backtop


Print 95 comment(s) - last by Robert Murphy.. on Dec 5 at 8:55 AM

Penn State researcher and his CRU/IPCC colleague treated AGW like a religious "cause" despite warnings from peers

Anthropogenic global warming is a fascinating hypothesis that mankind may be able to systematically increase the Earth's temperature in the long term by burning deposits of hydrocarbon fuels.  But the key thing to note is that despite the intriguing premise, little definitive information has been determined in this field even as politicization runs rife.  In fact, researchers are still struggling to explain why warming has stalled in the last decade even as levels of carbon dioxide -- supposedly the most important greenhouse gas have rose.

I. Climatologists "Pull an Enron", Shred the Evidence

The recent University of California, Berkley "BEST" study -- perhaps the most comprehensive climate change investigation to date -- was blasted by AGW proponents.  They were upset that the study -- funded in part by the charity of a major oil entrepreneur -- highlighted the fact that temperatures had flat lined over the past decade, and were more upset still that the study suggested that other factors like sea currents could have driven the warming that occurred in the 1960s-1990s.

But newly reportedly leaked emails reveal that accusations of bias are perhaps a bit of projection.  The new emails include discussions that sound as shocking or more so as the infamous "Climategate" emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The new emails revisit embattled climate researcher-cum-AGW evangelist Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In one email Professor Jones explains to researchers how to best hide their work to prevent anyone from being able to replicate it and find errors:

I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.  Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.  I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

Of course Phil Jones and his supporters will likely claim that the emails were taken out of context of some larger more appropriate discussion.  But as a researcher it's pretty damning to make comments that even would seem to imply that you were engaging in trying to suppress peer review of questionable data -- academic fraud.

Particularly trouble is the phrase "cover yourself", which suggest a conspiratorial, political undertone to what is supposed to be a transparent field of research.

The emails contain outright requests for the destruction of professional communications regarding research in an effort to cover up public scrutiny of public flaws.  The leaks add yet another humiliating scandal to Pennsylvania State University as they implicate prominent Penn State climatologist Michael Mann even more directly than the last release.  

Writes the Professor Jones to Professor Mann:

Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?  Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Michael Mann and Phil Jones
Michael Mann (left) and Phil Jones (right) appear to share tips on how to best destroy damaging climate evidence. [Image Sources: (left) PSU (right) Chris Bourchier / Rex Features]

Some professors and experts even tried to reach out to Professor Mann, warning him of the danger of turning science into religion by purposefully ignoring evidence.  Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office writes:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary.  I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Even Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research who was implicated in the first CRU email scandal for suggesting the removal of an editor who allowed peer-reviewed skeptical studies to be published, seemed to agree on this extreme instance:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.

The IPCC did eventually change the draft somewhat -- perhaps due to this feedback -- but critics say it still did far too much cherry picking of its sources.

II. Forget Science: You're Either For the Cause, Or You're Against It

In a later email, Professor Mann implies AGW advocacy is a political/pseudo-religious "cause" and that those who question it on scientific merits are enemies of the "cause".  He writes, "I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause."

Ironically, Professor Curry appears to be the only one behaving like a true scientist.  The emails neglect the forgotten truth that the distinguished Georgia Institute of Technology began as a believed in man-made global warming, publishing a notable 2005 study published in the prestigious Science journal investigating the potential correlation between hurricanes and man-made temperature increases.

The study earned scathing criticism from warming skeptics, but rather than treat her work as religious dogma, she carefully considered the criticism.  Supported by her co-author, she personally met with some prominent critics and considered their claims.  After all, she recalls in a Scientific American interview, "We were generally aware of these problems when we wrote the paper, but the critics argued that these issues were much more significant than we had acknowledged."

Soon she began to blog for AGW a skeptical blog run by Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, and Climate Audit, run by statistician Steve McIntyre.  She began blogging hoping to convince skeptics of the merits of AGW theory via an open discussion.  But in time she found herself increasingly troubled by the lack of transparency and conclusive evidence on such an important topic.  She singles out the IPCC as a particularly guilty party, accusing it of outright "corruption."

Given the released emails it's hard to argue with that assessment.  Writes Jonathan Overpeck, lead coordinating author of the IPCC's most recent climate assessment:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.

Aside from destroying evidence and ostracizing colleagues, the emails also reveal another sign of dogma and the antithesis of science -- ignorance.  In one email Phil Jones admits he has no idea how to perform the basic statistical analysis that forms the basis of one of his past claims, writing:

I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I'm not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.
What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years) and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then. It will be now. Trend won't be statistically significant, but the trend is up.

III. When in Doubt, Deny

Already AGW advocates are jumping to the defense of the researchers implicated in the scandal.  Writes Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard:

Rather than smearing scientists, reporters might want to try some actual reporting.

The new round of hacked emails from climate scientists floating around the internet hasn't generated the same buzz as the last iteration—at least not yet. But in certain circles, it's playing out much like the first batch of emails did in 2009. In addition to the tranche of emails, the poster included a list of "greatest hits"—short quotes from the emails taken out of their context that are intended to paint scientists as scheming or lying. The entire batch was quickly posted in searchable format on another site.

But such critical reports have thus far failed to actually provide virtually any such contextual explanations, despite their suggestion that they must exist.  Further, the critics of the email publication are ignoring the fact that there are certain types of things that researchers should know to never say -- such as making comments that even sound like suggesting the destruction of academic evidence.

The reports also ignore the fact that while it's easy to accuse the media, the oil industry, et al. for a mass conspiracy to silence anthropogenic global warming advocates, there's just as compelling a cause for AGW proponents to conspire to silence their critics in a dogmatic, non-scientific fashion.

Such an approach not only guarantees researchers lucrative research grants, it guarantees their political allies potential billions of dollars in windfalls in "carbon credits" and other AGW-inspired wealth redistribution schemes.  Al Gore in particular has made close to a billion dollars based on his evangelizing AGW in lectures, film; via carbon credit investments; and by pushing the government to funnel money to his high-risk "green energy" investments in the name of fighting AGW. 

Al Gore
AGW political proponents like Al Gore stand to make billions more if they can convince world governments to fully enact their wealth redistribution schemes under the auspice of "fighting warming". [Image Source: Associated Press]

You can download a torrent of the emails here.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Real science s about evidence
By Tony Swash on 11/25/2011 6:49:20 PM , Rating: 4
When science is working as it should, awkward and unexpected results are often the most useful as it is such results that help to expose problems with theories and allow us to question and eventually reject false or incomplete hypothesis.

So what should we make of this?

While CO2 has continued to rise, the temperature has stopped rising. From 2001 through September, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 23.6% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased. The 23.6% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.

This is opposite of what the climate models based on the 'CO2 causes warming' hypothesis predicted. Those models predicted such a rise in CO2, up 26%, would lead to significant warming. That prediction failed. Is it time to question the theory and if not why not?




RE: Real science s about evidence
By phantom505 on 11/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Real science s about evidence
By JKflipflop98 on 11/25/2011 9:02:49 PM , Rating: 1
Ever heard of the base rule "correlation does not equal causation"? Probably not.


By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2011 9:19:01 PM , Rating: 3
Hi guys,
I've read some of the commentary below with regards to the excerpted quotes and have written a followup. Please read here:
http://www.dailytech.com/Editorial+Full+Emails+Sho...

I agree that some of the quotes sound more damaging outside their full context, particularly some of the more egregious ones (e.g. Phil Jones writing "All the models are wrong."), which I don't include here.

That said, I think those who are hoping to brush this one under the rug would be wise to read the full email I print in the followup and consider the notion that those involved have created a problem for themselves by creating the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

I think you have to be in complete denial to think otherwise, although whether actual academic impropriety/misconduct occurred or it merely misleadingly appeared that way has absolutely NOT been established from what I've read/analyzed.

However, the suggestions of fighting transparency should be disturbing to any legitimate researcher.

You, of course, are free to disagree. But at least consider the full text before you dismiss it out of your own prejudices.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By ProScience on 12/3/2011 12:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. This is quite a collection of some of the worst inaccuracies and distortions I have seen culled together in one article.

PROOF

#1
quote:
Text
Article: despite the intriguing premise [of global warming], little definitive information has been determined in this field even as politicization runs rife.
quote:
Text


That is not what any reputable SCIENCE source says:
“Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion on global warming.”
see more here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

Virtually all the top world renown science agencies have put out strong statements warning about the risks of global warming. These include the top science GENERAL agencies such as

Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

in addition to the climate agencies such as (NASA, NOAA, NCAR, etc)

The American Association of Science (AAS) is typical

quote:
Text
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years.

The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occur Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.
quote:
Text


http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change...

In addition, 100% of the SCIENCE oriented general mainstream (Scientific American, Discover, Science, NewScientist, etc) says the facts are in for global warming.

New Scientist tackles some of the popular urban legends on global warming here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climat...

This isn’t just climate scientists as this author suggests. And many of the top climatologists are on FIXED salaries paid by the government regardless of their findings.

So the “lucrative” grants statement is just another wildly inaccurate statement by this author, and shows the ideological based nature of it.


By ProScience on 12/3/2011 12:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
#2 No climatologist claims global warming is the ONLY variable affecting the increase in temperature – it is just the most significant.

The variables studied in the global warming models to make forecasts include:

(1) well mixed global warming gases (including Co2)
(2) solar variation
(3) aerosols (stratospheric and tropospheric)
(4) land use
(5) snow albedo
(6) black carbon
They also take into affect PDO cycles (that go up and then back down – ie a cycle)
There was an El Nino in 1998 causing a large hot spike. There was one relatively cool year in 2008 due to a La Nina.

**The decade of 2000-2010 was still the hottest decade on record since weather instrumentation records (going back to 1880) and satellite records -- both UAH and RSS (going back 30 years). **
And the decade of 1990-1999 was the hottest before that.
Here are the weather station temperature data == per NASA. And one can see the rise.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The satellite data shows the same trend (but only goes back to the 1970s); Same with weather balloons.

As for natural cycles – Milankovitch cycles would have predicted we should have been COOLING, not warming by now.

Interesting how this author leaves this all out and tries to cherrypick individual dates.

Since the TOTAL of the average global temperatures is clearly the highest in the last decade, I find it a completely inaccurate statement to claim as the author does, that warming has stalled.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By rs1 on 11/25/2011 7:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is opposite of what the climate models based on the 'CO2 causes warming' hypothesis predicted. Those models predicted such a rise in CO2, up 26%, would lead to significant warming. That prediction failed. Is it time to question the theory and if not why not?


You left something out. An important something. The models predict that all other things being equal an increase in CO2 will cause a corresponding rise in average global temperature. So first you need to check on those variables (average solar intensity, atmospheric concentrations of other greenhouse gases, presence of various mitigating factors like cloud cover, etc.) and see how they changed during the past decade. And if and only if none of them have changed, then you can return to your assertion that the models are broken.

Nobody is claiming that more atmospheric CO2 should immediately trigger a jump in global temperatures, except for you with your childish oversimplification of climate models and global warming theory.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By retrospooty on 11/25/2011 8:50:01 PM , Rating: 1
or... Plants consume co2 and create oxygen. More co2, = more efficient plants, = more oxygen to balance the co2.

It is almost as if nature is a perfect system... Oh wait.... Its exactly as if it is =)


RE: Real science s about evidence
By StevoLincolnite on 11/25/2011 9:29:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
or... Plants consume co2 and create oxygen. More co2, = more efficient plants, = more oxygen to balance the co2.


That would work normally... Except we are destroying the plants that create the oxygen.

The Amazon forest, also known as the "Lungs of the Earth" probably won't be around forever at the rate it's being wiped out. - tinyurl.com/7ja6gbb

Currently about 60,000 square kilometers (37,000 miles) of forest area is cut down per year around the world, to put that in perspective, that's about the size of Ireland each year. - tinyurl.com/6pcsz4


RE: Real science s about evidence
By dj LiTh on 11/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: Real science s about evidence
By ekv on 11/25/2011 10:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Plants love a CO2-rich, warm environment. So you're implication is that AGW is therefore an incorrect theory? or perhaps humans ought to commit hara-kari in order to make things fairer for plants?

Or do I need to go do my part to help plants, i.e. fire up my V8 gas-guzzler, go drag racin' down in the old 'hood, turn all the lights on, stereo up, invite friends over, throw a few more shrimp (and cow) on the barbie... 8)

[Just fyi, I too consider Amazonian deforestation ignominious].


RE: Real science s about evidence
By FaaR on 11/27/2011 1:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
Plants don't "love" a CO2-rich environment just because they require it for their sustenance any more than humans "love" a water-rich environment just because an adult person needs several liters of the stuff per day.

Plants have evolved and adapted to a particular CO2-concentration in the atmosphere, so when that level changes it affects the plants in more ways than you might expect. It has been shown that while trees may grow faster at higher CO2-levels, the wood they produce also becomes less dense (ie: weaker.)

So you can't make a blanket statement that more CO2 = better for plantlife, because nature isn't that simple.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By ekv on 11/27/2011 3:19:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
any more than humans "love" a water-rich environment
Of course, if yer working yer butt off in, say, 114F degree weather, in the Sun, then a water-rich environment sounds pretty damn good 8) And the need to stay hydrated is something I can personally attest to.

I'll avoid the subject of clean water for drinking and personal hygiene and the amazing advances that has allowed for civilization. Though permit me to mention that few cultures / countries have gone about reclaiming desert, turning it into arable land. Israel comes to mind. The solution is not so technical as it is social (hint: a profit motive helps). Same thing for deforestation.
quote:
It has been shown that while trees may grow faster at higher CO2-levels, the wood they produce also becomes less dense
Granted, I'm no bio-chemist, but does density matter to the tree more or to a carpenter? From the human perspective, lower density would adversely effect load-bearing ability. With today's manufactured lumber however, not so much of a problem.
quote:
So you can't make a blanket statement that more CO2 = better for plantlife, because nature isn't that simple.
Ok, but if nature is not that simple, then the Solar System is not that simple, and the Sun is more a driving force than humans. [Let me also say, again, this would not abrogate our, i.e. Man's, responsibility to be good stewards of our natural resources, tax dollars included].

So ... can I throw a few more shrimp on the barbie for ya?


RE: Real science s about evidence
By ekv on 11/28/2011 10:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So ... can I throw a few more shrimp on the barbie for ya?
I didn't add a smiley face ... and perhaps somebody took this the wrong way. It was intended to be a cheeky comment, not sarcastic.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By ShaolinSoccer on 11/26/2011 12:17:38 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
That would work normally... Except we are destroying the plants that create the oxygen. The Amazon forest, also known as the "Lungs of the Earth" probably won't be around forever at the rate it's being wiped out. - tinyurl.com/7ja6gbb


Think about it. If people destroyed enough plants, that would mean less oxygen. Which would mean more people dying. That in turn would lead to plants making a comeback? The Earth will always be able to fix itself until the days when the Sun starts to die.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By OAKside24 on 11/26/2011 2:46:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Earth will always be able to fix itself until the days when the Sun starts to die.

I guess that depends on one's definition of "fix". There are too many things that can and will effect (...to put it lightly) life on Earth before the Sun destroys it in 7-8 billion years.

I give humans a tiny fraction of that time. (The other 99% of life will certainly celebrate and thrive in our absence.)


RE: Real science s about evidence
By ekv on 11/26/2011 6:11:53 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The other 99% of life will certainly celebrate and thrive in our absence.
You may well imagine those of us who value life would thrive in your absence. Before you accuse me of suggesting you "logout", as it were ... why is your nihilist world-view, or perspective-on-life, acceptable, even popular, and say, a non-secular world-view is not? Where does that come from? Does Scientific Rationalism inevitably lead to such a dark ethos?


RE: Real science s about evidence
By Kurz on 11/26/2011 9:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
Its probably just a self loathing individual that would post something like that. Though instead of trying to shift the blame on the rest of humanity for having wants and desires, he should instead look to him/herself to figure out whats wrong with them.


By ProScience on 12/3/2011 12:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
While it is true a greenhouse effect has a CO2 fertilization effect -- this is only true if there is enough rain and fertilizer to sustain the added growth. Turns out the real world doesn't work like a commercial greenhouse.

There are season cereals (Wheat, rye, triticale, oats, barley, and spelt) that grow in moderate weather but cease to grow in hot climates.

A study of the warming from this century has shown a very uneven distribution of rains –
And the warmer temperatures means more evaporation of moisture in the soil leading to MORE intense and larger drought areas

More important global warming has been estimated to harm the oceans. This has the greatest negative effect of all!

(i) Science studies have shown that as the surface water of the oceans warmed up, phytoplankton biomass declined -- which means that there will be less ocean plants to uptake this greenhouse gas and less food in the chain for ocean life.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/061206_phyt...

(ii) Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid, resulting in ocean acidification. This is already killing off the coral reefs and creating dead spots.

<<New study says oceans' chemistry changing rapidly
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_sc/us_sc...


By Reclaimer77 on 11/25/2011 11:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody is claiming that more atmospheric CO2 should immediately trigger a jump in global temperatures


Umm that's not true. The "hockey stick" showed an exponential increase in temperatures directly related to increased C02 levels. This was the main hypothesis and supporting data used in dozens of studies by "climate experts" all over the world. Including Climategate.

So what do you mean "nobody" is claiming it? Lie. They ALL were.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By bug77 on 11/26/2011 7:33:52 AM , Rating: 3
I think you're on to something.

So, the temperature is determined by an awful lot of factors. So much so, that a 25% increase in the CO2 production can amount to zero increase in temperature. In this case, how is bending over backwards over CO2 production going to help?


RE: Real science s about evidence
By MZperX on 11/28/2011 1:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
This is a crucial aspect of the whole AGW issue. That is everyone seems to glide over the assumption that GW is bad for mankind (or Earth in a much broader sense), yet there are no credible answers as to why. Why would it be detrimental? There are all sorts of outlandish scenarios being painted without any scientific basis. In fact the Earth, and life on it, survived much higher temperatures lasting for eons well before human industrial activity. For every alarmist projection an opposite argument can be made, and in many cases more credible, that a warmer climate would actually be beneficial for humanity.

Even more neglected is the next required step if one aims to mandate drastic societal changes to attain a goal. A clear and unassailable case must be made that the proposed changes will in fact bring about the intended result AND that such result is a net benefit to mankind. The burden of proof rests on those who claim AGW is dangerous. Not a single AGW proponent ever endeavored to satisfy this requirement, but they all expect the rest of society to jump off the cliff with them, like lemmings, based on faith. "Let's reject the advances of modern civilization and industry, and return to the stone age to live in harmony with nature..." because they say so. These people are religious fanatics and need to be treated as such!

In summary the process for societal change on a massive scale must include the following steps at a minimum:
1) Recognize a potential problem.
2) Study the problem and document the findings.
3) Have solid, peer-reviewed, scientific data and analysis to make your case.
4) In specific, quantifiable terms, characterize the magnitude and effects of the problem if not addressed.
5) Develop the solution and prove it is worthwhile to take action (i.e. prove that the "cure" is not worse than the "disease")

AGW advocates are failing hard at 3), 4), and 5)


RE: Real science s about evidence
By phxfreddy on 11/26/2011 2:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
....or it could be he is totally correct and that Man Made Global Warming is a total fraud.

...go ahead and excoriate me. You can even excommunicate me.

Your over exertions just further the point that you "true believers" in MMGW is a religion and not a science.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By geezer117 on 12/2/2011 12:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Replying to RS1

Since all the other factors you mention, and more, are the same natural, non-manmade factors that have caused all the thousands of climate change events throughout natural history, doesn't it follow from your argument that you have the burden of proving that these factors CANNOT account for today's climate changes before you can claim support for your novel AGW theory? That's how science works.

Instead, the AGW activists present their theory as proven unless definitive proof of its falsity can be presented to their satisfaction, and of course their satisfaction will never be granted.

When backed into a corner, AGW activists fall back on the position that manmade carbon dioxide certainly "contributes" to global warming. How can that be falsified, when "contributes" can be any number, however small? The AGW activists assert that they have no burden to prove that minimal claim, because it is obvious. They proceed to assert that this minimal claim justifies the demand that trillions of dollars be redistributed to smaller countries, and that our economy be forcibly disrupted by shrinking conventional energy before any renewable energy is remotely adequate to replace it.

AGW is now and always has been a purely political movement, with no scientific foundation in historical data or experimental results.


By ProScience on 12/3/2011 12:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The author has put out a false premise (actually he has put out MANY false premises).

FACT: No climatologist claims global warming is the ONLY variable affecting the increase in temperature – it is just the most significant.

The variables studied in the global warming models to make forecasts include:

(1) well mixed global warming gases (including Co2)
(2) solar variation
(3) aerosols (stratospheric and tropospheric)
(4) land use
(5) snow albedo
(6) black carbon

They also take into affect PDO cycles (that go up and then back down – ie a cycle) **see note below

There was an El Nino in 1998 causing a large hot spike. There was one relatively cool year in 2008 due to a La Nina.

**The decade of 2000-2010 was still the hottest decade on record since weather instrumentation records (going back to 1880) and satellite records -- both UAH and RSS (going back 30 years). **

And the decade of 1990-1999 was the hottest before that.

Here are the weather station temperature data == per NASA. And one can see the rise.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The satellite data shows the same trend (but only goes back to the 1970s); Same with weather balloons (goes back to 1950s)

As for natural cycles – Milankovitch cycles would have predicted we should have been COOLING, not warming by now.

Interesting how this author leaves this all out and tries to cherrypick individual dates, no?

**Note: "When all the forcings noted above are included, "they show a good correlation to global temperature. There is still internal variability superimposed on the temperature record due to short term cycles like ENSO. The main discrepancy is a decade centered around 1940. This is thought to be due to a warming bias introduced by US ships measuring engine intake temperature.
"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-co...


RE: Real science s about evidence
By HurleyBird on 11/25/2011 7:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
"This is opposite of what the climate models based on the 'CO2 causes warming' hypothesis predicted"

Not quite. CO2 does cause warming, which we know from basic physics. The real question is sensitivity. Because there is a significant correlation between warming and CO2 released from the oceans, logic dictates that sensitivity cannot be too high (and certainly not as high as some of the more extreme IPCC predictions) or we would have long ago entered into a positive feedback loop.

That being said, sensitivity is very difficult to ascertain. The climate system is very complex, and separating CO2 forcing from the rest of the noise is nearly impossible. Lack of warming doesn't disprove AGW, and presence of warming doesn't prove it either.

And then there's the supposed fact that warming is always bad. I think that's where the real dogma comes in, as there would be many positives to a warmer climate yet we never hear that from 'alarmist' scientists or the media.

Over all, I think we spend far too much time on global warming than it deserves.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By drycrust3 on 11/25/2011 8:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When science is working as it should, awkward and unexpected results are often the most useful as it is such results that help to expose problems with theories and allow us to question and eventually reject false or incomplete hypothesis.

I totally agree with this, which is why the "tweaking" of data is so dangerous. When we "adjust" the data to suit our theories, we don't confirm the validity of them, and neither do we find out why our measured results differ from what theory says they should be.
To me, what one scientist says about another is irrelevant, that's their business, if I want tittle tattle I'll find better stuff in a women's mag. What is important is the admissions of tweaking data to suit a theory. When the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University was caught doing this, they said they had done nothing wrong, and we had scientists all around the world concurring with them. On the one hand they want their reports to still be read 50 years from now, but on the other hand their tweaking is making it obvious their reports will be ignored in 50 years time!


RE: Real science s about evidence
By Tony Swash on 11/26/2011 6:43:05 AM , Rating: 5
A number of interesting points have been raised in response to both the article and my comment. Here are my thoughts.

I think one could fairly summarise the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) position as follows:

It is proposed that human emitted CO2 was the main cause of the recent period of global warming in the two decades after 1975 and that after carefully modelling the earth's climate no other factor could explain this warming which therefore was not the result of natural climate fluctuation. Using the same models back at the end of the 1990s various projections were made based on different assumed levels of human CO2 emissions and all showed that continuing emissions would lead to continuing temperature rises. Further it was also claimed, based on the same and related models, that climate sensitivity was high and that warming by CO2 could cause accelerated and further warming in a sort of run away affect. In addition it is argued that such warming, either that from the CO2 directly or the extra warming caused by climate sensitivity, will be so dangerous for humans that it warrants urgent action to reduce CO2 and indeed that the only really safe option is to at the very least curtail any further rises in CO2 emission. If rises CO2 were to be stopped this will cost many trillions of dollars but it is worth it because the probability of dangerous CO2 caused warming is high.

I hope that is a fair summary.

That position gained widespread support in the late 1990s as temperatures appeared to be pushing even higher following the 'super' El Nino' event in 1998.

The problem as I see it is this. What followed was a sort of grand experiment. CO2 emissions in the almost decade and half since 1998 have been at the upper end of those projected back in the late nineties and from 2001 through September, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 23.6% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001. The climate models being used to predict the affects of CO2 all projected the same outcome under these circumstances, ongoing and quite rapid warming. None of the models showed error bars which allowed for a non-rising global temperature under such circumstances. And yet that is what we have had. No temperature rise since 1998. None

I think under these circumstances it is reasonable to question the climate models and the conclusions reached using those models.

If, as an explanation for the lack of warming, we are now told that the models can't make very accurate projections except over very long time periods, or that they have very large error bars (big enough to accommodate a 23% rise in CO2 not causing warming), or that in fact CO2 isn't such a powerful climate driver as was argued and that other factors can overwhelm it's effects, then I get a bit suspicious. It sounds to me like a series of rationalisations to defend a flawed theory. Moreover it means that the climate models that are being used to argue for very significant and extraordinarily costly economic and social changes are not that accurate in which case the argument for those changes is very much weakened.

I would add that the various climategate documents do seem to show a bunch of the key climate scientists working together to hide date, avoid outside scrutiny of their work, block alternative theories and working with a degree of commitment that at times seems overtly political and that that doesn't seem healthy.

It appears that the international structure to achieve a consensus view on AGW, the IPCC, has operated like a large political bureaucracy (which of course is what it is) which means the operation within it of cliques and groupings, the use of bureaucratic manoeuvre to block dissenting views and the dumbing down of science and the elimination of health scientific doubt for the convenience of policy formulation and PR effect. That also is not healthy

It is worth remembering that as a direct result of the AGW theory funding for climate related research has increased a thousand fold, from millions to billions. If the AGW theory were to be fundamentally questioned then it is likely that that funding would dry up and many climate scientists careers would be very adversely affected. That doesn't seem very healthy to me either.

I can't but help feel that it is time for a new start in climate science.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By Dorkyman on 11/26/2011 10:09:52 AM , Rating: 2
What he said.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By bug77 on 11/26/2011 11:05:35 AM , Rating: 2
I think we're missing the point here: temperatures were rising even before the industrial revolution, so even if we stopped producing any CO2 at all, they'd still be rising.
Second, what happens when the Earth gets warmer? It could very well turn into an equatorial environment all the way to the poles (with more water evaporating because of higher temperatures).
What exactly are these guys (AGW proponents) trying to accomplish?


RE: Real science s about evidence
By Tony Swash on 11/26/2011 1:01:04 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I think we're missing the point here: temperatures were rising even before the industrial revolution, so even if we stopped producing any CO2 at all, they'd still be rising.
Second, what happens when the Earth gets warmer? It could very well turn into an equatorial environment all the way to the poles (with more water evaporating because of higher temperatures).


Before 1975 back until the 1940s, the period before the short recent warming period, was a cooling period. This coincided with the post war increase in CO2 emissions.

Before that was a warming period that probably started in the mid nineteenth century (when CO2 emissions were tiny by today's standard) and which was actually the earth recovering from the coldest period since the last age, the period known as the Little Ice Age (LIA) which ran from about 1650 to around 1850.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

This warming period peaked in the 1930s when the hottest year of the 20th century was recorded (see also http://a-sceptical-mind.com/hottest). CO2 levels were minimal at this time and none of the uneven warming period after the end of the LIA seems to correlate well with CO2 emissions.

Before that was a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) when average temperatures seemed to have been somewhat higher than today. Almost no CO2 had been emitted by mankind at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

When the earth fully emerged from the last ice age only about 10,000 years ago and entered the modern climate period known as the Holocene, sorely after the period known as the climatic optimum began which ran from roughly 9000 to 5000 years ago during which time average temperature seems to have been a couple degrees hotter than now and the temperature at the North Pole seems to have been as much as 4 degrees warmer than now. Note that no runaway warming process were initiated by this warming and the polar bear survived as did the Greenland ice sheet. Humans had not emitted any measurable amount of CO2 at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_optimum

The rise and fall of the reconstructed past temperatures based on ice core samples taken from the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets is shown in a short animated video which is here.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-hockey-stick-vs-th...

My judgement at the moment, based on the evidence I can find, is that there has been some warming over the last century. I see nothing in the evidence that proves that this recent warming is in any way unusual or unprecedented when compared to past and recent climate changes. Although it is possible that the greenhouse gas effect of human CO2 emissions has contributed to this warming there is no evidence to prove this and it is just as likely that the bulk of the recent warming is the result of natural processes. This recent warming appears to have stopped just over a decade ago but it is possible that this gentle warming may resume but I do not see evidence that if it did that it would have catastrophic effects. Based on the evidence it is also possible that the gentle warming will cease and that the global temperature may decline.

Because of the evidence about the profound changes taken place in solar activity at the moment and because of the strong correlation of solar activity with climate change in the past on balance I think that a period of cooling is likely in the next decade or two.

If the evidence changes I will change my mind.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By bug77 on 11/26/2011 5:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
I was looking at the even bigger picture: ever since the last ice age, the Earth has been getting warmer and the polar ice caps have been getting smaller. I don't think we can stop that, no matter what.


RE: Real science s about evidence
By sleepeeg3 on 11/28/2011 12:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
Basing global warming on 0.0000007% of the Earth's history is bad science anyway.

If scientists wanted to disprove global warming, they would look at the geological record. ...and they have. ...and it does.
http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/201...


Mis-statements
By jimspice on 11/25/2011 9:02:12 PM , Rating: 3
I normally take DailyTech as an authoritative source. The obvious mis-statements of research and researchers here, however, makes me think twice about how much I can trust what goes into this publication




RE: Mis-statements
By commonmanbob on 11/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: Mis-statements
By Ringold on 11/25/2011 10:39:07 PM , Rating: 5
I see a lot of pushing back against the article, but so far no one daring to come up with how some of those statements can be put in a positive light.

Why should anyone, ever, in any circumstance, need to ask someone else to delete their private e-mails? Why the talk about freedom of information acts? Why should those matter if everything is above-board? And how to explain away the Met Office concerns discussed with Mann?

I'm very happy that google has saved every non-spam e-mail I've had since I first started using it many years ago, but then, I've got nothing to hide if someone were to pry in to it.


RE: Mis-statements
By Ringold on 11/28/2011 9:48:58 AM , Rating: 1
Three days later, no one can explain a legitimate reason why, for example, they're worried about freedom of information acts and mass-deletion of private e-mail.

Conclusion: Like the Catholic Church, too uncomfortable to talk about internal abuse. Better to ignore it, for the cause.

2nd Conclusion: The science is generally roughly on their side when the Koch brothers fund a study and it agrees, which means these people are just pathetic human beings, lying and manipulating because they think their views are too important to leave to the vagaries public discourse.


RE: Mis-statements
By juserbogus on 11/28/2011 10:34:14 AM , Rating: 2
those very same emails tell you why!! because skeptics were using the requests unreasonably and in mass. how would you like it if your research day turned into filling those requests and not doing any real work?


RE: Mis-statements
By godshatter on 11/28/2011 3:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
If you talk to skeptics, you'll find that they ran into nothing but roadblocks when trying to get access to the data so they could run their own statistics on it.

Easy solution: make the data publicly available. Next FOIA request comes in, write the URL of the website on which it was posted, and you're done.


To put this article into perspective...
By Nighteye2 on 11/27/2011 5:55:07 PM , Rating: 1
There's actually a consensus amongst over 95% of the scientific community, as proven in several meta-studies, on global warming and that humans are having a significant effect on it. How significant is the only issue of debate.
Some scientists may have made some mistakes or questionable practices, but the vast majority remains valid.

To deny climate change is to gamble with the continued existence of our species - and that's not something I'm willing to risk.




RE: To put this article into perspective...
By Tony Swash on 11/27/2011 7:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's actually a consensus amongst over 95% of the scientific community


That's not true

Even it was science is not consensus

The views and theories of a thousand scientists can be slain by a single fact. Here is a fact to mull over - a 23% increase in CO2 over the last decade has led to no warming - does that not at least give you pause for thought? It should.


RE: To put this article into perspective...
By Nighteye2 on 11/27/2011 7:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
It does - it makes me think how short-term data can show a very different picture from the long term. If you look at the last 100 years, you see a much clearer trend - confirmed by multiple studies:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+globa...


By geezer117 on 12/2/2011 1:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
At the risk of tediously restating what has been said many times: If the debate were over whether the Earth's temperature has risen over the last century or so, there would be no debate. There is ample evidence it has.

But the debate is rather over the position taken by AGW activists: 1) Earth's temperature soon will be rising at a catastrophic rate; 2) Natural causes are inadequate to explain the rise in temperature; 3) If humans would stop burning fossil fuels the temperature would stop rising or be harmlessly slow to rise; 4) The future temperature will so cataclysmic as to justify today even the most severe disruption of our society and way of life; and 5) Even if there is only a 5% chance of the above being true, we must quickly transform our society and way of life as directed by the environmental utopians among us.

That is what the debate is about. Please direct me to reliable science (computer models NOT acceptable) that would induce a reasonable person to accept all those claims.


But remember
By FITCamaro on 11/26/2011 10:02:12 AM , Rating: 2
The debate is over.




RE: But remember
By FITCamaro on 11/26/2011 10:08:51 AM , Rating: 2
And the main issue with any research on warming is the data collection method. We're told that the monitoring stations are reading higher and higher. Yet around 90% of the monitoring stations in the US alone aren't placed properly. How is a temperature monitoring station placed next to an exhaust vent for a cooling system an unbiased measurement? Or one placed on blacktop? Or next to a building which retains heat?

These stations are supposed to be away from anything that can alter the measurement but these so called scientists don't even seem to care that they're improperly placed. Then they talk of deleting emails and data so their work can't be traced or verified? Furthermore that the Department of Energy is perfectly fine with this? Yeah nothing wrong going on there....


RE: But remember
By HurleyBird on 11/26/2011 3:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's just daft.


DailyTech / Mick / AGW
By The Jedi on 11/27/2011 1:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
I don't read DailyTech as much anymore, to an extent out of disdain for Jason Mick's style of writing, but... I found this article to be phenomenally good. I can see arguments both ways, but this seems to credibly raise doubts as to how AGW research is approached and presented.

I think "the cause" touched on above is ultimately a desire to reduce pollution and see that humanity progresses in an environmentally responsible manner. There's a desire to see that industry doesn't cause irrevocable environmental damage, and I think global-warming or not, the desire to improve processes with responsibility in mind is a laudable goal. How you go about that is debatable, but I believe a government mandate is required to prod industry to do whatever is the current best guess on 'the right thing'. This would be, global-warming or not, based on analyzing pollution and scientifically figuring out how to neutralize it.




RE: DailyTech / Mick / AGW
By MZperX on 11/28/2011 1:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think we can all agree that conservation of natural resources and maintaining a clean environment are worthy goals.

However, CO2 is not "pollution" any more than H2O is. Common sense goes right out the window when people try and clean up or "neutralize" something as fundamental to life as carbon-dioxide.


RE: DailyTech / Mick / AGW
By ProScience on 12/3/2011 12:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
"I don't read DailyTech as much anymore, to an extent out of disdain for Jason Mick's style of writing, but... I found this article to be phenomenally good.."

It isn't good if you read a SCIENCE source.

Here are some good links.

#1 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climat...

#2 http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

#3 http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

#4 http//www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/i ndex.html


Business vs science
By Ringold on 11/25/2011 10:53:15 PM , Rating: 3
As much as some folks bash business, I find it interesting that most big businesses have data retention laws that'd turn what those scientists did in to potential criminals in the private sector. At least, if an issue ever came to court, and it turned out the information was deleted.




Pathetic
By mchentz on 11/26/2011 2:16:01 AM , Rating: 3
Just read the article and do your own investigation of the subject if you don't like the way the article was presented. Source emails are posted. I'm not knowledgeable enough about this subject to say AWG is or is not real.

There is so much money involved with AGW and knowing what money does to all people (Money is the root of all evil). I tend not to believe in AGW based on the money issue alone.

Sides most people post stupid comments about the Amazon deforestion and do not realize that the oceans have the most impact on our environment. So that immediately tells me that post is mostly pulling stuff out of their butt




hahaha
By winie on 11/25/2011 5:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
May I say!
By ct760ster on 11/25/2011 11:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
I think that somebody have to take into account that he Earth is almost 71% covered by the Ocean. So basically the Ecosystem of the Ocean is what make a buffer and balance whatever excess happen in the planet. Most of the oxygen we breathe come from the Photosynthesis of sea plants like seaweed and phytoplankton and the most of atmospheric weathered particles and gases end up washed down to the seas and adsorbed by the organism inhabiting there. So basically the climate is correlated to how well the Oceans can bear with us.




This just says it all to me.
By FPP on 11/26/2011 12:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes, things are just exactly what you think they are.




new rule
By senbassador on 11/27/2011 1:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
Thats it, new rule: each university gets to have only one scandal per month.




By Shadowmage on 11/28/2011 7:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Former climate contrarian Professor Richard Muller has released the draft of his teams Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST). The study, funded largely by multibillionaire petroleum magnates Charles and David Koch, known for donating 55 million dollars to climate denial front groups, “confirm[s] the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.” Muller confirmed at a public talk, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “none of the effects raised by the [sceptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.” He told MSNBC’s Morning Joe today that “we’re getting very steep warming” and that because “we are dumping enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we’re working in a dangerous realm, a realm where I think, we may really have trouble in the next coming decades.”


I don't see how you can consider funding sources to be an issue if the Berkeley BEST study was funded by the Republican Koch brothers and Muller was invited by Republicans to testify.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1537...




By Sherlocktoo on 12/2/2011 8:37:07 AM , Rating: 2
Hoax and Fraud, are the best words to describe the work of Jones and Mann and their cohorts. Why do we continue to give them tax dollars for research, which has a predetermined outcome? It is simply time to stop the insanity. Continue the research, on a much smaller scale, and use other scientists who are unconnected to these to liars.




By redbourn on 12/2/2011 2:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
The ClimateGate 2 emails are a must read!

The emails are horrifying because they show scientists acting dishonestly, either to keep their grants coming in, or because of their political allegiances, and they have done a great disservice to both the people of the world and to their profession.

You can read several emails and find out more about the cover-up at:

http://tinyurl.com/cz2ovre

And you can even download all the emails if you want to, but it's a pretty big download. (173 Mb)




By ProScience on 12/3/2011 12:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
CLAIM: Al Gore in particular has made close to a billion dollars based on his evangelizing AGW in lectures, film; via carbon credit investments; and by pushing the government to funnel money to his high-risk "green energy" investments in the name of fighting AGW.

RESPONSE: There are so many gross inaccuracies to pick from in this article. here is why it includes the above statement.

The vast majority of sources of Al Gore's wealth, has been with his business dealings with TECHNOLOGY firms like being on the boards of companies like Google and Apple and owning stock options.

"In addition to the steady flow of six-figure speaking gigs, he has become an insider at two of the hottest companies on the planet: at Google, where he signed on as an adviser in 2001, pre-IPO (and received stock options now reportedly worth north of $30 million), and at Apple, where he joined the board in 2003 (and got stock options now valued at about $6 million).

He enjoyed a big payday as vice chairman of an investment firm in L.A., and, more recently, started a cable-television company and an asset-management firm, both of which are becoming quiet forces in their fields."

By his own account, his makeover has been less the result of a conscious strategy than of a few smart initiatives that happened to ripen in sync--from Google's towering growth to the recent profitability of his media startup, Current TV. "I've remarked to Tipper how amazing it is that both Current and Generation [Investment Management] have reached the next stage of their development at almost exactly the same time."

What defines the ventures he has taken part in, he says, is "a revolutionary and transformational concept" in industries that badly need change. But did he expect such enormous financial success? He pauses. "It's all been a pleasant surprise. And a lot of fun

Gore has made profits through a cable channel, Current TV, with new technological advances -- working with advertisers to create viewer-generated commercials, or VCAMs

http://www.fastcompany.com/node/60067/print

As for that big money making machine, Inconvenient Truth

Per Wikipedia, the film Inconvenient Truth earned $50 million-- meaning there would be significant costs from production and distribution to subtract from it,,,

And even if Al Gore were the sole owner --it ignores Al Gore gave away 100% of the profits from the book and the movie.

"l Gore has stated, "Tipper and I are devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

The truth is Al Gore was committed to global warming when he was still just a politician, and conservatives used it against him.

All the biographical data shows Al Gore has been nothing but sincere on the topic, and listening to the scientists.

As for trying to start up alternatiave energy companies, it is a well known fact any new product requires huge research and development expenses up front, and there is always a strong risk of failure/bankrupcy -- as another firm can come up with a smarter mouse trap.

So the charges made against Gore here are... are grossly inaccurate.

But so is about everything else in this article.




By ProScience on 12/3/2011 12:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

The BACKGROUND is left out:

Climate skeptics were flooding CRU in England with FOI requests, that was physically impossible for a small staff to respond to and continue their work.

And it is true, CRU didn't want to admit they had not kept the original data from the land weather stations to the skeptics because it would be greatly broadcast.

That happened anyway.
They then correctly pointed out: It really wasn't relevant they didn't have the original weather land stations data.

Why?

NASA and NOAA in the US had all the original land weather station data.

And their results correlated very closely with CRU's global average temperatures going back to 1880.

also relevant and missing here!
Dr Muller of UCLA (and previously a skeptic) recently reviewed all the same stations data, and concluded that NASA, NOAA, and yes CRU results were reasonably accurate.

this author finds the SUBSTANCE of what is going on irrelevant!

How about that!?




Global Warming is not a Crisis
By Lftrsuk on 11/26/2011 5:55:14 AM , Rating: 1
How people long to be told that Global Warming is not a Crisis. This was never better evidenced than in a debate called:

Global Warming is not a Crisis - one debate - 3 protagonists - 3 antagonists speakers. Before: 30% in favour - 57% against - 13% don't knows. After: 46% in favour - 42% against - 12% don't knows. Views were changed by the protagonists’ emphasis on scientific uncertainty and away from opinions formed from the hyperbole of alarmists, with their palpable feet of clay.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...

Pollution and particulates from the burning of fossil fuels are responsible for 2 million premature deaths per annum. Everyone can agree on FACTS (more reliable than computer model projections with dubious positive feedbacks) and we should endeavour to deploy clean energy sources.

The heading to this Blog give a perspective on the relative environmental degradation by energy supplied from - Coal - Uranium - Thorium:
http://lftrsuk.blogspot.com/




Fraud and deception, indeed
By Robert Murphy on 12/5/2011 8:55:53 AM , Rating: 1
Is there a reason you spliced two emails together and pretended they were one? You posted this:

" I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data."

The bold text was from May 13th, 2009 (email 2440), the italicized from July 28th, 2009 (email 1577). In the first Jones is talking specifically about FOIA requests for emails that were from scientist to scientist in discussing what was to be included in what chapters in IPCC reports. He does not think these are covered by FOIA and that the release of such emails would stifle the free discussion of the science among the participants as they worked on the reports. It was not about holding back data. The second snippet was from an email where Jones was lamenting the time and resources used to fulfill the FOIA request for data:

quote:
"Dear All, Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days, these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original unadjusted data (which we don't have) and then move onto the software used to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release).
CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don't have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. We are currently trying to do some more work with other datasets, which will get released (as gridded datasets) through the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC). This will involve more than just station temperature data. Perhaps we should consider setting up something like this agreement below http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met ... ement.html
I just want these orchestrated requests to stop. I also don't want to give away years of hard effort within CRU. Many of the agreements were made in the late 1980s and early 1990s and I don't have copies to hand. I also don't want to waste my time looking for them. Even if I were to find them all, it is likely that the people we dealt with are no longer in the same positions. These requests over the last 2.5 years have wasted much time for me, others in CRU and for Dave and Michael. Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I've ascertained it most likely came from there, as I'm the only one who knows where the files are here. See you all later. Phil"


They don't have the resources to do all these data searches, so they are done "on the back of the research grants" they get. This extra work has to be hidden, not the data!

It's astounding that the people who are accusing scientists of hoaxes and fraud so nonchalantly engage in the most blatant deception themselves. You have the audacity to state,

"Of course Phil Jones and his supporters will likely claim that the emails were taken out of context of some larger more appropriate discussion"

This from someone who spliced together two emails separated by over two months. Yeah, I think that qualifies as taking the emails out of context. Don't you?

Then you post a snippet of what you say is an email from Peter Thorne where he lists some criticisms of a first draft of an IPCC chapter and you claim this is an attack on Mike Mann:

quote:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary. I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.


Again, you splice two distinct emails together, this time the first section in bold is from email 1939 and was written on Feb 20th 2005, and the second italicized sentence was from email 3066 and was written two weeks earlier on Feb 4th 2005. Is there a reason you did this?

And it is quite clear that Thorne was not speaking to Mann. This should have been obvious even in the small excerpt you used since Thorne says, "Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary." And of course, they did discuss it and Thorne's concerns were addressed as Thorne himself has verified in the last few weeks. And Thorne's concerns over the sat data was based in large part on UAH's erroneous analysis, an analysis that was corrected later in the same year this email occurred (2005).

Farther down you go after Mann again, and miss just as badly:

"Even Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research who was implicated in the first CRU email scandal for suggesting the removal of an editor who allowed peer-reviewed skeptical studies to be published, seemed to agree on this extreme instance:

quote:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC."


The figure in question was not something from Mann but from Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate, written in response to an egregiously bad argument made by Christoper Monckton. Schmidt stands by the figure he used. Your next sentence was, "The IPCC did eventually change the draft somewhat -- perhaps due to this feedback -- but critics say it still did far too much cherry picking of its sources." The above had nothing to do with any draft of either a paper or an IPCC report. It was a figure in a post on a blog.

You write:

"Writes Jonathan Overpeck, lead coordinating author of the IPCC's most recent climate assessment:

quote:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out."


If you actually read the email it would be obvious he wasn't talking about any specific scientific/political message. He was simply talking about winnowing down a very long draft into half a page of information, because that's all the space they had for that section.

From email 4755:

quote:
Hi Ricardo - good to hear from you. Thanks too for the interesting figure. I have some comments on this section (6.5.4) and also for the others' you're helping to lead. Regarding 6.5.4 - I hope Dick and Keith will have jump in to help you lead, and I can too. I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In looking over your good outline, sent back on Oct. 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom just after this time), you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what's included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data - not inconclusive information.


Would it have killed you to have shown enough skepticism to have actually read the emails? Or are you only interested in how you can misquote them? For shame.




2/10, please try harder
By elmicker on 11/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: 2/10, please try harder
By eskimospy on 11/25/11, Rating: -1
Coming soon on Dailytech...
By rs1 on 11/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Coming soon on Dailytech...
By Rookierookie on 11/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Coming soon on Dailytech...
By commonmanbob on 11/25/2011 9:27:35 PM , Rating: 1
tee hee


Please stop!
By gladiatorua on 11/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Please stop!
By commonmanbob on 11/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Please stop!
By rs1 on 11/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Please stop!
By michael67 on 11/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Please stop!
By Dorkyman on 11/26/2011 10:01:29 AM , Rating: 5
So four of you people have the AGW "religion." Fine.

But please don't let your faith stand in the way of healthy skepticism. Science is nothing if not a constant testing and retesting of hypotheses. That a number of AGW churchmen were discussing ways to hide their tracks is or should be big news. If it's not to you, perhaps you should reflect on what that tells you about YOUR belief system.


RE: Please stop!
By eskimospy on 11/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Please stop!
By freshmint on 11/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Please stop!
By ekv on 11/26/2011 3:27:54 PM , Rating: 5
I've been on the receiving end of the "tabloid journalism", and on the giving side (as it were). It is quite uncomfortable on the receiving side, like you feel now.

I am not w/o sympathy. Believe me. But then, when it rains, it rains on good people and bad. I've noticed some improvement in Jason's articles. He's much more specific [links are almost always included for actual scientific results]. Sure, you get the sensational title, but that's just the standard hook. All journalists do that to get you to read the article (and for the on-line case, generate ad rev). Can you ask for more from Jason? Are you really suggesting the guy lose his job (in this economy)? If he were grossly negligent, ok, but I don't see that. Even if I agree with you in general, generalizations don't really help here.

In addition, AGW is particularly surrounded by hyperbole. [Another poster used the term "AGW churchmen" lol, great term]. From my perspective, the data just isn't there to support the theory. The theory further suffers in light of this articles revelations (about AGW proponents). If the hype were not there, then the chances of rationally and calmly evaluating the data would be exponentially greater and the theory could be legitimately tested.

My two bits.


RE: Please stop!
By JNo on 11/27/2011 7:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
Fifth!

This Jason Mick bullsh*t propaganda machine is ridiculous. I'm not saying that global warming is real or not or that it isn't sad if AGW proponents have been proselytising instead of researching objectively.

However, carefully selecting articles to portray an anti-climate change argument because that's what you believe in is pathetic. If you feel that justifies your lack of interest in doing anything about it then you'd be better off channelling your efforts into being more energy efficient *just in case* AGW is correct. Improved efficiency is beneficial regardless of AGW being true or not at any rate.


RE: Please stop!
By ekv on 11/27/2011 7:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This Jason Mick bullsh*t propaganda machine is ridiculous.
How so? specifics please.
quote:
However, carefully selecting articles to portray an anti-climate change argument because that's what you believe in is pathetic.
Am I missing something? What you say here sounds kind of like, "a criminal defense lawyer carefully selecting cases based on the type of crime, because that's what he believes in is pathetic." Why would you NOT argue something you believe in? I say it is pathetic not to argue something you believe in, you'd just be lying to yourself.
quote:
Improved efficiency is beneficial regardless of AGW being true or not at any rate.
I don't see anything in Jason's article that says otherwise. In fact, doesn't Jason cover Ford's MyTouch and EcoBoost? For me, a Ford Fusion would be a step up as far as efficiency is concerned, but there are other bills that take priority at the moment. Not to mention the "new and improved" April 15th tax bill looming around the corner.


RE: Please stop!
By TakinYourPoints on 11/27/2011 4:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's barely tabloid journalism


It wouldn't be DT if this wasn't the case


RE: Please stop!
By IvanAndreevich on 11/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: Please stop!
By Tony Swash on 11/27/2011 10:47:58 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Healthy skepticism against the theory of gravity, and the theory of evolution too? Please..


A comparison like that only works as long as one can argue that the body of theory on how the global climate works is as well founded, as well established and essentially as strong as the theoretical underpinning of the theory of gravity and evolution. I believe one cannot make that comparison because the theory of global climate is so much more incomplete and basically shaky, the science is simply far less developed. One way to illustrate this is to simply list a series of basic climate phenomena about which, amongst climate scientists, there is absolutely no commonly agreed explanation, for example:

What caused the recent flat lining in global temperature from 1998 until 2011?

What caused the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period?

What was the mechanism and connection which seemed to have linked the disappearance of sun spots during the Maunder Minimum to the Little Ice Age?

What caused the period known as the climatic optimum, which which ran from roughly 9000 to 5000 years ago during which time average temperature seems to have been a couple degrees hotter than now?

What caused the Younger Dryas period of sharp cooling between 12,800 and 11,500 years before present which interrupted the climb out of the last ice age?

What caused the last ice age to end when it did?

When will the next ice age start?

What caused the period know as the Snowball Earth some time earlier than 650 million years ago when ice sheets seemed to have extended to the tropics?

One could go and on with such a list.

It's not that there are no hypotheses and theories about all these things, its that there are no agreed theories, or even theoretical frameworks, which the world's leading climate experts would all accept to explain these phenomena. Not even close. And when you have a science where there are no agreed theories about even the most significant and fundamental phenomena being studied then that says to me the science is not very well developed. That's it's early days in climate science. That's it like what physics was like in say 1850.


RE: Please stop!
By sdoherty74 on 12/2/2011 12:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
The problem that you global warming zealots have is condescension and arrogance. To declare the "debate over" and "the science settled" is to disparage science--which history has taught us is NEVER over and to insult our intelligence with your "absolutist" pap! Combined, they engender skepticism and doubt that the debate is about science but rather about politics and the transfer of resources. The reason that a legion of skeptics continues to grow exponentially is a direct result of your insistence that the "unprovable" has indeed been "proven." And what is your proof? A picture painted of collusion, lying, deceit, and subterfuge by the very "experts" you continue to quote chapter and verse.You've created your own vortex and it's sucking ALL of you into the trash bin of history.


RE: Please stop!
By gladiatorua on 11/27/2011 1:44:30 AM , Rating: 2
Healthy scepticism is good. My view is that I don't know. I need more information. And loud screams of denialists and "true-believers-zealots" only get in the way.
I'm all for healthy debate between scientists(laymen can debate all they want but they don't know shit so it's just vibration of air and movement electrons), but on DT articles that are close to any kind of politics are kind of one-sided.

I can think of any number of reasons to hide or remove data. Tabloids love to speculate and jump to conclusions and once the shit hits the fan it's very hard to convince anybody.
DT is about tech. These amounts of politics are not healthy.


RE: Please stop!
By Amedean on 11/27/2011 4:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
Fifth - and we are not talking about healthy skepticism but speculation filled with bias.


RE: Please stop!
By ekv on 11/25/2011 9:37:56 PM , Rating: 5
So if there is a pro-Obama, pro-democrat, pro-AGW, pro-green initiative article ... do you still whine about "political spin-machine"?


RE: Please stop!
By rs1 on 11/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Please stop!
By drycrust3 on 11/26/2011 12:07:16 AM , Rating: 5
So if AGW is real, then why do you need to falsify information? Why not just present the true and accurate data you have recorded and let that stand as proof of your claims? Falsifying evidence smacks of weakness in your case, e.g. AGW isn't really happening.


RE: Please stop!
By ekv on 11/26/2011 1:54:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not "spin" ...
I'm glad you agree that reality is on my side.

"I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process."


RE: Please stop!
By Ammohunt on 11/26/2011 9:16:22 AM , Rating: 3
You must be new to Dailytech. This debate on the Myth of AGW has been going on here for a long time. If you don't want alternate opinion or a challenge to the status quo feel free to go to a website that that spews your limited point of view or your flavor of kool-aid. Otherwise let us have our debate.


RE: Please stop!
By FITCamaro on 11/26/2011 10:01:51 AM , Rating: 2
Jason voted for Obama(obviously have no real way of knowing this but I'd put money on it), even if he won't admit it pretty much is a Democrat, and likes "green" initiatives.

Honestly I'm surprised this article is here. So you're just an idiot who is afraid of reading the truth.


RE: Please stop!
By adiposity on 11/26/2011 11:52:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly I'm surprised this article is here. So you're just an idiot who is afraid of reading the truth.


In case you haven't noticed it, Jason has changed his position on AGW. The type of articles he posts has changed, and he has even confirmed as much after being asked directly.

In some was Jason remains a "liberal," but the days of him posting only extremely pro "belief in AGW" are over.


RE: Please stop!
By ekv on 11/26/2011 3:34:55 PM , Rating: 3
Could it be that the theory needs to follow the data, and not the other way around? I can be as dogmatic as anybody -- to a large degree 8) -- but sometimes you need to adjust your position, no?


RE: Please stop!
By FITCamaro on 11/26/2011 7:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
Your argument though is that he dislikes Obama and the Democrats. Which is largely untrue.


RE: Please stop!
By adiposity on 11/27/2011 10:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your argument though is that he dislikes Obama and the Democrats


I didn't say that, nor do I think it. I was just saying, when it comes to AGW, Jason is a skeptic. He has been for some time. So this article shouldn't surprise you.


RE: Please stop!
By johnsonx on 11/27/2011 1:45:16 AM , Rating: 2
You know it's getting bad for the Church of Global Warming when Jason Mick becomes a heretic!


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki