[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I don't buy is that you aren't conflating your distaste of the "academic left" with the merits of these theories.

It's kind of hard to not have both a "distaste" and doubt the merits when they always seem to provide evidence that they aren't worthy of trust when it comes to matters which have political significance. When there's monetary gain to be had, everyone is suspect. It's human nature.

Can you honestly say that if the Republicans were champions of this issue that your feelings would be the same as they are now?

My feelings in regards to the Republicans in opposition is that many also have ulterior motives. I'm guessing that even if the evidence wasn't suspect and there was a proven cause/effect relationship which could be shown to be statistically relevant, and that with just a small amount of sacrifice make statistically relevant change, that many would oppose that action.

I'm not basing this on people, I'm basing it on position. The thing is, the Republicans aren't constantly asking for my money for something that isn't really constitutionally required. That's what the Democrats on the left continually do. It would be hard for me to imagine them championing an issue that would involve confiscating more of my tax dollars in order to redistribute my wealth for something that's probably not necessary. I'd question the merits of their beliefs if they made an effort to do that as well.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When there's monetary gain to be had, everyone is suspect. It's human nature.

Exactly. But, what you fail to realize is that there is monetary gain to be had on *both* sides of the argument, making the no-AGW arguments suspect as well.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Where is the unnecessary FOI request for information they already have? i.e. what are you talking about?

Here's the rundown from Mr FOIA'd himself.

Originally Posted by Ben Santer

Ten days after the online publication of our International Journal of Climatology paper, Mr. Steven McIntyre, who runs the “ClimateAudit” blog, requested all of the climate model data we had used in our research. I replied that Mr. McIntyre was welcome to “audit” our calculations, and that all of the primary model data we had employed were archived at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and freely available to any researcher. Over 3,400 scientists around the world currently analyze climate model output from this open database.

My response was insufficient for Mr. McIntyre. He submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for climate model data – not for the freely available raw data, but for the results from intermediate calculations I had performed with the raw data. One FOIA request also asked for two years of my email correspondence related to these climate model data sets.

I had performed these intermediate calculations in order derive weighted-average temperature changes for different layers of the atmosphere. This is standard practice. It is necessary since model temperature data are available at specific heights in the atmosphere, whereas satellite temperature measurements represent an average over a deep layer of the atmosphere. The weighted averages calculated from the climate model data can be directly compared with actual satellite data. The method used for making such intermediate calculations is not a secret. It is published in several different scientific journals.

Unlike Mr. McIntyre, David Douglass and his colleagues (in their International Journal of Climatology paper) had used the freely available raw model data. With these raw datasets, Douglass et al. made intermediate calculations similar to the calculations we had performed. The results of their intermediate calculations were similar to our own intermediate results. The differences between what Douglass and colleagues had done and what my colleagues and I had done was not in the intermediate calculations – it was in the statistical tests each group had used to compare climate models with observations.

The punch-line of this story is that Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests were completely unnecessary. In my opinion, they were frivolous. Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the information necessary to check our calculations and our findings.

When I invited Mr. McIntyre to “audit” our entire study, including the intermediate calculations, and told him that all the data necessary to perform such an “audit” were freely available, he expressed moral outrage on his blog. I began to receive threatening emails. Complaints about my “stonewalling” behavior were sent to my superiors at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and at the U.S. Department of Energy.

A little over a month after receiving Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests, I decided to release all of the intermediate calculations I had performed for our International Journal of Climatology paper. I made these datasets available to the entire scientific community. I did this because I wanted to continue with my scientific research. I did not want to spend all of my available time and energy responding to harassment incited by Mr. McIntyre’s blog.

Mr. Pearce does not mention that Mr. McIntyre had no need to file Freedom of Information Act requests, since Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the raw climate model data we had used in our study (and to the methods we had used for performing intermediate calculations). Nor does Mr. Pearce mention the curious asymmetry in Mr. McIntyre’s “auditing”. To my knowledge, Mr. McIntyre – who purports to have considerable statistical expertise – has failed to “audit” the Douglass et al. paper, which contained serious statistical errors.

RealClimate: Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind

I think science was long considered to be an open discipline, but no longer. I think that pace of openness has remained fairly even though. There are the freely available scientific journals (free provided you pay or work in higher ed and have access to a library who pays) which works pretty well if you work in higher ed. The info is there, and it's not hard to sneak into a college library and photo copy an article, still it's not always easy for everyone to get to it.

Santer says that 3,400 scientists have access to the data via the Livermore Lab. But why 3,400? And how do you get to be one of them?

What has become more open is society itself and much of that has to do with the web. While monthly publishing cycles with new research used to be good, it can't keep pace with blogs. When someone wants to play with some software, chances are they can immediately download the source easily and fiddle with it and even submit changes that will be used.

That's not the case with many programs used in research. I've known several professors who had that 10-year old computer laying around in their office, just so they could use that one piece of software some former grad student wrote years ago.

I think that raw data and the tools to analyze them should be open for all to see. Obviously, there is an interest by non-scientists to have a look. Many of the people who write open-source software are not paid to do it. It shouldn't matter if somebody wants to go on a "fishing expedition" or not. It will have to stand on it's own in the face of public scrutiny.

The code should be available and unit-tested. I can see unit-testing being an important key in ensuring that physical values correspond with computed values, individually and en masse, etc.

Science needs to evolve.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Exactly. But, what you fail to realize is that there is monetary gain to be had on *both* sides of the argument, making the no-AGW arguments suspect as well.

'To be'—as in the future. Only *one* side is really making money now though and (surprise!) they resist changing that.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

'To be'—as in the future. Only *one* side is really making money now though and (surprise!) they resist changing that.

Odd, I haven't made a dime on my decision that you global change fanatics are morons.

[Snow-i]

if i had a nickel for every time....

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

Odd, I haven't made a dime on my decision that you global change fanatics are morons.

That's not my fault.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

'To be'—as in the future. Only *one* side is really making money now though and (surprise!) they resist changing that.

I think that Al Gore is going to slowly start to realize that the "jig is up" when people stop paying him huge sums to speak and this "carbon credit" scheme goes bust and stops filling his pocket, and those who back him. He can "resist" it all he wants (his NYT editorial is a good example), but I think he's going to figure things up as the opportunities to profit dry up.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Exactly. But, what you fail to realize is that there is monetary gain to be had on *both* sides of the argument, making the no-AGW arguments suspect as well.

I do realize that, and I even acknowledged that.

The difference is:

A. The burden of proof isn't on the people who are suspect of those who have the theory that the Earth is headed for a cataclysmic man-made climate disaster. It's on the other side.

B. One side is asking me to sacrifice greatly in support of their theory. The other is not really doing so.

In situations where the burden of proof is on the side that asks me to sacrifice greatly, I'm going to have a much greater threshold of skepticism, which would seem to be reasonable.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In situations where the burden of proof is on the side that asks me to sacrifice greatly, I'm going to have a much greater threshold of skepticism, which would seem to be reasonable.

Once again, you don't realize that both sides have a burden of proof. One side is asking you to sacrifice today. The other side is asking you to sacrifice tomorrow. The other does have a theory that they're asking you to accept. Their theory is that their industry has no negative impact on our planet.The only reason you don't question the other side for a burden of proof is because it's easier to sacrifice tomorrow than to question what they say.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not basing this on people, I'm basing it on position. The thing is, the Republicans aren't constantly asking for my money for something that isn't really constitutionally required. That's what the Democrats on the left continually do. It would be hard for me to imagine them championing an issue that would involve confiscating more of my tax dollars in order to redistribute my wealth for something that's probably not necessary. I'd question the merits of their beliefs if they made an effort to do that as well.

The Republicans spearheaded an invasion of Iraq with your money, then rebuild Iraq with your money, effectively redistributing your money into the pockets of military contractors. Even ignoring Iraq, when you look at the ludicrous size of the American military budget compared to any sane nation, clearly the Republicans are the worst redistributionists in history.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Once again, you don't realize that both sides have a burden of proof. One side is asking you to sacrifice today. The other side is asking you to sacrifice tomorrow.

The only way the latter is true is if the former is proven true.

The one side is predicting something out of the ordinary will happen. If there is no theorized oncoming global warming catastrophe, then the other side isn't asking you to sacrifice anything.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The Republicans spearheaded an invasion of Iraq with your money, then rebuild Iraq with your money, effectively redistributing your money into the pockets of military contractors. Even ignoring Iraq, when you look at the ludicrous size of the American military budget compared to any sane nation, clearly the Republicans are the worst redistributionists in history.

There is a Constitutional mandate for the federal government in regards to the military. There is no such mandate to stop something (climate change) which has went on before humans existed.

We spend a lot more on stuff that our founding fathers never intended for the Federal Government to get involved with, in comparison to the military. When we go to start cutting back and not asking for extra taxes to pay for stuff, let's start there.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There is a Constitutional mandate for the federal government in regards to the military. There is no such mandate to stop something (climate change) which has went on before humans existed.

We spend a lot more on stuff that our founding fathers never intended for the Federal Government to get involved with, in comparison to the military. When we go to start cutting back and not asking for extra taxes to pay for stuff, let's start there.

Well, it's a great thing that the Founding Fathers protected pointless invasions in the constitution then.

But I'm pretty certain using taxpayer money to rebuild the country you've just bombed into the stone age wasn't in the Fathers' plan.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...climate change) which has went on before humans existed.

do you mean the 5 days before god made humans?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The only way the latter is true is if the former is proven true.

The one side is predicting something out of the ordinary will happen. If there is no theorized oncoming global warming catastrophe, then the other side isn't asking you to sacrifice anything.

Very true. But, if there *is* an oncoming global warming catastrophe, by the time it can be conclusively proven we won't be able to do anything to stop it and the costs just to maintain our current standards of living will be *much* higher than those being proposed by environmentalists today. Kind of like the argument for invading Iraq: "by the time there's a smoking gun, it will be too late".

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Well, it's a great thing that the Founding Fathers protected pointless invasions in the constitution then.

But I'm pretty certain using taxpayer money to rebuild the country you've just bombed into the stone age wasn't in the Fathers' plan.

I don't disagree with the idea that there can be reasonable disagreement about how we as a country act in regard to the mandate. I was just pointing out the difference between the two things.

Your comment brings something else up, which provides a great analogy.

How much different is it for what seems to be going on with "global warming" than what the Bush administration is said to have done in regard to justifying their invasion of Iraq? Here's the parallels:

Both there was a consensus that the evidence exists to credibility suggest a large problem.

While there is evidence, neither example had anything really concrete "smoking gun" proof.

Both seemed to involve people whose intentions were likely good.

In both cases, we later learned that the consensus was created by exaggerated claims and some arm twisting to get people on board with "consensus" which would allow us to act.

?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Very true. But, if there *is* an oncoming global warming catastrophe...

..or an alien attack, or the sky falling.

...by the time it can be conclusively proven we won't be able to do anything to stop it and the costs just to maintain our current standards of living will be *much* higher than those being proposed by environmentalists today. Kind of like the argument for invading Iraq: "by the time there's a smoking gun, it will be too late".

EXACTLY. See above.

ps. I was for invasion regardless of "smoking gun". There was no "smoking gun" needed to ascertain that Hussein had refused to comply with U.N. mandates he'd already agreed to in order to keep himself in power.

[OldManMac]

And then, there are other views.

BBC News - Climate change human link evidence 'stronger'

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And then, there are other views.

BBC News - Climate change human link evidence 'stronger'

Wait a sec... Climate change human link evidence stronger than the IPCC's 2007 report indicating "unequivocal" evidence that the Earth was warming and it was likely that it was due to burning of fossil fuels?

So now it's super-deeduperly unequivocal. The next AR will likely begin; "no, seriously..."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wait a sec... Climate change human link evidence stronger than the IPCC's 2007 report indicating "unequivocal" evidence that the Earth was warming and it was likely that it was due to burning of fossil fuels?

So now it's super-deeduperly unequivocal. The next AR will likely begin; "no, seriously..."

They will "Pinky Swear" that it's as strong as possible, next time.

[Macrobat]

The same BBC who's pension plan is so heavily invested in "carbon credits" that it will go utterly broke if this doesn't come to pass?

http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/...limate-policy/

Good you found a completely unbiased source.

[BadKosh]

What about THIS from the UK? :

Government rebuked over global warming nursery rhyme adverts - Telegraph


The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the adverts – which were based on the children's poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub – made exaggerated claims about the threat to Britain from global warming.

In definitely asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought the adverts went beyond mainstream scientific consensus, the watchdog said.

It noted that predictions about the potential global impact of global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "involved uncertainties" that the adverts failed to reflect.

The two posters created on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change juxtaposed adapted extracts from the nursery rhymes with prose warnings about the dangers of global warning.

One began: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.” Beneath was written: “Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.”

The second advert read: "Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub — a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change.” It was captioned: “Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense. If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different.”

Upholding complaints from members of the public, the ASA said that in both instances the text accompanying the rhymes should have been couched in softer language.

The newspaper adverts were part of a controversial media campaign launched by the DECC last year which attracted a total of 939 complaints.

The watchdog found that the other elements of the campaign, including a television and cinema advert in which a father read his daughter a nightmarish bedtime story about a world blighted by climate change, did not breach its guidelines.

Ed Miliband, the Environment Secretary, said that that his department had been "comprehensively vindicated" by the ASA but promised to better reflect scientific uncertainty about global warming in future campaigns.