between good work and being reputable. Plus, being reputable is subject to many subjective critiria, such as institutions (working or degrees from), awards, or journals published. For example, there is no objective measure saying UC Davis is better than UC Riverside. Anything that pretends that is it does so is being disengenuous. Just as you are being disengenuous by pretending you know what are good sources and bad based on authors, journals or even dates. Those are subjective measures that you’ve come to believe in for reasons you can hardly explain yourself.
And as an aside to your statement: We are all differing degrees of laymen. Those of us that have greater understandings of the tools used in climate research, and the subject matter in general, do not need to defer to the ruling of the experts as much as, say a history of art major.
“But there is an extraordinarily stubborn obtuseness on this point that”
What “stubborn obtuseness?” If there is one major problem with your arguments, its that they are not specific. You fail time and time again to point out specific problems and to clearly illustrate root of those problems. Basically, stop speaking in generalities. It makes you sound like you came here with an axe to grind, and by god you’re going to grind it no matter what is said.
“RealClimate, by the way, answers a great many of the charges made on this blog…but I doubt you will read them and, even if you did, your mind is set in stone.”
Well first, you obviously have no consept of my mindset (nice ad hominem). I read the holy peer reviewed literature, I have training in sciences, statistics and mathematics to judge that research. I’m not on any side, other than that of concluding what the data supports. Plus, if you had it your way, I wouldn’t give two shits what a climate blog, real climate or climate skeptic, has to say. And yet again, I see generalities, what questions do they answer again? Why do you assume more questions don’t come from thier “answers?”
“Rather, I have been satisfying my own curiosity in the hopes that someone who comes to this blog and reads our repartee will come to his or her own conclusions.”
Pray Waldo, who’s conclusions are the abiguous people here coming to?
“Yes, I read the article – If the IPCC did not follow its own criteria and gets burned, then that is their own fault.”
Ah, but wasn’t the IPCC the so called expert? What ever will we do now? Good thing someone was checking to make sure those experts were doing good science?
“If the IPCC had simply followed peer-review they might have avoided questions of accuracy.”
Yes, this is a good point. The IPCC isn’t even peer reviewed in the same manner of typical journals. But yet, its the IPCC that carries so much political weight and thus controls power over our lives. Also, the entire climategate issue points to a problem with peer review, it can be manipulated. A few individuals not acting ethically and skew the nature of the publications and the grant funding. Peer review is maybe the best system we have, but we should never forget it has its faults.
“Good, we agree, peer-review science rules!”
Another rather sad statement that demonstrates your immaturity. Go take a class in science ethics. You might be surprised to hear what kind of discussion you get when you bring up peer review and its alternatives….
December 25, 2009, 2:10 amWaldo:
Oh Wally, again with the holier-than-thou? Again with the same old questions? Now we are treading down the path quite taken at this point. I will simply refer you to the thread over your head.
Interestingly, my time spent on blogs like CS, reading up on climate science, reading about the skeptics, reading what the skeptics have to say, reading the climate scientists blogs and about the governmental agencies, is slowly making a convert out of me: I am slowly beginning to believe that we have a very big problem with anthropogenic global warming and we’d better do something about it.
I hope that I am wrong about this. Usually, however, things have to get very bad before real action is taken – and again, I hope this is not the case in this instance.
But I look over at “A First” and find, once again, the tabloid Mailonline apparently taken as a scientific source (and, Wally, to suggest this is a subjective issue is simply silly). And I am once again am amazed at how far this blog will go to accept any source as long as it tells its tiny readership what it wants to hear. The “Mailonline”? Really?
I will leave the cabal in peace for a while but I do have a question for you that usually blogs like these leave unanswered – why I do not know.
Is it so hard to believe that we are altering the atmosphere? I assume that almost everyone here has flown over or driven through some part of Europe or North America (or South America, Africa etc.). We have altered almost every aspect of the physical landscape, we have denuded the oceans of many types of life, we have polluted or altered rivers, etc etc. I’m not saying this is necessarily bad, just that it is – and it would be idiotic to deny that in many instances we have polluted our environment to such an extent that we have irreparably damaged it and threatened ourselves. I dare you to deny that. So why do we think that the atmosphere should be that much different? It may seem incredible (I know, I know, CO2 is only a fraction of the atmosphere), but given humanity’s track record, is it all that unlikely?
I’ll drop in from time to time – probably with a different moniker. Here’s hoping for a temperate tomorrow.
December 25, 2009, 10:51 pmADiff:
Given the data, the assumptions of the theory, and the inability of AGW theorists to either explain actual observations at variance with their theoretical predictions or to answer charges of errors in their theories and shortcomings in the underlying data sets, it begins to appear unlikely current AGW projections of rates of warming or speculative estimates of the impacts thereof are at all realistic. The apparent ideological fixation of so much of the ‘environmental community’ on trying to defend ‘Catastrophic Global Warming’ theories is consuming more and more of the resources available to address any number of very real environmental problems (many of which, unlike AGW, were it actually be happening, are amenable of effective practical solutions). This obsession with an increasingly problematic theory has become a very real obstacle to progress in addressing environmental problems, and increasingly is eroding public support to environmental initiatives of any kind, undermining the reputation of environmental activists or all kinds, and of the government supported Academic community in general.
Exercises in obvious rhetorical ‘bobbing and weaving’ and gamesmanship by its less scholarly advocates only reinforces the growing tendency on the part of more and more of the general public to question the objectivity, and the motives, of AGW proponents generally.
It probably won’t be long before we begin to see significant movement across both major parties to equivocal ‘moderate’ skepticism with regard to any major investment in efforts to address factors (i.e. CO2 emissions) fewer and fewer voters believe practicably amenable or likely significantly involved in phenomenon viewed as less certain almost by the hour.
Especially in view of recent data reinforcing the absence of continuation of the warming period of the 80s and 90s, AGW is likely going to become a harder and harder sell in itself, much less with respect to efficacy or net benefits.
December 26, 2009, 12:29 amAnonymous:
@Waldo:
“I do have a question for you that usually blogs like these leave unanswered – why I do not know. Is it so hard to believe that we are altering the atmosphere?”
We are.
“We have altered almost every aspect of the physical landscape, we have denuded the oceans of many types of life, we have polluted or altered rivers, etc etc. … in many instances we have polluted our environment to such an extent that we have irreparably damaged it and threatened ourselves. I dare you to deny that.”
Altered many aspects of the physical landscape, yes. Brought some forms of animal life to extinction, yes. Threatened the lives of a couple hundred thousand people here and there, yes. Made a couple more people move, yes. Threatened ourselves as a race, no. Threatened the nature, no, no way.
“So why do we think that the atmosphere should be that much different? It may seem incredible (I know, I know, CO2 is only a fraction of the atmosphere), but given humanity’s track record, is it all that unlikely?”
Well, do you want to talk about looking into a magic ball or do you want to talk about measuring actual numeric chances? If it is the latter, welcome to the debate.
Here, a question that you always wanted a skeptic to answer – answered. If you have any other *scientific* questions which you think the skeptics as a whole are dodging, bring it on.
“Interestingly, my time spent on blogs like CS, reading up on climate science, reading about the skeptics, reading what the skeptics have to say, reading the climate scientists blogs and about the governmental agencies, is slowly making a convert out of me: I am slowly beginning to believe that we have a very big problem with anthropogenic global warming and we’d better do something about it.”
If it is the science that makes you convert, I actually welcome the change. As I say, bring it on.
December 26, 2009, 3:21 amanother anon:
@Waldo
“Interestingly, my time spent on blogs like CS, reading up on climate science, reading about the skeptics, reading what the skeptics have to say, reading the climate scientists blogs and about the governmental agencies, is slowly making a convert out of me: I am slowly beginning to believe that we have a very big problem with anthropogenic global warming and we’d better do something about it.”
Can you detail what scientific arguments which support AGW theory in particular have made a convert out of you?
December 26, 2009, 6:20 amWally:
Waldo,
Why would I want to reread your endless appeals to authority, strawmen and hyperbole? And you think those things are answers to our question?
Let me point out one example in you most recent post:
“But I look over at “A First” and find, once again, the tabloid Mailonline apparently taken as a scientific source (and, Wally, to suggest this is a subjective issue is simply silly).”
I never said that mag was a scientific source. There is little point in debating with you if you continually misrepressent arguments made, withdraw to fallicous arguments, and fail to even be factual.
“Is it so hard to believe that we are altering the atmosphere?”
No, not at all. Every time I fart or breath I “alter the atmosphere.” The issue is what effect this has.
“We have altered almost every aspect of the physical landscape”
This is hyperbole. Stick to the facts. How much land have we changed, in what way? I fly over the southwest, I don’t see a lot of change. I fly over the northwest, still not a lot of change out side a few major cities.
“we have denuded the oceans of many types of life, we have polluted or altered rivers, etc etc.”
Which types of life, how many, where, what is the effect? What rivers, why is that bad?
“I’m not saying this is necessarily bad, just that it is – and it would be idiotic to deny that in many instances we have polluted our environment to such an extent that we have irreparably damaged it and threatened ourselves.”
Sounds like you’re saying its bad if its “irreparably damaged” and by doing so we are threatening ourselves. By the way, what exactly are you talking about? Where are we doing any sort of irreparable damage? And that begs the question, is it really damage or is it just change? There is no correct state of a river. No correct species to live in that river.
“I dare you to deny that.”
Dared and done. Change has certainly occured, irreparable damage though? That assumes its damaged (begging the question fallacy here Waldo, please stay factual and logical) and you can’t prove its even irreparable. Then of course you also hide behind subjective qualifiers like “in many instances.” What does that mean? That one time we spilled 2 million tons of oil in a bay? That plant that was closed because it released too much Hg into the near by river? Without specific facts, you argument lacks any teeth. Its just subjective handwaving that is far from convincing.
“So why do we think that the atmosphere should be that much different?”
Is this retorical? The atmosphere is a lot different than some unnamed river. You have to prove or at least give strong evidence that we’re causing an effect, AND that this effect is bad, otherwise I’m hardly convinced to change my stance on the matter.
“It may seem incredible (I know, I know, CO2 is only a fraction of the atmosphere), but given humanity’s track record, is it all that unlikely?”
I don’t know exactly (could bring up a few papers showing the increase in CO2 is likely insignificant though), but you’re the one making the claim. Leaving me with a question mark at the end of your rather terrible argument is very telling. You can’t support an affermative conclusion. You can only hand wave and hope your uncertainty in the matter convinces us of something. Why would that be, why would I be convinced of someone arguing from uncertainty? Sorry, we can do better.
“I’ll drop in from time to time – probably with a different moniker.”
Oh joy. To get ride of you uncertain, strawman, hyperbolic, appeal to authority, begging the question arguments would be a great. Good day.
December 26, 2009, 12:05 pmWaldo:
Wally, believe it or not, I did have respect for you. But this level of denial is extraordinary and explains a lot. Really? You want citations on smog, deforestation, oil spills, rivers catching fire? That’s just pedantry (your latest tactic). And this…
“How much land have we changed, in what way? I fly over the southwest, I don’t see a lot of change. I fly over the northwest, still not a lot of change out side a few major cities.”
…is one of the dumbest things I’ve read yet on this thread. I mean, there’s no other word for that – it’s just plain dumb (I’m from the PNW, by the way, and hoping it saves what pristine wilderness it still has left).
Okay, enough with the yahoos of skepticland…
December 26, 2009, 9:26 pmWally:
Waldo, believe it or not, I lost most of my respect for you a while ago, pretending I’m in denial over some nonspecific issues has made me lose what was left of that.
“You want citations on smog, deforestation, oil spills, rivers catching fire? That’s just pedantry (your latest tactic).”
Sure we’ve made mistakes, I don’t deny some of these issues. What I’m with holding judgement on is these mistakes meaning we’re also causing “irreparable damage.” That is something you have yet to provide any evidence for, let alone prove.
As for this little bit:
“…is one of the dumbest things I’ve read yet on this thread. I mean, there’s no other word for that – it’s just plain dumb (I’m from the PNW, by the way, and hoping it saves what pristine wilderness it still has left).”
Lets remember your words:
“We have altered almost every aspect of the physical landscape”
Almost every aspect of the physical landscape? What kind of idiotic drivel is that? And you pretend to live in the PNW? Have you ever flown from Seatle to Boise? Exactly what “almost every aspect of the physical landscape” have we changed?
Sorry Waldo, you’re certifiably loco.
December 27, 2009, 11:20 pmADiff:
Waldo’s latest comment made pretty clear his views are based in a ideological worldview that’s fundamentally anti-humanist. So good luck arguing logically. There’s about as much chance of that as arguing libertarianism with a Marxist.
Waldo’s worried about preserving “pristine wilderness”? It appears Waldo’s one of those folks who’ve internalized the hypocritical ‘Deep Ecology’ horse-crap derived from Teilhard’s anti-humanist rantings. That explains a lot to me.
To whatever extent one’s view is tainted with Deep Ecology, it’s a mission to save ‘the Earth’ from mankind…and if that means impoverishing or even killing, untold millions, to them, ’so be it!’. After all, all those (other) people are the problem.
“There is no such thing as ‘meaning’ in Nature.” – Fridtjof Nansen
December 28, 2009, 12:19 pmAn Inquirer:
Well, I see that in my absence, a lot more heat was generated than light.
December 30, 2009, 12:56 pm“Fools rush in where angels are afraid to tread.” I might be a little foolish, but I am taking a break from correcting papers to wade into this discussion. Waldo, one of your central issues seems to be the question of why do posters on this website trust skeptical sources but not the majority of experts who publish in the prestigious climate journals. In setting up an answer to that, would like to insure an understanding of the steps in the AGW argument:
1. Under laboratory conditions, a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial levels will increase temperatures by one degree.
2. This laboratory result will hold true in the chaotic conditions of the physical world.
3. Not only will the result continue, but the effect will be amplified because of increased water vapor that will be induced by higher temperatures.
4. This trend will swamp natural variations in temperature as evidenced by GMT in the last 140 years.
5. We will therefore experience temperatures higher than what we have experienced in human history.
6. These temperatures will have dramatic and catastrophic impacts the environment & humans.
Mainline skeptics have no problem with #1, and most will not have a problem with #2 although so far that has been very difficult to prove. Scientific analysis is crucial for #3, and data & analytical techniques are extremely important for #4 & #5. I probably will not get into #6 in this post.
Why not just rely on the experts published in the prestigious climate journals – and there seem to be about 25 key experts who supply the crucial information upon which AGW rests? First of all is the difficulty in replicating and verifying their work – or even seeing their data. Consider the work of Phil Jones: for years he ignored requests to see the data upon which the HadCru record was built. Then he said that he could not release it because of confidentiality agreements with other countries – but he could not come up with any confidentiality agreements. Finally, he said that he lost the data. (Consider yourself a professor – what would you do with a student’s research paper when a student gives such excuses for lack of data? Now consider yourself a non-politically-decision maker who needs to make a trillion dollar decision.) In justifying the lack of adjustment for UHI, Phil Jones cited a study by Professor Wang (in New York) on historic Chinese temperatures. However, Professor Wang would not reveal the data for his study. When continually pressed, he said he did not have it, but that he saw it at one point in time. When asked for the format or source of what he saw, he provided answers that further raise suspicion; others familiar with the source say that such documents never existed. These are only two examples of many. Contrast that to the work of Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts or Professor Christy for Professor Pielke; not only can I see the data used, but they also make their code available, and I can replicate their work. (Perhaps an interesting note: a subsequent study by a pro-AGW scientist concluded that half of China’s warming trend has been due to UHI.)
(Late breaking update: British authorities have just said that they will make available the data and code that Phil Jones had sequestered for so long. Given the various stories out of HadCru over the years, I am not sure what we are going to see. Was any data actually destroyed? Do any confidentiality agreements exist to prevent the release of some data? I am going to give the situation lots of time before coming to conclusions.)
Professor Christy (considered to be a skeptic) did have an error in his equations to estimate GMT from satellite data, but that error was discovered (after quite a while) because his algorithm was publicly available. A couple of years later, RSS (considered to be a pro-AGW camp) had satellite results which showed a tendency to more cooling. Professor Christy helped RSS by showing them what was amiss with their algorithm. This exemplifies one reason have faith in skeptical sites – they willingly provide data that does not help their cause.
To amplify why skeptic analysis seems more reliable, I will remind you of a couple incidents. A few years ago, a pro-AGW wanted to embarrass the skeptical community by displaying their gullibility. Under a false name, he posted a false study that would seem to support the skeptic case. The study was quickly picked by skeptical sites, but within hours, these same sites dismissed it as bad science. Also, this past year, a popular contributor to the WUWT was dismissed from future contribution because he resisted acknowledging a mistake in his last article. Contrast this to AGW sites and journals which keep posting and referencing junk science.
By the way, what chance does a skeptic have in publishing in certain journals? – about as much chance as an atheist in the Roman Curia.
Another by the way, I believe you are far too dismissive of articles that have some type of link to industry organizations. I urge you not to poison the well, but to examine the facts and analysis of the article. I am amazed that you summarily dismiss the work of Idso even though you do not explain what shortcomings he has in his data or analysis. Meanwhile you seem to accept authors whose data, analysis and projections are rifled with cherry pickings, questionable analytical steps, and questionable data manipulation. If you look into it, you may find industry articles winning in the department of reliable data for a couple of reasons. First, the media would quickly pick up and castigate any unreliable data from industry sources. Second, industries can be sued for putting out unreliable data – the tobacco industry was successfully sued.
On the issue of reliability of data and analysis, it may be useful to examine what happens to organizations that have relied on the forecasts from pro-AGW centers. Entrepreneurs believing that warmer climate was coming to England planted Mediterranean-style vegetation; they have been wiped out. Highway departments have not inventoried enough salt and sand to deal with ice and snow. Farmers who planted longer-maturity crops lost their crops. Interestingly, this last fall, Midwest farmers in a big way went back to techniques not practiced since the seventies – they are plowing their soil black so that the soil will warm up faster next spring.
Time for me to break.
An Inquirer:
Waldo, I noticed that you had a question about “net warming bias,” but I did not notice a response to your question. A warming bias occurs in the temperature record not because the climate is giving us higher temperatures but because developments around the site are inducing the temperatures to read higher. The Urban Heat Island (UHI) is the most commonly discussed item that produces a warming bias. The concrete and steel common in cities retain the day’s heat and the night time temperatures are higher – not because of CO2 but because of the steel, tar and concrete. (Interestingly, temperature readings show that the GMT rise is due to night time temperature readings. Some AGW advocates say that higher night time temperatures are also an AGW fingerprint.) A warming bias happens for other reasons. Over the past few decades, new thermometers have been installed which rely on a cable to connect the thermometer to an inside monitoring station. In this switch, many thermometers were moved closer to buildings which give off heat. Hence, another source of warming bias. Furthermore, in dozens of cases, air conditioning exhaust units were placed near thermometers – quite a bias from that exhaust! Also, other thermometers were placed next to airport tarmacs with obvious problems in getting a reliable record decades long.
December 30, 2009, 3:49 pmTemperatures go through extensive manipulations before they become part of the GISS data base. (Manipulations also are done is HadCru records, but the methodology is much less known.) If the manipulations succeeded in removing the warming bias, then growth in anomalies should not be correlated to economic development around the thermometers. However, McKitrick and Michaels showed that economic development does indeed drive positive anomalies.
The method to read sea surface temperatures has also changed during the years, and some argue that the change in methodologies could introduce a warming bias.
A cooling bias is also conceivable. If a thermometer gets moved to a higher elevation, then one would expect temperatures to measure lower. And a fruitful source of controversy is what happens when a tree grows up and shades a thermometer. On one hand, shade is associated with coolness. However, the thermometer is supposed to be already measuring temperatures in the shade, and a tree helps to retain heat near the ground during the night. Interesting!
hunter:
You know, if there was a way to convert troll energy to useful work, the energy crisis of the world would be solved in every dimension: toxins, sustainability, climate, dependability.
December 31, 2009, 7:17 amNothing is as energetc, as Waldo so aptly demonstrates, as troll based energy sources.
Happy New Year!
Waldo:
Adiff and Wally: wow, you somehow got Marxism and anti-humanism from concern over “pristine forest.” You guys are such cards!!
Thank you, Inquirer. I’m a little confused by a number of things which perhaps you could clear up.
I go to Real Climate or any of the government scientific sites I find links to code, publications, and data. I am also confused because, again whenever I visit one of these sites I mentioned above, the claims for climate change comes from observable data (weather stations, satellites, boreholes, tree rings, etc.) so I’m wondering what “reproducible results” people were looking for?
Where did you get your information about Wang and Jones from? – could you post a link (I tried a quick Google search but came up with more of the same blog postings which I am already dubious of).
When I look at the “500″ list someone posted earlier, I find a number of reputable climate skeptics posting in both high-impact, prestigious journals and lesser known journals (along with the industry shills). Also, when I do my own searches on university databases I can always find sources that counter global warming science. In fact, weren’t the two papers mentioned in the email above actually published? Was it the IPCC that published them? I’m sorry to doubt you, but I’m not sure I believe your charges of censorship.
I personally will dismiss the industry journals – I do not trust them to tell the truth anymore than I would trust an oncologist working for big tobacco.
Have you read the “500″ list or even a portion of it? I’m pretty sure the people posting here have not – they are simply posting the list (interesting that no one seemed to know what a “climate bias” was). Would you please read an Idso paper with me and explain it? I can probably access it from one of the electronic databases I have access to – although I cannot promise this. A shorter one would be appreciated since I am reading outside my area and would have a lot of back-tracking and catching-up to do. Anything you get on Academic Search Premiere I should also have access to. If I can, I’ll find a scientist to read it on my end also.
Cheers.
December 31, 2009, 1:53 pmWaldo:
Oh yeah, where did you hear that about the Midwest farmers? I can probably find that one out first hand.
Again, cheers!
December 31, 2009, 1:58 pmAn Inquirer:
Waldo, New Year Greetings to you!
January 2, 2010, 8:30 amI hope to write more later, but first regarding the Midwest farmers: that info came personal observation while driving four hours across the Midwest in November, and then talking with several farmers about my observation. Last night at a funeral, while talking with relatives who are farmers, I mentioned my blog conversation with you about AGW and soil management practices. And the farmers just laughed. Reminds me of A Repbulican who has argued that his party must embrace a pro-AGW position because to do otherwise would “offend the sensibilities of the educated class of the East and West Coasts.” While that may be true, workers and employers who must deal with the reality of climate are laughing and riduculing the AGW ideas of the “educated class of the East and West Coasts.”
Waldo:
Oh…so you were driving through Iowa or Ohio or Indiana and from your car window you noticed them Hawkeyes and Buckeyes and Hoosiers were using a different plowing technique in November. Gotcha’. Yeah, those silly Coasters and their education! Thankfully there’s no agriculture on the West coast to worry about and no famous universities in the Midwest to screw things up.
I know, I know: I’m twisting your words.
There were actually a number of things I was having a hard time confirming. Who were the “entrepreneurs” in England who planted Mediterranean crops? Who used AGW predictions to gauge sand and salt stockpiles? I actually live in the Midwest, and I have not noticed a lack of winter road maintenance. Where I am they have stopped plowing some country roads, but that has to do with the local budget.
You almost pulled the avuncular, professorial type off, by the way. Just a bit too much in character…
January 2, 2010, 12:55 pmWaldo:
By the way, that’s a little weird to be laughing over AGW at a funeral, don’t you think?
January 2, 2010, 1:54 pmhunter:
Like so many trolls, Waldo is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others.
January 2, 2010, 7:15 pmAn Inquirer:
No, not really weird to laugh at a funeral, whether over AGW or fond memories. I surely anticipate that people will laugh at my funeral. Since you returned to the subject of this funeral, I can mention that the deceased had 80 years of keeping track of the killing frost that ended the growing season. Of course, one anecdotal record does not disprove a theory. But this one certainly does not advance the theory. (Step #4 in a previous post.)
The salt and sand situation arises in England where the Met office (strong advocates of incorporating AGW thoughts into their discussion) once again issued a seasonal forecast that was quite unreliable.
As far as England and Meditteranean plants. I have heard more than I researched, but I understand that the South Comfort garden in Devon has concluded that the climate is not ready for these plants. The names of David Matzdorf, John Copeland, and Roy Lancaster have been mentioned. And a paper by Thompson etal concluded that the invasive species that have done well are perennial grasses, not Meditteranean plants. Apparently mature olive trees can handle occasional freezes in England, but the experience with young olive trees have been otherwise, so wise gardeners are now nuturing young olive trees in greenhouses before planting them outdoors.
I realize that you were trying to be sarcastic about my observing through my car window, but I hope that you recognized that I talked with farmers to inquire what was going on. I get out of my office — to add reality to my computer analysis, and actually talk with people who must deal with climate. If you check with NOAA, I believe you will find that 2009 had the coolest summer on record in several states, and the coolness would have been even more impressive if we dealt with raw data and not adjusted data and if we did not include stations tainted with UHI and siting issues.
I do want to return sometime to your question about the data and models that linked on various “pro-AGW” sites. Good question, but not one that I will get into tonight.
January 2, 2010, 11:49 pmWaldo:
Perhaps you should research a little more and listen a little less, Dr. Inquirer. This is from The Garden at Southern Comfort, Devon, England:
“The 1/4 acre town plot with an art déco style house, Southern Comfort, sits on the south-facing slope of the Meadfoot Valley 1/2 mile from the centre of Torquay. The small, almost straight valley climbs in a westerly direction from Meadfoot Beach. It is sheltered from all but the fiercest easterlies which, mercifully, are relatively rare. The valley enjoys an exceptional microclimate. Frosts are also very rare and, on the occasions when they do occur, are limited to car windscreens and the extreme tips of grasses.”
The Mediterranean style plants are doing quite well there, thank you.
As for the paper by “Thompson et al” – what paper is that?
David Matzdorf – is this the guy with the blog called “Growing on the edge” which shares pictures of exotic plants? Blog, dude.
John Copeland – is this the founder of the Weather Channel who wants to sue Al Gore? or the John Copeland Nagel from the Notre Dame law school who, for some reason, blogs about weather?
Roy Landcaster – the author of “Plantsman’s Paradise: Travels in China”?
Were you just dropping names to make it sound like you are a researcher?
And suuuure, you talked to “several farmers” while randomly driving around the Midwest in frigid November. Funny no one else has.
Sorry man, you jumped the shark a couple of times along the way, but the last one went too far over the pond. Don’t bother answering back about “pro-AGW” science. You’re not a scientist and you’re pulling this stuff out of the air (play on words, get it?).
Never forget the golden rule: don’t bullshit a bullshitter.
January 3, 2010, 12:19 pmAnonymous:
Ha-ha-ha!
Waldo is accusing someone on this board in lack of scientific argumentation. That’s the same Waldo who presumes that what researchers do is “drop names”. The same Waldo who has never during this thread discussed anything but sources of this and that paper. And that’s the same Waldo who has just been hit by a brick wall of scientific arguments and pretends that they don’t matter because the author of these arguments (again, the all-powerful source!) has shared one bit of his personal, anecdotal experience. Never mind that this experience is in no way central to the author’s position, in no way deplores his other, much more important points, and has presumably been offered solely to make the otherwise dry material a bit more digestible.
The name you’ve chosen for yourself, Waldo (“don’t bullshit a bullshitter”), suits you perfectly.
Troll more.
January 3, 2010, 5:38 pmhunter:
anoymous,
January 3, 2010, 5:55 pmWaldo, just to clear up any lingering doubts about who and what he is made sure his last post dealt with them:
“don’t bullshit a bullshitter”.
He knows he is a troll.
Placing trolls on diets is always a great timely idea.
Waldo:
An Inquirer is a faker. Probably a wannabe. There is no “scientific argumentation” there, Anon., just crap that Inquirer made up or heard from another amateur like him/herself/itself and then plastered for the credulous fakers and wannabes here.
Do you see that and not want to admit it or do you really not see that? Do you really think he/she/it looked out his/her/its car window and noticed how farmers had plowed their fields? Really? You believe her/it/him that England understocked its road salt or that the Devon garden failed because some idiot believed England’s climate would turn into Italy’s? For Pete’s sake, son, were you born yesterday? Or did you read this in the Mailonline?
He/she/it is precisely the reason that people like myself want hollow appeals to authority.
And the reason you, little hunter, Wally, Adiff and the rest of the deniers get so mad is because it is so easy to simply follow up on your “scientific arguments.”
January 4, 2010, 9:03 pmWaldo:
Anyone want to read a paper? This is -
Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 17, pp. 4276–4293, September 2006)
- H. J. Fowler, D. R. Archer
The abstract reads:
Temperature data for seven instrumental records in the Karakoram and Hindu Kush Mountains of the
Upper Indus Basin (UIB) have been analyzed for seasonal and annual trends over the period 1961–2000 and compared with neighboring mountain regions and the Indian subcontinent. Strong contrasts are found between the behavior of winter and summer temperatures and between maximum and minimum temperatures. Winter mean and maximum temperature show significant increases while mean and minimum summer temperatures show consistent decline. Increase in diurnal temperature range (DTR) is consistently observed in all seasons and the annual dataset, a pattern shared by much of the Indian subcontinent but in direct contrast to both GCM projections and the narrowing of DTR seen worldwide. This divergence commenced around the middle of the twentieth century and is thought to result from changes in large-scale circulation patterns and feedback processes associated with the Indian monsoon. The impact of observed seasonal temperature trend on runoff is explored using derived regression relationships. Decreases of 20% in summer runoff in the rivers Hunza and Shyok are estimated to have resulted from the observed 1°C fall in mean summer temperature since 1961, with even greater reductions in spring months. The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas. This suggests that the western Himalayas are showing a different response to global warming than other parts of the globe.
The introduction reads:
Instrumental records show a systematic increase in
global mean temperature (Folland et al. 2001a,b), with
global mean temperature increasing at a rate of 0.07°C
decade1 over the last century (Jones and Moberg
2003). In addition, the 1990s were the warmest decade,
and 1998 the warmest year since the start of the global
mean temperature record in 1856 (Jones and Moberg
2003). However, the warming has not been globally uniform.
High northern latitudes have been particularly
affected, with reconstructions of mean surface temperature
over the past two millennia suggesting that the late
twentieth century warmth is unprecedented (Mann and
Jones 2003) and attributed to the anthropogenic forcing
of climate (Thorne et al. 2003).
In most parts of the world there have been differential
changes in daily maximum and minimum temperatures,
resulting in both a narrowing of diurnal temperature
range (DTR) and an increase in mean temperature
(Karl et al. 1993; Easterling et al. 1997; Jones et al.
1999). However, there are suggestions that the western
Himalaya region is showing a different response to
global warming (Kumar et al. 1994; Yadav et al. 2004),
with an increase in DTR and a cooling of mean temperature
in some seasons, possibly as a result of local
forcing factors.
Kind of sounds like a pro-AGW paper doesn’t it? If I understand correctly, AGW is accepted by the authors but they wonder why a particular region of the Himalayas is responding differently than other high latitudes, possibly because of regional factors. And it cites the dreaded “Mann” as a source. Did anyone actually read any of the “500″ papers here?
Come on, read with me. It’s off the “500″ list, after all.
January 4, 2010, 9:57 pmAnonymous:
@Waldo:
“Kind of sounds like a pro-AGW paper doesn’t it? If I understand correctly, AGW is accepted by the authors but they wonder why a particular region of the Himalayas is responding differently than other high latitudes, possibly because of regional factors.”
No. Please learn to read.
Here are the conclusions made in the end of the paper:
1. Summer temperatures in the observed region go down.
2. Winter temperatures go up.
3. Temperature range increases.
4. Runoff decreases due to summer cooling.
5. Glaciers near the observed region grow.
6. Summer cooling has an effect at all elevations, winter warming has an effect at lower elevations only.
7. Temperature measurements used are viable due to such and such.
Does it look like the paper support the idea of catastrophic warming to you?
The paper cites Jones and Mann because the material in the paper has direct relevance to the curves and trends reported by these gentlemen, and does not support these curves and trends. That the authors of the paper use reverances like “it is possible that global warming has induced process coupling in this region that occurs on scales too small for current GCMs to resolve well” is an indication of their respect to the work of their colleagues, even though their personal results do not support that work, not an endorsement of the idea of catastrophic AGW.
January 5, 2010, 9:29 amWally:
Waldo, its nice you’re reading something. But if we’re really going to talk about this paper, we’re going to have get past the abstract and the start of the introduction.
As you state: “Kind of sounds like a pro-AGW paper doesn’t it? If I understand correctly, AGW is accepted by the authors but they wonder why a particular region of the Himalayas is responding differently than other high latitudes, possibly because of regional factors. And it cites the dreaded “Mann” as a source.”
It appears you didn’t actually read it, or you have issues with reading comprehension. A quote from the paper: “More remarkable, however, is the sudden divergence in temperature trend between the high latitudes and the western Himalayan region in the latter half of the twentieth century. Climate proxies and instrumental records in the northern high latitudes indicate unprecedented warming (Jones and Moberg 2003), but instrumental records from some UIB stations suggest a cooling of mean temperature (my own words here: and none of them increased, it was either ~zero change and not significant or negative), annually and in all season except winter.”
Overall I think this work sticks to the facts very well. The authoers clearly mark where trends are significantly different from zero (something lacking in many pro-AGW papers). They discuss the previous research and how their research fits in fairly. Generally, I leave this paper thinking climate research is anything but resolved. In this particular part of the world we see a cooling trend. Also in this area I’d expect a cooling trend, leaving less run off water to impact human life more than a warming trend (more water, fertile land, less glaciers). So if anything, yes this is a paper that clearly casts doubt on catastrophic AGW, particularly the warming and the catastrophic part (the paper doesn’t go into the causes). Now this is just one area among many, but it does illustrate how general warming trend does not necessarily mean the same things for all regions. Or in short, we haven’t figured out the world’s climate.
As for not reading the list of 500, I can say I’d never read this one (I’m working my way down the list on the ones that seem most interesting), but I’m happy you pointed it out and we are having a discussion about the science instead of the names of the authors or journals.
January 5, 2010, 2:21 pmWaldo:
Weeeeelll, Wally and Anon., I’m not sure I’m going to read this paper in quite the same way you kids are.
I actually don’t think it makes a definite statement about “catastrophic” global warming one way or the other, but I think it pretty clearly accepts that climate change is happening and the authors then make scientific conjectures about why this particular region of the world is reacting “in contrast to widespread retreat and decay in the eastern Himalayas.” It’s all there above. It even sounds like the predicted water shortages are occurring which caused such a hullabaloo with IPCC papers. Plus it uses data from East Anglia and, yeah, sounds like a pro-AGW paper to me that examines an anomaly. To suggest that it “casts doubt” on AGW seems like an inference to me not clearly stated in the paper. In fact, I found this on page 4281:
“This suggests that the rate of increase of winter
temperatures in the UIB region may also have accelerated
in the period since 1960, a possible signal of global
warming.”
I will not suggest that either of you need to “learn how to read” since pretty clearly we all do. But I might suggest two things: one, that you learn to read without the a priori belief that climate change is bunko (or whatever reason,conspiracy theory or not); and two, admit that none of us really know what we are talking about. We are all bullshitters sitting here at our keyboards debating science that we all know only a little bit about (I know more in general terms than I am willing to let on).
But this has been very interesting. I am planning on looking at more.
I am wondering if anyone would like to hop over the Real Climate and read their response to the “hockey stick” controversy. I actually find this text very challenging. It would be interesting to read it with other people:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
Perhaps, since we are being open minded, we might look at all sides of the argument, no? Or are you only interested in authorities on this side of the blogosphere?
January 5, 2010, 6:19 pmWaldo:
By the way, the ONLY reason I am willing to read Fowler and Archer is that their paper was published in the Journal of Climate published by the AMS. Otherwise I would not waste my time.
January 5, 2010, 6:23 pmAnonymous:
@Waldo:
“I actually don’t think it makes a definite statement about “catastrophic” global warming one way or the other, but I think it pretty clearly accepts that climate change is happening and the authors then make scientific conjectures about why this particular region of the world is reacting “in contrast to widespread retreat and decay in the eastern Himalayas.”"
What matters is measurements, analysis and numbers. For all you know, the authors of the paper could have been enamored with the notion of catastrophic AGW in 2005 and became disillusioned with that notion after consistently running into things such as those mentioned in the paper that run counter to it.
The results shown in the paper clearly show that temperature trends in the region surveyed by the authors look nothing like the global trends predicted by the proponents of catastrophic AGW. The authors note the rather significant difference and conclude that it might make sense to determine what is going on. That’s it. If you want to show that the authors endorse the notion of catastrophic AGW, bring a different paper of theirs where their results will support that notion.
“We are all bullshitters sitting here at our keyboards debating science that we all know only a little bit about”
Ouch. Speak for yourself, please.
January 6, 2010, 4:56 amWaldo:
The authors pretty clearly state that the temperature trends in the region they examine go against the other trends in like regions. They very clearly state that. For all you know, they are absolutely objective observers of yet another effect of AGW and are convinced of its occurrence – that some regions get colder in summer and warmer in winter. Shall we find out?
And if measurements, analysis and numbers are all that matter, then Mann, Hansen, NASA, the IPCC, NOAA, the EPA and East Anglia have it over Climate Skeptic in spades.
I doubt that the people who put together the “500″ list actually read Folwer’s paper. Perhaps they read none of them. And yet, here it is, proudly posted on CS. This is why we are engaged in a bullshit session, Anon.
I mention it only in passing, but anyone read the profile of the arctic biologist in the December (?) New Yorker? The subject had some pretty specific things to say about AGW.
January 6, 2010, 2:24 pmhunter:
Keep the troll on a diet.
January 6, 2010, 2:30 pmWretched Dog:
Way back up there somewhere, Waldo mentioned that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine ‘doesn’t exist’.
Yes, it does. See http://www.oism.org/, so I am not sure what his statement: “There is no OISM – it is a rather odd association which materialized around the time of the Oregon Petition Project – you may draw your own conclusions about either.”
It either exists, or it doesn’t. It significantly predates Dr. Robinson’s Global Warming Petition Project — Scientists who are skeptics regarding AGW. Go to: http://www.petitionproject.org/
Does the fact that they are skeptical of AGW make their scientific opinion worthless?
From its OISM website: “The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life. Research in the Institute’s laboratories includes work in protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging. The Institute also carries out work on the improvement of basic education and emergency preparedness.”
Didn’t see any
January 6, 2010, 3:10 pmWaldo:
From
The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?
(American Scientist, Volume 95, Number 4, pp. 318-325, July 2007)
- PW Mote, G Kaser
Off your 500 list:
“If human-induced global warming has played any role in the shrinkage of Kilimanjaro’s ice, it could only have joined the game quite late, after the result was already clearly decided, acting at most as an accessory, influencing the outcome indirectly. The detection and attribution studies indicating that human influence on global climate emerged some time after 1950 reach the same conclusion about East African temperature far below the peak.
The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth’s average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence. But the special conditions on Kilimanjaro make it unlike the higher-latitude mountains, whose glaciers are shrinking because of rising atmospheric temperatures. Mass- and energy-balance considerations and the shapes of features all point in the same direction, suggesting an insignificant role for atmospheric temperature in the fluctuations of Kilimanjaro’s ice.”
It’s right there in the paper. Read it yourself.
It is pretty clear that whoever put the paper together did not read or did not read closely.
January 6, 2010, 6:22 pmWally:
Waldo,
Yes, the WINTER temperatures had risen. That was 3 months out of the year, and at the high elevations its still below freezing so it really doesn’t matter. The annual data showed an actual decrease in mean temperature. So tell me what’s more compelling, the whole of a group or a subset of the group?
Anonymous above summarized the author’s conclusions on the paper very clearly in a post above. That, combined with any reasonable interpretation of the paper done by yourself, should have made it pretty the authors aren’t supporting AGW in anyway what so ever (just using CRU data, doesn’t mean you support AGW BTW). If anything they are showing global warming is NOT effecting this region of the planet. Thus, this is a paper furthering the ’skeptical’ stance. That stance being basically: We don’t know AGW is actually occurring, much less do we know that it will be anything like ‘catastrophic.’ That’s the point. That’s why its on this list. I will concede this isn’t the strongest paper on the list. Personally, I don’t care for such a regional approach, simply because they are specific to that one area. But that doesn’t mean it is unimportant. How supposed climate change is effecting specific areas is important. After all, every area is going to be unique for its own reasons. Global trends may be good, bad, not present or amplified depending on the area.
January 6, 2010, 6:35 pmAnonymous:
Facepalm. I am done with you, Waldo. Instead of admitting that the facts stated in the article run counter to the notion of catastrophic AGW, and that you were wrong in stating the opposite, you are simply declaring victory and moving on to another paper. You obviously can continue this indefinitely. Good luck.
January 6, 2010, 7:17 pmWaldo:
Read the paper folks. YOU may disagree with the scientists about their conclusions. But it’s all there. Let me post again.
From the abstract:
“The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas. This suggests that the western Himalayas are showing a different response to global warming than other parts of the globe.”
From the intro:
“However, there are suggestions that the western
Himalaya region is showing a different response to
global warming (Kumar et al. 1994; Yadav et al. 2004),
with an increase in DTR and a cooling of mean temperature
in some seasons, possibly as a result of local
forcing factors.”
From page page 4281:
“This suggests that the rate of increase of winter
temperatures in the UIB region may also have accelerated
in the period since 1960, a possible signal of global
warming.”
From the conclusion:
“in contrast to widespread retreat and decay in the eastern Himalayas.”
Don’t get mad at me because your paper does not say what you want it to say. You asked me to look at the papers, Anon. Cya if you want to whimp out.
Sorry, Anon., if that is frustrating to you.
January 6, 2010, 8:37 pmWaldo:
Has it ever occurred to anyone here that maybe, just maybe, your reasoning – that scientists are jilting taxpayers, destroying industries, cooking the books; that somehow you know the science better than the scientists; that the Mailonline provides balanced commentary and that industry funded scientists will come to unbiased conclusions – are really not that convincing?
Yeah, that is kind of a dumb question…
January 7, 2010, 12:13 amhunter:
Troll,
January 7, 2010, 9:08 amDo you think you look smarter or dumber by ignoring the plain evidence of the climategate letters, as well as the numerous reports from scientists suppressed by AGW promoters?
Do you think you look clever or incredibly naive by asserting that somehow scientists are immune from the problems and human failings that effect all other endeavors of human life?
You have generated a great deal of smoke to simply repeat arguments from authority.
Please find something else to do.
ruralcounsel:
Coming in late, and with less than full reading of the “Waldo Thread”, but wanted to make one point…
I think the meaning of the email w/regard to the mathematics is quite clear too, and it sure isn’t what you say it is. It appears to me that what the reviewer is saying is that he has a paper that he doesn’t know how to refute, appears to be mathematically correct, and he wants help seeking weaknesses he can cite in order to try to reject it. And he wants to reject it because he doesn’t like the conclusions.
Oh, and FYI, I’m a Ph.D. in engineering from MIT with my thesis in mathematical modeling.
January 7, 2010, 10:03 amWaldo:
Hello Rural, doesn’t sound that way to me. I think the author pretty clearly says that authors with their monte carlo stuff “NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced.” This has more to do with English than with Math. Now, this may be vanity and a bruised ego but is it *proof* that something was rotten in the state of East Anglia? Not really. That’s not math, just observation. Why don’t you use some of those advanced math skills on the threads on this blog?
And we’ve had at least one person on this thread who pretended to be an academic-researcher who, upon a little investigation, proved to be anything but. Hmmm….
January 7, 2010, 10:13 amWally:
Waldo,
Seems my first post was eaten by the internet monster, but lets address something here
“However, there are suggestions that the western
Himalaya region is showing a different response to
global warming (Kumar et al. 1994; Yadav et al. 2004),
with an increase in DTR and a cooling of mean temperature
in some seasons, possibly as a result of local
forcing factors.”
You’re basically referencing Kumar and Yadav here, not this paper.
For reference: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/266/5185/632
They basically found sea temps rising from 1982 to 1993. This isn’t disputed by the skeptics, we acknowledge that warming has taken place from ~1850 to present. What we disagree with is the extent of that warming reported by the hockey stick, the causes of that warming as reported in the IPCC reports, and what that warming means for the future (also as found in the IPCC reports). Kumar 1994 doesn’t really deal with any of those issues.
Yadav 2004 doesn’t address global warming directly, but the Himalayan response to it. The Abstract:
“Observational records and reconstructions from tree rings reflect premonsoon (March to May) temperature cooling in the western Himalaya during the latter part of the 20th century. A rapid decrease of minimum temperatures at around three times higher rate, as compared to the rate of increase in maximum temperatures found in local climate records is responsible for the cooling trend in mean premonsoon temperature. The increase of the diurnal temperature range is attributed to large scale deforestation and land degradation in the area and shows the higher influence of local forcing factors on climate in contrast to the general trend found in higher latitudes of the northern Hemisphere.”
Or basically Yadav found something similar to this article, and attribute it to deforestation and other human land use issues. I can’t get the full paper for what ever reason, so I can’t say how they come to that conclusion, but that’s a difficult conclusion to really prove. Maybe they mean it as more of a suggested cause.
January 7, 2010, 11:18 amWally:
Also:
“The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas. This suggests that the western Himalayas are showing a different response to global warming than other parts of the globe.”
So the western Himalayas are changing differently than the eastern Himalayas, ok, neat. As for the “global warming” part. Pretty much every skeptic you can find agrees there has been global warming from ~1850-present (or at least 1998). So I’m not sure what you point is here.
What this paper has done is give us an example of how global warming has not caused any “catastrophic” changes in the western Himalayas, and that the western Himalayas are even going against the warming trend. This is a lesson on what global mean temperature changes mean for specific locations. Which I of course explained before and you promptly ignored…
January 7, 2010, 11:23 amWaldo:
Ignored nothing. Read that in Fowler’s paper. Not sure what your point is.
Again, Wally, again: it is pretty clear what conclusions Folwer & Archer come to. What I wrote earlier, and then was promptly ignored, is that Flower and Archer come to no specific conclusion about “catastrophic” anything. They accept global warming. They wanted to know why this region of the Himalayas is reacting differently to the phenomenon than other regions of the Himalayas. They state seven conclusions at the end of the paper as to why this region is reacting differently. You and Anon. are simply playing semantic games and making inferences about what these scientists “might” have thought to change what they actually wrote.
January 7, 2010, 1:14 pmWally:
Waldo,
What exactly am I making inferences about?
I’m pointing out that they both recognize global warming, make no mention of AGW nor catastrophic AGW. Which is the point, there is no catastrophe. If anything, the cooling is worse because it decreases summer run offs. I also point out that this paper illustrates how a global trend may not be taking place in any specific location. Thus, the blanket catastrophe predictions (more hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc.) spouted by the parts of the AGW are meaningless without knowledge of specific areas and how a global warming trend will effect them. Honestly, how is this difficult?
January 7, 2010, 1:52 pmWaldo:
“there is no catastrophe. If anything, the cooling is worse because it decreases summer run offs”
That is an inference, Wally. As is this:
“This is a lesson on what global mean temperature changes mean for specific locations”
And so on up the line.
There is nothing “difficult” about your assertion, Wally. I am simply not convinced. Just because they do not mention the term “catastrophic” does not mean it is not happening.
Fowler and Archer’s findings are actually a specific explanation for why GW is not present in one place while GW is present in other places. In other words, there may be “catastrophic” climate changes going on in the world, but this particular spot in the Himalayas reacts differently because of very specific factors; therefore, the odd temperature flips are not significant to the overall trend of global warming which is clearly taking place. Is this global warming anthropogenic? Well, our authors cite both the dreaded Mann and the dreaded CRU…but this would be making an inference which the authors do not state.
And here we are B.S.ing with each other and it is tedious.
January 7, 2010, 3:51 pmWally:
Ah poor Waldo, you still miss the subtleties don’t you?
Me: “there is no catastrophe. If anything, the cooling is worse because it decreases summer run offs”
You: That is an inference, Wally.
Yes its MY inference from the paper it isn’t not, and I quote you, me “making inferences about what these scientists “might” have thought to change what they actually wrote.” See the difference there Waldo? One is me making my own conclusion (inferences), and stating them as such, the other is you pretending I’m putting words into these scientists mouths. Honestly, I don’t know why I try…
Again:
“This is a lesson on what global mean temperature changes mean for specific locations”
>And so on up the line.<
Yes, my own conclusion about what this paper means relating to the topic at hand. NOT me making inferences about what the authors “might” have thought.
“Just because they do not mention the term “catastrophic” does not mean it is not happening.”
Did they describe anything that sounded like a catastrophe to you? I’m not trying to infer on what the authors thought here regarding ‘catastrophe’. I’m making my own conclusion about what the colder temps mean. Get it?
“Fowler and Archer’s findings are actually a specific explanation for why GW is not present in one place while GW is present in other places.”
Whaa? That’s science fail right there Waldo. They didn’t offer any evidence for WHY this is happening, they just showed that it was happening. Meaning, they had no “specific explanation for why GW is not present in one place while GW is present in other places,” outside a general guess about some sort of ’specific conditions’ that is. The paper dealt with reporting what is happening, not why. That is, in part, what we’re discussing.
“In other words, there may be “catastrophic” climate changes going on in the world, but this particular spot in the Himalayas reacts differently because of very specific factors; therefore, the odd temperature flips are not significant to the overall trend of global warming which is clearly taking place.”
Now that’s an inference on what Fowler and Archer “might” have been thinking. Remember, they never said anything like “there may be ‘catastrophic’ climate changes going on in the world.”
“Is this global warming anthropogenic? Well, our authors cite both the dreaded Mann and the dreaded CRU…but this would be making an inference which the authors do not state.”
Which of course you did in earlier posts anyway, before you condemned me for (supposedly) doing something similar, I might remind you. And yes, of course, merely citing a paper of Mann’s or the CRU data doesn’t mean you agree with anything they said. You could obviously cite a paper’s results only to disagree with it.
“And here we are B.S.ing with each other and it is tedious.”
I assure you, you’re the only one BSing. But at least you admit to as much.
January 7, 2010, 5:43 pmWaldo:
“One is me making my own conclusion (inferences), and stating them as such, the other is you pretending I’m putting words into these scientists mouths”
Potato, po-tah-toe. And this argument is now pointless.
Plus it is B.S. You will simply not admit it, to yourself or anyone else. These are very intelligent people here, Wally, as you are yourself, but it is pretty clear that you and they are reading with a very specific purpose in mind. Nothing else will matter or penetrate. And some of these posters are pure whackjobs, and probably neocon whackjobs at that. I know that skeptics are very sensitive to charges of being unscientific or that they are frustrated because their science is not taken seriously. Look at some of the latest CS posts. But there might be a reason for that.
You will be sorry to know that I will be traveling so you will be without my company for a short while, but rest assured, I will be around.
Cheers.
January 8, 2010, 12:27 amhunter:
Wally,
January 8, 2010, 6:49 amPut the troll on a diet.
ruralcounsel:
Waldo,
So we disagree on the meaning of the following language…
“I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. ”
English can be a very imprecise tool, but I think you argue in bad faith. I’m sure you are aware of the concept of willfull ignorance. Check your biases at the door please.
What do you suppose is meant by “without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense”? When the basic data is in question, how exactly does one show a curve-fitting method is “better” in a “practical sense”? May I suggest that “practical” here is used to mean in a way that supports their theory?
Note the concern about “deficiencies of our way of doing things.” Also note that is rather difficult to “show how their method would change…what you produced” when the un-manipulated data sets are withheld, and the manipulations are obscured.
We’ve heard how they cherry-picked data, propagated recording errors, made selective and unsubstantiated adjustments…and here is clear evidence of collusion and conspiracy in trying to subvert the peer-review process. I don’t see how any other rational conclusion can be reached.
Obfuscation will only buy so much time. It is evident that the core AGW scientists have behaved unethically and with willful intent to further a movement from which they profited. They have perverted the science for their own benefit. (Isn’t that the basis you were using to decide from which journals to accept peer-reviewed articles to consider? Shouldn’t you be consistent?)
Seems you were anxious to defer to expert opinion earlier, up until it went against your interpretation. Then suddenly it seems you feel the need to question my credentials. Question away, I suppose. I’ll be happy to wager you, through an impartial third party holding the funds in escrow, that I hold the degree I told you (and others as well), if you insist on being silly about it. I could use a boost in my income. What do you say to $10,000? $20,000? Hmmmm?
January 8, 2010, 7:27 amWally:
Waldo
“One is me making my own conclusion (inferences), and stating them as such, the other is you pretending I’m putting words into these scientists mouths”
>Potato, po-tah-toe. And this argument is now pointless. <
Well it pretty much was ever since you brought it up, and now its been completely trashed, yes you’re right.
“And some of these posters are pure whackjobs, and probably neocon whackjobs at that.”
Remember that if you think they are a whackjob, they likely think you are also a whackjob, so who’s right? You, them, both or neither? I’ve seen some, shall I say goofy, posts on this site before, and many of yours are right up there Waldo.
January 8, 2010, 10:11 amWaldo:
Hi kids, just checking in.
And helllllooooo, Dr. Rural.
“We’ve heard how they” etc. Where did you hear?
When you write, “here is clear evidence of collusion and conspiracy in trying to subvert the peer-review process,” you are correct that we disagree. I do not see “clear evidence” but I’ve already responded to this much higher up in the thread and don’t feel like doing it again. So when you write “I don’t see how any other rational conclusion can be reached” I sincerely doubt that you yourself have checked your biases at the door.
Rural, my friend, the minute you check your biases at the door I’ll check mine. I’ll even wager you leave with a few more claim slips since you obviously predicate your reading – and it is a “reading” in the interpretive sense – on the hard held belief that CRU scientists must be subverting the process and so, I suspect, any objective, rational conclusion is seriously tainted by a pretty vehement a priori conclusion you reached long before.
Real Climate has a number of responses, as does the NY Times, to CRU charges…but I suppose we automatically disregard them…
And sure – hire a third party (accounting firms or law firms usually handle this sort of thing, I think); I’ll have my people contact your people. In the mean time, even if what you write is true (and that was such a dorky thing to write I am now willing to believe that you are an engineer), you are an expert in engineering, not a climate scientist. Thus I will defer to you on matters of engineering; on matters of climate I will defer to certain other well know parties.
But I would honestly be interested in an explanation of this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
Despite itself, it is a complex text and I suspect this is one of the reasons climate scientists are generating such distrust and the blogosphere, which tends to put things in simplistic terms, gains an audience. I actually had someone once say to me, “Well, if the laypeople can’t understand the science, what good is it?” I had no response.
I’ll check back if I can.
Keep them cards and letters coming, kids.
January 10, 2010, 1:59 amhunter:
Wally,
January 10, 2010, 4:27 pmRemember the diet.
An algorithm that produces the same results, no matter the input, is a piece of junk, only good for troll food and other idiots.
ruralcounsel:
Waldo,
Just in case you thought no one was paying attention, clever rhetoric/writing doesn’t provide a sound basis of analysis. Condescension and belittling tones are a poor substitute for rationality. “Kid.” I guess “troll” was a more appropriate term for you.
Real Climate? Isn’t that like asking for unbiased political commentary from Firedoglake? You are joking, I’m sure. A site run by an MIT physicist, I might add, not a climate scientist. (Who has been known for his nearly religious fervor for climate catastrophe theory, inability to brook any dissenting discussions, and threats to journalists who dared break ranks. And, I might add, was merely a middle level manager in government DOE programs…hardly a rousing endorsement of his scientific prowess.) And an article from 2005? A lot has been disclosed about data manipulation and selection since then, little man. That has been the entire point behind the East Anglia CRU email fiasco.
“We’ve heard how they…” More willful ignorance, my child? You have become tiresome in your obstinancy to be educated, or at least pointed in a direction to open your mind to rational scientific concepts which provide counterponts to the AGW theory talking points. Such a waste. Look up the SPPI response to Scientific American in their December 27, 2009 white paper, refuting SA’s feeble attempt to stave off criticism. I don’t have a link, but am sure you could Google it.
Oh, and did you the enjoy the belittling tone and condescending approach? I thought you’d be more comfortable with it, since it seems to be the only content you can provide. Endearing, in a dorky liberal artsy kind of way.
Oh, and such graceful and clever backing down on questioning academic credentials. Smooth. Not.
January 11, 2010, 8:21 amWaldo:
My, my, my Dr. Rural, someone is a feisty little pepperpot when stung, aren’t you? I had no idea MIT produced such tough monkeys.
It is pretty clear that this thread has outgrown any sort of usefulness to anyone, but I did like this phrase of yours, “obstinancy to be educated” (it actually means exactly the opposite of what you meant it to mean [you should have written “obstinancy toward being educated”]) but if you mean I obstinately refuse to buy into your conspiracy theories, amateur pseudo-science, blog cross-postings, and cut-n-pastes from neocon rags and London tabloids, you are right!!
And didn’t I predict that you would refuse to read Real Climate? The irony of my asking you to read their hockeystick article is that I really was asking for help – you could have used your engineer brain to explain and critique their reasoning. Of course, RC is run by Schmidt, Mann, Ammann, Bradley – and the physicist is Benestad, who does climate physics. Go to the site and see for yourself. Plus their guest bloggers are all the real deal. SPPI has a politician (Ferguson), a former journalist-cum-elitist nutbag (Monckton), and a few scientists with some pretty dubious professional associations (Idso and Carter foremost).
So sure, eventually I’ll get to SPPI’s article, but I’m in no real hurry to get there. I wouldn’t trust them anymore than I would trust a blog run by a small business owner / wannabe novelist.
Anyway, this is boring and there really is nothing more to be said here. I don’t believe that you are an MIT trained engineer, Rural – in fact, I rather suspect that you are the same person who logged in earlier as “An Inquirer” or one of the other fine personas on this thread, but don’t bother trying to prove otherwise. It doesn’t matter and I don’t care. You and Bob Lazar, you know.
January 13, 2010, 1:27 amhunter:
As the troll turns, and leaves, fresh air replaces fetid.
January 13, 2010, 5:47 pmCiao, babe.
Papa Bear:
I assume the troll has finally moved on (or been decapitated). However, I feel the need to issue an “I told you so”.
The following information is from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Himalayan-melting-by-2035-Scientists-just-assumed-so/articleshow/5459848.cms
This is why we do not believe in the published “science” of Waldo’s experts – “It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, an obscure Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and not supported by any formal research. ” Of course “Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. “I am not an expert. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about,” he said.”
Case closed.
or is it?
“The IPCC last week refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report.”
I guess Waldo’s experts are still sticking by their report, despite the admission that it is totally based on “speculation” by an obscure scientist.
WOW!!!
January 17, 2010, 3:25 pmWaldo:
Well Papa, I can only say that my demise has been prematurely announced rather often on this thread.
I too read the article you cite. What is interesting to me is that, out of the thousands of pages the IPCC has published, you and the CS crowd have found a single mistake – one that has only been alleged at this point – and clung to it like grim death. It is slightly desperate.
And if the 2035 date is premature, does that disprove all of AGW science, of which there is a massive amount? Are the Himalayan glaciers not retreating?
And do you hold up, oh I don’t know, say…a blog run by a small business owner up to the same level of scrutiny? Or do you uncritically accept “science” and “commentary” that has not even met IPCC’s apparently lax(er-than-they-should-be) criteria?
January 18, 2010, 12:28 am