Bizarre: NYT follows AAAS lead on "FOIA requests equate to death threats"

Words fail me.

The alarmists are getting more desperate. Attacking in all directions like a trapped animal. It is petty, stupid and insane, but do not expect it to stop any time soon. They had a plan – a bad plan – but a plan. They see it slipping away now and they are unwilling to start over.

More on this here… “Personal attacks — including legal challenges and even death threats — on climate scientists have created a “hostile environment” that could result in a “chilling effect” on much-needed research…”
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/168975-leading-science-group-blasts-attacks-on-climate-scientists?page=1#comments
Commenters just not buying this ‘play victim’ act. Some hopes that this “chilling effect” could solve the AGW problem.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628?sp=true

Beginning in 2002, Soon’s funding mostly came from oil companies, including Southern Co (SO.N: Quote), one of the largest coal burners in the United States, and the American Petroleum Institute, according to documents uncovered in a Freedom of Information Act request by Greenpeace and seen by Reuters.

As usual, the degree of hypocrisy is simply staggering.

Let me see. FOIA means: Freedom Of Information Act. So are the New York Times people against freedom to be informed? If this is so, than Chris Horner et al are Information Freedom Fighters fighting against journalistic Tyranny. I just wonder what the founding fathers would say to all this if they were still alive.

If the climate scientists were not so involved with a political agenda to keep their feeders, the politicians, happy, they would not have much to fear from a FOIA request. I have begun to question if there really is anything such as a “climate scientist”, or are they merely political operatives pumping out junk. I say this because their main objective seems to be the global control of societies by restricting everyone to a politically correct “energy diet” and carbon emissions ration. Totally evil in nature and intent.

The question then becomes: Why then would a woman from New York Times make death threats by asking for the information the law entitles her to ask for?

The American Association for the Advancement of Science receives funding, indirectly of course, from George Soros’ Open Society Institute. Their goal is to bring down western society, by destroying western economies, through “climate change” legislation in order to pave the way for a One World Government or as Soros named it, a World Open Society.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?comment_status=moderated#comments-form
I am currently working on a paper that ties George Soros to the AAAS through the New America Foundation.

In a situation of dealing with hostile journalist you need to be a neutral as possible , give them nothing and they less to lie or be selective about.

Steve from Rockwood:
In modern times, consumers are being absolved of responsibility, and are being able to pay less attention to detail; that’s why many are becoming “stupider”. Why else would there be a sign on a hairdryer saying “do not use while sleeping”, or one on a car sunshade saying “do not have shade in place while driving”?

Don’t be too hard on her, after years of being lied to, reality is quite a shock.
Joanna, only 5 minutes of your time.

This is what has happened to you. I hope you can see through it!
How can a little FOIA request hurt you, or anyone else for that matter?

What a moron. She must have majored in Voodoo.

Short version: the AAAS doesn’t like the Constitution, the practice of real science, or the existence of an individual free thought capacity, so much so that it is the one making any significant “death threats” in regard to the questions surrounding Climate Science:
The AAAS seems to be manifesting some of that good old psychological “projection”, then morphed more strongly into gross “paranoia”, and an acting-out which then only results in stimulating even more of what it is reacting to in utter fear and a corresponding sense of threat to begin with – a mere lawful search for facts and an honest desire for the practice of real science; but which, predictably, instead results in the AAAS “justifying” its initial fear by progressively fueling a process that must result in an upward spiral of a truly unhinged positive feedback upon its perceived state of necessarily being increasingly threatened; so that eventually the AAAS instead thinks it is justified in making what is actually more of a truly significant “death threat” against its lawful sceptic “antagonists” – which I think is the cash value of what it just “argued” by making itself and Climate Science the victim instead of the obvious problem, starting with the law.
Strangely, this “thinking” sounds much like Climate Science’s operation of its own GCM Warming Models and, of course, its own quite threatening “scientific method” per se which, despite facts, always strives to escalate the fear that “it’s worse than we thought”, so that the rest of us alone simply “must do something really stupid like committing suicide or becoming enslaved before it’s too late, or else we’re all gonna die!”
What the AAAS claims Classical Liberals want it and Climate Science to do – merely as per our Constitutional law, but also according to the normal process of real science, and according to a normally functioning individual sceptical rationality – is really what they want to do to anyone questioning their Totalitarian “faith”, their need and desire for ultimate control; which is in turn apparently also based upon their collective failure to be in inherent possession of anything resembling a individual’s free-thought capacity or having any desire to adhere to the rules based upon its nature.
In other words the AAAS’s outburst can be seen as a manifestation of a pure bigotry on its part in regard to the “other”, one so strong as to be equivalent to what is usually thought of as bedrock “racism”.
Essentially, imo, the AAAS can be seen as speaking against the indiividual’s inherent free-thought capacity and his or her inherent right to be and think freely, and what this then translates to Constitutionally, and what it means in regard to the practice of real science especially concerning transparency and the need for replication and extremely sceptical, individual inquiry.
Therefore, it seems clear to me that the AAAS is the one making the significant “death threats”, and that everyone knows it, even the AAAS.

The scam is coming apart at the seams. Follow the money >>>
Many ‘important’ people (Gore et al.) and institutions (BBC pensions et al.) have invested vast amounts in this carbon scam. They will fight tooth and claw to preserve the careers of these failed Nintendo (GCMs) players. The con was always going to be extremely difficult to pull off.

I can see a FOIA being perceived as a death threat to the institute, that is hiding things, that will bring about it’s head on the Congressional Budget chopping block.
Transparency behind fortified walls and bolted doors.
Must have hit a frayed nerve or two: Schrill-voiced responders nearly hit the ceiling.
“OMG, what do we do now? -send up smoke signals, and step on it- Got it”

I’m a retired Prof. of Biochemistry. I only regret that I’m no longer a member of AAAS so that I could cancel my membership. Alas, I retired before they started being so blatantly anti-Science. They should change their name so the acronym is AAA of anti-S (AAAaSS), in my not so humble opinion!!

Another FOIA….
…what’ll we do?
> I know
Let’s invoke the Phil Jones defense………………..
Even now, weeks later, Jones seems rigid with shock. “There were death threats,” he says. “People said I should go and kill myself. They said they knew where I lived.”

At least the AAAS is consistant from one year to the other:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/media/0518board_statement_cuccinelli.pdf
[I still can’t use “paste” !]
Now they have to worry about what shows up in the Prince County Circuit
Court ordered FOI compliance laid on the University of Virginia for the
34,000+ Mike Mann e-mails to fulfill ATI’s request.
You can check out the University of Virginia President’ letter of assurance
to AAUP, ACLU, UCS, et al. to resist the pesky legal requests they’ve gotten
for what’s supposed to be public information:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/4-21-11-Letter-from-UVA-to-Coalition-Orgs.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/4-21-11-Letter-from-UVA-to-Coalition-Orgs.pdf
As I’ve said before, this science “community” fussing and fuming, and complaining
about the nefarious radical right plotting, is all about protecting Mike Mann and
especially holding his early works sacrosanct.
Many, many folks in climate studies, together with reporters, lobbyists,
politicians and publishers have vested interests in making sure the “mountain”
of research using Mann’s works as a “given” hasn’t been built on top of a dunghill.
AAAS and their daughter publications like Science magazine have been
right there on top of the heap for years. Someone burrowing deep into the pile
to see what’s actually down there is worriesome… since they don’t know
what’s really there.
Hence the public histrionics and vigorous arm waving to drum up political
support for legal matters the University, the “Team” and the “Community”
can’t find any other way to contain or control.
I know “There’s something going on…”.
Hold the butter on that popcorn, please.

Comparing FOIAs to Hollywood justifying Polanski confused the questioner and gave her something else to focus on besides “why shouldn’t tax-payer funded scientists be asked to obey the law.”
Distraction and rapid subject changes are their game, they live in that world, it’s how they think. We won’t win with asimiles or metaphors, since once they have to process that new thought, they’ve lost the thread of the discussion and you’ll end up arguing over the comparison instead of talking about the real issue.
Better to stay focused on the immediate subject at hand and concentrate on bringing them back to it every time they wander off to pile on additional nonsense. Ignore the other nonsense, don’t get drawn in, try to keep them focused. These are not people who think linearly.

Last I checked, science requires the publishing of the data and methods along with the conclusions so that others can derive the same or different results. So what some climatologists are practicing is NOT science, and AAAS is not acting as a science body.
People who work for public money – be they government or “private” education, must expect scrutiny. This is not harrassment, this is transparency.
How do these people ever earn a degree without knowing simple truths like this?

Now you understand why I would not even wrap a dead fish in the NYT and have dropped my AAAS membership after 25+ years. Dumped AGU a while back, and the AMS even before that. I refuse to participate or support dishonesty. I grew up in the NYC area. My dad bought every paper printed in NYC during the 1950s. That is 4 morning papers and 3 afternoon papers. The NYT was a garbage can then. It has not gotten any better with time.

“John from CA says:
June 29, 2011 at 1:57 pm
New York Times has turned into a rag. I’m not sure when it happened, they used to be respected.”
John, the NYTs got a pulitzer for articles that said there was no genocide in the Ukraine due to starvation under Stalin. The NYTs author Walter Duranty was on scene at the time and ignored the truth.
Even after the stories were proven to be falsehoods the NYTs refuse to take down his pulitzer prize.
The NYTs, all the news that is fit to print. But we decide what is fit.

A simple response to this desperate whining: “If you don’t like the FOIA, change it.” End of story. Now go away.

Steve from Rockwood says:
June 29, 2011 at 2:23 pm
“the world is full of hopelessly stupid people.”
________________________________________
What might be more dangerous are the intelligent people who run parts of government and other institutions. No matter how smart certain individuals are, even a small group of geniuses, they can’t possibly manage the affairs of millions of people. The success of the free market is in the millions of little decisions made every day. No one, no computer, no algorithm, no regulations, could equal the collective independent wisdom inherently part of the free market.
The intelligentsia, or the elite running things now, can rationalize and justify virtually any action. That’s why they can’t be given much power. That’s why we need a government of limited powers. We need to strip them of the power they have wrongfully taken. They have abused regulatory authority to distort the market in favor of certain corporations willing to serve their interests. At this point, it is hard to find much that resembles a free market.
It has reached the point where they want total control. Over the air, over the water, over our food, over medicine, over what we say, and especially over our children. Naturally, these steps are taken for our own good, and for “fairness”. They claim a need to fix certain problems, but select a method that destabilizes the system they supposedly want to fix. Then of course, more fixes are required. This process continues until each targeted piece of our system breaks down. At that point they get to install what they wanted originally. And we let this process happen over and over again.
I spend a lot of time here, because WUWT deals with perhaps the most central piece of their plan, the climate-based excuse to control energy and thereby our economy and jobs. Through the mechanism of AGW, our economy and our personal lives will be controlled at a deep level. Our bright future will be replaced with darkness and hopelessness. For what? Power for a few. The scam appears to be profitable for far too many powerful individuals and businesses, at least in the short run. They have been bought off. However, the core of the green plan is rotten and is designed to break.
I just don’t know whether or not they realize they are killing their golden goose. Do the people going along with the green agenda believe we are too big to fail? Do the green leaders honestly believe in socialist utopian ideals? Perhaps those behind the scam just want the biggest piece of the carcass they can get and to hell with the rest of us.
Clearly, we need less government. We need more power and freedom in the private sector, mainly in small business. Regulations need to be eliminated that create regulatory markets for big business, and limit competition. A vigorous free market will create jobs. Government doesn’t do that. Abundant reliable inexpensive domestic energy will power our economy and grow the middle class. We have the technology to build a bright new future, but only if we are not limited by greedy power-mad bureaucrats and hidden elites. They need AGW to control energy and control us.
You are fighting the good fight. And you are making a difference.

“Scientists should not be subjected to fraud investigations or harassment simply for providing scientific results that are controversial.”
“Controversial”? I thought it was “settled”.

Nick Stokes says:
June 29, 2011 at 4:26 pm
“On the other hand,
“The notion that application of laws expressly covering academics [is] an ‘attack’ on academics is substantively identical to Hollywood apologists calling application of other laws to Roman Polanski an attack on Polanski. “
is explicit equating. Academics to sex offenders. Great.”
No, the equation is between Hollywood apologists and those who apply FOIA laws. The NYT equated death threats and FOIA requests in the usual way by conjoining them in a sentence as follows:
“Reports of harassment, death threats, and legal challenges [emphasis mine] have created a hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas and makes it difficult for factual information and scientific analyses to reach policymakers and the public.”
Of course, you could read the NYT as simply hysterical, as if they had written “He went to the store to buy milk, bread, and a life.”
Your usefulness as a troll is declining rapidly.

Typo alert. In Reaction is now coming in. Alana Goodman of Commentray Magazine, that should be Commentary.

ew-3 says:
June 29, 2011 at 5:18 pm
“John from CA says:
June 29, 2011 at 1:57 pm
New York Times has turned into a rag. I’m not sure when it happened, they used to be respected.”
John, the NYTs got a pulitzer for articles that said there was no genocide in the Ukraine due to starvation under Stalin. The NYTs author Walter Duranty was on scene at the time and ignored the truth.
Even after the stories were proven to be falsehoods the NYTs refuse to take down his pulitzer prize.
The NYTs, all the news that is fit to print. But we decide what is fit.
============
ew-3,
Like I said, I’m not sure when it started but I’m very surprised it goes all the way back to the Stalin era.
I read the NYT for years and still pick-up a copy when I travel but have noticed it getting progressively worse over the years; very slanted coverage.
Thanks for the insight.

Publicly funded scientists and field experts behaving as if sharing their data and methods is so horrible as to be considered harassment akin to death threats? The world has truly gone mad and we are all witness to it. This is not the mentally challenged among us mistaking the moon for the sun because their hangover hasn’t yet ended, this is the creme of the crop telling us that we cannot cross their moat from an outcropping in the tower lest we be branded as criminals.

Add the concept of an analogy, and what one implies in particular, to the growing list of concepts Nick does not understand. Not only does each new post from the head cheerleader decrease his own apparent level of intelligence, I’m thinking it knocks each reader’s down a notch as well. You really are not nearly as intelligent as you initially appeared.
Mark

Nick Stokes says:
June 29, 2011 at 4:26 pm
The AAAS didn’t “equate” FOIA requests to death threats. They simply said that they had both happened and were perturbing scientists trying to do their job.

Perturbation from their job? Here’s the opening part of the statement:

We are deeply concerned by the extent and nature of personal attacks
on climate scientists. Reports of harassment, death threats, and legal challenges have created a hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings
and ideas and makes it difficult for factual information and scientific analyses to reach policymakers and the public. This both impedes the progress of science and interferes
with the application of science to the solution of global problems.

So what is said explicitly here is that “legal challenges” (by which we all take to mean FOIA requests) have created a “hostile environment” that “inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas”.
So what it is saying is, FOIA requests are impeding the free exchange of information in the same sentence as saying that death threats are impeding the free exchange of information. In this manner, the statement is equating the effect on science from a death threat to the effect on science from an FOIA request. That is quite clear from the text, there is no interpretation neccessary there.
Now, what is the job of a scientist? I say a major part of the job of a scientist, particularly the altruistic kind seeking to determine how the world might end for all of us, is to freely exchange information and methods so that we all may be forewarned of what might be coming. It is not the job of a scientist to tell politicians what to do. Can we at least agree on that?
Now if part of the job of a scientist is to do this, what you are in essence saying is that the job of a scientist is akin to a death threat impeding the job of a scientist. Your argument is entirely circular.

On the other hand,
…
is explicit equating. Academics to sex offenders. Great.

Or someone has a wild imagination when they want to have one.

David Appell says:
June 29, 2011 at 6:44 pm
“It is stunning to see essentially no condemnation of the death threats here, ……”
=============================================================
Uhmm, first, this post is about equating FOI requests with death threats. Secondly, it has been loudly condemned. But, sis, I’m not going to jump up and down proclaiming beating my wife is something I abhor every time some whine-bag fabricates a story about some fictional bogeyman……. If you check it, that’s the reason why most of us are here. The fact is, given their penchant to invent killers out of thin air, it wouldn’t be beyond the pale to find that they’ve once again done the same.
Are there some unsavory characters out there? Yes, there are. Does that have anything to do with skepticism? No, not a damned thing. BTW, how come the alarmists don’t loudly and profoundly condemn genocide? I’m shocked to see that it doesn’t occur on the alarmists blogs!

The New York Times? Wow! They are concerned about the release of information? You should have saved that quote from the book of Matthew on the Greenpeace post for this, far more appropriate. The information being requested is being requested through legal channels. It is not information stolen from a US Government computer marked secret and leaked to your paper by a rapist running a wiki website. I am really at a loss for words. It transcends hypocrisy. I hate to use ‘doublethink’ because Orwell is so over-quoted, but is there a better example of it?

I am worried that there are so many defective minds out there. many with responsible positions.

David Falkner says:
June 29, 2011 at 7:48 pm
“……………. It is not information stolen from a US Government computer marked secret and leaked to your paper by a rapist running a wiki website. I am really at a loss for words. It transcends hypocrisy. I hate to use ‘doublethink’ because Orwell is so over-quoted, but is there a better example of it?”
===================================================================
I find Orwell entirely apt when referring to alarmists and the complicit MSM.
They are totalitarian misanthropists, and I believe, exactly the sort Eric Arthur Blair forewarned us about.

Re: David Appell, June 29,2011 @ 6:44 pm
David,
You seem to forget the “death threats” Phil Jones got a year or so came from
vehement AGW supporters reacting to his “no significant warming” statement.
There seems to be no substance to the allegations of “death threats” coming out of
Australia, where the Government’s plan to impose an open-ended carbon tax on it’s
citizens and businesses. The Australian policy is based on converting Mike Mann’s
early research and it’s subsequent spawn into a political mansion of economic
controls with a scientific fascade.
Death threats and threats of violence are to be shunned, as are likening coal cars
on a railroad line to the “death trains” terminology as used by Jim Hansen.

Nothing says coverup like a coverup.

Hi David Appell. Howzit, bra? You are well I trust? We know death threats very well, having been on the receiving end on numerous occasions. Amongst other deplorable tactics from your camp. I would be very happy if you all just reveal the uncertainties to the public of the “science” behind AGW. That is a very basic component in most of the hard sciences, isn’t it? Not asking much, am I? It would be a great way to still the presently troubled waters. Nice chatting with you, buddy.

And even more evidence: several responses to my original comment are examples of what I’m talking about: excuses for the death threats, or jokes, or comments that include include the word “but” This is exactly my point — there is no BUT. The threats are inexcusable no matter what, regardless of what any scientist or journalist or blogger or filmmaker has ever said (or didn’t say). They are inexcusable and unacceptable, period. Examples:
Smokey @ June 29, 2011 at 7:16 pm
“No one is saying that death threats are OK. But you seem to be painting all skeptics with a broad brush here. Don’t you recall the 10-10 video and similar alarmist propaganda, which approved killing kids for giving the “wrong” answers? Did you ‘clearly and loudly denounce’ those vicious ads?”
James Sexton @ June 29, 2011 at 7:27 pm
“The fact is, given their penchant to invent killers out of thin air, it wouldn’t be beyond the pale to find that they’ve once again done the same.”
Amino Acids in Meteorites @ June 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm
“This silliness of death threats is showing people that global warming is not real. It is a naked overplaying of their hand.”
R.S.Brown @ June 29, 2011 at 8:20 pm
“There seems to be no substance to the allegations of “death threats” coming out of Australia, where the Government’s plan to impose an open-ended carbon tax on it’s citizens and businesses….. Death threats and threats of violence are to be shunned, as are likening coal cars
on a railroad line to the “death trains” terminology as used by Jim Hansen.”

David Appell says:
Imagine receiving just one such email, let alone several or on a regular basis.
Yes, David, just “imagine” the AAAS’s paranoiacally, or at least diversionally imagined “death threats”, unsupported by any evidence, that’s the ticket and you fell for it! While you ignored the AAAS’s demonizing of legal, rational requests for information on the part of citizen sceptics, who are thereby made equivalent to rogue assasins; and who, by a connoted or suggested implication, are made to look like they deserve some kind of vigilante-like violent interdiction, almost precisely because a legal basis for handling their alleged infraction has otherwise not been established by the accusers, who apparently have not brought any such “death threats” to the attention of the authorities while they complain and obsess about them elsewhere in public!
This is a well-know propaganda tactic at the least, and at most betrays a paranoiac intimation that citizen sceptics deserve the same violent retribution the allegedly beleaguered AAAS and Climate Scientists imagine to be directed at them.
Just imagine yourself, David, what some people might then find it fitting to do, especially if also egged on by other demonizing propaganda tactics such as the “10 – 10” blow up simulation of anyone not towing the CO2 = CAGW line. Psychiatrists, and similarly other people such as family members or acquaintances, have actually been murdered as a result of their patients having incorporated them into the imagined “plot against them”. Still others can “take a hint”.
So, David, why don’t you condemn those kind of demonizing fabrications, diversions, and intimations for action instead of wasting your mind inappropriately on legal requests by non-violent citizens sceptics, exactly as the AAAS and the NYT reporter did, which, after all, is one of the main points of Christopher Horner’s response above?

David Appell:
You seem to think that every time an action (already condemned by the majority of posters here) is brought up, we should be spending our time condemning that action and not address the context in which that action is exhumed. Your very first quote starts with a statement clearly saying that no one is condoning the death threats, which have previously been condemned. The topic of this post is not the death threats, but the self-victimizing tone of the AAAS statement. The statement released, in the important part, is thus:
“Reports of harassment, death threats, and legal challenges have created a hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings…”
The inclusion of ‘legal challenges’ refers to the FOI and FOIA requests filed by people who have been stonewalled in direct violation, not only of the scientific method, but also of their respective countries’ laws. To assert that any data or information legally available under the so named “Freedom of Information Act” should not be freely available is absurd.
Furthermore, the ‘free exchange of scientific findings’ should be impeded only by the intervention of outside forces. The government funds institutions under the pretense that scientific knowledge is a public good. A public good is one that is non-excludable (can be consumed by anyone with the capability) and non-rivalous (does not diminish when consumed). To have to assert FOIA rights in order to apply the scientific method to scientific findings violates the spirit of the Keynesian economics that so many people these days seem to value. It also DIRECTLY impedes the ‘free exchange of scientific findings’.
Additionally, when evidence extrinsic to the scientific findings makes the scientific finding or process look suspect, the process deserves to be examined. The lack of trust in a process is the founding ideal for many government institutions (and rightfully so). The SEC was founded to protect investors from sham stocks. The PCAOB was later created to protect investors from sham audits. The FDA was created when FDR wondered if he was eating finger meat. The USDA was really founded with the purpose of diffusing agricultural knowledge to help secure our food supply.
FOIA was founded to make sure that taxpayer money was not used for shadowy purposes. This includes foreign espionage, domestic espionage, making political advantage, securing votes in public voting bodies, preventing bribery, forestalling corruption, and providing a general sense of clarity to the bumbly jumbly mess that is public process. To say that asserting the FOIA law to publicly funded research, funded under the auspices of that knowledge being a public good, is somehow preventing the ‘free exchange of scientific findings’ is so backwards that I lack a better term than Orwellian. Perhaps you should study the things that have been released because of the FOIA? Try “Operation Northwoods” for one example.
If you are really that concerned about incentives to do research, than I suggest that you examine the case of Nikolai Tesla. An innovator who did not have the graces of modern subsidy to his research.
I expect that you will publish a full retraction (or at least this comment with a link to this thread) on your blog, which currently paints a sadly cherry-picked picture of the full range of responses here to the death threats.

I love comedy central, South Park, ManBearPig. I laughed so much it hurt and the one liners.
“Ah, But Mr Gore has no friend’s” said Carl, that’s why he came up with ManBearPig to make friends (and money).

David Appell says:
June 29, 2011 at 6:44 pm
It is stunning to see essentially no condemnation of the death threats here, and instead exuses and accusations (always anonymous, of course) that they are “political stunts” or that scientists are “playing the victim.” Regardless of your position on climate science or FOIAs or anything else, threats against individuals are never, ever acceptable. Imagine receiving just one such email, let alone several or on a regular basis. I hope those found to be making such threats are prosecuted to the fullest extent before something deeply tragic happens, which is the path all of this is on. If skeptics are to retain any legitimacy whatsoever, such tactics need to be clearly and loudly denounced.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The post is nothing to do with death threats per se. Of course nobody condones such incidents where they genuinely happen, but such cases are few and far between, as far as can be established. The recent reports of death threats in Australia have been shown to be a falsehood, but were condemned at the time they were discussed. But this whole thing is a side-issue to the discussion at hand, which is about the chutzpah of the AAAS (and others) in suggesting that use of a legal instrument (A FOIA request) is the same as a death threat.
If you want to read about death threats, google “greenpeace we know where you live” (without quotes). Come back when you’ve followed that up and I’ll give you some more things to search for.

Even Mann’s official hagiographer, David Appell, is here to do his Master’s bidding. Even at this distance, I can smell fear.
There can and should be no personalized threats of physical violence against Michael Mann personally. That would be totally outrageous and wrong.
But I reject utterly that perfectly valid and legal FOIA requests on Mann’s UVA emails constitutes, or can be equated to, “death threats”. The only threat is to Mann’s academic career should he be found to have engaged in a persistent pattern of serious research misconduct.
We already know that the original Hockey Stick was faked and that Mann deliberately withheld results of tests showing his reconstruction was not “robust to the removal of … dendroclimatic proxies” and that he lied to the NAS panel, amongst others, about calculating R2 tests that showed no statistical skill.
All of the confected outrage over the FOIA requests shows is that Mann is deeply worried about the content of those emails and that some in the AAAS leadership are worried that a major source of political capital in climate change hysteria might wither on the vine.

On reading the AAAS statement I couldn’t help wondering if the AAAS Directors had actually read the Climategate emails regarding tampering with the “peer-review” process. If they have not read them they are incompetent. If they have read them this “statement” indicates they are corrupt.
Either way the AAAS needs a change in their Directors.

David Appell says:
June 29, 2011 at 11:23 pm
And even more evidence: several responses to my original comment are examples of what I’m talking about: excuses for the death threats, or jokes, or comments that include include the word “but” This is exactly my point — there is no BUT. The threats are inexcusable no matter what, regardless of what any scientist or journalist or blogger or filmmaker has ever said (or didn’t say). They are inexcusable and unacceptable, period. Examples:………..
________________________________
To illustrate the point of why we all do not find it necessary to repeat the obvious, that death threats are highly offensive, I will ask you a question.
Why has David Appell not condemned the pedophilia alluded to in the Polanski reference?
Nuf said?

An entirely self-consistent position as I see it:
Climate data is for climatologists eyes only, the rest of us can rely on their expert opinion.
Freedom of information is for journalists eyes only, ditto the above.

David Appell says:
June 29, 2011 at 11:23 pm

David, you pointed out some rebuttals, but no death threats. So how can one condemn what is not there? Until you can show us where there are any death threats (not allegations of “there are death threats” but actual death threats), I see no reason to condemn nothing. for that is what you are asking. You want us to condemn nothing?

Mr. Horner needs to spend more time composing his emails. The one quoted is almost incomprehensible.

Woodward and Bertstein must be shaking their heads in bemusement and shame at the standard of journalism these days.

Anthony Watts says:
June 30, 2011 at 5:03 am
Folks, Appell’s MO is to feign concern, then provoke responses, then use those responses to write a post with those responses feigning his “outrage” on his blog that only gets a few reads.
Yes, he even has a degree in “Creative Writing”, so there’s that to explain whatever he produces, perhaps along with George Soros and the like? Speaking of money, it’s waaay past my time to contribute here!

Derek Sorensen says:
June 30, 2011 at 12:56 am
David Appell says:
June 29, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
==================================================
Nailed it. As Anthony points out, this is what he does…… as do most alarmists. Create a strawman, and then set out to show how wrong people are by inadequately responding to the strawman. Which, to me is hilarious, because of his inability to appropriately respond to our comments. Witness his inability to properly context the comments from,
Smokey @ June 29, 2011 at 7:16 pm ,James Sexton @ June 29, 2011 at 7:27 pm, Amino Acids in Meteorites @ June 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm, and R.S.Brown @ June 29, 2011 at 8:20 pm
As Anthony states, he’ll probably write something nasty about us all here, but, the fun part about this game that he and others play here, is the traffic! While David may get high-fives from both of his readers, hundreds if not thousands, have been able to witness the flaws and weaknesses of an alarmist perspective. They have been able to witness the intellectual void, moral vacancy and the hypocrisy of the alarmists. Better, they get to witness the strengths of the skeptical perspective. (I actually enjoy it when they come to play this game.) Its a win-win for the skeptical camp. 🙂

You people are crazy. All of these non science guys are funded by oil companies. This is a serious situation where kids future’s are at stake.
How can anyone not see what Climate Change is doing right now? Look at the droughts, heat and flooding in the mid west. We need to try our best to stop this. Stop listening to people that were hired by Oil companies to mislead you.

With all due respect, Mr. Horner needs to take a writing class and learn to write clearly. The language he uses in his email is so confusing that few would actually bother to try to interpret all that he’s trying to say, and even fewer would bother to take him seriously.
The last line is probably one of the clearest: “In Mann’s case, if our review of his documents which belong to the taxpayer also happen to exonerate him from the suspicions that have arisen, we will be the first to do so,” and it’s still a mess. “We will be the first to do so” means what, exactly? Exonerate him? The documents would be doing that. Drop the “suspicions” perhaps? Not quite what he says though. Admit that the “suspicions” are baseless? Probably what he means, but who can really tell from such a mixed up sentence?
He’s been in DC too long I suspect.
Why not: “If, in our view, Mann’s taxpayer-funded documents fail to confirm our suspicions, we will be the first to say so.” (Unless of course, that’s not what he meant.)
And the rest is far worse. DC gobbledygook. Yes, I can read and understand what he wrote, but why speak in tongues when you’re trying to make a case?

The AAAS should be giving more information to the public if they perceive some kind of atmospheric threat to the Earth that needs to be corrected by science.

Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:44 am
You people are crazy. All of these non science guys are funded by oil companies. This is a serious situation where kids future’s are at stake.
That’s interesting, Chris. Who are these oil-funded non-science guys? I’m highly sceptical about CAGW, but sadly I’m not funded by anyone to hold my views, much less the Oil industry. I’m not a scientist, but that doesn’t make me (if I interpret what you mean correctly) anti-science. I probably have a better grasp of science than 95% of the population, better on the topic of CAGW than 99%, and that latter almost certainly more than everyone I know personally, most of whom don’t think about it at all but just parrot what their daily newspaper or the man on the TV told them to think.
The real debate isn’t easy to follow. There is a lot of information, and there is a lot of boillocks spoken by all sides of the debate, but sorting the wheat from the chaff is only the start. If you really want to know what’s going on, rather than just standing on the sidelines cheering on your “team”, you have to get down and dirty reading scientific papers, even those which disagree with your preconceptions. *Especially* those which disagree with your preconceptions. That’s what I did, and that’s how I went from true-believer to almost complete disbelief in a handful of years – accelerated recently by Climategate and the aftermath.
But as an aside, what would be wrong with accepting Oil industry money, provided it doesn’t change the outcome of your research? Greenpeace certainly don’t mind taking it – what was it at last count? $650 million to Greenpeace from BP alone, if I remember correctly? It might have been more than that. Oh, but that’s probably OK, because greenpeace are “nice” people, whereas those sceptics are evil because … because … well, just because. Yeah, right.
In any case, sources of funding are compeletely irrelevant. The science either stands or falls on it’s own merit.
But please don’;t take this as discouragement. Stick around, keep asking questions, and be prepared to listen – and give proper consideration to the answers you get.

Every artificial rise in the price of energy means death to the poor. And that’s not just a threat, David.
=========

Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:44 am
“You people are crazy. All of these non science guys are funded by oil companies. This is a serious situation where kids future’s are at stake.”
So Chris, why do these oil companies also fund pro AGW scientists? Why would they fund one group to produce AGW alarmism only to fund another group to debunk it?
Over to you.

Chris Martin,
“How can anyone not see what Climate Change is doing right now? Look at the droughts, heat and flooding in the mid west. We need to try our best to stop this.”
Chris, do you believe that any of these events you allude to are any worse or more frequent than at other times in history? If so, why? What databases have you consulted to reach that conclusion?
And following on, you say we should do our best to try and stop this. But how do you propose to stop the climate changing or are you simply parroting the squawkings of Hansen and Greenpeace? Do you really believe that tweaking the amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere will have any measurable impact on globally averaged temperature?
I am interested in your opinions, because I hear this kind of hand wringing from people who generally don’t have any idea of what they are talking about.

Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
Really, you can shorten your comment to this:
I’m not up to date on my science, but I believe James Hansen.
It will save you a lot of typing. Meanwhile, feel free to get up to date on your science.

Nick Stokes says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:18 am
My apologies. You’re correct, you are not a Concern Troll. I should have removed the word “concern” in your case. Thank you.

Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
I’m not up to date on my science, but I believe James Hansen when he tells us we’re in dire position. He doesn’t hold the position at NASA that he does for no reason. He is an educated man that speaks from his heart, and has been alerting us about Global Warming since the late 80′s.
It’s sad that sites like this one have drug his name into the mud. From what I understand, his models have been current, and we’re currently still warming. Why people say we stopped warming in 1998 I do not know.
The 2005 hurricane season and this past spring are signs of what the future holds for us if we don’t get off fossil fuels.
Ok, so you aren’t a completely lost cause. For example, you know enough to single out the 2005 hurricane season, because as regular readers here know, hurricanes are most definitely on the decrease. See here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/
As regards why people say the temperature has been mostly flat for the past decade or so, it’s probably because rather than listen to pro Global Warming pundits, propagandists, and scaremongers they look to the people who are actually sharing their temperature data, for example the University of Alabama’s Dr Roy Spencer’s satellite records:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
I’m really sorry, Chris, because if you do stick around you are going to encounter a lot of information which will conflict with your cherished beliefs about Global Warming. All being well you’ll be able to cope with it, but the anger you are going to feel over the next days and weeks as you gradually come to realise you’ve been lied to for the past couple of decades is going to be quite uncomfortable, to say the least.

Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:44 am
You people are crazy. All of these non science guys are funded by oil companies.
Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
…I believe James Hansen when he tells us we’re in dire position. He doesn’t hold the position at NASA that he does for no reason.
====================================================================
Chris, you can’t have it both ways. First you trash all the oil funded non-science guys (you know who you are!) and then you swing around to defend James Hansen, who because he works for NASA is correct about global warming.
Nice work Chris. /sarc
There are a lot of educated people in the world who are wrong. Maybe a few of them work at NASA. Didn’t they bounce a satellite off the surface of Mars? Or did they do that on purpose?

Also, let’s remember this is the same NYT that exposed the completely legal terrorist-finance-tracking SWIFT program, as well as CIA flights, and numerous other secrets of national security… all in the name of The Public’s Right to Know.

Why would I do that? From what I see, Hansen is the most qualified person regarding the subject, so why do I need to bother with anyone else? His models and predictions have been ahead of their time… He predicted advanced Global Warming in the 80’s and that’s what we have experienced that time.
Sometimes you have to depend on the experts. That’s why I take my car to an expert to have it fixed instead of screwing it up worse myself. These days everyone tries to pretend they know it all.

Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Why would I do that? From what I see, Hansen is the most qualified person regarding the subject, so why do I need to bother with anyone else? His models and predictions have been ahead of their time… He predicted advanced Global Warming in the 80′s and that’s what we have
experienced that time.
=====================================================================
Good, so you are familiar with Hansen’s three predictions, and conditions for those predictions…
…A, B, and C
Can you explain this please:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/screenhunter_41-jun-17-11-12.gif

Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Why would I do that? From what I see, Hansen is the most qualified person regarding the subject, so why do I need to bother with anyone else? His models and predictions have been ahead of their time… He predicted advanced Global Warming in the 80′s and that’s what we have experienced that time.
Sometimes you have to depend on the experts. That’s why I take my car to an expert to have it fixed instead of screwing it up worse myself. These days everyone tries to pretend they know it all.
==================================================================
Chris, I have, and other people have shown you direct proof that Hansen was wrong. It doesn’t really matter how qualified one is, it matters if they are correct. But, if you insist on qualifications, I’d put Richard Lindzen’s against Hansen’s any day.
But, then, I’d put Dr.’s Spencer and Christy up against Hansen any day, too.
However, if one wishes to speak of hurricanes, typhoons and the like, there is no one superior to Dr. Maue. But, again, it isn’t about qualifications, it is about being correct.
Chris, just so you know, there are plenty of people here who hold very high qualifications themselves.
Also, I want to congratulate you, you are a first for me. I’ve never anyone that argued from the strength of their ignorance.

Kim wrote:
Every artificial rise in the price of energy means death to the poor.
So, of course, do the problems of climate change.

Hey James Sexton, if Richard Lindzen’s qualifications are such a big deal why is his work been dismissed? Dessler’s finding to the effect that water vapor is a positive feedback falsifies the IRIS hypothesis, so I’m not sure I’d put too much faith on Lindzen here.

muchado95 wrote:
The AAAS should be giving more information to the public if they perceive some kind of atmospheric threat to the Earth that needs to be corrected by science.
The AAAS has issued at least two strong statements on climate change that I’m aware of. (They’re easy to find.) And their leading journal, Science, has of course published mountains of scientific information, news, and editorials about the subject.

Anthony Watts wrote:
Smokey makes a good point, where was Appell when 10:10 was exploding children?
You do realize that no actual children were exploded, right? It was a depiction. It was fiction. (That means it didn’t actually happen.) That’s in a different class from actual death threats made against real, living people.
REPLY: You do realize no people were actually killed by the supposed (but yet unsubstantiated) death threats right? The point stands, where was your denouncement?
Planning such an ugly thing like 10:10 did over months is equally bad IMHO. Of course you’ll disagree,and spin that to your benefit when you write up your thrashing. Oh, wait, you’ve already done it exactly as I predicted upstream in comments. Heh. But we aren’t going to play the game with you. So don’t bother to respond since we already have your MO down pat.
The next question is, will you have the courage to admit the death threat story is falling apart?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/carbon-death-threats-go-cold/story-e6freuzr-1226071996499
– Anthony

David Appell,
You once again link to a screed with a bunch of assertions and claims that mix examples of hard rhetoric with accusations of threats of violence.
The Trenberth “death threat” accusations refer to evidence turned over to authorities…in March 2010.
Surely a crank journalist such as yourself would be right on top of that investigation with all the latest findings?

David Appell,
The federal government wastes more than $7 billion every year on “climate change” studies. Almost all of that money goes to climate alarmists. Just one alarmist scientist, Michael Mann, received more than $6 million over the past 10 years, including $1.8 million to study mosquito vectors. That was a payola, funneled to him right after Climate-gate.
Dr. Mann is not a biologist or an epidemiologist. He is an astronomer. If that payola was actually to study malaria, it would have gone to a malaria specialist. The corruption in climatology is caused by the excessive public grant money. AFAI am concerned, all grant monies should be eliminated across the board.
And the death threat emails are probably bogus. Show us a few of them with proof that they were sent. And explain why the police weren’t called to investigate the purported “death threats”:
http://www.news.com.au/national/carbon-death-threats-go-cold/story-e6frfkvr-1226072073038

David Appell says:
June 30, 2011 at 5:24 pm
I think that’s one of the reasons for the FOI requests……to find out what was meant by members of “the team” saying they would keep articles from passing peer review, even if it meant redefining the peer-review process, or words to that effect. Apparently data and emails have been deleted too.
Perhaps you should read some of the Climategate emails. They have convinced many that something is fishy in Denmark, so to speak.

Hey, David Appell!
Thanks for the link to the death threat reports and bad habits story in
theConversation.edu.au by Clive Hamilton, Vice Chancellor’s Chair,
Centre for Applied Philosophy ans Public Ethics at the Charles Sturt
University. It’s wonderful when a University’s online campus newspaper
and a Public Ethics professor can garner such international attention.
See your link:
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the=target-in-culture-war-1692
A commenting Austrailian reader of theConversation.edu.au provided
the link to one of those “other” stories on death threats you went on about:
http://www.news.com.au/national/carbon-death-threats-go-cold/story-e6frfkvr-1226072073038
here also
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/carbon-death-threats-go-cold/story-e6freuzr-1226071996499
In that newspaper article the opening paragraph reads:

“Claims prominent climate change scientists recently received death threats have been revealed as an oppotunistic ploy, with the Austrailian
National University admitting they occured up to five years ago.”

So, trolls will try to lead us off the track with stale (and maybe imaginary)
bread crumbs, ‘a Davy ?

Bystander says:
June 30, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Dessler’s finding to the effect that water vapor is a positive feedback falsifies the IRIS hypothesis,….
Of course, Bystander, “water vapor is a positive feedback” which increases atmospheric temperature. After all, that’s why it’s called a “ghg”, even by ipcc Climate Science, to begin with….although the same ipcc “Climate Science” seems somewhat hesitant to then admit what it admits – see the TAR, where water vapor as a ghg ~” is not discussed” – or to then explain how it must work as a ghg, according to its own “the physics” in our existing climate system…so that “water vapor is a ghg” along with CO2 and any other gas in the atmosphere which reacts with long wave electromagnetic energy and therefore possibly can produce a “positive feedback”.
Lindzen doesn’t deny that water vapor is a ghg. He only empirically calculates a different, lower “sensitivity” for CO2 “forcing”, which in turn might be relevant to any other mechanism explaining atmospheric temperatures, given the facts of his own empirical calculation. Therefore, his ideas are not falsified by the idea that “water vapor is a positive feedback”.
But, strangely in opposition to “the physics” of Climate Science, the fact that water vapor “is a ghg” and “is a positive feedback” is also why water vapor alone, or with even a minimal atmospheric CO2 concentration, if you like, should have already produced its own WVCGW runaway feedback in the same way that “the physics” of the allegedly CO2 = C[A]GW runaway dictates [or the GCM’s “forcing relative to CO2 doubling” works] especially because the latter relies critically upon water vapor functioning as a ghg itself [except when it, conveniently, doesn’t – that is, when “water vapor concentrations are solely dependent upon atmospheric temperature,” which in turn is allegedly not influenced by water vapor concentrations on the way up or down, and when water vapor in the atmosphere is, conveniently, without the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere].
But it didn’t! Water vapor did not produce a runaway on its own, even given its superior molecular function as a ghg and even given an essentially infinite supply for it existing in the Oceans.
Therefore, on this basis alone, something is wrong with “the physics” as expressed by the ipcc’s “Climate Science” Global Circulation Models. Water is not simply “a positive feedback”.

lol, lay down to take a nap, and the trolls come out to play!!! Funny stuff, the easiest shortest one first.
@ Bystander who says:
Hey James Sexton, if Richard Lindzen’s qualifications are such a big deal why is his work been dismissed? Dessler’s finding to the effect that water vapor is a positive feedback falsifies the IRIS hypothesis, so I’m not sure I’d put too much faith on Lindzen here.
=================================================================
First, and foremost, why don’t you try and context what I was stating to Chris Martin. In fact, I stated qualifications don’t mean much. But, it was Martin that stated Hansen was the most qualified, clearly he is not. While I’m not prepared to state the Iris theory has been falsified, you can feel free to jump on the Dressler bandwagon if you wish. I’d go into more detail about it, but I just have an inkling that your understanding of either work is limited to talking points from some alarmist blog, and doesn’t have much to do with equating FOI requests to death threats. Try to stay relevant, and at least properly context the comments stated. Thanks.
@ David Appell who stated, “How is Hansen’s 1988 paper so wrong? His scenario B, the closest to reality, overshot an observed warming of 0.4 C by about current warming by about 0.3 C. But that scenario wasn’t the exact history of the last 23 years, either.”
You’re distinguishing between observed and current? lmao!! But, just so we can all understand what you are stating, his scenario B, is only close to reality in his projection of atmospheric CO2 content, not temp. Either 0.3 or 0.4 C off? No, he’s 0.5C off. But David, what is the total observed temp anomaly? I’m glad you asked. It’s 0.5C!!!! So, we can see that Hansen, and his covering of the board predictive prowess is off by %100. And yes, it took about 23 years for his lines to distinguish themselves from one another to definitively state, he was entirely incorrect. But, don’t believe me, you can look as Hansen’s statements yourself. Later, you state,
Besides, the calculation was done 23 yrs ago — computer power, modeling, and the science have all advanced since then. Part of the reason it has advanced is because people learn why models like Hansen’s overshot, and what new features and considerations need to be included.
Dave, I’m usually a pretty congenial guy, but, I’m so tired of a particular meme, about a subject that is dear to me, I may lose some of that congeniality. Computer power. Computer power? What sort of imbecilic response is that? You can get a machine built in the 90s, and a machine built today of the finest technology. Guess what? Any model fed in to either machine will render the same results. WTF? Do you think binary has somehow been revolutionized since its advent? The new “computer power” decreases the time necessary to render more wrong results. If the alarmists used older computers, they’d be wrong less often, because it would take the older computers longer to render the exact same results!!! What kind of person believes computers do something magical to idiotic models? Computers render the results they’re told to render. THERE IS NO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE!!! Now Dave, I know that may have sounded harsh, but please, don’t equate that with a death threat, to the contrary, its people like you that keep people like me employed. I thank you for your ignorance.
Now that we’re dispensed with that bit of lunacy, we can go on to other bits of sophistry. Computer models have gotten better? lol…. sure Dave, now show me one that has any predictive power. Show me one that hasn’t missed the temp by over 50%. I’m only looking for a doubling of proficiency. ….. given Moore’s law….. sorry, still a sore subject. More fun, and this is probably the funniest thing you’ve wrote in this thread…….lmao!!!…..what part of climate science advanced? Show me any significant change to the CAGW postulate. Just one. The fact is, the totalitarian, Malthusian misanthropists are stuck in stupid. The basic conjecture hasn’t changed one iota in the last 30 years. And it won’t. Climate science will advance only when the scientists quit assuming they are correct and seek to find why they are not correct.
Dave, I’ll let you in on a secret I’ve got. I’ve recently come to know some things that should stand part of this science on its ear. I know it. And, I can show how some assumptions being made about this particular bit of alarmism are made because the data they are assuming is incorrect, or at the very least the causation is incorrect. Again, I know this to be true. I’m pretty damned sure I can prove it. But, I’m not releasing it, yet. Why? Because it hasn’t undergone the necessary scrutiny. I need someone to look at it and show me why I’m wrong. I assume I’ve made an incorrect judgement at some point. I don’t assume I’m right. I assume I’m wrong. My understanding will advance one way or the other. If someone finds a significant flaw in my judgements, then I will have learned and move on. If no one does, it means the wrong people have looked at it or I may be correct. Until climatologists view their thoughts and science in this manner, it will never advance.
Lastly, you state, “And, how accurate does a model need to be, anyway? Even simple models predict significant warming. Has any model *ever* shown anything other than warming? If it did, could it be trusted, given that 275 ppm of CO2 creates about a 7 C greenhouse effect? Given that basic greenhouse effect, even with a logarithmic dependence, why shouldn’t it be expected that another 35% of CO2 would create a degree or so more warming? Why shouldn’t a doubling of CO2 be even more significant?”
David, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry about your statement. The fact that the models are not accurate means the assumptions built into the models are incorrect. Are you really that daft? I’m not going to get into why this is wrong, other than to state, reality has shown the assumptions to be wrong. Given that the earth has cooled, in recent times with a constant or increase of atmospheric CO2 shows that the assumptions of causation were incorrect. But, that’s only because my understanding advances with time, while alarmists still cling to notions that were shown to be in error. And, no, I wasn’t speaking towards the most recent manifestation of cooling(this last decade), but rather the LIA. If CO2 @ 275 does cause 7C at a constant, explain the LIA.
Now Dave, I’m sure you’ll ignore every thing I’ve stated. But, I didn’t state it for your benefit. You are a lost cause. But, I do appreciate you giving me the opportunity to respond to some of the alarmist talking points you’ve presented to all of the other readers that may swing by. Thanks again,
James.

John B says:
July 1, 2011 at 1:00 am
John M said:
Really? Ya know, a picture’s worth a thousand words.
http://i51.tinypic.com/rk0wpi.jpg
blathering….
John M, I applaud you for posting that particular chart, rather than the ones with the prediction shifted inappropriately higher up the y-axis that we often see around here.
===========================================================
lol, one is obviously manufactured, the other lifted directly from his work.
But more than that, you guys are defending something that even the author doesn’t defend. He admits its wrong. He states the models don’t correctly adjust for aerosols. But, you cling, still. Interesting behavior.

John M says:
July 1, 2011 at 4:10 am
John B
What part of “it’s closer to Scenario C than it is to Scenario B” don’t you understand?
John W, that is not the point. Scenario C didn’t happen and is therefore irrelevant now. Scenario B pretty much did happen, so that is what the prediction should be judged against. It looks on the chart you provided that he did a good job. That is also the mainstream take on it.
@James: Everyone knows the models aren’t perfect and don’t take into acount all the factors. That makes the fact that it got so close all the more remarkable. Maybe it is just “getting the right answer through the wrong means”, i.e. a coincidence, but maybe it is beause the factors that were taken into account turned out to be the major ones.
John B

http://news.yahoo.com/greenland-ice-melts-most-half-century-us-204848118.html
Yeah, everything is fine boys! No man made global warming going on here….

Dang, didn’t finish the thought between the parentheses. Feel free to ignore.

Chris Martin says:
July 1, 2011 at 8:28 am
http://news.yahoo.com/greenland-ice-melts-most-half-century-us-204848118.html
Yeah, everything is fine boys! No man made global warming going on here….
============================================================
Chris, you really are new at this, aren’t you? First, while I’m more than happy to answer you point by point, it is common courtesy to stay relevant to the topic at hand, which in this case, is equating FOI requests with death threats.
Secondly, most, on either side of the discussion, don’t refer to yahoo news as authoritative. You may not believe this, but news people tend to exaggerate from time to time. (I’m telling you this for your own good, people will laugh.)
Lastly, I’d invite you to stick around. Its a bit slow around here lately, Anthony and many others are at a climate conference. But, there’s plenty of information to read and the commentators are of commendable intellect.
(BTW, skeptics come in many shapes and sizes. I’m one that cheers for a melted ice cap, I believe it would be most beneficial to mankind if it does.)
Cheers,
James

@Smokey
1. I didn’t post the chart, John M (no relation), a skeptic I think, did. I merely commented on it. (OK, I reposted it later)
2. John M’s point was that the prediction was rubbish because observed temperatures are closer to C than B. At least you and I agree that C is irrelevant and the scenario B is one to look at.
3. Even on your chart, the scenario B prediction is looking pretty good until about 2002 (or maybe even 2005). You must admit that, surely?
4. The “hindcast” portion of John M’s chart shows validation of the model. “Predicting the past” may sound like an oxymoron, but it is widely used to validate models, not only in climate science. The main reason I liked his chart, it that the hindcast also puts the predictions in context.
5.We both know the last 5 years or so are an issue for AGW. We say it’s a short term aberration and the warming will resume because the radiative imbalance says it has to. You say “nonsense”. We’ll see. I said 5 more years of little or no warming and I will eat my AGW hat. What do you say?
John B

I think it was in Blazing Saddles where the Governor turns and says, “OH NO! Then how are we going to keep our phony baloney jobs!!??”
–
There’s going to be a lot of that going on in universities over the next couple years….

James Sexton wrote:
Well, only if you count being off by almost 100% as wrong………
It’s easy to play number games — you could also say that Hansen predicted a 2011 temperature of 287.9 K, but it was observed to be 287.6 K, an error of 0.1% — but they’re not very useful. It was only a modeled scenario, after all, not reality. Isn’t a better question what would his 1988 model show if it was fed the exact {GHG, solar, volcanic, land use} history of the last 23 years? And what was learned from his model? Lots and lots of calculations in science were slightly wrong but necessary to lead to better calculations.
Again, how accurate does a model need to be?

Smokey said: But you look at normal variability and see climate doom. From my perspective, you look no different than one of Harold Camping’s followers, or Mrs Keech’s Seekers.
No, not at all. I look at the science, all of it taken together, and see a convincing argument that AGW is happening. The “cognitive dissonance” is all on your side. You are like creationists in the way that you cite one piece of science as evidence against another, while ignoring all the rest. As an example, when arctic sea ice was “recovering” in 2008, 2009, you cited it (maybe not you personally, Smokey) but now it seems to be on the way down again it is “not a good proxy”. And you will happily quote temperatures so far this year as being significant while saying that a satellite record from 1979 to present is “way too short”. I don’t know how you keep it up!

It’s amusing to see creative writer/agw religionist David get solid slam-backs for his ploys here. Having dealt with him on several occasions, it’s nice to see others deal so eloquently with the seagull. It’s been great fun! Thanks to all!

kadaka wrote:
> I’d say the model better be pretty damn accurate,
How accurate? In numbers… In which parameters? Over what period of time?
Also, please explain the rationale behind the numbers you choose.
Also, keep in mind that, as we cannot predict our exact socioeconomic future, no model can be exact. Models do not make “predictions,” they make “projections.”
In what way did Hansen’s 1988 model project and not predict?
Models have advanced considerably since then — see, for example, a pictorial illustration of (part of) this progress here: http://is.gd/EQ1CO8 .
Now, with all that, please provide the details behind your claim of “pretty damn accurate.”

James Sexton wrote:
Computer power? What sort of imbecilic response is that? You can get a machine built in the 90s, and a machine built today of the finest technology. Guess what? Any model fed in to either machine will render the same results.
It is not imbecilic at all. One can only do as much modeling as one’s computer will allow, if you want to get results back in a reasonable amount of time. Faster computers allow lower resolutions and the incorporation of more physical processes. There is a nice visual of this progress here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-1-4.html
and here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-1-2.html

kim wrote:
> But show me the evidence that anthropogenic climate change has killed anyone.
A paper in Nature attributes 166,000 deaths worldwide in 2000 to climate
change:
Patz, J. A., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Holloway, T., Foley, J.A. (2005). “Impact of regional
climate change on human health,” Nature 438: 310-317

Derek Sorensen wrote:
Haven’t you noticed, by the way, that those who are so attached to Global Warming theory have stopped using the phrase “Global Warming”? They now say “Climate Change”, or talk abyout “Extreme waeather events”. Know why that is? It’s because Earth isn’t, actually, warming.
Actually not. Scientists have long used the term “climate change.” For example, the UNFCCC — the last two letters are for “climate change” — was founded in 1992. The IPCC — the last two letters are for “climate change” — issued its first report in 1990.
Everyone admits the globe is warming. Even notable skeptics like John Christy and Roy Spencer at UAH — you remember them, they made a major mistake in their analysis of satellite date that took years to resolve (to their credit, they eventually admitted their error) — write, at the end of their data table, that warming since 1979 is 0.14 deg C/decade (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt).

Smokey wrote;
> Not one single GCM predicted the flat to declining temperatures over the past decade.
So?
Again, the question is, how accurate does a climate model need to be? Will it matter, in 50 years, that the first decade of the 2000s saw flat temperatures? That decade was already 0.2 C warmer than the previous decade. All of this isn’t about the warmth of a particular decade, whether it was flat or not — it’s that what the world will look like in 50-100-150 years. No one today cares about the decade 1900-1910, given what has happened since. No one in the future will care much about this decade.
This is all about the long-term consequences of our increasing CO2 emissions.

H.R. wrote:
> I chased down the abstract
So you didn’t read the paper then? Just the abstract. So from one highly condensed paragraph your drew your conclusions, without even bothering to read the actual paper, consider the methods and data, and follow up with their references. That’s what you’re telling me?
And from just that you dismiss the entire study?
It takes days and (really) weeks to properly read and understand a scientific paper, especially one of this variety. You spent two minutes reading the abstract and yet think you know better than experts who spent months writing it.
Clearly you are an unserious person who is not interested in real discussion of the issues. Frankly, your opinion does not matter — you have not earned one.

David Appell says:
July 2, 2011 at 9:26 pm
You do not understand the science. No one says that CO2 solely “controls” the climate. They do say that a mere 275 ppm of it in the atmosphere accounts for about a 7 K greenhouse effect. And that another 35% of this “trace gas” has about a 1 K effect on the global average. And especially that doubling the amount of this trace gas has a ~ 3 K effect on globally average temperatures.
Looks like you have muddled together the effect of CO2 and the effect of the feedback. After saying, “You do not understand the science.”

David Falkner wrote:
Looks like you have muddled together the effect of CO2 and the effect of the feedback.
I didn’t muddle anything. Feedbacks happen. Excluding them when making a change like 2xCO2 would be incomplete and misleading.

kadaka wrote:
Thus it is more than reasonable to expect a model to be able to accurately forecast the temperature for at least fifty years, for a start.
What do you mean by “accurate?”
Also, why 50?