I've been following Climate Audit for ages. As a scientist I used to generally believe in "global warming" on the basis that "I wasn't a climatologist" and "they were in a better position to judge than me". Then came the story where they had to correct the official temperature record on McIntyre's evidence that it was incorrect and I started reading around the subject in my spare time. I simply cannot believe the behaviour climate scientists think they can get away with. In my field, I'm expected to be open about my data and the methods I used to obtain it. They are secretive to the point where it is difficult to believe they don't have something to hide.
If they aren't guilty of perpetuating scientific fraud, why do they act like they are? Climate data isn't some sort of national security secret. There is no patient confidentiality involved. They expect the world's population to radically change its life-style, and for developing countries to not develop (for want of a better phrase) based purely on their assurance that it'll be very bad for everyone if we don't do as they say. And then they refuse to release any of the data or the analysis code.
I've become increasingly convinced that certain luminaries in the field whose reputations were made on their early success publishing what now increasingly appear to be completely incorrect results are protecting those reputations rather than doing the right thing.
I always get frustrated when scientists are treated by the media as mystical impartial beings. The scientific method is impartial. Scientists are merely people, and as subject to personal bias and ego as anyone else. Climate science, as a relatively new field with a small number of "big names" who are still alive and is therefore more vulnerable to this than most other fields, particularly now that it has become highly politicised, with politics driving research. It also relies heavily on computer simulation, a field in which I would consider myself an expert and sufficiently well versed to understand that many of the things they are doing are at best flimsy.
I don't not believe in global warming. I don't believe in global warming either. I don't see how from the methods they have used (or at the very least those that have been exposed) any rational human being can draw any conclusion whatsoever because the things they have done have perverted any meaning in the underlying data into gibberish.
They use data sets to develop the simulations, and then the simulation results to correct the data sets for ****s sake.
We called that the "homework constant" when I was an undergraduate. Nice to know that these climate dips haven't progressed beyond freshman year shenanigans.
"As I have pointed out ad nauseam: When a leak hurts the right, the story is about the content of the leak.
"When a leak hurts the left, the content of the leak is ignored, and the story is about the nefarious and criminal evil-doing that produced the leak, and how awful that is, and oh, look, here's an important story about how tough large-breasted women have it when they attempt jogging or gymnastics. Let's talk about that.
"Not this time, boys. Not this time."
This would have to occur the day before opening morning of the regular deer season. Priorities, y'see ...
"Dr. Michael Mann co-authored the famous graph of temperature trends dubbed the “hockey stick graph.”
...
"Dr. Mann was questioned later in the day and he spoke out about the documents and emails:
"Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, features in many of the email exchanges. He said: “I’m simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.""
You know, I think this is one of the few times that the ends justify the means. They have been blocking this data from being publicly disseminated for years, refusing to respond to FOIA requests and requests from other scientists in the field (at least when they're not "true believers").
And yet, billions of dollars have been spent, and trillions in future dollars will be spent, based on this data. To put it simply, the public deserves to know what's in these files if their hard earned money is going to be spent as a result of that data.
It'll be the exact same attack and ignorance of the facts.
U-J, there are a couple of intriguing defenses of the hacked emails in the comments to Lambert's latest post, if you can wade through all the grunting and snorting. One particular defense of the "hiding the decline" statement I found interesting (here, if wanna read it). I don't know enough about climate science to judge whether these defenses are meaningful, but it'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.
Sadly, the climate change debate has degenerated into something not even close to resembling science any longer. The problem began (as usual) with the right's complete inability to admit fault or responsibility for...well...anything. Not surprising and very typical.
Then it became their mission to point out ANY data that even remotely contradicted the climate change theory as being proof positive that the entire theory was wrong and always will be, Amen. Of course, this ignores all the data that supports the theory of climate change but that can NEVER be discussed because it is man's destiny to do whatever he wants with the Earth.
And we never do anything wrong and admitting to it means you are commie faggot.
So, this prompted a reaction by climate change supporters to start pulling the same shit the naysayers pull...suppress data, lie about facts, and ignore scientific method. It's not about the science anymore. They have to react to the relentless attacks and PR the shit of their data because to the loonies, facts don't matter. They have to play their game.
This latest revelation will put serious study back another decade while many of you "scientists" will skip,,laugh, and point and say, "See? It's all fake. We're right, they're wrong. Nyah Nyah Nyah!"
Mark, you really don't get science. See, good science stands on its own.
Good scientists don't trade emails talking about how to massage the data to make things look the way it "should". Good scientists don't declare that the "science is settled" because the whole point of science is to continually question.
The following is from Modern Times, by Paul Johnson, and it's about the first experiments to test if Einstein was right about relativity.
___________________________________
The expedition satisfied two of Einstein's tests, which were
reconfirmed by W. W. Campbell during the Septenlber 1 922 eclipse.
It was a measure of Einstein's scientific rigour that he refused to
accept that his own theory was valid until the third test (the 'red
shift' ) was met. 'If it were proved that this effect does not exist in
nature', he wrote to Eddington on 1 5 December 1 9 1 9, 'then the
whole theory would have to be abandoned' . In fact the 'red shift' was
confirmed by the Mount Wilson observatory in 1 923, and thereafter
empirical proof of relativity theory accumulated steadily, one of the
most striking instances being the gravitational lensing system of
quasars, identified in 1 9 79-8 0.5 At the time, Einstein's professional
heroism did not go unappreciated. To the young philosopher Karl
Popper and his friends at Vienna University, 'it was a great experience
for us, and one which had a lasting influence on my intellectual
development' . 'What impressed me most', Popper wrote later, 'was
Einstein's own clear statement that he would regard his theory as
untenable if it should fail in certain tests . . . . Here was an attitude
utterly different from the dogmatism of Marx, Freud, Adler and even
more so that of their followers. Einstein was looking for crucial
experiments whose agreement with his predictions would by no
means establish his theory; while a disagreement, as he was the first
to stress, would show his theory to be untenable. This, I felt, was the
true scientific attitude. '6
_____________________________________
Got that Marky? I'll restate it: A disagreement would show his theory to be untenable.
If the data doesn't fit the hypothesis, then you must trash the hypothesis. The people at East Anglia have been trying to twist the data to fit the hypothesis. That's not science.
"The problem began (as usual) with the right's complete inability to admit fault or responsibility for...well...anything. "
Running through a basic translation, that produces:
"WAAAH IT'S THE RIGHT'S FAULT THAT THEY LIED AND INTENTIONALLY SUPPRESSED DATA THAT CONTRADICTED THEIR POSITION!!"
I like the "as usual." Not only can you not admit fault in yourself, you can't even allow fault to be admitted from anyone who might even roughly subscribe to your worldview.
Honestly, I really, really am amazed that you manage to put your pants on in the morning without setting your ass on fire.
I just want to be clear about this. The four of you are stating that ALL of the data that has been gathered regarding climate change is wrong. All of the studies have been driven by a leftist ideology of America hating and has NO basis whatsoever in scientific fact. Appropriate scientific method has never been used in ANY study of climate change and it's all based on belief.
The four of you are stating that ALL of the data that has been gathered regarding climate change is wrong.
Allow me to correct it for you, Mark.
ALL of the "science" founded on the Mann "Hockey Stick" is at best suspect because there is evidence to strongly suggest the "Hockey Stick" was in fact a deliberate scam.
Here's another version, in case you like this one better:
ALL of the data that has been gathered regarding climate change which claims that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age actually never happened, or that Maunder Minima do not affect climate, or that the Solar Neutrino problem is irrelevant to climate science, are not only bullshit, they are obvious, grade-school bullshit.
Confine yourself to climate studies that don't make such obvious, blatant bullshit claims (if you can find any) and you'll get better results.
"I just want to be clear about this. The four of you are stating that ALL of the data that has been gathered regarding climate change is wrong. All of the studies have been driven by a leftist ideology of America hating and has NO basis whatsoever in scientific fact. Appropriate scientific method has never been used in ANY study of climate change and it's all based on belief."
No, people are QUESTIONING the data and the methodology, which the original proponents are reluctant to release, for some reason - which makes it look even MORE suspect. I think there is still way too much that we don't know about this, which makes me recoil at the arrogance of these people who make these flawed charts and models and then claim they have ALL the answers, and that GW not only exists, but it's HUMANITY'S FAULT.
NEED MORE INPUT.
There's no WAY to come to such conclusions given what we have now.
I know you liberals absolutely HATE it when people question you - that's when you get the most vicious.
Us dumb flat-earthers, civil war re-enactors just need to take what you're giving us and STFU.
Well, sorry, Marky, we don't live in your utopia QUITE yet.
Another important point to be made. Computer modeling is a very large part of AGW theory. Models are used not only to predict, but the "data" they generate is used as evidence for AGW.
Predictions are not proof, but they are being used as the basis for very expensive policy. That is madness.
You, and the rest of the folks who talk about AGW's threat to life on Earth make several enormous assumptions.
1a: Human activity is the primary cause of the warming trend demonstrated in the latter part of the 20th century.
1b: This warming trend will continue indefinitely.
2: This warming trend is an existential threat to human life, either directly or indirectly.
3. This trend can be reversed by human action.
These three assumptions are axiomatic among the AGW crowd. You cannot build on argument on such a shaky foundation, and now you are reaping the benefits of your intemperance. People are wising up, they are daring to question the "settled science"
Once again Mark, you aren't understand how you do good science. If there is data that doesn't fit your hypothesis, you have to reconsider your hypothesis. If C02 emissions are rising and global temperature is falling, then your hypothesis is wrong. Except instead of going back to square one and kissing away the grant money, these "scientists" head back to the lab to fudge the numbers.
Consider: One gathers data, and then one reasons from data to conclusions, said conclusions always being uncertain, pending new data and/or better analysis of data. That is how science is done.
Got that so far, teacher boy?
It is the global warmeners' reasoning from data that is garbage, and it is the global warmeners' refusal to consider all the relevant data that is garbage.
Got that too, teacher boy?
What do the global warmeners do that is not science? Hide their data, hide their methodology, and declare that their conclusions are beyond review, i.e. "the science is settled".
Goddamn, sack boy, are you really so dense that you have to resort to such crapola? Have you nothing else in your holster?
A teacher thinks that science is just another kind of poll? That if you get enough people to agree with a theory, that is all that's needed for it to be true?
Has Mark divulged which subject(s) he teaches? Hopefully it's not science.
His defense of these scientists' fraudulent behavior can be summed up as "the Devil made them do it." That defense doesn't wash in my field -- people have lost careers over far less egregious frauds.
If I obtain a result that has extraordinary implications, I am obligated to share my data and computer codes with other scientists and be transparent about how I got my result. If independent groups can't replicate the result, it's worthless. Even with this sort of careful analysis, a result is never accepted without a great deal of debate. No branch of science is exempt from this process. And the debate is NEVER, EVER over.
Even something as tried and tested as gravity is currently under assault. Last year, a public lecture was given in my department about the need to reconsider the law of gravity, because of the strong evidence for dark matter. The audience, comprised of some of the most respected astrophysicists in the world, was skeptical but respectful. Nobody was shouted down, nobody's credentials were called into question, and nobody was labeled a denialist. Everyone understands the extraordinary implications of dark matter, and so these challenges are taken very seriously. Few in my field are comfortable accepting a radical new idea without first convincing themselves that the critics are wrong. The only way to do that is to give the critics a fair hearing.
I'm eternally grateful to be in a field that is not politically or ideologically controversial, because the research is actually about understanding how things work.
I agree but it seems to me like it is here. Based on the research I have reviewed, climate change based on man made coal emissions is very likely but not a certainty. Yet, from what I have read on this blog it is most assuredly NOT happening, a sham cooked up by liberal zealots, and now a secret plot by scientists in Britain who want to further the lie.
I'm not going to deny that what they did was wrong but why did they do it? Because people on the right can't admit fault. It's just that simple.
What's more is that many people on the right are just plain stupid. China is all in with green tech. Whether it ends up being valid or not, there's money to be made and America is falling behind because of these buffoons. And it's better for the Earth regardless so what the fuck is the big deal?
"Has Mark divulged which subject(s) he teaches?"
History, Current Events, Political Science and Film.
"A teacher thinks that science is just another kind of poll?"
Where on earth did you get that from?
"One gathers data, and then one reasons from data to conclusions, said conclusions always being uncertain, pending new data and/or better analysis of data. That is how science is done."
Except if the conclusion does not fit with one's ideology, DJ:)
Britt, so you are saying that all of this is "bad" science?
I've read it and I love Michael Crichton. I also love George Carlin who said that human beings are insanely vain to think that WE can have any sort of environmental impact on the Earth. Both are right to a certain extent. Both are also greatly missed, in my opinion.
That doesn't mean we should completely disregard the research that has been done that has supported the climate change is man made theory and jump up and down, calling it liberal lunacy. The research needs to continue. And, I can't stress this enough, we have to bury the Chinese in this market or we are fucked. Even if the theory proves to be less valid as time goes on, it still makes for a cleaner Earth. And that's what people are buying.
Shockingly, we agree. But we don't need to be altering national economies based on information that is at best inconclusive. It is not "settled," and there is not a 90% probability that "Global Warming" is man-caused.
The very fact that none of the existing models predicted a 10-year hiatus in warming is enough to inform that opinion.
So by all means, keep doing the research. PUBLISH THE SOURCE DATA AND THE MODELS. But stop trying to frighten the world - once again - into accepting overwhelming government control of every aspect of private life in the name of "saving us from ourselves."
Yet, from what I have read on this blog it is most assuredly NOT happening...
Really? 'Cuz all I've seen here is a lot of skepticism and resistance to the idea that government needs to take action NOW NOW NOW or we're all doomed.
...a sham cooked up by liberal zealots, and now a secret plot by scientists in Britain who want to further the lie.
Not so secret anymore.
Let me ask you something, Mark, and please answer honestly. Hypothetically speaking, if evidence turned up to show that AGW/CC is not really happening, that things are more or less as they've always been and we're not in any danger, how would you feel about that?
But Kevin, don't you think that you are trying to frighten the world by saying things like.... "into accepting overwhelming government control of every aspect of private life in the name of 'saving us from ourselves.'"?
I also don't think we will be altering our national economy if we start competing more effectively with China on cleaner energy. I'm not certain exactly why a free marketer like yourself can't see such an explosive business opportunity like this one. But, by all means, let's let all that money and the finest minds of the world slip away to other countries while we pursue the typewriter.
"if evidence turned up to show that AGW/CC is not really happening, that things are more or less as they've always been and we're not in any danger, how would you feel about that?"
Well, evidence has already turned up that has shown that to be possible so that's why I don't buy into the theory completely. We're missing a lot of the story here and, as usual, I think both "sides" in the debate aren't going to like it. I think there needs to be more research and the data needs to be looked at without bias from either side. There needs to be research from a wholly new concern that has no political bias. Could this happen?
Kevin, don't you think that you are trying to frighten the world by saying things like.... "into accepting overwhelming government control of every aspect of private life in the name of 'saving us from ourselves.'"?
No, I'm accurately describing what is being proposed to "solve" AGW. And what has previously been proposed to "solve" Global Cooling. And previously been proposed to "solve" The Population Bomb.
Only with AGW the forces that want to "save" us have gotten a lot farther along the path.
You see, I'm familiar with Cognitive Dissonance and its corresponding Escalation of Failure. You seem immune to the concept.
I'm not certain exactly why a free marketer like yourself can't see such an explosive business opportunity like this one.
Because "business opportunities" like these are generally government-generated, subsidized, tariff-protected, and non-competitive. In short, they're not "business opportunities" at all, but just more sucking off the government teat.
Generally, if this stuff was actually competitive, it would be economically viable NOW, and people would be buying it and trading in it. But instead, being wholly dependent on government, millions of dollars of investments can vanish at a whim of Congress - and that's why no one is willing to invest. Even if it looks promising, you never know what the government is going to decide next.
Hey, I think Toshiba's micro-nuke plants are a hell of an idea, and would go very, very far in reducing stress on our transmission grid and local distribution networks, increasing reliability and redundancy. And they would reduce our dependence on coal-fired power plants tremendously. Will they ever fly? Not with our government.
Oh, I forgot. Government doesn't regulate enough. Silly me.
No, it doesn't even seem like it is over about global warmenering. The global warmeners try hard to act as if it is, yet again in the manner of The Grand Lie. The method is as simple as it is familiar: Tell anything you want people in large numbers to believe, always, always, always with a straight face, and never, ever admit that it's a lie. Gazillions of people will believe it's the truth. It works because, to use a famous quote: "How fortunate for leaders that men do not think." It works with anything, lie or truth, because the people, en masse, do not think.
"Yet, from what I have read on this blog it is most assuredly NOT happening, a sham cooked up by liberal zealots, and now a secret plot by scientists in Britain who want to further the lie."
The etymology of the word "skeptic" is Latin Scepticus, from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai,to examine.We are skeptics, teacher boy. We examine things, and we think. We are not the people, en masse.
All it takes to become a skeptic of global warmeners' Chicken Little imitation is a very simple bit of examining. Observe that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is easy to measure, has been measured for a long time, and has been increasing for at least the past century. The global warmeners warn that The End Is Coming because this increase in carbon dioxide is causing global temperatures to rise, indeed there is No Time To Lose, So We Gotta Stop Emitting Carbon Dioxide, Even If It Means Turning The Economies Of The Whole Goddamned World Inside Out. But, their climate models do not predict the current climate, particularly global temperatures, from past data.
This is a particularly important failure, teacher boy. They use a model, i.e. a mathematical simulation via computer, to predict the future from past data. Well, right now was the future just a moment ago. Their models should be able to predict today's climate from past data. It doesn't, therefore their model isn't valid. Indeed, they are more than a bit bumfucked by this failure.
I spent a career developing and using mathematical simulations via computer, teacher boy. I know their value and I know their limitations.
In particular, global temperatures have fallen since the turn of the century, despite rising CO2 levels. Thus, something else, something one shitload more significant and powerful than CO2 emissions by people, is at play and their models do not take this into account. So, their predictions of climate change during the rest of the century should be met with a loud, resounding, "Now Wait Just A Goddamned Minute Here!"
THAT is what you read in Kevin's Parlor.
Sometimes, even the gubmint gets it right. Note that the Senate voted unanimously to not ratify the Kyoto Treaty.
"I'm not going to deny that what they did was wrong but why did they do it?"
They do it for the same reason the Dimocrat (ahem) leadership, from Obamateur on down, tried to cram nationalized health care down our throats via a vote taken before what was being voted on was known to, or considered by, those who would vote. It is tactic born of a strategy called gubmint by crisis, in which power is acheieved by hurried votes rushed through a sense of panic. The intent is to gain power and authority. That's why they did it.
It makes for an interesting question. Are they pissed because: 1) their model failed to predict the current climate; or, 2) they bet on global temperatures to continue rising, came up with a Plan to use that rise to gain political power, and are getting hoist on their own petard?
"Because people on the right can't admit fault. It's just that simple."
So is Al Gore's. Go examine his house in Tennessee and tell me he believes what he preaches.
"Except if the conclusion does not fit with one's ideology, DJ"
Yet again, you give us another example of your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other guy is what you don't like being accused of. Goddamn, little boy, but hypocrisy is your only real skill, isn't it?
What Mark fails to realise is the nature of the "data".
Data used in climate research comes from numerous sources. Recent data is gathered by weather stations world-wide. This data is probably the most accurate climate data available and even it is skewed by local variations many of which are not correctly accounted for which are too numerous to go into here.
The main problem is not the recent data however (unless you are a "believer" and are distressed to discover that the global temperature has not increased in the last five to ten years) but the historical data which is not really first hand data at all, but a series of estimates (in layman's terms educated guesses) based on measurements of phenomena which we *think* correlate to temperature or C02. These are referred to in the literature as "proxies".
A common example of a proxy is tree ring thickness. In order to avoid killing trees, "cores" (basically a cylindrical section cut perpendicularly into the trunk) are taken and ring thickness measured. This process is clearly subject to considerable experimental error as anyone who has seen a cross-section of a tree will attest (it's not perfectly circular) and so generally a lot of cores should be taken and some statistical analysis done to give an estimate of the average thickness and the error in the results. One of the common criticisms of some of the proxy sets commonly used is that they contain measurements of too few cores to provide a statistically useful result, and that when these series are updated, climatologists neglect to use the updated proxies if they don't generate the answers they want.
So overall, the quality of the data in supporting the theory of global warming is not very good.
In order to obtain a pretty graph from this data (which looks like a comb, with no obvious pattern) climatologists resort to statistical methods that it is clear from the way they have applied them that they either do not correctly understand (i.e. are using as a magical black box) or understand correctly and are deliberately using to bias the results. One particular tool they use "accidentally" biases the results towards a hockey stick shape by increasing the proportion of the result contributed by those proxies that look like a hockey stick for example.
This analysis removes all meaning from the raw data.
And that's before we get into the climate modelling mess.
So to answer Mark's question, yes, it is quite possible that all the research in that paper is wrong. Indeed it is very likely because our ability to measure the climate, never mind our understanding of its processes is woefully inadequate and at best speculation.
History, Current Events, Political Science and Film.
Okay... as a history teacher, does it give you pause that the AGW alarmists' data include the assumption that the Medieval Warm Period never actually happened?
If you believe that the Vikings actually explored Greenland and Vinland, does that make you a denier? Or are you "90% certain" that in fact the Vikings never actually did those things?
As a history teacher, does it give you pause that the AGW alarmists' data include the assumption that the Little Ice Age never actually happened?
If you believe there were Thames Frost Fairs on the frozen surface of the river for year after year, does that make you a "denier"? How about if you believe there were cannon transported across the ice of frozen rivers during the American Revolution and the War of 1812? Or are you "90% certain" that in fact those things never actually occurred, either?
The North African coast was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire according to history. Will you likewise tell me that it's "90% certain" the Romans never had enough food to build or feed an empire at all?
Follow the facts where they lead and you find yourself in a place where if AGW is true, then the USA must not actually exist, since field guns that insured victories at critical battles of the Revolutionary War in fact never arrived. Follow the facts where they lead and the Roman Empire was less than half the size history says it was, and at that size its people were starving.
And you, who teach history, have no trouble with that? Nor understand why problems every bit as glaring in the fields of
Anthropology
Archeology
Geology
Astronomy
Hydrology
(that's all I can think of off the top of my head)
make reputable scientists think the theory is full of holes?
I realize you can't understand the arguments of those who do science for a living (and I am properly thankful to find that you don't teach science or math), but surely you can see that when half a dozen unrelated fields all have problems with the theory as unacceptable as "AGW is 90% likely to be correct, therefore the Roman Empire, the US and Vinland are 90% likely never to have existed", the theory's foundational work probably needs to be revisited, huh?
Mark, you evaded my question, so I'll ask once more:
If evidence turned up to show that AGW/CC is not really happening, that things are more or less as they've always been and we're not in any danger, how would you feel about that? In other words, would you be relieved or disappointed?
"Hey, I think Toshiba's micro-nuke plants are a hell of an idea, and would go very, very far in reducing stress on our transmission grid and local distribution networks, increasing reliability and redundancy. And they would reduce our dependence on coal-fired power plants tremendously. Will they ever fly? Not with our government."
Well, I would agree with you there. That would be one area where the left and I part ways. Your description of "religious zealots" would be wholly accurate here. They listen to reason about as much as a Sarah Palin supporter. Or even Sarah Palin. Triple the amount of shit I get on here and it still doesn't come close to the pile I get when I discuss why nuclear power is a good thing with your average liberal. I will keep trying, though. :)
GOF, yes it does give me pause on all of your questions that's why I'd like to see further, unbiased research. That's true for BOTH sides btw.
Sarah, ah, I gotcha. I misunderstood your question...my bad. Your added question helped. I would be relieved, of course.
One other note. For most of my life, every conservative I know has been an amazing steward of the environment. This is not something that the left can cling to as being their cause. All of us care about keeping our planet clean and leaving no trace. I find it troubling that as soon as Al Gore got into climate change that some (not all thankfully) conservatives decided that environmentalism and clean energy were evil. Huh?
Clearly, this has become more about image and politics and less about science. There should be no "sides."
Whoops. Apparently I didn't sign up for Haloscan updates on this thread.
... The problem began (as usual) with the right's complete inability to admit fault or responsibility for...well...anything. Not surprising and very typical.
Excuse me?
The problem began on the right? So, because the right, according to you, refuses to admit fault, these "scientists" decided to lie, hide their (collected with government money) data, and collude to defraud the public?
What? In what world can anything the "right" does be the causative event for that?
Pat Robertson said something that someone disagreed with, and that justifies wholesale misconduct?
Then it became their mission to point out ANY data that even remotely contradicted the climate change theory as being proof positive that the entire theory was wrong and always will be, Amen. Of course, this ignores all the data that supports the theory of climate change but that can NEVER be discussed because it is man's destiny to do whatever he wants with the Earth.
No, Mark. this isn't "Climate Change". That's the weasel-wording that the people who have the same goals (as the Socialists and Fascists and Communists and "Environmentalists" and AGW proponents) have fallen back to as it becomes more obvious that Global Warming is questionable, and far more questionable is the Anthropogenic component of that - that is how much human activity does and is affecting that. There might be "Global Warming". This wasn't what they, or you, are talking about, they were talking about crippling industry and impoverishing people to stop their effect on the climate.
You don't understand science, (or anything else), and you make it painfully clear.
It is the job of scientists to defend their hypothesis and their observations against contrary ideas or data interpretation.
point out ANY data that even remotely contradicted the climate change theory as being proof positive that the entire theory was wrong and always will be, Amen.
(requoted because it's so stupid)
Yes. Mark.
If you can point to something that is not covered by the theory, it discredits the theory. It proves - positively - that there is an error.
It might be an error in measurement. It might be an error in data. There might not be a way to get that data. It might be great in some areas and not others.
But when you can point to a place where the theory is wrong, it means the theory is wrong. I don't even want to think about how badly your brain would lock up if I started talking about quantum mechanics, but just trust me on this, classically the description is because Newtonian physics doesn't work once you get that small. But for anything above quantum, Newton is gold. For most things, including most simple science, there's no need to get into the things discovered hundreds of years after Newton died. But it does mean that you cannot use Newtonian physics when dealing with Quantum Mechanics.
Based on the research I have reviewed
C'mon. Be honest. Just tell us who you read that you're citing unreservedly and verbatim.
I'm not going to deny that what they did was wrong but why did they do it? Because people on the right can't admit fault. It's just that simple.
Says the sack boy who won't nut up and verbatim admit to his own egregious errors.
But how in the hell does ACADEMIC FRAUD in ANY WAY BE JUSTIFIED BY WHAT ANYBODY ELSE DOES?
I also don't think we will be altering our national economy if we start competing more effectively with China on cleaner energy.
Begging the question. Again. Furthermore, I don't believe a damn thing China announces about their plans. You might note how they have been cheating on exports to the US - what makes you think they're telling you the truth about their "Green power"?
Right now, "green power" costs more. Lots more. LOTS MORE.
And it's cheaper in China, because they don't bother with those pesky environmental problems you have to here. Which increases the cost here incredibly. Are you in favor of dropping the environmental requirements, not allowing any random person to use for the "public at large", and massive tort reform?
If not, then what you just said is ludicrous. (As usual.)
So you're telling me if I quadruple your energy bills - gas, electricity, gas, fuel oil, you'll become more productive? Seriously?
I'm not certain exactly why a free marketer like yourself can't see such an explosive business opportunity like this one.
Because you're an idiot. You don't understand science, you don't understand business, you don't understand economics.
If it was profitable, people would be doing it. Right now, there's no large scale profit in "green energy", and that's with direct government subsidy.
But, by all means, let's let all that money and the finest minds of the world slip away to other countries while we pursue the typewriter.
Magic! It's just.. MAGIC!
TADA! KAZAAM! All we have to do is wish it and it's so.
Contra that thought, then, Mark, why aren't you forming Green Energy companies? If there's so much money in it? How many have you directly invested in? What return on your investment have you seen?
They listen to reason about as much as a Sarah Palin supporter. Or even Sarah Palin.
Still don't have the sack to man up and not casually slander someone who's smarter than you?
Triple the amount of shit I get on here
You get this "shit" because you attempt to lecture us. In your attempts, you prove you don't understand the concepts. You lie, distort, and fail to adhere to any sort of honest intellectual debate. You continually insist that you know the meanings of words, and then egregiously misuse them.
Yeah, I like Toshiba too. I like Polywell even better, if it lives up to its advance billing.
Speaking of, the Navy is apparently picking up the tab at Polywell now, or at least a chunk of it. Is there a knowledgeable someone who can interpret the tea leaves? I would like to think that Polywell shows some promise for the Navy to provide some funding, even if the money came from the proverbial couch cushions. This isn't my field, though, and I won't pretend otherwise.
All of us care about keeping our planet clean and leaving no trace.
Now, hold on a moment. Why should we leave no trace? It's not as though we landed here uninvited and are hanging out until the real inhabitants get back. We're a part of nature -- the Earth brought us forth -- and I see no God- or nature-given reason why the Earth shouldn't have some indication that we live here.
I'd like to see further, unbiased research. That's true for BOTH sides btw.
As do I. Note that those who accepted AGW theory specifically fought against further, unbiased research, which is the real reason why so many here and elsewhere have called it a crock of bullshit.
Now for the critical question:
In the meantime, while such research is being done, do you still think the Obama Administration should bankrupt the coal industry?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/11/oh-now-this-is-interesting.html (51 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
The only guys I like in the AGW debate are Richard Lindzen and John Christy. The rest of the deniers/skeptics come across like a bunch of tools.
On another note, that is VERY interesting, and not surprising.
I've been following Climate Audit for ages. As a scientist I used to generally believe in "global warming" on the basis that "I wasn't a climatologist" and "they were in a better position to judge than me". Then came the story where they had to correct the official temperature record on McIntyre's evidence that it was incorrect and I started reading around the subject in my spare time. I simply cannot believe the behaviour climate scientists think they can get away with. In my field, I'm expected to be open about my data and the methods I used to obtain it. They are secretive to the point where it is difficult to believe they don't have something to hide.
If they aren't guilty of perpetuating scientific fraud, why do they act like they are? Climate data isn't some sort of national security secret. There is no patient confidentiality involved. They expect the world's population to radically change its life-style, and for developing countries to not develop (for want of a better phrase) based purely on their assurance that it'll be very bad for everyone if we don't do as they say. And then they refuse to release any of the data or the analysis code.
I've become increasingly convinced that certain luminaries in the field whose reputations were made on their early success publishing what now increasingly appear to be completely incorrect results are protecting those reputations rather than doing the right thing.
I always get frustrated when scientists are treated by the media as mystical impartial beings. The scientific method is impartial. Scientists are merely people, and as subject to personal bias and ego as anyone else. Climate science, as a relatively new field with a small number of "big names" who are still alive and is therefore more vulnerable to this than most other fields, particularly now that it has become highly politicised, with politics driving research. It also relies heavily on computer simulation, a field in which I would consider myself an expert and sufficiently well versed to understand that many of the things they are doing are at best flimsy.
I don't not believe in global warming. I don't believe in global warming either. I don't see how from the methods they have used (or at the very least those that have been exposed) any rational human being can draw any conclusion whatsoever because the things they have done have perverted any meaning in the underlying data into gibberish.
They use data sets to develop the simulations, and then the simulation results to correct the data sets for ****s sake.
"They use data sets to develop the simulations, and then the simulation results to correct the data sets for ****s sake."
We used to call this technique "multiply by zero and add the desired answer."
DJ: HAH! That's great. I'm totally stealing it.
I can't wait for this to continue filtering out. Did they really type "hide the decline" in their emails?
DJ,
We used to call it "Walker's Constant":
That number, which, when added to, subtracted from, divided in, or multiplied by the number you HAVE, gives you the number you WANT.
Maybe we should rename it Gore's Not Constant......
DJ/Richard,
We called that the "homework constant" when I was an undergraduate. Nice to know that these climate dips haven't progressed beyond freshman year shenanigans.
Nothing yet from Tim Lambert on this. Wonder how he's going to spin it.
It already has a pet name. It's an Algorithm.
Think about it.
Sarah:
Haven't you seen him when he goes after gun owners and activists?
It'll be the exact same attack and ignorance of the facts.
The eMails are legitimate.
As Ace notes (emphasis added):
"As I have pointed out ad nauseam: When a leak hurts the right, the story is about the content of the leak.
"When a leak hurts the left, the content of the leak is ignored, and the story is about the nefarious and criminal evil-doing that produced the leak, and how awful that is, and oh, look, here's an important story about how tough large-breasted women have it when they attempt jogging or gymnastics. Let's talk about that.
"Not this time, boys. Not this time."
This would have to occur the day before opening morning of the regular deer season. Priorities, y'see ...
But I'm gonna read that file.
Well, Ace was right. The gumdrop is:
"Dr. Michael Mann co-authored the famous graph of temperature trends dubbed the “hockey stick graph.”
...
"Dr. Mann was questioned later in the day and he spoke out about the documents and emails:
"Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, features in many of the email exchanges. He said: “I’m simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.""
Bullseye.
Oh, but is this going to be fun.
You know, I think this is one of the few times that the ends justify the means. They have been blocking this data from being publicly disseminated for years, refusing to respond to FOIA requests and requests from other scientists in the field (at least when they're not "true believers").
And yet, billions of dollars have been spent, and trillions in future dollars will be spent, based on this data. To put it simply, the public deserves to know what's in these files if their hard earned money is going to be spent as a result of that data.
Hold on.
I thought we were going to talk about big-breasted joggers. And gymnasts.
THAT should get the temperatures to rise a few degrees...
It'll be the exact same attack and ignorance of the facts.
U-J, there are a couple of intriguing defenses of the hacked emails in the comments to Lambert's latest post, if you can wade through all the grunting and snorting. One particular defense of the "hiding the decline" statement I found interesting (here, if wanna read it). I don't know enough about climate science to judge whether these defenses are meaningful, but it'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.
Sadly, the climate change debate has degenerated into something not even close to resembling science any longer. The problem began (as usual) with the right's complete inability to admit fault or responsibility for...well...anything. Not surprising and very typical.
Then it became their mission to point out ANY data that even remotely contradicted the climate change theory as being proof positive that the entire theory was wrong and always will be, Amen. Of course, this ignores all the data that supports the theory of climate change but that can NEVER be discussed because it is man's destiny to do whatever he wants with the Earth.
And we never do anything wrong and admitting to it means you are commie faggot.
So, this prompted a reaction by climate change supporters to start pulling the same shit the naysayers pull...suppress data, lie about facts, and ignore scientific method. It's not about the science anymore. They have to react to the relentless attacks and PR the shit of their data because to the loonies, facts don't matter. They have to play their game.
This latest revelation will put serious study back another decade while many of you "scientists" will skip,,laugh, and point and say, "See? It's all fake. We're right, they're wrong. Nyah Nyah Nyah!"
Yeah, yeah, yeah; we get it Tinker Balls.
Lying, cheating, misrepresenting facts and hiding data because nyah, nyah, the Right did it first and always.
Which number on the "expected response" chart is this one, guys?
I believe that would be a variant of Response #9.
Mark, you really don't get science. See, good science stands on its own.
Good scientists don't trade emails talking about how to massage the data to make things look the way it "should". Good scientists don't declare that the "science is settled" because the whole point of science is to continually question.
The following is from Modern Times, by Paul Johnson, and it's about the first experiments to test if Einstein was right about relativity.
___________________________________
The expedition satisfied two of Einstein's tests, which were
reconfirmed by W. W. Campbell during the Septenlber 1 922 eclipse.
It was a measure of Einstein's scientific rigour that he refused to
accept that his own theory was valid until the third test (the 'red
shift' ) was met. 'If it were proved that this effect does not exist in
nature', he wrote to Eddington on 1 5 December 1 9 1 9, 'then the
whole theory would have to be abandoned' . In fact the 'red shift' was
confirmed by the Mount Wilson observatory in 1 923, and thereafter
empirical proof of relativity theory accumulated steadily, one of the
most striking instances being the gravitational lensing system of
quasars, identified in 1 9 79-8 0.5 At the time, Einstein's professional
heroism did not go unappreciated. To the young philosopher Karl
Popper and his friends at Vienna University, 'it was a great experience
for us, and one which had a lasting influence on my intellectual
development' . 'What impressed me most', Popper wrote later, 'was
Einstein's own clear statement that he would regard his theory as
untenable if it should fail in certain tests . . . . Here was an attitude
utterly different from the dogmatism of Marx, Freud, Adler and even
more so that of their followers. Einstein was looking for crucial
experiments whose agreement with his predictions would by no
means establish his theory; while a disagreement, as he was the first
to stress, would show his theory to be untenable. This, I felt, was the
true scientific attitude. '6
_____________________________________
Got that Marky? I'll restate it: A disagreement would show his theory to be untenable.
If the data doesn't fit the hypothesis, then you must trash the hypothesis. The people at East Anglia have been trying to twist the data to fit the hypothesis. That's not science.
"The problem began (as usual) with the right's complete inability to admit fault or responsibility for...well...anything. "
Running through a basic translation, that produces:
"WAAAH IT'S THE RIGHT'S FAULT THAT THEY LIED AND INTENTIONALLY SUPPRESSED DATA THAT CONTRADICTED THEIR POSITION!!"
I like the "as usual." Not only can you not admit fault in yourself, you can't even allow fault to be admitted from anyone who might even roughly subscribe to your worldview.
Honestly, I really, really am amazed that you manage to put your pants on in the morning without setting your ass on fire.
Adam, Britt, Kevin, and Pandora...
I just want to be clear about this. The four of you are stating that ALL of the data that has been gathered regarding climate change is wrong. All of the studies have been driven by a leftist ideology of America hating and has NO basis whatsoever in scientific fact. Appropriate scientific method has never been used in ANY study of climate change and it's all based on belief.
Is this what you think?
No, Mark.
Where did we say that?
Show me.
Or take your allegation and shove it up your ass.
The four of you are stating that ALL of the data that has been gathered regarding climate change is wrong.
Allow me to correct it for you, Mark.
ALL of the "science" founded on the Mann "Hockey Stick" is at best suspect because there is evidence to strongly suggest the "Hockey Stick" was in fact a deliberate scam.
Here's another version, in case you like this one better:
ALL of the data that has been gathered regarding climate change which claims that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age actually never happened, or that Maunder Minima do not affect climate, or that the Solar Neutrino problem is irrelevant to climate science, are not only bullshit, they are obvious, grade-school bullshit.
Confine yourself to climate studies that don't make such obvious, blatant bullshit claims (if you can find any) and you'll get better results.
"I just want to be clear about this. The four of you are stating that ALL of the data that has been gathered regarding climate change is wrong. All of the studies have been driven by a leftist ideology of America hating and has NO basis whatsoever in scientific fact. Appropriate scientific method has never been used in ANY study of climate change and it's all based on belief."
No, people are QUESTIONING the data and the methodology, which the original proponents are reluctant to release, for some reason - which makes it look even MORE suspect. I think there is still way too much that we don't know about this, which makes me recoil at the arrogance of these people who make these flawed charts and models and then claim they have ALL the answers, and that GW not only exists, but it's HUMANITY'S FAULT.
NEED MORE INPUT.
There's no WAY to come to such conclusions given what we have now.
I know you liberals absolutely HATE it when people question you - that's when you get the most vicious.
Us dumb flat-earthers, civil war re-enactors just need to take what you're giving us and STFU.
Well, sorry, Marky, we don't live in your utopia QUITE yet.
Another important point to be made. Computer modeling is a very large part of AGW theory. Models are used not only to predict, but the "data" they generate is used as evidence for AGW.
Predictions are not proof, but they are being used as the basis for very expensive policy. That is madness.
You, and the rest of the folks who talk about AGW's threat to life on Earth make several enormous assumptions.
1a: Human activity is the primary cause of the warming trend demonstrated in the latter part of the 20th century.
1b: This warming trend will continue indefinitely.
2: This warming trend is an existential threat to human life, either directly or indirectly.
3. This trend can be reversed by human action.
These three assumptions are axiomatic among the AGW crowd. You cannot build on argument on such a shaky foundation, and now you are reaping the benefits of your intemperance. People are wising up, they are daring to question the "settled science"
Once again Mark, you aren't understand how you do good science. If there is data that doesn't fit your hypothesis, you have to reconsider your hypothesis. If C02 emissions are rising and global temperature is falling, then your hypothesis is wrong. Except instead of going back to square one and kissing away the grant money, these "scientists" head back to the lab to fudge the numbers.
"I just want to be clear about this. The four of you are stating that ALL of the data that has been gathered regarding climate change is wrong."
No, that is, yet again, your Standard Response #4, #6, and #7.
Consider: One gathers data, and then one reasons from data to conclusions, said conclusions always being uncertain, pending new data and/or better analysis of data. That is how science is done.
Got that so far, teacher boy?
It is the global warmeners' reasoning from data that is garbage, and it is the global warmeners' refusal to consider all the relevant data that is garbage.
Got that too, teacher boy?
What do the global warmeners do that is not science? Hide their data, hide their methodology, and declare that their conclusions are beyond review, i.e. "the science is settled".
Goddamn, sack boy, are you really so dense that you have to resort to such crapola? Have you nothing else in your holster?
That's too creepy.
A teacher thinks that science is just another kind of poll? That if you get enough people to agree with a theory, that is all that's needed for it to be true?
A teacher believes this?!?
That's just way too creepy.
Has Mark divulged which subject(s) he teaches? Hopefully it's not science.
His defense of these scientists' fraudulent behavior can be summed up as "the Devil made them do it." That defense doesn't wash in my field -- people have lost careers over far less egregious frauds.
If I obtain a result that has extraordinary implications, I am obligated to share my data and computer codes with other scientists and be transparent about how I got my result. If independent groups can't replicate the result, it's worthless. Even with this sort of careful analysis, a result is never accepted without a great deal of debate. No branch of science is exempt from this process. And the debate is NEVER, EVER over.
Even something as tried and tested as gravity is currently under assault. Last year, a public lecture was given in my department about the need to reconsider the law of gravity, because of the strong evidence for dark matter. The audience, comprised of some of the most respected astrophysicists in the world, was skeptical but respectful. Nobody was shouted down, nobody's credentials were called into question, and nobody was labeled a denialist. Everyone understands the extraordinary implications of dark matter, and so these challenges are taken very seriously. Few in my field are comfortable accepting a radical new idea without first convincing themselves that the critics are wrong. The only way to do that is to give the critics a fair hearing.
I'm eternally grateful to be in a field that is not politically or ideologically controversial, because the research is actually about understanding how things work.
"And the debate is NEVER, EVER over."
I agree but it seems to me like it is here. Based on the research I have reviewed, climate change based on man made coal emissions is very likely but not a certainty. Yet, from what I have read on this blog it is most assuredly NOT happening, a sham cooked up by liberal zealots, and now a secret plot by scientists in Britain who want to further the lie.
I'm not going to deny that what they did was wrong but why did they do it? Because people on the right can't admit fault. It's just that simple.
What's more is that many people on the right are just plain stupid. China is all in with green tech. Whether it ends up being valid or not, there's money to be made and America is falling behind because of these buffoons. And it's better for the Earth regardless so what the fuck is the big deal?
"Has Mark divulged which subject(s) he teaches?"
History, Current Events, Political Science and Film.
"A teacher thinks that science is just another kind of poll?"
Where on earth did you get that from?
"One gathers data, and then one reasons from data to conclusions, said conclusions always being uncertain, pending new data and/or better analysis of data. That is how science is done."
Except if the conclusion does not fit with one's ideology, DJ:)
Britt, so you are saying that all of this is "bad" science?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm#1
If so, how exactly are you in a position to make this judgment?
Here's something for you to read, Markadelphia:
The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming.
I've read it and I love Michael Crichton. I also love George Carlin who said that human beings are insanely vain to think that WE can have any sort of environmental impact on the Earth. Both are right to a certain extent. Both are also greatly missed, in my opinion.
That doesn't mean we should completely disregard the research that has been done that has supported the climate change is man made theory and jump up and down, calling it liberal lunacy. The research needs to continue. And, I can't stress this enough, we have to bury the Chinese in this market or we are fucked. Even if the theory proves to be less valid as time goes on, it still makes for a cleaner Earth. And that's what people are buying.
The research needs to continue.
Shockingly, we agree. But we don't need to be altering national economies based on information that is at best inconclusive. It is not "settled," and there is not a 90% probability that "Global Warming" is man-caused.
The very fact that none of the existing models predicted a 10-year hiatus in warming is enough to inform that opinion.
So by all means, keep doing the research. PUBLISH THE SOURCE DATA AND THE MODELS. But stop trying to frighten the world - once again - into accepting overwhelming government control of every aspect of private life in the name of "saving us from ourselves."
We've heard that before. Several times.
I also love George Carlin who said that human beings are insanely vain to think that WE can have any sort of environmental impact on the Earth.
I don't know whether to feel pleased or insulted that he just stole this reference from a comment that I put up on his site.
Also, here is another nail about to be pounded into the AGW coffin.
Yet, from what I have read on this blog it is most assuredly NOT happening...
Really? 'Cuz all I've seen here is a lot of skepticism and resistance to the idea that government needs to take action NOW NOW NOW or we're all doomed.
...a sham cooked up by liberal zealots, and now a secret plot by scientists in Britain who want to further the lie.
Not so secret anymore.
Let me ask you something, Mark, and please answer honestly. Hypothetically speaking, if evidence turned up to show that AGW/CC is not really happening, that things are more or less as they've always been and we're not in any danger, how would you feel about that?
But Kevin, don't you think that you are trying to frighten the world by saying things like.... "into accepting overwhelming government control of every aspect of private life in the name of 'saving us from ourselves.'"?
I also don't think we will be altering our national economy if we start competing more effectively with China on cleaner energy. I'm not certain exactly why a free marketer like yourself can't see such an explosive business opportunity like this one. But, by all means, let's let all that money and the finest minds of the world slip away to other countries while we pursue the typewriter.
"if evidence turned up to show that AGW/CC is not really happening, that things are more or less as they've always been and we're not in any danger, how would you feel about that?"
Well, evidence has already turned up that has shown that to be possible so that's why I don't buy into the theory completely. We're missing a lot of the story here and, as usual, I think both "sides" in the debate aren't going to like it. I think there needs to be more research and the data needs to be looked at without bias from either side. There needs to be research from a wholly new concern that has no political bias. Could this happen?
Kevin, don't you think that you are trying to frighten the world by saying things like.... "into accepting overwhelming government control of every aspect of private life in the name of 'saving us from ourselves.'"?
No, I'm accurately describing what is being proposed to "solve" AGW. And what has previously been proposed to "solve" Global Cooling. And previously been proposed to "solve" The Population Bomb.
Only with AGW the forces that want to "save" us have gotten a lot farther along the path.
You see, I'm familiar with Cognitive Dissonance and its corresponding Escalation of Failure. You seem immune to the concept.
I'm not certain exactly why a free marketer like yourself can't see such an explosive business opportunity like this one.
Because "business opportunities" like these are generally government-generated, subsidized, tariff-protected, and non-competitive. In short, they're not "business opportunities" at all, but just more sucking off the government teat.
Generally, if this stuff was actually competitive, it would be economically viable NOW, and people would be buying it and trading in it. But instead, being wholly dependent on government, millions of dollars of investments can vanish at a whim of Congress - and that's why no one is willing to invest. Even if it looks promising, you never know what the government is going to decide next.
Hey, I think Toshiba's micro-nuke plants are a hell of an idea, and would go very, very far in reducing stress on our transmission grid and local distribution networks, increasing reliability and redundancy. And they would reduce our dependence on coal-fired power plants tremendously. Will they ever fly? Not with our government.
Oh, I forgot. Government doesn't regulate enough. Silly me.
"I agree but it seems to me like it is here."
No, it doesn't even seem like it is over about global warmenering. The global warmeners try hard to act as if it is, yet again in the manner of The Grand Lie. The method is as simple as it is familiar: Tell anything you want people in large numbers to believe, always, always, always with a straight face, and never, ever admit that it's a lie. Gazillions of people will believe it's the truth. It works because, to use a famous quote: "How fortunate for leaders that men do not think." It works with anything, lie or truth, because the people, en masse, do not think.
"Yet, from what I have read on this blog it is most assuredly NOT happening, a sham cooked up by liberal zealots, and now a secret plot by scientists in Britain who want to further the lie."
The etymology of the word "skeptic" is Latin Scepticus, from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine. We are skeptics, teacher boy. We examine things, and we think. We are not the people, en masse.
All it takes to become a skeptic of global warmeners' Chicken Little imitation is a very simple bit of examining. Observe that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is easy to measure, has been measured for a long time, and has been increasing for at least the past century. The global warmeners warn that The End Is Coming because this increase in carbon dioxide is causing global temperatures to rise, indeed there is No Time To Lose, So We Gotta Stop Emitting Carbon Dioxide, Even If It Means Turning The Economies Of The Whole Goddamned World Inside Out. But, their climate models do not predict the current climate, particularly global temperatures, from past data.
This is a particularly important failure, teacher boy. They use a model, i.e. a mathematical simulation via computer, to predict the future from past data. Well, right now was the future just a moment ago. Their models should be able to predict today's climate from past data. It doesn't, therefore their model isn't valid. Indeed, they are more than a bit bumfucked by this failure.
I spent a career developing and using mathematical simulations via computer, teacher boy. I know their value and I know their limitations.
In particular, global temperatures have fallen since the turn of the century, despite rising CO2 levels. Thus, something else, something one shitload more significant and powerful than CO2 emissions by people, is at play and their models do not take this into account. So, their predictions of climate change during the rest of the century should be met with a loud, resounding, "Now Wait Just A Goddamned Minute Here!"
THAT is what you read in Kevin's Parlor.
Sometimes, even the gubmint gets it right. Note that the Senate voted unanimously to not ratify the Kyoto Treaty.
"I'm not going to deny that what they did was wrong but why did they do it?"
They do it for the same reason the Dimocrat (ahem) leadership, from Obamateur on down, tried to cram nationalized health care down our throats via a vote taken before what was being voted on was known to, or considered by, those who would vote. It is tactic born of a strategy called gubmint by crisis, in which power is acheieved by hurried votes rushed through a sense of panic. The intent is to gain power and authority. That's why they did it.
It makes for an interesting question. Are they pissed because: 1) their model failed to predict the current climate; or, 2) they bet on global temperatures to continue rising, came up with a Plan to use that rise to gain political power, and are getting hoist on their own petard?
"Because people on the right can't admit fault. It's just that simple."
YOU cannot admit fault, liar boy. Your hypocrisy is bottomless.
So is Al Gore's. Go examine his house in Tennessee and tell me he believes what he preaches.
"Except if the conclusion does not fit with one's ideology, DJ"
Yet again, you give us another example of your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other guy is what you don't like being accused of. Goddamn, little boy, but hypocrisy is your only real skill, isn't it?
"History, Current Events, Political Science and Film."
Goddamn, Kevin, you're right. He's a carrier.
And "Film"? Is there a high school class called "Film"?
What do you teach? How to slouch at movies? Who has the best popcorn? How to sneak into a theatre?
Do they actually get credit toward a diploma for this?
"History, Current Events, Political Science and Film."
One out of four?
What Mark fails to realise is the nature of the "data".
Data used in climate research comes from numerous sources. Recent data is gathered by weather stations world-wide. This data is probably the most accurate climate data available and even it is skewed by local variations many of which are not correctly accounted for which are too numerous to go into here.
The main problem is not the recent data however (unless you are a "believer" and are distressed to discover that the global temperature has not increased in the last five to ten years) but the historical data which is not really first hand data at all, but a series of estimates (in layman's terms educated guesses) based on measurements of phenomena which we *think* correlate to temperature or C02. These are referred to in the literature as "proxies".
A common example of a proxy is tree ring thickness. In order to avoid killing trees, "cores" (basically a cylindrical section cut perpendicularly into the trunk) are taken and ring thickness measured. This process is clearly subject to considerable experimental error as anyone who has seen a cross-section of a tree will attest (it's not perfectly circular) and so generally a lot of cores should be taken and some statistical analysis done to give an estimate of the average thickness and the error in the results. One of the common criticisms of some of the proxy sets commonly used is that they contain measurements of too few cores to provide a statistically useful result, and that when these series are updated, climatologists neglect to use the updated proxies if they don't generate the answers they want.
So overall, the quality of the data in supporting the theory of global warming is not very good.
In order to obtain a pretty graph from this data (which looks like a comb, with no obvious pattern) climatologists resort to statistical methods that it is clear from the way they have applied them that they either do not correctly understand (i.e. are using as a magical black box) or understand correctly and are deliberately using to bias the results. One particular tool they use "accidentally" biases the results towards a hockey stick shape by increasing the proportion of the result contributed by those proxies that look like a hockey stick for example.
This analysis removes all meaning from the raw data.
And that's before we get into the climate modelling mess.
So to answer Mark's question, yes, it is quite possible that all the research in that paper is wrong. Indeed it is very likely because our ability to measure the climate, never mind our understanding of its processes is woefully inadequate and at best speculation.
History, Current Events, Political Science and Film.
Okay... as a history teacher, does it give you pause that the AGW alarmists' data include the assumption that the Medieval Warm Period never actually happened?
If you believe that the Vikings actually explored Greenland and Vinland, does that make you a denier? Or are you "90% certain" that in fact the Vikings never actually did those things?
As a history teacher, does it give you pause that the AGW alarmists' data include the assumption that the Little Ice Age never actually happened?
If you believe there were Thames Frost Fairs on the frozen surface of the river for year after year, does that make you a "denier"? How about if you believe there were cannon transported across the ice of frozen rivers during the American Revolution and the War of 1812? Or are you "90% certain" that in fact those things never actually occurred, either?
The North African coast was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire according to history. Will you likewise tell me that it's "90% certain" the Romans never had enough food to build or feed an empire at all?
Follow the facts where they lead and you find yourself in a place where if AGW is true, then the USA must not actually exist, since field guns that insured victories at critical battles of the Revolutionary War in fact never arrived. Follow the facts where they lead and the Roman Empire was less than half the size history says it was, and at that size its people were starving.
And you, who teach history, have no trouble with that? Nor understand why problems every bit as glaring in the fields of
Anthropology
Archeology
Geology
Astronomy
Hydrology
(that's all I can think of off the top of my head)
make reputable scientists think the theory is full of holes?
I realize you can't understand the arguments of those who do science for a living (and I am properly thankful to find that you don't teach science or math), but surely you can see that when half a dozen unrelated fields all have problems with the theory as unacceptable as "AGW is 90% likely to be correct, therefore the Roman Empire, the US and Vinland are 90% likely never to have existed", the theory's foundational work probably needs to be revisited, huh?
Mark, you evaded my question, so I'll ask once more:
If evidence turned up to show that AGW/CC is not really happening, that things are more or less as they've always been and we're not in any danger, how would you feel about that? In other words, would you be relieved or disappointed?
"Hey, I think Toshiba's micro-nuke plants are a hell of an idea, and would go very, very far in reducing stress on our transmission grid and local distribution networks, increasing reliability and redundancy. And they would reduce our dependence on coal-fired power plants tremendously. Will they ever fly? Not with our government."
Well, I would agree with you there. That would be one area where the left and I part ways. Your description of "religious zealots" would be wholly accurate here. They listen to reason about as much as a Sarah Palin supporter. Or even Sarah Palin. Triple the amount of shit I get on here and it still doesn't come close to the pile I get when I discuss why nuclear power is a good thing with your average liberal. I will keep trying, though. :)
GOF, yes it does give me pause on all of your questions that's why I'd like to see further, unbiased research. That's true for BOTH sides btw.
Sarah, ah, I gotcha. I misunderstood your question...my bad. Your added question helped. I would be relieved, of course.
One other note. For most of my life, every conservative I know has been an amazing steward of the environment. This is not something that the left can cling to as being their cause. All of us care about keeping our planet clean and leaving no trace. I find it troubling that as soon as Al Gore got into climate change that some (not all thankfully) conservatives decided that environmentalism and clean energy were evil. Huh?
Clearly, this has become more about image and politics and less about science. There should be no "sides."
Whoops. Apparently I didn't sign up for Haloscan updates on this thread.
...
The problem began (as usual) with the right's complete inability to admit fault or responsibility for...well...anything. Not surprising and very typical.
Excuse me?
The problem began on the right? So, because the right, according to you, refuses to admit fault, these "scientists" decided to lie, hide their (collected with government money) data, and collude to defraud the public?
What? In what world can anything the "right" does be the causative event for that?
Pat Robertson said something that someone disagreed with, and that justifies wholesale misconduct?
Then it became their mission to point out ANY data that even remotely contradicted the climate change theory as being proof positive that the entire theory was wrong and always will be, Amen. Of course, this ignores all the data that supports the theory of climate change but that can NEVER be discussed because it is man's destiny to do whatever he wants with the Earth.
No, Mark. this isn't "Climate Change". That's the weasel-wording that the people who have the same goals (as the Socialists and Fascists and Communists and "Environmentalists" and AGW proponents) have fallen back to as it becomes more obvious that Global Warming is questionable, and far more questionable is the Anthropogenic component of that - that is how much human activity does and is affecting that. There might be "Global Warming". This wasn't what they, or you, are talking about, they were talking about crippling industry and impoverishing people to stop their effect on the climate.
You don't understand science, (or anything else), and you make it painfully clear.
It is the job of scientists to defend their hypothesis and their observations against contrary ideas or data interpretation.
point out ANY data that even remotely contradicted the climate change theory as being proof positive that the entire theory was wrong and always will be, Amen.
(requoted because it's so stupid)
Yes. Mark.
If you can point to something that is not covered by the theory, it discredits the theory. It proves - positively - that there is an error.
It might be an error in measurement. It might be an error in data. There might not be a way to get that data. It might be great in some areas and not others.
But when you can point to a place where the theory is wrong, it means the theory is wrong. I don't even want to think about how badly your brain would lock up if I started talking about quantum mechanics, but just trust me on this, classically the description is because Newtonian physics doesn't work once you get that small. But for anything above quantum, Newton is gold. For most things, including most simple science, there's no need to get into the things discovered hundreds of years after Newton died. But it does mean that you cannot use Newtonian physics when dealing with Quantum Mechanics.
Based on the research I have reviewed
C'mon. Be honest. Just tell us who you read that you're citing unreservedly and verbatim.
I'm not going to deny that what they did was wrong but why did they do it? Because people on the right can't admit fault. It's just that simple.
Says the sack boy who won't nut up and verbatim admit to his own egregious errors.
But how in the hell does ACADEMIC FRAUD in ANY WAY BE JUSTIFIED BY WHAT ANYBODY ELSE DOES?
I also don't think we will be altering our national economy if we start competing more effectively with China on cleaner energy.
Begging the question. Again. Furthermore, I don't believe a damn thing China announces about their plans. You might note how they have been cheating on exports to the US - what makes you think they're telling you the truth about their "Green power"?
Right now, "green power" costs more. Lots more. LOTS MORE.
And it's cheaper in China, because they don't bother with those pesky environmental problems you have to here. Which increases the cost here incredibly. Are you in favor of dropping the environmental requirements, not allowing any random person to use for the "public at large", and massive tort reform?
If not, then what you just said is ludicrous. (As usual.)
So you're telling me if I quadruple your energy bills - gas, electricity, gas, fuel oil, you'll become more productive? Seriously?
I'm not certain exactly why a free marketer like yourself can't see such an explosive business opportunity like this one.
Because you're an idiot. You don't understand science, you don't understand business, you don't understand economics.
If it was profitable, people would be doing it. Right now, there's no large scale profit in "green energy", and that's with direct government subsidy.
But, by all means, let's let all that money and the finest minds of the world slip away to other countries while we pursue the typewriter.
Magic! It's just.. MAGIC!
TADA! KAZAAM! All we have to do is wish it and it's so.
Contra that thought, then, Mark, why aren't you forming Green Energy companies? If there's so much money in it? How many have you directly invested in? What return on your investment have you seen?
They listen to reason about as much as a Sarah Palin supporter. Or even Sarah Palin.
Still don't have the sack to man up and not casually slander someone who's smarter than you?
Triple the amount of shit I get on here
You get this "shit" because you attempt to lecture us. In your attempts, you prove you don't understand the concepts. You lie, distort, and fail to adhere to any sort of honest intellectual debate. You continually insist that you know the meanings of words, and then egregiously misuse them.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/1503790346953031557/#614656
Evince and understanding remind you of anything?
While you complain of others not ever admitting error, notice that you never once admitted your error?
2. I assume you mean "evidence?" Since I am not a complete asshat like DJ, I won't give you rectal about a typo.
What you get here isn't shit. It's an education that you should be valuing.
why nuclear power is a good thing with your average liberal.
I thought there weren't any liberals in America?
So who are you arguing with?
And just for grins and giggles:
Why is nuclear power a good idea, Mark?
Yeah, I like Toshiba too. I like Polywell even better, if it lives up to its advance billing.
Speaking of, the Navy is apparently picking up the tab at Polywell now, or at least a chunk of it. Is there a knowledgeable someone who can interpret the tea leaves? I would like to think that Polywell shows some promise for the Navy to provide some funding, even if the money came from the proverbial couch cushions. This isn't my field, though, and I won't pretend otherwise.
Ken, I'll ask my brother in law. He spent a few years on a nuclear sub. I will be seeing him this week.
I would be relieved, of course.
Glad to hear it.
All of us care about keeping our planet clean and leaving no trace.
Now, hold on a moment. Why should we leave no trace? It's not as though we landed here uninvited and are hanging out until the real inhabitants get back. We're a part of nature -- the Earth brought us forth -- and I see no God- or nature-given reason why the Earth shouldn't have some indication that we live here.
I'd like to see further, unbiased research. That's true for BOTH sides btw.
As do I. Note that those who accepted AGW theory specifically fought against further, unbiased research, which is the real reason why so many here and elsewhere have called it a crock of bullshit.
Now for the critical question:
In the meantime, while such research is being done, do you still think the Obama Administration should bankrupt the coal industry?
Or implement "Cap and Trade"?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>