The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

[DrJ]

Here's from Steve McIntyre's Wiki Page:

Stephen McIntyre has been highlighted by the press including The Wall Street Journal[8] and United Press International.[9][dead link]

In 2007, McIntyre started auditing the various corrections made to temperature records, in particular those relating to the urban heat island effect. He discovered a small discontinuity in some U.S. records in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) dataset starting in January 2000. He emailed GISS advising them of the problem and within a couple of days GISS issued a new, corrected set of data and "thank[ed] Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000".[10] The adjustment caused the average temperatures for the continental United States to be reduced about 0.15 °C during the years 2000-2006. Changes in other portions of the record did not exceed 0.03 °C; it made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies.

McIntyre later commented:[11]

My original interest in GISS adjustment procedures was not an abstract interest, but a specific interest in whether GISS adjustment procedures were equal to the challenge of “fixing” bad data. If one views the above assessment as a type of limited software audit (limited by lack of access to source code and operating manuals), one can say firmly that the GISS software had not only failed to pick up and correct fictitious steps of up to 1 deg C, but that GISS actually introduced this error in the course of their programming. According to any reasonable audit standards, one would conclude that the GISS software had failed this particular test. While GISS can (and has) patched the particular error that I reported to them, their patching hardly proves the merit of the GISS (and [united States Historical Climate Network]) adjustment procedures. These need to be carefully examined.

I don't know how we can discredit this guy considering he's the dude that actually reverse engineered stuff without access to their source code and pointed out their error. I'd think his merit as an expert in this particular area is unquestioned. So it seems people might not want to be relying on GISS temperature data as well. Which climate organizations can we trust again?

 

[dickey moe]

More on topic:

The Science and Politics of Climate ChangeScience never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete.By MIKE HULMEI am a climate scientist who worked in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the 1990s. I have been reflecting on the bigger lessons to be learned from the stolen emails, some of which were mine. One thing the episode has made clear is that it has become difficult to disentangle political arguments about climate policies from scientific arguments about the evidence for man-made climate change and the confidence placed in predictions of future change. The quality of both political debate and scientific practice suffers as a consequence.Surveys of public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic about man-made climate change continue to tell us something politicians know only too well: The citizens they rule over have minds of their own. In the U.K., a recent survey suggested that only 41% believed humans are causing climate change, 32% remained unsure and 15% were convinced we aren't. Similar surveys in the U.S. have shown a recent reduction in the number of people believing in man-made climate change.One reaction to this "unreasonableness" is to get scientists to speak louder, more often, or more dramatically about climate change. Another reaction from government bodies and interest groups is to use ever-more-emotional campaigning. Thus both the U.K. government's recent "bedtime stories" adverts, and Plane Stupid's Internet campaign showing polar bears falling past twin towers, have attracted widespread criticism for being too provocative and scary. These instinctive reactions fail to place the various aspects of our knowledge about climate change—scientific insights, political values, cultural moods, personal beliefs—in right relationship with each other. Too often, when we think we are arguing over scientific evidence for climate change, we are in fact disagreeing about our different political preferences, ethical principles and value systems.If we build the foundations of our climate-change policies so confidently and so single-mindedly on scientific claims about what the future holds and what therefore "has to be done," then science will inevitably become the field on which political battles are waged. The mantra becomes: Get the science right, reduce the scientific uncertainties, compel everyone to believe it. . . and we will have won. Not only is this an unrealistic view about how policy gets made, it also places much too great a burden on science, certainly on climate science with all of its struggles with complexity, contingency and uncertainty.The events of the last few of weeks, involving stolen professional correspondence between a small number of leading climate scientists—so-called climategate—demonstrate my point. Both the theft itself and the alleged contents of some of the stolen emails reveal the strong polarization and intense antagonism now found in some areas of climate science.Climate scientists, knowingly or not, become proxies for political battles. The consequence is that science, as a form of open and critical enquiry, deteriorates while the more appropriate forums for ideological battles are ignored.We have also seen how this plays out in public debate. In the wake of climategate, questions were asked on the BBC's Question Time last week about whether or not global warming was a scam. The absolutist claims of two of the panelists—Daily Mail journalist Melanie Phillips, and comedian and broadcaster Marcus Brigstocke—revealed how science ends up being portrayed as a fight between two dogmas: Either the evidence for man-made climate change is all fake, or else we are so sure we know how the planet works that we can claim to have just five or whatever years to save it. When science is invoked to support such dogmatic assertions, the essential character of scientific knowledge is lost—knowledge that results from open, always questioning, enquiry that, at best, can offer varying levels of confidence for pronouncements about how the world is, or may become.The problem then with getting our relationship with science wrong is simple: We expect too much certainty, and hence clarity, about what should be done. Consequently, we fail to engage in honest and robust argument about our competing political visions and ethical values.Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete. This is especially the case with the science of climate, a complex system of enormous scale, at every turn influenced by human contingencies. Yes, science has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don't know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed—with clear insight—the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales.Similarly, we endow analyses about the economics of climate change with too much scientific authority. Yes, we know there is a cascade of costs involved in mitigating, adapting to or ignoring climate change, but many of these costs are heavily influenced by ethical judgements about how we value things, now and in the future. These are judgments that science cannot prescribe.The central battlegrounds on which we need to fight out the policy implications of climate change concern matters of risk management, of valuation, and political ideology. We must move the locus of public argumentation here not because the science has somehow been "done" or "is settled"; science will never be either of these things, although it can offer powerful forms of knowledge not available in other ways. It is a false hope to expect science to dispel the fog of uncertainty so that it finally becomes clear exactly what the future holds and what role humans have in causing it. This is one reason why British columnist George Monbiot wrote about climategate, "I have seldom felt so alone." By staking his position on "the science," he feels alone and betrayed when some aspect of the science is undermined.If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public policy deliberations: Not as the place where we import all of our legitimate disagreements, but one powerful way of offering insight about how the world works and the potential consequences of different policy choices. The important arguments about political beliefs and ethical values can then take place in open and free democracies, in those public spaces we have created for political argumentation.Mr. Hulme, author of "Why We Disagree About Climate Change," is professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia.

You've always been an anti "politics of fear" guy. How is AGW any different? And don't give me the "because it's science" excuse.

 

[RCon]

My point is that no matter how much me as a layman tries to, "dig into it" my understanding will never come close to the understanding necessary to have a truly educated opinion on the subject. Therefore I outsource my opinion of it to the people who spend time working in the field and studying the subject. And therefore I am happy to go with whatever the current scientific wisdom is.

So we should assume you do the same in other areas. Say, for instance, the war in Iraq? At the time, both Republicans and Democrats in office believed it was appropriate, so I'm sure you must have endorsed it at the time, seeing as the House and Senate were surely much more informed than you, right?The point moleculo and others are trying to get across is this: It's possible that those to whom you have outsourced your opinion are lying to you. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the case, but the possibility exists, meaning you should do some research of your own to determine the veracity of their claims.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

My point is that no matter how much me as a layman tries to, "dig into it" my understanding will never come close to the understanding necessary to have a truly educated opinion on the subject. Therefore I outsource my opinion of it to the people who spend time working in the field and studying the subject. And therefore I am happy to go with whatever the current scientific wisdom is.

So we should assume you do the same in other areas. Say, for instance, the war in Iraq? At the time, both Republicans and Democrats in office believed it was appropriate, so I'm sure you must have endorsed it at the time, seeing as the House and Senate were surely much more informed than you, right?The point moleculo and others are trying to get across is this: It's possible that those to whom you have outsourced your opinion are lying to you. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the case, but the possibility exists, meaning you should do some research of your own to determine the veracity of their claims.

How many people would need to be in on the fraud to orchestrate a conspiracy involving 80+% of the world wide scientific community? And 97% of those in the field?And the comparison to the pre-election 2002 authorization vote on Iraq is not a very good analogy.

 

[Black Box]

More on topic:

The Science and Politics of Climate Change

Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete.

By MIKE HULME

...

Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete. This is especially the case with the science of climate, a complex system of enormous scale, at every turn influenced by human contingencies. Yes, science has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don't know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed—with clear insight—the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales.

Similarly, we endow analyses about the economics of climate change with too much scientific authority. Yes, we know there is a cascade of costs involved in mitigating, adapting to or ignoring climate change, but many of these costs are heavily influenced by ethical judgements about how we value things, now and in the future. These are judgments that science cannot prescribe.

The central battlegrounds on which we need to fight out the policy implications of climate change concern matters of risk management, of valuation, and political ideology. We must move the locus of public argumentation here not because the science has somehow been "done" or "is settled"; science will never be either of these things, although it can offer powerful forms of knowledge not available in other ways. It is a false hope to expect science to dispel the fog of uncertainty so that it finally becomes clear exactly what the future holds and what role humans have in causing it. This is one reason why British columnist George Monbiot wrote about climategate, "I have seldom felt so alone." By staking his position on "the science," he feels alone and betrayed when some aspect of the science is undermined.

If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public policy deliberations: Not as the place where we import all of our legitimate disagreements, but one powerful way of offering insight about how the world works and the potential consequences of different policy choices. The important arguments about political beliefs and ethical values can then take place in open and free democracies, in those public spaces we have created for political argumentation.

Mr. Hulme, author of "Why We Disagree About Climate Change," is professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia.

I actually agree with much of this article. However, how is the author not contradicting himself with the underlined statements? It seems he is trying to have it both ways, which doesn't seem to be a valid position to take, imo.

 

[jon_mx]

an interesting take here:

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change

PM guest analyst Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, explains what stolen e-mails from climate scientists corresponding with East Anglia University tell us about global warming—and what they don't.

By Peter Kelemen

His logic about it not being a house of cards but a deck of 52 cards all face up is completely flawed. Each card does not prove global warming, but relies on all the other cards. In this particular case, CRU is THE sole source for global ground-based thermometer data and also incorporating ocean data. That is a vital card to this whole debate. The other 51 cards would represent the study of CO2 in the atmosphere, the satellite data, study of ice cores, study of glaciers, study of sea levels, etc. The vast majority of it is very solid science. But the idea that a lynch pin to this theory such as the data for global surface temps can be fatally flawed and does not seriously impact the theory of global warming is stupid. Yes stupid. I have a BS degree too in a non-related field just like this guy. The thermometer data has always shown a larger increase in temps than the other data sets (balloon data, satellite data, ocean data), and is usually used as a justification to adjust the other data sets higher. The whole theory of global warming is that an x amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an x amount of increase in global temperatures. If the amount of temperature increase is now in question, how can that not fatally impact the theory? It must.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

an interesting take here:

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change

PM guest analyst Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, explains what stolen e-mails from climate scientists corresponding with East Anglia University tell us about global warming—and what they don't.

By Peter Kelemen

The section on "House of Cards" is what is wrong with this thread and exactly why calling this a major story that proves a vast conspiracy is just plain silly.

Agreed - I do not believe that there is a vast conspiracy, and I don't think anyone made that claim.However, let's not downplay this. This is still a major story regarding highly influential scientists acting unethically and possibly criminally to further thier own agenda's.

Note - in no way does that disprove or prove anything.

Re-read this thread's subtitle

also, it seems fox news is now making the claim of vast conspiracy/fraud (cover story foxnews.com) ... but by putting a question mark at the end they're letting YOU DECIDE!

 

[Phurfur]

an interesting take here:

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change

PM guest analyst Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, explains what stolen e-mails from climate scientists corresponding with East Anglia University tell us about global warming—and what they don't.

By Peter Kelemen

The section on "House of Cards" is what is wrong with this thread and exactly why calling this a major story that proves a vast conspiracy is just plain silly.

Agreed - I do not believe that there is a vast conspiracy, and I don't think anyone made that claim.However, let's not downplay this. This is still a major story regarding highly influential scientists acting unethically and possibly criminally to further thier own agenda's.

Note - in no way does that disprove or prove anything.

Re-read this thread's subtitle

also, it seems fox news is now making the claim of vast conspiracy/fraud (cover story foxnews.com) ... but by putting a question mark at the end they're letting YOU DECIDE!

I think that is the point. We all have to re-evaluate what we believe to be true. Of course Washington will never do this.

 

[Parrothead]

Smilie requests:

1. Head-In-Sand

2. Sheep

 

[moleculo]

My point is that no matter how much me as a layman tries to, "dig into it" my understanding will never come close to the understanding necessary to have a truly educated opinion on the subject. Therefore I outsource my opinion of it to the people who spend time working in the field and studying the subject. And therefore I am happy to go with whatever the current scientific wisdom is.

So we should assume you do the same in other areas. Say, for instance, the war in Iraq? At the time, both Republicans and Democrats in office believed it was appropriate, so I'm sure you must have endorsed it at the time, seeing as the House and Senate were surely much more informed than you, right?The point moleculo and others are trying to get across is this: It's possible that those to whom you have outsourced your opinion are lying to you. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the case, but the possibility exists, meaning you should do some research of your own to determine the veracity of their claims.

Point 1: At the time of the discussion of the Iraq War, I discussed with friends the possibility that the White House really did possess some hot potato intelligence that we did not. And if that was the case then we were not the ones to criticize. After the fact, it's apparent that the White House did cook and exaggerate the intel to achieve the policy goal which they were after. So I guess the upshot is that at the time, I did support the war. Afterwards, when the common wisdom of the intelligence community had changed, I didn't. And in retrospective, it was wrong because the intel was cooked.(sub-point): We can cut the "both Republicans and Democrats" BS on the war intelligence. It was driven by the White House. It was controlled by the White House. It was only leaked what was deemed OK by the White House. It belonged to the White House.

Point 2: The point I keep making to moleculo is that I do not possess, and unless I am wildly off the mark on your qualifications, you and he do not possess, the qualifications to determine the veracity of the claims. The whole idea that any of us can do some independent research to prove or dis-prove for ourselves is just a canard. Hell, he has stated that he requires "conclusive" evidence. "Conclusive" evidence will never exist and can never exist. This is not an experimental science. Even if the temperature spiked 10 degrees Celsius, rendering the Earth virtually unsupportable for human life, no scientist worth their salt would retrospectively say, "Aha. This input is conclusively what did it." This whole science is educated guesswork. It just so happens that other people possess much more educated guesses than you or I could.

It's not like if someone is teaching French, which you've never learned, you bust into the classroom and say, "Ok. Stop the class. I'm going to prove this to myself. But I have to do it without relying upon anyone who knows anything about French, because they're all biased and self-interested." The whole concept is asinine.

And that's what it comes down to.

couple of points here.1. when I say I want conclusive evidence, i'm not trying to hold the science to some sort of unatainable uncertainty. Believe me, I am very well versed in making educated guesses based off of inexact science. my entire field of study is based on that, and it's what I do professionally and have done for over a decade with various companies. What i'm looking for is independantly verifiable claims, which may or may not exist. It's highly probable that the data is out there and hasn't been presented to me in a meaningful way; that's why I'm working to dig deeper into it.

When I say "conclusive", I mean "data we can draw conclusions from". Here is what I require to consider data conclusive:

....a. independently verifiable from the raw data

....b. a thorough explanation of how dissimilar data was synthesized

....c. at least a basic understanding of how the computer models work, including what assumptions were used.

....d. a discussion on all "fudge factors" used, and why these fudge factors are appropriate.

Basically, show your work. That's all I expect.

2. I do possess a masters degree in an unrelated scientific field. I am qualified to understand the science behind all of this. I do have a good grasp on computer modeling and simulation, thermodynamics, statistical tools used to interpret the data, etc. I also believe that leveraging someone elses interpretations on a given topic is intellectually lazy. Moreso, when I say I want to find more research, I'm not asking the french class to stop. They will continue doing what they do; all I want is to try to catch up with the class...that's all.

Here is, I think, a good analogy for the whole "climate-gate" episode. This is very much akin to a criminal trial, where the defense discovers that the chain of evidence was not maintained by the investigating police department, and in fact, the evidence may have been tampered with. Maybe I watch noo many cop shows, but as far as I know, if the evidence may have been tampered with, it get's tossed out. Now, in no way does that mean the trial is over - there may be other evidence to consider, but at the very least, the lynch-pin evidence pointing towards global warming is compromised. Can you not even admit this much?

 

[moleculo]

My point is that no matter how much me as a layman tries to, "dig into it" my understanding will never come close to the understanding necessary to have a truly educated opinion on the subject. Therefore I outsource my opinion of it to the people who spend time working in the field and studying the subject. And therefore I am happy to go with whatever the current scientific wisdom is.

So we should assume you do the same in other areas. Say, for instance, the war in Iraq? At the time, both Republicans and Democrats in office believed it was appropriate, so I'm sure you must have endorsed it at the time, seeing as the House and Senate were surely much more informed than you, right?The point moleculo and others are trying to get across is this: It's possible that those to whom you have outsourced your opinion are lying to you. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the case, but the possibility exists, meaning you should do some research of your own to determine the veracity of their claims.

How many people would need to be in on the fraud to orchestrate a conspiracy involving 80+% of the world wide scientific community? And 97% of those in the field?And the comparison to the pre-election 2002 authorization vote on Iraq is not a very good analogy.

let's talk about the 80+% of the world wide scientific community, and the 97% in the field for a minute....I'd like to see the poll questions that these numbers come from...as we all know, how a poll question is framed can distort the picture. Here's how:Q1. do you agree that the average temperature of the earth is rising?

Q2. Do you agree that the significant change in temperature observed over the past 10 years is caused by CO2 emitted by man?

I would expect that the proportion of scientists that answer yes to Q1 would be much higher than answer yes to Q2. I think it's completely reasonable to expect 97% of meterologists to answer yes to Q1, I'm not sure the answer to Q2 is settled.

 

[timschochet]

3. If we can show evidence that we increased emissions, would that be sufficient, since it would imply the opposite is possible?

For me, the answer to this is no, because I'm not convinced that the United States can do anything unilaterally that is effective. For example, China and India, the two fastest developing econoimies in the world, have both refused to sign Kyoto and/or to agree to any climate change restrictions on their way of doing business. Even if everything the climate change people tell us is true, this likely means that nothing we do on our own will have any effect. Why then, should we bother to punish our own economy? As has been pointed out several times before, the long term solution to all this is to convert to new energy sources. This is the point where most conservatives and liberals agree, and we ought to get on it. Obama needs to push for a "Manhattan Project" or space program type national effort to move us off of oil. If he can pull that off, he will be the greatest president of my lifetime, no matter what else he does.

 

[jonessed]

My point is that no matter how much me as a layman tries to, "dig into it" my understanding will never come close to the understanding necessary to have a truly educated opinion on the subject. Therefore I outsource my opinion of it to the people who spend time working in the field and studying the subject. And therefore I am happy to go with whatever the current scientific wisdom is.

So we should assume you do the same in other areas. Say, for instance, the war in Iraq? At the time, both Republicans and Democrats in office believed it was appropriate, so I'm sure you must have endorsed it at the time, seeing as the House and Senate were surely much more informed than you, right?The point moleculo and others are trying to get across is this: It's possible that those to whom you have outsourced your opinion are lying to you. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the case, but the possibility exists, meaning you should do some research of your own to determine the veracity of their claims.

How many people would need to be in on the fraud to orchestrate a conspiracy involving 80+% of the world wide scientific community? And 97% of those in the field?And the comparison to the pre-election 2002 authorization vote on Iraq is not a very good analogy.

Not many considering there are only a handful of data sources feeding the bulk of the studies.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

moleculo doing the Lord's work in here.

 

[jonessed]

an interesting take here:

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change

PM guest analyst Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, explains what stolen e-mails from climate scientists corresponding with East Anglia University tell us about global warming—and what they don't.

By Peter Kelemen

The section on "House of Cards" is what is wrong with this thread and exactly why calling this a major story that proves a vast conspiracy is just plain silly.

Agreed - I do not believe that there is a vast conspiracy, and I don't think anyone made that claim.However, let's not downplay this. This is still a major story regarding highly influential scientists acting unethically and possibly criminally to further thier own agenda's.

Note - in no way does that disprove or prove anything.

Re-read this thread's subtitle

also, it seems fox news is now making the claim of vast conspiracy/fraud (cover story foxnews.com) ... but by putting a question mark at the end they're letting YOU DECIDE!

The IPCC is now conducing an investigation which pretty much guarantees that if there wasn't something fraudulent going on before there now will be.

 

[moleculo]

My point is that no matter how much me as a layman tries to, "dig into it" my understanding will never come close to the understanding necessary to have a truly educated opinion on the subject. Therefore I outsource my opinion of it to the people who spend time working in the field and studying the subject. And therefore I am happy to go with whatever the current scientific wisdom is.

So we should assume you do the same in other areas. Say, for instance, the war in Iraq? At the time, both Republicans and Democrats in office believed it was appropriate, so I'm sure you must have endorsed it at the time, seeing as the House and Senate were surely much more informed than you, right?The point moleculo and others are trying to get across is this: It's possible that those to whom you have outsourced your opinion are lying to you. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the case, but the possibility exists, meaning you should do some research of your own to determine the veracity of their claims.

How many people would need to be in on the fraud to orchestrate a conspiracy involving 80+% of the world wide scientific community? And 97% of those in the field?And the comparison to the pre-election 2002 authorization vote on Iraq is not a very good analogy.

let's talk about the 80+% of the world wide scientific community, and the 97% in the field for a minute....I'd like to see the poll questions that these numbers come from...as we all know, how a poll question is framed can distort the picture. Here's how:Q1. do you agree that the average temperature of the earth is rising?

Q2. Do you agree that the significant change in temperature observed over the past 10 years is caused by CO2 emitted by man?

I would expect that the proportion of scientists that answer yes to Q1 would be much higher than answer yes to Q2. I think it's completely reasonable to expect 97% of meterologists to answer yes to Q1, I'm not sure the answer to Q2 is settled.

Here's a link to the article where those poll numbers come from.The two questions were:

Q1. Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels

Q2. Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

"About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second."

The 97% figure is not for meteorologists, who study relatively short-term phenomena, but for climatologists, who make this their life's work, in answering Q2.

So the answer is that the results are stronger and weaker than your hypothetical questions. They're stronger in that a super-majority of scientists are willing to move beyond simply saying that the temperatures are higher than normal. They're weaker in that they don't make a causal CO2/temperature claim.

thanks.

 

[Black Box]

moleculo doing the Lord's work in here.

Highly underrated poster, imo.

 

[moleculo]

Here is, I think, a good analogy for the whole "climate-gate" episode. This is very much akin to a criminal trial, where the defense discovers that the chain of evidence was not maintained by the investigating police department, and in fact, the evidence may have been tampered with. Maybe I watch noo many cop shows, but as far as I know, if the evidence may have been tampered with, it get's tossed out. Now, in no way does that mean the trial is over - there may be other evidence to consider, but at the very least, the lynch-pin evidence pointing towards global warming is compromised. Can you not even admit this much?

We can agree on that much.The salient point, of course, is the other evidence to consider. You can have your star witness or your key evidence discredited and still win the case when you have supporting evidence that is strong enough.And I've said at least 6 times in this thread that if the scientific community, who is best able to judge this, looks at what has been revealed and decides that the evidence no longer supports the hypothesis, I'm more than happy to change my view. I am not planting a flag in "Global Warming." I am planting a flag in "common wisdom of scientists."

given what we know now and given that there will be investigations into alleged wrong-doing, are you open to the possibility that at least some of the scientific community may change their mind? If the opinion of 97% of climatologists was based on compromised data, is it appropriate to consider the possibility that they may change their mind, pending an investigation? And if so, should costly legislation be passed before a thorough review is complete?That get's to my core point here - the science isn't settled, climate-gate is serving to illuminate the shortcomings that various whistle-blowers have been proclaiming for years. I think it's appropriate to hold off on any new legislation pending a thorough review which may take some time.

 

[Bonzai]

My point is that no matter how much me as a layman tries to, "dig into it" my understanding will never come close to the understanding necessary to have a truly educated opinion on the subject. Therefore I outsource my opinion of it to the people who spend time working in the field and studying the subject. And therefore I am happy to go with whatever the current scientific wisdom is.

So we should assume you do the same in other areas. Say, for instance, the war in Iraq? At the time, both Republicans and Democrats in office believed it was appropriate, so I'm sure you must have endorsed it at the time, seeing as the House and Senate were surely much more informed than you, right?The point moleculo and others are trying to get across is this: It's possible that those to whom you have outsourced your opinion are lying to you. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the case, but the possibility exists, meaning you should do some research of your own to determine the veracity of their claims.

Point 1: At the time of the discussion of the Iraq War, I discussed with friends the possibility that the White House really did possess some hot potato intelligence that we did not. And if that was the case then we were not the ones to criticize. After the fact, it's apparent that the White House did cook and exaggerate the intel to achieve the policy goal which they were after. So I guess the upshot is that at the time, I did support the war. Afterwards, when the common wisdom of the intelligence community had changed, I didn't. And in retrospective, it was wrong because the intel was cooked.(sub-point): We can cut the "both Republicans and Democrats" BS on the war intelligence. It was driven by the White House. It was controlled by the White House. It was only leaked what was deemed OK by the White House. It belonged to the White House.

Point 2: The point I keep making to moleculo is that I do not possess, and unless I am wildly off the mark on your qualifications, you and he do not possess, the qualifications to determine the veracity of the claims. The whole idea that any of us can do some independent research to prove or dis-prove for ourselves is just a canard. Hell, he has stated that he requires "conclusive" evidence. "Conclusive" evidence will never exist and can never exist. This is not an experimental science. Even if the temperature spiked 10 degrees Celsius, rendering the Earth virtually unsupportable for human life, no scientist worth their salt would retrospectively say, "Aha. This input is conclusively what did it." This whole science is educated guesswork. It just so happens that other people possess much more educated guesses than you or I could.

It's not like if someone is teaching French, which you've never learned, you bust into the classroom and say, "Ok. Stop the class. I'm going to prove this to myself. But I have to do it without relying upon anyone who knows anything about French, because they're all biased and self-interested." The whole concept is asinine.

And that's what it comes down to.

couple of points here.1. when I say I want conclusive evidence, i'm not trying to hold the science to some sort of unatainable uncertainty. Believe me, I am very well versed in making educated guesses based off of inexact science. my entire field of study is based on that, and it's what I do professionally and have done for over a decade with various companies. What i'm looking for is independantly verifiable claims, which may or may not exist. It's highly probable that the data is out there and hasn't been presented to me in a meaningful way; that's why I'm working to dig deeper into it.

When I say "conclusive", I mean "data we can draw conclusions from". Here is what I require to consider data conclusive:

....a. independently verifiable from the raw data

....b. a thorough explanation of how dissimilar data was synthesized

....c. at least a basic understanding of how the computer models work, including what assumptions were used.

....d. a discussion on all "fudge factors" used, and why these fudge factors are appropriate.

Basically, show your work. That's all I expect.

2. I do possess a masters degree in an unrelated scientific field. I am qualified to understand the science behind all of this. I do have a good grasp on computer modeling and simulation, thermodynamics, statistical tools used to interpret the data, etc. I also believe that leveraging someone elses interpretations on a given topic is intellectually lazy. Moreso, when I say I want to find more research, I'm not asking the french class to stop. They will continue doing what they do; all I want is to try to catch up with the class...that's all.

So in order to have an informed opinion on climate change, I have to drop everything and become a climatologist? That's ridiculous. I'm embarking on some type of religious leap of faith by not conducting the experiments myself? C'mon.

Here is, I think, a good analogy for the whole "climate-gate" episode. This is very much akin to a criminal trial, where the defense discovers that the chain of evidence was not maintained by the investigating police department, and in fact, the evidence may have been tampered with. Maybe I watch noo many cop shows, but as far as I know, if the evidence may have been tampered with, it get's tossed out. Now, in no way does that mean the trial is over - there may be other evidence to consider, but at the very least, the lynch-pin evidence pointing towards global warming is compromised. Can you not even admit this much?

I can't. There's just too much out there. There's hundreds of thousands of people in the world right now conducting research related to climate change. Plus, this frames the issue in a way that distorts science's role. The validity of the science isn't based upon how well it's able to influence public policy.

 

[jonessed]

moleculo doing the Lord's work in here.

Highly underrated poster, imo.

Unfortunately he has to get dinged because he's a Broncos fan.

 

[DrJ]

Point 2: The point I keep making to moleculo is that I do not possess, and unless I am wildly off the mark on your qualifications, you and he do not possess, the qualifications to determine the veracity of the claims. The whole idea that any of us can do some independent research to prove or dis-prove for ourselves is just a canard. Hell, he has stated that he requires "conclusive" evidence. "Conclusive" evidence will never exist and can never exist. This is not an experimental science. Even if the temperature spiked 10 degrees Celsius, rendering the Earth virtually unsupportable for human life, no scientist worth their salt would retrospectively say, "Aha. This input is conclusively what did it." This whole science is educated guesswork. It just so happens that other people possess much more educated guesses than you or I could.

It's especially difficult when you shut the people that do have these qualifications out of the raw data and then attempt to stifle and discredit them in every way possible. And this appears to be what is systematically being done here. Not just at CRU, but also at GISS. And where else?

 

[Sheriff Bart]

I blame black ice.

 

[StrikeS2k]

moleculo doing the Lord's work in here.

Highly underrated poster, imo.

Unfortunately he has to get dinged because he's a Broncos fan.

I consider that a plus.

 

[moleculo]

Plus, this frames the issue in a way that distorts science's role. The validity of the science is based upon how well it's able to influence public policy.

validity of science has nothing to do with public policy. Validity of science is demonstrated when it is independently verified and replicated.

 

[Bonzai]

Plus, this frames the issue in a way that distorts science's role. The validity of the science is based upon how well it's able to influence public policy.

validity of science has nothing to do with public policy. Validity of science is demonstrated when it is independently verified and replicated.

lol That's supposed to be "isn't".

 

[moleculo]

given what we know now and given that there will be investigations into alleged wrong-doing, are you open to the possibility that at least some of the scientific community may change their mind?

Absolutely. I would be 100% shocked if that number did not move down a little bit.

If the opinion of 97% of climatologists was based on compromised data, is it appropriate to consider the possibility that they may change their mind, pending an investigation? And if so, should costly legislation be passed before a thorough review is complete?That get's to my core point here - the science isn't settled, climate-gate is serving to illuminate the shortcomings that various whistle-blowers have been proclaiming for years. I think it's appropriate to hold off on any new legislation pending a thorough review which may take some time.

Here we're getting into the widespread influence of what has happened and the extent that this is the only source of climate data. If this one center was the only source of data that everybody was using, then sure. Hold off until the experts have a handle on what their current state of thinking should be. But if the overall effect of this is a wave in the ocean and the true consensus would not shift more than 3-5% no matter what the outcome would be, then I would say putting things on hold is little better than a stalling tactic. And the answer to that question I really don't know. Fair?

complete agreement. I don't know either. What I've been reading, however, is the the CRU data was widely used by other research centers, so it's possible that the compromised data may have compromised a good portion of our understanding. I don't know, and I'm really not sure anyone knows. IMO that is a key element of whatever review should be done.

 

[DrJ]

Here's some stuff from McIntyre's blog:

On the weekend, I notified Hansen and Ruedy of their Y2K error as follows:

Dear Sirs,

In your calculation of the GISS "raw" version of USHCN series, it appears to me that, for series after January 2000, you use the USHCN raw version whereas in the immediately prior period you used USHCN time-of-observation or adjusted version. In some cases, this introduces a seemingly unjustified step in January 2000.

I am unaware of any mention of this change in procedure in any published methodological descriptions and am puzzled as to its

rationale. Can you clarify this for me?

In addition, could you provide me with any documentation (additional to already published material) providing information on the

calculation of GISS raw and adjusted series from USHCN versions, including relevant source code.

Thank you for your attention,

Stephen McIntyre

Today I received the following response:

Dear Sir,

As to the question about documentation, the basic "GISS Surface Temperature Analysis" page starts with a "Background" section whose first paragraph contains the sentence: "Input data for the analysis ,…, is the unadjusted data of GHCN, except that the USHCN station records were replaced by a later corrected version". A similar statement appears in the "Abstract" and the "Introduction" section of our 2001 paper (JGR Vol 106, pg 23,947-23,948). The Introduction explains the above statement in more detail.

In 2000, USHCN provided us with a file with corrections not contained in the GHCN data. Unlike the GHCN data, that product is not kept current on a regular basis. Hence we used (as you noticed) the GHCN data to extend those data in our further updates (2000-present).

I agree with you that this simple procedure creates an artificial step if some new corrections were applied to the newest data, rather than bringing the older data in sync with the latest measurements – as I naively assumed. Comparing the 1999 data in both data sets showed that in about half the cases where the 1999 data were changed, the GHCN data were higher than the USHCN data and in the other half it was the other way round with the plus-corrections slightly outweighing the minus-corrections.

Although trying to eliminate those steps should have little impact on the US temperature trend (much less the global trend), it seems a good idea to do so and I'd like to thank you for bringing this oversight to our attention.

When we did our monthly update this morning, an offset based on the last 10 years of overlap in the two data sets was applied and our on-line documentation was changed correspondingly with an acknowledgment of your contribution. This change and its effect will be noted in our next paper on temperature analysis and in our end-of-year temperature summary.

The effect on global means and all our tables was less than 0.01 C. In the display most sensitive to that change – the US-graph of annual means – the anomalies decreased by about 0.15 C in the years 2000-2006.

Respectfully,

Reto A Ruedy

Well, my estimate of the impact on the US temperature series was about 0.18-0.19 deg C., a little bit more than Ruedy's 0.15 deg C. My estimate added a small negative offset going into 2000 to the positive offset of about 0.15-0.16 after 2000 – I suspect that Ruedy is not counting both parts, thereby slightly minimizing the impact. However, I think that you'll agree that my estimate of the impact of the impact was pretty good, given that I don't have access to their particular black box.

Needless to say, they were totally unresponsive to my request for source code. They shouldn't be surprised if they get an FOI request. I'll post some more after I chance to cross-check their reply.

As to the impact on NH and global data, I've noted long before this exchange that the non-US data in GHCN looks more problematic to me than the US data and it would be really nice if surfacestations.org starting getting some international feedback. Ruedy's reply was copied to Hansen and to Gavin Schmidt. I'm not sure what business it is of Gavin's other than his "private capacity" involvement in a prominent blog.

Hmmmm....Gavin Schmidt again?

 

[Anthony Borbely]

What I've been reading, however, is the the CRU data was widely used by other research centers, so it's possible that the compromised data may have compromised a good portion of our understanding. I don't know, and I'm really not sure anyone knows. IMO that is a key element of whatever review should be done.

Is the CRU data the only data out there? I thought I read that NASA and someone else had their own raw data independent of the compromised data. Sorry if it is in this thread somewhere and was missed by me. Thanks.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Here's some stuff from McIntyre's blog:

On the weekend, I notified Hansen and Ruedy of their Y2K error as follows:

Dear Sirs,

In your calculation of the GISS "raw" version of USHCN series, it appears to me that, for series after January 2000, you use the USHCN raw version whereas in the immediately prior period you used USHCN time-of-observation or adjusted version. In some cases, this introduces a seemingly unjustified step in January 2000.

I am unaware of any mention of this change in procedure in any published methodological descriptions and am puzzled as to its

rationale. Can you clarify this for me?

In addition, could you provide me with any documentation (additional to already published material) providing information on the

calculation of GISS raw and adjusted series from USHCN versions, including relevant source code.

Thank you for your attention,

Stephen McIntyre

Today I received the following response:

Dear Sir,

As to the question about documentation, the basic "GISS Surface Temperature Analysis" page starts with a "Background" section whose first paragraph contains the sentence: "Input data for the analysis ,…, is the unadjusted data of GHCN, except that the USHCN station records were replaced by a later corrected version". A similar statement appears in the "Abstract" and the "Introduction" section of our 2001 paper (JGR Vol 106, pg 23,947-23,948). The Introduction explains the above statement in more detail.

In 2000, USHCN provided us with a file with corrections not contained in the GHCN data. Unlike the GHCN data, that product is not kept current on a regular basis. Hence we used (as you noticed) the GHCN data to extend those data in our further updates (2000-present).

I agree with you that this simple procedure creates an artificial step if some new corrections were applied to the newest data, rather than bringing the older data in sync with the latest measurements – as I naively assumed. Comparing the 1999 data in both data sets showed that in about half the cases where the 1999 data were changed, the GHCN data were higher than the USHCN data and in the other half it was the other way round with the plus-corrections slightly outweighing the minus-corrections.

Although trying to eliminate those steps should have little impact on the US temperature trend (much less the global trend), it seems a good idea to do so and I'd like to thank you for bringing this oversight to our attention.

When we did our monthly update this morning, an offset based on the last 10 years of overlap in the two data sets was applied and our on-line documentation was changed correspondingly with an acknowledgment of your contribution. This change and its effect will be noted in our next paper on temperature analysis and in our end-of-year temperature summary.

The effect on global means and all our tables was less than 0.01 C. In the display most sensitive to that change – the US-graph of annual means – the anomalies decreased by about 0.15 C in the years 2000-2006.

Respectfully,

Reto A Ruedy

Well, my estimate of the impact on the US temperature series was about 0.18-0.19 deg C., a little bit more than Ruedy's 0.15 deg C. My estimate added a small negative offset going into 2000 to the positive offset of about 0.15-0.16 after 2000 – I suspect that Ruedy is not counting both parts, thereby slightly minimizing the impact. However, I think that you'll agree that my estimate of the impact of the impact was pretty good, given that I don't have access to their particular black box.

Needless to say, they were totally unresponsive to my request for source code. They shouldn't be surprised if they get an FOI request. I'll post some more after I chance to cross-check their reply.

As to the impact on NH and global data, I've noted long before this exchange that the non-US data in GHCN looks more problematic to me than the US data and it would be really nice if surfacestations.org starting getting some international feedback. Ruedy's reply was copied to Hansen and to Gavin Schmidt. I'm not sure what business it is of Gavin's other than his "private capacity" involvement in a prominent blog.

Hmmmm....Gavin Schmidt again?

I find it ironic that one wildly overstated global threat is impacting the impression of another wildly overstated global threat

 

[DrJ]

What I've been reading, however, is the the CRU data was widely used by other research centers, so it's possible that the compromised data may have compromised a good portion of our understanding. I don't know, and I'm really not sure anyone knows. IMO that is a key element of whatever review should be done.

Is the CRU data the only data out there? I thought I read that NASA and someone else had their own raw data independent of the compromised data. Sorry if it is in this thread somewhere and was missed by me. Thanks.

GISS = NASA. This is Jim Hansen and the like that adjusted their numbers earlier in the year because of McIntyre and refuses to release their source code.

 

[tommyboy]

obviously the biggest problem is how can we get rid of these ####### skeptics like this ####### McIntyre.

 

[tommyboy]

if you spent the last 10 years of your life swallowing the candy that everyone from your teachers, to the news media, to television, books, movies, blah blah blah gave you about the death march of Global Warming zombieland coming to get you, this scandal has to just shuke you. You either just ignore it like it doesn't exist (see US major media) or try to minimize by saying things like "yeah, but" and then pointing out that there's lots of other evidence for you. All the while missing the elephant in the room.

 

[saintfool]

What I've been reading, however, is the the CRU data was widely used by other research centers, so it's possible that the compromised data may have compromised a good portion of our understanding. I don't know, and I'm really not sure anyone knows. IMO that is a key element of whatever review should be done.

Is the CRU data the only data out there? I thought I read that NASA and someone else had their own raw data independent of the compromised data. Sorry if it is in this thread somewhere and was missed by me. Thanks.

From Slate's "The Explainer" column...

How Important Is the East Anglia Climate Data Set? Let's say it's irredeemably corrupt. What would that mean for our understanding of climate change?

The focus of the e-mail hacking incident commonly known as "climategate" has shifted to whether scientists at East Anglia's Climate Research Unit threw away raw temperature data. A Sunday Times piece on the alleged information-dumping notes that CRU is "the world's leading centre for reconstructing past climate" and that the material in question "was used to build the databases … showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years." How vital to climate change hypotheses is the CRU data set?

It's important, but hardly a sine qua non. Three organizations assemble global temperature data sets, which researchers then use to identify long-term trends: CRU, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (The Japan Meteorological Agency also conducts similar work.) There are subtle differences among the sets, but they all point to the same general conclusion—that the earth has warmed by about 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century and a half.

The question of whether CRU dumped "raw" data is a little deceptive, because CRU, NASA, and NOAA don't put together first-order temperature measurements—that's up to various national meteorological services, which rely on satellites as well as thermometer readings on land and at sea. The National Weather Service in the United States, and equivalent organizations abroad, then sort through the numbers and clean them up. This cleanup operation is, in part, a form of proofreading, like if station agents in Siberia report a temperature of 102, they probably meant 10.2. It's also a "homogenizing" process that tries to account for the many variables that affect temperature over time—like when a population boom in a formerly rural area leads to an "urban heat island." A national weather service might adjust the data so that urbanization isn't mistaken for an increase in global temperatures. Much of these data are then stored at the Global Historical Climatology Network's database.

East Anglia's research unit uses a subset of this very large pool of information, while NASA and NOAA take slightly different pieces of it. NASA, for example, relies on data that are in the public domain. CRU takes the public numbers but also integrates more fine-grained data, which are sometimes governed by nondisclosure agreements. Each group then uses its chosen subset to create estimates of how global temperatures have changed over time and how they may change in the future.

The three groups account for data limitations in different ways. For example, each must deal with the fact that there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic Ocean—making it difficult to get accurate readings. NASA's approach is to extrapolate temperatures from the nearest land-based stations, like those in Greenland. The much-maligned CRU doesn't "fill in" the Arctic Ocean in this way, which makes it seem as though the Arctic is warming at the same rate as the global mean. As a result, the CRU approach suggests there's been less warming over the last 10 years than does NASA's—something climate skeptics rallied around before they decided the set was tainted.

 

[jonessed]

What I've been reading, however, is the the CRU data was widely used by other research centers, so it's possible that the compromised data may have compromised a good portion of our understanding. I don't know, and I'm really not sure anyone knows. IMO that is a key element of whatever review should be done.

Is the CRU data the only data out there? I thought I read that NASA and someone else had their own raw data independent of the compromised data. Sorry if it is in this thread somewhere and was missed by me. Thanks.

GISS = NASA. This is Jim Hansen and the like that adjusted their numbers earlier in the year because of McIntyre and refuses to release their source code.

The data and source code for these models should be public anyway. We all pay for it and there are no national security interests to protect here. There really is no reason they shouldn't be making this available to other scientists.

 

[P Boy]

if you spent the last 10 years of your life swallowing the candy that everyone from your teachers, to the news media, to television, books, movies, blah blah blah gave you about the death march of Global Warming zombieland coming to get you, this scandal has to just shuke you. You either just ignore it like it doesn't exist (see US major media) or try to minimize by saying things like "yeah, but" and then pointing out that there's lots of other evidence for you. All the while missing the elephant in the room.

The downright amusing part is the "AHA's" when skeptics' research is funded by oil companies or the like, but there is absolutely no criticism or skepticism of the funding when it is government grants going directly into AGW proponent's pockets (and there are billions of dollars on this side) - talk about motivating one to come to the "correct" conclusions. The AGWers are lining their pockets on this false dilemma - no wonder why they refuse to acknowledge adversarial facts and opinions, and create false conclusions. It's their livelihood.

 

[rascal]

What is the status of the cap and trade bill in the senate?

 

[jonessed]

What is the status of the cap and trade bill in the senate?

It won't be brought up until next year. I think this pretty much kills it though.On a side note Boxer being more concerned about the whistleblower than the actualy content of the emails everyone is investigating is pretty funny. It's her bill, but I think there is a point where you have to make at least a vague attempt at partiality. There's the typical Washington partisanship and then there's complete and total Pelosi style blinders.

 

[jon_mx]

NASA may be America's CRU

An American researcher who has waged a legal battle against the National Aeronatics and Space Administration (NASA) for two years has escalated his battle and openly accused NASA of the same kind of shenanigans of which the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) stands accused. And he might have some little-noticed evidence that would make that accusation all the more credible.

Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has had a request pending under the US Freedom of Information Act for two years, asking NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to release its raw climate data and explain why NASA has been repeatedly compelled to acknowledge errors, either in the data or its treatment of them, involving periods of time as far back as 1934. Horner has now threatened to sue NASA if they do not comply.

The Washington Times cited this instructive example: NASA cannot seem to make up its mind whether 1934 or 1998 or 2006 is the hottest year on record in the contiguous 48 States.

The Times quotes Mark Hess, the Goddard Center's public-affairs director, as saying that the Center is working on Horner's request. Hess did not elaborate on why the request should take two years to fulfill.

Horner gave an interview to The Washington Times, cited also by Fox News. However, Horner also made a guest post to Anthony Watts' blog, WattsUpWithThat. In that post, he began by discussing what he called a glaring omission from the CRU Archive: any reference, or any hint of anguish, over the loss of large quantities of raw data dating back to the 1980s, consistent with Phil Jones' declaration in August of this year that that data had been lost in transit to their new headquarters. He concluded from this that the CRU data were never destroyed, but simply remain hidden.

To the contrary, we have numerous emails from Jones explaining how turning over the raw data is one option, but he’d much rather destroy it than let the intrepid start pawing over it which could only lead, as he admits in one email, to figuring out what CRU et al did to said raw data in order to come up with their alarming claims.

So there is a reasonable conclusion, and it is not that the data was lost or destroyed twenty years ago.

Horner then suggested a connection between CRU and NASA:

But who knows, maybe Jones wrote James Hansen at NASA, or Gavin Schmidt – for so long a taxpayer-funded activist for Environmental Media Services’ RealClimate.blog and now implicated as a major player in these emails (Capo number 6 according to this analysis). Those should turn up when the courts help NASA figure out how to come into compliance with their legal obligations and provide me similar data and correspondence that they have been, similarly and by chance, refusing me for over two years.

The analysis to which Horner refers, the one referring to Gavin Schmidt as a "major player," is a network analysis provided by Daniel Katz and Michael J. Bommarito II at Computational Legal Studies. These two men used the e-mails as a database and drew a vast network of connections based on frequency of mention as From, To, or (Blind) Carbon Copy. They then prepared a dynamic analysis, showing the state of the network over the period covered in the archive, in the form of a video embedded below:

This remarkable analysis also included hub-and-authority scores (per the Hyperlink-Induced Topic Search, or HITS, Algorithm) for the most frequently mentioned locations and persons. As expected, Phil Jones is rated as the highest authority in the network. But the top ten authorities include six Americans. Gavin Schmidt, as Horner said, is the sixth-ranked authority. He is also an official associated with the GISS Laboratory. In fact he is the second-ranking American in the network, after Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona. (Interestingly, Michael E. Mann, the only other figure to come under investigation thus far, is the tenth-ranked person overall in the network.)

James Hansen is not in the top ten, but he does figure in twenty-five of the e-mails and is therefore part of the network. Today James Hansen reiterated to the London Times a remarkable declaration he made earlier in the week: that next week's United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen would be "a farce," that he would not attend, that he actually hopes that it will fail, and that any emissions-trading system, or "cap-and-trade plan," would never work to his satisfaction anyway. He prefers a system of draconian taxes on fossil fuels in order to make them economically unviable.

 

[Bonzai]

More liberal brainwashing in the link above if you're interested.

 

[rascal]

Meanwhile on the front page of MSNBC is an article about how global warming has impacted russian herders.

Wow.

 

[bueno]

an interesting take here:

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change

PM guest analyst Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, explains what stolen e-mails from climate scientists corresponding with East Anglia University tell us about global warming—and what they don't.

By Peter Kelemen

His logic about it not being a house of cards but a deck of 52 cards all face up is completely flawed. Each card does not prove global warming, but relies on all the other cards. In this particular case, CRU is THE sole source for global ground-based thermometer data and also incorporating ocean data. That is a vital card to this whole debate. The other 51 cards would represent the study of CO2 in the atmosphere, the satellite data, study of ice cores, study of glaciers, study of sea levels, etc. The vast majority of it is very solid science. But the idea that a lynch pin to this theory such as the data for global surface temps can be fatally flawed and does not seriously impact the theory of global warming is stupid. Yes stupid. I have a BS degree too in a non-related field just like this guy. The thermometer data has always shown a larger increase in temps than the other data sets (balloon data, satellite data, ocean data), and is usually used as a justification to adjust the other data sets higher. The whole theory of global warming is that an x amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an x amount of increase in global temperatures. If the amount of temperature increase is now in question, how can that not fatally impact the theory? It must.

The theory is fatally impacted. It is not like we hve 52 crds all turned face up. The CRU card is the critical piece. What do you correlate satellite data against? The CRU data. Ditto for many of the other indirect forms of measurement. If the CRU data is corrupt all data that are correlated against CRU data are also corrupt. The program failed as a predictie tool. A new model needs to be built. We are at start-over, and it will take man-decades of work to rebuild.

 

[bueno]

Here is, I think, a good analogy for the whole "climate-gate" episode. This is very much akin to a criminal trial, where the defense discovers that the chain of evidence was not maintained by the investigating police department, and in fact, the evidence may have been tampered with. Maybe I watch noo many cop shows, but as far as I know, if the evidence may have been tampered with, it get's tossed out. Now, in no way does that mean the trial is over - there may be other evidence to consider, but at the very least, the lynch-pin evidence pointing towards global warming is compromised. Can you not even admit this much?

We can agree on that much.The salient point, of course, is the other evidence to consider. You can have your star witness or your key evidence discredited and still win the case when you have supporting evidence that is strong enough.And I've said at least 6 times in this thread that if the scientific community, who is best able to judge this, looks at what has been revealed and decides that the evidence no longer supports the hypothesis, I'm more than happy to change my view. I am not planting a flag in "Global Warming." I am planting a flag in "common wisdom of scientists."

I htink such a large number of scientists believe in AGW because a larg number of scientists believe that other scientists are basically honest. It reminds of of some of the old demonstrations by The Amazing Randi, whichproved how easy it is to fool scientists, simply because they believed that the process was an honest one.

 

[bueno]

given what we know now and given that there will be investigations into alleged wrong-doing, are you open to the possibility that at least some of the scientific community may change their mind?

Absolutely. I would be 100% shocked if that number did not move down a little bit.

If the opinion of 97% of climatologists was based on compromised data, is it appropriate to consider the possibility that they may change their mind, pending an investigation? And if so, should costly legislation be passed before a thorough review is complete?That get's to my core point here - the science isn't settled, climate-gate is serving to illuminate the shortcomings that various whistle-blowers have been proclaiming for years. I think it's appropriate to hold off on any new legislation pending a thorough review which may take some time.

Here we're getting into the widespread influence of what has happened and the extent that this is the only source of climate data. If this one center was the only source of data that everybody was using, then sure. Hold off until the experts have a handle on what their current state of thinking should be. But if the overall effect of this is a wave in the ocean and the true consensus would not shift more than 3-5% no matter what the outcome would be, then I would say putting things on hold is little better than a stalling tactic. And the answer to that question I really don't know. Fair?

complete agreement. I don't know either. What I've been reading, however, is the the CRU data was widely used by other research centers, so it's possible that the compromised data may have compromised a good portion of our understanding. I don't know, and I'm really not sure anyone knows. IMO that is a key element of whatever review should be done.

An example of this is using satellite imagery - how do you correlate infrared radiation to ground temperature? You use the CRU data to do so. And of course that data in itself has to be normalized to take into account changing weather conditions. If the CRU programing is bad and the data compromised anyway, a lot of supporting research goes the way of the dinosaur.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Britain's Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, acknowledged Friday that the revelations may have an impact on the talks in Denmark. But he dismissed as "flat Earth-ers" critics who claim the e-mails are proof the case for man-made climate change is exaggerated.

Nice.

 

[tommyboy]

then there's that pesky medieval warm period. We need to get rid of that ####, and fast.

 

[Phurfur]

"Back off, man. I'm a scientist"

 

[tommyboy]

sad, but true.

On the Horn with the Warming All-Stars [stephen Spruiell]

I joined a conference call today, hosted by the Center for American Progress (CAP), featuring Penn State’s Michael Mann, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, and Princeton’s Michael Oppenheimer. CAP advertised the call as “setting the record straight” on this whole Climategate nonsense. Here are my notes from the call:

1. A tense-sounding Joe Romm, CAP’s global-warming head honcho, opens by reading from Nature’s editorial on Climategate: “‘Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real,’” Romm says, “‘or that human activities are almost certainly the cause.’” Romm argues that Climategate is a smear campaign based on a “misrepresentation of some illegally hacked e-mails.”

2. Mann also argues that Climategate is a smear campaign orchestrated by “a handful of people and organizations that have tried to cloud the debate.” Mann accused these individuals and groups of having no interest in “contributing to the scientific discourse,” because the science isn’t on their side. Instead, they’ve stolen e-mails, mined them for certain key phrases, and then taken those phrases out of context in order to foment public confusion. Schmidt and Oppenheimer make similar points.

3. The first question comes from Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. “You guys have worked really hard to keep yourself separate from the political process,” Revkin says, and yet CAP has a specific political agenda. Why do this call through CAP? Mann replies that the conference call was CAP’s idea, and that he agreed to it because CAP is “a wonderful venue for us to get out what the science has to say and to address these specious allegations.”

4. The second question is not about the leaked e-mails, and then it’s my turn. I ask Mann about the e-mail in which he wrote, “We have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal.” Mann replies, “It’s important to understand what peer review actually is. It’s not a license for anybody to publish in the scientific literature an article that doesn’t meet the high standards of scientific quality expected from the scientific literature.” With regard to Climate Research, Mann says, “There was an editor that appeared to be gaming the system to allow through papers that did not meet the standards of science simply because they expressed a contrarian viewpoint.”

5. I ask a follow-up about the e-mail in which Tom Wigley recommended that the group get the editor of another journal ousted. Schmidt fields this one. Again, he says, the problem was not that the journal in question published skeptical articles; it’s that the articles in question did not meet the “high standards” of the climate-science community. There were “frustrations with the fact that the peer-review process, which is supposed to screen out papers that do meet those standards, had failed here,” Schmidt says. But he hurriedly adds that the editor in question “was not pressured to resign.” The tactic recommended by Wigley “was not pursued#...#the guy did his full rotation as editor then rotated off.”

6. Another reporter asks Mann about reports that Penn State has opened an investigation into Climategate. He also asks about an e-mail that CRU’s Phil Jones wrote to Mann, requesting that Mann delete certain e-mails. Mann replies, “There is no investigation. Penn State is simply reviewing the evidence out there to determine if there is any reason for an investigation.” He adds that he welcomes the scrutiny. “I have nothing to hide, I did nothing wrong.” As for the e-mail evidence that he and Jones might have deleted information subject to FOIA, Mann says, “Frankly, the sending of that e-mail demonstrated unfortunate judgment on the part of that scientist,” and, “to my knowledge, nobody acted on it,” and, “I did not delete any e-mails and I felt uncomfortable receiving that request.”

7. Neil Munro of National Journal asks if the group would be willing to invite a group of outsiders to examine the data that the e-mails suggest was manipulated to “hide the decline.” Schmidt replies that the CRU database is “not the only database out there,” and that the differences between its data and those of organizations like NASA, etc., are “completely minimal.” Schmidt says, “Maybe it’s important that [CRU has] some of the older data, but any of the changes over the 20th century are available.”

8. Some themes throughout the call: A) The people making a big deal out of Climategate are smear artists who don’t have the science on their side. Despite having admitted that the e-mails demonstrate at least one instance of “unfortunate judgment,” Mann reiterates that the skeptics are “twisting the words of scientists in their private correspondence.” B) The e-mails do not disprove the theory of anthropogenic global warming or that it poses a massive threat that must be addressed by sharply reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. C) Despite Revkin’s assertion that these guys have “worked really hard” to steer clear of politics, the scientists repeatedly talk about the importance of their relationship with policymakers, which necessarily involves politics. D) Of course, they can’t stress enough that the e-mails in question were illegally obtained.

9. Schmidt ends the call by saying that the storm cloud of Climategate might have a silver lining: “Once all the gotcha stuff is worn out and the context has been established . . . there will be a record when you actually look at these e-mails of how science is actually done.” Hmm. If you say so . . .

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/...jRmMDlkNDI0OTE=

 

[P Boy]

Again, he says, the problem was not that the journal in question published skeptical articles; it’s that the articles in question did not meet the “high standards” of the climate-science community.

Now THAT took balls...

 

[Mark Wimer]

3. If we can show evidence that we increased emissions, would that be sufficient, since it would imply the opposite is possible?

For me, the answer to this is no, because I'm not convinced that the United States can do anything unilaterally that is effective. For example, China and India, the two fastest developing econoimies in the world, have both refused to sign Kyoto and/or to agree to any climate change restrictions on their way of doing business. Even if everything the climate change people tell us is true, this likely means that nothing we do on our own will have any effect. Why then, should we bother to punish our own economy? As has been pointed out several times before, the long term solution to all this is to convert to new energy sources. This is the point where most conservatives and liberals agree, and we ought to get on it.

I agree with everything that timsochet wrote up to the point I clipped the quote. The Obama stuff is way too premature - but there is little doubt that unless China and India sign onto any proposed treaty (and IF they would actually enforce the provisions therein, a separate conundrum entirely), the US can do little uni-laterally to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, we have very little of the world's manufacturing base here in the U.S.A. - we've outsourced the pollution to the developing economies of the world. But the outsourcing of pollution due to our EPA and state EPA regulations isn't really on point here. The reality is that textiles, steel, and, increasingly, auto manufacturing (despite the "bail out" of Detroit by the powers-that-be in Washington) are all based in foreign countries, now. The U.S. is not the big, dirty polluter we were 35 years ago.

We don't have the manufacturing base to be a big, dirty polluter anymore.

Sadly, for all the unemployed Americans wondering where their jobs have gone.

 

[Tex Goldstein]

3. If we can show evidence that we increased emissions, would that be sufficient, since it would imply the opposite is possible?

For me, the answer to this is no, because I'm not convinced that the United States can do anything unilaterally that is effective. For example, China and India, the two fastest developing econoimies in the world, have both refused to sign Kyoto and/or to agree to any climate change restrictions on their way of doing business. Even if everything the climate change people tell us is true, this likely means that nothing we do on our own will have any effect. Why then, should we bother to punish our own economy? As has been pointed out several times before, the long term solution to all this is to convert to new energy sources. This is the point where most conservatives and liberals agree, and we ought to get on it.

I agree with everything that timsochet wrote up to the point I clipped the quote. The Obama stuff is way too premature - but there is little doubt that unless China and India sign onto any proposed treaty (and IF they would actually enforce the provisions therein, a separate conundrum entirely), the US can do little uni-laterally to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, we have very little of the world's manufacturing base here in the U.S.A. - we've outsourced the pollution to the developing economies of the world. But the outsourcing of pollution due to our EPA and state EPA regulations isn't really on point here. The reality is that textiles, steel, and, increasingly, auto manufacturing (despite the "bail out" of Detroit by the powers-that-be in Washington) are all based in foreign countries, now. The U.S. is not the big, dirty polluter we were 35 years ago.

We don't have the manufacturing base to be a big, dirty polluter anymore.

Sadly, for all the unemployed Americans wondering where their jobs have gone.

go to your closet. Pick 10 shirts and look at the tags. How many say "Made in the U.S.A."?