How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[TimG]

that WMO graph was for the cover of a 'newsletter' that had absolutely nothing to do with your applied emphasis on policymakers.

Yes the "WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999". Who do you think was supposed to read the damn thing? It was a propaganda pamphlet targeted at policy makers and the media. Climate scientists were more than happy to cook up a grossly deceptive graph in order to support the "cause". Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

There is peer reviewed literature that documents non-linear growth in trees as temperature rises and it is quite likely that any peak in past temperatures would have produced the same decline. IOW - this dataset is probably useless as a temperature proxy and they needed to hide the information that would have told a sophisicated reader that something is suspicious.

it is always quite amusing to see denialists, like you, spin away wildly... why I do believe in your posting history you touted the Loehle reconstruction... when you thought his use of tree-rings might actually score you some points. Such a shame that went south on ya, hey? It is just outright bloody amazing to see denialists, like you, so ready to accept the same dendroclimatology that actually discovered the (select) pattern of northern latitude tree divergence... and yet, somehow, you can't put forward the same acceptance of dendroclimatology not finding these supposed past temperature peaks you're so convinced exist. Why, one might just believe you have a rather select application on your acceptance of dendro, hey?

[TimG]

why I do believe in your posting history you touted the Loehle reconstruction... when you thought his use of tree-rings might actually score you some points.

Loehle does not use tree rings and I don't believe I ever posted any reference to his work. That said, he did publish a peer reviewed paper on why tree rings are deceptive when used as temperature proxies.

From what I have read I have little respect for dendroclimatology as a field. I see it as no better than astrology where practitioners use scientific lingo to create the illusion that there is some pattern in what is really random noise.

[waldo]

even if one gave anything you said any credence... which I most certainly do not... that WMO graph was for the cover of a 'newsletter' that had absolutely nothing to do with your applied emphasis on policymakers. I showed/linked you to 2 IPCC graphs specifically targeted towards policymakers - 2 graphs within the confines of physical science as pertains to the WG1 reports of the respective 3rd and 4th IPCC assessment reports.

Yes the "WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999". Who do you think was supposed to read the damn thing? It was a propaganda pamphlet targeted at policy makers and the media. Climate scientists were more than happy to cook up a grossly deceptive graph in order to support the "cause".

nice to see you expanding your conspiracy to include the World Meteorological Organization!

but this is perfect... this is it... this WMO cover is the foundation of the ever-burgeoning McIntyre, "never-ending audit". Let's make sure we have the actual newsletter/brochure for reference - here: I invite you to critique the article itself in terms of inaccuracies, particularly as you might infer reflect upon the actual cover... I'll remind you if you fail to bring forward that critique. Of course, as you see, the cover graphic includes direct reference to the 3 related peer-review papers that substantiate it. I also invite you to read the page 2 that includes acknowledgements for the front (and back) covers. Let me take the liberty of actually quoting that page 2 front cover acknowledgment. Of course, let's keep this all in the perspective of those previous IPCC graphics I linked you to... you know, the one's you keep ignoring.

Front cover

: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), {u]

along with historical and long instrumental records.

[/u]

The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal. Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at

http://www.pages.unibe.ch

) and the National Geophysical Data Center (

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov

(Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann, University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office).

but let's ramp it up...just a bit, hey? Since you are parroting McIntyre (targeting Michael Mann... amongst one or two others), we have a rather recent newsworthy item that needs expounding upon. Unfortunately, I can't link you to any of your denier sites that speak to the following... they all appear to have gone mute on this particular newsworthy ditty - go figure! In recent days, the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation has completely vindicated Michael Mann... of course, this is but just another of many previous reviews/investigations that have brought forward similar findings/results. Of course, this NSF investigation is the one that all deniers were waiting on... waiting in anticipation, particularly as it became aware the main denier champions... and accusers... were being significantly and directly involved in the investigation. Too bad, so sad, hey deniers?

Analysis and Conclusion

To recommend a finding of research misconduct, the preponderance of the evidence must show that with culpable intent the Subject committed an act that meets the definition of research misconduct (in this case, data fabrication or data falsification).

The research in question was originally completed over 10 years ago. Although the Subject's data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results.

NSF Inspector General: “Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.”

[Michael Hardner]

Why did he need to hide it? To deceive naive readers into believing that the data was more reliable that it is.

He's not hiding the decline from readers, he's hiding it in the graph... knowing that it's bad data.

Do you think he thought the data was good, and was concealing it from people ?

No matter how you attempt to rationalize it the data is not "known to be bad". It is "assumed to be bad". There is peer reviewed literature that documents non-linear growth in trees as temperature rises and it is quite likely that any peak in past temperatures would have produced the same decline. IOW - this dataset is probably useless as a temperature proxy and they needed to hide the information that would have told a reader that something is suspicious.

It seems to be the wording that is making you suspicious. That's exactly what those who leaked the emails wanted to do: to sow distrust by leaking selected sentences that sound suspicious. Some of the leaked emails make it sound like they were hiding information in secret, for example, but they were actually discussing issues that they had published before.

Let me know if that changes your mind.

[TimG]

He's not hiding the decline from readers, he's hiding it in the graph... knowing that it's bad data.

But that is the point. He does KNOW it is bad data. He ASSUMES it is bad data. He has to hide it because leaving it would tell people that the data is not reliable.

It seems to be the wording that is making you suspicious.

It is not the wording. It is the act: deliberately concealing adverse results because you don't want the public to question the conclusions you want to make. It is dishonest and deceptive. You are fooling nobody by trying to rationalize this away.

[waldo]

He has to hide it because leaving it would tell people that the data is not reliable.

It is not the wording. It is the act: deliberately concealing adverse results because you don't want the public to question the conclusions you want to make.

nothing was hidden...nothing was concealed. The only fabrication is yours.

[Michael Hardner]

He does KNOW it is bad data. He ASSUMES it is bad data.

That doesn't make sense. I guess you meant he doesn't know.

It is not the wording. It is the act: deliberately concealing adverse results because you don't want the public to question the conclusions you want to make. It is dishonest and deceptive. You are fooling nobody by trying to rationalize this away.

Why 'the public' ? These things are published for scientists to review - and they would (and did) have issues with the methodology, which would have been explained elsewhere in the paper no ?

[TimG]

Why 'the public' ? These things are published for scientists to review - and they would (and did) have issues with the methodology, which would have been explained elsewhere in the paper no ?

The graphs in question are being used in the political arena where the message that 'science is certain' is being repeated over and over again. The trouble is that is not true. The are large uncertainties which the scientists know and talk about but go out of their way to hide from the public and policy makers.

IOW, you arguing that a credit card company can advertise 6% interest rates but actually charge 30% because the 30% was disclosed in the fine print of the contract. When dealing with the public scientists have an obligation to clearly explain the 'fine print'. They don't get a free pass because they buried the messy details.

Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

He's not hiding the decline from readers, he's hiding it in the graph... knowing that it's bad data.

Do you think he thought the data was good, and was concealing it from people ?

It seems to be the wording that is making you suspicious. That's exactly what those who leaked the emails wanted to do: to sow distrust by leaking selected sentences that sound suspicious. Some of the leaked emails make it sound like they were hiding information in secret, for example, but they were actually discussing issues that they had published before.

Let me know if that changes your mind.

It seems to be the wording that is making you suspicious.

No it goes way beyond that... before he ever read any climate gate emails he had already decided that scientists as a group cannot be trusted. Hes bought into this construct where governments, scientists, journalists, and the editors of scientific journals are all trying bury the truth in pursuit of their own adgendas. And the more you buy into that kind of conspiracy the more you get pot commited to it.

[waldo]

The graphs in question are being used in the political arena where the message that 'science is certain' is being repeated over and over again. The trouble is that is not true. The are large uncertainties which the scientists know and talk about but go out of their way to hide from the public and policy makers.

what graphs? I've provided you relevant (to this discussion) IPCC graphs for the 2 most recent IPCC assessments. I've obliterated your most presumptive and false claims concerning the WMO 'newsletter cover' graphic. What graphs are you speaking to/of?

[TimG]

No it goes way beyond that... before he ever read any climate gate emails he had already decided that scientists as a group cannot be trusted.

This is true because I had been reading about the duplicity and dishonesty for years at ClimateAudit and seeing it in action at RealClimate.

Climategate simply confirmed what many sceptics have known for years.

BTW - it is easier to bury the "truth" if you convince yourself that it is a lie.

that is what group think is all about.

collections of individuals buying into a shared world view and being blind to contrary evidence.

[TimG]

I've obliterated your most presumptive and false claims concerning the WMO 'newsletter cover' graphic. What graphs are you speaking to/of?

I saw nothing in what you posted that even vaguely addressed the problems with the graphic. They deceived the public by smoothing the records to make it appear as if it is continuous sequence of data. Of course, you don't see anything that pushes your CAWG meme as dishonest because, as far as your concerned, the ends justify the means. Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

This is true because I had been reading about the duplicity and dishonesty for years at ClimateAudit...

finally... we have your McIntyre idolization properly framed! McIntyre, the self-styled slayer of hockey-sticks, the guy who has made a blog career premised on a most selective and narrow, never-ending audit... the guy who can/could never seem to put it all together and actually publish his puffery! Lapdogs-R-Us, hey Timmay?

by the way, I realize you can't comment on the recent days NSF vindication of Mann... as McIntyre hasn't yet given marching orders to his faithful... but, really, c'mon... what's McIntyre waiting for? Surely he must have something to say, given how he, apparently as described, was a part of the NSF investigation. Wassup?

[TimG]

by the way, I realize you can't comment on the recent days NSF vindication of Mann

What? Yet another committee in charge of whitewashing 'vindicates' Mann by not even looking at the issues that are in dispute? I don't pay attention to such things because I believe the scientific establishment is only interested in covering their a**s at this point. The proper conduct of scientific inquiry is irrelevent to them.

Which is too bad. I once believed that Mann and Jones were just a couple bad apples among good scientists. But it is clear the entire field is too corrupt to take seriously anymore.

Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

The graphs in question are being used in the political arena where the message that 'science is certain' is being repeated over and over again. The trouble is that is not true. The are large uncertainties which the scientists know and talk about but go out of their way to hide from the public and policy makers.

what graphs? I've provided you relevant (to this discussion) IPCC graphs for the 2 most recent IPCC assessments. I've obliterated your most presumptive and false claims concerning the WMO 'newsletter cover' graphic. What graphs are you speaking to/of?

I saw nothing in what you posted that even vaguely addressed the problems with the graphic. They deceived the public by smoothing the records to make it appear as if it is continuous sequence of data. Of course, you don't see anything that pushes your CAWG meme as dishonest because, as far as your concerned, the ends justify the means.

let's properly frame this, hey? Your complete and only foundation for your claims of fraud, deceit and deception, for climate scientists in their entirety, (particularly with your emphasis on "policymakers") is the WMO newsletter cover graphic. That's it... that's all ya got. Of course, you conveniently ignore the graphics reference to the 3 supporting peer-reviewed papers as well as the cover acknowledgement that included specific reference to the composite reconstruction including instrumental record data. By the way, how's your critique of the actual WMO article coming along... you know, where I asked you to pay particular attention to anything within the article that was inaccurate and, more pointedly, could be inferred to draw attention to and question the actual cover graphic... how's your critique coming along?

[TimG]

let's properly frame this, hey? Your complete and only foundation for your claims of fraud, deceit and deception, for climate scientists in their entirety

Actually, most the evidence is the way the establishment lined up to defend this nonsense - not the nonsense itself. If a number of senoir scientists had come out and condemned Mann, Jones and Briffa for practicing bad science then I would not be so negatively disposed towards the field since I know bad apples exist everywhere. Of course that did not happen and I don't really take anyone seriously that is not willing to at least acknowledge that this particular graphic was dishonest and deceptive. IOW - if you are not willing to criticize your own "side" when they foul up you then nothing you say can be taken at face value. Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

by the way, I realize you can't comment on the recent days NSF vindication of Mann... as McIntyre hasn't yet given marching orders to his faithful... but, really, c'mon... what's McIntyre waiting for? Surely he must have something to say, given how he, apparently as described, was a part of the NSF investigation. Wassup?

What? Yet another committee in charge of whitewashing 'vindicates' Mann by not even looking at the issues that are in dispute? I don't pay attention to such things because I believe the scientific establishment is only interested in covering their a**s at this point. The proper conduct of scientific inquiry is irrelevent to them.

Which is too bad. I once believed that Mann and Jones were just a couple bad apples among good scientists. But it is clear the entire field is too corrupt to take seriously anymore.

nice of you to downplay this one, hey? Of course, the NSF is not just, as you say, "another committee". In any case, this is great... I'll add the National Science Foundation to your earlier inclusion of the World Meteorological Organization, in your ever growing acknowledged grouping of organizations complicit in your conspiracy theory.

[TimG]

in your ever growing acknowledged grouping of organizations complicit in your conspiracy theory.

As if a bunch bureacrats covering their a**s requires a conspiracy. It happens all of the time. Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

let's properly frame this, hey? Your complete and only foundation for your claims of fraud, deceit and deception, for climate scientists in their entirety, (particularly with your emphasis on "policymakers") is the WMO newsletter cover graphic. That's it... that's all ya got. Of course, you conveniently ignore the graphics reference to the 3 supporting peer-reviewed papers as well as the cover acknowledgement that included specific reference to the composite reconstruction including instrumental record data. By the way, how's your critique of the actual WMO article coming along... you know, where I asked you to pay particular attention to anything within the article that was inaccurate and, more pointedly, could be inferred to draw attention to and question the actual cover graphic... how's your critique coming along?

Actually, most the evidence is the way the establishment lined up to defend this nonsense - not the nonsense itself. If a number of senoir scientists had come out and condemned Mann, Jones and Briffa for practicing bad science then I would not be so negatively disposed towards the field since I know bad apples exist everywhere. Of course that did not happen and I don't really take anyone seriously that is not willing to at least acknowledge that this particular graphic was dishonest and deceptive. IOW - if you are not willing to criticize your own "side" when they foul up you then nothing you say can be taken at face value.

that newsletter cover graphic was over a freaking decade ago... is that all ya got? Again, the graphic had direct attribution to supporting peer-reviewed papers, it had direct attribution to recognizing it's most simplistic graphical reconstruction included post-1960 instrumental temperature data. Give it a rest... ya got nuthin! How's your critique coming along?

[Michael Hardner]

IOW, you arguing that a credit card company can advertise 6% interest rates but actually charge 30% because the 30% was disclosed in the fine print of the contract. When dealing with the public scientists have an obligation to clearly explain the 'fine print'. They don't get a free pass because they buried the messy details.

This is kind of ridiculous. They aren't picture publishers, they are scientists. They either deceived or didn't.

[waldo]

In any case, this is great... I'll add the National Science Foundation to your earlier inclusion of the World Meteorological Organization, in your ever growing acknowledged grouping of organizations complicit in your conspiracy theory.

As if a bunch bureacrats covering their a**s requires a conspiracy. It happens all of the time.

oh my! All these scientific organizations keeping the poor denier man down!!!

[MiddleClassCentrist]

oh my! All these scientific organizations keeping the poor denier man down!!!

It can't be MegaCorp with trillions of dollars at stake!

Definately not the executives and major share holders who make millions a year!

It must be the average scientist that makes $60k-$100k/year.

Completely delusional.

Edited August 23, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[dre]

nice of you to downplay this one, hey? Of course, the NSF is not just, as you say, "another committee". In any case, this is great... I'll add the National Science Foundation to your earlier inclusion of the World Meteorological Organization, in your ever growing acknowledged grouping of organizations complicit in your conspiracy theory.

Yup. Add them in there with governments, the global media, and editors at scientific journals.

[TimG]

Yup. Add them in there with governments, the global media, and editors at scientific journals.

We live a world where billions of people have bought into fads that cause great harm from Communism to Nazism to Islamism. Yet despite the historical track record you assume that we are exempt from such harmful fads today? You are incredibly naive.