How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[TimG]

'adverse data' means 'incorrect data' in the context above.

That is opinion. The way to deal with disputes like this is to show the data and let the reader decide. They did not do that which is why they are being accused of being dishonest.

They were open about the fact that there were problems with proxy data, and this was known.

Again, this is about how this information was presented to policy makers in WMO and IPCC reports. By burying this information in text that few people read they left the reader with the impression that the data was more certain than it is. This kind of manipulation is what we expect from politicians and lobby groups but scientists are supposed to be neutral. Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

Wasn't the aforementioned study published though ?

With the tree rings to ensure statistical significance. Take those tree rings away and you have no statistical significance and no interesting results to report.

[waldo]

The issue is not whether the some people are of the opinion (and it is only an *opinion*) that the MM paper has no merit. The issue is how Jones put unreviewed editorial opinion into the report and then tried to prevent people from finding out how he subverted the IPCC process by deleting emails.

much ado about nothing... but that's the McIntyre modus operandi. The MM2004/2007 papers have no merit. And yet, and still, you offer up MM2004 as "evidence" for "unreviewed editorial opinion and deleted emails"! Oh my! Really, c'mon, Hackergate is so yesterday.

I believe you quoted the actual related IPCC wording earlier; again:

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant. In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.

so... MM2004 is referenced, including 3 other section/chapter references that speak to a foundation for the IPCC AR4 statement... that speak to the (failed) MM2004 paper. As I said, Hackergate is so yesterday and so nothing - get over it.

[Michael Hardner]

With the tree rings to ensure statistical significance. Take those tree rings away and you have no statistical significance and no interesting results to report.

No - it's pretty clear:

We published a comparison of our results including and excluding tree rings in the online journal Earth Interactions in 2000

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_nodendro.html s

[TimG]

No - it's pretty clear:

Read your link: non-dendro only goes back to 1760. Gives us no information about the MWP.

Note that the NH reconstruction based on the sparse "non-dendro" multiproxy network (19 non-dendro indicators available back to 1760)

Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

There are several issues brought out by climategate. The two major ones are the subversion of the IPCC process by insiders and the deleting adverse data from graphs that went into policy reports. The latter is what leads to the accusation of faked science.

nonsense. the process worked - can you advise of any so-called "skeptical papers" that were not included within the AR4 report? In a related MLW thread, "we" put to rest the nonsense over "hide the decline". Would you like to take that dance again? I have the, at ready, IPCC AR4 quote that specifically speaks to your suggestion of "deleted data". Would you like that played back to you... as before, again?

[TimG]

MM2004 is referenced, including 3 other section/chapter references that speak to a foundation for the IPCC AR4 statement

Go follow those references. You won't find anything that actually supports the claims.

Here is McKitrick's detailed explaination for why the editorial comment was unfounded nonsense:

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/uk_plmnt_inquiry_submission.pdf

Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

I'm reading several "pea under the thimble" statements... Michael... you should ask TimG if he's arguing for a warmer MWP period. Ask him if he's invoking evidence for strong(er) climate sensitivity... and net positive feedback. Ask him if he accepts that his arguing for a warmer MWP means he's accepting to a higher climate sensitivity - implying a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Ask him that, hey?

I can't "proxy" your arguments, Waldo... heh heh...

Tim is ignoring this... apparently he is hiding under a thimble!

[Michael Hardner]

Read your link: non-dendro only goes back to 1760. Gives us no information about the MWP.

Ok, I see that now.

[waldo]

Go follow those references. You won't find anything that actually supports the claims.

are you really trying to make a case for MM2004? Surely you're not that far gone, hey?

those references are sound, particularly related to one of the key problems within MM2004... specifically, their selection of data had strong inter-station dependency and a significantly related spatial correlation; i.e., they overloaded the selection with stations from Europe... which is hardly evidence to presume to then speak to global averages. Why I bet some wag might just come along and state their data was selectively chosen, er... cherry-picked, no less. As an example, the correlated IPCC report wording relative to one of those references you're so quick to dispatch reads:

No single location follows the global average, and the only way to monitor the globe with any confidence is to include observations from as many diverse places as possible. The importance of regions without adequate records is determined from complete model reanalysis fields (Simmons et al., 2004). The importance of the missing areas for hemispheric and global averages is incorporated into the errors bars in Figure 3.6 (see Brohan et al., 2006). Error bars are generally larger in the more data-sparse SH than in the NH; they are larger before the 1950s and largest of all in the 19th century.

so... albeit on a smaller scale, with MM2004, we have another case of isolated data being used by deniers to selectively target their "arguments". Sort of like deniers quick to claim a global MWP effect and ignoring all the evidence that speaks to MWP being regional/localized.

Edited August 9, 2011 by waldo

[TimG]

are you really trying to make a case for MM2004?

I am making the case the Jones inserted unreviewed editorial comments into the text of AR4 that were not supported by literature. The fact that McKitrick has a coherent refutation of Jones editorial comments is sufficient to show they were unjustified. I am not that interested in your opinion on MM2004 (after all - it is just your opinion - not a fact). It is not relevant to point of whether the proper IPCC process was followed. Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I am making the case the Jones inserted unreviewed editorial comments into the text of AR4 that were not supported by literature.

TimG - do you think that Jones et al are held to a higher standard than others ?

[TimG]

TimG - do you think that Jones et al are held to a higher standard than others ?

All authors of reports used to drive government policy are held to the same standard. It is a tough job and I don't think most scientists are up to the task of suppressing their personal opinion in the name of protecting the process.

I think a comparison to the legal system is apt. It really does not make a difference that a criminal is guilty. If the police did not get a warrant then the evidence is inadmissible. Similarily, being right is not a justification for bad science. There is process that must be followed to protect the integrity of the institution.

The often uninformed reaction of the public to climategate is an example of what happens when short cuts are taken.

Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The often uninformed reaction of the public to climategate is an example of what happens when short cuts are taken.

I don't expect the public to be much better informed than they already are.

[bush_cheney2004]

nonsense. the process worked - can you advise of any so-called "skeptical papers" that were not included within the AR4 report? In a related MLW thread, "we" put to rest the nonsense over "hide the decline". Would you like to take that dance again?

Yes! Welcome back...we missed you!

[Wild Bill]

WB seems to think that scientists faked data, faked studies and people swallowed it.

Please let me state my own premise! Don't set me up as a "straw man". I can screw up my own ideas my own way, thank you very much!

What I think is that some scientists made up their minds on the strength of limited data, possibly mixed with politics. Scientists can have political beliefs as well, you know! There are alarmists within the scientific circle and also those who are experts at furthering their careers by manufacturing crises. There are scientists who genuinely believe that transferring money to the Third World is a GOOD thing!

There's no need for faking data. Once you've already made up your mind you simply only accept data that agrees with your presumption. You don't allow any data that would question your presumption and you certainly don't accept anything that might refute it!

There's always LOTS of data and LOTS of studies! That's how these people earn a living! There are leaders and there are followers in this "academia". Many will believe because of confidence in certain of their peers or simply because they feel there is a consensus, even though this would be a totally unscientific viewpoint. We are all human beings with human failings, after all.

As Mudhead said to Porgy in the old FireSign Theater radio skits, "What'll you do when you get old, Porgy"?

The answer was "Hell no! I'm gonna find a bunch of guys who dress alike and follow them around!"

[Michael Hardner]

What I think is that some scientists made up their minds on the strength of limited data, possibly mixed with politics.

And where did you get that information ?

There's always LOTS of data and LOTS of studies!

Have you read them ? I find it quite baffling that somebody could presume that hundreds of papers by hundreds of researchers who have devoted their lives to this could be wrong. It's kind of arrogant, actually, and a bit elitist.

[Wild Bill]

And where did you get that information ?

Michael, it's an opinion of how that sort of thinking could get started despite or without conflicting data. How could I possibly state where I got that opinion? It is a suggestion of HOW such a thing can be!

When you start demanding cites for something like that it's time for you to go have a beer and relax a bit! You're starting to come across as angry, perhaps because TimG has clearly been winning! Your relief at Waldo joining the fray was palpable!

This is more the reaction of someone defending a faith rather than a scientific position, which is precisely why I no longer spend much effort on these sort of things. The scientific method does not allow for taking things personally.

Me, I'm too old to be a crusader! I live by myself. My electricity bill is quite low and I cook and dry my clothes with natural gas. I drive relatively little. I have no control over the weather or the climate and no influence with the politicians, except to indicate my aversion to being taxed for programs that are mere photo-ops and can't do a blessed positive thing, like McGuinty's MicroFit!

Old lions conserve their energy. They only pick fights they can win.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, it's an opinion of how that sort of thinking could get started despite or without conflicting data. How could I possibly state where I got that opinion? It is a suggestion of HOW such a thing can be!

When you start demanding cites for something like that it's time for you to go have a beer and relax a bit! You're starting to come across as angry, perhaps because TimG has clearly been winning! Your relief at Waldo joining the fray was palpable!

It's not a cite - it's asking you personally how you made up your mind. "It's an opinion of how that soft of thinking could get started..." - that makes no sense. It's research that's been going on since 1800, building on past theories.

This is more the reaction of someone defending a faith rather than a scientific position, which is precisely why I no longer spend much effort on these sort of things. The scientific method does not allow for taking things personally.

No, if it were a faith then I would just say "you have an opinion, and my faith disagrees". I'm asking you about facts.

You seem to stand on science for your reasoning, but unlike science you have made up your mind based on unknown factors. That sounds much more like faith to me.

Old lions conserve their energy. They only pick fights they can win.

I fight until I win, or I lose. If I lose, then I change my opinion. That's how science works. Friis-Christiensen pushed the idea that cosmic rays caused warming until his study didn't make sense any more then he gave up his theory. Science.

[Michael Hardner]

To add: people do argue this like it's faith, because they're faced with non-scientific opinions about whether warming is occurring. Science says that it is.

The side that you seem to decry is the side that says there will be negative effects of global warming. That's much harder to prove and - yes - there is a lot of policy and superstition mixed in there.

I for one won't even have that discussion, though, until I am convinced that the people I'm discussing with have a basic understanding of how knowledge and consensus work.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I for one won't even have that discussion, though, until I am convinced that the people I'm discussing with have a basic understanding of how knowledge and consensus work.

Nevertheless, you are very invested in this topic....more so than the average bear. So what is it about this issue over many others that drives such interest...is it the science or is that just the vehicle to foster desired change in the economic or political arena (e.g. carbon penalties). In other words, most people are not overly concerned either way, so why has this "religion" found some but not a majority of followers? What is its practical appeal?

[Michael Hardner]

Nevertheless, you are very invested in this topic....more so than the average bear. So what is it about this issue over many others that drives such interest...is it the science or is that just the vehicle to foster desired change in the economic or political arena (e.g. carbon penalties). In other words, most people are not overly concerned either way, so why has this "religion" found some but not a majority of followers? What is its practical appeal?

I have an irrational desire to build consensus in the community. Science provides a keystone to building consensus, or at least to 'agree to disagree'. Without some objective reality that we can buy into, then we may as well all be living on different planets.

[Michael Hardner]

I have an irrational desire to build consensus in the community. Science provides a keystone to building consensus, or at least to 'agree to disagree'. Without some objective reality that we can buy into, then we may as well all be living on different planets.

I don't even care about the issue itself so much, it's what it brings out in people that motivates me.

Read Neil Postman - "Amusing Ourselves to Death". It talks about the townhall and its place in the political process. We need the townhall meeting to come back.

[Wild Bill]

It's not a cite - it's asking you personally how you made up your mind. "It's an opinion of how that soft of thinking could get started..." - that makes no sense. It's research that's been going on since 1800, building on past theories.

No, if it were a faith then I would just say "you have an opinion, and my faith disagrees". I'm asking you about facts.

You seem to stand on science for your reasoning, but unlike science you have made up your mind based on unknown factors. That sounds much more like faith to me.

I fight until I win, or I lose. If I lose, then I change my opinion. That's how science works. Friis-Christiensen pushed the idea that cosmic rays caused warming until his study didn't make sense any more then he gave up his theory. Science.

Michael, you're asking me how I formed my opinions when the process began over 40 years ago! I'm afraid I don't have an eidetic memory! I'll make an effort for you, however.

First off, I guess it started with the "Man is triggering an Ice Age!" folks back in the late 60's and early 70's. Now, I know you have claimed that this was never an "official" position but I was there! It was all over the media, from newspapers to books to television. Don't bother asking me for a cite. The Internet wasn't even imagined back then! I still have many books and magazines from that time but I'll be damned if I'll spend the time making it a big research project to settle some points in this thread! I'm too busy trying to make a living.

Anyhow, these articles never impressed me with the science of their claims. They seemed to be shy on specific evidence and long on "Man is bad and should do things our way!" It was the start of mixing politics with science, which is like oil and water if you are seeking truth.

I didn't make a list of the specific claims so that 40 years later I could provide you with them, Michael. For me it was enough that the credibility of such claims had become so poor that I didn't bother giving them any further attention.

Things seemed to be in a holding pattern for a decade or two. The claims of a new Ice Age slowly vanished. Then the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR collapsed! Stupendous political changes were happening so fast that no one seemed to have time for much else.

I guess it was as the 90's started rolling that the same sort of hype began again in the media, only this time it was all about Global Warming. Instead of freezing to death, apparently we were all going to fry! Again, the scientific part of the arguments seemed always to be rather thin. They may or may not have been true. I never really got that far! Virtually all of it seemed steeped in leftwing politics! It was really all about transferring money from the Free World to the Third World countries.

It was all about how the "rich" countries had ruined the planet and owed it to the lesser developed countries to give them massive amounts of foreign aid.

When Kyoto happened I actually downloaded the thing and read it from stem to stern. Did you ever actually read it, Michael? If not, you really should. It was ALL about money transfer! It was just warmed over collectivist crap! All the former communist or socialist fanatics had been cut adrift when the USSR ended. Now they appeared to have a new manifesto!

Worse yet, Kyoto had zip all about auditing the money transfers! We were to just hand it over to any third world dictator and take his word for it that he would spend the money on "green" projects and not on guns and ammo.

I'm NOT exaggerating, Michael! Read it for yourself!

By this time I had no credibility left for the eco-movement. I'm willing to admit the possibility of a warming climate change but this idea that it is all the fault of "rich" countries seems to me to be just warmed over Marxism. Mother Nature is a HUGE eco-system! Man is a very small player in her game.

Even scientists I had formerly respected shook my faith. Carl Sagan had been one of my heroes for years until during the first Gulf War he was publicly warning against antagonizing Saddam, lest he torch the Kuwaiti oilfields and thus trigger a nuclear winter!

Michael, this was total crapola! Compared to Mt. St. Helens and other volcanoes torching those oilfields was like backyard fireworks! Moreover, had Sagan never heard of Tobruk? For that matter, when many of those same protesters had claimed the Valdez oil spill was going to wipe out all marine life along the western seaboard for generations, had they never heard of WWII? How much oil was torched or spilled from sunken warships and merchant marine vessels? The sheer quantity and magnitude was so much higher during that war than any eco-catastrophe today yet we all grew up without any sign of wiping out all marine life at all.

Sagan obviously let his politics as a known pacifist overcome his scientific perspective. He was far from alone!

Now I see things like climategate and doctored "hockey sticks". To me, this is all indications that many if not most of the high-profile people leading this movement have poor character. They obviously have decided that they are already right and therefore the "end justifies the means". They don't have to be honest, because their cause is so noble and important!

The rest of us are just supposed to shut up and let ourselves be taxed more for them to spend as THEY see fit! Why should we Canadians have to give an extra dime in taxes? Compared to China, Russia or India, our emissions are not just mice nuts, they're "amoeba nuts".

What are we told? We must comply, because "we have to set an example".

An example? Grandmothers have to cook their suppers after 9:00 pm because of McGuinty's power plan, old folks can't afford the electricity anyway, along with their house taxes and the heating bill just so we can set an example??!!

THAT'S why I refuse to agree with it, Michael! I will not waste my time learning and debating all the "science" of the debate. I don't share the urgency in the first place and I don't respect the opposition's character in the second!

I've already spent more time on this than I wanted. I've got amplifiers to fix so I can afford to get some food for my dog! I've been poor for years now and when I get handed the sort of "guilt trip-Kyoto atonement" crap that's all over this debate I get very, very resentful!

You wanted me to tell you how I came to my opinions and I have done that. That's all the energy and time I care to contribute. There's other subjects in other threads that interest me more and I can only spare so much for any of them.

I'm off to see if Kimmy or Jack have posted a good nostalgic music video!

[TimG]

Friis-Christiensen pushed the idea that cosmic rays caused warming until his study didn't make sense any more then he gave up his theory. Science.

Ah. Bad example. CERN now has data that cosmic rays can create clouds and the effect could be large enough to have a theoretical effect on climate. http://calderup.wordpress.com/

In any case, we want and need scientists that are single minded and obessive about their theories. These are the types of people that often discover the greatest breakthroughs. What we also need are science administrators that value debate and guard against group think and provide space for mavericks with plausible ideas that go against the consensus. The latter is missing in climate science.

Edited August 10, 2011 by TimG