Climate Denial, i.e. Free Speech Now Subect to Prosecution

[-1=e^ipi]

and even if we were all dead, the world would be warming now. Surely you know that.

I doubt this. Solar irradiance has been gradually decreasing for the past half century and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation suggest that we would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions.

[TimG]

There's a list of the UAH satellite corrections that I found from a google search. 10 corrections are listed, and of the seven that had an impact three corrections were negative and four were positive.

You picked the one dataset where the custodians are skeptics yet even then the magnitude of the positive adjustments is twice that of the negative adjustments. With GISS or HadCRUT you will find the proportion of alarmist adjustments is even higher. Look at the recent NOAA attempt to pretend the pause does not exist - classic biased science where the conclusion was determined in advance and all they did was hunt for excuses to adjust the data until it matched the desired conclusions.

It is mystery why people place any credibility on such efforts.

Edited December 9, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

There's a list of the UAH satellite corrections that I found from a google search. 10 corrections are listed, and of the seven that had an impact three corrections were negative and four were positive. This is one of those canned controversies that people bring up as proof of conspiracy.

I don't know. I think it depends on the data set. I'm a bit skeptical of the NASA and NOAA data sets due to potential confirmation bias.

I think the BEST data set is probably fine.

Edited December 9, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

You picked the one dataset where the custodians are skeptics yet even then the magnitude of the positive adjustments is twice that of the negative adjustments.

Ok.

It is mystery why people place any credibility on such efforts.

Maybe because in the big picture you have skeptics monitoring a dataset that confirms warming ? The rest of the discussion seems like griping to me. I can't think of a similar setup where I would refuse to acknowledge the big picture because of quibbles over personalities involved.

[TimG]

Maybe because in the big picture you have skeptics monitoring a dataset that confirms warming ? The rest of the discussion seems like griping to me. I can't think of a similar setup where I would refuse to acknowledge the big picture because of quibbles over personalities involved.

Who is refusing to acknowledge the big picture? I agree it is warming and the adjustments don't change that fact. But the exact amount of warming matters to policy. i.e. if CO2 sensitivity is overestimated because of these biased adjustments then the policies needed to meet a specific goal (such as 2degC warming) will be much more painful than they should be. That is why is irresponsible to ignore these issues because the 'big picture' is correct.

[Michael Hardner]

Who is refusing to acknowledge the big picture?

Not you, I guess. Would you be interested in jumping on threads where people claim warming isn't happening and explain why you think it is ?

I'll offer, in trade, to jump in on any topic to profess my disagreement with posters with whom I usually agree - if you can find one.

The exact amount of warming does matter to policy, but the bigger policy discussion is about whether climate change prevention is worth engaging in, even at the conventionally accepted temperature change predictions. That discussion hasn't really been had at any level, and I don't think you need to wait until there's a more widely-accepted temperature change number.

[TimG]

The exact amount of warming does matter to policy, but the bigger policy discussion is about whether climate change prevention is worth engaging in, even at the conventionally accepted temperature change predictions. That discussion hasn't really been had at any level, and I don't think you need to wait until there's a more widely-accepted temperature change number.

And the reason why this discussion does not take place is because the zealots who control the agenda insist on calling everyone who disagrees with them about anything a "denier" (the G&M had a column this week which did exactly that). This attitude is much more harmful to the debate than a few people insisting that warming is not happening or that the temperature records are a fraud. Edited December 9, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

And the reason why this discussion does not take place is because the zealots who control the agenda insist on calling everyone who disagrees with them about anything a "denier" (the G&M had a column this week which did exactly that).

Well, who are we talking about ? Do they have power or influence ?

This attitude is much more harmful to the debate than a few people insisting that warming is not happening or that the temperature records are a fraud.

Name calling, or denying reality are both blockages to furthering the discussion and probably in similar significance. I'll tell you what - let's use each other on this. I'll call out people for using the term 'denier' against "anybody who disagrees with them about anything" and you call out people for saying warming isn't happening.

I would think you would have more truck with skeptics and I would have more truck with climate change 'alarmists' (not my term).

[dre]

Just from reading this thread man-influenced "climate change" is a religion. It certainly hasn't been proven, but denying it can be criminal. A lot like the Salem (Massachusetts) witch trials.

Its not denying it that's criminal, but what might be criminal is if the company intentionally made statements they knew to be false, or hide things they knew from shareholders and investors.

That's why you need their emails, documents, etc. If they made statements that were incorrect because they really believed what they were saying then there's nothing to prosecute them for. But if a review of relevant documents shows intention to mislead shareholders then they will be in a lot of trouble. For example... an email chain between two executives clearly planning the release of false information. If they try to cover their tracks by deleting documents or mail they will be in even more hot water.

Generally in these types of cases a litigation hold is placed on potentially responsive documents, and documents belonging to key custodians are isolated, and reviewed by a team of lawyers to see which documents are actually responsive, identify documents subject to attorney client privilege etc. I've actually worked for Exxon before doing exactly that.

[TimG]

what might be criminal is if the company intentionally made statements they knew to be false, or hide things they knew from shareholders and investors.

There are very few 'facts' in the climate debate since almost everyone anyone says is nothing but an opinion. The various overheated claims of future consequences depend not only the the assumptions built into unproven models but the morals and prejudices of the people making those assumptions. This means it is next to impossible for anyone to make a false statement when it comes to CO2. They can only express an opinion and disagreeing with someone else's opinion is never criminal. Also, given the endless anti-fossil fuel propaganda that we are subjected to no rational person can argue that Exxon shareholders were not perfectly aware of the range of opinions on the issue.

This is nothing but an ideologically driven witch hunt by modern day priests out to stamp out heresy. It has nothing to do with protecting the shareholders.

Edited December 10, 2015 by TimG

[The_Squid]

Science is not the same as opinion. That's a silly statement.

The models are proven over and over by other scientists confirming through other methods/models.

No one is fudging the data. The deniers keep saying this... yet, there are no substantiations. It's tinfoil hat kind of stuff. (yes, I will call them that because they are outright liars, for the most part.... or are completely ignorant of the science and choose to stay that way)

No one has denied them the right to speak... that's pure hyperbole... but they don't have a right to their own facts or a right to be taken seriously when they are spreading crackpot ideas about science.

[waldo]

I didn't read it until now. It seems like the usual overstatement I read from these types. The pattern goes like this: trump up some minor scientist and/or bloggers who haven't published any major challenges to the conventional thinking on Climate Change, or blow up some minor criticism of Climate Science and fashion it into a giant cover-up, and imply that temperatures are not going up.

yes... you nailed it! Steyn... the newDarlingofDenierVerbosityAndBlowhardiness!

[waldo]

The records HAVE been systematically altered to increase the level of alarm, however, you don't need a 'grand conspiracy' - what you need are data custodians who are 'true believers' looking any source of error that may result in an underestimate. They then 'correct' the error based on some psuedo-scientific rational resulting in a more alarm. Over the years the constant search only for 'errors' that underestimate the warming introduces a real bias into the records.

you've made this same claim in the past... and I've busted it whenever you've done so! There are adjustments that have been made that are cooling adjustments. Of course, to deniers adjustments are "fiddling with the data"... cause adjusting to improve the data is just plain "fiddling". Again, those adjustments have been put forward in peer-review publications and are open to anyone that might presume to attempt to challenge/counter them.

more pointedly, yet another of your grand conspiracies presumes that all the independent processing done across all the respective organizations is ALL being done by/through collusion! Such an inconvenient truth for deniers when results line up...

[dre]

There are very few 'facts' in the climate debate since almost everyone anyone says is nothing but an opinion. The various overheated claims of future consequences depend not only the the assumptions built into unproven models but the morals and prejudices of the people making those assumptions. This means it is next to impossible for anyone to make a false statement when it comes to CO2. They can only express an opinion and disagreeing with someone else's opinion is never criminal. Also, given the endless anti-fossil fuel propaganda that we are subjected to no rational person can argue that Exxon shareholders were not perfectly aware of the range of opinions on the issue.

This is nothing but an ideologically driven witch hunt by modern day priests out to stamp out heresy. It has nothing to do with protecting the shareholders.

You didn't read my post. The problem isn't with a false statement. The problem would be if the company told investors something they did not believe to be true, or withheld information they believed to be relevant. The question is was there intent to mislead.

[TimG]

You didn't read my post. The problem isn't with a false statement. The problem would be if the company told investors something they did not believe to be true, or withheld information they believed to be relevant. The question is was there intent to mislead.

What information could Exxon possibly have that is not widely available through other channels? It is not reasonable expect any company to report information from government sources - all they are obligated to report is information that they have which no one else has which is usually related only to financial information.

Also the issue opinion vs fact comes up here too. If Exxon execs believe that CAWG is a nothing but a scam that will collapse under its own weight then they deceived no one. They simply expressed their honestly held views.

Edited December 10, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

Science is not the same as opinion. That's a silly statement.

Scientific claims can be based on facts but facts are not enough to establish a narrative. When scientists start to create narratives they are expressing opinions - not facts. They may think that their narrative explains the facts but that does not make it a fact.

The models are proven over and over by other scientists confirming through other methods/models.

Largely BS. Climate Models are classic example of group think. If a model does not produce what all previous models produce it is assumed to be wrong and rejected. This is not 'validation' - validation requires making predictions of the future, waiting and verifying that they predictions came true. Climate models have failed miserably on that front.

No one is fudging the data.

All data in heavily adjusted. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. The claim is that the adjustments are 'justified' but determining whether an adjustment is 'justified' is a purely subjective question that depends on the biases and prejudices of the scientists doing the adjustment. Peer review only re-enforces these biases because the reviewers prefer adjustments that support what they want to believe. Edited December 10, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

All data in heavily adjusted. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. The claim is that the adjustments are 'justified' but determining whether an adjustment is 'justified' is a purely subjective question that depends on the biases and prejudices of the scientists doing the adjustment. Peer review only re-enforces these biases because the reviewers prefer adjustments that support what they want to believe.

don't stop there! Surely you can state just how much "warming bias" has been "fiddled' into the surface temperature record! Surely!

why can't your preferred "unbiased and unprejudiced" scientists take on those peer-reviewed adjustments... challenge and over-turn them?

.

[dre]

If Exxon execs believe that CAWG is a nothing but a scam that will collapse under its own weight then they deceived no one. They simply expressed their honestly held views.

That's why need to review the documents. To convict them of anything you would need to prove willful intent to deceive.

For example... An email from one execute to another that says...

"Our internal analysis suggests that climate change will have X impact on our business, but lets tell the shareholders it will have Y impact on our business".

[TimG]

That's why need to review the documents. To convict them of anything you would need to prove willful intent to deceive.

You can't deceive people if the contradictory evidence is widely available. There is no rational basis to believe there is a valid basis for a charge in those emails because there is no relevant information that Exxon could have kept secret. Asking for them is nothing but a fishing expedition by priests of the AGW religion in the hope they will dig up dirt for their propaganda war. Edited December 10, 2015 by TimG

[dre]

You can't deceive people if the contradictory evidence is widely available.

Did you even read the article? This isn't about the validity of any opinions over the whole AGW topic you have this bizarre obsession with.

Companies like Exxon do their own internal research on how various factors might effect their business. The question here is whether or not their statements to shareholders and potential shareholders were consistent with their own research. And no... that research isn't "widely available". Its Exxons property.

Exxon could have kept secret.

ROFL... Dude... are you even paying attention?

There is no rational basis to believe there is a valid basis for a charge in those emails because there is no relevant information that Exxon could have kept secret. Asking for them is nothing but a fishing expedition by priests of the AGW religion in the hope they will dig up dirt for their propaganda war.

ROFL...

Edited December 10, 2015 by dre

[TimG]

Companies like Exxon do their own internal research on how various factors might effect their business.

Exxon is not in any position to any research on the topic of climate change other than review the publicly available research. Any internal "research" would have simply summarized the opinions from the IPCC and other organizations. There is no secret to divulge.

In any case, if this was a legitimate case of 'protecting the shareholder' then I would expect the administration to go after every company selling "green" technologies because you can bet that every one of those companies knows their business models are fundamentally flawed but choose to keep it a 'secret' from the shareholders. But we don't see that. We only see the administration going after Exxon which means is a really a politically motivated witch hunt no matter how much you would like to deny that obvious reality.

Edited December 10, 2015 by TimG

[dre]

Exxon is not in any position to any research on the topic of climate change other than review the publicly available research. Any internal "research" would have simply summarized the opinions from the IPCC and other organizations. There is no secret to divulge.

Exxon is constantly doing research on climate change and how government policy related to climate change might affect their business.

You didn't even read the article did you?

[On Guard for Thee]

Exxon is constantly doing research on climate change and how government policy related to climate change might affect their business.

You didn't even read the article did you?

Exxon has been doing climate change research for 25 years. Of course deniers typically are an example of the hear no evil, see no evil...crowd.

[TimG]

Exxon is constantly doing research on climate change and how government policy related to climate change might affect their business.

Of course they are going to look into the possible impact of CO2 regulations but that does not mean they are doing any research into climate change itself. Any such research would have to draw on publicly available sources which means it is not secret. Even then, these kinds of reports and analyses are still largely opinions - not facts and given the fact that they are opinions you can't claim deception. Edited December 11, 2015 by TimG

[The_Squid]

Of course they are going to look into the possible impact of CO2 regulations but that does not mean they are doing any research into climate change itself. Any such research would have to draw on publicly available sources which means it is not secret. Even then, these kinds of reports and analyses are still largely opinions - not facts and given the fact that they are opinions you can't claim deception.

You didn't read the article....