Gavin’s big wild Yamal yawner

Click image for the science story behind the satire

I think Gavin Schmidt got up on the wrong side of the bed today, either that or he was so mad when he wrote the latest piece on Yamal at RC, he was so mightily angrified that he set himself up for making dumb mistakes.

He really makes a laughingstock of himself in this feckless piece of disinformation about the Yamal affair. It reeks of desperation. He even manages to use my objections to NCDC using an incomplete, non quality controlled preliminary dataset posted on the web solely to keep volunteers updated of the survey status and for no other purpose, as an “unpublished” work suitable for scientific consumption. NCDC went ahead and used it for a paper anyway, despite my objections. Somehow in the bizarre hockey team entrenched mindset of Gavin, this is comparable to the team’s objections to releasing FOI sought data on Yamal. Note to Gavinmy file was already public!

You’d think a scientist could get this simple fact right.

Gavin writes:

UK FOI legislation (quite sensibly) specifically exempts unpublished work from release provided the results are being prepared for publication. So McIntyre’s appeals have tried to insinuate that no such publication is in progress (which is false) or that the public interest in knowing about a regional tree ring reconstruction from an obscure part of Siberia trumps the obvious interest that academics have in being able to work on projects exclusively prior to publication. This is a hard sell, unless of course one greatly exaggerates the importance of a single proxy record – but who would do that? (Oh yes: YAD06 – the most important tree in the world, The global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie etc.). Note that premature public access to unpublished work is something that many people (including Anthony Watts) feel quite strongly about.

Worse, McIntyre has claimed in his appeal that the length of time since the Briffa et al (2008) paper implies that the regional Yamal reconstruction has been suppressed for nefarious motives. But I find it a little rich that the instigator of a multitude of FOI requests, appeals, inquiries, appeals about inquires, FOIs about appeals, inquiries into FOI appeals etc. is now using the CRU’s lack of productivity as a reason to support more FOI releases. This is actually quite funny.

Furthermore, McIntyre is using the fact that Briffa and colleagues responded online to his last deceptive claims about Yamal, to claim that all Yamal-related info must now be placed in the public domain (including, as mentioned above, unpublished reconstructions being prepared for a paper). How this will encourage scientists to be open to real-time discussions with critics is a little puzzling. Mention some partial analysis online, and be hit immediately with a FOI for the rest…?

Our favorite Yamal tracking historian, Andrew Montford explodes Gavins claims at Bishop Hill.

Montford writes:

Gavin Schmidt has issued the official response to the recent excitement over Yamal. I have to say, even on a brief glance through it is a wild piece of writing.

Briffa, as we know, reprocessed data from Hantemirov and Shiyatov in his 2000 paper on Yamal. He used the same data again in his 2008 paper on regional chronologies. Schmidt says:

McIntyre is accusing Briffa of ‘deception’ in stating that he did not ‘consider’ doing a larger more regional reconstruction at that time. However, it is clear from the 2000 paper that the point was to show hemispheric coherence across multiple tree ring records, not to create regional chronologies. Nothing was being ‘deceptively’ hidden and the Yamal curve is only a small part of the paper in any case.

As McIntyre’s article is quite clear that the Yamal regional chronology dates back only to 2006 it can of course not be relevant to the 2000 paper. This is something that he makes quite clear in his article.

One of the purposes of Briffa (2000) was clearly to demonstrate the effect of RCS methodology on the Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 dataset. I have no objection to CRU claiming this “purpose” for Briffa (2000).

But, by 2008, this was no longer their “purpose”. Indeed, one doubts whether the editors of Phil Trans B would have accepted a 2008 paper with such a mundane purpose. The actual “purpose” of Briffa et al 2008 is stated quite clearly and was entirely different: it introduced and discussed “regional” chronologies.

Schmidt is therefore engaging in some serious disinformation. Unfortunately, this is not the only occasion. For example, he points out that McIntyre had long ago received “the data” from the Russians who originally collated it.

Full story here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/11/realclimate-on-yamal.html

Gavin should know by now that he can’t get away with this sort of stuff. I wonder what Phil Jones will do next week.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate, FOI, Gavin Schmidt, NASA GISS and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

119 Responses to Gavin’s big wild Yamal yawner

  1. omnologos says:

    Gavin, the best thing that ever happened to climate skeptics. As usual. Thanks Gav!

  2. Gunga Din says:

    (Aplogies for copying this previous comment.)
    Gunga Din says:
    May 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    “Chopping Up Wood on a Snowy Evening”
    By Michael Mann

    What tree this is, I think I know.
    It grew in Yamal some time ago.
    Yamal 06 I’m placing here
    In hopes a hockey stick will grow.

    But McIntyre did think it queer
    No tree, the stick did disappear!
    Desparate measures I did take
    To make the stick reappear.

    There were some corings from a lake,
    And other data I could bake.
    I’ll tweek my model more until
    Another hockey stick I’ll make!

    I changed a line into a hill!
    I can’t say how I was thrilled!
    Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
    Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.

  3. kim2ooo says:

    AMAZING! :)

    BTW Heres the emails… http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/05/death-threat-emails

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/05/grossly-graphic-gun-play-in-goulburn

    AND here is the self confessed gunman… http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/05/10/the-dog-ate-my-death-threats-ii/#comment-478546

    [REPLY: Nice work, Kimmie, but this is OT for this thread. Please be sure, in the future, that comments are directed to relevant threads. -REP]

  4. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Gavin…Gavin…you gotta understand: we are onto you. We are onto Mann; we are onto Briffa. We are not letting go. We do not forget. We are going to keep putting the truth out there in the internet and all the doings at the CRU are going to come to light. (Just imagine what CG3 is going to show!) Why? Because of the evil being perpetrated on humanity as a result of the political and social misdirection that originates there, and which you continue to try to hide.

    Railing against McIntyre is not going to change RealClimate’s polecat status. When the court cases come, and they will, you will want to at least offer your friends a character reference in mitigation. You will be in a better position to do so if you break with the clod-squad and start publishing pieces with less truthiness and more truth.

    H/T to Steven Colbert (an unrepentant climate alarmist, BTW) for giving us ‘Truthiness’, the perfect word to describe CAGW propaganda. (‘Scienciness’ and ‘believiness’ don’t quite capture the spirit of the intended lies of commission and omission that Gavin uses so eloquently above.)

  5. Phil C says:

    I read Gavin’s post and this post in full and I have no idea what you actually claim Gavin did that you categorize as “disinformation” or “dumb mistakes.” Can you repeat the specific “disinformation” or “dumb mistake” one at a time and make this clear?

  6. Mickey Reno says:

    You will know them by their fruit. Gavin is between a rock and a hard place. Either he admits that his entire field values propaganda and activism more that objectivity, or he must continue to dissemble.

  7. John Blake says:

    Comment would be superfluous.

  8. Don Keiller says:

    Just go over to SurrealClimate and hear the breathless adulations of the believers and you will realise what an uphill battle to expose the truth will be.
    Remember that SurrealClimate has a near hotline to the IPCC and hence to Government policymakers.

  9. kim2ooo says:

    [REPLY: Nice work, Kimmie, but this is OT for this thread. Please be sure, in the future, that comments are directed to relevant threads. -REP] Ack! Sorry

    [REPLY: Not a big problem and you do have good skills. Keep it up and be careful where you direct the comments. -REP]

  10. Roger says:

    Good! keep hammering away at this YAMAL story. It will hit mainstream as it’s the ONE most credible item that will bring AGW down because there is now De facto Evidence for deception/fraud. Im sure Mcyntire has probably got much more info up his sleeve which will be released at the appropriate time. BTW if there is one person who needs/deserves support it’s him

  11. Matthew W says:

    It matters not as to how wrong Gavin is about this, since the simple fact is that he wrote it, and therefore will go into the lore of AGW misinformation and will be cited as “fact” the true believers

  12. Steve says:

    In 2009, I planted 100 White pine in pots. They were bareroot transplant seedlings, so they were less than a foot tall. Now in 2012, the difference in the size and general growth of the trees is amazing. Some I have re-potted to large pots and those generally are larger. My best trees are about 5 feet tall. Most are 3.5 feet. Some of the trees are still under 2 feet. They were all in pretty much the same spot summer and winter. Water, Genetics, Soil Mixture, Disease, Animals, Bugs, Wind, Ice Storms and Luck all played a role in their growth.

  13. Jimmy Haigh says:

    I dissapoint. – gavin.

  14. juanslayton says:

    Gavin: But I find it a little rich that the instigator of a multitude of FOI requests, appeals, inquiries, appeals about inquires, FOIs about appeals, inquiries into FOI appeals etc. is now using the CRU’s lack of productivity as a reason to support more FOI releases. This is actually quite funny.

    I am not amused.

  15. Laws of Nature says:

    Hi there,
    is it just me or is it really the first time, that we can read something along the following written be a “real climate scientist”:
    Gavin in his reply to comment #1 over at RealClimate:
    “[..] whatever judgement calls that Briffa et al make (on the level of coherence necessary, significance levels, magnitude of common signal, statistical method etc.) they will still be accused of fudging it to produce a desired result – because that is so easy for the ‘critics’ to do. Every analysis involves judgement calls – even McIntyre’s. And so if people don’t like the result, they will attack the judgements – regardless of how they actually impact the final result or how justified they are.[..]”

    Does that really mean, what I think it means? Judgment calls can influence a result in the dendrology like this?
    What then would be needed a full spectrum of reasonable judgment calls and respectively all possible outcomes, before any trust can be placed in these reconstructions!
    It seems to me critics like S. McIntyre play a vital role here bringing people like Briffa back to science, especially since there is a track record of bad judgment calls, like over weighting a certain tree or reading data upside down…

    All the best,
    LoN

  16. DesertYote says:

    Phil C
    May 11, 2012 at 8:56 am

    I read Gavin’s post and this post in full and I have no idea
    ###

    Of course you don’t. Your Marxist world-view interferes with your perception and with your ability to reason.

  17. DesertYote says:

    Matthew W
    May 11, 2012 at 9:26 am

    It matters not as to how wrong Gavin is about this, since the simple fact is that he wrote it, and therefore will go into the lore of AGW misinformation and will be cited as “fact” the true believers
    ###
    Exactly!

  18. higley7 says:

    From CO2 Science:
    “Medieval Warm Period Project
    Was there a Medieval Warm Period?
    YES, according to data published by 1069 individual scientists from 616 research institutions in 45 different countries.” The count continues.

    Yamal can go begging. It is statistically insignificant and Gav does not want to admit it.

  19. Konrad says:

    YAD061 Gavin. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget.

  20. Mike Mangan says:

    Gavin knows by now that he CAN get away with this stuff. The skeptic community is not his intended audience here, it’s the supporters in the media that he moves to soothe. He’s making like Crocodile Dundee to a recalcitrant water buffalo, a little humming, a few cocks of the head and “environmental journalists” quickly go back to sleep.

  21. bernie1815 says:

    LawsofNature:
    I agree that this was a very revealing comment. This in part is also at the root of Mann’s BCP/PC1 fiasco. It is fair enough that a researcher focuses in on a subset of data but (a) the criteria for selecting the subset need to be explicit and (b) the discarded data has to be shown not to contradict or otherwise compromise the results of the selected data. (That is, you cannot discard outliers without explaining why they are outliers as opposed to valid data points.) The whole process of selecting subsets needs to be transparent and replicable. My read is that was what Steve McIntyre was endeavoring to do wrt Yamal, just as he had done with Mann and his BCPs.
    Please correct me if I have misstated anything.

  22. wws says:

    Phil C wrote: “Can you repeat the specific “disinformation” or “dumb mistake” one at a time and make this clear?”

    What’s the problem, too much trouble to follow the very clear link to exactly what you’re asking for? Keyword “Regional Chronology”.

    but then that’s a 3 syllable word matched a 4 syllable word, so maybe that’s where you get lost. If you can’t handle anything past “eek! eek! Warm bad!!! Me scared!!!” then there’s really nothing anyone here can do to help you.

  23. manicbeancounter says:

    But I find it a little rich that the instigator of a multitude of FOI requests, appeals, inquiries, appeals about inquires, FOIs about appeals, inquiries into FOI appeals etc. is now using the CRU’s lack of productivity as a reason to support more FOI releases.

    It is a pity that Dr Schmidt was not around to forty years ago. I am sure that a former US President could have used a similar charge against two young and tenacious reporters. Their efforts certainly reduced the productivity of his administration.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/

  24. woodNfish says:

    “You’d think a scientist could get this simple fact right.”

    Well Andrew, a real scientist probably would get it right, but Gavin Schmidt is not a real scientist he is a climate junk-scientist.

  25. Phil C says:

    Given the responses to my question, I now ask if anyone here is a teacher, and can asnwer it, please!

  26. dearieme says:

    “You’d think a scientist could get this simple fact right.” It had never occurred to me that anyone might confuse Gavin Smirk with a scientist.

  27. the1pag says:

    Is Gavin Schmidt running for Pope-to-be in a religion that venerates Gaia? Arguments abour religion are generally no more useful than religiously rigged software.

  28. Nicholas Harding says:

    “….the public interest in knowing about [just about anything will impact the public should always] trumps the obvious interest that academics have in …[any research that was funded with public money].” If you want to keep your research out of FOIA’s grasp, use your own or private money.

  29. pokerguy says:

    “Gavin should know by now that he can’t get away with this sort of stuff.”

    Oh but he does. These guys can literally say anything and get away with it. The more outrageous the claims, the more it’s believed, and the more prestige is accorded. People used to get locked up for lunacy, now they’re offered Op-ed’s in the NYT’s

  30. Frank K. says:

    Yes, it’s this kind of manic and confused writing that won Gavin Schmidt the inaugural “GISS Klimate Kommunications Award” for 2011! Heh!

    By the way, was this written during government work hours? Just asking…

    (In fact, this is almost as confused as his climate code Model E …)

  31. Bill Tuttle says:

    Phil C says:
    May 11, 2012 at 10:22 am
    Given the responses to my question, I now ask if anyone here is a teacher,

    I’m a teacher

    and can asnwer it, please!

    Since answering your question would require me to compose a line-by-line deconstruction of Schmidt’s screed (which is what you requested) and does not involve Rotary Wing Aerodynamics (which I teach — you requested a teacher, after all) — no.

  32. juanslayton says:

    Phil C: <Can you repeat the specific “disinformation” or “dumb mistake” one at a time and make this clear?
    Given the responses to my question, I now ask if anyone here is a teacher, and can asnwer [sic] it, please!

    One at a time.
    1. Dr. Schmidt says that a regional analysis is forthcoming. So McIntyre’s appeals have tried to insinuate that no such publication is in progress (which is false)…
    2. Dr. Schmidt does not deal with the original claim to the Russell investigation (made twice) that such an analysis had not been considered.
    3. Dr. Schmidt objects to anyone raising the question why no reference to the analysis (which had in fact been undertaken) was included in the relevant paper. …McIntyre got the erroneous idea that studies were being done, but were being suppressed if they showed something ‘inconvenient’. Why would anyone get such an idea? Maybe because the authors first denied that the analysis had been undertaken, then claimed that it wasn’t mentioned because they didn’t have time to finish it?

    Three examples should be enough. I think most of my third graders could understand this. It’s not exactly on the order of:
    1 + 1=2
    Therefore e=mc^2
    The intervening steps are left for the student to do as an exercise.

    : > )

  33. I love the presence of unsung own-goals in Gavin’s piece. Remember the days of “he who must not be mentioned”? When I found WUWT, nothing that reached me on the soft green new-agey spiritual links, or the official religious or scientific links, had the slightest hint of the existence of an underground resistance movement of skeptics.

    Now Gavin not only mentions Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford by name, he also supplies hyperlinks. WUWT! WOW!

    The oldest villain’s ruse, I have thoroughly learned here, is to point to the accuser who is about to expose the villain’s misdeeds, and pre-emptively accuse the accuser of his own evils – which he does well because he is an expert. Now read Gavin in the mirror:

    Steve McIntyre Gavin / Briffa is free to do any analysis he wants on any data he can find. But when he ladles his work with unjustified and false accusations of misconduct and deception, he demeans both himself and his contributions. The idea that scientists should be bullied into doing analyses McIntyre Gavin / Briffa wants and delivering the results to him prior to publication out of fear of very public attacks on their integrity is ludicrous.

  34. Taphonomic says:

    I now find myself sorely confused and questioning my belief system.

    The Great and All-Knowing Mann declared this subject “largely irrelevent”.

    But now, Gavin Schmidt, an acolyte of The Great and All-Knowing Mann has seen fit to ponificate on a subject that The Great and All-Knowing Mann declared “largely irrelevent”.

    Is this questioning The Great and All-Knowing Mann’s ability to determine that which is “largely irrelevent”?

    One should be able to have absolute faith that if anyone knew all that was “largely irrelevent” it would be The Great and All-Knowing Mann.

  35. BoE says:

    Over at Steve´s blog, -from the original story about “the most influential tree in the world from way back in 2009,- I noticed the very first comment there being spot on:
    Posted Sep 30, 2009 at 7:04 PM
    by the signature dearieme:
    “So one jolly lumberjack could have changed the Earth’s climate”.

  36. Jason says:

    I have never encountered another human being who talks so much, yet doesn’t say anything at all. Listening to Gavin Schmidt is like torture. I think I’d rather have a root canal.

  37. DirkH says:

    Roger says:
    May 11, 2012 at 9:19 am
    “Good! keep hammering away at this YAMAL story. It will hit mainstream as it’s the ONE most credible item that will bring AGW down because there is now De facto Evidence for deception/fra*d.”

    I totally agree that this is proof of fr*ud; and therefore extremely important. What I disagree with is that it will hit mainstream – the MSM is currently sweeping so many developments in the US as well as in the EU under the carpet it must be becoming pretty crowded there. No way in h*ll they’ll report it.

  38. Resourceguy says:

    This proves that society would be better off if it paid some unionized researchers not to publish in place of the current paper mill incentive system to turn out misleading, unsupportable drivel among friends in a broken peer review process for joint promotion. One approach would be to require them to publish first in a top journal in the baisc sciences before punching their ticket to publish anywhere else. This top-down gate system in place of a bottom-dwelling volume-is-better system would help for awhile, until they undermined the process at top journals in basic sciences.

  39. DesertYote says:

    Phil C
    May 11, 2012 at 10:22 am

    Given the responses to my question, I now ask if anyone here is a teacher, and can asnwer it, please!

    ###

    The fact that you were unable to discover the answer for yourself would indicate that you do not have the necessary machinery to benefit from a teacher, no matter how gifted. My guess is that you are just a half trained concern-troll. You sure smell like one. If you are not, I feel sorry for you. Anyway, you wold not like me as a teacher. I’m not nice and would probably hurt you feelings by not recognizing what a special snowflake you are.

  40. Mickey Reno says:

    Taphonomic says: The Great and All-Knowing Mann declared this subject “largely irrelevent”. But now, Gavin Schmidt, an acolyte of The Great and All-Knowing Mann has seen fit to ponificate on a subject that The Great and All-Knowing Mann declared “largely irrelevent”.

    Proxy reconstructions validate models and models validate proxy reconstructions. Both sides of this are required, or else climate science would need to look at raw, unadjusted data.

    In climate science this transcendant balancing principle is called Yin and Yin.

    I know that only one person, the moderator, will read my posts on RC, but then I’ll share them here when on-topic. Here are my two recent contributions to RC on Gavin’s Yamal Yawn thread. Of course I got boreholed… twice, with not so much as a “hey sailor, can I buy you a cup of coffee.” That came as a huge surprise as you can see in my .sig.
    ————
    @ #7 moderater eric said: “What’s at issue here is whether McIntyre is actually interested in science progressing, or merely in stopping it from progressing.”

    Wow, that’s creepy! I want to address the meat of this issue, but can’t let this sort of crap go without a response, so I’ll do two posts.

    No, McIntyre’s motives are NOT what’s at issue, eric. I’ve seen this kind of crap before, from Scientologists. It’s the old “we’re right, by definition, and anyone who disagrees is an ___SP___ [fill in the blank]” ploy. A little hint for you: this thought-stopping ploy never works for long, and if you keep at it, you’ll end up being thought of as a thug and a cultist, and no one will like you. Furthermore, such feeble attempts to control how people view your opponent(s) are an insult to the noble history of scientific inquiry, a history which should be respected most by people claiming to be scientists.

    People who’s scientific work is being criticized should NOT lie in judgement of the internal motivations of the critic. Under that system, corruption would build so fast it would make your head spin. So, let’s give McIntyre the benefit of assuming his motivations to be noble, of wanting to show where a bit of debateable theory has gone astray.

    My new RC posting sig:
    Weeee! Hey I really like this new ejector slide from “authorized” RC threads to the Bore Hole. ;-)
    ————
    and
    ————
    @ #7 moderater eric said: “What’s at issue here is whether McIntyre is actually interested in science progressing, or merely in stopping it from progressing.”

    No, that not what’s at issue here. What’s at issue is McIntyre’s contention that Briffa has done bad science by discarding the results from a dataset that showed the hockey-stick-less proxy curve, when that sample had more cores, and should have judged to be a preferred sample.

    None of Gavin’s dissembling even addresses the meat of this issue. Nor does he explain why Briffa claimed he didn’t have time to finish it’s analysis, when that analysis had been done two years before?

    Contrary to Gavin’s assertion, Briffa was NOT simply trying to recreate his 2000 results, he was building new regional reconstructions. The new dataset should have been included. Excluding it looks suspiciously like cherries.

    Of course, for those of us tired of being manipulated by shameless propaganda, we’ll PRESUME Briffa did this so the hockey-stick illusion can still be maintained in IPCC v5. Sorry, Gavin, until I hear a better explanation, that’s what I’ll be assuming.

    My new RC posting sig:
    Weeee! Hey I really like this new ejector slide from “authorized” RC threads to the Bore Hole. ;-)

  41. Phil C says:

    juanslayton:

    OK, now we are getting somewhere. Let me just tackle the first point you raise. (I’ll try to get to the others after we’ve cleared this up.)

    You quote Gavin Schmidt’s blog post over at Real climate where he writes:

    UK FOI legislation (quite sensibly) specifically exempts unpublished work from release provided the results are being prepared for publication. So McIntyre’s appeals have tried to insinuate that no such publication is in progress (which is false) or that the public interest in knowing about a regional tree ring reconstruction from an obscure part of Siberia trumps the obvious interest that academics have in being able to work on projects exclusively prior to publication.

    I’ve included the entire sentence, as well as the preceding one, which I think is important context in this case, as what is at issue here is an FOI request.

    Is your purpose in raising the above quotation to address the “disinformation” or “dumb mistake” which of the following:

    a. UK FOI legislation does NOT exempts unpublished work
    b. McIntyre’s was fully aware that a publication is in progress
    c. The public interest in knowing about a regional tree ring reconstruction does indeed trumps the interest that academics have in being able to work on projects exclusively prior to publication.

    My guess is that you think there’s something wrong with “b” (hint: you italicized it), but I don’t see what’s at issue here. What’s going?

  42. RACookPE1978 says:

    Briffa published his supposed MB1998 results 14 years ago.

    So, you are somehow claiming that he STILL “researching” his paper today – 14 years later, when the FOIA requests were uniformly processed years PAST the printing date?

    Why, oh why, are CAGW-paid so-called “scientists” permitted, even encouraged, to hide their original data to avoid independent “checks” of their results?

    What do they to hide but errors, deliberate errors, deliberate “bad math” techniques that falsify their un-duplicated supposed results. The Mann-Briffa tree list – which was deliberately hidden so their data could not be challenged becomes as real as Rumpelstiltskin’s wooden-tree-rings-into-gold scam.

    A fairy tale? Yes. Because NO ONE has duplicated their results. .

  43. sycodon says:

    Raises Hand

    Seems to me, from what my decidedly unscientific mind can tell from reading about all of this, that the entire AGW theory is largely based on tree rings. Or, at the very least, provides the context with which they can evaluate modern temperatures and make statements such as hottest ever, etc.

    But it seems that the empirical data is very sparse, a few trees here, a few trees there. Then they pick and choose which trees to uses.

    It would seem a trivial exercise to extract core samples from thousands of trees throughout the world. Getting the cores is certainly not rocket science.I also seem to remember from my statistics that sample size is everything, or something like that. The bigger it is, more reliable the results.

    I would think it would be in everyone’s interest to mount an effort to collect ten of thousands of core samples from all over the world, take hi-resolution photos of them and have a computer count the rings. Even that process would be fairly straight forward. After that’s it merely a database and statistical exercise.

    Am I wrong? Why hasn’t this been done?

  44. Why is Gavin even getting involved?

    Since it is Briffa who is in the spotlight, surely he should be responding to what are pretty serious allegations?

  45. juanslayton says:

    Phil C: My guess is that you think there’s something wrong with “b” (hint: you italicized it),

    Well, truth is, I italicized it because it was a quote, not for emphasis. I did consider bolding “which is false,” since that is an explicit claim that the material is being held/developed for publication. Were I a legal beagle, I would object that reference is here made to something not admitted in evidence. Has either Dr. Wahl or Dr. Amman ever stated that they plan to publish? If so, maybe there’s a point. If not, then neither you, nor I, nor Mr. McIntyre can be fully aware that a publication is in progress.

  46. What I think is currently going on this political spring [1] will give new meaning to The Immaculate Deception

    The term comes from American Football where in 1978, the Oakland Raiders made several fumbles in the last 12 seconds of the game, moving the ball forward each time until they recovered it in the end zone winning the game.

    The ball, flipped forward, is loose! A wild scramble, two seconds on the clock…Casper grabbing the ball…it is ruled a fumble…Casper has recovered in the end zone! The Oakland Raiders have scored on the most zany, unbelievable, absolutely impossible dream of a play! Madden is on the field. He wants to know if it’s real. They said yes, get your big butt out of here! He does! There’s nothing real in the world anymore! …. (Bill King play-by-play)

    The IPCC-CRU-NOAA team is going to own that term in the near future. The clock is ticking down to Rio+20 where they hope it will be game over. They must get the ball into the end-zone before they finally get penalized for their recent conduct. Getting what you want into AR5 is everything. Fumble the science by adjust temperatures, change the way to plot ice. Publish through pal-review rather than with true peers; delay and contest FOIA on the flimsiest of grounds. Get the ball into the end zone in time, even if mistakes must be admitted later. Deconstruct. Decoy. Delay. Deceive. But Deliver!

    I once thought that scheduling Rio+20 four months prior to the American Presidential Election was foolish on the part of the left. Obviously, winning November and Rio+20 would be ideal for the environmentalists and Agenda21. But a heavy push in Rio might hurt the Obama reelection effort. But I must temper that notion with the possibility that the left may be faced with the choice of winning either Rio+20 or November, but not both. Winning Rio+20 and loosing November may be viewed as the better long term strategy.

    ….
    Note [1] with the latest by Gavin, Hansen, Revkin, UEA vs McIntyre, Po-Chedley-Fu-Trenbreth vs Christy-Spencer UAH, Romm, US EPA vs Coal, paleotootology, Tuvalu super-moon hype, NSIDC graph tweaking, Climate Change now a National Security Threat, CRUTEM4, Mann+UVa vs ATI, 10-year Global Change Strategic Plan … and these are only from the first “Ten Days in May”

  47. Eric Simpson says:

    This Yamal affair, and the whole hockey stick deception, point to criminal malfeasance. A comment I just did at Real Science http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/intelligent-life-on-mars suggests that the Mars rover backers, similar to the doomsday cultists, are after funding. I like my comment because it rounds up and uses many appropriate synonyms for the manipulative enviro- / eco-nuts, ecofreaks. An excerpt:

    But they probably won’t find [life on Mars]. A main reason: Mars hasn’t had a magnetic shield for over 3 billion years, and gets constantly irradiated. Not good for life. I get the sense that these astro-scientists are barking in the direction of the funding… just like the shameless fear-mongering Chicken Littles.

    Just like the lying full of baloney criminal BS Artists. This is criminal with the doom and gloomers because it is costing us billions of $, and our energy and economic security (lives are being lost thanks thanks to the broken record prophets of doom), and if the Cry Wolfers’ deceptions could be shown to be intentional to a standard of a jury’s reasonable doubt, game over for these eco-fascists once the political climate becomes receptive to taking the Orwellian double-talking Mumbo Jumbo Specialists down.

  48. theduke says:

    Somehow in the bizarre hockey team entrenched mindset of Gavin, this is comparable to the team’s objections to releasing FOI sought data on Yamal. Note to Gavin – my file was already public!

    You’d think a scientist could get this simple fact right.

    Confirmation bias strikes again.

  49. Gail Combs says:

    sycodon says:
    May 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Raises Hand

    Seems to me, from what my decidedly unscientific mind can tell from reading about all of this, that the entire AGW theory is largely based on tree rings…..
    ____________________
    You might want to look at Lucy’s flick graphs. It puts the whole issue up in an easy to understand form. http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif

  50. TerryMN says:

    Agree w/Taphonomic that the article is humorously at odd’s w/Mann’s “largely irrelevant” tweet. Tangentially Anthony – if you’re looking for other coffee cup ideas, I submit this (TM me :) ):

    http://i48.tinypic.com/63zvyu.gif

  51. Reg Nelson says:

    So is this the new way to dodge FOI requests? Release your results via press release (like BEST), but never actually publish your work. The public gets the propaganda and you don’t have to bother with defended the science. Win, win for the “cause”.

  52. _Jim says:

    In the category of “Often wrong, but never in doubt”, Gav in his own words “Spreading the Climate Sci Word”:

    Gavin Schmidt, a veteran climate researcher for NASA, was a founder of the RealClimate.org in 2004. Here he talks with Pace University environmental science students and their professor, Andy Revkin, about the opportunity for scientists in many fields to help fill the online space “between the paper and the tweet.”

    .

  53. Phil C says:

    juanslayton —

    I’m still confused. Gavin Schmidt writes “So McIntyre’s appeals have tried to insinuate that no such publication is in progress (which is false).” That very clearly says to me that a publication IS in progress. Do you agreeing or disagreeing with this assertion?

    Anthony Watts desrcibes Gavin Schmidt’s post as “disinformation” or “dumb mistakes,” and you refer to the above as evidence for that claim. So the claim above is that Schmidt, contrary to what McIntyre claims, affirms that a publication is in progress and the FOI request, therefore, doesn’t apply. Are you taking issue with Schmidt’s assertion that a publication is in progress? Is that what this is about?

    (FYI: I’m unavoidably going offline very shortly.)

  54. Heggs. says:

    Gail Combs says:
    May 11, 2012 at 1:09 pm
    ————————
    Thank you for that link, very informative.

  55. Paul Marko says:

    To: Phil C
    Hang in there lad, don’t let them run you off. Although there is an overload of intelligent, educated, and experienced scientists that attend this site, one gets the frequent impression that several have missed out on some basic lessons of civility.
    Based on their vitriol, one gets the impression that these individuals aren’t as smart as they think they are.

  56. John Trigge (in Oz) says:

    But I find it a little rich that the instigator of a multitude of FOI requests, appeals, inquiries, appeals about inquires, FOIs about appeals, inquiries into FOI appeals etc. is now using the CRU’s lack of productivity as a reason to support more FOI releases.

    Gavin still misses the point that data and methodology should be made readily available in order for others to duplicate, check, confirm, argue against and to be able to discuss, the outpourings of ‘scientists’ work and stated results. Without this, they are asking the world to have faith, and that is more appropriate to religion than science. Whilst (there it is again, Anthony) ever anyone hides, obfuscates, lies and generally refuses to explain, in full, how they achieved their results, there will be doubt about authenticity, truth and motives.

    If the CRU had made everything available to those who request it when it was requested, perhaps they would be more productive, firstly as they would not spend so much time playing CRU Dodgeball (dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!), secondly because their errors would come to light more readily.

    “Publish all or perish” should be the catch-phrase.

  57. richardscourtney says:

    Phil C:

    At May 11, 2012 at 1:35 pm you say;
    “(FYI: I’m unavoidably going offline very shortly.)”

    Could you do that for a long time, please?

    Richard

  58. RACookPE1978 says:

    Paul Marko says:
    May 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm (responding to)

    To: Phil C
    Hang in there lad, don’t let them run you off. Although there is an overload of intelligent, educated, and experienced scientists that attend this site, one gets the frequent impression that several have missed out on some basic lessons of civility.
    Based on their vitriol, one gets the impression that these individuals aren’t as smart as they think they are.

    Yeah. But it remains site policy that trolls and CAGW-alarmist are allowed to post and write here, so we have to put up with the incivility, hatred, and bad manners. And, every now and then, an experienced scientist does visit; and – every now and then – a CAGW-pal-reviewed government-sponsored university-paid person shows up to advertise the government’s favored position, usually favoring higher taxes and greater control while the people suffer.. 8<)

  59. omnologos says:

    I too would like a grant that allowed me to publish something today, then hold on to the data and publish something else in 2026.

  60. _Jim says:

    It struck me a little while ago, Gavin is primarily a ‘political officer’ (literally: Political commissar) in his duties at RC. From wiki we have this fitting definition:

    The political commissar (also politruk Russian: политрук from политический руководитель: political officer) is the supervisory political officer responsible for the political education (ideology) and organization, and loyalty to the government of the military. Historically, the commissaire politique (political commissary) first appeared in the French Revolution (1789–99), guarding it against anti-Revolutionary (ideological) thought and action …

    .

  61. juanslayton says:

    Phil C
    No need to be confused. We agree that Dr. Schmidt is asserting that publication is under way. So what’s wrong? Simply this: Publication is a crucial consideration in a formal dispute. In a public forum, the issue is clearly posed. Mr. McIntyre insinuates “no publication”; Dr. Schmidt says “Yes, publication.” To third party viewers, it’s “He said, she said.” An astute posting by Dr. Schmidt would provide some evidence other than the bald assertion that it is so. Best evidence: something from the gentlemen who hold the data.

    Yeah, I’ve got other stuff to work on, too. Have a good one.

  62. SteveW says:

    Gavin should maybe consider the following from Eleanor Roosevelt:
    “Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people”

  63. davidmhoffer says:

    Paul Marko says:
    May 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm
    To: Phil C
    Hang in there lad, don’t let them run you off. Although there is an overload of intelligent, educated, and experienced scientists that attend this site, one gets the frequent impression that several have missed out on some basic lessons of civility.
    Based on their vitriol, one gets the impression that these individuals aren’t as smart as they think they are.
    >>>>>>>>>

    With all due respect, the vitriol comes from two causes. 1) for anyone that has taken the time to look into the facts regarding CAGW, it is the most outrageous and belligerant scam of all time, and 2) we frequently suspect that comments such as Phil C’s are disengenuous attempts to further confuse the issue rather than trying to sincerely understand it.

    The fact that the vitriol is kept to a minimum is a miracle on the part of the mods, for the perpetrators of the CAGW fr@ud deserve far worse than vitriol for the damage they have done to humanity.

  64. majormike1 says:

    One of my primary reference books for all things climatic, “Climate, History and the Modern World” by Dr. H. H. Lamb, has a chart on page 142 of “Changes in the height of the upper tree line in two areas in the White Mountains, California and in the Alps in Switzerland and Austria (From work by V. C. La Marche and V. Markgraf)” covering the last 6,000 years. The charts show tree lines were much higher than present (meaning it was warmer) for the entire 6,000-year period before the present, and in recent periods both charts clearly show the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. These trees didn’t lie, and they didn’t need their rings measured and interpreted as to temperature, moisture, changes in solar exposure, fertilization, &etc. It’s quite simple, really, If a certain type of tree once grew 100 meters above where they now grow, it was warmer then than now. If a certain type of tree once grew 200 to 400 kilometers north of where they grow now, it was warmer then than now. The evidence of the trees’ former habitat is easily determined by stumps and other woody artifacts, which then leads to the comparative ease of determining when they were there through carbon dating. If trees can no longer live somewhere because of changing conditions, they won’t, and have no choice in the matter.
    Concerning tree rings, and in particular bristle-cone pines in the White Mountains of California, Professor V. C. La Marche at the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research at my alma mater, University of Arizona, Tucson, has constructed a chart indicating variations of summer warmth and/or its seasonal duration covering the past 5,500 years (see page 141 of Lamb). Unlike Mann’s and others’ studies involving these upper-tree line bristle-cone pines, La Marche’s study shows great variation over the 5,500-year period, with six warming and cooling periods including a very prominent Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, with current warming beginning over 200 years ago.
    This is science. It clearly shows that current warming is not unprecedented, but in fact is normal if a bit cooler than recent previous periods of warming. It shows that climate change is normal and has occurred without the aid of humans, or of CO2 instigation, since the AGW believers posit that atmospheric CO2 was stable for this entire period of significant warming and cooling. Lamb’s studies are supported by a robust body of scientific evidence, far superior to the thin, short time period, model-driven body of science that purports to find that an insignificant trace gas rules climate change.
    Only believers, the “natural climate change deniers”, and certainly not scientists, could hold out against such overwhelming evidence.

  65. North of 43 and south of 44 says:

    Frank K. says:
    May 11, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Yes, it’s this kind of manic and confused writing that won Gavin Schmidt the inaugural “GISS Klimate Kommunications Award” for 2011! Heh!

    By the way, was this written during government work hours? Just asking…

    (In fact, this is almost as confused as his climate code Model E …)
    _______________________________________________________________

    Plenty of error possibilities in that ModelE code you posted a link to.

    Some of the more egregious errors are repeated failure to check return codes for error conditions, that is a programing 101 screw up.

  66. ferd berple says:

    dp says:
    May 11, 2012 at 9:08 am
    Why the truth matters:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/05/an-inconvenient-lawsuit-teenagers-take-global-warming-to-the-courts/256903/
    ================
    That is an excellent suit. The EPA has already handed the plaintifs the ammunition, by declaring the last IPCC report sound as a basis for EPA rules, which has been largely upheld by the courts. If the suit goes forward, they will effectively be able to shut down industry in the US.

    This clearly showns the danger in establishing a lie as fact. Once the courts start upholding the lie as though it was fact, there is no end to the damage that can result.

  67. ferd berple says:

    majormike1 says:
    May 11, 2012 at 5:08 pm
    These trees didn’t lie,
    ===
    Try and post this on RC. RC couldn’t care less about the truth. Any science that doesn’t uphold AGW must be wrong. Any science that upholds it must be right. The models say it must be so.

  68. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @Paul Marko

    One gets the impression you have nothing to say.

    @Supporter’s of Gavin’s whinge about the CRU getting tied up in requests for basic information

    Gavin’s entire argument/whinge about McIntyre seeking data and methods that underlie a publication that proffers claims the climate is being disrupted by CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel should not be there. It would never have been something to talk about because the root cause, obfuscation and deliberate frustration of those trying to examine the remarkable claims, should have been rendered moot by providing the data and methods in the first place, just like one is expected to do when publishing scientific papers.

    This is not a new argument. The data and methods should have been archived and the code needed to produce the results shared with anyone who wanted to check that the claims are valid. The presumption now is that these have not been provided because there is someting to hide, and that presumption is reasonable. The illegal suppression and, apparently, plans to delete the data rather than let it go public is further evidence that there is something to hide – that ‘something’ being fraud, cherry-picking, invalid methods, incorrect mathematics or some other defect so serious as to render the conclusions (a hockey stick temperature chart) unsupportable.

    The noise from Gavin is just more of the same old smoke, restated loud in the hope that something will stick. He should not need to make the defence. McIntyre should not have to make FOIA requests. Science and Nature should have asked that the materials be provided to support the conclusions and evidence presented in the paper. Simple as that. It is strange for journals to support such anti-scientific behaviour.

    Perhaps Gavin will have a change of heart and ask Mann and Briffa to provide the materials and put them on his site, putting an end to what must be a very time-consuming and expensive delaying tactic, which in the end, will not succeed.

  69. Mike Jowsey says:

    majormike1 says:
    May 11, 2012 at 5:08 pm
    Well said, sir! Well said.

  70. Frank K. says:

    North of 43 and south of 44 says:
    May 11, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    Plenty of error possibilities in that ModelE code you posted a link to.

    Some of the more egregious errors are repeated failure to check return codes for error conditions, that is a programing 101 screw up.

    The worst part of Model E for me is that Gavin refuses (for whatever reasons) to properly DOCUMENT it! For example, there is no place that I have found where they state exactly what differential equations are being solved by the different modules. Incredible! No mention of the various numerical methods either outside of very terse and useless descriptions (i.e. no equations, stability constraints, discretizations, algorithms etc.).

    Yet this is one of the codes which is being used by the IPCC to predict project doom and catastrophe! And they are getting millions of dollars to supposedly develop them…(including stimulus(!) funds – do you remember the stimulus of 2009? Guess who got a BIG chunk of money?).

  71. markx says:

    Dang.

    This seems to me an incredibly simple matter.

    In a debate over the value of his publication, if a scientist is very sure of his ground, why would he NOT make available his data?

  72. Latimer Alder says:

    @crispin in waterloo

    Perhaps Gavin will have a change of heart and ask Mann and Briffa to provide the materials and put them on his site, putting an end to what must be a very time-consuming and expensive delaying tactic, which in the end, will not succeed.

    Assuming that they still have them and can find them again. Perhaps they asked Phil Jones to look after them while they went out for coffee one day and they escaped from his care to be irretrievably lost. Maybe the dog ate them. Or the cleaner chucked them. It could be that they just came to mann in a dream anyway, or that Keef found them on (now lost) tablets of stone on the top of a mountain somewhere.

    Anybody from the ‘outside’ might think that looking after one’s data and methods in a professional and organised way would be part of the basic training of any scientist. It seems that climatologists take great pride in not doing so ….which does not endear them to me any more than their other antics do.

  73. Stacey says:

    If you’ve stolen the till don’t walk around with your hand stuck in it?
    Fiddlestick Team please take note? But not the bank notes :-)

  74. Perfekt says:

    Here is a funny movie on the danger of relying on russian trees to make hochey sticks:

  75. edmh says:

    Is Gavin Schmidt bad at sums?

    The IPCC confirms that all the warming since 1850 is ~ 0.7°C and asserts that this warming is wholly due to Man-made CO2 emissions. A trivial check sum can be done by translating percentages of the ~33 °C Greenhouse Effect into °C for each active constituent.
    The abstract of the NASA GISS paper http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf states:
    “Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect
    ……….. With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles. In a doubled CO2 scenario, this allocation is essentially unchanged, even though the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect is significantly larger than the initial radiative forcing, underscoring the importance of feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to climate sensitivity.”
    Gavin A. Schmidt, Reto A. Ruedy, Ron L. Miller, and Andy A. Lacis

    Transposition of the above values to °C of greenhouse effect is as follows:
    Water Vapour and Clouds ~75% ~24.75°C
    Other Greenhouse Gases ~25% ~8.25°C
    Other non H2O non CO2 GHGs gases (calculated according to CDIAC) ~1.2% ~0.41°C

    Carbon Dioxide at 390 ppmv ~7.84°C

    Natural CO2 280 ppmv (100% emissions since 1850) x 280/390 ~5.63°C

    Man-made CO2 (full increase since 1850 Man-made 110 ppmv ) x 110/390 ~2.21°C

    As the reported and acknowledged temperature increase since 1850 is known to be only ~0.7°C in total, how can this result be possible. Thus at 2.21 °C past Anthropogenic Global Warming is exaggerated to be more than three times the acknowledged temperature rise since 1850.

    Clearly neither Gavin Schmidt nor his peer reviewing colleagues carried out this trivial check sum before publication. Had they done so, they would have seen that these give a gross exaggeration of Man-made influence on temperature even from past CO2 emissions.

    All other published proportional data start out with water vapour and clouds accounting for ~95% of the greenhouse effect.

    Nonetheless those promoting the alarmist “Cause” expect the Western world to revolutionise its economies based on this type of assertion and calculation. This is the type of trivial due diligence that seems never to be undertaken in the Alarmist Global warming camp. Instead radical and vastly expensive policies are formulated to address Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming. Inaccurate assertions of this nature have been widely accepted by governments.

    These are the climate experts that World Governments via the UN IPCC depend upon and on which the Western world is basing its self-destructive and costly policy decisions.

  76. North of 43 and south of 44 says:

    Frank K.

    In regards to proper documentation and other issues dealing with ModelE code.

    When basic programming practices are not followed I stop reading code and usually call it what it is, sanitize my hands if I handled a paper listing, and try to forget what I just put my eyes and cranial cavity content through.

    Over the decades I’ve seen some interesting output from such code, none of it good.

  77. Tom in Florida says:

    Stephen Rasey says:
    May 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm
    “What I think is currently going on this political spring [1] will give new meaning to The Immaculate Deception. The term comes from American Football where in 1978, the Oakland Raiders made several fumbles in the last 12 seconds of the game, moving the ball forward each time until they recovered it in the end zone winning the game. ”

    Yes, remember it well. However, for those unfamiliar with this incident, the rules were then changed to prevent this from happening again. The NFL does not like those who find loop holes in the rules and use them for their advantage. AGWers on the other hand……..

  78. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @edmh – your points are very well taken. Lovely calculation and quite correct.

    @Latimer Alder – I think the data is stored safely where it cannot be retreived easily. The motivation is that one day, on the chance that there will be a new interpretation possible, it will reappeare if it supports the Cause and the Team needs it. It will be a ‘miracle’.

    We can tell teh data was crunched and omitted because that is how the hockey stick was generated in the first place. It was not a mathematical slip by Mann, it is that he thinks he is so clevah no one can keep up. Briffa is less clevah and got caught more easily. Gavin is the least clevah and the most likely to have stopped calculating once he got ‘support’ without doing the trivial calculation to see what the CO2 influence might actually be, close as he was to be answer.

  79. bernie1815 says:

    Has anyone looked at Briffa’s publication record since 2009? Is it my imagination that he appears to have given up on trees as temperature proxies? If so, how come?

  80. John West says:

    My favorite part of Gavin’s Yamal(y) Yawning rant:

    “McIntyre expressed great exasperation at this point, which is odd because in email 1548, McIntyre is quoted (from Sep 26, 2009 (and note the divergence in post URL and actual title)):”

    ”A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement data url had materialized at Briffa’s website – after many years of effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa (2000).”

    ”To which Rashit Hanterminov responds:”

    ”Steve has an amnesia. I had sent him these data at February 2, 2004 on his demand.”

    ”Thus at the time McIntyre was haranguing Briffa and Osborn, McIntyre had actually had the raw Yamal data for over 2 years (again, unmentioned on Climate Audit), and he had had them for over 5 years when he declared that he had finally got them in 2009 (immediately prior to his accusations (again false) against Briffa of inappropriate selection of trees in his Yamal chronology).”

    So, even though there’s a million and one reasons why Rashit might either think he sent something that Steve doesn’t think he received (like everything except the ones they couldn’t find*) or be mistaken, or lying; we’re supposed to believe that proves Steve’s incompetence or maliciousness?
    Yet ignore, from the same e-mail train Gavin cites, from Tom to Rashit:

    “We must show that the selection of trees was not made to support global warming. The YAD data shows an increase in tree growth and we need to show that all the trees from which we could have selected also show this increase.”

    So, after the fact they “must” show they didn’t cherry pick because they didn’t explore this possibility before publication and either 1) they’ll be exposed as incompetents, 2) they’ll be exposed as co-conspirators in the greatest scientific hoax ever, 3) they’ll damage the cause bringing down the wrath of Mann, or 4) they’ll damage the cause they truly believe in.

    Personally, I like #4 but any way you slice it the e-mail train exposes them as advocates trying to support a theory rather than objective scientists. It’s classic zealous prosecutor syndrome.

    (*) – Same email train:
    ”Dear Tom, attached are yad series. Unfortunately after rather long search I didn’t find data for two trees” (LOL!, and this is what we’re going to base policy on?)

    http://climategate2011.blogspot.com/2012/01/1548txt.html

    They wonder why don’t we trust climate scientists. Indeed, why would we? It’d be like the defendant trusting the prosecutor.

  81. Brian H says:

    Gunga Din says:
    May 11, 2012 at 8:45 am

    (Aplogies for copying this previous comment.)
    Gunga Din says:
    May 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    “Chopping Up Wood on a Snowy Evening”
    By Michael Mann

    What tree this is, I think I know.
    It grew in Yamal some time ago.
    Yamal 06 I’m placing here
    In hopes a hockey stick will grow.

    But McIntyre did think it queer
    No tree, the stick did disappear!
    Desparate measures I did take

    Disparate, or desperate. Pick one.

    If you’re going to emulate Frost, show some respect!

  82. otter17 says:

    The thumbnail picture says it all. This isn’t about the scientific evidence, Dr. Schmidt, or any of that. It is about the economic alarmism surrounding potential solutions to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets, which the National Academy of Science concludes is necessary, by the way. An observer would be rightly be skeptical of such a picture and statement on a blog, and rather lend more credence with a published scientist that is in general agreement with scientific academies/groups.

    http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

  83. Smokey says:

    otter17,

    Please quit linking to the complete nonsense emitted by the NAS. They are not credible. The NAS claims that global temperatures will increase by up to 5.8ºC by the end of the century. There is no real world evidence supporting that wild-eyed conjecture, and bowing down to the ridiculous authority of that ethically challenged and compromised organization makes your arguments equally ridiculous.

  84. otter17 says:

    Smokey says:
    May 13, 2012 at 7:06 am

    “… There is no real world evidence supporting that wild-eyed conjecture, and bowing down to the ridiculous authority of that ethically challenged and compromised organization makes your arguments equally ridiculous.”
    _____________________________

    The NAS has more credibility than you, me, or a blog. They are not alone in their assessment, either. There are equivalent organizations throughout the world, such as the Royal Society, AAAS, AGU, and others that share similar sentiments. Six degrees is a possibility by end of century, depending on human emissions, human land use, and natural feedbacks. It isn’t the middle road scenario, but near the higher end of the scale from a variety of estimates.

    In any case, these groups average out the biases of any one given hypothesis and painstakingly analyze the body of peer reviewed literature on temperature rise and effects. This same scientific process of peer review that builds on further research and analysis has been going on for centuries now. The NAS has made a statement on a credible threat (based on the wide array of research surveyed), and a potential means for rationally addressing that threat.

    What specific evidence do you have that the NAS is ethically challenged or compromised? Are the other scientific groups, such as AAAS, AGU, other national academies, etc, also conspiring in some way? I am quite skeptical that the NAS would screw up in such a big way, while individual bloggers, or you have all the correct answers. I used to think the premise of AGW was a bit far fetched when I first learned about it in high school, but since then the weight of the evidence has swayed me, not necessarily authority.

  85. Smokey says:

    otter17 says:

    “…the weight of the evidence has swayed me, not necessarily authority.”

    There is no evidence for AGW. There are computer models. There is radiative physics. But there is no evidence for AGW.

    AGW may or may not exist. But there is no evidence. Your problem is not understanding what the scientific definition of ‘evidence’ is. So what has “swayed” you is your belief system.

  86. otter17 says:

    Smokey says:
    May 13, 2012 at 9:32 am

    “AGW may or may not exist. But there is no evidence. Your problem is not understanding what the scientific definition of ‘evidence’ is. So what has “swayed” you is your belief system.”
    ___________________

    You don’t know about my belief system, and on the flip side your belief system could very well lead you down the path to ignore all evidence pointing towards a need to reduce emissions, while embracing any source that indicates nothing needs to be done.

    Furthermore, I press the issue concerning your accusation that the NAS and other scientific organizations are ethically challenged/compromised. Evidence there? How did they all screw up, while you have the truth?

  87. Mickey Reno says:

    Smokey said “what has “swayed” you is your belief system.”

    Damn right. And the same belief system has swayed the AGU (who’s ethics committee chairman was Peter Gleick, the NAS, the AAAS, The CRU, the IPCC, Dr. Suzuki, David Appell, Phil Plait, Andy Revkin, The Guardian, etc, etc,. Otter and the others forget what a rush they get when they believe they’re saving the world.

    With people like that, you can get whole organizations, claiming science, but in reality acting as echo chambers, forfeiting the scientific method, presuming one paper clearing a publication hurdle “settles” that bit of science forever, then building to more and more alarming conclusions in subsequent papers, as if they were correct. The science of global warming is truly an astounding bit of psychology and anthropology.

  88. Smokey says:

    You still do not understand the definition of “evidence”. Evidence is raw data. There is no evidence showing that X amount of anthropogenic CO2 causes Y temperature increase. Therefore, AGW is a conjecture.

  89. otter17 says:

    Mickey Reno says:
    May 13, 2012 at 10:13 am

    “The science of global warming is truly an astounding bit of psychology and anthropology.”
    __________________

    You lay out an accusation that all these groups are biased, and a rough outline why you think so, but you still provide no evidence that they are indeed on the whole making things up in the name of “saving the world”. For the NAS, Department of Defense, AMU, etc, this isn’t about saving the world, but about risk mitigation. Common sense ways to mitigate a risk are what most of the rational professionals in science, national security, and energy.talk about.

    The accusation game can work both ways. I accuse you of economic alarmism, thus blinding your ability to recognize the vast majority of evidence for a human element to global temperature rise now and in the future, while embracing any view, no matter how credible the source, that discredits a human component. I say that your irrational fear of economic harm and a policy foul-up is the cause. I made that accusation in an above comment, but I don’t stand by it since I don’t know you.

  90. otter17 says:

    Smokey says:
    May 13, 2012 at 10:20 am

    “You still do not understand the definition of “evidence”. Evidence is raw data. There is no evidence showing that X amount of anthropogenic CO2 causes Y temperature increase. Therefore, AGW is a conjecture.”
    ________________

    Well, without a control planet it is impossible to make a 100% clear relationship. This goes similarly with other branches of science. A substantial amount of research can lead to a strong position, but never a proof (which is what you seem to be getting at, correct me if wrong). This is what the science has done and will continue to do, and many assert that there is enough research to produce a strong enough conclusion that the risk ought to be mitigated. Nothing irrational or lacking in evidence about the NAS conclusion. In order to reverse this, there are a LOT of peer reviewed papers you need to be writing (not citing blog posts). In the mean time, the current state of the science points towards the NAS conclusion. I’m always willing to allow the state of the science to change, but still sticking with what the body of science tells me now. I would love it if AGW didn’t exist, btw; one fewer issue to solve.

    I’m still waiting on your evidence showing that the majority of the scientific bodies throughout the world are ethically challenged and biased. I am skeptical that you have anything that would convince a majority of people.

  91. Smokey says:

    otter17,

    It does not require a “control planet” to show that there is no evidence for AGW. If you have any such testable, empirical evidence for AGW, per the scientific method, produce it.

  92. otter17 says:

    Smokey says:
    May 13, 2012 at 11:07 am
    otter17,

    “It does not require a “control planet” to show that there is no evidence for AGW.”
    __________________

    That isn’t what I was implying. What I said was that it would require a control planet to meet the standards you were apparently asking for. The testable, empirical evidence lies in “experiments” that were conducted in the past, by natural processes. There is evidence that CO2 was among the drivers of climate in the past, and likely the cause for certain extinction events such as the end-Permian and PETM (except now the CO2 is increasing a couple orders of magnitude faster). Furthermore, there are well-established papers such as Caillon, et al, 2003 that indicate that interglacial periods are another “experiment” with CO2. Also, see Dr. Alley’s presentations on Youtube to AGU and other audiences about “CO2: A Control Knob” or “Earth: the Operator’s Manual”. Both are pretty good. So, not controlled experiments, sure, but the best one can do without a control planet. And this is just a small piece of the larger science; you would have to do your own digging for more.

    Alley:

    Caillon, et al:
    http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

    Still waiting on evidence that NAS is somehow compromised. Let me know if you come up empty. No big deal, either way.

  93. BigBadBear says:

    (Oh yes: YAD06 – the most important tree in the world, The global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie etc.)

    Oh right, it’s not about saving mankind, it’s an industry now is it? Very telling use of language there…

  94. P Wilson says:

    Schmidt would make an awful teacher:

    “A bad teacher will aim at imposing his opinion, and turning out a set of pupils all of whom will give the same definite answer on a doubtful point”

  95. Mickey Reno says:

    Otter17 said: … you … provide no evidence that they are indeed on the whole making things up in the name of “saving the world”.

    Well, maybe you don’t consider the output of a GCM to be “making things up.” I do.

    I don’t conflate arguments about sensible arguments about conservation, efficiency, the precautionary principle or risk aversion with scientific corruption and mass bias / groupthink or mass delusion. Nor do I conflate scientific corruption, bad though it may be, with de facto doomsday occultism. But I’m pretty sure in the presence of the former, the latter is enabled, and becomes much more likely.

    As for individual and group corruption/bias, I leave it as an exercise for the you to find examples of alleged scientists behaving as political activists, claiming correlations are causal, claiming they already know enough, acting corruptly against the scientic method, behaving intolerantly toward criticism, engaging in ad hominem and other logical fallicies. If you look, you’ll find many. And if you’re honest, you’ll find bias corruption overarching the entire endeavor called climate science, climate science journals, and professional associations like AGU, AAAS, etc.

    If you get that far, you should have noticed a few cases among the population of mere bias corrupted scientists, of even more radical scientists, who join with similarly corrupt political allies (leftist journalists, environmental radicals, Marxist collectivists) who push mere scientific corruption into full-on doomsday occultism. Look for dishonesty (false death threats, for example), telling terminology such as “the Cause,” and direct statements such as “we’re EFFING saving the EFFING world” (and almost everything said by Dr.David Suzuki). If you’ve been paying attention, you should have already seen their arguments, pretending that their own dodgy science, making future predictions that also get the preferred status of never being falsified, somehow supports without question the notion that radical public policy mandates are needed RIGHT NOW OR IT WILL BE TOO LATE!

  96. otter17 says:

    Mickey Reno says:
    May 14, 2012 at 6:50 am

    “Well, maybe you don’t consider the output of a GCM to be “making things up.” I do.”
    ………….
    ___________________________

    Again, a lot of opinion and subjective views of the science/scientists there. Where is there specific evidence that a majority of scientific organizations, including the NAS, are corrupted? Why wouldn’t scientists leave these organizations in large numbers if they were indeed corrupt? What you describe sounds more like a conspiracy theory. I am skeptical of someone that puts out blanket accusations.

    Turning the tables, is there not at least a possibility that your own strongly held views may be biasing your distaste for these scientists or “radical policies”? Could it not be possible that the science is correct, but you do not want to believe it since it conflicts with your views on these policies?

  97. P Wilson says:

    It could be possible that the science is correct, assuming you mean AGW is caused by c02 emissions. However, the thermal range of c02 is 15 microns at its peak. Once enough radiation has been delayed at the temperature that corresponds to that 15 microns width has been saturated then it can no longer absorb any more radiation, and its saturation window is closed. 15 microns corresponds to -89C, by wein’s displacement law, which is very cold. That effectively means that there is no radiation between earth surface and the higher levels of the lower troposphere that c02 can capture. When it does, since the saturation window closes, more c02 does not mean more radiation capture – in the same way that doubling the amount of factor 10 sunblock won’t make it a factor 20 sunblock -because the saturation windows are closed at 10.
    The 1st 100ppm of c02 does all the radiation capture of radiation in the atmosphere at this extreme temperature, which is around 8% of radiation. More c02 doesn’t increase the bandwidth.

    I can’t think of another analogy, apart from that of sunblocker that casts the AGW thesis in serious doubt – perhaps the boiling point of water. No matter for how long you heat a pot of water, it won’t pass the 100C boiling point at ideal conditions. More heat does not mean increased boiling point.

    in the case of the thermal properties of c02, quite the opposite is the case. Where c02 intercepts heat, which is where it is extemely cold, subzero temperatures cannot elevate the earth surface temperature. temperatures at -89C cannot rebound back to force any temperature increase above itself, and temperatures at -89C are very rare indeed at the surface

  98. P Wilson says:

    above was a reply to otter17:
    May 14, 2012 at 7:38 am

  99. izen says:

    @- P Wilson
    Your claim that raising CO2 has minimal effect on temperatures because the absorption band is saturated was discredited in the mid 60s when Plass et al calculated what actually happens to radiant energy at different wavelengths as it transits through the atmosphere. The work was funded primarily by the DoF in relation to heat seeking missile detection.

    It involves nothing more complex than basic calculus, although rather a LOT of calculus to describe the behavior for all wavelengths over the full vertical height of the troposphere with the changing pressure and temperature, but it has been verified by direct measurement of outgoing and downwelling spectra.

    I would suggest reading the ‘CO2, an insignificant trace gas’ series of posts at Science of Doom (link at top right of this site) for a layman’s explanation, or any textbook on radiative transfer if you want to avoid making silly assertions that the science falsified decades ago.

  100. P Wilson says:

    Even Angstrom proved the assertion wrong way before the 1960’s when he, pondering Arhennius’ notion of more c02 would give more heat, he doubled then halved the amount of c02 in a chamber from a base of what was to be found in the atmosphere. The level of radiation going through the gas barely changed on either case. The wavelength bands are too narrow for radiation absorption. Fair enough, that at the peak of 15 microns, there are wings at either side, but they coincide with the wavelengths of other gases, like water vapour, and where c02 is at its most active, it isn’t active in the average temperature of the earth range, which is 10 microns – which equates to 15C by wein’s displacement law. 15 microns is still -89C, which is where c02 absorbs energy. There may be a slight effect of increasing total atmospheric energy for a brief moment, but to call greenhouse gases a greenhouse effect is plain wrong. The earth isn’t bounded by barriers, so c02 only delays small amounts of radiation from leaving earth, and even then, at extremely cold temperatures. Only a small amount of co2 is required for this effect, and even then the magnitude is climatically insignificant as aforcing. A feedback perhaps.

    That means that if there were no co2, surface temperatures would be the same, but the top of the troposphere (where co2 is at its most active) would be slightly colder

  101. Jim Masterson says:

    >>
    P Wilson says:
    May 14, 2012 at 3:21 pm
    <<

    I tried this argument last year on the following thread and was thoroughly chastised for my effort.

    Jim

  102. Eli Rabett says:

    Adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises the level at which CO2 (and other greenhouse gases including water) radiates to space. Since it is colder the higher you go, this slows down the rate of radiation.

  103. Mickey Reno says:

    Otter17 replied to me with: “Again, a lot of opinion and subjective views of the science/scientists there. Where is there specific evidence that a majority of scientific organizations, including the NAS, are corrupted? Why wouldn’t scientists leave these organizations in large numbers if they were indeed corrupt? What you describe sounds more like a conspiracy theory. I am skeptical of someone that puts out blanket accusations.”

    I think you’re puttnig the cart before the horse. The scientists are the agents by which the organizational bias (scientific corruption) happens. These organizations are groups of self-selected people, wherein groupthink, intolerance for dissent, and other signs of bias and corruption are there, if you’re open to seeing them. Go read the Yamal Yawner thread at RealClimate, and tell me this is a group of scientists that has a healthy view of scientific criticism, that embraces falsification. Go to the AGU journal, and find an article that’s published by a scientist skeptical of CAGW. These are the ‘tells’ that tendentious political advocacy has subsumed real science.

    Otter17 said: “Turning the tables, is there not at least a possibility that your own strongly held views may be biasing your distaste for these scientists or “radical policies”? Could it not be possible that the science is correct, but you do not want to believe it since it conflicts with your views on these policies?”

    I have biases, of course. We all do. I believe my biases on this issue to be more of a result than a cause. I suppose I could be deluding myself about that. But I’ve always had much respect for science and it’s role in human history and human civilization. I just don’t think climate science, its confusion about statistics (conflating correlations with causation), the way science has been pressed into service of a “movement”, with unholy global governance political alliances (Greenpeace and other environmental eco-extremists, the UN, the Progressives, et.al) and particularly it’s addiction to computer models are a credit to that history.

  104. RACookPE1978 says:

    Otter17 replied to me with: “Again, a lot of opinion and subjective views of the science/scientists there. Where is there specific evidence that a majority of scientific organizations, including the NAS, are corrupted? Why wouldn’t scientists leave these organizations in large numbers if they were indeed corrupt? What you describe sounds more like a conspiracy theory. I am skeptical of someone that puts out blanket accusations.”

    To anyone seriously denying the groupthink and social, political, economic (peer-reviewed papers getting published, contradictory papers stuck in endless editing and comment delays), funding biases, funding preferences by government agencies, social feedback pressure by a peer group that promotes within itself, university peer-groups of extreme liberals and extreme bias against capitalism …..

    Please, name ANY so-called “science organization” which has adopted its pro-CAGW “offocial” position as a result of an independent and organization-wide secret ballot vote by all eligible members (NOT a pre-selected group or a “responding to a poll group!” You will find that each of these organization positions has been taken over by its “national leadership” (government-focused, Washington-based) council or chair. When challenged by individuals at national meetings, the “leadership” denounces the claim, but still refuses national level ballots.

    The membership of these so-called scientific organizations has NOT spoken. Only the NGO-chosen directors and chairs.

  105. otter17 says:

    Mickey Reno says:
    May 15, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    “I just don’t think climate science, its confusion about statistics (conflating correlations with causation), the way science has been pressed into service of a “movement”, with unholy global governance political alliances (Greenpeace and other environmental eco-extremists, the UN, the Progressives, et.al) and particularly it’s addiction to computer models are a credit to that history.”
    ___________________________

    See, that sentence just doesn’t sit well with me. When people start going on tangents about fears of unholy global government alliances, I tend to think that the fear of global government overrides a rational view of the science. It begins to go into conspiracy theory territory, at least from the outset with no direct evidence of multiple whistleblowers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Furthermore, paleo-records exists in addition to models.

  106. otter17 says:

    RACookPE1978 says:
    May 15, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    “To anyone seriously denying the groupthink and social, political, economic (peer-reviewed papers getting published, contradictory papers stuck in endless editing and comment delays), funding biases, funding preferences by government agencies, social feedback pressure by a peer group that promotes within itself, university peer-groups of extreme liberals and extreme bias against capitalism …..”
    __________________________

    Again, this type of speech doesn’t sit well with me (evil anti-capitalists and extreme liberals, etc). To me, I see emotional attachment to political ideals (or hatred of other ideals) as a potentially stronger factor in the way people interpret certain science subjects.

    Also, even if you are correct that only a handful of members in the NAS get to sign off on statements, then why don’t members leave in droves if they know the statement is incorrect or based on peer pressure, etc. Where are the whistleblowers?

  107. Smokey says:

    otter17 says:

    “…why don’t members leave in droves…”

    How do you know they’re not?

    Your appeals to authority are getting old and stale. Try arguing the science instead. That would be a welcome change to your head count fallacy.

  108. otter17 says:

    Smokey says:
    May 15, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    “How do you know they’re not?

    Your appeals to authority are getting old and stale. Try arguing the science instead. That would be a welcome change to your head count fallacy.”
    ______________________________

    Oh, I would know since you would probably be the first person to let EVERYBODY know, haha. Plus, the scientists themselves would likely leave in disgust. Instead, we have quite a few NAS affiliated scientists supporting statements such as this in support of the integrity of science..

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.short

    How about some evidence that the NAS is ethically challenged and/or compromised? This isn’t a head count fallacy so much as trying to ascertain why you would accuse an entire organization of poor ethics when you don’t have any specific evidence on that organization. I am skeptical of blanket accusations, and rightly so. Don’t change the subject.

    Your earlier arguments hinged on either the NAS being on the whole incompetent or corrupt. Since you have provided no evidence of corruption, I would have to be convinced that you are more competent than the NAS. Most everyone would be skeptical of this, myself included considering the scientific evidence I have seen. Sorry.

    Turning the tables now, what is your bias, Smokey? If you can put a blanket accusation out on a whole group of people, can I ask a simple set of questions? What views on politics or religion, etc. could possibly be influencing or putting blinders on your ability to see the science clearly and make rational risk mitigation decisions?

  109. Smokey says:

    otter17,

    Still avoiding discussing science, I see. Your appeals to a corrupt authority are getting old and stale. Wake me when they allow rank-and-file members to communicate using membership contact lists. Until then they are just another propaganda organ of the runaway global warming “carbon” cult, and you are their tool.

    The NAS has been infiltrated by eco-ideologues who use a thin veneer of science to push their radical, debunked climate alarmism. Lemmings like otter17 repeat their narrative, never understanding that anti-science radicals have taken over key positions in the once reputable NAS, which has now lost all credibility. A few years ago MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen wrote an exposé of the NAS, naming names. Read it here, and pay particular attention to all of Section 2.

    This corruption of a once fine organization is nothing new to skeptics, who have watched the ethical destruction of the NAS and many similar organizations. Apologists like otter17 either have no clue about what has happened, or they revel in the corruption. Based on otter17’s ignorant comments, I suspect the former.

    If otter17 can specifically refute each of Prof Lindzen’s accusations, wake me. Instead I expect him to fall back on the corrupted authority of a hijacked organization that does not allow its membership any voice in it’s wild-eyed alarmist statements. The National Academy of Sciences is now no more scientific than Scientology, and it attracts scientific iliterates like otter17 along the way. That is why otter17 refuses to discuss the science; he is in over his head. Therefore, he parrots his endless appeals to a corrupted authority.

  110. otter17 says:

    Smokey says:
    May 15, 2012 at 8:56 pm
    __________________

    Still trying to change the subject despite being asked repeatedly to provide any bit of evidence to support the notion that that NAS is a corrupt authority. Just because you say so is not good enough. I also provided some discussion of science above, indicating that there is empirical paleo data.

    When you say membership contact lists, do you mean a directory search such as this? It seems members ought to be able to search for one another and communicate easily enough by looking up their organization’s email address.
    http://nas.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=MEMBERS_Main

    Again, making statements that you assume that they are “another propaganda organ of the runaway global warming cult” doesn’t exactly make you look rational. Also, I am not a tool. Resorting to this kind of speech, I have to assume you concede your original points.

  111. Smokey says:

    otter17 is a clueless tool. He posted this as his claim that members can “communicate easily”. Anyone can see that you must first have the membership list in order to make use of that page. Tool.

  112. Gail Combs says:

    Smokey, Otter17 also ignores the peer reviewed paper showing scientists falsify data rather regularly.

    How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
    ABSTRACT
    ….1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct….

    Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

    As far as I am concerned, scientists and especially the learned societies need to be kicked off their pedestals the sooner the better.

  113. otter17 says:

    Smokey says:
    May 15, 2012 at 9:33 pm
    otter17 is a clueless tool. He posted this as his claim that members can “communicate easily”. Anyone can see that you must first have the membership list in order to make use of that page. Tool.
    ___________________________
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences

    Oh, thanks for the Lindzen article link. Now that is at least something, though not very substantial since Lindzen is mostly conjecturing throughout. He doesn’t have nearly the standard of evidence to bring together for a law suit, and I’m sure American Tradition Institute would love to take on that case (if the evidence were there, though highly likely it isn’t from what I have seen). Furthermore, I believe Lindzen is still a member of the NAS. If the corruption was so bad, why wouldn’t he resign in protest? And even if he did resign, that is one scientist’s opinion of the state of affairs, possibly a wrong opinion. Also, Lindzen associates with the Cato Institute, which could potentially be a conflict of interest. Again, the claim you made was huge, but the equally huge evidence apparently isn’t there. No big deal; we all get carried away sometimes.

    Anyway, probably best we take a break from this. The article comments will probably close soon, and you might benefit from some time to cool down. Take some time to re-evaluate things, understand your own potential biases, etc.

  114. Smokey says:

    otter17 has run out of wiggle room: Prof Lindzen names names, so if he was not being honest, he would be the one worrying about lawsuits. But he is plainly unceoncerned, because he is telling the truth. In American jurisprudence, truth is an absolute defense. None of the conniving clowns Lindzen names will do anything about it besides tucking their tails between their hind legs and slinking away. They have thoroughly corrupted a once great organization, and they will not risk losing what they have done by fighting over their lack of probity in a court setting.

    Like all tools, otter17 is beset by cognitive dissonance. He says, “…If the corruption was so bad, why wouldn’t he resign in protest? And even if he did resign…” &etc.

    See, the tool will never admit that he is plainly wrong. He’s got all of his bases covered: if Prof Lindzen resigns, then Lindzen is wrong — and if he doesn’t resign, he is wrong, too. otter17 is the perfect tool, incessantly arguing, while learning absolutely nothing.

  115. otter17 says:

    Gail Combs says:
    May 16, 2012 at 11:19 am

    “Smokey, Otter17 also ignores the peer reviewed paper showing scientists falsify data rather regularly.”
    ………..
    “As far as I am concerned, scientists and especially the learned societies need to be kicked off their pedestals the sooner the better.”
    _____________________________________

    It is difficult to ignore that which I was unaware. Regardless, I am under no impression that all scientists are squeaky clean. I have seen dishonesty in my own profession, and I’m sure there are infractions within science too, as this study shows. It appears this study covers a wide variety of scientific fields, so your statement that scientists and scientific societies should be kicked off their pedestals is somewhat troubling to me. I see value in this study since it can identify areas of improvement to further hone the scientific endeavor, but to take a strong stance such as this seems quite over the top. Also, the study does not claim that data is falsified regularly, more like a few percentage points.

    Plus, the study seems to imply that contrarian scientists would exhibit misconduct just as often as those that agree with climate change theory. The beauty of the scientific process is that these biases tend to be averaged out since they attempt to critically examine and refute other work. Furthermore, peer review can catch some biases, and rebuttals can catch more still. Also, work that is cited and is built upon by other research tends to show which papers are cream of the crop. Then, scientific academies such as the NAS observe the trends in quality papers such that reports can be collated for informing the American people. This general model has been around since the days of Isaac Newton and the founding of the Royal Society. The NAS has been around since the Civil War era when Lincoln commissioned it. To claim it is completely dysfunctional requires an extraordinary amount of evidence. People do this type of thing in an attempt to discredit evolution as well; they generally fail.

  116. otter17 says:

    Smokey says:
    May 16, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    “See, the tool will never admit that he is plainly wrong. He’s got all of his bases covered: if Prof Lindzen resigns, then Lindzen is wrong — and if he doesn’t resign, he is wrong, too. otter17 is the perfect tool, incessantly arguing, while learning absolutely nothing.”
    ____________________

    Sigh, that isn’t what I meant. What I meant was that Lindzen plus others resigning would be a sufficient cause to take notice. And why are you referring to me in the third person? It seems like you are trying to be disrespectful, but it just seems weird.

  117. Smokey says:

    otter17,

    I quoted your own words. You said in effect: ‘…if Prof Lindzen resigns, then Lindzen is wrong — and if he doesn’t resign, he is wrong, too.’ Heads I win, tails you lose, eh? Sorry, bud, your “gotcha” statement is disingenuous.

    Why should we pay attention to someone who says that Prof Lindezen is wrong no matter what he does? In fact, Lindzen was in the middle of the issue, and a first-hand witness. You were not.

    You just don’t like the fact that a first-hand eyewitness has destroyed your false narrative claiming that the NAS is not a corrupt organization. But as Lindzen recounts, the NAS has been taken over by eco-radicals, who wouldn’t know the truth if it bit ‘em on the ankle. The same can be said about you.

  118. otter17 says:

    No, I said his resignation would POSSIBLY be due to a wrong opinion of the situation. I didn’t mean it as a “gotcha” statement. I don’t discredit all his opinions out of hand, only that I am skeptical why such a huge issue as eco-radicals taking over the NAS doesn’t have more evidence. Lindzen also uses accusatory and seemingly biased language throughout his paper, which also raises some flags.

    Have the evil eco-radicals also infiltrated the AAAS, AGU, AMS, Royal Society, and other National Academy equivalents throughout the world? How about the Department of Defense or the businesses associated with the US Climate Action Partnership? They all support action to mitigate climate change or imply widespread changes. Your insistence that the NAS has been taken over completely by eco-radicals is incredibly far-fetched considering the level of evidence shown. This is a HUGE deal if true. Where is the Congressional inquiry? Where are the investigative reporter investigations?

Comments are closed.