[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The reality appears to be that the only people concerned about "Climategate" are those who are already convinced that there's a conspiracy.

Likewise, those not concerned about climategate in light of the apparent conspiracy are already convinced that the science is settled.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Likewise, those not concerned about climategate in light of the apparent conspiracy are already convinced that the science is settled.

Yep, and most of those who's opinions *could* be swayed will likely barely hear a peep about this.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Likewise, those not concerned about climategate in light of the apparent conspiracy are already convinced that the science is settled.

"Climategate" didn't produce or reveal any new science. Why should anyone who is concerned about the science of the matter care about it?

[Orion27]

Free the data; free the code; free the debate!
The recently revealed CRU emails should be read in the context of the email authors' actual obstruction of requests for methodology and data sets.
The magnitude of the publicized effects of global warming and of the measures proposed to minimize its impact overshadow any research group's "proprietary interest" in their data or models. A real ongoing problem has been that much of the data and many of the models supporting the global warming hypothesis have not been available to legitimate researchers (for example, those that HAVE published in the peer-reviewed literature.)
This inability of legitimate researchers to comment on, or even attempt to replicate or reproduce the results of the climate models underlying the IPCC reports for policymakers does not reflect a robust exchange of ideas. That this is sometimes a problem not just in climate science, but in other disciplines as well.
Published work should be replicable or reproducible. That's a big part of the basic scientific method ALL of us were exposed to in grade school or high school. This isn't an esoteric issue that only scientists can comprehend. The inability to "audit" how a procedure or model is used diminishes its results to an opinion. An expert opinion maybe, but an opinion none the less.
Global weather data and climate change models should be accessible. "Circle the wagons" and the usual scientific jealousies and proprietary interests have led to the opposite of "open access" and enhanced not only suspicion of anthropomorphic global warming, but global warming in general.

Cliff, NYT's December 12, 2009

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Climategate" didn't produce or reveal any new science. Why should anyone who is concerned about the science of the matter care about it?

Because it did produce evidence that the "science" is being manipulated, or at the very least there is a concerted effort to make sure that certain aspects of the "science" can't be verified by looking at raw data for some reason.

What good is "new science" if it's shrouded in secrecy, isn't allowed to be transparently scrutinized, and is being promoted via dishonest blackballing of competing theories?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What good is "new science" if it's shrouded in secrecy, isn't allowed to be transparently scrutinized, and is being promoted via dishonest blackballing of competing theories?

Where do the emails indicate this?

The only mention I've heard was in relation to keeping a couple specific papers out of the IPCC. However, those papers were terrible; it was probably the right call to make sure they were buried. Yes, terrible papers sometimes get published in a peer-review system – although there was editorial fallout after they made it to publication.

I haven't heard evidence of other works being "dishonestly blackballed" via the climategate stuff. Could you give me the info on when/how this occurred?

greg

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Where do the emails indicate this?

The only mention I've heard was in relation to keeping a couple specific papers out of the IPCC. However, those papers were terrible; it was probably the right call to make sure they were buried. Yes, terrible papers sometimes get published in a peer-review system – although there was editorial fallout after they made it to publication.

I haven't heard evidence of other works being "dishonestly blackballed" via the climategate stuff. Could you give me the info on when/how this occurred?

greg

From: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>,[email protected], [email protected],srutherford@[email protected]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]... xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]

Thanks Phil,
(Tom: Congrats again!)
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De
Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html
In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed
this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told Mike that
I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they
wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but
the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the
community on the whole...
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the
presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My
guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm
not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their
side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that
couldn't get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board...
What do others think?
mike
At

[ShortcutToMoncton]

That's clearly the paper(s) I was already talking about. There's nothing about "dishonest blackballing" there – they were refusing to consider a publication that was just terrible, period.


Do you have anything else, or what that the extent of your information on which you base the "dishonest blackball" claim? Because if that's it, then you're clearly being dishonest yourself.

greg

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

That's clearly the paper(s) I was already talking about. There's nothing about "dishonest blackballing" there – they were refusing to consider a publication that was just terrible, period.


Do you have anything else, or what that the extent of your information on which you base the "dishonest blackball" claim? Because if that's it, then you're clearly being dishonest yourself.

greg

Please note I never said anything about "dishonest blackballing" so you owe me an apology. Second,
your did not reference the papers "clearly". You said "...The only mention I've heard was in relation to keeping a couple specific papers out of the IPCC. However, those papers were terrible; it was probably the right call to make sure they were buried...."

The papers were peer reviewed and by at least one member of Mann's own department. And by whom are the papers judged "terrible" your words. Now how about you go finding the paper you judge as
terrible and find me a peer review that refutes it.
I'm merely pointing out that in this letter, Mann clearly feels he has a problem, and he is willing to orchestrate a blackball of Climate Research to suppress contrary peer reviewed papers.

[hyteckit]

Climategate is a dud.

Over 1000 emails and millions of words, and all we have are the words "trick" and "hide the decline".

Whoopie doo.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Second,
your did not reference the papers "clearly". You said "...The only mention I've heard was in relation to keeping a couple specific papers out of the IPCC. However, those papers were terrible; it was probably the right call to make sure they were buried...."

...yes, the papers to which you subsequently referred. Those are the only ones I've seen.

The papers were peer reviewed and by at least one member of Mann's own department. And by whom are the papers judged "terrible" your words. Now how about you go finding the paper you judge as
terrible and find me a peer review that refutes it.

How about you go about finding it and then finding out why it's a terrible paper? Don't expect others to spoon-feed you. Do some research.

I'm merely pointing out that in this letter, Mann clearly feels he has a problem, and he is willing to orchestrate a blackball of Climate Research to suppress contrary peer reviewed papers.

And rightfully so.

Sorry, you really need something legitimate if you're going to claim this as a significant black eye against climate scientists in general.

greg

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...yes, the papers to which you subsequently referred. Those are the only ones I've seen.


How about you go about finding it and then finding out why it's a terrible paper? Don't expect others to spoon-feed you. Do some research.


And rightfully so.

Sorry, you really need something legitimate if you're going to claim this as a significant black eye against climate scientists in general.

greg

I've researched and refutation doesn't exist and at least we agree on the conspiracy to blackball and
suppress alternative peer reviewed conclusions.

[ebuddy]

• Celebrating a skeptic's death regarding John L Daly; “In an odd way this is cheering news.”
• "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"
• Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
• Mick Kelly discussed giving a presentation and rather than include the cooling he said, “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”
• Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), was particularly frustrated by computer models that failed to predict the cooling. He said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
• The group at the CRU did not approve of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its choices allowing opposing views to be heard. The group’s trade publication, Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) was targeted by Michael Mann as he wrote, “I’m not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore.” He acknowledges the publications importance saying, “We can’t afford to lose GRL.”
• “Apparently, the contrarians now have an “in” with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences [where Saiers completed his PhD] that causes me some unease” writes Mann, creator of the debunked "hockey stick" that takes any combination of inputs and makes hockey sticks of them.
• How to deal with this Saiers guy? Tom Wigley, a senior scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division at NCAR; “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

CRU exposed for "cherry-picking" data to conceal the MWP, FOI avoidance, discussions to alienate journals that are not in lock-step with them, withholding data, deleting data, likening skeptics to holocaust deniers and 9/11 perpetrators, using data they know is specious at best to "contain" data that does not support their agenda, conspiracy to get "contrarians" fired...

These very simply are not the actions of an entity interested in scientific integrity. Period. It's really not defensible. It bolsters those who claim there's been a conspiracy, it is echoed by scientists who used to work for the IPCC who were likewise alienated, and it brings important questions regarding the validity of the science. I'm sorry to the AGW ministers of doom, but rarely does something so telling, so predictable, so apparent, and yet so juicy present itself so clearly to strain the AGW agenda.

I certainly wouldn't expect the zealots to smile and accept this as troubling information.

[besson3c]

How does the shoddy and indefensible work of x number of entities invalidate the entire gamut of scientific belief?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How does the shoddy and indefensible work of x number of entities invalidate the entire gamut of scientific belief?

It's my understanding that the work of these "x number of entities" was used as the basis for other "scientific belief" and these were the guys (and those they have influence over) that were chiefly responsible for a lot of the "understanding" we have about global warming.

As eBuddy pointed out, these guys were actively involved in dishonest attempts to non-scientifically influence "scientific belief". It's precisely as I explained above.

...and to be clear, this doesn't mean that theories about man's effect on the environment aren't valid - it just means that the "understanding" that we currently have should not be taken for granted because it's part of a concerted effort to manufacture consensus for political gains, not science.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

These very simply are not the actions of an entity interested in scientific integrity. Period. It's really not defensible. It bolsters those who claim there's been a conspiracy, it is echoed by scientists who used to work for the IPCC who were likewise alienated, and it brings important questions regarding the validity of the science. I'm sorry to the AGW ministers of doom, but rarely does something so telling, so predictable, so apparent, and yet so juicy present itself so clearly to strain the AGW agenda.

I still haven't seen anything conclusive from this whole leak. Every "juicy" tidbit is only incriminating if you presuppose guilt. IOW, you're blinded by your own bias. And because of that, I know you won't believe me, so I'll go point by point.

[*] Celebrating a skeptic's death regarding John L Daly; “In an odd way this is cheering news.”

This isn't science, it's gossip. It's telling that you would lead with this.

[*] "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"

Trade secret. It's a simple concept, and hardly specific to science. Scientists deal entirely in intellectual property. It's not surprising in the least that certain information might be sensitive, if only because a competitor could scoop them if it was leaked. Or, obviously, the intent could be misrepresented to smear them by anyone with an agenda against them, competitor and nemesis alike.

[*] Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….[*] Mick Kelly discussed giving a presentation and rather than include the cooling he said, “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

This excerpt is completely compatible with my prior understanding that the MWP was a local phenomenon (local to Europe), and therefore when discussing global temperatures, the MWP's existence is an irrelevant but prejudicial distraction. If there were two equally valid statistical analyses to represent global temperatures, one of which makes the MWP appear more obvious, I would choose the other way too, assuming what I already know about the MWP is accurate. The same goes for the second paragraph.

[*] Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), was particularly frustrated by computer models that failed to predict the cooling. He said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

This smacks of opinion. Many scientists have opinions that diverge from the data especially in their own field, and while they are unable to produce empirical objections, they maintain their rhetorical objections. This recently happened in the lab I work in, we have disproved a long-held belief in our field, and one of the scientists reviewing our study was among those who first proposed the disproved belief. He gave our lab extensive tests to run, to verify our surprising finding, and all of them confirmed us. He was forced to accept the paper for publication, even while at the same time he was sending personal emails (similar in tone to the above) declaring he still doesn't believe us and thinks we are wrong on the subject. But this isn't evidence, it's noticeably lacking in evidence.

[*] The group at the CRU did not approve of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its choices allowing opposing views to be heard. The group’s trade publication, Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) was targeted by Michael Mann as he wrote, “I’m not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore.” He acknowledges the publications importance saying, “We can’t afford to lose GRL.”[*] “Apparently, the contrarians now have an “in” with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences [where Saiers completed his PhD] that causes me some unease” writes Mann, creator of the debunked "hockey stick" that takes any combination of inputs and makes hockey sticks of them.[*] How to deal with this Saiers guy? Tom Wigley, a senior scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division at NCAR; “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

This is only incriminating if Saiers or someone else at GRL is actually not influenced by "contrarians." If he is, then Mann and Wigley are simply calling a spade a spade. How do you know he's not?

---------------------

I certainly wouldn't expect the zealots to smile and accept this as troubling information.

I want to make it clear that if some of the leaked information does reveal scientific misconduct, I will agree with you. But nothing revealed so far is anything out of the ordinary. They do sound a little paranoid and defensive, but acting paranoid and defensive is not incriminating when there actually are people conspiring to misrepresent and discredit them. And this thread alone is proof that there is.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's my understanding that the work of these "x number of entities" was used as the basis for other "scientific belief" and these where the guys (and those they have influence over) there were chiefly responsible for a lot of the "understanding" we have about global warming.

As eBuddy pointed out, these guys where actively involved in dishonest attempts to non-scientifically influence "scientific belief". It's precisely as I explained above.

...and to be clear, this doesn't mean that theories about man's effect on the environment aren't valid - it just means that the "understanding" that we currently have should not be taken for granted because it's part of a concerted effort to manufacture consensus for political gains, not science.

And I could probably dig up something that counters that, you could do the same, we could go back and forth from there.

I'm sort of tired of this, it's not like we are going to agree on anything.

What I want to know is why we can't put the debate about whether man is contributing to global warming aside, because it doesn't really matter anyway. Whether you believe these theories are not, it is still in our best geopolitical interests to wean ourselves off of Middle East oil. No matter which way you look at it, the solutions all seem to point to the same direction, we need to stop burning oil based products. The only differences are our rationales.

The benefits of switching to a sustainable energy source, one not controlled by countries we are not on good terms with, reducing pollution, building a new economy around these new energy products that we would hopefully be manufacturing domestically, all of this is huge, and to me the benefits undeniable. Can we agree on this?

I hope so, because I think that the whole question of whether we are contributing to global warming and whether we can do anything about it has really hijacked the debate and seemingly slowed progress to a halt.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Whether you believe these theories are not, it is still in our best geopolitical interests to wean ourselves off of Middle East oil. No matter which way you look at it, the solutions all seem to point to the same direction, we need to stop burning oil based products. The only differences are our rationales.

The benefits of switching to a sustainable energy source, one not controlled by countries we are not on good terms with, reducing pollution, building a new economy around these new energy products that we would hopefully be manufacturing domestically, all of this is huge, and to me the benefits undeniable. Can we agree on this?

No. The US is flush with coal, and traditional, dirty coal-fired electricity would probably be the cheapest and easiest alternative to middle-east oil. Next cheapest and easiest would be the Gore model: keep burning middle-east oil like it's going out of style, but pay someone for "carbon offsets" (carbon offset supply being the limiting factor making this route second behind coal IMO). Then leaving aside transportation, the US has an abundance of land and livestock. Politically speaking we should be exploiting this competitive advantage, but environmentally speaking we would want to suppress it.

[besson3c]

Can you run a car off of coal? Coal might be the easiest alternative for power plants, another being nuclear, but it is a pretty incomplete solution, no?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Whether you believe these theories are not, it is still in our best geopolitical interests to wean ourselves off of Middle East oil. No matter which way you look at it, the solutions all seem to point to the same direction, we need to stop burning oil based products. The only differences are our rationales.

You provided a problem, and gave only one solution - a solution based on whether you "believe these theories or not." If the problem is getting ourselves to rely less on the "middle east oil," then one way is to actively drill for oil we have in places that those who believe those theories actively resist. As it's been mentioned, we can also use more coal.

There are solutions, but their perceived effectiveness is based on whether you believe the theories and you really can't get around that. I've always said that the best route to take is to fully take advantage of the resources we have, while investing in technology that will allow us to use less in the future. We aren't at that point yet, and there's really no compelling reason to throw world economies into the toilet just to satisfy those who had already decided without the science that we needed to be forced to live simpler and use less, due to their political beliefs.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can you run a car off of coal?

yes? Also I forgot about natural gas, another climate-unfriendly resource more local to the US than oil is.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You provided a problem, and gave only one solution - a solution based on whether you "believe these theories or not." If the problem is getting ourselves to rely less on the "middle east oil," then one way is to actively drill for oil we have in places that those who believe those theories actively resist. As it's been mentioned, we can also use more coal.

Of course, this solution is *also* based on your belief in a unproven theories: that fossil fuels are an abundant and easily renewable resource and that the boost in oil production from ANWR would be more than just short term.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I still haven't seen anything conclusive from this whole leak. Every "juicy" tidbit is only incriminating if you presuppose guilt. IOW, you're blinded by your own bias. And because of that, I know you won't believe me, so I'll go point by point.

Why would you go point by point when I already have? Why would it make a difference now?

This isn't science, it's gossip. It's telling that you would lead with this.

I thought it was a nice glimpse into the dark-humored, but oddly respectful nature one "side" has for another.

Trade secret. It's a simple concept, and hardly specific to science. Scientists deal entirely in intellectual property. It's not surprising in the least that certain information might be sensitive, if only because a competitor could scoop them if it was leaked. Or, obviously, the intent could be misrepresented to smear them by anyone with an agenda against them, competitor and nemesis alike.

Well then I'd have to say the "trade" is sorely lacking in skill. Information critical for open review must be made available and editing should be very transparent. "leaks" are of no consequence in this environment, particularly when your work has already gone to print. I use the word "edited" because I'm nothing if not a very fair human being. The problem of course is that what you see in the email exchanges is the state of the science itself. The gossip is obviously intended to remind readers of the fact that this is not some "monolithic consensus oracle of global climate", but a bunch of smart, but sloppy people; a coffee clutch of fellows reviewing one another. No one likes it when their dunderman underoos are showing, but this is so tasty of course because they've done their fair share of trying to point out the tighties of others.

This excerpt is completely compatible with my prior understanding that the MWP was a local phenomenon (local to Europe), and therefore when discussing global temperatures, the MWP's existence is an irrelevant but prejudicial distraction. If there were two equally valid statistical analyses to represent global temperatures, one of which makes the MWP appear more obvious, I would choose the other way too, assuming what I already know about the MWP is accurate. The same goes for the second paragraph.

If it's a distraction, it's because the data is statistically significant. If it has to be entirely removed in some cases, it is problematic IMO. That said, the study of MWP can hardly be categorized as settled and there is an increasing body of evidence to suggest that medieval warming was more broadly distributed (and more comparable to late 20th century warming) than presumed by Mann et al. For example; 2,000-year-long temperature and hydrology reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific warm pool uses SST reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific warm pool (which represents a major heat reservoir that both influences global atmospheric circulation and responds to remote northern high-latitude forcings) for a complete picture that reconciles the terrestrial, instrumental record for recent warming while calling into question the scope of medieval warming. I think it is hasty to conclude that MWP was strictly regional and commence with removing the related data; particularly when most of your audience could assume what they already know about the MWP is accurate.

This smacks of opinion. Many scientists have opinions that diverge from the data especially in their own field, and while they are unable to produce empirical objections, they maintain their rhetorical objections. This recently happened in the lab I work in, we have disproved a long-held belief in our field, and one of the scientists reviewing our study was among those who first proposed the disproved belief. He gave our lab extensive tests to run, to verify our surprising finding, and all of them confirmed us. He was forced to accept the paper for publication, even while at the same time he was sending personal emails (similar in tone to the above) declaring he still doesn't believe us and thinks we are wrong on the subject. But this isn't evidence, it's noticeably lacking in evidence.

The anecdote you provide above does little to counter the fact that this scientist is citing the inadequacy of modeling that cannot reconcile with empirical evidence. Again, affirming the state of the "settled" science. In your scenario, a long-held belief was dispelled. Is that what you suggest has occurred here, frustration at the dismantling of a long-held belief?

This is only incriminating if Saiers or someone else at GRL is actually not influenced by "contrarians." If he is, then Mann and Wigley are simply calling a spade a spade. How do you know he's not?

Why is it that one is guilty of being "influenced by contrarians", but this cannot be said of Mann himself, influenced by the AGW "consensus"? I guess I'd ask which side of the discipline has more to lose here and why? I've heard many things about McIntyre et al. who've given these folks quite a headache over the past few years, but very little calls into question the integrity of their work. The emails display more ad hom regarding contrarians and paranoia regarding their own work than substantive challenges to the work of others.

I'm an analyst and at times my findings do not shed a favorable light on certain operational aspects of my company. I'm faced with frequent challenges to my work and have learned to welcome those who'd like to "poke holes" in my conclusions. This bolsters healthy practice as opposed to the stress reactions apparent in the emails made public so far.

I want to make it clear that if some of the leaked information does reveal scientific misconduct, I will agree with you. But nothing revealed so far is anything out of the ordinary. They do sound a little paranoid and defensive, but acting paranoid and defensive is not incriminating when there actually are people conspiring to misrepresent and discredit them. And this thread alone is proof that there is.

Scientific "misconduct" has been illustrated in the past (particularly Mann's methodology) and that has gained little traction. The emails show a more "human" element to the science and as such are more newsworthy. This should not surprise you. I think this thread illustrates beautifully, the stress reactions to what would otherwise be a critical element of science in almost any other discipline. Evidence.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, affirming the state of the "settled" science.

But... no one is saying the "science is settled," are they?

That seems like a straw man argument to me. The "science" on anything, by definition, is never settled.

We've already been over this: if your argument is that "the science must be settled" then it's a false argument from the very beginning. I'm sure Uncle Skeleton could provide more insight into just how unsettled most scientific disciplines really are.

We do know some things. We know the greenhouse effect exists, and that CO2 and other GHGs prevent heat energy from escaping the atmosphere, from basic chemistry. We know that mankind's actions over the last couple hundred years has caused atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs to rise dramatically. And thus we know that earth's surface temperatures have risen during the 20th century, and almost certainly will continue to rise to some extent as a result.

Again, we come back to those questions I posted earlier.

greg

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But... no one is saying the "science is settled," are they?

That seems like a straw man argument to me. The "science" on anything, by definition, is never settled.

We've already been over this: if your argument is that "the science must be settled" then it's a false argument from the very beginning. I'm sure Uncle Skeleton could provide more insight into just how unsettled most scientific disciplines really are.

We do know some things. We know the greenhouse effect exists, and that CO2 and other GHGs prevent heat energy from escaping the atmosphere, from basic chemistry. We know that mankind's actions over the last couple hundred years has caused atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs to rise dramatically. And thus we know that earth's surface temperatures have risen during the 20th century, and almost certainly will continue to rise to some extent as a result.

Again, we come back to those questions I posted earlier.

greg

Crap. Absolutely no agreement that manmade CO2 is causing global warming.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Crap. Absolutely no agreement that manmade CO2 is causing global warming.

We *do* know that CO2 traps heat. We *do* know that humans are a source of CO2. As a result, it is unquestionable that humans contribute to global warming. The question at hand is "do humans contribute enough CO2 to make a noticeable impact on the global climate?"

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

We *do* know that CO2 traps heat. We *do* know that humans are a source of CO2. As a result, it is unquestionable that humans contribute to global warming. The question at hand is "do humans contribute enough CO2 to make a noticeable impact on the global climate?"

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Of course, this solution is *also* based on your belief in a unproven theories: that fossil fuels are an abundant and easily renewable resource and that the boost in oil production from ANWR would be more than just short term.

I don't deny it. You help prove my point.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

That doesn't answer the question like you apparently think it does.

Here's an analogy that might help you see it: Sara weighs 160 lbs. If you hand her a box that weighs just 30 lbs., she will have to put out a lot more effort to hold it up. Putting down the box will only reduce the amount of weight she's holding up by 15%, but Sara will feel a big difference.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't deny it. You help prove my point.

Yep, unproven theories on both sides of the equation. And, really, the only way to prove the climate change theory is to do nothing and see if it happens. But, of course, it'll be 20 years from now and you'll be here blaming Clinton for it.

The real debate is "Is the risk of climate change strong enough that it warrants action?" and "Does 'action' have to be all-or-nothing, or are there small things we can do that don't require destroying our economies?".

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Yep, unproven theories on both sides of the equation. And, really, the only way to prove the climate change theory is to do nothing and see if it happens. But, of course, it'll be 20 years from now and you'll be here blaming Clinton for it.

The real debate is "Is the risk of climate change strong enough that it warrants action?" and "Does 'action' have to be all-or-nothing, or are there small things we can do that don't require destroying our economies?".

ecoEnquirer: EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant

[besson3c]

Haven't we established that there are websites out there that will back any conceivable opinion with charts, opinions, links to studies, data, etc. of various status and validity?

Tell me why I should believe that your site is better than sites that contradict this? Otherwise, I think we all know how to use Google.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I thought it was a nice glimpse into the dark-humored, but oddly respectful nature one "side" has for another.

It may have been a rude comment, but at least it was made in private; your side is the one airing these things in public. Also, ad hom, guilt by association, composition fallacy, etc.

Well then I'd have to say the "trade" is sorely lacking in skill. Information critical for open review must be made available and editing should be very transparent. "leaks" are of no consequence in this environment, particularly when your work has already gone to print.

And there you have it. These leaked emails are over 10 years old. They were timely at one point, and now they no longer are. For the "lost" primary data I agree, that shouldn't happen, but innocent mistakes happen in any field. Here you are conflating intention to erase emails with missing primary data to imply that the intention to erase things applies to the data. I see no evidence of that connection.

If it's a distraction, it's because the data is statistically significant. If it has to be entirely removed in some cases, it is problematic IMO.

Nothing said it was removed, nor statistically significant (globally).

The anecdote you provide above does little to counter the fact that this scientist is citing the inadequacy of modeling that cannot reconcile with empirical evidence.

He's venting. In private. If he doesn't have evidence to back up his opinion, and he isn't sure enough of his opinion to state it publicly, on record, his opinion is meaningless. It's the same problem BadKosh has with his secret-knowledge private personal communication with NASA scientists who refuse to even give their names (from the other thread).

Again, affirming the state of the "settled" science.

Straw man. No one said it was "settled" science, they only say that the currently available evidence supports this theory, same as the theories of evolution, gravity, magnetism, or nuclear physics. Any of them could be disproved tomorrow, with the right new evidence. No science is ever "settled."

In your scenario, a long-held belief was dispelled. Is that what you suggest has occurred here, frustration at the dismantling of a long-held belief?

The difference is evidence. In my scenario we had evidence disproving the long-held belief. It was still questioned, with specific evidentiary experiments, and we used them to produce more evidence which still supported us. If Kevin Trenberth had any evidence, I can't think of any reason why we wouldn't have heard it by now. It would have made his career, if it existed.

Why is it that one is guilty of being "influenced by contrarians", but this cannot be said of Mann himself, influenced by the AGW "consensus"?

Of course it could be said of him. I'm not saying his accusation is true or false, I'm saying that the accusation itself (in private no less) doesn't incriminate him of anything. He's not the one who asked any of us to consider the merit of the accusation, you are.

I'm an analyst and at times my findings do not shed a favorable light on certain operational aspects of my company. I'm faced with frequent challenges to my work and have learned to welcome those who'd like to "poke holes" in my conclusions. This bolsters healthy practice as opposed to the stress reactions apparent in the emails made public so far.

Do your hole-pokers actively lie, not only about your work but also about your motives and your personal life? Do they hack into your email trying to expose your dirty laundry? Somehow I don't think the two situations are comparable.

Scientific "misconduct" has been illustrated in the past (particularly Mann's methodology) and that has gained little traction.

I was not aware that Mann's error was intentional. What evidence do you have that it was?

The emails show a more "human" element to the science and as such are more newsworthy. This should not surprise you.

That's funny. No, I'm not surprised that scientists are people too. That's why all these "juicy" tidbits showing them being candid aren't a smoking gun.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

ecoEnquirer: EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant

I... have a bridge to sell you, Orion27

How a Global Warming Satirist Breaks the Ice
"So it's just a fun thing. Well, mostly. 'I was surprised at the number of people that thought the EcoEnquirer stories were real.'"

ecoEnquirer: California Town Bans Tsunamis

"It is also believed that posting of "tsunami-free" signs will have a positive psychological effect on tourists, who will feel somewhat safer visiting a town that is proactive about addressing the tsunami problem."

[Wiskedjak]

lol!
now that we've exposed one person making up anti-climate-change information we can say that *everyone* opposed to climate change is lying!

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Haven't we established that there are websites out there that will back any conceivable opinion with charts, opinions, links to studies, data, etc. of various status and validity?

Tell me why I should believe that your site is better than sites that contradict this? Otherwise, I think we all know how to use Google.

Show me another chart on manmade water vapor.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I... have a bridge to sell you, Orion27

How a Global Warming Satirist Breaks the Ice
"So it's just a fun thing. Well, mostly. 'I was surprised at the number of people that thought the EcoEnquirer stories were real.'"

ecoEnquirer: California Town Bans Tsunamis

"It is also believed that posting of "tsunami-free" signs will have a positive psychological effect on tourists, who will feel somewhat safer visiting a town that is proactive about addressing the tsunami problem."

Funny, I'll admit I fell for it!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Haven't we established that there are websites out there that will back any conceivable opinion with charts, opinions, links to studies, data, etc. of various status and validity?

Not only websites, but international governmental agencies as well!

[besson3c]

This whole debate is really depressing, in many ways.

What we need is to get Americans behind science and discovery like we were for landing on the moon, to get people waiting in anticipation for the next fuel source, and to race with other countries to be the first out with a commercially viable energy source.

The winning country gets to control a whole new economy, to create all sorts of new jobs and infrastructure that will center around whatever this is, to secure prosperity for years to come similar to how the Saudis and other oil rich nations have enjoyed their status for so many years.

Instead, we have split this issue down the middle with the all-too-familiar left and right left to bicker about whose charts and graphs are the best and most accurate.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But... no one is saying the "science is settled," are they?

Oh they absolutely are. It has permeated the lingo of zealots.

That seems like a straw man argument to me. The "science" on anything, by definition, is never settled.

Of course not. It is only with regard to drafting legislation that science becomes an issue of certain human peril.

We've already been over this: if your argument is that "the science must be settled" then it's a false argument from the very beginning. I'm sure Uncle Skeleton could provide more insight into just how unsettled most scientific disciplines really are.

The only ones insisting that the science is settled are the ones attempting to use the evolving conclusions of science to draft legislation. This problem is made more evident by the evolving nomenclature around the issue. Global warming... climate change. They should stop this as it is not serving them well in the court of public opinion where any attempts to mitigate the "problem" would start.

We do know some things. We know the greenhouse effect exists, and that CO2 and other GHGs prevent heat energy from escaping the atmosphere, from basic chemistry.We know that mankind's actions over the last couple hundred years has caused atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs to rise dramatically. And thus we know that earth's surface temperatures have risen during the 20th century, and almost certainly will continue to rise to some extent as a result.

Right, just as we know that UHI affects temperature as well, but interestingly we do not see the projected relationship between the dramatic increase in CO2 and warming this past decade. This is the "travesty" mentioned by one of the scientists earlier. Empirical evidence does not affirm the projections.

[kido331]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What we need is to get Americans behind science and discovery like we were for landing on the moon, to get people waiting in anticipation for the next fuel source, and to race with other countries to be the first out with a commercially viable energy source.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It may have been a rude comment, but at least it was made in private; your side is the one airing these things in public. Also, ad hom, guilt by association, composition fallacy, etc.

What ad hom, guilt by association, and composition fallacy are skeptics guilty of? Isn't this really just a deflection in terms of our discussion on the CRU emails? These emails illustrate to me a stress reaction to evidence and those citing the evidence.

Originally Posted by Phil Jones

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! … The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil- PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!

Originally Posted by Mick Kelley

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

This is misconduct. This is not an honest exchange of ideas related to climate science Uncle.

The fact of the matter is there are few aspects of the attempt to delete public data or conceal it as above, and delete data possibly subject to a Freedom of Information request that would be open to interpretation or lacking in context. It is misconduct, plain and simple.

And there you have it. These leaked emails are over 10 years old. They were timely at one point, and now they no longer are. For the "lost" primary data I agree, that shouldn't happen, but innocent mistakes happen in any field. Here you are conflating intention to erase emails with missing primary data to imply that the intention to erase things applies to the data. I see no evidence of that connection.

Then you likely would not regardless of how damning the evidence IMO. The fact of the matter is that you have data points entirely removed to conceal the "coldish-years", you have FOI avoidance, and you have a circle-jerk of peer review working through "friends" to have headaches' employment terminated. This is serious. It reconciles with complaints from former IPCC scientists who were similarly alienated from this tribalist environment. If you don't see a problem with this, your standards may have succumb to the same fashionable clique mentality that seems to permeate climate science.

Nothing said it was removed, nor statistically significant (globally).

The emails most certainly do indicate data removal/exclusion to prejudice a conclusion. The fact that they had to be removed/excluded establishes their statistical significance.

He's venting. In private. If he doesn't have evidence to back up his opinion, and he isn't sure enough of his opinion to state it publicly, on record, his opinion is meaningless. It's the same problem BadKosh has with his secret-knowledge private personal communication with NASA scientists who refuse to even give their names (from the other thread).

We're talking about someone venting not only about evidence that doesn't support his suppositions, but evidence that in fact contradicts his assertions. He's going to give his opinion regardless of the condition of his evidence. Unless the group of scientists BadKosh claims to work with would like to be thrown into the lake of fiery political rhetoric and endure attacks from the "clique" who'd work with their cronies to get them canned, It follows that BadKosh would not start name-dropping them. If I were one of his co-workers and had discussed my personal views on the state of the science and they were not kind words related to people at the forefront of alarmism, I'd appreciate that he kindly keep my name out of it as well. It's Christmastime and I'd rather remain employed thanks. Your name is your brand, consider the lack of interest in providing names a "trade secret" I guess.

Straw man. No one said it was "settled" science, they only say that the currently available evidence supports this theory, same as the theories of evolution, gravity, magnetism, or nuclear physics. Any of them could be disproved tomorrow, with the right new evidence. No science is ever "settled."

Do we really have a problem calculating and in fact projecting the affects of gravity? "Settled" has become the mantra of perhaps the most vocal proponent of climate change activism; a winner of the Nobel Prize for his work related to this issue. You can say no one is saying this because of course it's admittedly a horrible word to use in scientific discourse, but we've already established how the popular media is not as interested in science. Pointing out the infancy of the discipline has merit. It's not popular or nearly as newsworthy, but it is sober and honest.

The difference is evidence.

The difference is evidence or the problem is evidence? They actually apply in both scenarios quite well.

In my scenario we had evidence disproving the long-held belief. It was still questioned, with specific evidentiary experiments, and we used them to produce more evidence which still supported us. If Kevin Trenberth had any evidence, I can't think of any reason why we wouldn't have heard it by now. It would have made his career, if it existed.

Certainly. It's exciting when it happens I'm sure. When it doesn't, it takes professionalism or good conduct to avoid using reconstructions he knows aren't established for example, in order to prejudice or "fit" a conclusion; using the below to bolster his notion of increasing hurricane activity due to “Trends in human-influenced environmental changes...


Now, 2 years later we're looking at something quite different below. Something contrary to his supposition...

... and nary a word. This sort of thing is getting old, that's all.

It just occurred to me however that a lot of context for these emails is lost on those who aren't familiar with the growing body of evidence and people challenging AGW alarmism. These people are intimately familiar with the "consensus" and its treatment of contradictory data. The emails that you're being shown in this thread are those that directly involve people like McIntyre and McKitrick; who are behind the requests for data. They attend the conferences, they're the ones publicly and credibly challenging the data used in summary statements to draft global policy. It seems this concept is difficult to accept for some, but evidence (data) will continue to do what it does as long as it's not denied to people who help pay for it. I personally don't like the smell of any of it. This doesn't mean I'm right, but I'm not convinced I'm wrong.

Of course it could be said of him. I'm not saying his accusation is true or false, I'm saying that the accusation itself (in private no less) doesn't incriminate him of anything. He's not the one who asked any of us to consider the merit of the accusation, you are.

I'm merely pointing out what they're saying. It speaks to his own hive mentality.

Do your hole-pokers actively lie, not only about your work but also about your motives and your personal life? Do they hack into your email trying to expose your dirty laundry? Somehow I don't think the two situations are comparable.

They seemed "candid" enough in their emails to one another over the years that apparently hacking emails is a new phenomena and not a problem they were concerned about before. Do you have evidence of "hole-pokers" actively lying and bringing up one's personal life? Do we know who hacked into their emails and exposed their dirty (your word) laundry? I mean, couldn't it be a disgruntled scientist alienated from their clique because of a differing ideal on the importance of empirical evidence? It may point to many things, but is it possible that one of those things is an unhealthy "tribal" environment?

I was not aware that Mann's error was intentional. What evidence do you have that it was?

How did he react when the errors were presented to him? Of course errors can and do happen, but attacking the messenger and denying the errors all the way up to editors at Nature requiring you revisit your methodology does not wreak of professionalism. More like obstructionism IMO.

That's funny. No, I'm not surprised that scientists are people too. That's why all these "juicy" tidbits showing them being candid aren't a smoking gun.

You're right, the examples of them being candid are not a smoking gun. The evidence in the emails showing collusion, corruption, croneyism, and data falsification are the smoking gun, but it seems only to those who've been citing the problems with "consensus" science all along. The human element is illustrated to remind audiences that again, this is not some monolithic machine of intellect or global climate oracle, but a bunch of smart and sloppy people trying to keep their jobs and resorting to whatever means they have available to make their case with or without data and in spite of evidence to the contrary. Just as the "conspiracy theorists" have been claiming all along. Other than this, there is no smoking gun against AGW alarmism. Once it becomes impossible to toe the "warming" line, some will simply change the nature or name of the debate to continue on.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And there you have it. These leaked emails are over 10 years old. They were timely at one point, and now they no longer are.

Al Gore already tried the "old news" diversion. It didn't work very well for him either.

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Al Gore already tried the "old news" diversion.

*woosh*
Go back and read me again, this time in context.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What ad hom, guilt by association, and composition fallacy are skeptics guilty of? Isn't this really just a deflection in terms of our discussion on the CRU emails? These emails illustrate to me a stress reaction to evidence and those citing the evidence.

Of course they'd seem that way to someone who puts more weight on most of the skeptics' arguments than they merit.
To answer your question, I wasn't talking about skeptics in general, I was talking about you, ebuddy. Ad hom: don't listen to john l daly's message because in private he once made an off-color comment about a dead person. Guilt by association: anyone who shares daly's opinion is wrong too. Composition fallacy: climate scientists include at least one person who celebrates skeptics' deaths, so we infer that all climate scientists are similarly inclined, this is just the tip of an iceberg of douches.

This is misconduct. This is not an honest exchange of ideas related to climate science Uncle.

The fact of the matter is there are few aspects of the attempt to delete public data or conceal it as above, and delete data possibly subject to a Freedom of Information request that would be open to interpretation or lacking in context. It is misconduct, plain and simple.

This is only evidence of misconduct if they are found to have followed through on these things afterward (and even then the one about giving a talk would slide; in a talk you're not expected to give 100% of all information, only the things that support your argument. Talks are not binding, they're not in the same league as peer review).

The emails most certainly do indicate data removal/exclusion to prejudice a conclusion. The fact that they had to be removed/excluded establishes their statistical significance.

No, you mean "establishes their rhetorical significance." If you honestly believe what you just wrote, you simply don't have the first clue what statistical significance is.

We're talking about someone venting not only about evidence that doesn't support his suppositions, but evidence that in fact contradicts his assertions.

No, it contradicts his expectations. It's only human nature that a researcher has optimistic expectations about the degree to which the future will validate their predictions. If you think about it, the divergence between prediction and reality would have to go somewhat further to prove them wrong than it would to sour their optimistic expectations. It still might, hang in there.

He's going to give his opinion regardless of the condition of his evidence. Unless the group of scientists BadKosh claims to work with would like to be thrown into the lake of fiery political rhetoric and endure attacks from the "clique" who'd work with their cronies to get them canned, It follows that BadKosh would not start name-dropping them. If I were one of his co-workers and had discussed my personal views on the state of the science and they were not kind words related to people at the forefront of alarmism, I'd appreciate that he kindly keep my name out of it as well. It's Christmastime and I'd rather remain employed thanks. Your name is your brand, consider the lack of interest in providing names a "trade secret" I guess.

If you have evidence to back you up, it doesn't matter what fiery rhetoric anyone uses, you're untouchable. If you don't, well then you deserve what you get for going off half-cocked.

Do we really have a problem calculating and in fact projecting the affects of gravity?

Yes. Physicists are still doing experiments to probe the Pioneer anomaly, and then there's MOND

"Settled" has become the mantra of perhaps the most vocal proponent of climate change activism; a winner of the Nobel Prize for his work related to this issue.

He's not here (and he doesn't work at CRU), that's why they call it a straw-man. You can set him up and tear him back down all you want, no skin off my nose.

Now, 2 years later we're looking at something quite different below. Something contrary to his supposition...

... and nary a word. This sort of thing is getting old, that's all.

That's pathetic. Are you really standing behind that? The first graph's trend line believably continues on into the past. The second graph's trend line flies up into empty space. The first graph used a believably honest round-number of years for comparison (20), the second graph was clearly cherry-picked with an arbitrary number of years (16). If the second graph used the same number as the first, the trend would still be upwards even with the recent drop-off. Here, I just made this using today's S&P500 past performance. Does it convince you that the S&P500 has been historically falling?

"Nary a word" is appropriate, given the laughable "evidence" you've presented.

It just occurred to me however that a lot of context for these emails is lost on those who aren't familiar with the growing body of evidence and people challenging AGW alarmism.

Very astute, and this is your best point, IMO. Truthfully, I don't keep abreast of much of the climate skeptic hubbub. The reason is your classic boy-who-cried-wolf scenario. When you're willing to stand behind a farce like the above graph (and Orion27's recent stumble), your credibility is shot. You can't blame people for not tuning in to your next revelation after crap like that. You're not doing your due diligence before putting forward an argument. Mann apparently didn't either, but you have to admit that his paper was the exception, not the rule. Peer review is still far more reliable than google.

I'm merely pointing out what they're saying. It speaks to his own hive mentality.

Only if he's wrong about it. Why do you refuse to grasp what I'm saying here? Is it because of your own hive mentality?

They seemed "candid" enough in their emails to one another over the years that apparently hacking emails is a new phenomena and not a problem they were concerned about before.

Scientists can be remarkably dense when it comes to "street smarts." This surprises you? I like to think I'm pretty close-chested with my own online security, but honestly the FOIA-email connection only occurred to me as late as about 4 years ago. In fact to my knowledge, it only occurred to skeptics/PETA/etc more recently than 10 years ago.

[Macrobat]

YouTube - Hockey Stick over Time - Narrated

Interesting viewing

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

YouTube - Hockey Stick over Time - Narrated

Interesting viewing

Dude. Have you not read this thread?

Don't you know NOAA and NASA does not provide any data.

The video just contains made up data because NOAA doesn't provide data.

Besides, it's global warming. Not greenland warming and cooling.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Of course they'd seem that way to someone who puts more weight on most of the skeptics' arguments than they merit.
To answer your question, I wasn't talking about skeptics in general, I was talking about you, ebuddy. Ad hom: don't listen to john l daly's message because in private he once made an off-color comment about a dead person. Guilt by association: anyone who shares daly's opinion is wrong too. Composition fallacy: climate scientists include at least one person who celebrates skeptics' deaths, so we infer that all climate scientists are similarly inclined, this is just the tip of an iceberg of douches.

My explanation of this apparently wasn't good enough for you? The breakdown I gave at the end does not include the Daly statement. I thought it was an interesting glimpse into the relationship between the two.

To be clear, I would never suggest that there isn't a hive mentality among skeptics. The problem is I'm paying for the one that has a great deal more influence over the laws and actions in this country and this hive is showing signs of a hornet's nest IMO.

This is only evidence of misconduct if they are found to have followed through on these things afterward (and even then the one about giving a talk would slide; in a talk you're not expected to give 100% of all information, only the things that support your argument. Talks are not binding, they're not in the same league as peer review).

The problem here is that his argument requires he not give 100% of all information. There are associates among him who would likewise complicate an FOI request. I get it, you don't have a problem with this. I do.

No, you mean "establishes their rhetorical significance." If you honestly believe what you just wrote, you simply don't have the first clue what statistical significance is.

How is what I said a problem in context of any interpretation of statistical significance? I'm not the one suggesting it's meaningful data, Mick Kelly was. He mentions 1998 in terms of "noise" (my word) that he's used to dealing with, but he's "concerned" (his word) of the possibility that we might be going through a longer, 10 year period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina. He's going to remove data that illustrates a downward trend to alleviate his concern. It's simply cherry-picking data. Again, you don't have a problem with this. I do. I'm not confident you're paying much attention at all however.

No, it contradicts his expectations. It's only human nature that a researcher has optimistic expectations about the degree to which the future will validate their predictions. If you think about it, the divergence between prediction and reality would have to go somewhat further to prove them wrong than it would to sour their optimistic expectations. It still might, hang in there.

I'd like to have more patience Uncle I really would. The problem is, as anxious as some are to caste this into a legislative endeavor, I'm not sure there's enough time for science to catch up.

f you have evidence to back you up, it doesn't matter what fiery rhetoric anyone uses, you're untouchable. If you don't, well then you deserve what you get for going off half-cocked.

There's no such thing as "untouchable" Uncle. This is preposterous. You can be correct and viewed as going off half-cocked regardless.

Yes. Physicists are still doing experiments to probe the Pioneer anomaly, and then there's MOND

Well, I'd say MOND is probably the best comparison to the state of climate science I've seen yet. Good show. I stand corrected on the certainty of gravity as well, interesting anomalies found in 20 years of successful flyby's. I take gravity for granted of course because we act in and around the existence of it on a daily basis. Perhaps gravity has an easier go in the court of public opinion because it is so much more apparent. Now, if I'm going to be charged by the Federal government based on a measure of gravity, we'd better be willing to look more deeply into MOND and the pioneer anomaly.

He's not here (and he doesn't work at CRU), that's why they call it a straw-man. You can set him up and tear him back down all you want, no skin off my nose.

It is to illustrate how quickly "the establishment" will prop this straw-man up regardless of the science at his disposal. Take him or leave him. He's a fun character to throw in the debate, not unlike BadKosh for you.

That's pathetic. Are you really standing behind that? The first graph's trend line believably continues on into the past. The second graph's trend line flies up into empty space. The first graph used a believably honest round-number of years for comparison (20), the second graph was clearly cherry-picked with an arbitrary number of years (16). If the second graph used the same number as the first, the trend would still be upwards even with the recent drop-off. Here, I just made this using today's S&P500 past performance. Does it convince you that the S&P500 has been historically falling?

Please pay attention Uncle. Both graphs are clearly cherry-picked. I can find several declines in the data just as I can find several inclines or I could go back an "honest round-number" of 20 years in the second graph to illustrate their relative stability. It's getting old.

Very astute, and this is your best point, IMO. Truthfully, I don't keep abreast of much of the climate skeptic hubbub. The reason is your classic boy-who-cried-wolf scenario. When you're willing to stand behind a farce like the above graph (and Orion27's recent stumble), your credibility is shot. You can't blame people for not tuning in to your next revelation after crap like that. You're not doing your due diligence before putting forward an argument. Mann apparently didn't either, but you have to admit that his paper was the exception, not the rule. Peer review is still far more reliable than google.

Thank goodness peer review has not yet been relegated to meta-googles. I don't have to worry about my credibility Uncle. I'm not so invested that I need to lie about data or conceal it or massage it to make an argument. Evidence will continue to do what evidence does as long as it is not being denied to those who help pay for it.

Only if he's wrong about it. Why do you refuse to grasp what I'm saying here? Is it because of your own hive mentality?

Perhaps it is evidence of my own hive mentality. The good news is my word is not being used to draft legislation that affects your livelihood.

Scientists can be remarkably dense when it comes to "street smarts." This surprises you? I like to think I'm pretty close-chested with my own online security, but honestly the FOIA-email connection only occurred to me as late as about 4 years ago. In fact to my knowledge, it only occurred to skeptics/PETA/etc more recently than 10 years ago.

What are you talking about; "FOIA-email connection"? These are among the most highly profiled scientists of our time, they're not familiar with the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to transparent methodology and data-sharing? I mean, one jokingly suggested that skeptics not be told of the Act. The fact of the matter is one should not have to invoke the act to get the data. They invoke the act, frustrate the zealots, and the information is "lost". Misconduct.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Please pay attention Uncle. Both graphs are clearly cherry-picked. I can find several declines in the data just as I can find several inclines or I could go back an "honest round-number" of 20 years in the second graph to illustrate their relative stability. It's getting old.

Have you not seen the "the earth is cooling over the past 10 years" claim, based strictly on a random line on a graph starting precisely at 1998? Hope you haven't used that one, hmmm?

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Have you not seen the "the earth is cooling over the past 10 years" claim, based strictly on a random line on a graph starting precisely at 1998? Hope you haven't used that one, hmmm?

I hope I haven't either. I guess I'm hoping you have an example on standby? I mean, don't get me wrong as I've certainly seen the claim from skeptics and I've seen graphs manipulated to illustrate the point, but now we've seen this claim from the most unlikely of sources- an AGW proponent at CRU. I wonder if those who've been saying this is untrue and that skeptics are conspiracy theorists have used one of Mick Kelly's graphs that removed the downward trend to hide the recent coldishness.