ClimateGate and the Climatati

[wyly]

His argument is basically pascal's wager. i.e. it costs us nothing (or at least not a lot) to do something and be wrong but the cost would be astronomical it we do nothing an be wrong.

I am saying the cost 'doing something' is guaranteed to have an astronomical cost and the cost of 'doing nothing' is extremely unlikely to have an astronomical cost. Given the difference between guaranteed astronomical cost upfront or the possibility of an astronomical cost in the future we are much better off doing nothing.

Of course, one does not have to reduce things down to the binary equation of do everything/do nothing. But doing enough to stop catastrophic warming if the alarmists are right is simply not an option (see the article I linked to). So we have to adapt and any money spent on limiting carbon in the short term will be money wasted.

cost won't be an issue if we doing nothing as you propose to save money, money will have no value and we won't have a civilization...

spend it it now and if it's wrong we're out a lot of money(short term)and have a cleaner healthier planet

do nothing and the worst comes to be 5-7c increase by 2100, no amount of money can fix it or save us...it's a no brainer that cost will be incalculably...

[Riverwind]

cost won't be an issue if we doing nothing as you propose to save money, money will have no value and we won't have a civilization.

Not going to happen. There may be parts of the world that have problems but human civilization will be fine.

spend it it now and if it's wrong we're out a lot of money(short term)and have a cleaner healthier planet

You have bought into another one of those environmentalist myths: the idea that CO2 == pollution. The fact is there are many types of pollution and a frantic effort to eliminate CO2 will *increase* real pollution because cost of eliminating CO2 will be incredibly expensive and nobody will be able to pay for non-essentials. If you really care about having a clean environment then you should end your obsession with CO2 because a wealthy society is more willing to pay to clean up real pollution.

do nothing and the worst comes to be 5-7c increase by 2100, no amount of money can fix it or save us...it's a no brainer that cost will be incalculably.

If the climate is so unstable that such an outcome occurs then it *already* too late and any money spent on eliminating CO2 will be wasted. We would be much better off using our fossil fuels to adapt to the changes as best as we can.

I am amazed that so many CO2-phobes don't see the contradictory nature of their arguments. i.e. if we are only facing a moderate warming then adapting later is cheaper than mitigating now. If we are facing catastrophic warming the mitigation is pointless because it cannot stop the inevitable. That is why I see this push for mitigation as a religious belief rather than a rational choice.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

Not going to happen. There may be parts of the world that have problems but human civilization will be fine.

you have no concept of the scale of change that will come with a 5-7 degree change or even a 2c if it can be held to that...

You have bought into another one of those environmentalist myths: the idea that CO2 == pollution. The fact is there are many types of pollution and a frantic effort to eliminate CO2 will *increase* real pollution because cost of eliminating CO2 will bankrupt the economy and nobody will be able to pay for non-essentials. If you really care about having a clean environment then you should end your obession with CO2 because a wealthy society is more willing to pay to clean up real pollution.

you suffer from scientific ignorance, anything out of balance is pollution...if you think CO2 isn't a pollutant go ahead and see if you can survive on a 100% concentration of CO2, let me know how me seconds it takes before you pass out...think that's silly? then go breathe 100% oxygen the stuff that keeps us alive for an extended length of time, let us know how that works out for you, it's toxic...any gas becomes out a pollutant when it is not in the normal range of tolerance required for life...

If the climate is so unstable that such an outcome occurs then it *already* too late and any money spent on eliminating CO2 will be wasted. We would be much better off using our fossil fuels to adapt to the changes as best as we can.

maybe you want to play russian roulette with a bullet in every camber but the rest of us prefer better odds...

I am amazed that so many CO2-phobes don't see the contradictory nature of their arguments. i.e. if we are only facing a moderate warming then adapting later is cheaper than mitigating now.

I'm amazed at the complete lack of scientific understanding of the issue on your part...the damage is cumulative due to the nature of CO2...the temps we see today are caused by emissions released decades ago...if you want to prevent future damage 50-100 yrs from now emissions must be cut today...you want to close the gate after the cows have escaped....

If we are facing catastrophic warming the mitagation is pointless because it cannot stop the inevitable. That is why I see this push for mitigation as a religious belief rather than a rational choice.

we can stop the inevitable, research is well underway to reverse the damage, denial is based on ignorance not science...

[Riverwind]

you have no concept of the scale of change that will come with a 5-7 degree change or even a 2c if it can be held to that.

A 5-7 degC rise is as plausible as an alien invasion. Based on your logic we should be building a space armada to fight them off.

you suffer from scientific ignorance, anything out of balance is pollution.

The current enviroment is actually CO2 starved. People indoors regularly breath air with 1000ppm CO2. Nothing we can do will take CO2 levels out of the historial norms for the planet. It is only pollution in the minds of people like yourself.

the damage is cumulative due to the nature of CO2...the temps we see today are caused by emissions released decades ago...if you want to prevent future damage 50-100 yrs from now emissions must be cut today...you want to close the gate after the cows have escaped.

So? The projections of future temperature rises take all of that into account. There is no benefit to spending $1000 today in order to save $500 in 50 years.

we can stop the inevitable, research is well underway to reverse the damage, denial is based on ignorance not science.

Actually, this is one of reasons why it is better to wait - 50 years from now it will likely be much cheaper to suck the CO2 out of air instead of trying to avoid emitting it today. Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

A 5-7 degC rise is as plausible as an alien invasion. Based on your logic we should be building a space armada to fight them off.

right, you go to Copenhagen with Mr Harper and tell him you'll set the world straight with your scientific expertise...

The current enviroment is actually CO2 starved. People indoors regularly breath air with 1000ppm CO2. Nothing we can do will take CO2 levels out of the historial norms for the planet. It is only pollution in the minds of people like yourself.

when it comes down to the actual science your ignorance really shows...you best stick to the conspiracy theories you don't need any real knowledge for that...you've posted that CO2 levels have changed through earths history(and they have) and now you claim they cannot change... ...so I gather you're not going to accept my challenge of breathing pure CO2, did you know that in airtight homes an air circulation system is required to keep CO2 levels down? thought not...it's called "Sick Building Syndrome" how can this be CO2 isn't a pollutant LOL!!!!

So? The projections of future temperature rises take all of that into account. There is no benefit to spending $1000 today in order to save $500 in 50 years.

no it's spend a $1000 now to save a $1,000,000 in 50 yrs time....what part of cumulative damage do you not understand

Actually, this is one of reasons why it is better to wait - 50 years from now it will likely be much cheaper to suck the CO2 out of air instead of trying to avoid emitting it today.

ya brilliant lets do nothing for 50 yrs to make sure the temps reach 5-7c by 2100 instead of 2c...wow... Edited November 26, 2009 by wyly

[Riverwind]

right, you go to Copenhagen with Mr Harper and tell him you'll set the world straight with your scientific expertise.

Mainstream scientific crowd seem to think that climate sensitivity is 3degC/doubling. They don't take the extreme scenarios very seriously except as a tool to scare the sheep into accepting all kinds of abuses in the name of 'saving the world'.

http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/indoorairqualityguide_fs.htm

Properly ventilated buildings should have carbon dioxide levels between 600 - 1,000 ppm, with a floor or building average of 800 ppm or less. If average carbon dioxide levels within a building are maintained at less than 800 ppm, with appropriate temperature and humidity levels, complaints about indoor air quality should be minimized.

Ok. 1000pm is the high end but most humans live in an environment with CO2 levels that are higher than the outside air.

Note this:

If a building exceeds this guideline, it should NOT be interpreted as a hazardous or life-threatening situation. An elevated carbon dioxide level is only an indication of an inadequate amount of outside air being brought into a building. The level cited in this document should only be used as a guideline to determine the amount of fresh outside air entering a building.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

no it's spend a $1000 now to save a $1,000,000 in 50 yrs time....what part of cumulative damage do you not understand

What part of "we don't have the technology" don't you understand. The IPCC has its political agenda and to support it routinely underestimates the costs of moving to an emission free economy and over estimates the costs of adaption. Look my earlier post. The cost of building the infrastructure required to be emission free in the US by 2035 would cost the US $2 trillion per year! That is 1/2 of their total government revenue. Every American who pays taxes would face a 17% increase in income tax. It is not going to happen.

You really need to learn some economics. No matter how much you may wish it we will not C02 free by 2035 or even 2080. And if the science says we need to reduce emissions to by 2050 then we are screwed because it ain't going to happen. We would be better being wealthier so we can pay for adaptation.

ya brilliant lets do nothing for 50 yrs to make sure the temps reach 5-7c by 2100 instead of 2c.

You don't seem to understand that there is no choice between those two outcomes. It is either the planet is going to warm 5-7 degC and we might keep it to 4-6 degC or the planet is going to warm to 2 degC and we might keep it to 1.5. There is simply too much 'warming in pipe' to reduce a 7 degC to 2 degC if the climate is that sensitive. Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

The planet has warmed 0.7 degC in the last 100 years are there is ZERO evidence that this warming has been a bad thing for humans. In fact, it has probably been a good thing. The planet can warm another 1-2 degC without any significant ill effects.

Sorry, I keep assuming that you have been following the debate and have knowledge beyond an ability to cut and paste stuff found with Google. Someone who was familiar with the issues would know that 2 degC is the target necessary to prevent dangerous warming and that many countries have signed (bogus) promises to cut emissions to keep the GMST below 2 degC. Based on those public actions it reasonable to assume that no one believes that warming of less that 2 degC will cause any problems.

While I'm at it, let’s add another to your growing list of contradictions. As you now line up around that 2degC target, you’ve also strongly/repeatedly called for “inaction”… that more time is needed to truly resolve the issues/the science. Ya see, the problem with accepting that 2degC target while advocating for current inaction is the related distinctions between (relatively) longer-term, mid-term and short-term intervals for action in meeting that target. That was the other side of the questions I posed to you; specifically, “care to state how long it will take to warm that additional 1-2 degC, particularly if nothing is done today”. How do you rationalize inaction in the face of relative time frames to meet targets, particularly given the political/policy realm (delays) in actually setting in place required measures?

You are making absolutely no sense. I claimed that a temperature rise of 1-2 degC is nothing to worry about. I pointed out that the climate alarmists seem to believe this too when you started whingeing about wanting proof for this "nothing to worry about" claim. Now you think that I agree on 2 degC as a target? What you seem to be missing is is I think that the effect of CO2 has been grossly overstated by the IPCC because it needs a problem that needs "solving" to justify its existence. What this means is the temperature rise will most likely be less than 2 degC no matter what governments do so there is absolutely no need for a massive international bureaucracy to control carbon.

No… without providing a supporting foundation you claimed a 2°C rise was “no problem”… when repeatedly asked what was the foundation to support your 2°C “no problem” claim, you finally ascribed to “common debate/knowledge”. When peeling back the details, that 2°C “common debate/knowledge” facet derives from (is attributed to) the IPCC. I’m more than content to show you lining up around/with the IPCC. If you don’t care for that, you could actually provide another basis for your claim… you know, something other than “common debate/knowledge”.

Of course, you contradict yourself with your repeated “let’s wait – no action necessary now” position… since the 2°C “no problem” target requires measured term response (short-term, medium-term, long-term). If 2050 is accepted as the long-term time period for measured response, delayed inaction through the run-up short/medium term periods only acts to amplify the outcomes of waiting/doing nothing. Your “no problem” most assuredly shifts… to “a problem”.

I see… although you’re just accepting to one of the stated IPCC Scenarios (the B1 grouping), in regards your unequivocal statement concerning a “manageable no problem” 2degC temperature rise target… you equally state the IPCC Scenarios aren’t plausible… aren’t realistic… are misleading. Why are you accepting to such an implausible, unrealistic and misleading IPCC B1 SRES scenario?

The emails themselves acknowledge that the scenarios are not supposed to have any connection to reality - they just have to internally consistent. The writer of one of the emails was concerned that the rates of CO2 growth had no connection to reality.

In fact, one of the revelations in the emails is the data used create the IPCC predictions was

'juiced'

to make the future look as scary as possible.

Nonsense – in your worst way and intent, you completely misinterpret that particular email exchange… and, of course, trumped it up as a, as you stated, “revelation that juiced data was used to create the IPCC predictions”. As I commented:

The hacked email exchange you present is nothing more than an exchange between group members, reference to the earlier IS92a long-term emission scenarios, and a reinforcement on how the latest SRES scenarios should be used within modelling (re: establishing baseline and capturing the range of uncertainties associated with driving forces and emissions). That range is provided by and reflects upon the overall and respective “realism” across the numbers drawn from/upon the SRES scenarios… if one presumed to assign probability to the respective SRES scenarios for predictive intent, then the question of absolute realism and extended prediction therein becomes relevant.

That is not the case or intent of the SRES scenarios and is reinforced with the exchange you label as “The answer”.

But don’t accept my comment/interpretation of the hacked email exchange you offered… given the incessant blogging deniers preoccupation with line-by-line anal parsing of the hacked emails, why not accept the comment from the denying blogger whose site was first used to present the hacked emails… the site where the hacker first uploaded the hacked emails to:

Email number 0926947295.txt. I think I misinterpreted this partially, the implications are simply based around how reasonable a scenario was decided to be presented. i.e. how much CO2 is presented determines how warm it will be in the future and what disaster scenarios they could present. It mostly has to do with beating down of a junior member on in his view of a reasonable level of CO2 increase.

Is that “juiced” enough for you? Particularly since, in your "juiced" reality, you have no problem accepting one of those assorted IPCC SRES scenarios.

[waldo]

re: “Getting editors at peer reviewed journals fired for accepting sceptical papers”: you can purposely pluralize but this relates to one specific journal and one specific editor. The journal is/was considered “biased” given a practice of publishing questionable papers. The hacked email in question speaks to bringing forward concerns about the publishing of questionable papers through the appropriate formal AGU channels. That’s it.

The tone of the emails is clear. Anyone with who is suspected to be a 'sceptic' is presumed to be biased and therefore must be pushed out. Trying to pretend it was a 'legitimate' protest is nonsense.

Email tone? You're serious? In any case, the hacked email I read was in regards the assorted questionable papers that shouldn't have been published in the Climate Research journal - are you prepared to stand for those papers... certainly, we could have some fun with that.

We now have evidence that science journals have faced intimidation by alarmist scientists if they dare to publish skeptical papers. At this time we cannot know how much science was never published because of this intimidation.

Enough… the hacked email reference is to one journal (Climate Research) – editors (Chris de Freitas & Hans von Storch) and, in particular, the published Soon/Baliunas paper… a paper that never should have been published given it offered nothing within it to support the conclusion made. Again, are you prepared to support that completely and absolutely discredited paper?... discredited by the streams of follow-up formal peer-response comment/paper… coupled with the fact that 13 of the cited authors within the Soon/Baliunas paper refuted the paper’s interpretation of their work.

Supporting background/detail that reinforces your purposeful distortion and nonsensical claims about peer-review intimidation:

-

from the NYT

:

But the Soon-Baliunas paper, published in the journal Climate Research this year, has been heavily criticized by many scientists, including several of the journal editors. The editors said last week that whether or not the conclusions were correct, the analysis was deeply flawed.

The publisher of the journal, Dr. Otto Kinne, and an editor who recently became editor in chief, Dr. Hans von Storch, both said that in retrospect the paper should not have been published as written. Dr. Kinne defended the journal and its process of peer review, but distanced himself from the paper.

"I have not stood behind the paper by Soon and Baliunas," he wrote in an e-mail message. "Indeed: the reviewers failed to detect methodological flaws."

Dr. von Storch, who was not involved in overseeing the paper, resigned last week, saying he disagreed with the peer-review policies.

The Senate hearing also focused new scrutiny on Dr. Soon and Dr. Baliunas's ties to advocacy groups and industry. The scientists also receive income as senior scientists for the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington group that has long fought limits on gas emissions. The study in Climate Research was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry.

-

from editor Hans von Storch

:

However, in recent months the procedure did not function as well. In particular one article, by Soon and Baliunas (CR 23: 89-110), has caused considerable controversy. The article drew severe critique, which was made public by a thorough analysis of the results in the Transaction of the AGU, EOS (vol 84, No. 27, 256). I find this critique well-taken. The major result of the Soon and Baliunas paper "Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." can not be concluded from the evidence presented in that paper, even if the statement itself may be true.

It is not a problem of different “opinions” but whether the methodology is adequate of not. Thus, the review process of CR failed to confront the authors with necessary and legitimate methodological questions which should have been addressed in the finally printed paper.

-

from editor Clare Goodess… highlighting the intense politicization around that Soon/Baliunas paper

:

The article in question (Soon and Baliunas, 2003) was published at the end of January 2003. It is in fact a literature review of over 240 previously published studies of climate proxy records (such as tree rings, glaciers and ocean sediments) covering the last 1000 years. It contains some startling and controversial conclusions, notably: “Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium’ and ‘Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records which have been sampled world-wide.”

With conclusions like these, it is not surprising that this paper (and a remarkably similar version published in Energy and Environment (Soon et al., 2003) attracted the attention of the White House administration. At least one press release from the authors deliberately fuelled this politisation of the paper and its conclusions. Internal documents from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), now in the public domain, show that the Bush administration attempted to get this paper cited in an agency report on the state of the environment. EPA staff members blocked this by deleting all mention of climate change from the report. This did not stop the anti-Kyoto lobby, however, and the Republican Senator James Inofhe from Oklahoma called a hearing of the Senate environment committee in late July to debate the paper.

.

.

Some journalists are digging even deeper – into

the sources of Soon and Baliunas’s funding. Their Climate Research paper includes acknowledgements to NOAA, NASA and the US Air Force, as well as to the American Petroleum Institute. Yet NOAA flatly deny having ever funded the authors for such work, while the other two bodies admit to funding them, but for work on solar variability – not proxy climate records, the topic that has caused such a storm.

[Riverwind]

Enough… the hacked email reference is to one journal (Climate Research) – editors (Chris de Freitas & Hans von Storch) and, in particular, the published Soon/Baliunas paper

It does not make one fricken difference whether they think the interference is *justified*. The fact is they had no business acting the way they did and by seeking to blackmail jounrnals they corrupted the peer process and utimately destroyed its credibility. The fact that they continue to pretend that interference was justified despite being caught red handed demonstrates that they are unethical slimeballs who cannot be trusted and they should lose there jobs/funding after there is a proper public inquiry to see how much research was suppressed by these guys.

I am not the only one who feels this way. Hans von Storch has publically called for Mann and Jones to be barred from participation from the IPCC.

Roger Pielke Sr. is reminding us of all of the times when his research was exclude from official reports because it did not 'fit the message'. Here is an example.

Here is another essay on why the corruption matters.

This is as worse than the sponsership scandal because the we are talking about trillions of dollars being spent based on reports which can not be called objective assessments of the science because of the corruption revealed in the emails.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Pliny]

For goodness sake Waldo, look at what the UN is. It's a cesspool of politically progressive intellectualism not a bastion for the promotion of science and the scientific method. The same person who re-ignited the firestorm of climate change in the early nineties, I say re-ignited because in the sixties the fear-mongering was about the coming ice age accompanied by the immediate necessity to politically address it or we would all be freezing in the dark by the year 2000, is the one who was behind the oil for food scam in Iraq.

So far the solutions proposed for reducing carbon emissions, since carbon is presented as the problem, are ludicrous. Electric cars!!! Really, they run on batteries. Batteries that need recharging and replacing and recycling. They themselves are an environmental disaster. One just has to consider how much energy is necessary to recharge all the vehicles if they were converted. If you think that personal transportation should be replaced by mass transit or bicycles, and I imagine that is part of your scenario for the future, then why would electric cars be promoted as the car of the future? Politically, the battery will produce revenues for government.

CFL light bulbs? Those ones that purportedly save energy but are contaminated with mercury? Another environmental hazard in the works.

The knives are out for oil. It is a non-renewable resource that certain interests wish to preserve but government revenues from oil must be replaced before oil itself is replaced.

The truth is, government, before it can do anything at all about carbon emissions must replace the revenues that will disappear with the displacement of the consumption of fossil fuels. They are not interested in getting rid of carbon footprints. They are interested in their taxation. If anything, they will ultimately foster technologies, the above being examples, that promote a carbon footprint.

The idea behind the cap and trade concept is to reward behavior that reduces the carbon footprint and punishes behavior that produces a carbon footprint. It is a political idea using economics as incentive. The devil in the detail is that this is a form of taxation and wealth transfer that governments and beneficiaries will become dependent upon and would not be able to sustain themselves if our carbon footprint should shrink.

Let's get real here, science is the dupe and tool of politicians in this argument. Science isn't pulling the strings. It is used by politicians to predict the end of the world unless we follow the right path, not unlike religions did prior to science decreeing the death of God.

If you think you are being reasonable and scientific in your stand you have to look at your qualifications first. Do you adhere to the concept of AGW because you are a scientist or is it because you own a bike shop?

Science was used by Hitler to promote the superiority of the Aryan race, Aryans loved the concept. It was used by Stalin to populate Siberia, Communist party members supported it. It was used to foster slavery when blacks suffered from negritude, an unfortunate skin disease similar to leprosy, Europeans adopted it's plausibility. We are just looking at the latest in political/religious tools designed to engineer and herd the populace for political/economic purposes.

In my view, get politics involved in engineering society and there will be more environmental, social, economic devastation in the next year than any global warming could produce in the next century.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Pliny

[waldo]

It does not make one fricken difference whether they think the interference is *justified*. The fact is they had no business acting the way they did and by seeking to blackmail jounrnals they corrupted the peer process and utimately destroyed its credibility. The fact that they continue to pretend that interference was justified despite being caught red handed demonstrates that they are unethical slimeballs who cannot be trusted and they should lose there jobs/funding after there is a proper public inquiry to see how much research was suppressed by these guys.

You are completely over the top... does your "being caught red-handed" include the complete transparency that was followed within AGU... your scurrilous accusation of a supposed conspiracy is one, again, hiding in plain sight. The unethical aspect stems directly from the actions of the original editor (Chris de Freitas) in allowing the paper to go, essentially, unchallenged within Climate Research's process... the unethical aspects reflect upon the association and funding ties that supported the paper's authors (Soon/Baliunas)... the unethical aspects compound by the Bush admin/Senator Inofhe's attempts to manipulate the paper to support the denial/opposition to Kyoto.

Many, many papers, with so-called skeptical leanings, are published... show otherwise. Your Pelke example proves it... he whines about his comment not getting recognized - subsequently, he takes the necessary/proper step to do exactly what he should... publish a related paper (in conjunction with others). That occurred - his (and others) paper was published. Is there a problem?

[waldo]

Pliny, if you have anything other than a Straw Man... I will/might respond with more... than this.

[Riverwind]

You are completely over the top... does your "being caught red-handed" include the complete transparency that was followed within AGU.

Blackmail is blackmail. It does not make a difference how the message is delivered. The evidence is clear. Only the willfully blind do not see it. Bottom line climate science has been corrupted by unethical fanatics who have appointed themselves guardians of the truth.

Blackmail in plain site:

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the

"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!

So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a

legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate

research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also

need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently

sit on the editorial board...

Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny, if you have anything other than a Straw Man... I will/might respond with more... than this.

Hear hear. The idea that there was significant support for a new ice age is a red herring that was brought out in the early days of GW opposition, when they were first trying to say that there was no warming happening.

When I see that argument trotted out, I often skip everything that comes after.

[waldo]

re: “Manipulating data to 'hide' features which would undermine the political message”: From the hacked email/references that I’ve read, this would reflect on presentation of the data – not data manipulation… in regards the divergence issue within dendrochronology, in particular one proxy and divergence from temperature records after 1960. The study authors advise not using the data (after 1960) – that further investigation is required. The issue is well known so your “hide” reference is one of “hiding in plain sight”. Of course, you’ll also ignore the confirmation from the many other avenues… other than tree-ring proxies

Leaving information out that would change the interpretation of a result is deception. You know it.

Nonsense. Again, "hiding in plain sight" - the single proxy issue is well known and attributed to divergence... the authors most certainly didn't hide anything and they, themselves, highlighted the post-1960 data concern. That data was not included in the presentation, with full caveats outlined... and understood. Yours is the deception at play - you know it.

RTOFL. You are kidding right? The divergence issue basically shows their proxy reconstructions are bogus because trees do not measure temperature and they needed to hide it. The intent was to deceive the large number of people that would never look at the original literature or understand the implications of some dry footnote.

BTW - don't bother replying with the RC obfuscation that it was only a single graphic that was affected. Here is a comment from some of the code that they tried so hard to keep secret (we now know why).

printf,1,’Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season’

printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’

printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’

printf,1

printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’

printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’

printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’

printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’

printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’

You clearly misinterpret what proxies are all about… and you clearly don’t understand divergence within dendrochronology.

A Yamal area proxy that properly reflects the observed temperatures, can’t include that small select group of 12 trees (12!) from the Khadyta River area that exhibited evidence of divergence… if included… the proxy no longer reflects the actual observed temperatures. Duh! Again, “hiding in plain sight” as the post-1960 divergence issue is one heavily studied within dendrochronology. Your ROTFL sentiment truly applies to yourself when you offer up the hacked code commentary which is nothing other than advice to others how the program’s data output has been produced… you know, produced to exclude post-1960 values that reflect/may reflect upon divergence. The code commentary is intended to be there as a helpful guide to others using the program… it is absolutely the opposite of what you brazenly describe as “keeping secret”!

By the way… how’s McIntyre doing with his analysis of Briffa’s latest data/updates… that’s the real ROTFL in this, another of your “tempests in a teapot”.

[Riverwind]

You clearly misinterpret what proxies are all about… and you clearly dont understand divergence within dendrochronology.

Divergence is the term used by climate scientists to cover up the fact that their proxies are crap and most likely do not measure temperature no matter how much they wish it to be true. Truncating the data at 1960 is their way of hiding this reality from readers who might suspect something is not right about the proxies. It is scientific dishonesty plain and simple and cannot be explained away with some hand waving about some unknown mechanism that caused the trees to stop responding to temperature. Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

When I see that argument trotted out, I often skip everything that comes after.

Although there was not much going on in climate science the time it is true that global cooling was widely trumpeted in the media along with the doomsday predictions of the Population Bomb.

The example is a useful illustration of how each generation invents a doomsday fad that has some truth but ultimately ends up being grossly exagerrated. We will see AGW in the same way we see the Population Bomb and Global Cooling in 30 years -> i.e. we will laugh at how intelligent people could get so wrapped up in a theory that was ultimately proven wrong.

The e-mails released from CRU should be a wake up call for people who have simply accepted the AGW claims at face value since they believe our scientific process is impartial. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Although there was not much going on in climate science the time it is true that global cooling was widely trumpeted in the media along with the doomsday predictions of the Population Bomb.

The example is a useful illustration of how each generation invents a doomsday fad that has some truth but ultimately ends up being grossly exagerrated. We will see AGW in the same way we see the Population Bomb and Global Cooling in 30 years -> i.e. we will laugh at how intelligent people could get so wrapped up in a theory that was ultimately proven wrong.

The e-mails released from CRU should be a wake up call for people who have simply accepted the AGW claims at face value since they believe our scientific process is impartial. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The example is not useful. The 1970s also had Fonzie jumping a shark, but presumably scientists didn't believe it was real.

Nobody should accept the AGW at face value, but they should read enough about it to understand why experts mostly believe it is happening.

No human is perfectly impartial and only the unwise think so.

[Shady]

Look folks the problem here is the division within the scientific community.

It was people like you that claimed there was a 'consensus'. It was people like you that claimed there is no doubt about man-made global warming. Now you want to backtrack and pretend like you accepted a legitimate division within the scientific community, now that you've been caught up in the great global warming web of lies. Nice try.

It is causing all kinds of provinces and some global effort should be made to FIX this problem.

Fix what problem? There isn't a problem to fix. That's the whole point. These emails prove cover-ups, falsifying and manipulating data, to frame the debate under a false premise.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Shady

[wyly]

Although there was not much going on in climate science the time it is true that global cooling was widely trumpeted in the media along with the doomsday predictions of the Population Bomb.

The example is a useful illustration of how each generation invents a doomsday fad that has some truth but ultimately ends up being grossly exagerrated. We will see AGW in the same way we see the Population Bomb and Global Cooling in 30 years -> i.e. we will laugh at how intelligent people could get so wrapped up in a theory that was ultimately proven wrong.

The e-mails released from CRU should be a wake up call for people who have simply accepted the AGW claims at face value since they believe our scientific process is impartial. Nothing could be further from the truth.

the population bomb is real but you'd have to leave safety of you home and country to see it...one billion people now go hungry every year...

global cooling, it appears you were among those duped, at no time was global cooling the accepted trend except in the minds of deniers...while you were busy being duped the scientific leanings even at that time was global warming...one or two news articles and you bought it but them cooling is so much scarier than warming....

[Michael Hardner]

the population bomb is real but you'd have to leave safety of you home and country to see it...one billion people now go hungry every year...

Wyly - I have to point out that world hunger has been trending downwards for awhile now.

[wyly]

Wyly - I have to point out that world hunger has been trending downwards for awhile now.

how does that negate the population bomb effect, it doesn't...with increased CC expect the numbers to climb as resources dwindle

[Michael Hardner]

how does that negate the population bomb effect, it doesn't...with increased CC expect the numbers to climb as resources dwindle

This is where I part company with you. I think we can say that this may cause problems, but we don't know. And I don't know why you think starvation will increase, but there are other factors at play here as well that you should consider.

[wyly]

This is where I part company with you. I think we can say that this may cause problems, but we don't know. And I don't know why you think starvation will increase, but there are other factors at play here as well that you should consider.

9 billion people by mid century and finite resources that are already in decline...some researchers have claimed our ideal population was passed at 1 billion, whether that's true or not I don't know but the planet cannot support an infinite number of people...

if you have evidence that supports an infinite population with finite resources please post it...

[Michael Hardner]

9 billion people by mid century and finite resources that are already in decline...some researchers have claimed our ideal population was passed at 1 billion, whether that's true or not I don't know but the planet cannot support an infinite number of people...

if you have evidence that supports an infinite population with finite resources please post it...

I agree that the planet can't support an infinite population, you have me there.

If you can find a cite that shows that 1 billion is too much, please provide it.

{edited to add: or 1 billion + 1}

Edited November 26, 2009 by Michael Hardner