climate skeptic or propagandist?

[Michael Hardner]

They were. But as usual said that "now we know" (it was a mistake) Just like declaring living creature "extinct for 60 million years"

Mistakes happen. Even scientists make them. It doesn't mean that you have to turn yourself into Unabomber II and live in the woods. Let's move on.

[Oleg Bach]

A bribed scientist does not have to fabricate evidence. Because as Mike mentioned they would have a serious problem if caught...BUT if you though omission leave out evidence - you can not be caught because all you have to say is that you forgot or the matter is still under investigation. In my mind I have always imagined scientists as those that seek the truth about things - How they work and what they are...it's hard to believe that this type of person would make up a story. They are just humans though with human needs and a lust for luxury...and money is ver seductive.

[bloodyminded]

Mistakes happen. Even scientists make them. It doesn't mean that you have to turn yourself into Unabomber II and live in the woods. Let's move on.

Well said. If mistakes, even outright dishonesty and bad behaviour, were to make us adopt wholesale distrust of everybody in every situation...well, that wouldn't bode too well.

[Oleg Bach]

Well said. If mistakes, even outright dishonesty and bad behaviour, were to make us adopt wholesale distrust of everybody in every situation...well, that wouldn't bode too well.

That would mean giving up all hope in humaity and life would be hard to live if not - not worth living...gotta keep the faith even when it is down to a smoldering little coal...well said - and encourageing my friend.

[bloodyminded]

That would mean giving up all hope in humaity and life would be hard to live if not - not worth living...gotta keep the faith even when it is down to a smoldering little coal...well said - and encourageing my friend.

Not long ago, someone put a dollar in my parking meter when it ran out.

Trivial, maybe. But it sure warmed me up on a rainy day.

[Oleg Bach]

Not long ago, someone put a dollar in my parking meter when it ran out.

Trivial, maybe. But it sure warmed me up on a rainy day.

Gave a crack head a buck...and told him it was a loan...he did not pay me back - but suddenly the dollar eventually appeared in his hand and into mine..My kindness was an attempt to re-instil some honour in the guy...He felt better about himself..because I forced him to keep his word...It warmed up my day also. No your experence with the meter is not trivial - it is major - stuff like this keeps civilization in tact. It's mutual co-operation and love...the higher aspirations of mankind...You do have a heart...never let it harden...of couse I am talking to myself at this point.

[WIP]

Only if you cherry pick which datasets you use and apply a large enough smoothing factor. Most people understand that such arguments are statistical games.

Because the climate models have underestimated the effects of other facts from the sun to natural variations and these factors appear to be large enough to cancel out a mild GHG induced warming.

Again, a strawman. A naturally oscillilating climate system would periodically reach peaks from which temperatures decline so there is nothing special about having a 'hottest ever decade'. Of course, such statements are meaningless because we have no reliable data from the MWP so we can't really say that the current decade is actually the warmest ever (don't bother posting the statistical jokes which alarmists use - the algorithms used are cherry picked and designed to produced the desired result. They contain no real information).

Tim, turn on the Weather Channel some time, or just take a look at a typical newscast and note how often the weather IS the news! I don't see any point to falling into the denial trap of arguing about climate models and data sets, when the crucial facts are beyond debate: the Arctic Ice Cap has shrunk by 40% since the time of my youth when we observed the first deep space pictures of Earth from the cameras on Apollo 8. To call such dramatic change, along with the increase in greenhouse gas levels and ocean acidification since then - "naturall oscillating" effects is just denying the obvious!

In other news: Rising Temperatures Melting Away Global Food Security we have further evidence that rising temperatures are already cutting significantly into global food production. These "natural variations" in weather are leading to soaring food prices, migrations, and unrest in many places around the world already!

[TimG]

Tim, turn on the Weather Channel some time, or just take a look at a typical newscast and note how often the weather IS the news!

But the weather is NOT climate. The endless attempts to link every bad weather event to global warming is pathetic and has no scientific basis.

when the crucial facts are beyond debate: the Arctic Ice Cap has shrunk by 40% since the time of my youth when we observed the first deep space pictures of Earth from the cameras on Apollo 8.

The ice cap could have been smaller in 1940 but we don't have the satellite data to prove it one way or another. The fact is we don't know if the artic ice melt is unusual or not.

we have further evidence that rising temperatures are already cutting significantly into global food production.

Computer models are not evidence. Edited July 7, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

You yourself have said that warming is happening, and they adjust that data as well. What are you saying - is warming happening or not?

The devil is in the details. If CO2 causes 1 degC of warming over the 100 years then it is non-issue. If it causes 6 degC of warming it is potentially a huge problem.

Here is a good illustration of how self-serving alarmists "adjust" data to better support their political objectives:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/

In the case above the IPCC took a peer reviewed paper which put CO2 sensitivity between 1.0 and 4.1°C and applied a transformation to the data that changed range to 1.5 degC to 8.6 degC. The justification for this "adjustment" was not peer reviewed - it was simply done by the IPCC and, as a result, the 1.5 degC to 8.6 degC range is treated as a "fact" by many.

What gets lost in the debate over statistical minutia is, whatever their arguments now, the IPCC would have never applied that transformation if it reduced sensitivity. This is how climate science is corrupted. It is not by people faking data. It is by people picking algorithms and methods based on whether they produce the desired result and then coming up with some pseudo-scientific rationalization for their choice. This is a much more insidious form of corruption because it can often look like legimate science.

Edited July 7, 2011 by TimG

[eyeball]

Adjusting data is not considered sceintific fraud per se so it is not sanctioned yet it can create a false picture of reality. This is what is happening in climate science.

I think I know what you mean, you see this happening in economic science too.

Economists have adjusted the environment right out of the picture. It's quite literally taken to be an externality - existing outside of our economy.

Is this fraud? Not really I suppose but it does seem like a rather false picture of reality though. False to the point of delusional.

[TimG]

Economists have adjusted the environment right out of the picture.

The trouble with externalities is there is are rarely any means to quantify them. Sure people attempt to do it but such exercises are purely subjective and are usually driven by the political objectives of the researcher than by objective truths. Edited July 7, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

Actually, Oleg and GH, they're scientists. They publish their results, and others dissect them to see that it's true.

When I was a 9 year old boy I dug up a small bush and brought it inside to see if it would keep it's leaves as winter set in. I imagined that if I kept the thing warm I could fool it..Winter arrived and it shed it's leaves right on time - My brother is a chemist and metalugist - science was always natuarlly appreciated in my family...It comes NATURALLY to me - I understand and am close to the natural real world. I love science....but those that make it a career have no practial understanding of the real world.

[eyeball]

The trouble with externalities is there is are rarely any means to quantify them. Sure people attempt to do it but such exercises are purely subjective and are usually driven by the political objectives of the researcher than by objective truths.

No the trouble is that our economy treats our planet's environment and natural capital as if they were infinite boundless things. I suppose if you don't get out much then quantifying what's there and what's not there will be a problem.

[Michael Hardner]

I love science....but those that make it a career have no practial understanding of the real world.

Really? That's one of the most incorrect things you have posted here, I think.

[TimG]

No the trouble is that our economy treats our planet's environment and natural capital as if they were infinite boundless things.

You can't put stuff in an economic model that can't be quantified. It is a problem with all computer models. That is why we should always take the output of a computer model with a huge grain of salt.

[Oleg Bach]

Really? That's one of the most incorrect things you have posted here, I think.

Michael, thinking something does not always make it so or allow manifestation of that thought into the real world! Should have made it more clear...those that are professional scientists must have a natural and un-instituted perception of the natural world, most don't. A so-called primative wandering about in the Amazon basin might have a better true understanding of science...science does not strickly mean something that comes out of an institution of higher learning.

[eyeball]

You can't put stuff in an economic model that can't be quantified. It is a problem with all computer models. That is why we should always take the output of a computer model with a huge grain of salt.

You're saying our planet's environment and it's ecosystems can't be measured and quantified?

Economists can't add or subtract?

[TimG]

You're saying our planet's environment and it's ecosystems can't be measured and quantified?

Yep. Outside of a few direct impacts such as the loss of a fishery most things environmental have no monetary value.

[Michael Hardner]

A so-called primative wandering about in the Amazon basin might have a better true understanding of science...science does not strickly mean something that comes out of an institution of higher learning.

The "primative" (your word) may know things that the scientist does not, but he has less understanding than the scientist of course. Your poetic jests and strange-angled suppositions here are no substitute for real, fact-based discussion.

[eyeball]

Yep. Outside of a few direct impacts such as the loss of a fishery most things environmental have no monetary value.

Interesting that you would pick the loss of a fishery as an example.

Fish are often compared to canaries in a coal mine. The real value in fish and ecosystems is how we use them to generate money. Without them...what have you got?

[Michael Hardner]

In the case above the IPCC took a peer reviewed paper which put CO2 sensitivity between 1.0 and 4.1°C and applied a transformation to the data that changed range to 1.5 degC to 8.6 degC. The justification for this "adjustment" was not peer reviewed - it was simply done by the IPCC and, as a result, the 1.5 degC to 8.6 degC range is treated as a "fact" by many.

What gets lost in the debate over statistical minutia is, whatever their arguments now, the IPCC would have never applied that transformation if it reduced sensitivity. This is how climate science is corrupted. It is not by people faking data. It is by people picking algorithms and methods based on whether they produce the desired result and then coming up with some pseudo-scientific rationalization for their choice. This is a much more insidious form of corruption because it can often look like legimate science.

But as you point out, this wasn't peer-reviewed. Is it science or is it policy ?

[Saipan]

Fish are often compared to canaries in a coal mine. The real value in fish and ecosystems is how we use them to generate money. Without them...what have you got?

No money.

That's why we let natives fish and hunt without limits.

They "inherited" that from their ancestor. Other Earthlings inherited shit.

[TimG]

But as you point out, this wasn't peer-reviewed. Is it science or is it policy ?

It is in the IPPC report. It is treated as science by alarmists. If you dispute anything that is in the IPCC report you are accused of "denying the science". In any case, similar adjustments make their way into the peer reviewed literature. These kinds of adjustments are a huge issue because they allow scientists to fool themselves into believing that the data supports their assumptions when the data is actually inconclusive.

[Michael Hardner]

It is in the IPPC report. It is treated as science by alarmists. If you dispute anything that is in the IPCC report you are accused of "denying the science". In any case, similar adjustments make their way into the peer reviewed literature. These kinds of adjustments are a huge issue because they allow scientists to fool themselves into believing that the data supports their assumptions when the data is actually inconclusive.

You keep moving the goalposts around. I still see a clear division between science, and political/scientific hybrid advocate groups.

"You are accused of denying the science" - by whom ? This is a complaint about individuals now, not even policy makers. And the last sentence seems to condemn adjustments across the board, when we know that they are necessary with real world calculations.

Alarmists exist, but our public dialogue is built on institutions, and individuals with reputations that have a value. That way, advocates have a stake in what they say and need to be responsible for it. If the IPCC issues a policy that includes bad science, that isn't peer reviewed, then they themselves tarnish their own reputation.

Is it the same as an anonymous science blog posting opinions ? No - there are degrees of difference there for sure - the IPCC has more of a reputation, and so if it makes a single egregious error people notice.

[Saipan]

Alarmists exist, but our public dialogue is built on institutions, and individuals with reputations that have a value. That way, advocates have a stake in what they say and need to be responsible for it. If the IPCC issues a policy that includes bad science, that isn't peer reviewed, then they themselves tarnish their own reputation.

Not too long ago they were alarming the public (scientifically of course) that new ice age is coming fast - because of pollution [equvalebnt of nuclear winter] and that we'll be out of oil by mid 80's.

Public at large have generally very short memory.