ClimateGate and the Climatati

myata · December 11, 2009

I.e. to summarize, "I won't act until I'm convinced, and I won't be convinced because I have no desire or will to act".

How do you help, educate, nourish such cases? Well, the nature has come up with the best i.e most efficient solution, and it's called "the natural selection".

Pliny · December 11, 2009

Then get out, do some tests and prove your hypothesis.

I will leave it up to my proxies who are more qualified in that area than myself to do the necessary research.

You apparently don't know what a scientific theory is, but here you go.

A theory explains things for practical application. It may be entirely wrong. When the Earth was the centre of the universe; the prevalent theory a few years ago, it meant that man was really important in the grand scheme of things and the Garden of Eden had to be at the centre. It was the scientifically endorsed concept of the universe - but there were skeptics and deniers. According to prevailing scientific circles, the debate was over.

As for what a theory is I think I demonstrated an understanding of it. I know the theory of electricity has worked well enough for us to invent a myriad of electrical and electronic devices but the theory has been proven to be not quite up to snuff.

They don't use the theory of relativity becuase it requires so much more data, data that becomes irrelevant, but if they were to use it they would end up with a much more accurate result. That and relativity is math and math is the one thing in the sciences that can be proven. Relativity also has the ability to model a lot of phenomena in the universe that newtonian physics can't

I think when you are calculating a Mars landing you want accurate results. The more data the better if it is irrelevant it is irrelevant. I don't see how irrelevant data would provide a much more accurate result. In other words this paragraph is mainly claptrap.

We've been interfering with nature for thousands of years in every possible way except controling it directly. I'm all for it once we can control our climate, weather, etc we get to level one.

Let me guess, you would want it a few degrees warmer up here?

Pliny · December 11, 2009

How do you help, educate, nourish such cases? Well, the nature has come up with the best i.e most efficient solution, and it's called "the natural selection".

While I agree that natural selection is the way of the jungle we as humans can and do rise above it. Many people in our society today would not be alive if natural selection were the only criteria to our existence. I help and I fully expect others to help and contribute in our sustenance. Obviously, those that don't/won't contribute or work against the mutual interests of those that are contributing I don't have too much concern for.

waldo · December 11, 2009

what fundamental data has been, as you say, "fudged"... you express certainty with reference to "facts". Present your "facts".

A quick google will produce the desired results. I find it frustrating that anything I produce is quickly pounced upon as having already been discredited even though the scientists involved are real scientists.

WTF! No facts hey, Pliny? I can't recall you ever presenting anything other than your most recent reference/link to the blogger I beat upon... don't worry... Argus is on the case and will shortly redeem her! In that article she makes statements and doesn't qualify them - so, in effect, you're parroting a parrot (parrot²). So... I see... if ya got nuthin, Pliny says, "it's obvious... just Google it"! :lol:

you were wrong in the other thread - you're wrong in this thread... put up something that shows the short-term warming is not consistent with "their models". You ignored the request to present your sources previously - will you ignore it this time, as well? Just you saying it... is just you saying it.
I don't think I was wrong. All the references and real scientists I cite are apparently not credible.

Other than the most recent blogger who herself didn't offer any citations, what references and what real scientists have you cited... (apparently) credible - or not? Pliny = parrot²

Oleg Bach · December 11, 2009

Canada generates the most garbage on the planet because we have people who own packaging companies that own the government..it's a problem to be addressed in the new year - Canada is NOT a private company - time to put an end to this out dated colonialist ranch boardering of feudalism.....We do not pass anti-pollution laws because the persons causing the mess write the laws - total conflict of interest in a very grand sense of the term - Merry Christmas...

myata · December 11, 2009

While I agree that natural selection is the way of the jungle we as humans can and do rise above it. Many people in our society today would not be alive if natural selection were the only criteria to our existence.

That's just too bad. Because the process is fully reversible, as illustrated in Wells' Time Machine. If one stops thinking, acting, i.e. evolving their knowledge and intelligence, they'll be sliding all the way back to great apes, dolphins, and potatoes (eventually). There's neither guarantees nor charms against such turn of affairs, and it happens all the time, even in historical, not to mention, evolutionary time scales.

Michael Hardner · December 11, 2009

That's just too bad. Because the process is fully reversible, as illustrated in Wells' Time Machine. If one stops thinking, acting, i.e. evolving their knowledge and intelligence, they'll be sliding all the way back to great apes, dolphins, and potatoes (eventually). There's neither guarantees nor charms against such turn of affairs, and it happens all the time, even in historical, not to mention, evolutionary time scales.

Evolution isn't about getting more intelligent, it's about adapting. The human race can't evolve quickly enough to universally understand science, so it needs to adapt its social organization to respond to the problem.

myata · December 11, 2009

On the positive side, good things may still happen. In another generation or two, and probably with great stress and effort to humanity, that at this time can be described as pretty minor, in the global scale of things. If we (collectively) dodge this bullet, we'll probably learn something and do better next time.

Pliny · December 12, 2009

WTF! No facts hey, Pliny? I can't recall you ever presenting anything other than your most recent reference/link to the blogger I beat upon... don't worry... Argus is on the case and will shortly redeem her! In that article she makes statements and doesn't qualify them - so, in effect, you're parroting a parrot (parrot²). So... I see... if ya got nuthin, Pliny says, "it's obvious... just Google it"!

Other than the most recent blogger who herself didn't offer any citations, what references and what real scientists have you cited... (apparently) credible - or not? Pliny = parrot²

Hey how did you get that 2 behind the parrot?

I'm sorry Waldo for you the debate is over. I don't know why you are so insistent that every reference that has been cited to open debate is so vehemently attacked?

You are just parroting the beliefs of the scientific consensus. Every opponent to the scientific concensus is treated the same way.

To say I am parroting someone is a pretty sad argument. Why would I parrot the wrong argument why shouldn't I parrot the right argument? Because I am not a parrot.

waldo · December 12, 2009

Hey how did you get that 2 behind the parrot?

I'm sorry Waldo for you the debate is over. I don't know why you are so insistent that every reference that has been cited to open debate is so vehemently attacked?

You are just parroting the beliefs of the scientific consensus. Every opponent to the scientific concensus is treated the same way.

To say I am parroting someone is a pretty sad argument. Why would I parrot the wrong argument why shouldn't I parrot the right argument? Because I am not a parrot.

the debate continues and will only intensify. The debate requires a reference point - the reference point in this debate is the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion. One moves the debate away from the consensus by bringing forward challenges to the science - the science... not the peripheral shyte that seems to pass for degrees of legitimacy around here, or at large. Some will question the legitimacy of those challenges, particularly as influenced by the intense politicization and agendas (from all sides). For me, the parrot reference aligns well to blogs and so-called blog scientists... where one simply echos the (typically unfounded or questionable) statements/claims from a so-called blog scientist (a blogger who, invariably, isn't an actual scientist, doing actual climate related research/science). Since you make the point, for me - personally - if I quote from/link to an actual blog, I make it a habit/tendency to try to do it from a blog that actually is represented by real legitimate climate scientists.

August1991 · December 13, 2009

I thought that I would dump these two links into this thread. Of all the recent things that I have read about this issue, these two links helped me most to understand what is involved.

First, this link goes step-by-step through the statistical work to create the famous hockey stick. If you know a little bit about statistics, it's a straight forward read and includes (links to) all the data so you can do the same calculations at home.

Second, this link provides data for temperatures (northern hemisphere) for the past 2000 years which you can then import to Excel and create your own graph.

Here is the graph but you can do this at home too.

----

Incidentally, the first link relies entirely on Mann's data and duplicates what he did. The second link is "massaged data" for the period 0-1980 by a researcher associated with the EAU CRU.

Edited December 13, 2009 by August1991

eyeball · December 13, 2009

I think this has been addressed. It appears the MWP aka the MCA (Medieval Climate Anomaly) was a localized event not a global one.

The Medieval Warm Period found warm conditions over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America. In these regions, temperature appears to be warmer than the 1961–1990 baseline. In some areas, temperatures even even as warm as today. However, certain regions, such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and the tropical Pacific are substantially cooler.
So the Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomen. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. For this reason, the paper's authors refer to the Medieval Warm Period as the more technical sounding 'Medieval Climate Anomaly' (the MCA in Figure 1). Personally, I don't see the term becoming ubiquitious.

Source

eyeball · December 13, 2009

Understanding Trenberth's travesty.

So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"

Source

The following suggests the accumulated heat is going deeper into the ocean than previously thought.

Previous estimates of global hydrographic fluctuations have been derived using different data sets, partly on the basis of scarce sampling. The substantial advantage of this study includes a detailed summary of global variability patterns based on a single and more uniform database.

Source

Edited December 13, 2009 by eyeball

Riverwind · December 13, 2009

I think this has been addressed. It appears the MWP aka the MCA (Medieval Climate Anomaly) was a localized event not a global one.

Your link references yet another study by tree ring addict Mann which means it has no credibility and certainly cannot refute studies like Loehe 2008 which show a strong and global MWP. Edited December 13, 2009 by Riverwind

Riverwind · December 13, 2009

The following suggests the accumulated heat is going deeper into the ocean than previously thought.

This is a perfect example of the circular logic in climate science that makes all of their conclusions suspect.

In this case they are faced with data that suggests their climate models are wrong in their estimates of CO2 sensitivity. Most reasonable people would revisit their hypothesis. In their case they insist their hypothesis cannot possibly be wrong and blame the data. I have no doubt that they will find a way to manipulate/adjust/fabricate data that will allow them to insist their climate models are still correct. But the real question is why anyone should take them seriously?

Pliny · December 13, 2009

the debate continues and will only intensify. The debate requires a reference point - the reference point in this debate is the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion. One moves the debate away from the consensus by bringing forward challenges to the science - the science... not the peripheral shyte that seems to pass for degrees of legitimacy around here, or at large. Some will question the legitimacy of those challenges, particularly as influenced by the intense politicization and agendas (from all sides). For me, the parrot reference aligns well to blogs and so-called blog scientists... where one simply echos the (typically unfounded or questionable) statements/claims from a so-called blog scientist (a blogger who, invariably, isn't an actual scientist, doing actual climate related research/science). Since you make the point, for me - personally - if I quote from/link to an actual blog, I make it a habit/tendency to try to do it from a blog that actually is represented by real legitimate climate scientists.

Well, the debate is over for you and many others. The science - the science has been tainted by Political and ideological aspirations, and all the peripheral shyte. It's the same science that banished men to Siberia and the Russian madhouses, it's the same science that called for racial purity and killed 6 million Jews, it's the same science that made Kings blood more blue and the pope infallible, it's the same science that gave us the sixties impending iceage. It's politics as usual - it isn't science. Take the ideology and politics out of it and we are left with a one degree warming trend over the last century and an unexplained anomaly in the last decade (Trenbreth - "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment......) - that's the science. That's all we have.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Pliny

eyeball · December 13, 2009

Most reasonable people would revisit their hypothesis.

And this is what they've done. Scientists have sought more reliable data that probed deeper into the hypothesis. Its not their fault they found something you don't like.

The substantial advantage of this study includes a detailed summary of global variability patterns based on a single and more uniform database.

Riverwind · December 13, 2009

And this is what they've done. Scientists have sought more reliable data that probed deeper into the hypothesis. Its not their fault they found something you don't like.

Trenberth did not 'probe deeper'. He automatically assumed that 'it must be a data problem' (your own link points this out). The argo data many, in fact, show trends in the deep ocean heat content for the last 6 years but, if true, that data would open up a huge can of worms since skeptics have argued for years that the ocean can sequester AND release heat. If they find evidence of the deep ocean uptake of heat they cannot claim the the deep ocean was not releasing heat in the past.

The bottom line is no matter what the data it will be twisted to fit into the CO2-is-everything paradigm. Nobody from the science establishment will question that paradigm even if extemely damaging policies are enacted because of that.

eyeball · December 13, 2009

The bottom line is no matter what the data it will be twisted to fit into the CO2-is-nothing paradigm. Nobody from the economic establishment will question that paradigm even if the world is bursting into flames before their very eyes.

Fixed it for ya.

bloodyminded · December 13, 2009

The bottom line is no matter what the data it will be twisted to fit into the CO2-is-everything paradigm. Nobody from the science establishment will question that paradigm even if extemely damaging policies are enacted because of that.

Really?

It's interesting to me that some people place more trust (actually, absolute and total trust) in the debunkers, most of whom aren't scientists, than in the scientists themselves.

At any rate, this--"Nobody from the science establishment will question that paradigm even if extemely damaging policies are enacted because of that"--is a fascinating conspiracy theory. It's not quite as outrageous as "the Jews control the world" conspiracy theory, but it's slightly more incredible than the "Bush was behind 9/11" conspiracy theory.

Riverwind · December 13, 2009

It's interesting to me that some people place more trust (actually, absolute and total trust) in the debunkers, most of whom aren't scientists, than in the scientists themselves.

I have looked very carefully at the science for over 3 years now. I looked at the arguments and counter arguments. I looked at the orignal data and journal papers. During that time I have seen huge amount of evidence for tunnel vision, incompentence and even outright fraud coming from the climate science community.

Part of the problem is climate scientists are ivory tower academics who have no concept of what is required demonstrate that a scientific hypotheses is good enough for use in the design of a bridge or a nuclear reactor. Part of it is sheer arrogance and religious zealotry. But whatever the reason, climate science is a field that needs a huge shake up before its pronoucements can treated as fact.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Riverwind

bloodyminded · December 13, 2009

I have looked very carefully at the science for over 3 years now. I looked at the arguments and counter arguments. I looked at the orignal data and journal papers. During that time I have seen huge amount of evidence for tunnel vision, incompentence and even outright fraud coming from the climate science community.

Part of the problem is climate scientists are ivory tower academics who have no concept of what is required demonstrate that a scientific hypotheses is good enough for use in the design of a bridge or a nuclear reactor. Part of it is sheer arrogance and religious zealotry. But whatever the reason, climate science is a field that needs a huge shake up before its pronoucements can treated as fact.

I would be more inclined to agree, if it weren't for the incontrovertible truth that most debunkers don't appear to be taking the view you espouse here. Rather, they treat climate change science as utterly fraudulent (which it isn't), and any potential debunking as hard, incontestable truth. And this is based on LESS data and information, by a long shot, than is the other side.

So what we are left with is the preposterous--actually, knuckledragging--arguments that the majority of the scientific community involved in this work are a combination of "religious zealots" and "frauds."

That IS a conspiracy theory, and not a very convincing one.

Riverwind · December 13, 2009

That IS a conspiracy theory, and not a very convincing one.

The 'conspiracy theory' is a strawman used by alarmists to distract from the real issue which is group think and confirmation bias - traits that have led many large groups of otherwise educated people down wrong paths. Look at the recent financial scandal. As recently as 3 years ago people were dismissed as cranks for saying that mortgage backed securities were a disaster in waiting. Edited December 13, 2009 by Riverwind

Michael Hardner · December 13, 2009

The difference with the banking fraud is that banks were `fooled` by their own risk evaluation processes. There was no conspiracy, but a lack of due diligence in assessing risk. One of the reasons nobody saw that coming is that such processes are internal and not available for review by outside parties.

Climate science does its debating in publicly available journals. There is dissent, and there are skeptics that review and debate points.

By the way, from what I`ve seen the accounting for `lack of warming` refers to the lack of warming observable through tree ring measures in more recent years, when its known that temperatures indeed went up.

bloodyminded · December 14, 2009

The 'conspiracy theory' is a strawman used by alarmists to distract from the real issue which is group think and confirmation bias - traits that have led many large groups of otherwise educated people down wrong paths. Look at the recent financial scandal. As recently as 3 years ago people were dismissed as cranks for saying that mortgage backed securities were a disaster in waiting.

Yes, a perfect analogy. No, wait...the other thing. You accuse me of using a strawman, even while constructing one.

One more time: we are being informed of two facts about the majority of the scientific community: first, that they are like religious zealots when it comes to climate change (ie the groupthink and confirmation bias hypotheses); and we're simultaneously informed that scientists are committing a "liberal fraud" [sic].

These are two very different things. The second one most certainly IS a conspiracy theory...by definition. That you don't like the term being applied to debunkers is not even slightly relevant, because it is EXPLICITLY a conspiracy theory.

The former charge--that of groupthink--is far better, though still hugely problematic. (So for the sake of avoiding sounding like an insane person, you should utterly distance yourself from the droolers and conspiracy fanatics, lest it taint everything you say.) But charging groupthink is still monumentally difficult to prove. Especially as it doesn't fit well with scientific processes and methods generally.

Such a charge--which has profound and potentially devastating consequences for all scientific investigations of truly massive import--needs to be thoroughly ivestigated.

This requires, literally, tens of thousands of careful reviews of scientific literature by people with the knowledge to understand it.

Which, in fact, IS currently the case. Since you deem it insufficient, you must have some proposal to study this problem, and its myriad related issues.

But simply saying "groupthink" is meaningless, and counterintuitive at best. Even when you you state it in declarative sentences with an air of authority.