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

[Bonzai]

I'll put you on the list.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Maybe the "experts" he references haven't fudged the data to reach their conclusions.

Like picking the one year spike in 1998 as the starting point to show a decade of cooling? Like picking a specific out of the way temperature monitoring station where the general approach doesn't work to well? Like the expert that is complaining that he his not being responded to because when he pointed out an error in the reporting of a set of data that the error was quickly acknowledged, noted, corrected, and his input was politely acknowledged and thanked? The experts that keep saying "I don't know what, why, how, etc so the scientists must have done something wrong"? The experts that want to challenge science with endless accusations and nonsensical challenges and not actual science?

 

[tommyboy]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-...at-darwin-zero/

article calls into question methodology for determining last 150 year temps by GHCN, CRU and NASA. a bit technical but quite interesting.

this is a good article. I'd like to hear it refuted. This gets at the heart of why examining the raw data and the algorithms must necessarily be open for review. It goes deeper though...if Dr. A fudged the data as this article claims to show a warming trend, and that data is shared with Dr. B who creates a computer model to simulate the earth, Dr. B will use that data to calibrate and test his model. When his model responds per the data from Dr. A, he believes his model is accurate. in this manner, Dr. B's model is corrupt through no fault of his own.

The article hand picks a monitoring station where the published methodology doesn't really work that well (5 neighboring locations are not all that close) to try to call into question that methodology for all other stations. Again, if this guy wants to practice science then repeat the exercise he does in the beginning of the article on the data with the a few thousand other records and build his own better global dataset.

i guess I didn't read it that way, even though the title is one of those 'gotcha' eyegrabbers. He made it clear he was talking about one station only. I thought it was interesting, it makes me wonder if there's more of this type of data assumption embedded in the numbers and it shows you how difficult it must be to compile 100's of years worth of data accurately. That's what I took from the article

 

[the moops]

How come you only have respect for "experts" when they're supporting your position?

Maybe the "experts" he references haven't fudged the data to reach their conclusions.

And he would know this how?

 

[DrJ]

Like the expert that is complaining that he his not being responded to because when he pointed out an error in the reporting of a set of data that the error was quickly acknowledged, noted, corrected, and his input was politely acknowledged and thanked? The experts that keep saying "I don't know what, why, how, etc so the scientists must have done something wrong"? The experts that want to challenge science with endless accusations and nonsensical challenges and not actual science?

There's a lot more that he's not being responded to on. Like Mann's work, which he'll gladly turn over complete with source code to CRU while telling them to keep it secret, but tell McIntyre to f off. He has a blog - www.climateaudit.org. It seems there's more stuff up there daily about how they are fudging these numbers. The latest one today:

Readers yesterday observed the irony that the caption on Al Gore’s graphic was inverted with negative values at the top (something that was corrected in the book version.) I observed that I had examined Thompson’s ice core results and had been unable to identify any Thompson versions that corresponded to the Thompson graphic. It turns out that the Gore Hockey Stick has not derived from Thompson data at all; what it represents is a splicing of the MBH99 reconstruction (taken to 10-year averages) and a version of the CRU temperature history overlaid directly and merged with the MBH99 reconstruction. Thus the confirmation of MBH99 is ironically MBH99 itself.

MBH99 was the stuff that he couldn't get Mann to give him the residuals and source code on. This guy is clearly an expert on this as noted by his findings of the GISS issues. And he's finding more and more stuff about how these guys are misrepresenting and fudging this stuff almost every day it seems. While these guys at GISS and CRU try to paint him up as an unreasonable nuisance.Here's what he says on his conversations with Thompson about this:

On January 11, Lonnie Thompson gave a talk on Climate change at Ohio State. After his talk, I asked him if the graph identified by Al Gore as “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” in his book and film was really based on his ice core research.

Thompson admitted that an error had been made, and even had a slide ready that showed the data of the Mann Hockey Stick plus Jones instrumental data that Gore’s figure was based on, alongside an average of dO18 z-scores from 6 of his Andean and Himalayan ice cores, similar to the 7-series graph that appeared in his 2006 PNAS article. He stated that he recognized the error right away, and even sent Gore (and Mann, as I recall) an e-mail pointing out the mistake.

When I pressed him if it wouldn’t be appropriate to make a more public announcement, given the high-profile nature of the error, Ellen Mosley-Thompson, his wife and co-author, stood up and offered that it was Gore’s error, not theirs, so that they had no responsibility for it, and that in any event there was no forum in which to make a correction.

I suggested that since OSU’s Byrd Polar Research Center has a website with a News page, it would be trivial and virtually costless to post a press release clarifying the matter for the millions of readers and viewers of Gore’s book and film who are not on Thompson’s e-mail list.

If someone from the skeptic side were misrepresenting their work they'd be quick to make that public. Getting them to defend themselves in climate gate is no problem at all. But misrepresent it in a way they feel helps their cause and that's just not their deal. There's no forum to correct that.

 

[jamny]

If the raw data is retrievable from these stations are efforts underway to do so to back up the claims before we move forward in the debate?

 

[Bonzai]

As usual, The Economist with a fair take.

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology...=most_commented

AS POLITICIANS, policy wonks, businessmen, NGO types, hacks and hangers-on converge in Copenhagen for the forthcoming climate conference, a row over a set of e-mails from a previously obscure part of Britain's University of East Anglia is becoming ever louder, if no more illuminating. Two weeks ago e-mails and other documents that had been leaked or hacked from the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were sent to various websites. Those with a longstanding opposition to action on climate change, from bloggers to members of the American Senate to the Saudi government, are touting the e-mails as a resource with which to derail the Copenhagen talks.

CRU's researchers use various techniques to reconstruct the temperatures of times past. Some of the reconstructions they have been party to have long been the subject of technical criticism, sometimes in peer-reviewed literature, more frequently on blogs, notably Climate Audit, an award-winning blog by Stephen McIntyre. The critics have made many attempts to get CRU to distribute the raw data and computer codes which its scientists work on. The e-mails and other documents read as though the researchers were obstructive in dealing with some of these requests, that some of the data they used were in poor shape, that they may have indulged in spin when presenting some results and that they really did not care for their critics.

The head of the CRU, Phil Jones, has stepped aside while the university undertakes an enquiry apparently centred on how the files got out and on how they relate to freedom of information requests. On Friday December 4th Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that the organisation would also hold some sort of an inquiry, perhaps looking at the scientific substance of the issues and the scientists' approach to the IPCC.

The IPCC bases its work on papers that have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In one e-mail Mr Jones talks of stopping a couple of papers that he holds in low esteem from being discussed in an IPCC report “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is”. This does not look good, though it is worth noting that at least one of those papers was, in fact, included in the report. Other e-mails talk of trying to get editors at specific journals removed.

That the e-mails and documents should be inspected in some sort of systematic way for evidence of poor practice or even chicanery is a fair next step. But it is ludicrous to think that climate science is a house of cards that will collapse if the e-mails were to discredit CRU's work.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It warms the surface and increases the amount of water vapour that the atmosphere can hold, which in turn warms things further. How much warming you get for a given amount of carbon dioxide is hard to say, because there are feedback processes involved, such as the making of clouds, and also other factors at work. It may be that this century's warming will be moderate, staying below 2ºC. It is quite possible, though, that unless something is done the warming will be greater, and there is a real risk that it could be a lot greater, perhaps 4ºC or more.

The inquiries into the “climategate” e-mails and files may find that some of the researchers fell short of the standards of their calling, or that some of the science in question does not stand up as well as its authors would wish. To think that all action on climate change should cease pending such inquiries, though, is foolish, cynical or both.

 

[DrJ]

As usual, The Economist with a fair take.

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology...=most_commented

AS POLITICIANS, policy wonks, businessmen, NGO types, hacks and hangers-on converge in Copenhagen for the forthcoming climate conference, a row over a set of e-mails from a previously obscure part of Britain's University of East Anglia is becoming ever louder, if no more illuminating. Two weeks ago e-mails and other documents that had been leaked or hacked from the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were sent to various websites. Those with a longstanding opposition to action on climate change, from bloggers to members of the American Senate to the Saudi government, are touting the e-mails as a resource with which to derail the Copenhagen talks.

CRU's researchers use various techniques to reconstruct the temperatures of times past. Some of the reconstructions they have been party to have long been the subject of technical criticism, sometimes in peer-reviewed literature, more frequently on blogs, notably Climate Audit, an award-winning blog by Stephen McIntyre. The critics have made many attempts to get CRU to distribute the raw data and computer codes which its scientists work on. The e-mails and other documents read as though the researchers were obstructive in dealing with some of these requests, that some of the data they used were in poor shape, that they may have indulged in spin when presenting some results and that they really did not care for their critics.

The head of the CRU, Phil Jones, has stepped aside while the university undertakes an enquiry apparently centred on how the files got out and on how they relate to freedom of information requests. On Friday December 4th Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that the organisation would also hold some sort of an inquiry, perhaps looking at the scientific substance of the issues and the scientists' approach to the IPCC.

The IPCC bases its work on papers that have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In one e-mail Mr Jones talks of stopping a couple of papers that he holds in low esteem from being discussed in an IPCC report “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is”. This does not look good, though it is worth noting that at least one of those papers was, in fact, included in the report. Other e-mails talk of trying to get editors at specific journals removed.

That the e-mails and documents should be inspected in some sort of systematic way for evidence of poor practice or even chicanery is a fair next step. But it is ludicrous to think that climate science is a house of cards that will collapse if the e-mails were to discredit CRU's work.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It warms the surface and increases the amount of water vapour that the atmosphere can hold, which in turn warms things further. How much warming you get for a given amount of carbon dioxide is hard to say, because there are feedback processes involved, such as the making of clouds, and also other factors at work. It may be that this century's warming will be moderate, staying below 2ºC. It is quite possible, though, that unless something is done the warming will be greater, and there is a real risk that it could be a lot greater, perhaps 4ºC or more.

The inquiries into the “climategate” e-mails and files may find that some of the researchers fell short of the standards of their calling, or that some of the science in question does not stand up as well as its authors would wish. To think that all action on climate change should cease pending such inquiries, though, is foolish, cynical or both.

Unfortunately it's not just the CRU being discredited here. GISS and Penn State (Mann) also took it on the chin over this thing since they're involved in these emails and obstruction of McIntyre. They're really not giving an accurate scope of this whole thing.Also, did you know that Penn State alone gets more than 760 million in grants for this research? Hmmm.... For that kind of money you'd think we'd have bought complete documentation of the person's work, but apparantly Mann will only turn this over to people at CRU so they can try and align their data to it. As much as you guys want to suggest otherwise, these aren't organizations working autonomous from each other.

 

[tommyboy]

i dont' think is near as big a story if it weren't for the inconvenient truth that the UN and a lot of other people want to reorganize the economies and governments of the world by law/regulation/tax.

You certainly have a looming problem, with or without global warming, in that there's only so many resources on the planet and we keep reproducing as a species and growing our numbers. 1000 years from now, imagine the resource problems at that time.

I'd be much happier of the UN and the gov'ts of the world stopped screaming about global warming and started planning for reduction of natural resource depletion. I'd like to see agreements signed on sustainable production, i'd like to see billions spent on energy research, i'd like to see more alternative energy solutions, i'd like to see China and India and other developing nations take this stuff seriously, which they don't at all.

We all have a moral obligation to be good stewards of our land, I dont' care what country you live in. but that won't stop overpopulation, greed, corruption, natural resource depletion etc...short of a plague or world war 3, this problem isn't going to go away in my lifetime

 

[Bonzai]

i dont' think is near as big a story if it weren't for the inconvenient truth that the UN and a lot of other people want to reorganize the economies and governments of the world by law/regulation/tax.You certainly have a looming problem, with or without global warming, in that there's only so many resources on the planet and we keep reproducing as a species and growing our numbers. 1000 years from now, imagine the resource problems at that time. I'd be much happier of the UN and the gov'ts of the world stopped screaming about global warming and started planning for reduction of natural resource depletion. I'd like to see agreements signed on sustainable production, i'd like to see billions spent on energy research, i'd like to see more alternative energy solutions, i'd like to see China and India and other developing nations take this stuff seriously, which they don't at all.We all have a moral obligation to be good stewards of our land, I dont' care what country you live in. but that won't stop overpopulation, greed, corruption, natural resource depletion etc...short of a plague or world war 3, this problem isn't going to go away in my lifetime

I've tried to keep my posts in this thread about the science and not the politics. I'll agree that the science of global warming shouldn't be used to force political change. But I think it's odd to hear people say that it shouldn't be considered in the equation at all. There are plenty of reasons why we should seek out alternative energy solutions. Climate change is one of them. As far as gov't getting serious about making changes, I think that a carbon tax is really the best way to do this. Innovation isn't best left in the hands of the gov't, but in the market, and the only way to get the market serious about energy innovation is to put restrictions on current energy practices. The end game of a carbon tax isn't restricting the amount of CO2 put in the air (we're not going to regulate our way out of this problem), it's about creating a market for energy solutions.And really, we should be glad that our biggest competitors aren't on board with alternative energy initiatives yet. That way we can develop the solutions ourselves and sell these solutions to them when they realize that the current energy practices have run their course.

 

[jonessed]

i dont' think is near as big a story if it weren't for the inconvenient truth that the UN and a lot of other people want to reorganize the economies and governments of the world by law/regulation/tax.

You certainly have a looming problem, with or without global warming, in that there's only so many resources on the planet and we keep reproducing as a species and growing our numbers. 1000 years from now, imagine the resource problems at that time.

I'd be much happier of the UN and the gov'ts of the world stopped screaming about global warming and started planning for reduction of natural resource depletion. I'd like to see agreements signed on sustainable production, i'd like to see billions spent on energy research, i'd like to see more alternative energy solutions, i'd like to see China and India and other developing nations take this stuff seriously, which they don't at all.

We all have a moral obligation to be good stewards of our land, I dont' care what country you live in. but that won't stop overpopulation, greed, corruption, natural resource depletion etc...short of a plague or world war 3, this problem isn't going to go away in my lifetime

I've tried to keep my posts in this thread about the science and not the politics. I'll agree that the science of global warming shouldn't be used to force political change. But I think it's odd to hear people say that it shouldn't be considered in the equation at all. There are plenty of reasons why we should seek out alternative energy solutions. Climate change is one of them. As far as gov't getting serious about making changes, I think that a carbon tax is really the best way to do this. Innovation isn't best left in the hands of the gov't, but in the market, and the only way to get the market serious about energy innovation is to put restrictions on current energy practices. The end game of a carbon tax isn't restricting the amount of CO2 put in the air (we're not going to regulate our way out of this problem), it's about creating a market for energy solutions.

And really, we should be glad that our biggest competitors aren't on board with alternative energy initiatives yet. That way we can develop the solutions ourselves and sell these solutions to them when they realize that the current energy practices have run their course.

China has massive coal reserves. They aren't going to windmill for some time.

 

[DrJ]

i dont' think is near as big a story if it weren't for the inconvenient truth that the UN and a lot of other people want to reorganize the economies and governments of the world by law/regulation/tax.You certainly have a looming problem, with or without global warming, in that there's only so many resources on the planet and we keep reproducing as a species and growing our numbers. 1000 years from now, imagine the resource problems at that time. I'd be much happier of the UN and the gov'ts of the world stopped screaming about global warming and started planning for reduction of natural resource depletion. I'd like to see agreements signed on sustainable production, i'd like to see billions spent on energy research, i'd like to see more alternative energy solutions, i'd like to see China and India and other developing nations take this stuff seriously, which they don't at all.We all have a moral obligation to be good stewards of our land, I dont' care what country you live in. but that won't stop overpopulation, greed, corruption, natural resource depletion etc...short of a plague or world war 3, this problem isn't going to go away in my lifetime

I've tried to keep my posts in this thread about the science and not the politics. I'll agree that the science of global warming shouldn't be used to force political change. But I think it's odd to hear people say that it shouldn't be considered in the equation at all. There are plenty of reasons why we should seek out alternative energy solutions. Climate change is one of them. As far as gov't getting serious about making changes, I think that a carbon tax is really the best way to do this. Innovation isn't best left in the hands of the gov't, but in the market, and the only way to get the market serious about energy innovation is to put restrictions on current energy practices. The end game of a carbon tax isn't restricting the amount of CO2 put in the air (we're not going to regulate our way out of this problem), it's about creating a market for energy solutions.And really, we should be glad that our biggest competitors aren't on board with alternative energy initiatives yet. That way we can develop the solutions ourselves and sell these solutions to them when they realize that the current energy practices have run their course.

There's certain things that require the ability to take massive losses in order to develop them though. I don't think the Internet, Satellite technology, Nuclear Energy, or many other things would the same as they are today without the government developing a good bit of the technology at massive losses to start.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

::As far as gov't getting serious about making changes, I think that a carbon tax is really the best way to do this. Innovation isn't best left in the hands of the gov't, but in the market, and the only way to get the market serious about energy innovation is to put restrictions on current energy practices. The end game of a carbon tax isn't restricting the amount of CO2 put in the air (we're not going to regulate our way out of this problem), it's about creating a market for energy solutions.And really, we should be glad that our biggest competitors aren't on board with alternative energy initiatives yet. That way we can develop the solutions ourselves and sell these solutions to them when they realize that the current energy practices have run their course.

You see this is always my point. I don't care about Global Warming because it is only one of the problems. We keep allowing the big picture to get picked apart via the same kind of "divide and conquer" approach that the entire "ClimateGate" nonsense revolves around. However, I totally disagree that China, and India, and the rest of our international competition "aren't on board with alternative energy initiatives". That is because there are two different things involved. One is caring about their own greenhouse gas footprint as their industrial might explodes. The other is being the nation that is out front when these "alternative energies" take off. Conservative are correct that the international economic framework is going to be redone by all of this, but that is going to happen one way or another. We can either sit back an idly shout at the wind that this is all one grand conspiracy out to destroy our way of living. Or, we can see this as the next great opportunity. Our problem is that short sighted policies put us thirty years behind. We are a great nation, we can make up that difference. But not by focusing our energies on trying to "debate" science with rhetoric. Making our carbon based energy more expensive so other forms of energy can grow compete is not a bad thing.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

::As far as gov't getting serious about making changes, I think that a carbon tax is really the best way to do this. Innovation isn't best left in the hands of the gov't, but in the market, and the only way to get the market serious about energy innovation is to put restrictions on current energy practices. The end game of a carbon tax isn't restricting the amount of CO2 put in the air (we're not going to regulate our way out of this problem), it's about creating a market for energy solutions.And really, we should be glad that our biggest competitors aren't on board with alternative energy initiatives yet. That way we can develop the solutions ourselves and sell these solutions to them when they realize that the current energy practices have run their course.

You see this is always my point. I don't care about Global Warming because it is only one of the problems. We keep allowing the big picture to get picked apart via the same kind of "divide and conquer" approach that the entire "ClimateGate" nonsense revolves around. However, I totally disagree that China, and India, and the rest of our international competition "aren't on board with alternative energy initiatives". That is because there are two different things involved. One is caring about their own greenhouse gas footprint as their industrial might explodes. The other is being the nation that is out front when these "alternative energies" take off. Conservative are correct that the international economic framework is going to be redone by all of this, but that is going to happen one way or another. We can either sit back an idly shout at the wind that this is all one grand conspiracy out to destroy our way of living. Or, we can see this as the next great opportunity. Our problem is that short sighted policies put us thirty years behind. We are a great nation, we can make up that difference. But not by focusing our energies on trying to "debate" science with rhetoric. Making our carbon based energy more expensive so other forms of energy can grow compete is not a bad thing.

I agree with taking initiative and getting out in front of alternative energy technologies.Cap and Trade, however, is not the tool for that.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

China has massive coal reserves. They aren't going to windmill for some time.

Really?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

::As far as gov't getting serious about making changes, I think that a carbon tax is really the best way to do this. Innovation isn't best left in the hands of the gov't, but in the market, and the only way to get the market serious about energy innovation is to put restrictions on current energy practices. The end game of a carbon tax isn't restricting the amount of CO2 put in the air (we're not going to regulate our way out of this problem), it's about creating a market for energy solutions.And really, we should be glad that our biggest competitors aren't on board with alternative energy initiatives yet. That way we can develop the solutions ourselves and sell these solutions to them when they realize that the current energy practices have run their course.

You see this is always my point. I don't care about Global Warming because it is only one of the problems. We keep allowing the big picture to get picked apart via the same kind of "divide and conquer" approach that the entire "ClimateGate" nonsense revolves around. However, I totally disagree that China, and India, and the rest of our international competition "aren't on board with alternative energy initiatives". That is because there are two different things involved. One is caring about their own greenhouse gas footprint as their industrial might explodes. The other is being the nation that is out front when these "alternative energies" take off. Conservative are correct that the international economic framework is going to be redone by all of this, but that is going to happen one way or another. We can either sit back an idly shout at the wind that this is all one grand conspiracy out to destroy our way of living. Or, we can see this as the next great opportunity. Our problem is that short sighted policies put us thirty years behind. We are a great nation, we can make up that difference. But not by focusing our energies on trying to "debate" science with rhetoric. Making our carbon based energy more expensive so other forms of energy can grow compete is not a bad thing.

I agree with taking initiative and getting out in front of alternative energy technologies.Cap and Trade, however, is not the tool for that.

Cap and Trade is the conservatives solution. We should have gone directly to a tax, the liberal solution, but this administration and government are too busy governing from the center.

 

[DrJ]

Making our carbon based energy more expensive so other forms of energy can grow compete is not a bad thing.

In the middle of a massive economic downturn it is a pressure we can't really tolerate at this point. And it would certainly be prerferrable to instead make other forms of energy less expensive so they can compete. I've actually looked into putting a wind turbine on my roof. Even after you get beyond having this spinning thing on your roof, it's still cost prohibitive. The answer isn't to make carbon so expensive that it isn't cost prohibitive anymore.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

::As far as gov't getting serious about making changes, I think that a carbon tax is really the best way to do this. Innovation isn't best left in the hands of the gov't, but in the market, and the only way to get the market serious about energy innovation is to put restrictions on current energy practices. The end game of a carbon tax isn't restricting the amount of CO2 put in the air (we're not going to regulate our way out of this problem), it's about creating a market for energy solutions.And really, we should be glad that our biggest competitors aren't on board with alternative energy initiatives yet. That way we can develop the solutions ourselves and sell these solutions to them when they realize that the current energy practices have run their course.

You see this is always my point. I don't care about Global Warming because it is only one of the problems. We keep allowing the big picture to get picked apart via the same kind of "divide and conquer" approach that the entire "ClimateGate" nonsense revolves around. However, I totally disagree that China, and India, and the rest of our international competition "aren't on board with alternative energy initiatives". That is because there are two different things involved. One is caring about their own greenhouse gas footprint as their industrial might explodes. The other is being the nation that is out front when these "alternative energies" take off. Conservative are correct that the international economic framework is going to be redone by all of this, but that is going to happen one way or another. We can either sit back an idly shout at the wind that this is all one grand conspiracy out to destroy our way of living. Or, we can see this as the next great opportunity. Our problem is that short sighted policies put us thirty years behind. We are a great nation, we can make up that difference. But not by focusing our energies on trying to "debate" science with rhetoric. Making our carbon based energy more expensive so other forms of energy can grow compete is not a bad thing.

I agree with taking initiative and getting out in front of alternative energy technologies.Cap and Trade, however, is not the tool for that.

Cap and Trade is the conservatives solution. We should have gone directly to a tax, the liberal solution, but this administration and government are too busy governing from the center.

Worse and no.More carrots, less sticks.

 

[DrJ]

This looks like a new development in the area of personal wind turbines that wasn't available when I looked in this before. It's actually not quite available as of today, but it looks like someone could roll this or something similar out within 12 months or so. This is smaller scale and isn't going to offset a ton of your electric costs, but it'd take out a few percent and doesn't cost a heck of a lot of money:

http://www.clariantechnologies.com/main/pa...wind_power.html

But herein lies part of the problem:

Why wind power, why not solar?

Solar and wind power are complimentary and both are great sources of renewable energy, and we look forward to developing innovative products for this market in the future. The primary difference between the two, at least in terms of cost, is related to payback – the payback period on solar energy based on current costs is around 15-20 years (primarily as a result of the cost of solar panels themselves), while the payback period on wind power is typically around 7 years or less.

This thing seems like it could have a lower payback period than 7 years depending on your location and whether there would end up being any government offsets for people that install them. But typically the payback period on these is far too long to make them realistic options. Solar is just outlandish. They need to work on making solar panels and wind turbines cheaper, not make carbon more expensive. I'd install one of these.

 

[jon_mx]

As usual, The Economist with a fair take.

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology...=most_commented

Only if you consider being wrong, balanced. :(

 

[jonessed]

This looks like a new development in the area of personal wind turbines that wasn't available when I looked in this before. This is smaller scale and isn't going to offset a ton of your electric costs, but it'd take out a few percent and doesn't cost a heck of a lot of money:

http://www.clariantechnologies.com/main/pa...wind_power.html

But herein lies part of the problem:

Why wind power, why not solar?

Solar and wind power are complimentary and both are great sources of renewable energy, and we look forward to developing innovative products for this market in the future. The primary difference between the two, at least in terms of cost, is related to payback – the payback period on solar energy based on current costs is around 15-20 years (primarily as a result of the cost of solar panels themselves), while the payback period on wind power is typically around 7 years or less.

This thing seems like it could have a lower payback period than 7 years depending on your location and whether there would end up being any government offsets for people that install them. But typically the payback period on these is far too long to make them realistic options. Solar is just outlandish. They need to work on making solar panels and wind turbines cheaper, not make carbon more expensive. I'd install one of these.

With a payback period of 20 years we might as well go nuclear.

 

[jonessed]

China has massive coal reserves. They aren't going to windmill for some time.

Really?

Yes, really. That's about 1% of their energy usage. It's not replacing coal anytime soon.

 

[whitem0nkey]

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

LONDON – Fighting back against climate skeptics, over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans, Britain's weather office said Thursday.

It was the latest attempt to remind the world of the reality of global warming after a cache of leaked e-mails was seized upon by skeptics as proof of a scientific conspiracy to stifle or twist the data on climate change.

"We, members of the U.K. science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive," the statement posted to the Met Office Web site said.

"They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

E-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia and released to the Internet last month appeared to show top climate scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work. Climate skeptics — those who deny that human activity is responsible for global warming — have seized on the correspondence as evidence that scientists have conspired to hide the facts.

Top officials in Britain and at the U.N. have acknowledged that the incident has damaged public perception of the science but say the facts are solid. Scientists have also been dismayed by the reaction to the e-mails, and several groups — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science — have released statements in support of the evidence behind man-made global warming.

Of the more than 1,700 signatories behind Thursday's statement, a Met Office spokeswoman said "a significant majority work directly in the climate science field." However she said she could not provide a detailed breakdown.

The spokeswoman said those scientists who didn't work directly in the climate science field were familiar with the impact of global warming on their respective disciplines. She spoke anonymously in line with department policy.

 

[jon_mx]

Cap and Trade is the conservatives solution. We should have gone directly to a tax, the liberal solution, but this administration and government are too busy governing from the center.

Yep...up is down. Nothing conservative about putting limits on the amount of energy someone can use.

 

[DrJ]

It also appears they have a concept for inexpensive solar panels as well.

http://www.clariantechnologies.com/main/pa...olar_power.html

There a lot of solar panels on the market. How is the Sunfish different from other solar panels?

In two words: simplicity and cost. The Sunfish is designed to be simple to setup and install. You simply install it on your rooftop or mount it on the side of your home and plug it in - the Sunfish can start generating power right away. And, the Sunfish will be affordable. Unlike other systems that cost thousands of dollars to operate and install, the Sunfish is initially targeted to cost around $999. With rebates, discounts or tax credits available from your local power utility, it would typically take around 4 years or less to recoup the cost of the Sunfish.

Again, this is something I'd have no problem installing if the time to recoup your investment became reasonably short. Plenty of people would be happy to throw down $1000 if it would knock a decent enough chunk off of their electricity bill. The options that have been available to this point blow though.

 

[jon_mx]

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

LONDON – Fighting back against climate skeptics, over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans, Britain's weather office said Thursday.

It was the latest attempt to remind the world of the reality of global warming after a cache of leaked e-mails was seized upon by skeptics as proof of a scientific conspiracy to stifle or twist the data on climate change.

"We, members of the U.K. science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive," the statement posted to the Met Office Web site said.

"They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

E-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia and released to the Internet last month appeared to show top climate scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work. Climate skeptics — those who deny that human activity is responsible for global warming — have seized on the correspondence as evidence that scientists have conspired to hide the facts.

Top officials in Britain and at the U.N. have acknowledged that the incident has damaged public perception of the science but say the facts are solid. Scientists have also been dismayed by the reaction to the e-mails, and several groups — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science — have released statements in support of the evidence behind man-made global warming.

Of the more than 1,700 signatories behind Thursday's statement, a Met Office spokeswoman said "a significant majority work directly in the climate science field." However she said she could not provide a detailed breakdown.

The spokeswoman said those scientists who didn't work directly in the climate science field were familiar with the impact of global warming on their respective disciplines. She spoke anonymously in line with department policy.

The facts are so solid, but yet no one has seen them. Until raw data is made public by CRU and NASA, the whole foundation of the theory is suspect, seen only by a select few in cohoots with each other. Any scientist who would sign such the above statement is nothing more than a leftwing kook. It is so full of leftwing spin, it should have been spit on by a real scientist.

 

[jonessed]

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

LONDON – Fighting back against climate skeptics, over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans, Britain's weather office said Thursday.

It was the latest attempt to remind the world of the reality of global warming after a cache of leaked e-mails was seized upon by skeptics as proof of a scientific conspiracy to stifle or twist the data on climate change.

"We, members of the U.K. science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive," the statement posted to the Met Office Web site said.

"They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

E-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia and released to the Internet last month appeared to show top climate scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work. Climate skeptics — those who deny that human activity is responsible for global warming — have seized on the correspondence as evidence that scientists have conspired to hide the facts.

Top officials in Britain and at the U.N. have acknowledged that the incident has damaged public perception of the science but say the facts are solid. Scientists have also been dismayed by the reaction to the e-mails, and several groups — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science — have released statements in support of the evidence behind man-made global warming.

Of the more than 1,700 signatories behind Thursday's statement, a Met Office spokeswoman said "a significant majority work directly in the climate science field." However she said she could not provide a detailed breakdown.

The spokeswoman said those scientists who didn't work directly in the climate science field were familiar with the impact of global warming on their respective disciplines. She spoke anonymously in line with department policy.

The facts are so solid, but yet no one has seen them. Until raw data is made public by CRU and NASA, the whole foundation of the theory is suspect, seen only by a select few in cohoots with each other. Any scientist who would sign such the above statement is nothing more than a leftwing kook. It is so full of leftwing spin, it should have been spit on by a real scientist.

I imagine a lot of them are simply trying to keep their jobs.

 

[perry147]

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

LONDON – Fighting back against climate skeptics, over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans, Britain's weather office said Thursday.

It was the latest attempt to remind the world of the reality of global warming after a cache of leaked e-mails was seized upon by skeptics as proof of a scientific conspiracy to stifle or twist the data on climate change.

"We, members of the U.K. science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive," the statement posted to the Met Office Web site said.

"They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

E-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia and released to the Internet last month appeared to show top climate scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work. Climate skeptics — those who deny that human activity is responsible for global warming — have seized on the correspondence as evidence that scientists have conspired to hide the facts.

Top officials in Britain and at the U.N. have acknowledged that the incident has damaged public perception of the science but say the facts are solid. Scientists have also been dismayed by the reaction to the e-mails, and several groups — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science — have released statements in support of the evidence behind man-made global warming.

Of the more than 1,700 signatories behind Thursday's statement, a Met Office spokeswoman said "a significant majority work directly in the climate science field." However she said she could not provide a detailed breakdown.

The spokeswoman said those scientists who didn't work directly in the climate science field were familiar with the impact of global warming on their respective disciplines. She spoke anonymously in line with department policy.

The facts are so solid, but yet no one has seen them. Until raw data is made public by CRU and NASA, the whole foundation of the theory is suspect, seen only by a select few in cohoots with each other. Any scientist who would sign such the above statement is nothing more than a leftwing kook. It is so full of leftwing spin, it should have been spit on by a real scientist.

The AGW people want to get their hands on the data not to reassure themselves the data is good, but to find anyway possible to discredit it. AGWers want to try to use public pressure generated by a misrepresentation of those stolen emails to make them do it. This is not uncommon in the corporate environment but is used in the political domain mostly by the right. Is this one of Karl Rove techniques?

 

[DrJ]

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

LONDON – Fighting back against climate skeptics, over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans, Britain's weather office said Thursday.

It was the latest attempt to remind the world of the reality of global warming after a cache of leaked e-mails was seized upon by skeptics as proof of a scientific conspiracy to stifle or twist the data on climate change.

"We, members of the U.K. science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive," the statement posted to the Met Office Web site said.

"They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

E-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia and released to the Internet last month appeared to show top climate scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work. Climate skeptics — those who deny that human activity is responsible for global warming — have seized on the correspondence as evidence that scientists have conspired to hide the facts.

Top officials in Britain and at the U.N. have acknowledged that the incident has damaged public perception of the science but say the facts are solid. Scientists have also been dismayed by the reaction to the e-mails, and several groups — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science — have released statements in support of the evidence behind man-made global warming.

Of the more than 1,700 signatories behind Thursday's statement, a Met Office spokeswoman said "a significant majority work directly in the climate science field." However she said she could not provide a detailed breakdown.

The spokeswoman said those scientists who didn't work directly in the climate science field were familiar with the impact of global warming on their respective disciplines. She spoke anonymously in line with department policy.

Much like what is asked about the lists of scientists that are skeptical - how did they validate the credentials of these scientists?

 

[jonessed]

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

LONDON – Fighting back against climate skeptics, over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans, Britain's weather office said Thursday.

It was the latest attempt to remind the world of the reality of global warming after a cache of leaked e-mails was seized upon by skeptics as proof of a scientific conspiracy to stifle or twist the data on climate change.

"We, members of the U.K. science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive," the statement posted to the Met Office Web site said.

"They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

E-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia and released to the Internet last month appeared to show top climate scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work. Climate skeptics — those who deny that human activity is responsible for global warming — have seized on the correspondence as evidence that scientists have conspired to hide the facts.

Top officials in Britain and at the U.N. have acknowledged that the incident has damaged public perception of the science but say the facts are solid. Scientists have also been dismayed by the reaction to the e-mails, and several groups — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science — have released statements in support of the evidence behind man-made global warming.

Of the more than 1,700 signatories behind Thursday's statement, a Met Office spokeswoman said "a significant majority work directly in the climate science field." However she said she could not provide a detailed breakdown.

The spokeswoman said those scientists who didn't work directly in the climate science field were familiar with the impact of global warming on their respective disciplines. She spoke anonymously in line with department policy.

The facts are so solid, but yet no one has seen them. Until raw data is made public by CRU and NASA, the whole foundation of the theory is suspect, seen only by a select few in cohoots with each other. Any scientist who would sign such the above statement is nothing more than a leftwing kook. It is so full of leftwing spin, it should have been spit on by a real scientist.

The AGW people want to get their hands on the data not to reassure themselves the data is good, but to find anyway possible to discredit it. AGWers want to try to use public pressure generated by a misrepresentation of those stolen emails to make them do it. This is not uncommon in the corporate environment but is used in the political domain mostly by the right. Is this one of Karl Rove techniques?

If you hold your research back from anyone that might disagree then you have just defeated the whole purpose of the scientific process.

 

[jon_mx]

The AGW people want to get their hands on the data not to reassure themselves the data is good, but to find anyway possible to discredit it. AGWers want to try to use public pressure generated by a misrepresentation of those stolen emails to make them do it. This is not uncommon in the corporate environment but is used in the political domain mostly by the right. Is this one of Karl Rove techniques?

Exactly. But if their manipulations of the data was good, then it should be able to stand criticism. Science is always about opposing opinions and ideas. If the analysis and calculations can only stand up to supporters, it ain't science. Real science is tested, not blindly accepted.

 

[perry147]

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

LONDON – Fighting back against climate skeptics, over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans, Britain's weather office said Thursday.

It was the latest attempt to remind the world of the reality of global warming after a cache of leaked e-mails was seized upon by skeptics as proof of a scientific conspiracy to stifle or twist the data on climate change.

"We, members of the U.K. science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive," the statement posted to the Met Office Web site said.

"They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

E-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia and released to the Internet last month appeared to show top climate scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work. Climate skeptics — those who deny that human activity is responsible for global warming — have seized on the correspondence as evidence that scientists have conspired to hide the facts.

Top officials in Britain and at the U.N. have acknowledged that the incident has damaged public perception of the science but say the facts are solid. Scientists have also been dismayed by the reaction to the e-mails, and several groups — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science — have released statements in support of the evidence behind man-made global warming.

Of the more than 1,700 signatories behind Thursday's statement, a Met Office spokeswoman said "a significant majority work directly in the climate science field." However she said she could not provide a detailed breakdown.

The spokeswoman said those scientists who didn't work directly in the climate science field were familiar with the impact of global warming on their respective disciplines. She spoke anonymously in line with department policy.

The facts are so solid, but yet no one has seen them. Until raw data is made public by CRU and NASA, the whole foundation of the theory is suspect, seen only by a select few in cohoots with each other. Any scientist who would sign such the above statement is nothing more than a leftwing kook. It is so full of leftwing spin, it should have been spit on by a real scientist.

The AGW people want to get their hands on the data not to reassure themselves the data is good, but to find anyway possible to discredit it. AGWers want to try to use public pressure generated by a misrepresentation of those stolen emails to make them do it. This is not uncommon in the corporate environment but is used in the political domain mostly by the right. Is this one of Karl Rove techniques?

If you hold your research back from anyone that might disagree then you have just defeated the whole purpose of the scientific process.

Like the people wanting this data want to use some type of scientific process to disprove GW.

 

[jonessed]

Like the people wanting this data want to use some type of scientific process to disprove GW.

You used to be a reasonable poster. Now you are like Tim meets TGunz.

 

[Gigantomachia]

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

LONDON – Fighting back against climate skeptics, over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans, Britain's weather office said Thursday.

It was the latest attempt to remind the world of the reality of global warming after a cache of leaked e-mails was seized upon by skeptics as proof of a scientific conspiracy to stifle or twist the data on climate change.

"We, members of the U.K. science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive," the statement posted to the Met Office Web site said.

"They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

E-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia and released to the Internet last month appeared to show top climate scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work. Climate skeptics — those who deny that human activity is responsible for global warming — have seized on the correspondence as evidence that scientists have conspired to hide the facts.

Top officials in Britain and at the U.N. have acknowledged that the incident has damaged public perception of the science but say the facts are solid. Scientists have also been dismayed by the reaction to the e-mails, and several groups — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science — have released statements in support of the evidence behind man-made global warming.

Of the more than 1,700 signatories behind Thursday's statement, a Met Office spokeswoman said "a significant majority work directly in the climate science field." However she said she could not provide a detailed breakdown.

The spokeswoman said those scientists who didn't work directly in the climate science field were familiar with the impact of global warming on their respective disciplines. She spoke anonymously in line with department policy.

The facts are so solid, but yet no one has seen them. Until raw data is made public by CRU and NASA, the whole foundation of the theory is suspect, seen only by a select few in cohoots with each other. Any scientist who would sign such the above statement is nothing more than a leftwing kook. It is so full of leftwing spin, it should have been spit on by a real scientist.

I imagine a lot of them are simply trying to keep their jobs.

You really don't understand how the scientific community functions do you?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Cap and Trade is the conservatives solution. We should have gone directly to a tax, the liberal solution, but this administration and government are too busy governing from the center.

Yep...up is down. Nothing conservative about putting limits on the amount of energy someone can use.

Well, you don't understand what Cap and Trade does, if this is your take. It doesn't limit the energy you can use. It limits the CO2 you can emit. A coal plant can mitigate the amount of CO2 emitted with pollution controls and still produce the same amount of energy.And, you're wrong on another account. Reducing the amount of energy used would be a conservative practice. Why do you think it is called conserving energy or conservation?

 

[jon_mx]

Ask a question about

at the UN....get an armed guard to escort you out...

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Ask a question about

I would like to discuss climate with the first young woman who comes up to stop the questioner.

 

[moleculo]

Ask a question about

This is why the IPCC will never meet in the States. Damn that First Amendment.

 

[DrJ]

Ask a question about

 

[DrJ]

Excellent article that sums up climategate and why it is so damaging:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-send-them.html

Also, here's an article on what exactly it was that "Mann et al" were doing to get the charts they did. With a PC and spreadsheet program, you can reconstruct how they do this.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/...nstruction.html

Long story, but I do know a little bit about statistical data modeling -- the principal approach used by the main cast of characters in Climategate -- and have a decent understanding of their basic research paradigm. The goal here is to share that understanding with interested laypeople. I'm also a big believer in learning by doing; if you really want to know how a carburetor works, nothing beats taking one apart and rebuilding it. That same rule applies to climate models. And so I decided to put together this simple step-by-step rebuilder's manual.

...

The approach of Mann et al. resulted in temperature reconstructions that looked markedly different from the one previously estimated, and first receive widespread notice in a 1998 Mann paper that appeared in Nature. The new reconstruction estimated a relatively flat historical temperature series until the past hundred years, at which point it began rising dramatically, and accelerating around 1990. This is the celebrated "hockey stick" with which we are all familiar.

...

Is there anything wrong with this methodology? Not in principle. In fact there's a lot to recommend it. There's a strong reason to believe that high resolution proxy variables like tree rings and ice core o-18 are related to temperature. At the very least it's a more mathematically rigorous approach than the earlier methods for climate reconstruction, which is probably why the hockey stick / AGW conclusion received a lot of endorsements from academic High Society (including the American Statistical Association).

The devil, as they say is in the details. In each of the steps there is some leeway for, shall we say, intervention. The early criticisms of Mann et al.'s analyses were confined to relatively minor points about the presence of autocorrelated errors, linear specification, etc. But a funny thing happened on the way to Copenhagen: a couple of Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, found that when they ran simulations of "red noise" random principal components data into Mann's reconstruction model, 99% of the time it produced the same hockey stick pattern. They attributed this to Mann's method / time frame for selecting of principal components.

To illustrate the nature of that debate through the spreadsheet, try some of the following tests:

Run step 3 through step 7, but only use the proxy data up through 1960 instead of 1980.

Run step 5 through step 7, but only include the first 2 principal components in the regression.

Run step 3 through step 7, but delete the ice core data from the proxy set.

Run step 2 through step 7, but pick out a different proxy data set from NOAA.

Or combinations thereof. What you'll find is that contrary to Mann's assertion that the hockey stick is "robust," you'll find that the reconstructions tend to be sensitive to the data selection. M&M found, for example, that temperature reconstructions for the 1400s were higher or lower than today, depending on whether bristlecone pine tree rings were included in the proxies.

What the leaked emails reveal, among other things, is some of that bit of principal component sausage making. But more disturbing, they reveal that the actual data going into the reconstruction model -- the instrumental temperature data and the proxy variables themselves -- were rife for manipulation. In the laughable euphemism of Philip Jones, "value added homogenized data." The data I provided here was the real, value added global temperature and proxy data, because Phil told me so. Trust me!

In any case, I'm confident that the real truth will emerge soon, hopefully while Mike and Phil are enjoying their vacations. In the meantime have fun and stay warm.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Excellent article that sums up climategate and why it is so damaging:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-send-them.html

Also, here's an article on what exactly it was that "Mann et al" were doing to get the charts they did. With a PC and spreadsheet program, you can reconstruct how they do this.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/...nstruction.html

Long story, but I do know a little bit about statistical data modeling -- the principal approach used by the main cast of characters in Climategate -- and have a decent understanding of their basic research paradigm. The goal here is to share that understanding with interested laypeople. I'm also a big believer in learning by doing; if you really want to know how a carburetor works, nothing beats taking one apart and rebuilding it. That same rule applies to climate models. And so I decided to put together this simple step-by-step rebuilder's manual.

...

The approach of Mann et al. resulted in temperature reconstructions that looked markedly different from the one previously estimated, and first receive widespread notice in a 1998 Mann paper that appeared in Nature. The new reconstruction estimated a relatively flat historical temperature series until the past hundred years, at which point it began rising dramatically, and accelerating around 1990. This is the celebrated "hockey stick" with which we are all familiar.

...

Is there anything wrong with this methodology? Not in principle. In fact there's a lot to recommend it. There's a strong reason to believe that high resolution proxy variables like tree rings and ice core o-18 are related to temperature. At the very least it's a more mathematically rigorous approach than the earlier methods for climate reconstruction, which is probably why the hockey stick / AGW conclusion received a lot of endorsements from academic High Society (including the American Statistical Association).

The devil, as they say is in the details. In each of the steps there is some leeway for, shall we say, intervention. The early criticisms of Mann et al.'s analyses were confined to relatively minor points about the presence of autocorrelated errors, linear specification, etc. But a funny thing happened on the way to Copenhagen: a couple of Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, found that when they ran simulations of "red noise" random principal components data into Mann's reconstruction model, 99% of the time it produced the same hockey stick pattern. They attributed this to Mann's method / time frame for selecting of principal components.

To illustrate the nature of that debate through the spreadsheet, try some of the following tests:

Run step 3 through step 7, but only use the proxy data up through 1960 instead of 1980.

Run step 5 through step 7, but only include the first 2 principal components in the regression.

Run step 3 through step 7, but delete the ice core data from the proxy set.

Run step 2 through step 7, but pick out a different proxy data set from NOAA.

Or combinations thereof. What you'll find is that contrary to Mann's assertion that the hockey stick is "robust," you'll find that the reconstructions tend to be sensitive to the data selection. M&M found, for example, that temperature reconstructions for the 1400s were higher or lower than today, depending on whether bristlecone pine tree rings were included in the proxies.

What the leaked emails reveal, among other things, is some of that bit of principal component sausage making. But more disturbing, they reveal that the actual data going into the reconstruction model -- the instrumental temperature data and the proxy variables themselves -- were rife for manipulation. In the laughable euphemism of Philip Jones, "value added homogenized data." The data I provided here was the real, value added global temperature and proxy data, because Phil told me so. Trust me!

In any case, I'm confident that the real truth will emerge soon, hopefully while Mike and Phil are enjoying their vacations. In the meantime have fun and stay warm.

78% of all statistical data is wrong.Nothing new here.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Excellent article that sums up climategate and why it is so damaging:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-send-them.html

Also, here's an article on what exactly it was that "Mann et al" were doing to get the charts they did. With a PC and spreadsheet program, you can reconstruct how they do this.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/...nstruction.html

...

The approach of Mann et al. resulted in temperature reconstructions that looked markedly different from the one previously estimated, and first receive widespread notice in a 1998 Mann paper that appeared in Nature. The new reconstruction estimated a relatively flat historical temperature series until the past hundred years, at which point it began rising dramatically, and accelerating around 1990. This is the celebrated "hockey stick" with which we are all familiar.

...

Wow I'm really impressed on how they started in 1998 the efforts to cover up the global cooling of the past decade that the models couldn't explain.

 

[moleculo]

A blurb from DrJ's article:

'These emails open up the possibility that big scientific questions we've regarded as settled may need another look.

'They reveal that some of these scientists saw themselves not as neutral investigators but as warriors engaged in battle with the so-called sceptics.

‘They have lost a lot of credibility and as far as their being leading spokespeople on this issue of huge public importance, there is no going back.’

Dr Pielke's bio:Pielke was awarded a B.A. in mathematics at Towson State College in 1968, and then an M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology at Pennsylvania State University in 1969 and 1973, respectively.

From 1971-1974 he worked as a research scientist at the NOAA Experimental Meteorology Lab, from 1974-1981 he was an associate professor at the University of Virginia, served the primary academic position of his career as a professor at Colorado State University from 1981-2006, was deputy of CIRA at Colorado State University from 1985-1988, from 1999-2006 was Colorado State Climatologist, at Duke University was a research professor from 2003-2006, and was a visiting professor at the University of Arizona from October-December 2004. Since 2005, Piekle has served as Senior Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at UC-Boulder and an emeritus professor of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. He retired from CSU and in post-retirement is a CIRES researcher.

Pielke has served as Chairman and Member of the American Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, as Chief Editor of Monthly Weather Review, was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society in 1982 and a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union in 2004, has served as Editor-in-Chief of the US National Science Report to the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, as Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and as Editor of Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere[2].

 

[Guest]

Ask a question about

Oh yah. That'll help.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

It's odd (though not surprising) that the contents of the e-mails aren't causing people to pause and reflect. Instead it's a full court press to defend them.

 

[moleculo]

It's odd (though not surprising) that the contents of the e-mails aren't causing people to pause and reflect. Instead it's a full court press to defend them.

it's not really that different than how fanatics defend their religion.

 

[Gigantomachia]

It's odd (though not surprising) that the contents of the e-mails aren't causing people to pause and reflect. Instead it's a full court press to defend them.

Everyone I know that studies this stuff is continually pausing to reflect. This is not considered that big of deal to the few researchers I know personally. They can quickly explain what it means and why it is being blown WAY out of proportion, but then they laugh, as though anyone would understand what that means anyway.

 

[DrJ]

A blurb from DrJ's article:

'These emails open up the possibility that big scientific questions we've regarded as settled may need another look.

'They reveal that some of these scientists saw themselves not as neutral investigators but as warriors engaged in battle with the so-called sceptics.

‘They have lost a lot of credibility and as far as their being leading spokespeople on this issue of huge public importance, there is no going back.’

Dr Pielke's bio:Pielke was awarded a B.A. in mathematics at Towson State College in 1968, and then an M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology at Pennsylvania State University in 1969 and 1973, respectively.

From 1971-1974 he worked as a research scientist at the NOAA Experimental Meteorology Lab, from 1974-1981 he was an associate professor at the University of Virginia, served the primary academic position of his career as a professor at Colorado State University from 1981-2006, was deputy of CIRA at Colorado State University from 1985-1988, from 1999-2006 was Colorado State Climatologist, at Duke University was a research professor from 2003-2006, and was a visiting professor at the University of Arizona from October-December 2004. Since 2005, Piekle has served as Senior Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at UC-Boulder and an emeritus professor of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. He retired from CSU and in post-retirement is a CIRES researcher.

Pielke has served as Chairman and Member of the American Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, as Chief Editor of Monthly Weather Review, was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society in 1982 and a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union in 2004, has served as Editor-in-Chief of the US National Science Report to the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, as Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and as Editor of Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere[2].

Now one thing of note is that Pielke issued a "small correction" and said one of his statements was taken slightly out of context. http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=5813

UPDATE: Roger Pielke Jr., quoted in the story, has a “small correction”:

In The Daily Mail, David Rose has a hard-hitting critique of the CRU email situation. His summary of the debate in the emails over how to handle the Briffa curve is well done. However, he focuses more than I would on the science rather than the science policy, and this shows up in how I am quoted or referred to in several places. Recognizing that it is his story, there is a misquote of my comments that I think needs to be corrected. Here is what I sent David asking for a correction:

Dear David-

I just saw your story in the Daily Mail and a small correction is needed. You quote me as saying:

“These emails open up the possibility that big scientific questions we’ve regarded as settled may need another look.”

What I said was:

“While these emails open up the possibility that some scientific questions we’ve regarded as settled may need another look, time will tell and the implications for science are not the most important aspect of the emails.”

The point was that while I am agnostic about the implications for science, leaving that to others, I am certain that the emails have broader implications for the credibility and legitimacy of certain quarters of climate science. Based on what I’ve seen, I do not believe that any “big scientific questions” are implicated by the emails.

Many thanks,

Roger

Overall a slight correction and he does acknowledge that the piece is well done in regards to the debate on the curve.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

It's odd (though not surprising) that the contents of the e-mails aren't causing people to pause and reflect. Instead it's a full court press to defend them.

it's not really that different than how fanatics defend their religion.

Just imagine if Paul had deleted some of his emails to the Corinthians.

 

[DrJ]

Excellent article that sums up climategate and why it is so damaging:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-send-them.html

Also, here's an article on what exactly it was that "Mann et al" were doing to get the charts they did. With a PC and spreadsheet program, you can reconstruct how they do this.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/...nstruction.html

...

The approach of Mann et al. resulted in temperature reconstructions that looked markedly different from the one previously estimated, and first receive widespread notice in a 1998 Mann paper that appeared in Nature. The new reconstruction estimated a relatively flat historical temperature series until the past hundred years, at which point it began rising dramatically, and accelerating around 1990. This is the celebrated "hockey stick" with which we are all familiar.

...

Wow I'm really impressed on how they started in 1998 the efforts to cover up the global cooling of the past decade that the models couldn't explain.

It appears what they started in 1998 was a way to analyze the data in such a way that there would invariably be a hockey stick and "warming trend" no matter what data was input. Well, not invariably - only 99% of the time.And really, they did try other things on top of this. They started using a different data set at GISS starting in 2000, referred to as "the Y2K bug", potentially so that they could hide those cooling periods. Until McIntyre called them on that earlier in the year. Which unsurprisingly didn't get a lot of press.