ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Riverwind]

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

Climate science is an environment were 'dissenters' are viciously attacked as stooges of 'big oil'. A scientist looking for work in the area quickly finds that career options are quite limited for people who take contrarian views. Look at the latest exercise where the Met Office in the UK circulated a petition asking for support. Many scientists who signed complained privately that they felt compelled to sign it.

In other words, if you believe that climate science is a world where all ideas are fairly vetted and only the best rise to the top then you are believing in a fantasy land.

[Pliny]

The difference with the banking fraud is that banks were `fooled` by their own risk evaluation processes.

I don't think so Michael. How could hundred year old enterprises and sound financial institutions all at once be fooled by their own risk evaluation process? The government created the environment where Banks would forgo prudence by making certain guarantees; guarantees that risky mortgages would be bought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

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.

Internal processes? What internal processes? It was party time and all the warning signs were ignored by most. Government created the "moral hazard" necessary by assurances that all was well.

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.

You buy that?

What you just said there is that tree rings do not provide reliable scientific information. Should other tree ring data be tossed? Temperatures did not go up - tree ring data would have indicated that they did not go up or we should throw all tree ring data out.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Pliny

[Riverwind]

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"

Scientists are being used by political activists with their own objectives. i.e. if AGW did not exist greenpeace, suzuki, et. al, would have latched onto some other cause that required the same sort of policies.

In any case, a rational person would look at the evidence and make decisions based on the evidence. I have and the evidence shows many examples of climate scientists publishing shoddy work after shoddy work without anyone from inside the community raising an objection. We have evidence of scientists making leaps of logic which are not supported by any evidence and we find the rest of the community quietly accepts these leaps as facts. Once or twice I would have forgiven. But has happened so many times that I cannot have any confidence in the scientific claims they make unless they are backed up by conclusive evidence from datasources that are not subject to intensive manipulation and adjustments.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[bloodyminded]

Scientists are being used by political activists with their own objectives. i.e. if AGW did not exist greenpeace, suzuki, et. al, would have latched onto some other cause that required the same sort of policies.

In any case, a rational person would look at the evidence and make decisions based on the evidence. I have and the evidence shows many examples of climate scientists publishing shoddy work after shoddy work without anyone from inside the community raising an objection. We have evidence of scientists making leaps of logic which are not supported by any evidence and we find the rest of the community quietly accepts these leaps as facts. Once or twice I would have forgiven. But has happened so many times that I cannot have any confidence in the scientific claims they make unless they are backed up by conclusive evidence from datasources that are not subject to intensive manipulation and adjustments.

No doubt in my mind that scientists are being used by political activists. Just as, surely, there's no doubt in your mind that scientists are being used by debunkers.

Of course you're right about making decisions based on evidence.

But if this happenned "so many times," surely you can prove this.

[Pliny]

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.

We covered the area of conspiracy already. The opportunity this AGW crisis presents is not unlike any other opportunity and every facet of society will not let this one go to waste, governments, ideologues, corporatism, they are all going green. Nothing wrong in good housekeeping, after all. But alarmist, environmentalist ideologues want more than just good housekeeping. They want to be in charge of setting all the rules for all human activity in the world. Does that sound too conspiratorial for you or do you see that the environment is the common factor to all of us that is forming a consensus for the domination of all of our activities. AGW is the means to an end. I don't know if environmental scientists see they are being used but they sure like the attention they are getting from government and the recognition of the importance of their work, especially in the form of grants.

There is, contrary to popular belief, a human factor in science and not just a dogmatic search for the truth. It is sometimes used for personal or illegitimate reasons.

[bloodyminded]

We covered the area of conspiracy already. The opportunity this AGW crisis presents is not unlike any other opportunity and every facet of society will not let this one go to waste, governments, ideologues, corporatism, they are all going green. Nothing wrong in good housekeeping, after all. But alarmist, environmentalist ideologues want more than just good housekeeping. They want to be in charge of setting all the rules for all human activity in the world. Does that sound too conspiratorial for you or do you see that the environment is the common factor to all of us that is forming a consensus for the domination of all of our activities. AGW is the means to an end. I don't know if environmental scientists see they are being used but they sure like the attention they are getting from government and the recognition of the importance of their work, especially in the form of grants.

There is, contrary to popular belief, a human factor in science and not just a dogmatic search for the truth. It is sometimes used for personal or illegitimate reasons.

You say "we covered the area of conspiracy already"; indeed we did, if your declarative denial accounts for "coverage."

And then you go on to conspiracize some more: "But alarmist, environmentalist ideologues want more than just good housekeeping. They want to be in charge of setting all the rules for all human activity in the world."

Read your sentence again, to let its meaning and implicaitons sink in. "All rules" and "all activity" have actual meanings, you know.

This is the biggest, wildest conspiracy theory I've ever heard. It's insane.

Edited December 14, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

Climate science is an environment were 'dissenters' are viciously attacked as stooges of 'big oil'. A scientist looking for work in the area quickly finds that career options are quite limited for people who take contrarian views. Look at the latest exercise where the Met Office in the UK circulated a petition asking for support. Many scientists who signed complained privately that they felt compelled to sign it.

Dissenters publish contrary opinions, which are reviewed in the journals. There's no evidence that the scientific community is being intimidated into making false claims. One of the climategate emails shows the scientists admonishing an environmentalist for overstating their claims.

In other words, if you believe that climate science is a world where all ideas are fairly vetted and only the best rise to the top then you are believing in a fantasy land.

I'm still waiting for evidence to the contrary. I posted the name of a dissenting scientist whose views were treated seriously and debated in the journals.

[Riverwind]

But if this happenned "so many times," surely you can prove this.

Try spending time reading ClimateAudit. The most damning of the critiques are the ones which any engineer/scientist can see as blatent examples of scientific nonsense yet the 'climate science' community insist they are perfectly rational.

For example, the 'decline' that needed to be hidden shows the tree ring proxies stopped responding to temperature in the late 20th century. What this should mean is that the entire proxy series gets thrown out because if it does not respond to temps in the late 20th century then it can't be assumed to be responding to temps at any time in the past. However, climate scientists don't want to let a few inconvient facts get in the way of a good tree ring study so they simply assert, without evidence, that some factor unique to the 20th century caused the divergence.

[Pliny]

No doubt in my mind that scientists are being used by political activists. Just as, surely, there's no doubt in your mind that scientists are being used by debunkers.

Of course you're right about making decisions based on evidence.

But if this happenned "so many times," surely you can prove this.

Another "prove it to me, guy" who only believes in scientific studies. There needs to be scientific studies that prove the scientific studies are flawed. It's the only way. One of the faithful.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think so Michael. How could hundred year old enterprises and sound financial institutions all at once be fooled by their own risk evaluation process? The government created the environment where Banks would forgo prudence by making certain guarantees; guarantees that risky mortgages would be bought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The government can't force businesses to assume undo risk, or force businesses to lend money that they would likely lose. I'm not sure if you've worked in business before, but I have - including the banks - and this makes perfect sense to me.

Internal processes? What internal processes? It was party time and all the warning signs were ignored by most. Government created the "moral hazard" necessary by assurances that all was well.

Loans need to have risks assessed. Any institution accepting the loan, or buying the loan from another needs to assess the risk involved. That wasn't done properly.

You buy that?

What you just said there is that tree rings do not provide reliable scientific information. Should other tree ring data be tossed? Temperatures did not go up - tree ring data would have indicated that they did not go up or we should throw all tree ring data out.

There are other sources of data, though, and the question - which was also included in the paper I believe - was why the recent temperature data from other sources didn't align with the tree ring data.

[Michael Hardner]

For example, the 'decline' that needed to be hidden shows the tree ring proxies stopped responding to temperature in the late 20th century. What this should mean is that the entire proxy series gets thrown out because if it does not respond to temps in the late 20th century then it can't be assumed to be responding to temps at any time in the past. However, climate scientists don't want to let a few inconvient facts get in the way of a good tree ring study so they simply assert, without evidence, that some factor unique to the 20th century caused the divergence.

It doesn't mean that at all. What if there are other reasons for the recent tree ring data to be out ? What if all of the other temperature models from other sources in the past align with the tree ring data since 1990 ?

In any case, these are questions that climate scientists themselves are better equipped to discuss than we are.

[Pliny]

You say "we covered the area of conspiracy already"; indeed we did, if your declarative denial accounts for "coverage."

And then you go on to conspiracize some more: "But alarmist, environmentalist ideologues want more than just good housekeeping. They want to be in charge of setting all the rules for all human activity in the world."

Read your sentence again, to let its meaning and implicaitons sink in. "All rules" and "all activity" have actual meanings, you know.

This is the biggest, wildest conspiracy theory I've ever heard. It's insane.

I meant what I said "All rules" and "all activity" will be subject to approval by environmental factors. If you don't see it happening your blind. But I realize you need a scientific analysis to make your decisions for you.

[Riverwind]

Dissenters publish contrary opinions, which are reviewed in the journals. There's no evidence that the scientific community is being intimidated into making false claims. One of the climategate emails shows the scientists admonishing an environmentalist for overstating their claims.

One email from 10 years ago set against the many examples of willful exaggeration.

What you are missing is climate science is nothing but opinion. There are few facts that can be independently verified and when data is available it is often manipulated in ways that suit the prejudices of the custodian. This environment makes it virtually impossible for dissenting views to gain acceptance if those views undermine the entrenched interests. That is why most scientists feel compelled to follow the party line.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

It doesn't mean that at all. What if there are other reasons for the recent tree ring data to be out ? What if all of the other temperature models from other sources in the past align with the tree ring data since 1990 ?

This makes no sense. You have a set of proxy data. You claim it measures temperature but it does not match temperature. That means you can't use it unless you can demonstrate why the divergance occurred and show that it would not have happened in the past. Claiming that other sets matched so this one should match too is nonsense.

In any case, these are questions that climate scientists themselves are better equipped to discuss than we are.

If 'climate scientists' believe that the tree ring data has merit then they are not equipped at all.

[Michael Hardner]

One email from 10 years ago set against the many examples of willful exaggeration.

What you are missing is climate science is nothing but opinion. There are few facts that can be independently verified and when data is available it is often manipulated in ways that suit the prejudices of the custodian. This environment makes it virtually impossible for dissenting views to gain acceptance if those views undermine the entrenched interests.

It's based on presenting a hypothesis and backing it up with data. Dissenting views have been published and they will be published. There's no grand conspiracy here, the process is too open for that.

[Riverwind]

It's based on presenting a hypothesis and backing it up with data. Dissenting views have been published and they will be published. There's no grand conspiracy here, the process is too open for that.

Climate science is one of the few disciplines where scientists are free to 'fix' the data to match the hypothesis instead of adjusting their hypothesis. Adjustments which support the mainstream view are accepted without question. Those that do not are put under the microscope.

For example, there is overwhelming evidence that the surface records are biased high because of UHI yet that is ignored. OTOH, the sea surface temps in the 40s are colder than what the models say they should be so tons of effort is spent adjusting them upward.

[Pliny]

The government can't force businesses to assume undo risk, or force businesses to lend money that they would likely lose. I'm not sure if you've worked in business before, but I have - including the banks - and this makes perfect sense to me.

Well, of course you're right, Michael. Government can't force them to assume undo risk. They will go out of business before they do that. The Government assured them all was well and gave them certain guarantees for taking risks.

Loans need to have risks assessed. Any institution accepting the loan, or buying the loan from another needs to assess the risk involved. That wasn't done properly.

Right again! Why would they abandon the prudence that decades of experience grew? And not just one bank but all of Wall street? Was there not a wise financial analyst among them? Not just one went wrong - they all did. Why did they all of a sudden not do it properly? Not much happened to our banks? Something in the US went wrong. Was it just greed as most people believe or were the risks properly assessed by experienced risk assessors and the green light given.

Mortgage companies in the US were packaging mortgages up and selling them to Wall street and Wall street was selling them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they would buy them. Fannie and Freddie owned, I think, three out of five mortgages in the country when the crisis hit. That was the reason it got out of hand - the government was buying up the bad debt.

There are other sources of data, though, and the question - which was also included in the paper I believe - was why the recent temperature data from other sources didn't align with the tree ring data.

Yeah. There is going to be a lot of looking at data but that won't stop the politicians from setting up their carbon tax swapping.

[jbg]

Climate science is one of the few disciplines.....

These days it has more of the marks of a religion than a science.

[Michael Hardner]

This makes no sense. You have a set of proxy data. You claim it measures temperature but it does not match temperature. That means you can't use it unless you can demonstrate why the divergance occurred and show that it would not have happened in the past. Claiming that other sets matched so this one should match too is nonsense.

How many years are we talking about ? Let`s se if we can find some scientists discussing this data.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, of course you're right, Michael. Government can't force them to assume undo risk. They will go out of business before they do that. The Government assured them all was well and gave them certain guarantees for taking risks.

Would you lend money to a stranger if the government give you great assurances that it would turn out ok ? I wouldn`t, and I don`t think you would either.

Risk assessment is a major part of the business of banking. Lending institutions don`t work the way you seem to think they do.

Right again! Why would they abandon the prudence that decades of experience grew? And not just one bank but all of Wall street? Was there not a wise financial analyst among them? Not just one went wrong - they all did. Why did they all of a sudden not do it properly? Not much happened to our banks? Something in the US went wrong. Was it just greed as most people believe or were the risks properly assessed by experienced risk assessors and the green light given.

Why would they abandon tried and true methods ? Because the rules had changed and there was money to be made. The risk assessors were hampered in their jobs by the complexity of the loans they were buying and were not fully assessing the risks.

Canadian banking is more conservative, and were lagging behind in these new methods, luckily for us.

Yeah. There is going to be a lot of looking at data but that won't stop the politicians from setting up their carbon tax swapping.

We'll see.

[Riverwind]

How many years are we talking about ? Let`s se if we can find some scientists discussing this data.

Here is s clear illustration of the divergence over 30 years of the record. Note that the problem is not a single scientist ignoring inconvenient data that undermines his conclusions. The problem is the climate science community and the IPCC actually defend this non-science. This example is one of many that demonstrates how climate science is NOT self correcting when bad science happens to support the AGW paradigm. Edited December 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[bloodyminded]

Another "prove it to me, guy" who only believes in scientific studies. There needs to be scientific studies that prove the scientific studies are flawed. It's the only way. One of the faithful.

I apologize...I hadn't realized you were unable to follow an extrmely straightforward debate.

So here's how it went down: I was informed by a poster that he had followed the evidence, and had found many, many mistakes and distortions.

And i asked him for them.

So, evidently, now it a sign of religious zealotry if I don't take bland assertions at face value. Asking for evidence to back up mere claims is being too "faithful" to science.

Ok, then: did you know that everyone to the Right of me, politically, is a pedophile? It's true. And you surely don't need any data to back up my claim. You just believe it, yes?

[bloodyminded]

I meant what I said "All rules" and "all activity" will be subject to approval by environmental factors.

No. That's not what you said, and it's logically impossible anyway. "Environmental factors" cannot dispense approval or disapproval. People can.

Your wild-eyed theory (actually, untested, fath-based hypothesis) is that environmentalists will determine "all rules" and "all our activity."

ALL our "activity"!

This is PHYSICALLY impossible.

[Pliny]

Would you lend money to a stranger if the government give you great assurances that it would turn out ok ? I wouldn`t, and I don`t think you would either.

Risk assessment is a major part of the business of banking. Lending institutions don`t work the way you seem to think they do.

Look at the Community Re-investment Act, Michael. What would you do if you saw your competition packaging up all it's risky debt and selling it to the Fed? The Fed by the way, is going to be buying mortgages until next April 1. There is still time to wite a few risky mortgages up and sell them as derivatives to Fannie Mae.

What do you think of picketers outside your home and office demanding loans be given to people? This happened in the States exactly because of the CRA and social activists demanding social justice (code for making everything equal everything else)

Why would they abandon tried and true methods ? Because the rules had changed and there was money to be made. The risk assessors were hampered in their jobs by the complexity of the loans they were buying and were not fully assessing the risks.

Hey, bailouts were pending. There was little risk. Just a little re-organizing.

What rules changed? That every American had the right to the American dream to own their own home?

Canadian banking is more conservative, and were lagging behind in these new methods, luckily for us.

We didn't have the Community Re-investment Act. And social activists picketing the homes and offices of Bank Presidents reluctant to make risky loans.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

No. That's not what you said, and it's logically impossible anyway. "Environmental factors" cannot dispense approval or disapproval. People can.

Your wild-eyed theory (actually, untested, fath-based hypothesis) is that environmentalists will determine "all rules" and "all our activity."

ALL our "activity"!

This is PHYSICALLY impossible.

First you point out I didn't say what I said then you interpret it correctly.

Let's not deteriorate to a discussion of semantics. If you want clarification on what I say then please ask. In the interests of clarity I will be happy to oblige.

The New Socialism

You also know what I mean by "All our activity". I think this is the first time I have had a leftist interpret what I say to be in the singular and not the collective but I get the tact and the implication as well as the condescension.

Exercise some civility, please.