Fred Singer and co petitioned the American Physical Society to replace its statement on Climate Change. Instead, it got reaffirmed
The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society's 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming. The Council's vote came after it received a report from a committee of eminent scientists who reviewed the existing statement in response to a petition submitted by a group of APS members.
This research by Wolfgang Knorr in the UK seems to be doing the rounds on skeptic blogs and media:
Not sure where straight atmospheric measurements made over the last few decades fit in with the research??
As usual the skeptics claim that one source of research is correct and clearly shows AGW is wrong.
While here in the UK, Heaven and Earth author Prof Ian Plimer is getting prime airtime on Radio 4's today programme, saying things like:
"My scientific opinion is married to evidence. I will change that opinion if the evidence changes or there's new evidence."
"We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes."
Let me Google that for you Prof Plimer: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=co2+volcanoes
But of course, if he doesn't get airtime, we're all authoritarians trying to silence the debate. What the hell strategy are we supposed to use?
Arguing about this, I got called a fascist for the first time yesterday. Still fuming, but will hopefully learn to wear that as a badge of honour.
Were you called a fascist on a public forum/blog?
The irony is that AGW denydiots tend to be the most right-wing people around. ;)
Congratulations to John Mashey for the huge amount of work he has done on this report. However, like others, I really don't think the petition was ever for the eyes of the APS.
Consider, yesterday I posted on Tim's lastest example of the Aus's ongoing jihad against science on how people like Bob Carter are energetically going around Australia talking to whatever groups they can to present denialism as true (as shown on the ABC's Four Corner' (sorry to non Aus readers but you can see it at abc.net.au). With this petition Carter can face his audience, wave it about, and say something like, "recently a group of independent scientists concerned at the falsehoods put out in the name of science petitioned the adminsitrative council of the American Physical Society to correct their public statement on climate change. The administrators rejected these scientists showing that once again independent thought is being continually quashed in our academic bodies when it comes to climate change"
Or something like that.
Now is Carter going to follow it up with...."John Mashey has analysed that petition and exposed the networks and affliliations behind it demonstrating that it lies well within the well worn path of PR astroturfing"?
Will the groups he is talking to have access to John Masey's information........?
Just a reminder that "skeptic" does not mean "denier". That already has a word. It's "denier". A skeptic is someone who holds a requirement for evidence to claims and scrutinizes the claim. Skepticism is good. Denial in spite of evidence is not. (See both "Skepticism" and "Scientific Skepticism" on Wikipedia, or www.skeptic.com for more info on correct wording.)
Re. Plimer on the BCC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8356000/8356114.stm (0852, bottom of page)
He trots out all his usual bullshit: "CO2 plant food, 1970s ice age, CO2 lags not leads, climate scientists are lying, people have attacked him which proves he is right..."
Shame on the BBC for giving him legitimacy by airing his views - which went largely unchallenged by the interviewer.
Its funny because the people who are skeptical are usually those involved in industries that pollute. For example Don Blankenship head of a Massey Coal in eastern Kentucky, and West Virginia. He claims that Global Warming is a hoax.
>While here in the UK, Heaven and Earth author Prof Ian Plimer is getting prime airtime on Radio 4's today programme, saying things like...
Oh, i'm glad i had to leave early this morning.
Typo on page 3 of John Mashey's excellent analysis. It says 18-page when it should say 128-page. This matters, and stands out, only because of the context.
The reader should be undaunted by the 18-page length of this paper. Most people need only read about 30 pages (Sections 1-5, first few pages of 6, then 7-8).
AGW "sceptics" should be called such only with scare quotes. AGWSceptics (one word) is also acceptable IMO. (I accept the Americans spell it with a "K").
> But of course, if he doesn't get airtime, we're all authoritarians trying to silence the debate. What the hell strategy are we supposed to use?
> Arguing about this, I got called a fascist for the first time yesterday. Still fuming, but will hopefully learn to wear that as a badge of honour.
You should turn it into a Liberal Fascism joke.
I heard Plimer on Today this morning as well. The sad thing is that they didn't put him opposite Humphry's - who would have torn him apart, but rather the hopeless Justin Webb (he was rubbish as the BBC America editor, so no change there), who did at least point out that he was basically alone.
Kind of pitiful that the BBC had him on, without any attempt to question his blurb. I await Monbiot's reply!
PaulUK: That Bristol study is off the topic here, so I'll keep it short: the press release was divorced from reality, and most sceptics don't even seem to understand what the study says. The basic results of Knorr are not the least bit controversial or surprising or contradictory to the conventional wisdom (though their method might not be the best). At most, they are somewhat disputing the results of just one other paper (Canadell 2007). I tried to explain this at WUWT, if you want to see that thread and dig out my comments.
TrueSkeptic: "Were you called a fascist on a public forum/blog?"
On facebook, arguing with someone who'd just posted Wattsupwiththat's reporting of the "Bombshell from Bristol". Of course, it's another 'smoking gun'. It's amazing how many times AGW has been apparently shot dead by this kind of thing.
Watt didn't ask how the airborne fraction changes in existing models. Personally, I don't know - how much do existing models presume co2 absorption will change as e.g. oceans heat? He didn't ask, even if these models presumed an unchanging fraction, how much difference that would ultimately make to atmospheric co2 levels. He just claimed the paper was further proof the science is too uncertain to allow government to take our taxes.
In pointing out to the poster that this wasn't a smoking gun, or indeed "another brick in the wall" I got accused of having "incredible and insufferable arrogance, a righteous sense of certainty" and being a fascist.
Sorry, I'm new to this climate arguing thing, still have rather a thin skin, and am prone to whining!
On social network analysis: the denialosphere might respond - well, 'the Hockey Team' all publish together and go to the same conferences. It does help to know they're all connected to Conservative thinktanks, but being part of an epistemic community in and of itself can't damage someone's claims, can it?
Or does is show the petitioners to be from a radically different scientific setting to other members?
The Spectator is hosting a "Global Warming Debate" starring Plimer in London tonight. I'm going along in the hope that there will be some in the audience well qualified enough to put him on the spot, although I suspect it will be overwhelmingly attended by deniers.
Thanks. They're the worst. They somehow imagine that *we* are the deluded ones (or outright liars), while they believe any crap, no matter how absurd or contradictory (to the crap they believed yesterday, last week, last month, last year, etc.).
It's hard not to get upset with people who are so credulous and so certain that only they are right. I've *never* seen any of them admit to being wrong, no matter how obvious the error or contradiction. They can't be reasoned with.
I'm not sure if I'm reading your comment correctly, but by "petitioners", do you mean the ones described by John Mashey?
I think the relevant words are "crackpot", "wingnut", "shill", and "liar", e.g., Singer has a long history of being paid by right-wing organisations to misrepresent science.
This must be the one that would've involved Monbiot. I see that Andrew Neil will chair it but who will Plimer debate with?
I bet it will get noisy!
TrueSkeptic: oh, I see! Common response from anti-AGWer: there's no such thing as clean money, scientists are - as Plimer put it on the Today Programme - rent-seekers. I've asked the particular person I'm arguing with whether that means equal money spent on evolution research and creationism research counts the same scientifically. Awaiting a reply.
But it's fascinating: just started reading Sokal's 'beyond the hoax' - includes the marriage of postmodern attacks on knowledge and US conservatism. Blech. p.s. seen this?
Peter J. Jacques, Riley E. Dunlap, and Mark Freeman, "The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism," Environmental Politics 17, no. 3 (2008): 349.
yes, special thanks to John Mashey.
everybody should at least take a look at the [pdf](http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2009%20scienc…)
he is writing with so much structure and clarity. it is a pleasure to read it, and will always provide new insight.
@Andrew Adams (#16): I was under the impression that it was an event 'starring' Plimer alone. That's a strange kind of debate, with only one participant. I can only hope Plimer has prepared a dramatic monologue in which he wrestles with his own conscience over his shoddy behaviour recently.
Plimer debate: Monbiot was going to attend, but never got answers to his questions -
I second MikeB: I really wish Humphreys had interviewed him. I cannot understand how someone can get away with actually claiming volcanoes produce more co2 than humans and not immediately fall through some sort of stupid-detector trapdoor into a pit of sharks. Um, maybe that's a bit too harsh. But not by very much given the FUD levels being spread.
@#19: Ah...Andrew Neil. That hardly surprises me, he's a nauseating Tory sycophant who hosts the BBC Daily Politics and has done at least one spectacularly clueless global warming interview that I recall.
Yes, but they fail to explain how publicly funded science is "biased" to produce results that no one wants to hear, especially governments. What about the Dubya era?
But all that aside, the contradiction of one belief by another is what tells us who's lying or delusional. I [had a go](http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105743) at this a while ago.
Typo: ouch, thanks, sharp eyes. Last-minute edit as it was up to 130. I will accumulate errata for a while.
many: thanks for the kind words.
re: social networks.
People who are doing research in the same area generally know each other.
The point is was that if you read the list of signers in alphabetical order, as presented on their website, it *looks* like a well-spread sample, i.e., a broad groundswell of support. I think that's waht it is supposed to look like.
It wouldn't be instantly obvious to most people that the APS has 47,000 members, that most of the subdisciplines represented have zero to do with climate science. The "wave" pattern is totally invisible, as are the underlying social network connections. I only found the former because I checked the website at least once a week. Finding even a small fraction of the nonobvious connections took a lot of time, as quite often, the likeliest connections were buried in past affiliations that were *not* listed in the petition itself.
Finally, the "Very Important Qualification" on p.6 is relevant, i.e., groups are recognizable labels and strong hints as to how connections were made, but imply nothing about other members of the groups. Most of the members of the U of Rochester Physics department did *not* sign this.
Tens of billions of dollars have been spent in futile efforts to prove that added CO2 caused Global Warming while an unpaid engineer has discovered what really caused the temperature run-up in the 20th century.
All of the average global temperatures for the entire 20th century and on into the 21st century are readily calculated with no consideration whatsoever needed of changes to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas.
Data sources, a graph that overlays the measured and calculated temperatures from 1880 to 2008 and a detailed description of the method are in a new paper at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true .
This research shows that there is no significant Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other added greenhouse gas.
Andrew Adams @#16: It's interesting to see the whole history of that debate, including the part where Plimer decided to throw smokebombs rather than answer questions about his own work as a condition of getting an opponent.
re: #4 Jeremy C
Yes, for sure. From Day One, I didn't expect APS to replace their position statement with this silly thing. Indeed, I think it was for all the side usage, covered in Section 2 (letter to Senate) and examples from Appendix 4.
See in particular, Fred Singer @ Minnesota Free Market Institute, pages 2 & 30.
I'm sorry to see, Dan Pangburn (#27), that despite the masses of work that you clearly put into that blog, everyone ignores you and never comments on your blog posts.
I'm just one man, and so it would be pointless me going over there and adding hits and comments that would not make a difference in the overall scheme of things anyway, but I look forward to the day you get the recognition you deserve.
Speaking of climate petitions, there's a great article on Dr. Arthur Robinson of the [Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine](http://www.oism.org/s32p31.htm) at the very funny [World O'Crap blog](http://www.world-o-crap.com/blog/):
[Mourning Becomes America](http://world-o-crap.com/blog/?p=1741)
Oh, and while you're there, be sure to check out [yesterday's article on Mike Adams](http://world-o-crap.com/blog/?p=1738), and keep your eyes peeled for what has got to be the Best Pun of the Decade.
Let's see, Dan Pangburn first assumes there is no increasing greenhouse effect. He then tweaks a few parameters, especially of the PDO, without providing any mechanistic explanation how an internal energy conveyer belt can cause long-term warming. And lo' and behold, no increasing greenhouse effect! Come on, Dan, as an engineer you can surely explain to us the physics behind an energy conveyer belt creating such long-term warming. Right? No? Gee, how surprising.
re: #23. Shouldn't that be a pit of sharks with LASERS!?
Andrew Adams #16,
I hope you get to ask a few questions. If I'd had a chance to attend I may well have prepared a few scientific sources to refute the more easily debunked points he's likely to bring up - the CO2 from volcanoes one being the quickest and easiest to debunk of the lot, plus it would make him look moronic because, wait, aren't volcanoes to do with geology?
Let us know how it went!
Bud: Thanks for that but I was really just curious.
Marco: It appears that you misunderstood nearly everything in the paper. I did not assume that "there is no greenhouse effect". That was one of the discoveries. The "conveyor belt" (that would be the net effect of all ocean 'conveyor belts' such as PDO, ENSO, AMO, etc.) is accounted for by the repeated oscillation consisting of 32 year long up trends followed by 32 year long downtrends. The net energy from this oscillation, over any 64 year period, is zero. The duration and magnitude of this oscillation were also discovered during the research. The sum of the concurrent equivalent anomalies for the oscillation and the equivalent anomalies for the time-integral of sunspot count results in the excellent match to the measured average global temperature anomalies for the entire 20th century and so far in the 21st century as shown on the graph. There is nothing significant left over for 'greenhouse gas effect'.
By âenergy balanceâ I was referring to the first law of thermodynamics. That is the basis of the analysis.
Dan, your "papers" are complete rubbish. you take a tiny dip at the end of your graph and add a linear fall that looks like the next ice age.
your "papers" cite ZERO literature beyond the data sources. they don t even look scientific.
if you try a little harder, perhaps some bogus mag like E&E or an anti-science site like watts p will publish your nonsense.
I am reminded of the saying: if you torture data long enough, it will say anything.
Pangburn, you have taken the data to a veritable Guantanamo Bay of statistical analysis. Your papers are a crock and you are a crank.
I did something very similar myself. A simple climate model in Microsoft excel. Various climate indices (GHG, solar, volcano, aerosols etc). Change the level of influence of the various factors to get the lowest root means square error compared to the actual temperature record.
Lo and behold, the IPCC prescribed level of influence of each factor doesn't give the lowerst RMSE! However, I got very similar, very low RMSEs by first scaling GHGs to 0.1, volcanoes to 0.5, and solar to 4, and then by scaling GHGs to 1, volcanoes to 0.25 and solar to 0.8. Clearly they cannot both be right, even if they both look right. Your reconstruction looks like it has a low RMSE. This doesn't mean you've attributed past climate change correctly.
Dr [Girma Orresengo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) will have Dan Pangburn up on plagerism charges.
Wow. First the sceptics say that climate models are nothing but overfitted curve fits (no, they're physical models). Now the sceptics start making their own models, and what are they? Statistical curvefits with zero physics.
Ok, I'm back and it was a thoroughly depressing evening. As has been pointed out, although it was billed as a "debate" Plimer was the only speaker - of course Monbiot famously, and understandably, pulled out but surely they had plenty of time to find someone else. What's more, the audience was overwhelmingly favourable to Plimer, ok probably unsurprising given it was organised by the Spectator, but to an extent which was pretty shocking even so. You might have thought that given the above it was incumbent on Neill to ask Plimer some searching questions himself. He did raise a couple of points but accepted Plimer's answers even though they were disingenuous to say the least. It also took him a long time to realise that maybe he needed to seek out the opinions of those who disagreed with Plimer, and even then some people who put their hands up and were chosen actually supported Plimer. I had my hand up all evening and was finally called right at the end but probably due to my bad temper by that time and being hurried through lack of time didn't make my point as coherently as I would have liked. There was only one other person who actually seriously challenged Plimer all evening.
OK, I suppose I shouldn't have known what to expect to a large extent but even so, I didn't think it would be that bad.
Anyway, I will be writing a more detailed account for my blog, probably over the weekend, so I'll post a link in case anyone wants to know more.
Yes Janet, this is clearly an unattributed refinement of the much vaunted "Orssengo W-Theory" The evidence is compelling - you can draw a diagonal line up, and then another down - its devastating to that fascist IPCC claptrap! Dan's only hope to avoid accusations of theft is to provide an explanation that is even more enlightened and coherent than Girma's Milankovitch-or-tides-or-PDO-or-something... ah yes - Sunspots + PDO. Brilliant, simply brilliant. I urge them to publish jointly and share the inevitable Nobel. Maybe they'll even make Al Gore give his back.
Carrot Eater and Paul -
Finally got around to writing a post on the Knorr study (Knorr says he'll get back to me after he's done responding to the real media).
Essentially, two reasons it's irrelevant.
First, its conclusion makes no claims about FUTURE carbon cycle feedbacksâit simply finds that carbon sinks' ability to absorb CO2 has not declined in the PRESENT.
Second, the studies that Knorr critiques were published AFTER the 2007 IPCC report came out; so, if Knorr is correct in proving these studies wrong, his findings cannot logically have any bearing on the accuracy of the IPCCâs conclusions. At worst, Knorr simply returns us to the state of science when the IPCC report was written.
In other words, skeptics are attacking a straw man.
I protest! You plagiarised my next comment in advance!
Yes, please. If anyone has a recording of this (many smartphones can be used as audio recorders), or a transcript, it would be most welcome.
39 carrot eater,
Follow the link at 25. Needs an update but the basics still work.
AGWSceptics attack strawman? Surely you jest?
WAG: I agree with your first point; that much is fairly obvious.
Your second point: I wouldn't pose it in that way, relative to what came out when, relative to the IPCC report. That seems contrived to me.
You should simply put out a timeline of the topic: people came to think that ocean uptake would eventually decrease, but only well in the future. Canadell (2007) suggested a slight increase in the airborne fraction over the last few decades, but the trend was small, uncertain and really insignificant; the work not (as far as I know) corroborated yet or built upon. Le Quere and a couple others found some hints of lower ocean uptake effectiveness, but only over the last few years. The models don't have airborne fraction increasing yet; in fact coupled carbon-cycle models have it decreasing slightly over the last decades.
So for Knorr to come out and say, when you allow for the uncertainty of the data and use a really simple fitting procedure, there is no trend in the last 150 years - pretty much not exciting in any way. Even if there were the beginnings of increase in AF in the last few years, I don't think his method would have found it; nor do I think his method is better than Canadell's - but it's irrelevant; either way if there's any trend in the past decades, it's really weak and nothing anybody's model counted on.
Given all that, the press release was horrible. It claimed it'd be controversial, that the models were all wrong.. nope.
I think the sceptics got excited because they can't read. They saw the headline and thought it meant CO2 wasn't going up, or that the rise in CO2 wasn't due to man, or something like that.
WAG, if you are corresponding with Knorr, ask him about the dip in AF around 1990, which is presumably due to Pinatubo. Two versions of his fitted statistical model have a volcanic term; I'd like to see a plot showing the fits using those versions of the model. I think his simple plot in Fig 1 is unduly affected by the 1990 dip.
Well, the thread has certainly diverged, so let me brign it back.
There is one Australian on the APS signers' list, at Charles Darwin U. I couldn't find obviosu co0nnections, but maybe Aussies know of him?
Oh the shame!
John, who is it?
Sod: A simple application of engineering produced the calculated average global temperature anomalies that accurately match measured average global temperature anomalies for over a century. That is not rubbish. The future trend is expected to be down but above the line shown. Perhaps you should read the paper again. I have been unable to find where anyone has ever before looked at the time-integral of sunspots so there is no literature to reference.
Rattus: As is obvious to anyone who can actually follow the work that there was no torture.
Janet: I was unaware of Dr. Orssengo's work. It is an interesting coincidence that his first paper was 'published' three days before my last. However, I used the methodology of time-integral of sunspots in my paper 'published' at the CR site 4.4 months earlier. With even a brief comparison it is obvious that there is no similarity between Orssengo's approach and mine. I searched his paper for the words thermodynamic, energy, integral and sunspot and he never used any of these words. We do arrive at the same conclusion which is that added greenhouse gases have no significant effect on average global temperature.
Stu: I don't believe what we did is similar at all. I did a time-integral of sunspot count and applied the first law of thermodynamics. The temperature oscillation was a discovery from the research that made the calculated anomalies agree closely with the measured. The only statistical analysis that I did was finding the standard deviation of the differences between the concurrent calculated and measured anomalies.
Carrot: I am not sure if you are referring to Stu's work or mine. Statistical analysis was not a part of my work except to evaluate the results. Perhaps you did not recognize the physics/engineering that I used.
Eight of my posts in an extensive exchange that may help explain my work can be viewed at http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=2017&cpage=1#comment-3904
It is unfortunate that so many bloggers have little ability and may even lack the interest to do their own research on the planetâs climate. As a result they have no technological basis to challenge the highly politicized claims of many and sometimes resort to ad hominem attacks.
Michael, it is Jim Mitroy.
But its worth reading through John's tables.
Anthony Watts thought the stories about the APS petitioners were worth a couple of threads: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/27/american-physical-society-reviewi… and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/160-physicists-send-letter-to-sen… But, apparently once the issue got decided in a way that he didn't like (and those old threads were already closed to comments), it was not worth starting a new thread about. [I actually posted something yesterday in his "Tips & Notes" thread linking to the APS press release...but not only did he not take the bait but after it admittedly led to a little back-and-forth between myself and one of the acolytes there, he started deleting our posts as being off-topic and then overnight decided it was time to purge the whole "Tips & Notes" thread and start again fresh. Can't say that this purge was done specifically to remove any news of the APS press release there, but it was certainly a convenient side effect.]
>I did a time-integral of sunspot count and applied the first law of thermodynamics.
In what manner did you "[apply] the first law of thermodynamics"?
For some reason my computer is currently refusing to downlad PDFs.
Had a look at Mr Mitroy.
No one will be surprised. His homepage has links too (drumroll).....
- Cato Institute
- Climate Audit.
Worst of all.....he lectures in physics.
Another ideological refugee from reality.
>it is known that energy leaves the earth in proportion to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Thus a rather simple energy relation can be developed where the energy received by the earth is proportional to the integral of the sunspot activity and the energy leaving the earth is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the earth. This was done and a proportionality constant was determined that resulted in approximately level results for the first part of the curve as shown here.
Dan, I've read your links and cannot find how you did this. Can you provide details?
Is there some reason a thread about the APS *has* to debate Dan Pangburn's ideas? I'm having a hard time finding the relevance, and at this point, am having to KILLFILE lots of people.
Sorry John, you're quite correct.
Dan, come back on another thread.
John, I found your paper very informative, its a keeper.
re: Jim Mitroy,
I don't think I've ever been knowingly so geographically close to one of the denialati.
I know some people over at CDU, I'll see if they have any details.
Excellent job, John Mashey.
With apologies to John Mashey for tickling his killfile...
If you are an engineer, and if you are actually competent in basic statistical methodologies, why do you give any credence to Orssengo's nonsense? Do you not recogise how many errors of statistical procedure and convention Orssengo flouted? Given that you said:
Statistical analysis was not a part of my work except to evaluate the results.
I am forced to contemplate that you do not.
You say that:
[i]t is unfortunate that so many bloggers have little ability and may even lack the interest to do their own research on the planetâs climate. As a result they have no technological basis to challenge the highly politicized claims of many and sometimes resort to ad hominem attacks.
Perhaps you should heed your own words, and think upon them for a spell of time.
Oh, and with respect to:
I have been unable to find where anyone has ever before looked at the time-integral of sunspots so there is no literature to reference.
I think that you will find that Tamino at [Open Mind](http://tamino.wordpress.com/) has rather thoroughly tested the sunspot idea, and come to a different conclusion. And given that Tamino has more than a clue about mathematics, statistics, and time-series analysis, I know which horse I'd be putting my money on...
What was benito's last name? Mussolini! not von hayek!
And Adolf? Hitler! not von Mises.
Do you see a von in there anywhere? was either of them named Adam Smith or David Ricardo?
Well, I don't think so!
Plus, Hitler was an environmentalist, vegetarian, gun-grabbing socialist, and so was Mussolini. Clearly, the fascists have always been the Al Gore liberals who want the world run by UN death panels.
The people wanting to turn the power of the market loose to unleash the creativity of our entrepreneurial spirit and solve the both the real problems and the manufactured ones like the so-called environment crisis are the ones fighting the fascists like those currently occupying DC. Great men like Patton, Goldwater, Reagan, Paul ... understood that we need leadership, patriotism, loyalty, strength and duty. For too long has our decadent society nurtured those who stabbed us in the back during the Vietnam War and spit on our heroic veterans. Their self-hatred has held back our nation from its well-deserved glory long enough.
This video is a discussion with Penn State professor Richard Alley. Dr. Alley is Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences and EMS Environment Institute at Penn State. He is one of several Penn State earth scientists who contributes to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He discusses climate change, ice, and what we can do to make a difference.
re: 61 Donald
Thanks for the kinds words.
re 56 & 60 michael
yes, I'd looked at Jim Mitory's website, so I didn't think his signature was an accident. However, the exact connection eluded me, gien that he was in Wave B, i.e., before much publicity, but it wasn't obvious who knew him.
Of course, if you know people at CDU, you might point at this and ask them if they have any insight.
Actually, that applies elsewhere. If people happen to know someone organizationally close to signers, you might touch base with them. The paper has a strong not that having a cluster of signers in some organization implies nothing about other members there. However, I remain curious about whether or not a concentrations of signers are tips of the iceberg there, or relatively isolated groups with whom most there disagree. Of particular interest are U of Rochester Physics& USC aerospace, and maybe Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
In addition, I remain curious to know which of the signers really got talked into this by old friends.
andrew adams @ 41:
> Monbiot famously, and understandably, pulled out...
Monbiot did not "pull out". His conditions for participating were not met.
Joel: WUWT has a thread up now. Reading the comments, it's almost endearing how convinced they are that everybody would be convinced, if only they'd read the blog science.
Carrot eater, I went over to WUWT to see what was happening. The very first comment (from Anna V) said
"It is very sad, because I do not think that the rest of the 47000 members examined any data. They are just on autopilot trusting on the integrity of the vocal representatives."
The implication being, of course, that if you examined the data then you'd side with the 160 petitioners.
I think Anna is forgetting that she's talking about 47000 qualified physicists. Can they think for themselves? I'm going to maintain my faith in humanity by asserting that yes, they can.
67 carrot eater, 68 stu,
Is it me or does WattsATwit (polite version) look more like Denial Depot by the day? Some of the comments there are just deranged.
Stu, that's one of the posts I was referencing. It really is almost cute - they really think it's obvious that they're right.
TrueSceptic: A good volume of the comments are beyond parody, yes. Still, I've found I can have relatively decent interactions with some of them. I would never try to counter all the confusion in a thread, but if you pick your spots and stay polite, you'll get a hearing.
TrueSceptic and Stu:
I wonder what the rules of blog science are?
As far as I can tell, old-fashioned science depends on:
1. peer review
2. data gathering
4. an attempt to establish a consensus where it can be established
5. the generation of models and mechanisms
6. the robustness of a hypothesis, theory or paradigm over time as the rest of science changes.
7. has a progressive, hierarchical filter of tiered knowledge, with conjectures and fringe ideas at one end and textbook science at the other.
8. should agree with the accepted body of knowledge not only in its field but other fields, because they had to achieve acceptance the same way.
But we're told that peer review is bogus and broken, data gathering is a government boondoggle, consensus is not science and models are unscientific. There are enough instances of lack of replication being dismissed as dishonest to think that it's nothing sacred to blog-science either.
There are studies showing that scientific and technological process was correlated with the rise of peer-reviewed research journals. I think their functions of informing people in a filtered way about progress by other people was the key contribution to the explosion of scientific knowledge.
What does that in blog science, I wonder?
Blog science has one guiding principle: it is good if the results are what I wanted to hear. The physics can be utter nonsense, but that doesn't matter because most of the audience isn't sophisticated enough to know that.
It is quite something, how they've come to define all actual science as suspect, because supposedly the grant process is politicised. (I love reading tirades about this, and the scientific process in general, from people who clearly have no academic experience whatsoever). And modeling is just a non-starter. Basically, it allows them to disregard all actual science on its face. I hear 'IPCC this' and 'IPCC that'; most of them have ever actually picked up the report. Yet, out of curiosity, I'll still go read their blog science now and then, just to see if they've accidentally written something worth reading.
Just to repeat my appreciation of people like Joel Shore and carrot eater. It's good that someone has the patience and good temper to deal with the Watts supporters. It's clear that many there are highly delusional and they will never except any information that conflicts with their bizarre views, but perhaps it might just make a difference to the rational few and the occasional visitor.
I just hope it's worth your time.
Your depiction of real science looks good to me.
I'd go further: Blog Science is without limits. No matter how absurd or obviously wrong, anything can be denied in order to distort the evidence to make it fit the most bizarre world view. Another prevalent characteristic is the hilarious (to me) inability to see the obvious contradictions. This is something that requires little scientific knowledge, just basic language comprehension, yet they don't even notice (or pretend not to). You can see this in every thread at places like Watts, including the APS thread where Joel has been quite heroic IMO.
Sunspot count (like Timano used) is proportional to power. The time-integral of sunspot count (like I used) is proportional to energy. People who think that they know science but are unaware of the difference between power and energy may think that discovering that power does not correlate ends the issue. It does not.
TrueSceptic: If I interact on WUWT, it'll generally be for the blindingly obvious stuff - that a journal article doesn't at all say what they think it says, or somebody vaguely remembers something from his freshman chemistry, physics or math class but is getting it horribly wrong.
I see Joel getting involved about the process of science, in the APS thread, and that's entirely lost upon a crowd that is convinced that science is one big conspiracy. If that's worth his time, good for him.
Should anyone respond to Dan Pangburn? His posts look OT to me!
Is it me or does WattsATwit (polite version) look more like Denial Depot by the day? Some of the comments there are just deranged.
I've hoped, at least, that at least some of the posters there are sockpuppets just having fun.
I fear I may be wrong, though, and that they really are that deranged.
Dan is now spamming this thread, if Dan wants to discuss his ideas he can come back to an open thread and answer my questions.
TrueSkeptic says: "I just hope it's worth your time."
Yeah...I wonder about that quite a bit. I try to rationalize it in various ways (the lurkers there, that it gives me motivation to study up on certain issues, ...) but in the end, perhaps it is just the sort of addiction summarized by what may well be the best cartoon ever: http://xkcd.com/386/ I try to wean myself occasionally, but then I get drawn back like a moth to a candle flame.
I know what that comic is, and I don't even have to click on it. Best xkcd ever.
Ah yes, ol' 386.
I suspect that many here have not only chuckled over it, but have found themselves in exactly that circumstance more times than one might care to admit.
#3TrueSceptic (Miss Noma)
Regarding the recent debate between Plimer (ScienceSceptic) and NoShowMondiot:
PLIMER = 1 ( WON ), MONDIOTS = 0 ( NIL )
Oh, gosh, Phillip Soffermann has come up with the perfect way to win every debate:
1. Your opponent sets preconditions
2. You refuse to agree to them.
Yet, the world is fucking warming, arctic sea ice "recovery" is leading to historic extent lows, el niÃ±o's going to wipe out much of the "world is cooing [because of La NiÃ±a but we refuse to admit it!] denialism.
Yet, Soffermann will declare victory because of Plimer's cowardice.
dhogaza: actually it's
1. Your opponent sets preconditions
2. You agree to them
3. You fail to do anything to fulfil the preconditions
4. Suddenly you decide you need to set your own preconditions
5. Actually, you decide you decide to schedule the debate on your own without regard to your opponent's schedule
6. ACTIVATE ACTIVATE ACTIVATE 'GRASSROOTS' NOISE MACHINE
85doghaza:..."the world is cooing..." implies that all is well, relaxed and comfortable, snug as a joey in a pouch...etc. Plimer won the 'debate' by default...hardly a screaming capitalised victory! He won because piss-weak Mondiot shot through like a Bondi Tram right down the bottom end of the far queue neworldorder...somewhere to lick his wounds in privacy with his own worst enemy...himself.
It helps Pliar when he makes stuff up, lies about his sources, and misrepresents those he critiques. It helps Pliar when he does all this and the Phillip Soffermann's of the world fall in line and cheer.
Not very sceptical Phillip. Epic failure [number two](http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USAU294AU…) for you.
Its actually quite apt that phillip soffermann turns out another such dismal performance on this thread named as it is.
Shorter Phillip Sofferman:
I spewed out a word salad, therefore Plimer won the 'debate'.
...and as The Dusk of Doom descends...the Testosteronic Messaihanic Janet leads his charismatic choir down into the Valley of Eternal Echoes... whence they crouch transfixed in wonderment at the repeating staccato return...of their Glorious Gloating and Gloom...g l o o m...l o o m. . . o o m . . .m m m . . . m m m
Shorter Phillip Soffermann:
I ignore all the refutations to Plimer the global warming 'skeptic'. Therefore, it's the Global Warmists who are closed-minded.
No science phillip? What a surprise, strike three.
why only such little discussion on this most important topic? have you taken a look at what [WuWt](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/13/american-physcal-society-rejects-…) reported on the event?
Although the APS council turned down the request, it has, however, agreed to one proposal from Kleppnerâs committee: that the societyâs Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) should âexamine the statement for improvements in clarity and toneâ. Princeton University atomic physicist Will Happer, who was one of those leading the proposal for change, sees that fact as a form of vindication. âThey basically sent both statements back to their committee on public affairs and asked them to reconsider,â says Happer. âI think itâs a big victory for us. Many of [the people who signed the petition] took quite a bit of risk in signing this statement.â
the next paragraph brings up a contradicting view, but we will see how this nonsense will be spread over the web.
and what risk is he talking about anyway? the risk that the majority of those 80+ signers will die of natural age, before the petition can be handed in?
and i fear there is another big piece of work coming up: also on WuWt, there is a list of [450 "sceptical" papers](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-revi…) in peer reviewed magazines.
i assume that a look at the authors will find a similar network of the same few guys publishing those papers, as on the APS list.
i took a first look and counted (anyone willing to check?) 83 papers coming from "Energy & Environment", which they claim to be a peer reviewed paper, because it is marked as "peer reviewed in this [EBSCO list](http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf) so nearly 20% of the "sceptical papers" have been peer reviewed by the paper, that let Beck's CO2 graphs slip through "peer review". (the Beck paper is not on the list, btw)
anyone around, who can explain to them, how to find real peer reviewed papers? anyone willing to find/calculate a citation impact for those sceptic "papers"?
strange, the article has disappeared from the WuWt page. though i can still find it via the link or a google search with the title: "Reference: 450 sceptical peer reviewed papers".
i don t dare to assume, that it was too embarrassing to post it, so i guess it is a small technical problem....
@sod: let's just look at the first 10.
1. Nothing skeptical about AGW in Loehle's article. Not one word.
2. is a correction to 1. Double-counting
3. Opinion piece by Balling in the AAPG's journal. Not peer-reviewed.
4. First real peer-reviewed paper. Considering the authors, expect major flaws.
5. Article in 2000 from E&E. NOT peer-reviewed.
6. Not 'skeptical' of AGW in the WUWT-sense.
7. Commentary of Boehmer-Christiansen. Peer-reviewed? Doubtful
8. Valid entry number 2.
9. LOL. Comment on comment to paper #8. In a sense double counting, and those comments are usually not peer-reviewed
10. Even more LO. Correction to paper #8. Triple counting!
Interesting, isn't it? In the first 10 already so many problems. Also interesting: They refer to Zeebe et al, which isn't even close to critical of AGW. It only notes that with the accepted climate sensitivity to CO2, there wasn't enough CO2 to explain the observed temperature increase during the PETM. In other words, it argues that other forcings must have been present, or the climate sensitivity to CO2 is LARGER than currently accepted...
I would not be surprised if there are more such misinterpretations (in the sense that the papers are NOT 'skeptical' of AGW, not even in the sense of a lower than expected climate sensitivity to CO2).
you are correct Marco. when i took a first look at the list, i followed a random [link](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7CRV-4S38C0G-…) and also got the impression, that this paper is CONTRADICTING their views.
so the list contains mainly non-peer reviewed papers, papers that don t shore the sceptic point of views, and a handful of papers by the same authors. brilliant.
ps: the page is back up on WuWt.
ouch. and the list is over a week old, and those errors have not been corrected.
sceptics, fully living up to their name. as always.
"Miss Noma"? It appears that you lack the most basic understanding of, well, anything.
This is similar to the stunt that Singer pulled recently, where he cited a number of mainstream climate scientists as co-authors and refused to remove their names when asked.
Apologies if someone else has already said this and I missed it, but there's a very obvious point being missed here:-
206 (0.45%) of APS members signed the petition. When the APS council voted to retain the existing statement, but with changes for clarity, the denialists predictably complained that a small cadre took this action without consulting the membership, i.e. no one knows what the other approx. 47,000 think and there are many more "sceptics" than the council admit.
Now, why on Earth was that petition signed by *only* 206? Surely if the denialists' claim had any merit, they could *easily* get many (thousands?) of those 47,000 to sign the petition with some simple advertising, with no access to the membership list required?
I know you don't have to take any notice of what I say but I wish that the word sceptic wasn't misused in this way. These are the least sceptical, most credulous, people you will find. I prefer "sceptics" (with scare quotes) or AGWSceptics (one word to indicate a special category).
Regarding their list of publications: Nothing you tell them about E&E will make them think any less of that journal or its process.
I noticed Moberg's paleo-reconstruction on there. That isn't anti-AGW; it's just a paleo-reconstruction with a bumpier hockey stick shaft. Somehow these people think that the existence of non-CO2 forced climate changes is proof that CO2 can't absorb IR.
I also see a string of ice-age CO2-lags-temperature papers. Yes, it did. We agree it did. And?
IN any case, after you strip away the E&E, the not actually anti-AGW, the unreviewed commentaries and the such, you do have a handful of papers left. Do we expect the WUWTers to actually read those papers, critically think about them, and see if they have provided any useful contribution? Or do they just embrace them because they like the sound of the conclusions (or sometimes just the press release)?
in "Science Bypass"
p.6; "For example, 2 organizers are senior members of the Physics Department at Princeton University. That Department has 40+ faculty members, most of whom are APS members who have not signed this petition."
So, Happer and Austin are both senior (Full Professors, I assume long-tenured, and both members of the National Academy of Sciences). Here's the list of people, and the list of faculty. Torquaot is also listed there, but his main affiliation is elsewhere, chemistry & PRISM. I would suggest that almost everyone on that list is an APS member. [I sampled, of course.]
One may note that the next APS President is Curtis Callan, on that list.
SO, the next time Happer says this, ask him why he was so miserably unsuccessful in acquiring signers from his own department.
For what it's worth, although I didn't do much "seniority chain" analysis (look at comments @ DeSmogBlog), I think there are plenty of cases where some relatively junior, not very-dedicated signer got recruited by a much more senior and sometimes very dedicated one.
As for risk in general:
"Of the 119 (A-E) signers, 102 (86%) were born before 1950, compared to about 40% for overall APS. This is a strong effect, and cannot be due to âretired scientists are finally free to tell the real truthâ, given that only one plausible climate scientist is a signer, and he is not retired. Few signers have ever published research even vaguely related to climate science, and at least some of them signed similar petitions before they retired."
Given the Plimer discussions, people must know that
Tenured professors are not easily deterred from saying what they want.
More on Happer &co: see
In which Roger Cohen strongly criticizes the APS process, and claims the petitioners contacted 10,000 more members (which I think got them that last-minute burst of 43). I am curious how they contacted that many people, especially given the APS note regarding the membership list:
"The contents of this directory are intended for an APS member's personal use to facilitate one-on-one correspondence." Hmmm.
Meanwhile, Heartland has been organizing a petition for ACS, and Singer has an alternate for GSA, so it will be busy.
Oh, and a certain string theorist showed up at Greenfyre's.
Surely no access to the APS membership list is required. You just place ads for the petition where members are likely to see them.
If you argue that there is no obvious place for those ads, I'll counter with saying that APS AGWSceptics would have no problem finding them via CA, WUWT, etc., giving the petition huge momentum.
Whatever assumptions we make, 0.45% of the membership is *pitiful*.
re: #107 TrueSkeptic
Cohen says in the Icecap piece:
"Rather it was the petitioners themselves who directly contacted more than 10,000 members, and hundreds of them commented to the APS Council before the meeting, with more than 1/3 supporting our Open Letter or a substantial moderation or withdrawal of the existing statement."
Whether true or not, that seems pretty explicit; of course APS AGWSkeptics could find CA or WUWT, but I think that your assumption that 10,000 APSmembers read WUWT or CA is problematical. I would think that if there were that many, there would have been far more signers.
Of course, what Cohen essentially said was they they managed to get 1/3 of "hundreds" to support them.
[People were supposed to contact their specific Councilors. About a week before the meeting, Harold Lewis widely sent around an email urging people to contact *all* the Council members, providing a handy list of email addresses. The Councilors were immediately deluged with emails.
Although I have no way to know, I conjecture that a lot of those emails came from the signers.
If you read my paper, and look at Appendix 4, p59-, you will see some of the advertising they did in July/August, i.e., they put it around the usual places.
So, I don't know if they really did "directly contact 10,000 people", but if they did, they either used the APS Directory or somebody has some big Outlook files.
The Heartland Institute has a similar amusing list with similar results (studies not actually skeptical, studies not published in cited journal, op-ed pieces, etc.). I think they claim numbers in the thousands. What Watts presents is likely mostly a subset, pre-packaged into something that looks "new", and directed of course to the unsuspecting layperson.
"Lather-rinse-repeat...always repeat..." - Homer Simpson
Perhaps I'm being simple minded about all this, but my view is that *any* APS AGWSceptics who feel strongly that their views are being misrepresented by the APS council would be the very ones who are aware of Climate Depot, CA, WUWT, etc. It's not as if the AGWSceptic sites are obscure, hard to find, or shy.
If there are thousands of AGWSceptics in the APS, they would find their way to the petition with very little effort!
re: 110 True Skeptic
I think we are agreeing. Do you think we aren't?
[For what it's worth, I doubt the petitioners directly contacted 10,000 people. They certainly advertised this in APS-NES Newsletter, which gets to a few thousand, but taht is hardly what I'd call "direct contact". I simply claim taht if they *did* actually irectly contact 10,000 people, they used the APS Directory.]
I wasn't sure. I had the impression that you thought that the creators of the petition needed to actively find signers, whereas I think that any such would be beating down Singer's door in order to sign. Whatever, we certainly agree that 0.45% is laughable. :)
Read p.17, and note that about half the signers also signed OISM, an half didn't. I'd suggest that most of the half that didn't are relatively new to this, and there enough cases where such folks are "close" to someone else on the list to make me think there was active recruitng.
Perhaps it's time for a Project Steve on this issue.
OK, I'll bite. What?
At some point, the young-earth creationists started making a list of scientists who supported their position. The creationists had no scientific merit, but they had a list of names to wave around, for whatever that was worth.
In order to poke fun at that exercise, somebody started a list of scientists who rejected creationism, but the list was limited to people named 'Steve' or 'Stephen' or 'Stephanie'. The thing took off like wildfire, and they're up to over a thousand Steves.
Given that creationists and global warming deniers try to downplay the significance of scientific consensus, it's somewhat amusing that they still periodically try to boast with a headcount of their supporters. They should save their time for trying to publish something a darn.
Thanks. Not heard of that before. I like the idea. :)
TrueSceptic: The Wiki page on the subject is also rather interesting, although it fails to note the poetic coincidence that Steve #1000 is also a Darwin (no relation). It does mention the reasoning behind the name ("Steve" was chosen in honour of Stephen Jay Gould).
The issue with Project Steve in this context is it only just recently hit a kiloSteve, after running for about six years, and the creationists are still a substantial part of the population. Think we've got enough time to do a "Project James" (Hansen) and sway public opinion?
Project Steve was really more for amusement than anything else, I think; not for swaying public opinion.
Funny to see the global warming scare mongers exposed for what they are.
Funny to see the global warming scare mongers exposed for what they are.
Yeah, scientists. Wow, what a relevation.
Scientists? Hardly. This is the same CRU that refused to release information after FOIA requests, saying they lost the data. Now it turns up.
Their credibility was never high, but this exposes their BS for what it is. But hey, don't let reality ruin your self-important egotism. Keep the charade up old boy, who knows, maybe you actually can put the genie back in the bottle! Hahahahaha!
Scientists? Hardly. This is the same CRU that refused to release information after FOIA requests, saying they lost the data. Now it turns up.
No, actually, a lot of the older raw data was never archived after processing.
And, of course, they don't have the legal right to release data from some of the various NWS's whose raw data they've been given.
And, no, they didn't keep as good a track of what they could release, couldn't release, etc, in the face of possible FOIA requests a decade or more in the future. Wow, that's a conspiracy for you.
The reality is that McIntyre has been trying to use the FOIA to force them to violate the agreements under which they got some of the raw data (which is often sold by NWS's to commercial users) and has been screaming bloody murder over the university's refusal to do so.
So now, it couldn't be pried out legally, so ... it's been stolen.
And you think it's wonderful.
I do think it's wonderful. They are charlatans who make grand statements but won't let anyone see the raw data and how they came to their conclusions. So I call bullshit and applaud whoever liberated it. If you can't stand the scrutiny then maybe your conclusions aren't worth listening to.
And you wanted to keep the data secret and hidden from everyone.
I do think it's wonderful. They are charlatans who make grand statements but won't let anyone see the raw data and how they came to their conclusions. So I call bullshit and applaud whoever liberated it
Great, a skeptic with absolutely no regard for private property, the law, or anything decent.
Great, a pseudo scientist with absolutely no regard for the truth, transparency or accuracy (it wasn't private property, which was why it WAS petitioned under the FOIA).
I'm not surprised.
Please state who you are accusing of being dishonest, and cite specific emails you are relying on to make this accusation.
I am stating that I think that organizations like the CRU, message boards like this one, and the whole global warming nazi elite who shout you down and call you names if you dare to disagree with them are dishonest. I think that anyone who actually believed this was as serious as it's being made out to be would never shy away from transparency, but not only did the CRU do it, they lied about losing the data when it looked like the FOIA request would finally force them to divulge the information. Sort of a scientists "the dog ate my homework" trick.
I've been on this board before and know where your request is headed so don't bother.
Ok Vindicated, so your saying you've got nothing yet. Your just calling people names, like a [bunch of other smear-and-run agents](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php…).
Ok Janet, so you're saying that it's okay to hide information and lie about it being lost to avoid people double checking your conclusions and possibly finding out they are false like a bunch of other smear and run agents
I asked your for the evidence for your claims, and you started calling people NAZI, so where is your evidence?
My evidence is the CRU itself. Refusing to release the information to keep anyone from proving them wrong. Lying about losing the information to keep anyone from proving them wrong. The evidence is in the story I linked to which paints a very damning picture of them manipulating results to reach the conclusions they will then disseminate as truth, albeit a truth no one is allowed to question due to their deliberate dishonesty.
There you go, there's the evidence. Now you may proceed with trying to discredit me when all the evidence is out there if you follow the link. Take some time and read it and then feel free to come back with your chicken little spin on how "the sky is falling."
> My evidence is the CRU itself.
You mean, the conspiracy-laden interpretations of out-of-context quote mines of 'THE RAW RAW RAW CRU EMAILS' as rawly interpreted by the raw Stephen McIntyre, the raw Anthony Watts, and the raw Andrew Bolt?
According to Andrew Bolt, when CRU tried to get everyone to change their passwords after the security breach, it's evidence of a conspiracy. Yeah, the evidence speaks for itself, through Andrew Bolt.
It's all there in the leaked documents. They conspired on how to change their presentation to hide faults in the data that would have cast doubt on their cause. Sorry, but you guys lost big on this one!
And my evidence is indisputable that CRU refused to release the information requested under the FOIA. Then they fell back on "the dog ate my homework" excuse and said they lost the information. For you to try and defend that reeks of the very political crap that skeptics have been accusing you for years. It seems that the altar of scientists is just as fallible as everyone has been saying for a long time, yet you all refuse to admit.
Everything in science is a fraud.
The earth is flat.
And 6000 years old
Ok Vindicated, so your confirming you've got nothing yet. Your just calling people names, like a bunch of other [smear-and-run agents.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/global_warming_skeptics_score.p…)
the very political crap
It's only a political issue in the USA.
Dgz sys y mst blv n th CR dcptn r y r flt-rthr. Jnt rpts mnnglss sttmnts whn cnfrntd wth vdnc f glbl wrmng scntfc dcptn. Dvd sys t's nl pltcl n th S whn tht s bvsl fls bsd n th lkd dcmnts rfrncd. Ths s wht mn b psd scntsts. Y ll clm t dhr t scnc bt y gnr vdnc tht s ncnvnnt. Y'r th mdrn d qvlnt t th snk l slsmn
And my evidence is indisputable that CRU refused to release the information requested under the FOIA.
Really? What information would that be, and who made the FOIA request?
Please note: asking you to provide evidence for your assertions is not "shouting you down".
s Tm's cnsrshp wys cntn. M prvs pst hs bn ltrd. f Tm s tr t frm h wll sn s tht nyn mntnng cnsrshp wll b bnnd. Y gys r rll s scrd t cnfrnt th trth tht y wll g t ths lngth? Hw sd.
Hw cld hv dscssn wth y ppl whn th mdrtr f th st ltrs m psts whn pnt t th rdcls ntr f yr rgmnts? Hw pthtc tht "scncs" hs cm t ths pnt.
s cttng ll th vwls t f m pst () th scntfc qvlnt f cttng t m tng? r "scntsts" th nw chrch wh pprsss nyn wh dsgrs? Wh dd y ltr m pst Tm?
Zoot: All you have to do is Google to find out the information regarding the CRU refusing to release information requested under the FOIA. Do your own homework, the information is readily accessible.
Hw sd tht scnc hs cm t ths lwl pnt. M pst pntng t th bvs rrrs f sm flks n hr s ltrd. Thn whn hv th nrv t cmpln tht th mdrtr s ltrng psts tht dsgr wth hm h cntns th bhvr. Lks lk smthng tht mght ntrst rdrs f Dgg, Slshdt s wll s th thr rtnl sts tht qstn th glbl clmt scm.
Do your own homework, the information is readily accessible.
You mean, once more, the "raw evidence" as rawly interpreted by raw inactivist trolls.
Y mn, nc mr, th "rw vdnc" s rwl ntrprtd b rw nctvst trlls. N, tht's pprntl wht Y mn, bt tht s nt wht sd. sd, "D yr wn hmwrk, th nfrmtn s rdl ccssbl." Prtt smpl, vn chld cld ndrstnd t wld thnk. Typcl psd scntst, cn't vn rd mssg brd bt w shld tk y wrd fr t tht y ndrstnd glbl clmt?
The people who released the CRU data are heroes, and the whole world owes you for probably saving us from confiscation by deception. It exposed that these were not just scientists, but activists with a political agenda to start an anti-industrial revolution. The CRU is public funded organization and the data belongs to the public.
. th "rw vdnc" s rwl ntrprtd b rw nctvst trlls. dn't knw f y rlz ths, bt tht sttmnt mks bsltl n sns. D y hv t b mmbr f th Sk s Fllng Pr-GW clt t ndrstnd t? s t n yr mmbrshp kt, rght ftr th sctn n hw t wthhld pblc fndd dt, bt rght bfr hw t cnsr wbst t lmnt dssntng pnns? Nc tr ttmptng t pwn yr clt phrs ff s smthng mnngfl. nd th CR cnsprc s nt "sppsd", t's n th lkd dcmnts, th rfsl t rls th nfrmtn rqstd ndr th F, nd th "dg t m hmwrk" l th tld. Nt mch "sppsd" bt tht, t ll hppnd. Whn y cn wrt chrnt sntnc nstd f th nnsns qtd bv myb w cn bgn t hv sm srt f rtnl dscssn. f y cn't mng tht thn pttn Tm nd myb h'll cnsr nthr pst fr y?
bi -- IJI:
Begone, fear mongerer.
it's in the leaked documents,
Then why not simply post the documents here and leave it at that? Why do have to keep repeating, repeating, repeating your conspiracy-laden interpretation of the 'raw evidence'?
There's no need to post the documents here when you can Google it and find it yourself. You showed me with your last post that you can do that, and your results proved my point that CRU did exactly what I said they did. I'm not doing your homework for you, do it yourself.
Why do you have to keep repeating repeating repeating your sky is falling climate change doomsday falsehoods? Hmmmm?
Vindicated, in your eight subsequent post, you've confirmed eight more times that you've got nothing yet, other than a deeply felt conviction that you are right (about some unspecific thing) in the absence of evidence you are willing or able to present.
Who would have thought repetition could be so entertaining.
Janet: You've confirmed once again that you choose to ignore any evidence provided. In post 134 I referred you to the evidence, the leaked documents from CRU. And, once again, you have chosen to overlook the very thing you requested and then come back with another ridiculous posting.
Who would have thought repetition could be so entertaining.
Refering to the leaked documents is not evidence, [this was your challenge](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/global_warming_skeptics_score.p…).
And your score on this remains zero from fifteen attempts.
Try again Vinnie.
this was your challenge.
Referring to leaked documents IS evidence. Granted, it's not evidence you want to acknowledge, but it IS evidence that the global warming alarmists are frauds. The emails are in the documents, talking about how to modify the presentation to minimize or hide data that does not agree with the conclusion they wanted to bring.
Your score on your attempt to discard evidence that was provided remains zero.
Try again Jannie.
h, lt m dd n mr pc Jnt. Ths s smthng s s y wn't vn hv t lv ths pg. Lk p nd ntc th psts f mn tht hv hd th vwls rmvd. Cnsrshp b th mdrtr f th st. vdnc skd fr. . . vdnc prvdd. Y flks dn't wnt nyn t prsnt n vdnc tht pks hls n yr flms psd scnc. Nw 'll jst mk cp f ths pst s t's sr t rpst ltr whn 'm cnsrd n gn. Cngrts flks, y r gvng scnc grt rpttn wth yr pn dscssn plc. Cmprd t th flks wh mdrt nd frqnt ths st, th Bsh dmnstrtn (wh wld nrmll cll crmnls) lk lk snts.
You seem immune to facts, here was your challenge:
>Vindicated, Please state who you are accusing of being dishonest, and cite specific emails you are relying on to make this accusation.
Zero from 17!
h, lt m dd n mr pc Jnt. Ths s smthng s s y wn't vn hv t lv ths pg. Lk p nd ntc th psts f mn tht hv hd th vwls rmvd. Cnsrshp b th mdrtr f th st. vdnc skd fr. . . vdnc prvdd. Y flks dn't wnt nyn t prsnt n vdnc tht pks hls n yr flms psd scnc. Nw 'll jst mk cp f ths pst s t's sr t rpst ltr whn 'm cnsrd n gn. Cngrts flks, y r gvng scnc grt rpttn wth yr pn dscssn plc. Cmprd t th flks wh mdrt nd frqnt ths st, th Bsh dmnstrtn (wh wld nrmll cll crmnls) lk lk snts
Zero from 18!
Pretty hard to provide any evidence when my posts are censored. But you won't even ackknowledge that will you? Add that as another piece of evidence, only this one shows you are all for the censorship too. I satisfied your request a long time ago and you know it.
Your turn Tim. Censor away!!
Another chance, another fail.
Zip from 19.
Well I'm bored with Vndctd's trolling. No more comments from him/her will be accepted unless they are attempts to adress Janet's challenge:
>Please state who you are accusing of being dishonest, and cite specific emails you are relying on to make this accusation.
Dear vindicated unstoppable failure,
And for late comers who don't know if Vindicated Failure is telling porkies, here another opportunity for him to set me straight, please cite the post where you answered this challenge:
>*Please state who you are accusing of being dishonest, and cite specific emails you are relying on to make this accusation.*
Havng trawled thru v's ranting I can confirm that the number of names named and emails cited by v is - ZERO.
I'm going to argue for refreshing honesty, and unlike Vndcnt I know the meaning of "be more specific": 1228330629
One of the problems is that I'm caught in a real Catch-22 situation. At present, I'm damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre's initial request for climate model data, I'm convinced (based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands for further explanations, additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully and written: "You see - he's guilty as charged!" on his website.
You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the MSU issue, Tom. During much of that time, we've had to do science in "reactive mode", responding to the latest outrageous claims and inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred Singer. For the remainder of my scientific career, I'd like to dictate my own research agenda. I don't want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to Christy, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don't want to spend years of my life interacting with the likes of Steven McIntyre.
In their private moments, they still think the denialists are full of shit and, in McIntyre's case, a dick. How's that for honesty?
I've just walked in on this apparent controversy. One observation that I'm making is that most of these supposedly damning emails about "covering up" contrary data are quoted without technical context. That's an extremely dishonest tactic. Gavin Schmidt has been providing technical contexts to most of the emails I've seen quoted over at RC, and in context the statements sound entirely reasonable. I'm no expert, however.
And of course, there seems to be one particularly stubborn commenter here when it comes to citing any emails at all. More and more it seems like this whole brouhaha is shaping up to be yet another climate denialist nontroversy.
Vinnie, no tricks required from me , just the facts.
Zip from 22.
What will be your ultimate score?
Zip from 23!
A fine example of denialist traits.
How many opportunites will you pass up to answer [the challenge?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/global_warming_skeptics_score.p…)
Did you catch the admission of a porky pie by Vinnie?
Firstly Vinne claims that he has s provide the evidence required, then says that he doesn't want to play my game, that I should provide the evidence and that the details are irrelevant.
Vinnie your pants are onfire!
"Stubborn because it's an old trick used on this site, to try and lose the overall point by talking about irrelevant details."
On the contrary, it appears to be you who would rather make vague accusations and smears based on airy generalities. Technical details and context are hardly "irrelevant", we are talking about scientific topics here.
"Or, more appropriately, why am I censored because I disagree?"
I'll leave Tim to answer this one, but I suspect that it's because your shtick has grown tiresome and annoying.
I don't quite understand why you have to play the victim and imply that you're being "intimidated". All that I saw Janet request of you is that you provide one explicit data-point to justify your accusations, and given how zealous you and other denialists have been on this particular beat that should be a small hurdle. You have stubbornly refused to comply, and are being justly ridiculed.
Why do the denialists think they need to come here and demonstrate their fact-free style of 'debate'.
We know already!
You can't seem to get it through your thick head that we're trying to get you to justify a particular accusation with particular evidence. So I'll do you a favor and relax the requirements a bit: quote at least one thing from the emails that you merely find objectionable from a scientific standpoint and tell us why.
More honesty (1083962601):
Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything, partly because we don't have some of the series he wants, also partly as we've got the data through contacts like you, but mostly because he'll distort and misuse them.
Despite this, Mike and I would like to make as many of the series we've used in the RoG plots available from the CRU web page. Can we do this with the series we've got from you?
Phil Jones from way back in 2004 before he got totally fed up with Steve McI's "winning" ways.
155: "In post 134 I referred you to the evidence, the leaked documents from CRU."
Wrong. The "documents" were not leaked, they were illegally retrieved from the UEA server by person(s) unknown, then (probably illegally) spread about the web by the likes of CA, WUWT and JeffID. It has not been shown yet that all of the emails and files are entirely genuine. It has been stated that the illegally obtained files were "a random selection", yet the basis for that randomness is not known, and we certainly don't know the selection is representative.
Even less clear (to me) is the whole "sceptic" approach. They make much of relatively minor differences between two authors or two papers in what is a complex field (climate science) - "I'm purely sceptical" they cry, "I'm only interested in the facts" they protest, "I'm simply being open-minded" they profess. OK, fine, I'll take you at face value. Insofar as this scepticism may help tighten up the scientific basis, I'm all for it. But when it comes to this CRU issue (the initial illegal copying of the files off the UEA server, the possibility that its dissemination is illegal, the numerous unresolved doubts regarding the validity of the stolen information and the direct statement that what was presented was only someone's personal choice), given all that, where's all that high-minded search for the unbiased truth? Where's all that noble scepticism? Gone, vanished, evaporated. Peculiar.
But even assuming the files distributed are genuine and unaltered, that the selection is truly random (never mind representative), and even ignoring the criminal activity that led to this, where has any of this even made a dent in the laws of thermodynamics? How has it disproven the forcing effects of CO2? How has any of the science underpinning climate change been invalidated?
To me, nothing much of significance has changed. The denialist camp still has not produced any convincing alternative hypotheses that adequately explain the mechanisms of the current change in global climate. Until they do so, all the shrieking and wailing is just noise, not signal; hand-waving, not signalling. And it's been morbidly fascinating watching the reactions of the "sceptics" on here and elsewhere. When all the fuss dies down and the truth emerges (as it will), I'll be quite happy to remind the likes of DA, vindicated, lank et al of how their self-professed "scepticism" went MIA when it was most required of them. By your own words shall ye be judged and all that.
For you to try and defend that reeks of the very political crap that skeptics have been accusing you for years.
You're right, "skeptics" accusations are just political crap.
Steve Chamberlain's [last paragraph](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/global_warming_skeptics_score.p…) recalls for me the words of the Immortal Bard, who sagely wrote of:
... a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
[Macbeth (Act V, Scene V)].
Th current stink has had me reciting this in my mind for a day now...
More honesty (1257532857):
Difficult to detail with MM when they won't publish anything. They also know the global temperature record is robust, the millennial records less so. Taking one or two records out makes no difference and they know that. They go on about issues that have no effect.
Does it sound like he has something to hide, or does it sound like he honestly thinks MM are scoundrels?
In which Phil Jones admits it all, ceding victory to McIntyre (1254832684):
Getting a bit fed up with these baseless allegations.
Hold on. That doesn't sound like an admission at all...
To those "sceptics" who want to make mileage out of this UEA thing: "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves" (Confucius).
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Bring in the police!