Nations walk out on Canada

[Moonbox]

Feel free. As I already mentioned, for a clueless there would be no recognizable differnce between (scientifically) correct statement, and obvious gibberish, so it has to be again, a matter of personal choice.

Then what you're saying is that since you are clueless in matters pertaining to climate science, you're belief in the studies being done is a matter of simple faith in the climate science 'experts'. Blind faith...hmmm...

I can't address something I'm not familiar with. I have not studied climate models, including that particular one you have in mind but again, forgot to explain what you mean. If you see glaring faults with that particular model, you must be smarter than its creators and so, welcome to publish it where somebody with a clue would be able to see and examine it.

So because you're ignorant in things pertaining to climate science, you automatically believe what they tell you? I already told you what my questions were with the 'science'. Nobody has been able to explain or predict the Earth's natural PROVEN tendency to warm and cool on its own (a trend which has been observed even over the last century). They don't need me to tell them that glaring fault in their 'science'.

Would you trust a diagnosis from a doctor who didn't understand human anatomy? Probably not. So why are we trusting climate scientists without question when they have shown they cannot predict even short term weather patterns? They don't understand how the world's weather works very well and yet you're willing to fully trust them with long term climate predictions and trillions of dollars?

That isn't exactly, and/or completely what I have said, but occasional issues with basic English comprehension indeed often associate with an urge to discuss scientific matters in general forums. A nice topic for a PhD in psychology, my complements.

I think we've already established your sentence structure and grammar/spelling need work, but nice try sounding clever. I find, however, that it works better when you write like an educated adult. Some of the meaning gets lost while decyphering fragmented sentences, garbage punctuation and verbosity. I know this is the interweb and all, but come on.

However, it's a general concept, obvious to anybody who works in science, that any conclusion can be proven valid (or not) in the framework of knowledge of today. It is not an eternal truth that could never change.

This is not how the media is presenting it, nor is it how people are interpreting it. This is my issue with the 'science'. That is why I'm not talking to the scientists themselves, but rather the people like you that seem to blindly believe everything they say when even the layman can see some rather obvious faults.

Therefore your issues should be adressed to media's interpretation of science, rather than science itself. But wait, haven't you recently commented on validity on some models also?

I question the reliability of ALL the models, because I know enough about programming to understand that no computer in the world right now could account for all the important weather dynamics like air and ocean currents, solar output etc...

[waldo]

WTF – now you state, “AGW may or may not be true”… everything and anything McIntyre and McKitrick say/do is intended to criticize and denounce AGW.

Typical of the AGW alarmist "if you are not for me you must be against me" zealotry. SteveMc and RossMc have said repeatly that they do not believe their analyses denouce AGW. Their opinion is that if governments are going to make major policy decisions based on science then there must be some mechanism to ensure that the science meets the quality standards that we require in medicine and engineering.

Are you actually saying that McIntyre and McKitrick believe AGW is occurring - that they've stated/written as such? Are you actually saying that McIntyre's climateaudit blog is not a go-to source for AGW skeptics... how many times have you linked to it within this very thread? Are you actually saying that McIntyre presents an unbiased position... that's it's an absolute freaking coincidence that that he only investigates pro-global warming claims? As I don't frequent his blog, would you mind highlighting areas within it where McIntyre actually states his position on AGW... that should be easy for you given your previous statements - thanks in advance.

Mann would be in jail today if he had used his analyses to promote a stock. The fact that his incompetence is ignored - even lauded demonstrates how broken the IPCC process is.

Again, you purposely ignore the caveats and stated uncertainties that MBH attached to their work. You ignore the revision update that MBH brought forward, factoring in your oft repeated PCA statistical concern (re. Wegman)... a revision update result that only acted to further corroborate their initial reconstruction. You continue to ignore that IPCC acknowledged the raised concerns of MBH and accepted MBH based on subsequent independent studies that, factoring the raised concerns of MBH, essentially reproduced the same reconstruction results as MBH. And you continue to highlight the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99, one of the first in the study field, that in the greater overview is essentially irrelevant to any consensus on AGW. Are you seriously comparing stock market quote analysis to paleoclimate science?

Clearly, your repeated references to Wegman “vindicating” McIntyre and McKitrick, was/is intended to reinforce your belief that AGW is contrived science done by dishonest and untrustworthy climate scientists… essentially, your repeated claims throughout this thread. Now – when pressed about the AGW related findings/statements from the Wegman Report, you pull a 180… interesting back-peddle.

Dishonest and untrustworthy scientists can still be right. No where did I say I believe that the problems with the hockey stick mean that AGW must be false. All I have said that the problems mean the AGW scientists cannot be trusted and we cannot take their word.

You've not shown a single instance of dishonest scientists... do identified problems in methodology indicate untrustworthy scientists? Do you actually understand... recognize... appreciate... scientific methodology?

I repeatedly suggested you move on – get more topical… that Wegman is “old 2006 news”… that MBH has been independently validated by literally dozens of other studies, that other studies have reconstructed MBH factoring the Wegman statistical concern and that MBH has been updated to reflect Wegman concerns, although the updated MBH reconstruction corroborates the original. You’ve put a lot of thread mileage around the Wegman Report… accordingly; you’ll need to accept this Wegman statement – perhaps you can advise if it, similarly, stands the test of your repeated “vindicating McIntyre and McKitrick” statements.

As we said in our report, In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change. The instrumented temperature record since 1850 clearly indicates an increase in temperature.

We certainly agree that modern global warming is real. We have never disputed this point. We think it is time to put the ‘hockey stick’ controversy behind us and move on

.

Go ahead. Repeat the lie. Try listing those so-called dozens of studies. If you did you would find that:

1) They don't go back 1000 years (i.e. they only cover the little ice age which we know was colder than today).

2) They use proxies which are known to be bad (e.g. bristlecones, fox tails, gaspe cedars).

3) The use statistical methods which have been shown to be just a bogus as MBH.

Since you asked… a few… of those studies that corroborate the original MBH98/99 reconstruction – studies that don’t completely rely on your stated proxy or MBH statistical method concerns. Your reference to 1000 years is a subjective criteria with disputed relevance in the overall debate... although some of the studies mentioned below meet that criteria point.

- Wahl and Amman – a study that factored the centered PC analysis concern raised by Wegman, additionally removing one of the less well replicated tree ring series.

- Rutherford – a study that completely eliminated the PC analysis step and effectively removed all statistically relevant tree-ring information.

- Oerlemans – a study that reconstructed global temperatures from glaciers… entirely independent from paleoclimate proxy data used by MBH

- Osborn and Briffa – a study that relies on proxy data related to tree-ring chronology, fossil shells and ice-core records and utilizes a very straightforward analysis that avoids the technical aspects of statistical calibration/methodology.

- Henry N. Pollack, Shaopeng Huang and Po-Yu Shen – a study that generated a global temperature reconstruction based on underground temperature measurements from over 350 bore holes in Australia, North America, Central Europe and Southern Africa.

- Kaufman – a study that relied upon proxy data related to sediments from Arctic lakes, previously published data from glacial ice and tree rings calibrated against instrumental temperature records.

- MBH 2008 – a study with a significantly expanded proxy data sets (minus any reliance on tree rings) and an updated methodology.

Wegman, SteveMc and RossMc all agree that the hockey stick problems do not invalidate AGW theory so I do not see your point. I am saying that the reaction of the climate science community to the hockey stick issues demonstrates, in my opinion, that the climate science community is filled with people who are either incompentent or blind zealots and that we can have no confidence in their ability to assess science objectively. The Wegman report part of the evidence I offer to demonstrate that point.

Without a direct quote reference, you need to be clearer as to which of “my points” you’re not seeing “the point of”. In any case, before I called you on Wegman’s AGW position, you had trotted out the “Wegman Report” as a full repudiation of the MBH reconstruction… which it isn’t. You certainly weren’t prefacing any discussion around the report in terms of a simple statistical methodology concern… one that had no bearing on the overall impetus of AGW. You were clearly using it as a wedge device to question the validity of AGW proponents... who, apparently to you, know nothing of statistics. Accordingly, you have no foundation to include Wegman in your aforementioned grouping… if you want to claim validity in including McIntyre and McKitrick in your grouping, you need to step up and show where they have made such claims that, as you state, “hockey stick problems do not invalidate AGW”. But again, you’re still beating the hockey-stick drum… for some reason… even though it’s been deemed as irrelevant to the overall consensus on climate change… even though most have moved on from it. You appear to be stuck in some deniers blog revival of the hockey stick reconstruction… I wonder which one

From recall, you’ve used religious, criminal, zealot, incompetent, dishonest, and untrustworthy phrasings to characterize the “client science community”. Clearly you have personalized this beyond a straightforward layman’s attachment to interpreting the science. You clearly don’t draw from strength to question the confidence and objectivity of the “client science community”. You most clearly don’t interpret the Wegman Report in an appropriate perspective… you attach a disproportionate significance to the report, while purposely ignoring that others have genuinely considered it and taken it to heart with additional/revised studies. You’ll need to better articulate how that report speaks to, as you state, a lack of “confidence in their ability to assess science objectively”… otherwise, it’s just you adding to your long and growing list of personalized phrasings.

[Riverwind]

Are you actually saying that McIntyre and McKitrick believe AGW is occurring - that they've stated/written as such?

Yep. And so do all of the skeptics that I would link to. The fact that you do not know this demonstrates that you know nothing about the topic and all you are doing is regurgitating alarmist propoganda

You've not shown a single instance of dishonest scientists... do identified problems in methodology indicate untrustworthy scientists? Do you actually understand... recognize... appreciate... scientific methodology?

Mann and company have repeately misrepresented their work and ignored legimate criticisms. They constantly create strawmen which claim to "rebutt" the claims but do nothing of the sort. Unfortunately, their deceptions are enough to satisfy the AGW alarmists like yourself who do not know enough to understand their deceptions.

Wahl and Amman

Bogus methods. Reconstructions have no statistical significance.

Rutherford

Does nothing of the sort. Simply repeats Mann's claims which were previously debunked.

Oerlemans

Only goes back to 1600.

Osborn and Briffa

Reuses all of the garbage proxies used in Mann.

Henry N. Pollack, Shaopeng Huang and Po-Yu Shen

Boleholes are dubious proxies.

Kaufman

Used key proxies 'upside down'. Cherry picked proxies that provide desired response.

MBH 2008

A completely bogus study that depends entirely on 2 proxies - one of which is bristlecones and the other was used upside down.

From recall, you’ve used religious, zealot, incompetent, dishonest, and untrustworthy phrasings to characterize the client science community”.

All well deserved labels for a group of people who remain silent or defend the junk science of Mann and his associates.

Here is a account of some of unprofesssional behavoir that climate scientists, the IPCC and jounral editors engaged in order to "defend the faith": http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/200...esus-paper.html

I was not as harsh with my criticisms until Mann 2008 came out. When it did I gave Mann the benefit of the doubt and assumed that he had learned something. I was frankly appalled at the level incompentence and/or dishonestly on display in that paper. It was at that point that I realized that if the climate science community is not willing to put an end to Mann and his nonsense then it does not deserve our trust.

One example of the incompentence in Mann 2008 is a test used to determine if the results could have occurred by chance. He did this by comparing the number of "hits" to the number of "hits" expected by chance. For example, if you flip a coin 100 times you would expect 50 heads - any more or less and your coin is not random. But Mann loaded the coin. He did not simply flip a coin. He flipped it again if it came up tails and counted it as a head if a head came up the second time. This change means that in a 100 counted tosses (up to 200 actual tosses), heads should come up 75 times. Mann ignored this and pretended that only 50 heads were required to prove his algorithm was working.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

Then what you're saying is that since you are clueless in matters pertaining to climate science, you're belief in the studies being done is a matter of simple faith in the climate science 'experts'. Blind faith...hmmm...

Not exactly. While I don't know enough of this particular sciense to make an informed comment, I know enough about scientific process in general, to have much better confidence in their opinion, than e.g. that of a prophet calling for manna to come off the skies. Any research, hypothesis, theory, before gaining acceptance must go through a rigorous examination by qualified experts in their field. I also know that by investing time and effort I can attempt to acquire that knowledge myself, and examine their conclusions based on the rules of reason and logic, rather than clueless hunches, or rants from ages old books that ridiculously contradict each other.

[Riverwind]

Any research, hypothesis, theory, before gaining acceptance must go through a rigorous examination by qualified experts in their field.

So what if your are wrong? What if the peer review system is broken in climate science because the funding mechanisms reward scientists that promote climate alarmism and punish those that suggest there is not much worry about? How could such a broken system fix itself without outsiders pointing out the flaws? How could these outsiders do their work if everyone was like you and insisted that the scientific systems is infalliable and dissenters are always wrong?

[myata]

So what if your are wrong? What if the peer review system is broken in climate science because the funding mechanisms reward scientists that promote climate alarmism and punish those that suggest there is not much worry about? How could such a broken system fix itself without outsiders pointing out the flaws? How could these outsiders do their work if everyone was like you and insisted that the scientific systems is infalliable and dissenters are always wrong?

It is possible, of course, though not very likely, given that thousands qualified scientists and expersts would have to be involved in the conspiracy. Even less likely that it would be discovered by mostly clueless in the subject posters in general internet discussion forums. Of the same breed I wonder, that have previously discovered eternal motion, disproved second law of thermodynamics, and successfully created gold from sh..

Short of being able to verify it myself, it won't be wrong, statistically, to go with (much, much, much) more likely possibility that the consensus of experts in the subject does indeed reflect the best knowledge of today's science, and dissenters found in Internet forums mostly generate pseudo scientific gibberish talk. It's the same statistical rationale that makes you reach for a mug on the table where you left it last time, and not e.g. 10 feet up in the air, where it could, theoretically, transfer due to statistical fluctation of molecules that make it.

[Moonbox]

Not exactly. While I don't know enough of this particular sciense to make an informed comment, I know enough about scientific process in general, to have much better confidence in their opinion, than e.g. that of a prophet calling for manna to come off the skies.

That made me laugh well said

Any research, hypothesis, theory, before gaining acceptance must go through a rigorous examination by qualified experts in their field. I also know that by investing time and effort I can attempt to acquire that knowledge myself, and examine their conclusions based on the rules of reason and logic, rather than clueless hunches, or rants from ages old books that ridiculously contradict each other.

Like I said before, my problem is not with the micro science of weather, oceans, geology etc, but rather the macro study of long term climate change and the use of unreliable computer models to 'prove' global warming has been caused by CO2.

Some of the more famous skeptics out there aren't exactly kooks. Among them are some of the most respected scientists in the world. Ivar Giaver has a Nobel Prize for physics, and says that the 'studies' and 'proofs' for global warming aren't even close to as compelling as the action plans are calling for.

[Riverwind]

It is possible, of course, though not very likely, given that thousands qualified scientists and expersts would have to be involved in the conspiracy.

Calling it a "conspiracy" is a strawman. I stated clearly that the problem was one of incentives and that scientists have no incentive to produce research that suggests the AGW is not a concern because the public recognition, promotions and funding goes to scientists that promote alarmism. There are many examples of wide spread institutional failure caused by bad incentives (the recent financial crisis is a good example) and you would have to be incredibly naive to insist that scientists and the institutions they work for are some how immune.

Short of being able to verify it myself, it won't be wrong, statistically, to go with (much, much, much) more likely possibility that the consensus of experts in the subject does indeed reflect the best knowledge of today's science

You completely avoiding the question. I asked how can systematic problems be identified and corrected as long as people like insist that scientists are infallible and that anyone who questions them must be wrong? Simply repeating that you have unquestioning faith the scientists and their institutions does not address the issue.

BTW: here is something from a well respected and well publish climate scientists that I am sure you will refuse to read because it goes against the things you want to believe. It describes how the IPCC is ignoring peer reviewed research that considers factors other than CO2:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009...jectivity-91-0/

Edited October 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[normanchateau]

...promotions and funding goes to scientists that promote alarmism.

Please provide evidence that promotions and funding go to scientists who promote alarmism.

Promotions and funding are largely a function of the number and quality of publications in scientific journals. Take a look at the NSERC website to see how Canadian funding of scientists is adjudicated.

[Riverwind]

Promotions and funding are largely a function of the number and quality of publications in scientific journals. Take a look at the NSERC website to see how Canadian funding of scientists is adjudicated.

Papers which promote alarmism are much more likely to pass peer review and be accepted in the more prestigious journals. This is a result of human nature. If a reviewer likes the conclusions of the paper the reviewer is not going to look as hard at the paper. If a reviewer dislikes the conclusions the reviewer would look for any possible excuse to reject the paper. For a scientist who is judged by the number of peer reviewed papers it does not make sense to fight the system by submitting papers that are more likely to be rejected.

The journal editors also know that media loves climate porn so they favour papers with alarming conclusions because those papers are more likely to be picked up by the media and promote the journal in the process.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[normanchateau]

Papers which promote alarmism are much more likely to pass peer review and be accepted in the more prestigious journals.

Do you have evidence to support this most amusing and unique hypothesis?

I have many scientist-friends who are not aware that promoting alarmism is key to positive peer reviews. Your hypothesis, once I present it to them, could significantly advance their careers.

It's a shame that university tenure and promotion committees are not aware of your hypothesis. Many a fine scientist was no doubt denied tenure by not being aware that the absence of alarmism in their peer-reviewed manuscripts contributed to their low publication rate.

[Riverwind]

I have many scientist-friends who are not aware that promoting alarmism is key to positive peer reviews. Your hypothesis, once I present it to them, could significantly advance their careers.

Gee, I have scientist friends/collegues who freely admit that jumping on the climate alarmist bandwagon is the ticket to get funding. I know people who wanted to express contrarian views but where told to keep their mouth shut because it would be damaging to their careers.

Here is a tale which provides a concrete example of how the journals are baised towards pro-alarmist papers.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/200...esus-paper.html

Frankly, I think the onus is on you to provide evidence that scientists are these paragons of virtue that never let self interest bias their anonymous reviews of of papers. Without such evidence the only rational assumption is that scientists will seek to supress papers that they disagree with.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[normanchateau]

Gee, I have scientist friends/collegues who freely admit that jumping on the climate alarmist bandwagon is the ticket to get funding.

Funding from what agency?

[Riverwind]

Funding from what agency?

They work for the government or independent agencies and get funding for various government sponsered projects rather than from NSERC.

[wyly]

They work for the government or independent agencies and get funding for various government sponsered projects rather than from NSERC.

I've a PhD friend who does biological/pollution research for the government, he gets paid regardless what his research is on, his salary is fixed. None of the grant funding he attains is for his personal income.

[Riverwind]

I've a PhD friend who does biological/pollution research for the government, he gets paid regardless what his research is on, his salary is fixed. None of the grant funding he attains is for his personal income.

Government departments compete for funding even if individual employees have a fixed salary. Same is true for independent agencies that rely on sub-contracts from the government. Edited October 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Short of being able to verify it myself, it won't be wrong, statistically, to go with (much, much, much) more likely possibility that the consensus of experts in the subject

Part of the problem is you are letting the spin doctors and political activists tell you what the alleged consensus is.

Here is a survey that tried to quantify what scientists actually believed:

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/Brown.pdf

1. The largest group of respondents (45-50%) concur with the IPCC perspective as given in the

2007 Report.

2. A significant minority (15-20%), however, conclude that the IPCC understated the seriousness of

the threat from human additions of CO2.

3. A significant minority (15-20%), in contrast, conclude that the IPCC overstated the role of

human additions of CO2 relative to other climate forcings.

4. Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the

atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in

recent observed global average warming.

I don't call 60-70% support for the AGW catastrophe meme to be an overwhelming concensus. If 20% of the scientists in the field think that the IPCC is exagerrating then we all should want to hear why they think this.

[normanchateau]

They work for the government or independent agencies and get funding for various government sponsered projects rather than from NSERC.

Almost all successful Canadian scientists working at universities are NSERC-funded or CIHR-funded. These are highly competitive grants. You must be talking about noncompetitive government contract grants which are subject to the whims of politicians.

[Riverwind]

Almost all successful Canadian scientists working at universities are NSERC-funded or CIHR-funded. These are highly competitive grants. You must be talking about noncompetitive government contract grants which are subject to the whims of politicians.

Does not change the fact that there is money to be made chasing these funding sources and a lot of university professors try to get in on the action.

You also have not provided any evidence that scientists are paragons of virtue that would ignore self interest when providing anonymous reviews.

You have also not addressed the fact that journals are biased towards climate porn because that is what the media likes.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

You completely avoiding the question. I asked how can systematic problems be identified and corrected as long as people like insist that scientists are infallible and that anyone who questions them must be wrong? Simply repeating that you have unquestioning faith the scientists and their institutions does not address the issue.

They certainly cannot be identified by people with no knowledge or qualifications in the subject area.

[Riverwind]

They certainly cannot be identified by people with no knowledge or qualifications in the subject area.

SteveMc and RossMc clearly have the qualifications when it comes to statistical analysis yet you ignore what they have to say. Artificially defining the 'subject area' to only include the people who are already members of the old boys club ensures that it will be impossible to identify and correct problems caused by the bias of the old boys club. Edited October 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[normanchateau]

Does not change the fact that there is money to be made chasing these funding sources and a lot of university professors try to get in on the action.

You must not understand how NSERC and CIHR work. These Canadian federal agencies strictly prohibit the funds from going to the university professors who receive them. They are used for salaries of employees and for research-related supplies and expenses.

US federal granting agencies differ in that university professors can supplement their incomes with their grants. Canadian federal granting have never done so...precisely to prevent the potential conflict of interest which you describe above.

[myata]

SteveMc and RossMc clearly have the qualifications when it comes to statistical analysis yet you ignore what they have to say. Artificially defining the 'subject area' to only include the people who are already members of the old boys club ensures that it will be impossible to identify and correct problems caused by the bias of the old boys club.

That "club" though includes thousands of qualified scientists from all around the world. Is there a global conspiracy to trump good quality research, with not one of fellow scientists who could see it, speaking up? Or is the research itself not up to par, professionally?

Here's what somebody who isn't yet qualified to verify it for themselves could do:

1) Pick an opinion based on some unrelated to science quality (and optionally, dispute it to death in a general Web forum).

2) Use consensus expert option as guidline (based on statitics of likelihood of x,000 qualified scientist being wrong vs a few "dissenters", mostly from either unrelated, or only distantly related fields).

3) Acquire expertise themselves, and make a qualified judgement (and share it with fellow researchers, if necessary).

General Web forum as means to advance science only appears in the Strategy #1, and it is also the one that will never produce any contributions to science, because it's really nothing but a personal preference. And there can't be any (scientific) point in discussing our personal preferences (other than in psychology).

[Argus]

Here is a tale which provides a concrete example of how the journals are baised towards pro-alarmist papers.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/200...esus-paper.html

Most enlightening. Not surprising, but enlightening. I'm sure the True Believers will dismiss it anyway, though.

[Moonbox]

They certainly cannot be identified by people with no knowledge or qualifications in the subject area.

Most people have some knowledge in the subject area. NONE of the scientists have comprehensive knowledge of the Earth or it's climate. Climate science is broken up into so many disciplines that putting it altogether is in itself a crazily difficult task.

As for people who criticize it, among them are plenty of PhD's and even Nobel Prize winners. Their questions go unanswered, however, and they are marginalized as a result.