217 thoughts on “Defending the Tribe”

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Stan, how do you know any of this?

4. 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.

5. 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?

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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/

10. 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.”

11. 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.

12. 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:

    “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?”

    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.”

13. Where’s Waldo?

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. [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.

17. Waldo,
    Defending 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.

18. “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.

19. “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.

20. “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?

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. “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.

25. “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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. Waldo,
    And 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.

29. Waldo,
    You 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?

30. “[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?

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. “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.”

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. Waldo,
    I 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.

39. BTW,
    Pielke, 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.

40. 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:
    http://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?

41. Waldo,
    I 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.

42. “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?

43. Waldo,
    If 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.

44. Pielke is on his own board. Why should he be here?
    Your 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?

45. 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?

46. “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.

47. “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?

48. 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?

49. 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.

50. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

Comments are closed.