Guest post by Steven Mosher
In Climategate: The Crutape letters we tried to avoid accusing Professor Jones of CRU and UEA of outright fraud. Instead, based on the record found in the emails, we argued a case of noble cause corruption. I enlarged upon that charge at Pajama’s Media . Commenters took me to task for being too soft on Jones. Based on the extant text at that time I would still hold to my case. No skeptic could change my mind. But Phil Jones makes it hard to defend him anymore. On March 1st he testified before Parliament and there he argued that it was standard scientific practice to not share data. Those who still insist on being generous with him could, I suppose, argue that he has no recollection, but in my mind he is playing with the truth and knows he is playing with the truth.
In 2002 Steve McIntyre had no publications in climate science. He wrote to Jones requesting temperature data. The history of their exchange is detailed in this Climate Audit Post. Jones sent data to McIntyre along with the following mail:
Dear Steve,
Attached are the two similar files [normup6190, cruwld.dat] to those I sent before which should be for the 1994 version. This is still the current version until the paper appears for the new one. As before the stations with normal values do not get used.
I’ll bear your comments in mind when possibly releasing the station data for the new version (comments wrt annual temperatures as well as the monthly). One problem with this is then deciding how many months are needed to constitute an annual average. With monthly data I can use even one value for a station in a year (for the month concerned), but for annual data I would have to decide on something like 8-11 months being needed for an annual average. With fewer than 12 I then have to decide what to insert for missing data. Problem also applies to the grid box dataset but is slightly less of an issue. I say possibly releasing above, as I don’t want to run into the issues that GHCN have come across with some European countries objecting to data being freely available. I would like to see more countries make their data freely available (and although these monthly averages should be according to GCOS rules for GAA-operational Met. Service.
Cheers
Phil Jones
We should note these things: Jones sent data. That was his practice. Jones is aware of the problems in releasing this data. Jones believes that these monthly averages should be released according to GCOS [WMO resolution 40] rules. In 2002 his practice is to release data to a total unknown with no history of publication. And Jones releases the data to him knowing that there are issues around releasing that data.
In 2004 Warwick Hughes exchanges a series of mails with Jones. In 2000 Jones appears to have a cooperative relationship with Hughes. In 2004 the record shows the following
Dear Jean Palutikof, Dr P.D. Jones,
I was just reading your web page at; http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ and wish to access the station by station temperature data, updated through 2001 referred to on your CRU web page; http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow as
“Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used.” Where can I download the latest station by station data which is a foundation of Dr Jones et al published papers ? Note, I am not asking about the CRU gridded data which I can see on your web site. Looking forward to your help,
Best wishes,
Warwick Hughes
Warwick,
The station data are not on the CRU web site. If you look at the GHCN page at NCDC, you’ll see they have stopped access and cited WMO Res. 40 for this. To my mind this resolution is supposed to make access free. However, it was hinted at to me a year or two ago that I should also not make the station data available.
The gridded data are there as you know.
I would suggest you take this up with WMO and/or GCOS. I have raised it several times with them and got nowhere.
Cheers
Phil
As Jones points out he believes that WMO Resolution 40 should make access free. Jones also says that he himself has taken up this issue with them. One can presume he took it up because he wanted to give access to data. Further, he knows that there may be agreements that preclude release of the data.
The start of 2005 is a critical point in the story line. Jones had cordial exchanges with Hughes in 2000. Jones shared data with McIntyre in 2002 and in 2004 Jones believed that the data should be shared. In 2005 he has been transformed. In January of 2005, McIntyre published a paper (MM05) critical of Mann. As luck would have it at this time former CRU employee Wigley sent an email to Jones about a flyer he has received that discusses FOIA. At this stage no FOIA have been sent to CRU. But Wigley and Jones are concerned about skeptics. What ever willingness Jones had to share data is gone. Again, Jones shows a clear understanding of the existence of agreements:
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.
At the start of Feb 2005, Jones’ attitude toward data sharing becomes clearer and also contradictory. Some people can get this data in violation of agreements, while others who ask for it using legal means will be thwarted.
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott [Rutherford]. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McIntyre and McKittrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
Two weeks after the publication of MM05, prior to the issuance of any FOIA whatsoever, Jones contemplates destroying data rather than sharing it. But read closely. Jones sends this data to Scott Rutherford. So what’s the standard scientific practice? The data is covered by confidentiality agreements. Jones shared it with McIntyre in 2002, and now shares it with Rutherford in 2005. Jones knows it is covered by agreements and he’s questioned those agreements—except when he finds it convenient to hide behind those agreements. He violates them as he pleases. He shares data as he pleases. And if he is pushed to share it he contemplates destroying it.
On Feb 21, 2005 Keith Briffa sends Jones a mail with a list of editorials that are critical of Dr. Mann for not releasing data. Jones replies to Warwick Hughes’ request for data that same day:
Warwick,
Hans Teunisson will reply. He’ll tell you which other people should reply. Hans is “Hans Teunissen”
I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.
You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia isn’t restricted there.
Several European countries are. Basically because, for example, France doesn’t want the French picking up data on France from Asheville. Meteo France wants to supply data to the French on France. Same story in most of the others.
Cheers
Phil
Jones has changed his attitude about the WMO. Prior to the publication of MM05 Jones believed that the WMO guidelines would make the data available. Moreover he argued with WMO that it should be released. Now, Jones changes his tune. He argues that he will not release the data even if the WMO agrees. His concern? Hughes will find something wrong with it.
When it comes to deciding whether to share data or not, standards have nothing to do with the decisions Jones made and he knows that. He knows he shared confidential data with Rutherford while he denied it to McIntyre and Hughes. He knows he regarded the confidentiality of those agreements quixotically. Violating them or hiding behind them on a whim. This was scientific malpractice. Lying about that now is beyond excuse.
April 2005 comes and we turn to another request from McIntyre: There is a constant refrain amongst AGW defenders that people don’t need to share code and data. They argue that papers do a fine job of explaining the science: They argue that people should write their own code based on description in papers. Here is McIntyre’s request. Note that he has read the paper and tried to emulate the method:
Dear Phil,
In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the other multiproxy publications, I’ve been looking at Jones et al [1998]. The methodology here is obviously more straightforward than MBH98. However, while I have been able to substantially emulate your calculations, I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger in the early periods. Since I have been unable to replicate the results exactly based on available materials, I would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in Jones et al [1998] as well as the code used in these calculations.
There is an interesting article on replication by Anderson et al., some distinguished economists, here [1]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf discussing the issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our attempts in respect to MBH98.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
When you cannot replicate a paper based on a description of the data and a description of the method, standard practice is to request materials from the author. McIntyre does that. Jones’ “practice” is revealed in his mail to Mann:
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE “DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE” SCARE
Date: Wed Apr 27 09:06:53 2005
Mike,
Presumably you’ve seen all this – the forwarded email from Tim. I got this email from McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I’m concerned he has the data sent ages ago. I’ll tell him this, but that’s all – no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be hundreds of lines of uncommented fortran ! I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series. I know why he can’t replicate the results early on – it is because there was a variance correction for fewer series.
See you in Bern.
Cheers
Phil
Jones does not argue that code should be withheld because of IPR[Intellectual Property Rights]. It’s withheld because he is not sure he can find it and he suspects that it is a mess. More importantly Jones says he knows why McIntyre cannot replicate the results. Jones does not argue “standard scientific practice” to withhold code; he withholds code because it’s either lost, or sloppy and because it will allow McIntyre to understand exactly how the calculations were done. This is malpractice. Today when questioned whether people could replicate his work from the papers he wrote Jones “forgot this mail” and said they could replicate his work. And we should note one last thing. Jones again acknowledges sending data to McIntyre. So, what exactly is Jones’ notion of standard practice? To share or not to share? What the record shows is that Jones shared data and didn’t share data, confidential or not, on a basis that cannot be described as scientific or standard. He did so selectively and prejudicially. Just as he refused data to Hughes to prevent his work being checked he refuses information that McIntyre needs to replicate his published results. At the same time he releases that data to others.
That’s not the end of the story as we all know. In 2007 the first two FOIA were issued to CRU for data. One request for a subset of the data was fulfilled after some delay. The larger request was denied. By 2009 it became clear to McIntyre that the CRU data had also been shared with Webster. When McIntyre requested the very same data that Webster got from Jones, CRU started again with a series of denials again citing confidentiality agreements, inventing the terms of those agreements ex nihilo. Webster could have the data. McIntyre could not.
What the record shows is that Jones had no standard scientific practice of sharing or not sharing data. He had no consistent practice of abiding by or violating confidentiality agreements. He had his chance to sit before Parliament and come clean about the record. He had an opportunity to explain exactly why he took these various contradictory actions over the course of years. Instead he played with the truth again. Enough.
I think this sets out a definite difference between science and “climate science”. Clearly “climate science” does not adhere to the normal, standard expectation of science, that all data, methods, materials, data etc. be open and shareable so that it can be fully tested, by people who support AND people who are sceptical.
Climate science is a unique scientific discipline where research begins at the conclusion and works backwards, selectively adopting (and manipulating) evidence to fit the conclusion. Where the hypothesis never changes, but the evidence changes instead to fit the hypothesis.
In short, climate science is NOT science.
if (science) then world = cooler; if (!science) then world = warmer.
Yes, this is a very convincing account. But surely with the recent inputs of the learned societies, this is over now? Surely from here on in, no-one is going to be able to say, I have studies which demonstrate looming disaster for life on earth unless we immediately start spending trillions and do large scale geoengineering of the climate.
But no, you cannot have the data and the code, because… of commericial confidentiality? Or because its too much trouble to get them into shape? Or because I have lost some of the data in an office move? Sorry, you are just going to have to trust me and spend the trillions?
Its game over at this point.
If you want to read a fictional account of a similar affair, 100 years ago now, I would strongly recommend Penguin Island, by Anatole France. Very funny, and it will remind you eerily of today’s events.
As I recall, Jones wouldn’t even release the identities of the stations that he had used. Of course, it is becoming clear that he probably doesn’t actually know what stations were used…
Worse, he knew then and knows now that he is not good at record keeping. Why didn’t he spend even a tiny portion of his immense grant budgets on some archival expertise?
Are there no rules for telling untruths during hearings of the U.K. Parlament and its committees? Is there going to be any legal consequences for Jones telling tall tales or is he just going to walk away with this?
Normally, an official finding (especially in court) of a public
employee having accomplished the thresholds for misfeasance,
malfeasance, and/or nonfeasance are enough for the Court
to order the employee terminated.
Most employment agreements and public employee
appointments include clauses that hold the employer harmless should such a judgment be rendered… no matter what any
“in house” or “independent” investigation or “peer review”
might find or recommend.
Folks or institutions with deep pockets might want to
“lawyer up” if the whitewash gets much deeper.
I am unsurprised that the Parliamentary committee did not ask searching or even terribly intelligent questions of Prof Jones as most of the political world wants to believe in ‘the science’ as it offers the prospect, through the mechanism of spurious and monstrous ‘green’ taxes, of getting them off the hook of the financial mess they allowed to happen on their watch. Political man seems to have learnt nothing since the collapse of the ‘South Sea Island Bubble’, ‘The Tulip Bubble’ and other major confidence tricks over the preceeding centuries.
Jones doesn’t even pretend to be a ‘post-modern scientist’ but has very obviously bent his ethics to fit the demands of his political masters.
Surely the bottom line is that he should go. He is an inconsistent fool and should be relieved of his duties as soon as possible.
Imagine taxpayers around the world paying out billions of dollars annually on this shonks evidence, it just makes my skin crawl.
You want the Truth? You can’t handle the Truth!
One long ad hom, science content zero.
When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research?
Incidentally, who are you Mr Mosher? If you think it’s right that everything about Dr Jones should be public knowledge because it might cost us billion if he’s wrong so his science needs infinite testing, then it’s also the case that if you’re wrong it might also cost us billions and so everything about you should be public knowledge.
Therefore I demand you place on public record all your scientifc notes, workings, jotting, e mails, code (every scrap) and papers for the last ten years. All of it, everything, every last word , figure and number. If you don’t do that i will be demanding it by FOI and I wont desisit, I’ll shower you with FOI request for a decade.
Get it?
Dear Peter.
Steven Mosher is not a public employee and not remotely subject to FOI requests. You really should have some understanding of the process involved.
Peter, what a [snip] reply you give here, you haven’t learned anything and repeat just what you have read on other blogs!
This is a very good summary, and I’d like to add my own thoughts (sorry if this is rambling).
Through the 90s the entire concept of AGW and the possibility that humanity was doing things that could alter the climate was somewhat of a given. 1998 was a scorcher, at least here where I live, and it was very easy to believe that things were changing… maybe even out of control. AGW theory was hitting mainstream, I remember Letterman making jokes about Al Gore claiming that the caveman frozen in the ice had been exposed by “global warming”, and the audience laughed… but after the 98 lack of winter people were starting to wonder.
When I personally first started researching AGW for a business project in early 2002, I was looking for data. I also completely believed, and was searching the internet for supporting data to convince people who were not familiar with what was happening. I wanted the historical temperature records, the background behind the hockey stick, everything. Even in 2002 I stumbled across a few “skeptic” sites but was turned off by them. I mean, you know the drill, these guys were oil company shills, they were in denial, etc. I ignored them.
However, now that I see this timeline laid out, I realize that I was coming to my realization around the time this was all playing out. It seems Steve McIntyre was also looking for SUPPORTING evidence, not a way to damage or destroy the idea. But human nature is more stable than climate… when someone balks at giving you what should be relatively basic information that underlies their entire premise, you start wondering why.
I came to realize that the vast majority of supporting websites were all parroting the exact same things, with very little variation, and not a single one had anything like “proof”. Nobody was doing what Science says you should do, which is to question what you are seeing. I started to notice the liberal use of the words “could” and “might”, and the big weasel words, “scientists say”. Which scientists? Why are they saying it? Are these all scientists, or just two?
I still remember the day I found “Still Waiting for Greenhouse”. It was ugly, amateurish, and I normally would have just skipped past it except for that picture of the tide mark. Having been told how sea levels are rising (living at 3500 feet I don’t see the ocean very often), it seemed odd that an old tide mark was still showing modern levels. Tuvalu not being inundated by rising seas? Hmm.
I looked around for other “skeptics”, expecting (honestly!) them to be slick, oil company budgeted productions poo-pooing the entire concept. That’s not what I found. Remember, I live in an oil city, I KNOW what oil company budgeted stuff looks like. It looks like deep pockets. Skeptic sites were ugly, amateur sites asking questions. The right questions.
I don’t remember where my epiphany was, but I do remember that my realization that the whole thing was a complete sham was rapid. There was no evidence. There was no supporting data. There still is neither. The folly and futility of measuring surface temperatures should be obvious to even elementary school students who think about it. I can have huge temperature differences just a few hundred feet away depending on the breeze, or wind direction, or where I am relative to the nearest hill or valley.
Also, the oceans are the vast majority of the planet’s surface. Sun heats ocean, water evaporates, rises as high as it needs to to lose its heat, and falls back down. This is a no-brainer, really, it’s both intuitive and scientific.
I remember reading some of McIntyre’s early writing, and being appalled at what he was saying. Not at him, but at the sheer audacity of someone stonewalling for data. I understand the need for industry to keep trade secrets, but this data should have been freely available. Is the weather not free?
I mentioned before that my car club had a massive argument once back in the late 90s regarding the best color for an intercooler. Either a light color or a dark color would radiate the heat better, and people fell out over this argument. (The answer is, NO color: painting a radiator insulates it. Although color may have some effect, it is completely overwhelmed by the other effects and thus is safely ignored). I saw the parallel. Yes, CO2 will have some effect, I doubt anyone would question it. But it was soon obvious to me that this was in the same level. The effect is vastly overwhelmed by other natural processes, and can be safely ignored.
At around the same time that this was all going on (2002-up) the “scientists” were starting to get known. There was Hansen, and Jones, and Mann, and Briffa, and they’re all getting something like “famous”. They stopped being scientists, though, and became activists for their cause. This trend went beyond ludicrous after Gore’s movie came out. I personally know people who came out of that movie in absolute terror.
However, back to the topic… what I get out of Jones’ testimony and explanations is that his particular cards, the basic bottom layer of the giant house of cards that is the modern AGW theory, has collapsed. There may be warming. There may not. But anyone who says either way with certainty is either mistaken or lying. With the collapse of these base cards, the entire structure must, and will, come tumbling down in a heap.
Science that is not replicable is not science.
Losing data, fudging data, stonewalling data, deleting data, altering data, each is an unpardonable offense to science. The combination is unpardonable-squared.
So many people have “done science” based on the premise of rising global temperatures, and I don’t doubt that the vast majority of that work was done in good faith. However, take away the basic premise that Jones’ work provided and you have nothing.
There was no such thing as “climatology” just a few years ago, and from what I’ve seen there is still no such thing. There are a few people who call themselves climatologists, and with that they appear to believe that they can do whatever they want as they create a whole new branch of science. But it all hinges on an accurate record, which does not exist. 30 years may be the “standard” for climatologists, but they’re willfully blind if they don’t realize that that is HALF of a long-term well documented climate CYCLE. There are no straight lines in nature, and no trend continues unabated in a feedback system.
I am not a “scientist”, but I know BAD SCIENCE when I see it. And I too want it to stop. It is shameful what these guys have done, and switching to activism was the end of all credibility.
Re: Peter Hearnden (Mar 2 02:04),
No, I do not get it.
There is no one in the skeptics camp that is proposing taxes and pyramid schemes in the billions. Where did you get this idea?
Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
One long ad hom, science content zero.
A recounting of events with regards to a person’s role in them is not an ad hominem attack.
To paraphrase a popular talking point, “You’re entitled to your own opinions — you’re *not* entitled to your own definitions.”
Once we relegate land surface temperatures we won’t need the CRU temperature index (or GISS):
Why Global Mean Surface Temperature Should be Relegated, Or Mostly Ignored
Re: Peter Hearnden (Mar 2 02:04),
I have re-read your post and I still don’t “gettit”. Could you expand further for me please.
“Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
One long ad hom, science content zero.
When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research?”
Mentioning Jones and Research reminds me of Gandhi being asked about Western Civilisation “I think it would be an excellent Idea, when will you start”
As for Mosher being subject to FOI, he would need to be spending public (i.e our) money before that would apply….
“Dear Peter.
Steven Mosher is not a public employee and not remotely subject to FOI requests. You really should have some understanding of the process involved.”
Dear ‘Jeez’,
If what people like Mr Mosher say is wrong it might cost the world billions because climate change science will have been right all along but we didn’t listen to it and sort the problems when we could because we listened to the Mr Moshers of this world. So, therefore, he should be open to the same scrutiny as everyone else in this business – views like his might cost the world BILLIONS. What kind of an excuse for not scrutinising views that might cost us billions is it that Mr Mosher isn’t a public employee? It’s a nonsensical excuse.
Dear Peter,
It is this kind of excuse. It is the law. It is standard ethics in democratic society with laws protecting freedom of speech. It is the way it is. Good luck filing an FOI against Steven.
Can I make a plea to stop this focussing on “open data”. Yes the data should have been made available, but the main reason they didn’t want to make it available is because it would show how bad the data was in the first place.
Anyone who has ever had any real experience of temperature measurement knows what a difficult subject this is. It is bad enough in a carefully controlled laboratory, but in real life, in the real world, with real people … it is a nightmare.
Let me recount one story. In the days when the lighthouses in the UK used to take Met readings, the lighthouse keepers took the readings. Now these guys were paid a pittance and treated like dirt by the lighthouse board – so there were a few people who did the job because their health wouldn’t allow them to do other jobs. And, let’s just say that not everyone with a heart condition would make the regular journey up and down the lighthouse to take the temperature reading – and who was going to be awake in the early hours to know anyway that the readings had been made up.
I’ve also seen the same thing in factories: reading after reading after reading of absolutely perfectly running equipment which when you look isn’t working at all!
There’s also the timing of readings which is pretty key. If e.g. the local temperature is 20C in the day and 10C at night, it will be heating up by 1-2C/hour in the morning. A 0.33C difference thus corresponds to 10-20min. That is an incredible 0.1C for each 3-6minutes. Now tell me honestly whether some station attendant in the darkest reaches of Africa who hadn’t seen England for years, let alone anyone from the Met Office and relied on a pretty wonky sundial/clock, is going to be standing over the Met Station waiting in the gathering heat to take a reading at the precise time appointed, ensuring that the temperature of all the readings was taken precisely within a minute of the hour?
There are good reasons why we automated the temperature readings worldwide – but that WILL have changed the nature of those readings. It also means that there isn’t the same regular check of equipment so that e.g. insects, animals, moisture can contaminate the readings without anyone noticing for long periods.
The fact is this data was never intended for this purpose, and those “scientists” pretending their data analysis can make bad data good are kidding themselves!
Re: Peter Herndon. (March 2, 2010)
Peter, please use a quality dictionary to ascertain for your personal enlightenment the definition of ‘ad hominem’, then use the term correctly and with an understanding of the post you wish to comment on.
“Re: Peter Hearnden (Mar 2 02:04),
Get it?
I have re-read your post and I still don’t “gettit”. Could you expand further for me please.”
Yes.
It’s claimed climate science needs to be deeply scrutinied because acting upon it will cost the world BILLIONS and thus we need to be completely sure it’s right so to act. But, equally, if sceptic are wrong they will have cost the world BILLIONS because we listend to them, you, but you were wrong and we didn’t act. Therefore sceptics also need to be deeply scrutinised. Everything for the last decade they have produced, jotted, discarded, emailed, calculated, coded, everything needs to be in the public domain. I therefore demand Mr Mosher (amongst others) do this – and put it all in a form anyone can understand.
Is that clearer?
Pete (01:47:41) :
Are there no rules for telling untruths during hearings of the U.K. Parlament and its committees? Is there going to be any legal consequences for Jones telling tall tales or is he just going to walk away with this?
And who would you call as an expert witness to testify regarding what is or is not standard practice in “climate science”?
The quote One problem with this is then deciding how many months are needed to constitute an annual average. is a perfect example of why replication based on the published papers is not practical. In this field, there are so many tiny details (infilling, end padding) which have a variety of valid approaches.
The hypothesis of some of the skeptical work is that the series are more noisy than is accepted by the primary work, and that the outcome is more by chance or an artifact of the analysis method.
In order to test this particular hypothesis it is necessary to understand each stage in precise detail. This is evidenced by Mann’s response to MM03 where several errors in the analysis are held up as invalidating the whole paper – but it was the lack of openness which led to these errors.
In order to test the hypothesis that the method or data flaws are contributing to the result, an independent analysis based on raw data can never be conclusive (see the Yamal discussions where there is no agreement). Either the specific analysis is mathematically flawed, the elective decisions made in the analysis are (most likely subconsciously) biased, or the result is valid.
If the whole analysis can’t be questioned, there is no chance of independent scientists being convinced that the result is valid with a high level of confidence (rather than hope/belief)
“Dear Peter,
It is this kind of excuse. It is the law. It is standard ethics in democratic society with laws protecting freedom of speech. It is the way it is. Good luck filing an FOI against Steven.”
So, we’re not all equal under the law. That’s bunkum.
Sceptics should be open to the same level of scrutiny as everyone else. I can’t for the life of me see how anyone could argue they should above a law that applies to others.
If sceptics are wrong but we mistakenly listen to you, you will have cost the world BILLIONS! Thus scepticism needs to be scrutinised as much as science.
Dear Peter,
I struggle to explain it to you any more clearly, but I will try.
A law prohibiting the purchase of alcoholic beverages by a minor under the age of 21 does not apply to a non-minor over the age of 21, such as a 45 year old man who is legally entitled to purchase alcoholic beverages.
A law that says public employees are subject to FOI requests of disclosure does not apply to non-public employees who are not subject to these same FOI requests.
Does that help?
I invented a saying a long time ago.
I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
I think it applies in this case.
jeez
CodeTech (02:14:32) :
“I don’t remember where my epiphany was, but I do remember that my realization that the whole thing was a complete sham was rapid.”
My own journey has mirrored yours. For a while, I played “pick the authority figure”, and surrendered my judgment to eminent men of irreproachable integrity. But I quickly realised that this was lazy, and went in search of corroborating evidence.
I asked: “What is the longest continuous record of direct CO2 measurements?”, “What is the longest continuous direct temperature record?”, “What is the longest direct/indirect glacier record?”, and “How do they measure sea levels – to what datum?”
The answers I got were: (i)Mauna Loa, 1958 (ii)Central England, 1659 (iii) Aletsch Glacier 3200 years and (iv) By satellite, but durned if I can understand the methodology.
Which brought me to my current layman’s stance: (i) CO2’s going up (ii) Temperatures go up and down (iii) Glaciers come and go (iv) Dunno, but I ain’t building any ark just yet.
@Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
One long ad hom, science content zero.
————————–
CRU has just three scientists working on data which guides government policies worldwide and that data is at best suspect. I watched the video of Jones being questioned and anything more like a cornered rat I can’t imagine. This catastrophic climate B/S has got our city into very serious trouble, where a previous city council sold out the city to warmists in the NZ govt to the extent that 104 ,40 story wind turbines are planned for the city’s water supply and last remaining native forest and towering over 2,000 homes. The corruption has been unbelievable. If you think Jones is the victim of an ad hom, just what do you think an attack like this on 80,000 people is??
This kind of save the planet disaster will just happen everywhere if the carbonistas win. Thank God they are not.
http://www.palmerston-north.info
There, I wrote this without a single expletive.
Steve Mosher.
Hi – I suggest you forward a copy of your report to each member of the parliamentary committee.
I agree with an earlier comment.
I believe there is a law about submissions to parliament in the UK.
The committee should be aware of the events that you have described.
Re Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
“Dr Jones should be public knowledge because it might cost us billion if he’s wrong so his science needs infinite testing”
You don’t get it. The reason why his science needs testing is not because otherwise it would cost us billions. His science needs to be testable because OTHERWISE IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
Get it now?
Additional dates to add to the timeline:
-Jones released his station data back in 1993. See here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp020/
-In 2001, he published his Antarctic pressure and temperature data, see here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp032/
Re 3×2 (02:46:01):
As I recall, correct me if I am wrong, Jones did not even release the station list (their identities) and still claims to have released all data and methods necessary for other scientist to replicate his findings. You don’t need any witnesses for that, it should be easy to verify it with help of documents.
Peter Hearnden,
“Therefore I demand you place on public record all your scientifc notes, workings, jotting, e mails, code (every scrap) and papers for the last ten years. All of it, everything, every last word , figure and number. If you don’t do that i will be demanding it by FOI and I wont desisit, I’ll shower you with FOI request for a decade.”
Peter, I have to say, [snip]. We are talking professional misconduct at the very least, before we even get into the quality of Jones science. Jones is a disgrace to science, a disgrace to the office he holds and a disgrace to the British people. He has brought science into disrepute and abused the trust placed in him. But I guess that’s alright with you because Jones is “on message.”
Your demands to Mosher to release “every scrap” are no more than ravings. You flail about in all directions because you see the AGW scam collapsing before your eyes. What the hell has Mosher got to do with any of this? He is smart enough to see the logical inconsistencies in Jones testimony – lies actually – and you aren’t. You think releasing Mosher’s emails would change what Jones has done?
When you write of Mosher “I’ll shower you with FOI request for a decade,” all I see is the impotent rage of a [snip].
Peter Hearnden,
“Thus scepticism needs to be scrutinised as much as science.”
Actually Peter, scepticism IS science – doh!
Re: Peter Hearnden (Mar 2 02:44),
Yes it is.
I’m a skeptic and am very active on blogs. I’m doing everything I can to stop this madness including lobbying my politicians (it worked here in Australia).
I own and operate a video store. I don’t do research nor do I collect data (but I make “The Great Global Warming Swindle” available to my customers free of charge).
What exactly should I be making public? All my blog comments already are. Just google Baa Humbug.
p.s. I’m also having an affair, should I make that public? Will that stop the waste of billions?
Or maybe you are refering to people who are INTEGRAL and CRUCIAL in the AGW debate. People like those who help produce the IPCC reports, (those pesky reports the politicians rely on)
Skeptics have been beating the drum for 22 years now. Name me one instance that a skeptic influenced the IPCC reports profoundly?
@Peter Hearnden
First, you complain that people think, Jones etc. should comply FOI requests.
Then you write everybody else should too be requested by FOI.
You are contradicting yourself.
Would you believe it, we have just moved and I had to register with the doctor and ask for an opinion on certain symptoms that I have been experiencing.
Doctor said, I know exactly what you mean go home take this and trust me everything will be OK, I responded, sorry I didnt catch your name, funny thing this he said it was Al Gore, and again repeated those reassuring words “trust me”.
Today I registered with a new doctor and he recommended that he perform some tests!
And trust me human induced global warming as an entity is not over yet, the UN is constituting a review body (more overpaid out of work flunkies) to review the work of the IPCC because the concept of human involvement in climate change is robust so the words change again, it was global warming then it was climate change and then the science is settled (what science) and now its robust.
For me the overriding issue is what is all the fuss about, climate change has been happening since forever for one reason or another and will continue to do so. Human Co2 remains at 0.117% and methane 0.066%, this is the only fraction that we can have any effect on and with a rising population try as we might those figures are not going to change, they may get worse but long before our bit has any effect (if indeed it ever will) most carbon resources will have expired so – as previously – the earths atmosphere will automatically correct.
Because there is no science what we have is lies damned lies and climate statistics, most of which have been manipulated and fudged and the resulting war of words will continue until our political masters decide that enough is enough.
Whatever the motives of the UN, EU and IPCC really are we may never know but instead of wasting huge amounts of cash on supposed scientists we should divert that cash into building the flood defences and similar pragmatic solutions that will actually confront the practical issues that communities will face whether or not human induced global warming exists or not or are such commonsense practical initiatives beyond simple comprehension?
Maybe both sides of the debate have a vested interest in the continuing farago of cant and humbug that emanates from everyone involved, more committes, more carbon trading, more taxation, it all proves to me that the real issues is that there are too many people on this planet and too many of them have very little of anything worthwhile to do with their lives so they spend it fulminating about who said what and when.
In essence there is just too much hot air and maybe that is what is causing the problem after all?
David Wells
Steve Mosher:
It sounds to me like the whole thing can be described thusly —
From Jerry Pournelle’s site — “Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself.”
Consider Dr. Judith Curry’s recent post here wherein the upshot seemed to be that the consensus amongst fellow practitioners was a resolution to use crayons or speak slowly so as to better “communicate” with benighted outsiders. The obvious answer to this entire situation is “hey, I work for the public, so I’ll put everything online for them and stay out of any politics.” Sort of the I Report You Decide thing.
jeez — Steven Mosher is not a public employee and not remotely subject to FOI requests.
Bingo. I’m still not following how it is that data paid via public funding ought to be hidden such that FOIA is even required. Why is it not automatic that public funding requires a particular standard? Good grief, if you wrote code for DoD in the 90’s you had standards and/or requirements up the yingyang.
>>Peter Hearnden (02:44:40) :
>>Is that clearer?
No. I would suggest you do a little more thinking on the relationship between the individual and the state in a free society. AGW has become nothing more than another government program, one with huge implications for the rights and responsibilities of people, industry and society as a whole, and individuals have not only the right but the responsibility to question the logic and the motives of any new government program.
If AGW is real then the proof should be clear and the scientists advocating this theory should be willing to show all of their data and methods. Given their dire predictions, they have an ethical and moral responsibility. Given their status as quasi-government officials, they have a legal responsibility which they already been shown to have breached by ignoring FOI requests.
Mr. Mosher’s motives, which I believe are an honest attempt at testing the accuracy of the theories, are irrelevant. Your demand for all the information from him or other skeptics makes no more sense than demanding the information from every person who is skeptical of any new government program.
So there we have it. The “dog ate my homework” so I can’t “hand in the work I used to come up with the findings in my climate research assignment”. So, Mr teacher will you still pass my assignment? Mr teacher would rightly say: “No, I can’t since you have not shown how you came to your findings. So, they may be incorrect. You have failed your assignment. Go away and do it again.”.
Hello, the personal stuff starts.
I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science? What has the sceptic case got to hide?
Remember, if the sceptic case is wrong but we act upon it, then it will be scepticism that costs the world BILLIONS!
Anway, like I say, the personal stuff has started so I’ll go and do something more productive for a while.
If the so called climate scientists had been open with all data, codes and models for the last thirty years, no one would have filed FOI requests, no one would have suggested that Global Warming might be catastrophic.
Many thanks, Steve. Clear, clean, concise. It adds immeasurably to my understanding.
Heh, Peter, the world no longer wants Phil Jones and the like to get on with their research.
==========================
:@Peter Hearnden:
1. FOI
As far as the Jones is concerned, FOI only applies to the work they do on the public purse. It applies to all public bodies. It’s back stop that allows the public to know what their money is being used for.
Nobody is suggesting we need to know what Phil Jones does in his private life, or things done not using public facilities and funds. if Phil Jones wants to engage in whatever activities he likes, in his private time, not using public facilities and funds, those activities would not be subject to FOI.
If Steve Mosher or anybody else works for a UK public institution, then those activities will also become subject to FOI requests too. But activities Mosher does privately, like activities like Jones does private, are not paid for by the public, not subject to FOI.
2. Data
FOI is actually a side-issue.
The only reason FOI came up, is because Jones and others wouldn’t release the data – and FOI was used as a means to try to make them release it.
But FOI should not have been necessary.
Both funding bodies (which the CRU took funds from), and many journals (in which Jones et al published), and good scientific practise (ref, e.g. IoP, RSC, RSS) is to release scientific data behind a paper. See for example – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving
The problem was the funding bodies and the journals were not enforcing their own rules on Jones. And Jones apparently thought it was standard practise in climate sicence to ignore good scientific practise of releasing data.
But I absolutely agree with you to the extent, anybody publishing in a journal, or, accepting funding from official bodies, should be required to release their data. That includes Jones, but that also includes Mosher or McIntyre or anybody else – should they publish.
Hi Peter
I don’t believe in God or the after life. If someone tells me they have scientific proof of such a thing I’d like to see the evidence. What you are saying is hey stop demanding to see the proof and oh by the way what is your evidence for the no God theory, let’s see your evidence for that. You also add that if I’m wrong and people listen to me then they are being condemned to an eternity of hell and damnation.
I think AGW is a religion, if I’m to change my mind I want to see the proof and have it tested by open minded people – not fellow believers. I’m not going to believe a lot of old wives tales.
Lawson at the hearing, by Quentin Letts, acerbic and ironic Parliamentary sketch writer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254763/Lord-Lawson-labelled-climate-alarmists.html
“Jones was accompanied by his university’s vice-chancellor, Professor Edward Acton, who provided much-needed comic relief. Professor Acton, a younger version of Professor Calculus from the Tintin books, beamed and nodded at everything Professor Jones said. ‘I think that answer was spot-on,’ he cried, after listening to one response from the terror-stricken Jones.
Professor Acton’s left eyebrow started doing a little jiggle of its own. His eyeballs bulged with admiration for the climate-change supremo. His lips were pulled so wide in wonderment they must nearly have split down the seams like banana skins.
Others, watching the tremulous Professor Jones, will have been less impressed. He may be right about man-made climate change. But you do rather hope that politicians sought second, third, even 20th opinions before swallowing his theories and trying to change the world’s industrial output. “
Re: Peter Hearnden (Mar 2 02:44), Everything for the last decade they have produced, jotted, discarded, emailed, calculated, coded, everything needs to be in the public domain.
How does that advance the science? The respectable lukewarmers and skeptics have been open with their calculations, are not significantly involved in the peer reviewed literature, and don’t seem to have made a significant contribution to the policy debate.
Fairness and even-handed treatment is fine, but why would you be interested to know who has sent me draft copies of their own papers for my critical review? The demands for greater visibility of the inner workings of the team are a problem of their own making. Encouraging journalists to stay ‘on message’ by threatening to cur off their access to authoritative quotes isn’t something that a skeptic has much weight with, only the more public figures in the debate have that ability.
Is it more relevant where Monkton’s funding comes from, or where Pachauri’s money comes from? Which one would be expected to be impartial?
And, Peter, you are wrong about the skeptics costing billions. Here’s the difference. Really, skeptics, who’ve been called denialists, are just agnostic. We do not know the truth, but have figured out that the alarmist case is not the truth.
You will find it difficult to find a reasonable skeptic who will claim that CO2 has no effect. Most say that they do not know the effect, though we suspect it is small. The skeptical case is really not about ‘denying’; it’s about saying ‘we don’t know’. We would like to know, so that policy can be created to spend money wisely.
Well, so much for the symmetry of your objection. I’m sorry you are so blinded by rage and fear not to be able to see what is going on around you. Things’ll get better, I’m sure.
=================
Thanks for that Steven – what we need is a presentation like that in court!
CodeTech – great write up – thanks for your contribution. I had a similar experience of looking for evidence and finding nothing except stone walling and abuse of people who didn’t hold to the ‘party’ line! – That get’s may back up too and makes me dig deeper! 😀
The bolgs and many of the papers seem to have got this all sorted now – BUT – there doesn’t seem to be ANY change in political or governmental policies! – It is so enormously frustrating!
There aren’t any of the mainstream parties I could vote for (here in the UK) 🙁
– sorry ‘blogs’ not ‘bolgs’ LOL 😀
Re: Peter Hearnden (02:56:07) :
Actually, we are all equal under FOIA law in England,
and in America.
We all have the legal right to file FOIA requests for
any document, summary, data, or program held or created by
a public institution or a public employee. There are very
limited exceptions to the “open records” written into the laws
on both sides of the Atlantic.
Station identifications, temperature data, statistical programs
for extrapolating weather or climate trends used by public
institutions like CRU, the Met Office, NOAA, NASA, NCDC, etc.,
don’t really fit into the “exceptions” catagories… and therefore should be open and available.
The public institutions have the legal obligation
to provide this information in a timely manner, or explain why it
can’t. Saying it is covered by one of the “exceptions” can be
appealed for review. If that doesn’t satisfy the person making
the FOIA request, trotting the matter into court is the last resort.
For the public employee or the FOIA officer to furnish wrong
information in this context would be misfeasance, to deliberately or willfully not fulfliil a legitimate FOIA
request that’s is known as malfeasance, and to just
ignore the request into oblivion is nonfeasance.
To obtain work product or documents from a private citizen
requires a subpeona to be issued by a competent court of law
or legislative body empowered to issue subpeonas. As private citizens and/or corporations we have constutional rights
preventing unwarrented seaches and seizures not available to public employees or public instututions in reguard their public work.
When one accepts a public appointment, either as a worker,
a professor, or a reseacher, one has automatically accepted
FOIA as a condition of their employment.
Take a refesher couse in civics, and quit trolling.
This is all really sad.
You so-called sceptics are tying yourselves into knots trying desperately to prove that the intrumental temperature records are wrong, the UHI effects that have been allowed for are biasing the data, that the satellite records are wrong, that all the different proxy reconstructions are wrong, that the temperature data you think are rubbish show the world is cooling, that the glaciers aren’t retreating, that the ice caps aren’t losing volume, that the ice shelves aren’t disintegrating, that the saturation argument wasn’t disproved 60 years ago, that species aren’t migrating their habitats, that growing seasons aren’t changing, etc etc etc.
This latest attack on Phil Jones is the most grotesque example of a witch-hunt since the McCarthy era.
It really will go down in history as a truly shameful episode.
Does anyone here really think that once all the raw temperature data comes to be freely available (instead of just almost all of it, which is the case now), that there is even the slightest chance that someone will come up with an analysis of it that shows something significantly different from what the various satellite and surface instrumental series already show?
Really?
If Jones was recalcitrant in dealing with the numerous demands for data with the aim of concealing something, rather than simply reacting understandably to harrassment, then I look forward to contributors to this blog demonstrating, while making available all your coding and methodology, just what it was you think he was concealing.
Peter Hearnden
You are vicious. Jones is or was the custodian of public data. The FOI act only covers public data. If Jones was looking after it, his first duty was to curate it adequately. His second duty was to use it responsibly, and his third duty was to make it available to others by applying the same standards to each request.
Incidentally I am a scientist and all the data I use, the minutes I write, the project plans I construct, are stored properly on my section of the company server. And the dated notebooks I record my daily work in are stored in date order in my office cupboard. That’s the duty I owe to my employer.
This is not an ad hominem attack. This is a totally warranted critique of the scientific standards of the CRU, are run – in a very hands on way – by Dr Jones.
The stakes have been high in climate change. The appropriate thing to do is to insist that all the expensive conferences, scare stories and spending of public money have some sort of rational basis.
What do you think that basis is, now?
Peter Hearndon — I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science?
As per Carl Sagan — “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
The skeptic position is that Jones Hansen Mann Briffa et al are making an extraordinary claim. They’re asking for proof.
By definition, there is no claim being made by skeptics.
Using your logic, you can make the extraordinary claim that aliens are taking over radio stations via your cat. We skeptics say “prove it.” This isn’t a competing claim that your cat is really after TV stations. Skeptics have a much simpler request — you make the claim, then you prove it.
Dear Peter H.,
Shall we all simply overlook Phil Jones’ involvement in the Trillion dollar Global Warming hoax? He now looks very different than the [old] photos of him circulating among the MSM and the Internet, twenty years beyond his real age, IMO. Rather than getting on with his research, the man in this photo appears like he should be getting on with his retirement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-admits-sending-pretty-awful-emails.html
As to the lack of pertinent truth seeking by the parliamentary committee, you have to understand that there is a General Election in the offing and that no party would wish to demonstrate the slavish idiocy of their respective leadership who are all firmly aboard the Climate Change wagon.
“The quote One problem with this is then deciding how many months are needed to constitute an annual average. is a perfect example of why replication based on the published papers is not practical. In this field, there are so many tiny details (infilling, end padding) which have a variety of valid approaches.
The hypothesis of some of the skeptical work is that the series are more noisy than is accepted by the primary work, and that the outcome is more by chance or an artifact of the analysis method.”
It is possible to use a process of interpolation to predict missing data values if some are missing from a set. The bigger the set and the smaller the number of missing values, the better.
There are standard techniques for doing this as the RSS could advise.
There is a need, when using interpolation to note that it has been done and what method has been used.
Its not rocket science and it is fairly simple statistics.
Obviously the use of interpolation does require some caveats to be inserted into conclusions but, even a full data set giving a result at the .001 level has in a sense a built in uncertainty.
I think there is always a problematic gulf between those who want to have scientific “truths” etched on the fabric of the universe and those who understand that the best you can get with staticical techniques in science is some level of probably.
To CodeTech
“I don’t remember where my epiphany was”.
I don’t either, I used to be a warmist, but about 2 years ago it began to dawn on me that something smelt rather fishy about this whole AGW thing.
I’m not a scientist, but when I was young I was taught to think for myself and to ask questions.
I care deeply for the environment, the planet, and all life including people.
But this whole AGW thing is just BS, pure and simple.
Thank you Anthony for this site and all it has taught me.
Nylo (03:02:30) :
Re Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
“Dr Jones should be public knowledge because it might cost us billion if he’s wrong so his science needs infinite testing”
You don’t get it. The reason why his science needs testing is not because otherwise it would cost us billions. His science needs to be testable because OTHERWISE IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
Get it now?
Well said Nylo!
Mike Ramsey
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) : I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science?
JK: You completely miss the point: The skeptics case is that it is up to the warmers to prove their case and they haven’t, at least partly because they are operating in secret. The skeptics are simply asking for a complete proof which has not been forthcoming because the data and methods are secret.
BTW, did you notice that Jones’ complete case for the A in AGW is because he can’t figure out anything else that might be causing the temperature measurements’ recent rise? Why don’t you start by explaining why this is actual proof of man’s causing the recorded temperatures to rise recently. To help you here is the Jones quote from the BBC interview:
The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) : What has the sceptic case got to hide?
JK: This is a classic debate technique. Accuse the other side of doing what your side is doing. The actual hiding is being done by the warmers’ hiding of data, suppressing publication of opposing papers, asking others to destroy data and refusing FOI requests. Why do you appear to be defending these practices?
Thanks
JK
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science? What has the sceptic case got to hide?
I’m sure that this is the case for published articles. Seve McKintyre for one makes all his work available.
The very nature of questioning the science is inviting questioning of your own skepticism. You put up a counter-argument and allow the original scientist in question to respond, in doing so, you must also allow them to view your methods.
It’s a two way process. This may result in refining and improving the method, it may even back up the original science if your own methods are found to be flawed. It’s only with this scrutiny that the science can be trusted.
Reply: Ok, McIntyre may be a little tough to spell, but Steve? ~ ctm
Mr Hearnden
“Every scrap, every jot…should be released etc etc”
Relax … Its just the new meme/strategy whatever you want to call it. I’ve seen the same question at other places. How come we didn’t particularly hear this argument for so many months, or years now?
The others frantic props being erected are:
McCarthy = Inhofe
Intimidating emails, threats to family, death threats, nasty emails
Both these ideas were simultaneously peddled at the Guardian and Scientific American – the UK friends of AGW. Good fun as long as they come up with creative ideas.
Jones somehow seems to think of the gridded anomaly derivations as a blackbox ‘product’, not scientific values. He is ready to give you the ‘product’ or share it with you, if he likes you. He may even give you input to this blackbox – the station data, if he really likes you.
But he does think, even to this date that the nuts and bolts of the black box – the adjustments and ‘variance corrections’ are what makes the raw data into a product and therefore falls under the domain of intellectual property rights.
“When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research? ” – Peter Hearnden (02:04:34)
Ad hominems are not ad hominems when they are true statements about someone.
The comments about the alleged scientist Phil Jones are valid and appropriate when the individual(s) involved are not being honest or true to the principles of science.
Also, Phil Jones is the one making the extraordinary wild claims soothsaying doom, gloom and our utter destruction with really bad statistics and what clearly is fraudulent science.
Following the principles of science and in particular the Carl Sagan Principle the onus is upon one Phil Jones et. al. to back up their extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. So far he won’t even release his data when asked. Some scientist that Phil Jones is, he won’t even come clean with ordinary alleged evidence. Phil Jones FEARS the scrutiny of his work. In fact he seems highly motivated to do all he can to avoid the scrutiny of his alleged science work. That isn’t a person following the principles of the scientific method, that is a person with something to hide. Now that wouldn’t be a problem except that he’s supposed to be a scientist working for the public; he certainly has been paid by the public purse. It’s time Phil Jones openly proves his case or retract his claims.
pwl
http://PathsToKnowledge.NET
” Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
Remember, if the sceptic case is wrong but we act upon it, then it will be scepticism that costs the world BILLIONS!”
Acting on the sceptic case would mean what? Scrap some supercomputers and fire climate scientists? That would save the world billions, not cost.
Or do you mean that when we do nothing against CO2, temperatures will rise by 6degree C and all the consequences predicted by Hansen will occur? That wouldn’t cost billions but trillions.
Unfortunately, we couldn’t avoid it anyway if CO2 increase had such consequences. Kyoto has led to zero emissions reduction. The thing planned at COP15 would have led to zero emissions reduction – too many nations would have been excempt.
So what exactly do you propose mankind should do? Stop using light bulbs?
OT. Sorry if already posted. Good write up of the enquiry so far: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/02/parliament_climategate/
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
Hello, the personal stuff starts.
I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science? What has the sceptic case got to hide?
————–
Reply:
Nobody says it shouldn’t be placed under the same scrutiny. The skeptic’s case is based on the same data the warmist’s is based on (or at least insofar as they’ve been allowed to see it). But I agree with you–let’s see every email (and I mean EVERY email), EVERY document, EVERY calculation, and the basis of EVERY research paper by everybody involved.
“Remember, if the sceptic case is wrong but we act upon it, then it will be scepticism that costs the world BILLIONS!”
————-
Reply:
Could you please supply a list of the $billions that it will cost if we maintain the status quo? I’m a firm believer that seeing food production world-wide increase ~20% is a BENEFIT rather than a cost. But I’m interested in your list. Let’s get definitive about all this money that’s being thrown around rather than running around screaming through the night.
Anway, like I say, the personal stuff has started so I’ll go and do something more productive for a while.
—————
Reply:
I can see your Main Man has taken a big hit here, Peter. I can’t for the life of me see how Global Warming is going to survive this expose`. But to be fair, I’d like to see Lord Monckton, Mr. McIntyre, or Mr. Mosher take the stand and explain their take on the subject, too. You ask for both sides; you should get both sides. I’d also like to see Al Gore take the examination chair and explain his knowledge about the subject, and while he’s there, also how he’s been able to conveniently accumulate all that $$$$$$$$$.$$ from carbon trading. (Do I detect a conflict of interest here? Will Al Gore last a full examination session?)
I’d also like to have Harry the programmer take the stand and explain his comments in the Harry_Read_Me file. Oooooo… That should be good.
This is nothing personal, Peter. Indeed, responses to you here are far lighter than the recommendations of extermination made by Warmers against Deniers in the past several years. But whether you stick around or not, the bottom line is that the science wreck they call Climatology is about to land in the bottom of the canyon of disrepute. My biggest complaint is why wasn’t this miserable excuse for science discovered on the first $billion spent? Who are the so-called “geniuses” that have perpetrated this fraud and who are the enablers that have allowed it to continue? I’m sure the lawyers will want names, dates, places, expense accounts, travel schedules, emails, documents, databases, etc. etc. etc. Oh, they’re going to have fun! The discovery process should be enlightening.
By all means, open disclosure of everything is exactly what you and I want. On both sides.
I’m thinking there aren’t too many skeptics that will dance around the issue like the warmers will.
You want Mann’s records? How about Trenberth’s? How about Hansen’s? You do? Great!
So do I.
We’ve spent at least $50 billion so far accumulating what we have; certainly another $0.1 billion should be sufficient to open all the records. B’golly, it would only be cricket.
We might even find the status quo and the direction the earth is heading is actually beneficial to humanity. You’re going to hear opinion you’ve never been allowed to hear before.
I’m sure we’ll both come away enlightened.
Quote of the day:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/03/quote-of-day-030210.html
Superb piece. Clear. Thorough. Irrefutable. An elucidation of Professor Jones’s (mal)practice which cuts through the clutter. Nothing is vague. There is no innuendo or editorializing to distract from the establishment of the facts. And all done without any grinding of axes. An invaluable contribution to our understanding of the process that we now call Climategate.
The approach here is so well-structured and transparent that if Professor Jones feels himself wronged or misrepresented in any way he will have no difficulty in setting the record straight because Dr. Mosher presents that record so straightforwardly. Therefore natural justice is well served.
@Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
Excellent idea. May I suggest taking a good course in logic where you can argue these same points with the professor? Or is that too “personal?”
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe ALL of the skeptics information has been built up from the scraps that the proponents of AGW (“scientists”, Jones et al) sloppily allowed to fall from feeding trough where they were busily stuffing their faces.
Bits and pieces fell through the cracks and were pieced together by numerous, and intially unknown persons from differing backgrounds.
Careful what you ask for: the trail from S. Mosher’s dust bin would most likely lead right back to the key players in this scandalous debacle, Jones, Mann, Briffa, et al.
The key point here is not who is right or who is wrong. The key point is this: is the science right, when did they know it, and why did they lie, cheat and obstruct to try and hide it. Points to which Mr. Mosher has provided us with excellent information. Do you REALLY want all his info, sound to me like he had been holding back.
The piece about the spaghetti Fortran immediately holes the project (any) below the water line. As an ex Gov (UK) Lead Auditor/Assessor on Software QA and related systems I can easily say that reliance on any data/info output from such software tool(s) fails. A number of documents must exist either side of software to qualify it (integrity) with regular assessment. Having over dosed on this Climate scam for too long I have always suspected the process part of this subject. From my experience the last place our Gov employs is its own former research base (not Uni) for software support. Hence I note many major software project (and IT) failures throughtout OGD over some 20 years that would have been identified early. Its a project control issue all the way through and there is no way I would trust a bunch of Uni’s and Gov to handle that. On this occasion we are talking Planet..not NHS/Air Traffic Control stuff although the latter are both safety critical. I hope WUWT et al will ensure that this project is forever sunk or at least independantly and impartially reviewed..some doubt that that will happen?
Vincent (03:06:46) :
Peter Hearnden,
“Thus scepticism needs to be scrutinised as much as science.”
Actually Peter, scepticism IS science – doh!
I have to say with all due respect, Peter, Vincent & others are absolutely right. If somebody puts forward a scientific theory of how something does or does not work, then it is up to that person to provide all the evidence to support that case, not to provide some it, lots of it, or only a small part it, they must provide all the evidence. If they do not, then they lay themselves completely wide open to charges of fraudulent science, it’s that simple. It is not up to the sceptical scientist to put forward a counter theory per se but to be convinced by the argument put by the proponent, without all the evidence there is little or no argument!
Anyway, so far so good in Parliament, but being a grumpy old cynical so’n’so the words, wash, white, carpet, under, & sweep, all reside at the back of my mind! On a slightly different note, I do not like to see people bullied, or intimidated to the point of distress, but if Prof Jones is culpable of malfeasance, then he should be given little quarter over this issue, considering virtually the entire contemporary AGW base is founded upon his teams work. Whilst I feel sorry in part for Prof Jones if he has suffered great stress as a result of this upheaval, that sorrow is tempered by the thought of all the stress he & his team have subjected anyone who did not follow their “teachings”! It will be interesting to see if any come out of the woodwork to testify of such treatment! Quid-pro-quo, etc!
And the house of arrogance comes tumbling down. Looks to me like Jones will turn on his friends soon, and the dominos will start to fall. He does not look like Mann, who can lie to himself and others for all eternity without missing a step
My work emails and internet activity are logged by my employers, of course. I have no qualms over that.
Likewise ex-scientist Phil Jones should have no qualms over his employers – that’s us, the taxpayers – being able to see what he has been up to. His gaunt look shows he has realised his last 20 or 30 years of his career have been an unscientific sham and he will be notorious in decades to come for his poor science, cover-up, and now the lying about it all.
I think Peter Hearnden is yet again playing his game of distraction when he knows it is clear the AGW scam is being exposed. His illogical arguments seem to be a clear avoidance of the issues.
Good post.
It illustrates how Jones changed from a normal, even seemingly proper, scientist to a paradigm-warrior. A result, I believe, of him simply being unable to deal with all the sudden scrutiny of his work.
On the AGWH crowd in general: They knew that the evidence for their hypotheses was flimsy and inconclusive, at best. They knew that if their methodology were to be properly evaluated, eyebrows would be raised. Finally, I presume that none of them (Jones included) wanted to be the ‘weak link’ that would break down the suddenly gained status and creditibility of ‘climate science’ and propel it back to obscurity.
In addition, I’m sure that they were (and still are) convinced that they are saving the world… or at the very least, saving some polar bears. ‘Noble cause corruption’ indeed.
I think I’ll go with Napoleon on this one:
“Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be attributed to incompetence”
..but incompetence it is. And now that the pus is coming out, it is surely time to quit equating climate science and the robustness of its conclusions to that of settled scientific disciplines.
Pete (01:47:41) :
Contempt of Parliament? Although I’m not sure if Jones’ truth-massage is (or ought to be) severe enough for this to be applicable.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=95
Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
First, Mosher’s post is no ‘ad hominem’. He addressed a clear inconsistency between Jones’ statement to Parliament and well-documented facts. As a matter of fact, I think Mosher is being quite generous in his sketching of the motives involved.
Second, there are many scientists who have serious issues with the methodology underpinning Jones’ work. In particular, the amount of ‘opinion’ injected into data, or ‘facts’, is often unclear. Given the prominence and perceived importance of his scientific output, not only for policy (e.g. ‘Unprecedented warming!’) but also for a whole lot of research building upon his data, until these issues are addressed, one cannot simply ‘get off his back’ and ‘let him go on with his research’.
This might be tough on Jones, personally, but that comes with the territory (and the spotlight, and large amounts of public research funds…).
Peter Hearnden (02:56:07) :
?
The use of FOIA requests to get the data would have been unnecessary, had the Hockey clique followed settled practice in empirical sciences and simply posted all their data, codes and methods. The fact that they claim that this is ‘standard practice’ in climate science, is the most worrying element of that entire testimony.
If you take a good look at sites of skeptics, such as McIntyre, you will find all of his methods etc. available. If something is missing, I’m sure he will email it to you. Note that he will do probably do that without receiving millions in public research funds, obliging him to disseminate that information.
As for your last claim (i.e. the ‘BILLIONS’!); the fact that something ‘might’ happen, doesn’t mean that it will. First we need credible evidence that the probability of it happening is in fact significant, which, in spite of all the huffing and puffing, is still missing. Besides, you are disregarding the very high (humanitarian) costs associated with unnecessary action based on the (false) AGWH premise, as well as the opportunity costs of such actions in general.
Peter – deep, cleansing breath. The beauty of the blogs is that all of this is documented, no FOI required.
Steve M merely recounts for you a publically available timeline to highlight the fact that Phil Jones may have perjured himself (was this sworn testimony?) when he described ‘standard scientific practices’.
Its just that simple. Nothing else.
And really – it isn’t at ALL unreasonable (for something of this import) to have someone – PARTICULARLY a sceptic – check your calculations and come to the same conclusion. But as it stands – we cannot do so.
Scientists show their work, and even offer the negative tests to disprove their hypotheses. They should welcome this call for openess.
If they’re scientists.
The point has been made over and over by Lord Monckton and, for that matter Professor Lindzen, (both of whose data and calculations are clearly set out or referenced in their papers) that even if every word of the alarmists temperature predictions were accurate, proceeding down the path suggested would be disastrous. Adaptation if and when required (and it has always been required in higher or lower degrees) is the only sensible course. So no, even if the sceptics are wrong it is still RIGHT not to sink billions in ridiculous, half baked, panicked mitigation schemes which are, in any case, merely a cover for a political transfer of power.
I can’t blame Phil for being nervous. He’s the poster boy for bad science, and the politicians in whose service he laboured are going to blame bad science for their failure to grasp worldwide power through carbon control. He’s just a sad little poor scientist who will end up the scapegoat, and the monsters who promoted this scare will skate.
Yep, I’d flutter my hands before my face, too.
==============
Steven Mosher
Thanks Steve, a very to the point post.
Every time I reflect and want to cut these guys some slack,
they say or do something that destroys that feeling in me.
Here is a link to an interview with Mann that has all but sealed
my opinion of the whole crowd. This is a long interview (40 min)
“Michael Mann – Unprecedented Attacks on Climate Research”
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/mp3_stream/myWimpy.html
steven,
You assert that Jones’ attitude changed with the publication of MM05, but you are forgetting one very important event from 2005: Congressman Barton’s fishing expedition into the lives of climate scientists, which was essentially an attack on scientists (remember that Barton wanted not just details on the science, but details about the personal lives of Mann and others.)
Whether McIntyre was working closely with Barton or not–he seemed to be. So why would scientists share data with someone perceived as being part of the witch hunt against them? Thus, Jones started treating McIntyre differently, and while he may not have been justified in his actions, they are certainly understandable given the circumstances.
Peter Heardon:
“If what people like Mr Mosher say is wrong it might cost the world billions because climate change science will have been right all along but we didn’t listen to it and sort the problems when we could because we listened to the Mr Moshers of this world. So, therefore, he should be open to the same scrutiny as everyone else in this business – views like his might cost the world BILLIONS. What kind of an excuse for not scrutinising views that might cost us billions is it that Mr Mosher isn’t a public employee? It’s a nonsensical excuse.
”
If only someone of the hundreds of governmentally-paid for research studies had a conflicting view to “mainstream” climate science, so that you could issue FOI requests to them…
And that’d be GRAND, because it would mean that the money was going toward fully understanding the issues from all angles. Perhaps some enterprising young scientist can get funding to do just that, now that the orthodoxy is broken.
And Dr. Jones is fully capable of asking Mr. Mosher for information, and trying to discredit his work. I seriously doubt that Mr. Mosher would be anything but forthcoming. FOI requests wouldn’t be neccessary, unlike the crew with something to hide.
“He does not look like Mann, who can lie to himself and others for all eternity without missing a step”
The key to really getting away with a lie is somehow to convince yourself it’s true. Jones evidently doesn’t. Look at how ill he is looking with the realisation of what he’s been up to the last few decades.
Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
He’s got to be trying out stuff for some sort of comedy review doesn’t he?…
Oh… I see from the followups that he is serious.
Well, a particular biblical quote (perhaps paraphrase) seems relevant
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
(and mate, at this point you must be really really trying hard not to see)
Re the so called “science” and the so called “research”.
another old saying comes to mind.
“I may be cabbage looking, but I am not green”
cheerio
Jim
Peter:
“If sceptics are wrong but we mistakenly listen to you, you will have cost the world BILLIONS! Thus scepticism needs to be scrutinised as much as science.”
Hi Peter. Whether you like it or not, or think it’s a good idea or not- rigorous and normal scientific scepticism as applied to climate science actually helps scientific understanding of climate. I’ve seen enough sceptical scientists here admit their mistakes- I’ve never seen a pro AGW scientist admit their mistakes…
This quote best sums it up I think-
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know.
It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
” Veronica (03:29:41) :
Peter Hearnden
You are vicious. ”
No I’m not (and this is not about me or my character) but I suspect nothing will convince you otherwise?
R.S.Brown (03:29:11) :
No, I’m not trolling, I’m asking question that I think need answers. Again, I suspect nothing will convince you otherwise either but it happens to be the truth.
Boris 4:25:50
The Barton Committee came about because the Piltdown Mann’s Hockey Stick was crook’d, not because of any sort of ‘attack on science’ as envisioned in Deep Climate’s deeply paranoid head.
===================
The main point Mr Mosher makes is very important to push out there right now.
Much press gives it that Jones consistently refused requests for his data.
Such a claim can be defended by policy, rules, protocol and even by the lesser crime of not wanting others to take a royal road to publication by lifting all CRUs hard work.
Mosher’s point is that Jones inconsistently refused requests for his data.
This is a lot harder to defend especially when clear patterns start to emerge in the inconsistency.
There is an irony here which is delightfully delicious for me. For years the alarmists castigated skeptics by accusing them of believing in a worldwide conspiracy of scientists. Now that that conspiracy is revealed for the world to see, the response of the alarmists is to accuse the skeptics of belonging to a worldwide conspiracy.
You can see such stark raving paranoia from many of the most rabid alarmists. In the US that paranoia is still supported by the mainstream press, but too many of the public are getting wise to the madness. As I told Phil Plait, I pity Naomi Oreskes for her paranoia, and I feel sorry for Jeffrey Sachs for his fear.
There is so much pathology.
===========
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) : states…
“I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science? What has the sceptic case got to hide?”
Hum?, first of all if the climate scientists had released their data and metadata, as requested years ago, there would have been no need for the e-mails to be released. As far as I know S. Mosher is not proposing anything, and his questions are very upfront, so what are you trying to decipher by your absurd proposal, what would you hope to gain? Third, the proposals for preventing CAGW will, for certain, cost trillions of dollars and disrupt billions of lives, and without India and China fully aboard with like measures, achieve virtually no effect; and the benefits of doubled CO2 (which are known) may out weigh the negative consequences (which are ifs and maybes), we simply do not know, we just know we have certain costs, with very uncertain results, this equalls bad policy. Fourth, the skeptics such as M&M, do make their data available, or have you not been paying attention.
“Remember, if the sceptic case is wrong but we act upon it, then it will be scepticism that costs the world BILLIONS!.”
I think you mean, if we choose not to act, unless you consider non action, to be action, which is sort of like considering cooling to be warming (-: See above for policy comments. The precautionary principal does not apply for the case of CAGW.
And fifth, the skeptic case is science also, indeed more so, as the e-mail release shows.
Jones opened his mouth a couple of times during yesterday’s hearing to change feet.
Gaz — You so-called sceptics are tying yourselves into knots trying desperately to prove that the intrumental temperature records are wrong… [snip]”
You’re confused and a bit like that Peter guy. The job of warming advocates is to prove their case. Skeptics doubt their case. Skeptics don’t disprove, they merely ask for proof.
That the temperature seems to be rising is self-evident; the Thames used to freeze up as did the Hudson. No longer. However, before the cooling of what’s called the Little Ice Age (LIA) occured, these rivers did not freeze. Vikings were farming Greenland; England had a great deal of viticulture; even today it’s still too cold for these things. These are all things known from historical written record, archaeology, etc.
Knowing this, it is therefore logical to ask whether or not the rising temps are natural recovery from the LIA, part of a natural cycle, etc. It is up to the warming advocates, who claim that it isn’t natural, to provide proof that rising temps are not natural. It is not up to the skeptics to prove otherwise; by definition skeptics are simply demanding the extraordinary proof that is required for an extraordinary claim. Warming advocates are making the claim. Skeptics are not. The burden of proof belongs to the claimant.
Regarding proof, the IPCC output is riddled with editorials from eco-groups touted as ‘scientific evidence’ mixed with a series of papers of unknown quality given that much of the source of these is hidden. In this day and age, proof doesn’t consist of editorials, opinions, and graphs derived from mysterious and shrouded data and/or methods. In recent months it is being demonstrated unequivocally that what has been claimed as proof is actually nothing of the sort.
So where does that leave us?
Most of the skeptical community would like little more than to remove the secret witch doctor mask from the process. (This is the 21st century, not medieval Europe.) If the world is warming due to man, then it will be proven OPENLY and we’ll deal with it. But no back room stuff, no hidden data, no secret deals.
On a personal note, the advocate’s argument sounds eerily similar to that which is in Ken Follet’s Pillars Of The Earth where medieval priests are convinced of their obviously superior knowledge of medicine (because they studied Galen!) and using this authority like a club to ban (working) practices like washing hands in vinegar between patients because it’s unscientific (not what they learned.)
At least when the Mayan priests scared the populace into submission via lunar eclipse prediction they were using knowledge. Jones, Hansen, Mann, Briffa — less trustworthy than Mayan shamans.
“As before the stations with normal values do not get used.”
There must be millions of normal values pushed aside to just allow the abnormal values and not incorporating these would make value left look more menacing.
These people know exactly what they are doing and expected to have free funding without anyone reviewing their raw data.
Why would anyone? The umbrella of the UN is protected information.
To alter or destroy any science is to manipulate it to your own means!
This creates many believers that are manipulated and hard to sway back as it was published and must be true then.
Gaz @ 3:29:38
You have put your finger on the real crime of the alarmists. Truly, we no longer know what we know or don’t know. Had they not blindly insisted on the settledness of the science, we might have made real progress toward the truth rather than chasing the chimera of carbon demonization.
================
How many FOI requests did they get? It seems to me the relevance of the ‘make work’ FOI requests is proportional to the number they received. If they received 5,000 with McIntyre’s being just one, to which they have to respond to emails, taylor the data to the requests, etc. then that is something to talk about. Does anybody know the numbers of requests we are talking about?
2 FOI requests is not ‘make work’. Thx
REPLY: Sixty FOI requests, most for the same thing, which could have been satisfied under a blanket release. – A
Gaz (03:29:38) :
This is all really sad.
You so-called sceptics are tying yourselves into knots trying desperately to prove that the intrumental temperature records are wrong, the UHI effects that have been allowed for are biasing the data, that the satellite records are wrong, that all the different proxy reconstructions are wrong, that the temperature data you think are rubbish show the world is cooling, that the glaciers aren’t retreating, that the ice caps aren’t losing volume, that the ice shelves aren’t disintegrating, that the saturation argument wasn’t disproved 60 years ago, that species aren’t migrating their habitats, that growing seasons aren’t changing …
What’s really sad is that you forgot to add “that the sea level hasn’t risen 20 feet since 1989, that millions of species are going extinct every year, that dozens of Force 5 hurricanes have been lashing the Gulf Coast every year since An Inconvenient Truth came out, and that Teh Earth is going to explode like a kitten in a microwave.”
Geez, if you’re going to use talking points to refute data, use *all* the talking points.
That is “Progressive Ethics”
@Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
“Hello, the personal stuff starts.
I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science? What has the sceptic case got to hide?
Remember, if the sceptic case is wrong but we act upon it, then it will be scepticism that costs the world BILLIONS!”
The burden of proof does not lie with the skeptics. The burden of proof lies with the persons forming the hypothesis, in this case it is the warmists / AGW crowd. Another tenet of science is that the claims must be falsifiable. That is why the persons making the claims must freely share their methods and data, so other scientists can attempt to reproduce them, or if the claims appear to be invalid, to attempt to shred them. That’s the way science works. (I have nearly 30 years of experience working in an academic research department at an Ivy League University, so know a bit about the process.) This sharing clearly has not been done (i.e. “The dog ate my data!”), hence the FOI requests. And to spend large sums of money acting on a hypothesis (Anthropogenic Global Warming /Climate Change) that has not only NOT been verified, but has many contraindications is a fool’s mission.
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science? What has the sceptic case got to hide?
Remember, if the sceptic case is wrong but we act upon it, then it will be scepticism that costs the world BILLIONS!
…so I’ll go and do something more productive for a while.
The phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” comes to mind. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? You see, before “post-normal science”, when science was just science, skepticism was the norm. The bigger the claim, the more evidence was required. Common sense to most, but something AGW Believers have difficulty with, I guess. The claims of AGW, that we humans, through our additions of C02 to the atmosphere are causing the climate to either heat up or to change dangerously are indeed huge.
But, in answer to your ridiculous question, “What has the sceptic case got to hide?”, the answer is, nothing at all. The skeptic case, as you put it, is about bringing back basic scientific principles, which have been run roughshod over by climate scientists like Jones. What skeptics, or climate realists want essentially is the truth, nothing more, and nothing less.
I see you are now whining about things “getting personal”, which is a typical troll tactic, playing the victim card. As far as doing something “more productive” – good idea. You might try reading a bit beyond the usual AGW claptrap. Here are a few links to try:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1302
“Peter Hearnden (02:56:07) :
So, we’re not all equal under the law. That’s bunkum.”
Most people certainly are not, that’s the most people, like myself, who cannot afford expensive lawyers, like Jones, Gore, Mann et al.
You should remove your blinkers.
Pete (03:03:18) :
Re 3×2 (02:46:01):
As I recall, correct me if I am wrong, Jones did not even release the station list (their identities) and still claims to have released all data and methods necessary for other scientist to replicate his findings. You don’t need any witnesses for that, it should be easy to verify it with help of documents.
Just pointing out that potential expert witnesses would all be from the same incestuous little clique identified in climategate and by Wegman. Most of them having as much to loose as Jones himself.
Jeez said: “I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you”.
Just great! Copied, filed, deserves to be immortilized.
Would you please drop by my blog (El Atril del Orador”) and let me know your real name?
This article is wonderful. It presents a smoking gun. In fact, it presents ground zero after the nuclear explosion. The hearings in Parliament have had a beneficial result. This article is that result.
To CodeTech
“I don’t remember where my epiphany was”.
I do – it was on the island of Corfu last summer. Took a bit of light reading on holiday – a book debunking Global Warming. That finally opened my eyes as to what has been going on and the rest is history as they say.
I’m a physicist/engineer so I feel a bit silly that it took me so long really. And I certainly don’t like being made a fool of.
@Peter Hearnden (03:13:12):
I do ‘get it’ what you mean. Skeptics also have a responsibility – and for what data they produce, e.g. by McIntyre or A.Watts; I believe data is publicly available.
I see the problem thus:
Climatologists say: In our expert scientific opinion, the world will end if you don’t spend trillions, but we won’t show you fully how we worked it out, partly due to shoddy coding.
The skeptics say: No data, no action. What data exists fails to support AGW.
Should society spend trillions “just in case”, remembering that there is a huge opportunity cost to that money. If Climatologists turn out to be right, are skeptics to blame? No, climatologists should have provided the data.
The AGW science may be rotten to the core, but the AGW social movement, that wants to regulate CO2 and impose huge costs on us in doing so, is alive and well.
We need to keep pushing until the edifice of AGW is toppled in the public square, and its believers either realize their errors are shuffle off to something less harmful, like UFO’s.
The question that I know will never be properly answered is this:
“How do we get our money back?”
> $50 billion, down the drain.
So Gore not only invented the internet, he invented one of the greatest apocalyptic cult scams in history.
I seriously doubt that anyone will ever again call Jones, Gore, Mann, etc., etc., etc., (and a whole bunch more) liars about AGW. They invented it and they sold it to a lot of people, kinda like The Ponzi Scheme Greatest of All Time, Good Ol’ Bernie Madoff. But they never lied about what they were selling. Bernie, however, now looks like a one day flash in the pan, and a 6 year old pickpocket compared to these guys (and their loving ‘Elected’, “MSM”, and Hi-Fin Wizzard friends).
Nope they never lied about any of it. They called it “Anthroprogenic Global Warming” and that is exactly what it was. It was entirely manmade, entirely their own invention –with a lot of help from a lot of stupid people.
They’re going to walk! No court in the world is going to convict anyone for telling the truth and accepting money from fools who just want you to take it and do anything you want with it.
Now the fact that everyone except the Chinese and Indians (and a couple other countries) have gone broke in the process is another story. “Ponzi” will still apply to the Madoff variety of theft. But the new word to define civilizations that are extinguished by such colosial schemes will no doubt be “Gored”.
To CodeTech
“I don’t remember where my epiphany was”.
I do – it was on the island of Corfu last summer. Took a bit of light reading on holiday – a book debunking Global Warming. That finally opened my eyes as to what has been going on and the rest is history as they say.
I’m a physicist/engineer so I feel a bit silly that it took me so long really. And I certainly don’t like being made a fool of by the likes of Jones et al.
On warmist/alarmist websites, I believe sceptic comments are rarely if ever posted. Censorship is rarely a sign of innocence.
Consequently, I hope the writers of these warmist comments here will at least acknowledge they are allowed a fair hearing, even if almost nobody agrees with their comments.
It is all a matter of professional courtesy – however, the concept of ‘professional’ is one that warmists and sceptics will never agree on. Sceptics say that practices that would never be allowed in other branches of science, should not be allowed in ‘clmate science’.
The warmist/alarmists supporters argue that these practices are sound and should be allowed.
Never the twain shall meet.
It is not just Jones (or Pachauri) that has to go. That would be just window-dressing – another whitewash.
The corruption of climate science is so pervasive that “tinkering with the details” will not work.
All the corrupt information must be publicly discarded, and we must start afresh.
The information that is clearly corrupted is:
1. ALL the surface temperature “adjusted” records from CRU, GISS and NCDC.
2. ALL the IPCC reports.
3. Almost everything written on climate science since ~~1995 in Nature, Science and Scientific American, among others.
Yes, it IS that bad.
If we really want to clean up climate science, we must start with a big broom.
Peter Hearnden – here’s a deal for you.
We give the same level of funding to the skeptical side as is currently granted to the alarmist side…and then we subject both sides to the same high level of scrutiny.
How ’bout that?
Ken Hall (01:32:32) :
“Climate science is a unique scientific discipline where research begins at the conclusion and works backwards, selectively adopting (and manipulating) evidence to fit the conclusion. Where the hypothesis never changes, but the evidence changes instead to fit the hypothesis.”
I propose recognising new discipline in human enquiry for which the CRU et al will be acknowledged world leaders – Ecneics
As a matter of principle anybody who is publicly funded should make his work and all of it available to the public without any constraints and everybody who is not publicly funded may make his work available to the public as his own choice , so the solution for mr jones would be NO MORE PUBLIC FUNDING since he is clearly advocating his second choice . He wishes to have a choice , well be a man , be brave and stand up for yourself and do not ask others for a penny or more .
Mr Hearnden and Gaz need to spend some quality time reflecting deeply on the raison d’etre of the insurance industry and its success, seeing as how they both are stellar representatives of their target market.
We’ve just spent many years listening to the four horsemen ride through the country yelling “the British are coming, the British are coming”, and once again, they’re having to be tossed overboard as clearer heads prevail.
Now that collection of mixed metaphors, Peter, is an ad hominem…
standard practices!? we don’t need no standard practices!
truth!? we don’t need no stinking truth!
Gaz,
“You so-called sceptics are tying yourselves into knots trying desperately to prove that the intrumental temperature records are wrong,”
If anyone is being tied in knots it’s so-called scientists like Phil Jones as they try and unsay today what they said yesterday. Very sad.
We “so-called sceptics” are not trying to prove anything. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there who are trying to follow the scientific method, and are insisting that other so-called scientists do the same.
This is not some whim that has been pulled out of the hat by oil industry shills. We are talking fundamental principles of science and these points are being made by the Institute of Physics, the Royal Chemistry Society and the institute of statisticians. Namely, all data, methods and codes must be available in order to replicate alleged results, otherwise it’s not science.
You complain that sceptics are asking for all these datasets that make up the temperature records hoping to prove Jones et al wrong. We already know he is wrong. The paper he co-authored with Wang on Chinese UHI is as wrong as can be. Why wouldn’t you want this and others placed under further scrutiny. Why should this all be kept behind locked doors? That’s not science, it’s superstition.
The animosity expressed by Phil Jones pre-dates his lack of cooperation with Steve McIntyre: click
“Standard Scientific Practice to not share data” “Dr. Jones” Has now officially proven he is incompetent to pass a 9th grade science class or a high school graduation test. UEA and anyone associated with him should be profoundly embarassed.
In reply to Peter Hearnden,
No, we don’t get it, because what you are saying is illogical and nonsensical.
I know enough about Steven Mosher to know that he believes the following:
1. The world has warmed since 1850.
2. Man MAY be having some influence on how much it has warmed.
3. We do not KNOW the exact influence that man has had on the warmning, because it appears that the “science” behind all of this has been shoddy, at best.
4. We need real, falsifiable science in order to determine what influence (if any) man has had, and the magnitude of this influence.
5. If it does indeed turn out that man has had measureable (non-insignificant) impact on climate, then solutions should be formulated.
So what I believe Mr. Mosher is advocating is a simple return to the scientific method. What about this request would require him to release every scrap of anything he has ever done? Certainly, if he has climate-related research, such a request pertaining to said research would be perfectly reasonable in order to test his hypotheses.
I don’t think anyone particularly wants to know if Phil Jones has a birthmark just to the left of his navel. However, when it comes to his “climate research”, it is perfectly reasonable (and even expected) that other scientists would want access to the unadulterated raw data, and any code that was used to manipulate that data. That is simply how science actually works.
In closing, I don’t presume to speak for Mr. Mosher, so if I said anything out of line Steve, please correct me 🙂
Thanks Codetech, for your thoughts.
My “alert”started with a reprint of a talk Fred Singer gave at a small college up in Michigan, Hillsboro is it?
I sent a transcript to a friend who was proselytizing the CAGW pitch in Alabama and got back a tirade of “..in the pay of big oil.” “..was in the pay of big tobacco.” “..hadn’t published peer-reviewed science in years.” “..Wasn’t his discipline.” “..all objections had been de-bunked.” “..Science was settled.” “..consensus of 2500 scientists.” And so forth.
It was amazing.
As I’ve subsequently discovered, I now had a single document containing virtually every type of nonsense attack on anyone having a shred of doubt about the veracity of the CAGW concept.
I wrote back that none of these objections precluded Singer from being right.
No answer.
Peter Hearnden (04:34:50) :
“No, I’m not trolling, I’m asking question that I think need answers. Again, I suspect nothing will convince you otherwise either but it happens to be the truth.”
Peter, the truth is, skeptics will release all of their data, the method they used to get there, along with a long explanation, every detail…….
…..reason being, they will be dis-proving this manipulated science and nailing them to the floor.
You whole premise is moot.
Prof Jones’ testimony reminds me of a policeman with whom I spoke 30 years ago. He was investigating a theft of my property. I asked him how he knew when to chase someone down. His reply: “If he runs, you got him.”
If, on the one hand, we are seeking bore hole data from an oil company, which data is used in prospecting for oil, it is legitimate to assume that the oil company has a proprietary interest in that data. Such was the case in the original investigation of Chixculub (sp?) [the massive meteorite strike in the western Carribean]. The oil company is a private firm. It is in business to make a profit. It does not want to give its proven reserves away to another oil company.
On the other hand, when we seek the data which underlies a report or publication made by a publicly funded organization, which report will serve as the basis for public policy, that data MUST be released in its entirety, so that other researchers can duplicate [or not] the analysis.
The oil company need not release its core data. The oil company will stand or fall based on the accuracy of its analysis. If they are wrong they go broke.
The publicly-funded document must have all raw data released, since the accuracy of the report depends on independent verification of the claimed results. If the report is wrong we (the Public) go broke.
A number of recent posts on wattsupwiththat have made clear the observation that the documents provided by Prof Jones cannot be replicated, nor his conclusions confirmed. The emails were bad enough. But the Fortran coding– what a preposterous collection of undocumented fudges. Adjust a rural Alaska site upwards to make it correspond to a heat island? Adjust a rural Virginia site to make the older temperatures colder? Post claims about vanishing glaciers in the Himalayas, when most of the glaciers there have not been documented?
Where did the mystical Fortran tables come from?
I have worked in Fortran. Specifically, a program to simulate the flight of a sounding rocket. Tables are used to encapsulate ground experiments, such as thrust, drag, and so on. But each table is sourced.
And the Fortran tables in Crugate are not sourced; they just show up.
Just like the little boy who observed that the Emperor had no clothes, Mr Mosher has no need to prove himself.
It is Prof Jones who must supply the proof, and he is apparently unable to do so.
“veracity of CAGW concept” isn’t quite right.
We don’t know about its veracity, do we?
We do know that scientifically developed evidence in support of this concept isn’t there yet – if it ever will be.
Sorry
I’d suggest all global warming alarmists like Al Gore, Hansen, Jones, Mann and even Peter would be smart to hire some good lawyers. With people committing suicide based on your claims, you are now open to civil lawsuits. If these claims are found to be fraudulent, it won’t be pretty. I have no idea how many people have killed themselves, but I could see some lawyers looking to get rich. This could be the biggest lawsuit ever.
It is a bit surprising to see so many get distracted by the shallow claims of “Peter.” Steve has done an excellent job pointing out Dr. Jones’ wandering definition of shared data. This evidence along with his testimony before Parliament is legally and morally damning. But the implication of malfeasance resides not only with Jones, but with the whole global warming movement.
What we are demonstrating in these various investigations is how a hard core of operators, Jones, Briffa, Hansen, Mann etc., commandeered climate “science” to meet their agenda. That this unambiguous coup d’etat was not glaringly obvious to learned societies, academia, independent press or government officials, speaks volumes to the depth of corruption. Otherwise the climate charade demonstrates the willful manipulation of human behavior simply to titillate an audience. Both cases constitute a crime.
Now that we have evidence indicting Jones and UEA, we next must see the IPCC explain their collusion in the fraud. And from there we must clean up the U.S. EPA, and various government agencies that blindly embraced the “climate change” agenda. It is a very large iceberg that Dr. Jones stands on. And the heat has only just been turned up.
“Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
Remember, if the sceptic case is wrong but we act upon it, then it will be scepticism that costs the world BILLIONS!”
to put it simply, isn’t this an argument to *not* do anything now? You stated that to combat AGW it would cost billions. I would presume the ‘skeptic’ view is to do nothing. In that case, should AGW be evident and the result is damaging, then it will cost billions.
This seems like the better course of action, based on your argument is to actually do nothing.
Unfortunately, a lot of AGW supporters fall back on the precautionary principle. It’s easy to do, something that the majority of people are very susceptible to, and something that people like Al Gore and the media love. It serves as smoke and mirrors to mask the fact that the science is shaky to say the least, and, as currently being discussed, rife with potentially fraudulent and morally reprehensible behavior.
” Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
One long ad hom, science content zero.
When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research? ”
That is all you got to dazzle us with a counterpoint to Steve Mosher’s guest post?
Come on Peter,
try the old fashioned idea of posting a counterpoint to what Steve wrote and leave out the counterproductive whining.
You can do better than that.
I am always hoping to read a good counterpoint to help broaden my understanding of the topic.That you failed to write,instead increases my belief that you have no good replies to make,thus make a spectacle of yourself instead.
By the way can you tell use where his MISSING data is from his past uninterrupted research?
LOL.
Peter Hearnden;
Researcher produces paper that says sky is purple. I don’t agree, but it doesn’t much matter. Other people in the color of sky discipline can dispute all they want, and I still don’t care. Some of them say it is red, others orange and some blue. I don’t care.
Then someone says that BECAUSE the sky is purple, I have to give some of my money to someone else. Now I care. Show me how you concluded that the sky is purple. Show me how you concluded that this is a problem. Show me how my sending money to someone else will fix that problem.
MY profession has nothing to do with it. My work has nothing to do with it. The only way anything I have done personally that has ANYTHING to do with it is IF I have done research on the matter that refutes your research AND I use it to refute yours, in which case my research needs to stand the same tests as yours.
But when the conversation is limited to YOUR research and MY money, then yes, I want to see every last line of code, raw figure, methodolgy and possible other explanations. If you are right, you can have my money. If you are wrong, you can’t. If you are wrong and knew you were wrong and lied about it to try and get my money… I have a cell for people like you.
This is getting really silly. (OK, it was silly before. This is just another level of silliness.)
Was Jones being highly professional? No, probably not. And I don’t excuse him for it. But what is the *correct* solution to the problem?
The problem here is harassment by people who don’t know what they are doing. Climate scientists study climate science. They understand what the data means, how it is gathered, what the processes are, what standard methods have been built up in past works and why, the lingo, etc.
Then people come along who have no idea how climate science works with question after question, perform poor analysis of data because they haven’t bothered to learn how to do climate science, full of biased analysis to get a result they want, and then advertise results that differ from the reported results. And the media and public often can’t tell the difference.
This, to a scientist who knows what they are doing, is “noise”. It is an annoyance to have to go and explain climate science and analysis processes to people who clearly don’t know. Should we burden every scientist with becoming a teacher to every skeptic, or is the onus on the skeptic to learn the science first? This typically isn’t a problem in science since there generally isn’t a movement by non-scientists to discredit scientists in a particular field. Climate science seems almost unique in that sense.
You can see this in the article itself. Jones first wants to make data as freely available as possible, though limited by international agreements. As he gets harassed more, and becomes more aware of the poor analysis and public consequences of M&M’s crusade, he becomes more resistant. Now, instead of doing science, he must teach people how to do proper analysis. He even says that he knows why McIntyre isn’t getting the same results — something that climate scientists would know but McIntyre doesn’t. Should he bother taking the time to teach McIntyre how to do it properly, spend time formalizing and explaining the code, and deal with the media and people who listen do McIntyre? Or should he do climate science?
If somebody else who studied climate science wanted the data and code, it’d probably be quite easy to get. It’s amateurs with an agenda that get in the way of people doing their work that is the problem. What is the *right* solution?
I’m not sure I wouldn’t do what Jones did myself. “Noise” is an annoyance. The onus is on skeptics and deniers to become educated in climate science first, *then* and *only then*, are their objections worth paying attention to. So how do we get then to do that?
Peter Hearnden, please try this on:
Climate scientists have said they’ve collected some data, done some analyses and calculations and, as a result, have strongly recommend governments shell/continue to shell out gobs of taxpayers’ monies.
Among many others, Mr. Mosher has effectively said “Fine, but in all those analyses and calculations, you scientists have said that 2 + 2 = 5, you endlessly keep trying to justify that notion, and you are being caught demonstrably fibbing in addressing this questionable fact.”
Please explain what it is exactly in Mr. Mosher’s complaints that needs to be scrutinized.
Peter Miller (05:45:15) :
On warmist/alarmist websites, I believe sceptic comments are rarely if ever posted. Censorship is rarely a sign of innocence.
Consequently, I hope the writers of these warmist comments here will at least acknowledge they are allowed a fair hearing, even if almost nobody agrees with their comments.
I’ve not had a post of mine deleted for a while, so, yes, I, at least, am allowed my opinion.
Now, whether the modest number of AGW sceptical views on pro warming sites is evidence of censorship rather begs the quesion why there are so few sceptical (of AGW scepticism) views like mine on this site, does it not? I think it’s more to due with polarised views than censorship, myself.
So, to re phrase my questions, suppose (just suppose, OK?) AGW science is right and we see 2-4C global warming for a effective CO2 doubling. 2-4C warming is a lot, it’s something that will cost humanity a lot – BILLIONS, TRILLIONS probably. Now, if we follow the AGW sceptic ‘do nothing’ approach I think it’s fair to ask the AGW sceptics to justify their position in great detail – since doing as they (you want) might have a very, very great cost. The thing is whatever we do, or don’t do, might well have a very great cost and thus, if the argument is about money (and it clearly is) should not AGW sceptics be under the kind of searing spotlight they so happily want to hold science? So far all I’ve seen in various excuses for AGW sceptics not to be so held to account, and (of course) more than a few comments directed not at my questions but at me…
“Dashing.Leech” – absolutely! A post I wish I’d written….
“b_C (07:00:11) : ”
What ‘Dashing.Leech’ said.
Seems reasonable to assume that anything publicly funded should be available to the public. As with any contract there are conditions built in. If the project impacts on areas of security/IPR etc. then info will likely not be available. I don’t think the station data relates to security/IPR though. Where it gets to be a problem is what tools/processes are used to manage such data and thats where IPR hits. Then there is the numpty who constructed and authorised the contract(s). Apart from that I cannot understand why a pile of Fortran (whatever) should be hidden from the public. If it were me I would be proud to show my work..and take any useful comment. If that improves things..so much the better. Weren’t we all taught that?
don’t feed the troll
Henry@gaz
My problem with AGW is this: The basic science is wrong and I suspect most people here are with me on that.
We know that Newton’s laws are right because we have proved them right in a number of different applications. We also know that Svante’ Arrhenius law or formula was proven wrong and we are still looking – & waiting for the relevant research that would give us the right formula.
Not that it matters anymore to me, (because I am now 100% with Willis on the papers he has written – global warming is improbable because earth is a giant water cooling plant, & global cooling is more probable – as the historical records will show you ), but at this stage I am not even sure that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. For a greenhouse gas to be a what it is, the warming properties must be more than its cooling properties.. Namely, CO2 also has certain cooling qualities, i.e. having a number of absorptions in the 0 to 5 um band it must cause cooling by deflecting sunlight. They recently determined new absorptions of CO2 even in the UV range. So CO2 is a bit similar to ozone. This is all stuff that nobody realised before. This radiation from the sun deflected by the CO2 is so apparent that our equipment can measure it as it bounces off the dark side of the moon back to earth.
So if you say to us that CO2 causes global warming (the main theme of AGW) you first have to find us the right formula from the right data from the right testing that everyone must be able to verify…
Having a little fun: http://i49.tinypic.com/2m6wynn.jpg SFW, unless you work at EAU.
In reply to Dashing.Leech,
Your post is nonsensical and illogical.
“Climate Science” is bascially a brand-new science. Claiming anyone is an “expert” in it and beyond questioning because no other scientist has any understanding of climate is just plain silly.
Now, if you would prefer to come up with some sort of cogent argument, please do.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
1. Observe phenomenon
2. Make hypothesis attempting to describe phenomenon
3. Design experiment to test hypothesis
4. Gather data
5. Analyze data
6. Determine if hypothesis is rejected or potentially confirmed
7. If hypothesis is rejected, return to step 2.
8. Provide experimental design, raw data, analytical parameters, results and conclusions to other scientists.
9. Encourage other scientists to attempt to replicate your results.
10. If other scientists are unable to replicate your results, return to step 3, or possibly even step 2.
What you seem to be arguing for is a complete rejection of the scientific method. What do you advocate? Rule by “experts” and un-questioning acceptance by the “masses”?
To all anti sceptics: The following quote by Steve Mosher should explain all sceptics concerns in this matter.
“The issue is worth $1 trillion a year, the amount that many environmentalists consider the appropriate sum to throw into the fight against global warning. With such astronomical sums at stake, getting the science right would seem to be at the heart of the discussion.”
If you can’t agree with this-you are beyond help.
Dashing.Leech (06:56:13),
So, you’re claiming a statistician trying to understand a statistical analysis of climate data is “noise”. Do you have any idea how silly this sounds? Could you make a worse argument for your case?
Unfortunately, what we see here is the level of understanding of those who support AGW. Peter obviously doesn’t understand the scientific method. Leech doesn’t understand that climate science is really a multi-disciplinary field and WAZ has no clue about what the skeptics have really been saying.
I realize they get this nonsense from pro-AGW blogs. But for them to come here and expose their ignorance is quite amusing.
In reply to Peter Hearnden,
There is no use in SUPPOSING anything. Humans (at least sane ones) do not act on mere supposition. Sane humans require reasonable proof.
If, as you suspect, the AGW scientists are indeed correct, it is up to THEM to properly follow the scientific method and allow other scientists to either find support or rejection of their hypotheses. That is the way that science works.
Science is NOT “Assume X is true, then discard all data which calls X into question and only retain data which supports X, and then act as if X were true.” That is not science at all, and if you believe that it is, you have no understanding of the philosophy of science.
If AGW theory is indeed correct, then we should certainly act upon it. However, it is perfectly sane, reasonable, and expected that we all request that the science behind it be completely sound and defensible before we do anything whatsoever.
Your point of view seems to be, “What if the sky were to fall tomorrow! Even if we have no valid evidence whatsoever, we had better spend trillions building a giant sky-support structure!!!”
Thanks, but no. Provide me with real, falsifiable science which provides reasonable evidence of your claim first, then we go from there.
I expect we will see more and more CAGWers coming here. Although most are still in “denial”, the next stage is “anger” as we saw from Peter H. This is one place to vent that anger. Peter starting to get into “bargaining” by asking for FOIAs for skeptics.
The process continues just as predicted.
I find it interesting that all of the alarmists, including the trolls on this site, acuse the skeptics of the very sins that they have committed and are committing. It reminds me of the cheating girlfriend. Once confronted with her crime, she yells at you and insists that YOU are or were cheating!
Here’s the original quotation, from Samuel Johnson:
Roger Knights
I can distinctly remember the discussion when I came up with my statement and when, and it appears to be simply coincidental to the one you cited. I’m not saying this out of hubris. I am just being as factual as I can be. I’m not the most erudite person and have never read Samuel Johnson.
It is just as derivative of you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. The words understand and understanding make it look like plagiarism, but I don’t really think that’s the case. Maybe I just channeled Johnson.
Re: Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
Peter, It isn’t the responsibility of a skeptic to prove anything. It IS the responsibility of those who support the hypothesis of AGW to provide the proof that the hypothesis is true. If the hypothesis can’t be proven to be true, then the null hypothesis (there is no AGW) can’t be rejected.
To date, I have seen no proof that the hypothesis of AGW is true at the 95% confidence level. The gobal average temperature forecasts projections based upon the AGW hypothesis that I have seen do not correlate very well with actual temperatures being recorded. This convinces me that the the AGW hypothesis can not be accepted. No need to prove anything else.
A friend of mine has the following definition of the word “expert”
X is the unknown quantity, and spurt is a drip under pressure.
Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
One long ad hom, science content zero.
When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research?
Incidentally, who are you Mr Mosher? If you think it’s right that everything about Dr Jones should be public knowledge because it might cost us billion if he’s wrong so his science needs infinite testing, then it’s also the case that if you’re wrong it might also cost us billions and so everything about you should be public knowledge.
Therefore I demand you place on public record all your scientifc notes, workings, jotting, e mails, code (every scrap) and papers for the last ten years. All of it, everything, every last word , figure and number. If you don’t do that i will be demanding it by FOI and I wont desisit, I’ll shower you with FOI request for a decade.
Get it?
——–
Hi Peter, I “get it” from seeing your previous postings on this site, that you are a person who is convinced he is right. Because I have seen you on other threads I know that you know what the arguments for and against AGW are about. However, nobody needs to explain anything to you, because you won’t listen anyway. These comments are about your character as displayed by your comments on various threads. If your feelings are hurt so be it. I believe you are being mischievous and are attention seeking.
As far as I am aware, IF something needs to be done to lessen a problem caused by AGW if it is proved, I and many other sceptics of AGW will happily approve spending on that problem AT THAT TIME.
However, can you show me where there is a problem occurring now from AGW? You can’t because there isn’t any. So why should any of my money be robbed from me now to set up false schemes to mitigate non existent problems which may or may not occur in the future?
So if you are proved right, then AT THAT TIME I will be happy to pay for the problem.
You have been told many times that proper scientific method requires the AGW proponents to prove their case.
Dashing.Leech (06:56:13) :
This is getting really silly. (OK, it was silly before. This is just another level of silliness.)
Was Jones being highly professional? No, probably not. And I don’t excuse him for it. But what is the *correct* solution to the problem?
The problem here is harassment by people who don’t know what they are doing. Climate scientists study climate science. They understand what the data means, how it is gathered, what the processes are, what standard methods have been built up in past works and why, the lingo,
Then people come along who have no idea how climate science works with question after question, perform poor analysis of data because they haven’t bothered to learn how to do climate science, full of biased analysis to get a result they want, and then advertise results that differ from the reported results. And the media and public often can’t tell the difference.
————
You are simply parrotting the latest memes from the AGW camp which are quite untrue and have been proved untrue.
Jones had a duty to release data full stop. If he had done that, he wouldnt be in the pickle he is in today.
dashing.leech — Should he bother taking the time to teach McIntyre how to do it properly, spend time formalizing and explaining the code, and deal with the media and people who listen do McIntyre? Or should he do climate science?
What abject nonsense. Jones is paid by the public, meaning every iota of data, code and such needs to be published openly. McIntyre either gets it at that point or doesn’t, and it makes no difference. Certainly McIntyre is entitled to his opinion. Full disclosure means that Jones isn’t obligated to say anything at all; the work does that for him, leaving Jones free to pursue science unfettered.
Meanwhile, McIntyre et al asked questions and asked for data etc because these weren’t available, yet your post suggests that the rationale was to disrupt the work of Jones. This smacks of wholesale swallowing of Al Gore’s specious “make work” claims.
Just to be clear: McIntyre et al were forced to ask questions because data etc that was supposed to be open was not. It wasn’t the other way around. Only an idiot would buy that argument.
“He even says that he knows why McIntyre isn’t getting the same results — something that climate scientists would know but McIntyre doesn’t. Should he bother taking the time to teach McIntyre how to do it properly, spend time formalizing and explaining the code, and deal with the media and people who listen do McIntyre? Or should he do climate science?”
Very good… now lets analyze that statement.
He KNOWS why McIntyre can’t replicate the results… because there’s undocumented steps in the process (and a rather arbitry step at that.) If the process is not thoroughly documented so that other people can easily repeat the experiment or analysis, it’s not science.
Dashing_leech and Peter Hearnden: Your writings indicate neither of you have any understanding of science, how it is done, how it is evaluated, even what it is.
You both would be well advised to return to school, preferably a good institute of higher learning, and work to a serious degree in a scientific discipline. Then come back and talk to us about climate science and Phil Jones.
What you don’t get, or more likely won’t accept, is that you are being talked at here by people who have done exactly that. People with as much or more scientific education and training than Jones et al, even in their own specialization, who are critical and choose to disagree with this particular perversion of climate science. These same people are telling you the CRU science is faulty, as is the environment in which it is carried out. You choose to believe the myths, instead. Most here, with professional circumspection, don’t. And you know what? Their collective scientific wisdom is greater than that of Dr Jones, et al, even within climate science.
Leech, your offhanded slur on McIntyre only demonstrates you don’t understand the mathematics underlying the analysis, or indeed, the research.
As a biologist, I know that the tree proxies used are worthless for the climate purpose they are being used for. Your “climate scientists” evidently don’t, but then none of them are biologists either. So perhaps you can explain how it is that your climate scientists, without training, can conduct good science in areas they are not familiar with, and others, who do have the expertise, can’t criticise them? How exactly does that work?
Remember the adage: “its better to be silent and be thought a fool, then to open one’s mouth and prove it”.
Quit wasting everybody’s time.
Peter Hearnden (07:03:13),
I very much enjoy your posts, since they’re so easy to deconstruct. For example, you say:
“…suppose (just suppose, OK?) AGW science is right and we see 2-4C global warming for a[n] effective CO2 doubling. 2-4C warming is a lot, it’s something that will cost humanity a lot – BILLIONS, TRILLIONS probably.”
Leaving aside the risible term “AGW science,” I would like to point out that there is no empirical evidence showing that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. The physics is straightforward, but the planet isn’t cooperating, meaning that the effect of CO2 has been vastly overestimated.
There are endless opinions expressed in the pal reviewed literature, and there are two dozen supercomputer models that can’t ever seem to get it right. But there is no real world evidence that CO2 is anything other than a harmless and beneficial trace gas. So your supposing is just that: speculation based on zero evidence.
Yet you advocate spending immense amounts of new taxes, based on your “what if…” speculation. Contrast that crazed world view with the very real likelihood of an NEO impact such as an asteroid on a populated area.
For less than has already been spent “studying” global warming, an effective defense can be established. But the True Believers in the empirically baseless CAGW conjecture don’t care about actual, preventable threats. Instead, they fervently believe what their religion tells them to believe: that $trillions must be raised through increased taxes and much higher prices [due to the proposed requirement for carbon credits], and spent on what is nothing but a supposition (“just suppose, OK?”) being promoted by entities pushing the CAGW agenda.
When you start putting your energy into demands for action against the very real threat of an object from space hitting the Earth, instead of demanding action to create a grant-fueled wealth transfer scheme, I will start to view you as a rational thinker – rather than a CAGW true believer who uses ‘projection’ to try and blame skeptics for Phil Jones’ self-inflicted troubles.
That goes for the Dashing.Leech, too. Mr Leech, like yourself, still fails to understand how the scientific method is designed to work. Since neither of you can seem to grasp such a simple and straightforward concept, the likely explanation is cognitive dissonance; a condition that strongly resists treatment. As Dr Festinger points out, the CD-afflicted believe that the flying saucers are still coming, only the date of their arrival has been changed.
Henry Pool — My problem with AGW is this: The basic science is wrong and I suspect most people here are with me on that.
You’d probably be surprised.
As with any number of skeptics, I can’t imagine that humans *don’t* have influence on the climate — certainly humans affect every other aspect of their environment. Nor can I imagine that spewing a great deal of CO2 into the atmosphere as an open ended experiment is particularly clever. We humans certainly need to examine this in some detail.
My skepticism begins and ends with the concept of “catastrophic.”
At least my ad hominem attack was entertaining, the alarmists can’t hope to sustain a trillion dollar enterprise on the back of “you wouldn’t understand, so trust us”.
The wild, unkempt hair, the jacket, open shirt/no tie; it all fits the image one would conjure up for Moshpit …
No time to digest the article, yet … so no critique there.
.
.
Kevin Trenberth (a climate science “expert”) wrote the following on October 14th, 2009:
“Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
What this means is that the so-called “experts” have no idea how to balance the energy-budget of the earth’s climate. They do not know all of the variables involved, and they do not fully understand the interactions of all of the variables involved.
Kevin Trenberth further writes:
“”The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can’t”
What this means is that the models of the “climate experts” predicted unabated warming, and the lack thereof cannot be explained by their models. This further means that their models cannot effectively predict REALITY.
So, we have an admission from one of the “experts” that A) the experts really don’t have anything even vaguely resembling a complete understanding of all of the variables involved in climate and how these variables interract, and B) their models failed utterly to predict 15 years with no statistically significant warming.
Yet, according to Peter Hearnden and Dashing.Leech, we should either trust these “experts” because they are the only ones who fully understand climate science (even though they freely admit that they have no such understanding), or we should act based upon the supposition that they MIGHT be correct, even though they have not correctly followed the scientific method.
Thanks again, but no.
‘Richard M’ (07:27:03) :
Is it possible we might discuss this without your best ‘argument’ being to accuse people of being ignorant?
‘Allen C’ (07:36:05) :
Sorry, but I’m not asking for proof, I’ve not used the word. I’m asking why if we need to scrutinise every last letter and figure of Dr Jones’s output because he might be wrong and it might cost us BILLIONS if he is, why we should not scrutinise ever letter of AGW sceptic output because it might also be wrong (ie the AGW science might be right) and doing what AGW sceptics want us to do (which is nothing) might also cost us BILLIONS in climate related costs. Could you please consider that?
Climate science is in very near danger of becoming something akin to some historical hoaxes and career destroying erroneous ‘science’ such as phrenology, cold fusion, Piltdown Man, Cardiff Giant, Feejee Mermaid, Bigfoot, Jan Henrik Schon, The spaghetti tree, The Nacirema Tribe, Disappearing Blonde Gene etc., etc.
The media should learn not to jump on bandwagons!
http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2008/hoaxes/hoaxes-08.html
The facts about AGW have not stopped Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, Kerry and Jackson. They cannot be oblivious to the current revelations of scientific malfeasance.
Peter Hearnden, congratulations you win my “Troll of the week” award. You just kept them biting.
Smokey (07:53:08) :
“…Since neither of you can seem to grasp such a simple and straightforward concept, the likely explanation is cognitive dissonance; a condition that strongly resists treatment...”
Oh, not that we’re ignorant then?
Peter Hearnden
In response to your invocation of the precautionary principle. The cost of 2-4 C warming is smaller by at least an order of magnitude than the cost of cooling or than the cost of stupid ideas like cap and traede or so called renewable energy fixes. Further warmer temperatures would tend to have a net positive effect as does increased CO2 on the health and diversity of the biosphere.
To put it simply; the cure is far worse than the disease.
Peter Hearnden (02:04:34):
Those who make scientific claims are the ones who have to produce evidence, data etc., not Mosher. Maybe you didn’t know this Peter but that is the way science works. Sceptics don’t have to produce a damn thing. Sorry!
Q: What’s the biggest difference between Bernie Madoff & Co. and Al Gore & Co.?
A: Trillions!
“Dashing.Leech”, apt name for the suckiness of your post.
“The problem here is harassment by people who don’t know what they are doing.” – Yet again the classic I’m smarter than you argument, getting oh so boring now. I’ve yet to see one AGW proponent PROVE man made CO2 will have catastropic effects. All we read is that the models “suggest” this or that. There is no evidence to support any catastrophic claims, none.
” Climate scientists study climate science.” – WOW
“They understand what the data means” , Who are they, and apparently they only know what they want the data to reflect vis their models.
” It is an annoyance to have to go and explain climate science and analysis processes to people who clearly don’t know. Should we burden every scientist with becoming a teacher to every skeptic, or is the onus on the skeptic to learn the science first?” Again the we’re smarter than you elitist attitude that is so pervasisve these days, and not just in this arena.
The real noise is the whining from the very people who would usurp my money and have me thank them at the same time, sorry not today. This issue is all about control, problem is it just might be too late. Might be.
Ken Hall (01:32:32) wrote:
“Climate science is a unique scientific discipline where research begins at the conclusion and works backwards, selectively adopting (and manipulating) evidence to fit the conclusion. Where the hypothesis never changes, but the evidence changes instead to fit the hypothesis.
In short, climate science is NOT science.”
Ken, sadly climate “science” is NOT unique.
This kind of backwards justification for theories is standard practice in much of the astronomical community.
Rather than admit their a priori theories have been falsified by subsequent observation & measurement, they “massage” or manipulate the data to fit the theory — and they have done this to such a great extent — that they, in effect, have climbed out onto a thin branch and, so, their only recourse is to trash those that point out the falsification of their theories.
Astronomy used to be considered the “Queen” of the sciences — no more, now, it is in crisis.
And, woe to those that would openly challenge them.
Of course, now, much of the general public knows about this practice in climate “science”. Eventually they will know this about astronomy, too.
And, then, the “woe” will be on the other foot.
Peter Hearnden (07:03:13)
[i]So, to re phrase my questions, suppose (just suppose, OK?) AGW science is right and we see 2-4C global warming for a effective CO2 doubling. 2-4C warming is a lot, it’s something that will cost humanity a lot – BILLIONS, TRILLIONS probably.[/i]
Actually this is an assumption based on a less than 5% possibility. Warming does not automatically equal disaster. The world was warmer during the medieval period and did very well. The most likely result of warming is simply improvement in living conditions. The disaster scenarios that are constantly being painted are actually extreme unlikely events that might result from warming.
Note that the only scenario you hear out of the AGW side is the disaster. Why is that? Remember the disaster isn’t a very likely result, instead the likely result is improved growing belts and better living conditions world wide.
Dashing.Leech (06:56:13) :
Climate science is an infant discipline. Furthermore, it is a composite of a lot of other, much more well established disciplines, such as physics and statistics. Assuming that people outside of the field, which includes a lot of contributors here, have no idea what climate scientists are doing, is foolishly arrogant, at best.
Coming from quantitative economics, I have no problems reading the average ‘climate science’ paper. That said, I would like to see Jones et al digest an average Econometrica publication (given that the IPCC can’t even interpret a p-value properly).
Now stop excusing the inexcusable.
As Jones’ institute received millions in public funds, their results have been used by scores of individuals and organizations (Academic / Government / NGO’s / Business etc), ergo they should have released the data and codes, instead of breaking the law in avoiding to do so.
Period.
Peter Hearnden (07:03:13) :
Your alarmism is flawed. Costs of limiting carbon emissions, or of ‘action’ if you will, are extreme, especially for developing countries. Even if we set aside the enormous costs to developed countries, we still have the following (e.g.):
(1) Due to their unsaturated industries, poor countries require a higher % of CO2 emissions growth for 1% of GDP/c growth than do rich countries (i.e. the income elasticity of emissions is decreasing in wealth). The negative effects of cuts on their economies, and thereby all development indicators (which are tightly linked with GDP/c), will thus be much more severe than in developed countries.
(2) Energy is more expensive in developing countries (in both relative and absolute terms), and it’s scarcity is already taking its toll: clinics and factories can barely operate. Mandatory emission cuts will make this situation only worse.
(3) The opportunity cost. Consider the amount of money we are going to spend on trying to ‘revert the climate’ (I can’t even type this without chuckling 🙂 and save ourselves from this unproven threat, when we have a (obvious and proven) global pandemic (i.e. HIV/AIDS) killing millions each year. In Sub Saharan Africa alone, there were over 7.5 million AIDS orphans in 2007.
…
So applications of the ‘precautionary principle’ approach are inappropriate in this context, as there are both direct (1 and 2 above) and opportunity (3 above) costs tied to ‘action’. We do not live in the binary world of Pascal’s wager, my friend.
Mr Hearnden –
One thing at a time: Let’s do the “what if the AGW scientists are wrong?” thing first, given all the recent evidence and revelations at hand.
And then do the “what if the AGW theory is right?” thing.
And do you also realize you’ve backed off from the AGW camp’s previously held position? You’ve backpedalled from your position that said – “we are right. Period.” to “what if we are right?”. The belligerence of the AGW camp in its red-eyed certainty makes it hard for anyone to feel sympathetic right away. Too bad its that way.
Your billions trillions (in full caps) argument cuts the other way too. It is equally expensive and disastrous to implement effective ‘mitigation’. Just look at any well-reasoned pro-AGW source.
Stop being a troll. Join the fun, open up your mind.
Regards
Dashing.Leech (06:56:13) :
“The problem here is harassment by people who don’t know what they are doing. Climate scientists study climate science. They understand what the data means, how it is gathered, what the processes are, what standard methods have been built up in past works and why, the lingo, etc.”
Dear Mr. Leech,
you suggest that the study of climate “science” is so esoteric, so arcane as to be understood only by the very few, self-anointed high priests of the four winds? This is utter rubbish and the fundamental reason we are immersed in a climate fraud. Professor Jones’ own words impeach his integrity:
“The two MMs [McIntyre and McKittrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send [ ] to anyone.”
The Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemical engineers, and hundreds of thousands of honest scientists are outraged. Professor Jones is neither a competent professional nor an adherent to the scientific method. He and you had best get used to having publicly funded research scrutinized by a variety of experts. The former mechanism of “knowledge filtering” has been dismantled. The data, code, and methodology of climate research has been dragged into the light of day. Get used to the glow.
Jimbo (08:01:49) :
Good list. Leave out cold fusion. There is lots of evidence of LENR.
Dashing.leech,
“Then people come along who have no idea how climate science works with question after question, perform poor analysis of data because they haven’t bothered to learn how to do climate science.”
Dashing leech, you have spent too long in the great echo chambers of desmogblog and Rabbett run. Because sceptics have criticised the work of people like Mann, Briffa and Jones, and have found errors, that means they don’t understand climate science.
Steve McIntyre doesn’t need to understand how a photon reacts with a CO2 molecule when he’s auditing the MHB98 hockey stick. He applied standard statistical techniques that apply to the analysis of any data sample, whether they be widths of tree rings or geological data from a mining study. His findings falsified the conclusions of Mann’s hockey stick and was upheld by Wegman’s report.
However, if it was only a handful of amateurs who had made these criticisms, then you might, just might, be able convince some people with your appeals to authority. Fortunately for the rest of us, not only your logic, but also your facts are up the Swanee. Considerable criticism has come from other climate scientists such as Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Soon, Douglass, Loehle, Scafetta, Ball and Pielke. Are they all in need of climate science lessons from Jones?
Maybe you should do some reading before posting such nonsense.
I agree that e.g. Jones in person was in a state of chaos, doing whatever he found doable, convenient, or whatever he was forced to do. So in this sense, it’s “morally neutral” – not good enough for a well-known scientist.
However, the “system” has been distorting various things in a non-chaotic fashion, statistically losing the things that are convenient to be lost, and finding and inventing other things that could be convenient. This statement is a matter of statistics. So while it’s hard to attribute many individuals “strange events” to a moral collapse, it can be seen statistically that there had to be many ethical failures during those years.
What a wonderful site this is! And it’s made even livelier by the spirited arguments of warmists and the subsequent give-and-take.
What is fascinating about these arguments is that, when one thinks about them, they rarely make any sense. So Peter H. wants sceptics to release their materials, just like they have asked to climate scientists to do. Okay. But what material is there in this case? If Steve McIntyre analyzes the Hockey Stick and finds it faulty, what is there to release beyond the analysis that is already published? The notes he made while working out the derivations? Early drafts of the paper? What?
He didn’t collect data from which wide-ranging conclusions were drawn, but which remains inaccessible. In fact, the empirical evidence in this case is the set of claims themselves, which are already in print – so the situation in the two cases is completely different. Which is what makes comments like these so interesting. They have a kind of soap-bubble plausibility, which dissolves as soon as attention is focused on them.
I have described the steps of the scientific method above. I would suggest that both Peter Hearnden and Dashing.Leech actually read what I wrote.
They both seem to be suggesting the following:
Pre-suppose X to be true, then also pre-suppose that consequences Y and Z will DEFINITELY occur, because X is true. Further, take action based upon the certainty that Y and Z are going to happen, because we have pre-supposed X to be true.
That is not science, that is religion.
Kinda ironic that Pascal’s wager was applied to religion. The Peter Hearnden’s of the world are approaching the problem from the same angle. Its religion to them, so why not apply medieval logic to the problem.
Even the term “denier” has religious connotations. I wonder if they know how evangelical they sound?
Lubos,
“However, the “system” has been distorting various things in a non-chaotic fashion,”
But the “system” consists of people too, including Jones himself. Could it be that the system is greater than the some of its parts, a self organising intelligent entity with an autonomous will and direction?
Ideas have consequences, Peter Hearnden, though I hate to get started on my little soapbox by skeptics of skeptics, kinda becomes paradoxymoronic.:) Hall of mirrors. But I think this is possibly an unprecedented mass delusion of the worst kind. In reality, I think this was just another dot com/housing type investment scam looking for naive investors among world governments.
The possible consequences of investing so heavily in fruitlessly attempting to change the normally capricious climate back to “normal” are huge. Considering just one bigger picture of human nature shows this to be not only dangerous but extremely naive and foolish.
The entire developed world has already over speculated, lost ALL of its financial reserves, and is afraid to further sully the pure innocent planet by using their own natural resources. China has already won this Monopoly game and is packing up the board.. anyone notice yet or are we off on our bikes to the farmers market to pick up some fresh organic arugula on our credit card? (Or to WalMart in our Dodge Ram to pick up a boatload of Chinese plastic underbed Christmas wrap organizers using our government unemployment check, depending on our social/political affiliations)
China is a masculine culture with an excess of males, (think high IQ prison gangs) not to mention some 10,000 annual engineering graduates who are unemployed. China has more children involved in just the serious study of MUSIC than America has children! India also has an excess of males, innovative dudes who can make anything they want out of discarded broken lawn mowers from the US. Masculine cultures/governments are much less likely to fall for old wives tales and fuzzy stories about sad little polar bears. They will have to control millions of unemployable/unmarriageable young men by having them in the armed forces or prisons. They have plenty of money now to do whatever serves their interests. Islamic cultures are also masculine in outlook and policy.
Remember, “old” Europe isn’t having children. I recall reading somewhere that the US college guys only developed “green interests” because that’s what the chicks were into. Western males are basically spilling their seed [squandering their power] through video games and porn.
There is nothing left to “invest” (substitute borrow from China) that isn’t needed desperately, here and now. When before in history have we all witnessed in real time the repeated destruction of entire cities, even nations, by the forces of nature? Haven’t we learned anything about the crushing power of natural forces and the necessity of putting something away for emergencies that we know we absolutely cannot control? We have to borrow from China for our grandiose foreign aid gestures to Haiti.
America is now like a whole nation of unemployed, indebted, twenty something college grads who live with Mom and Dad (China) use their parents’ credit card for micro brews and stay up all night playing video games, while lecturing Mom and Dad about their mean rules and their incandescent light bulbs. Meanwhile Mom and Dad are both working full time trying to figure out when to throw out the kids and who’s going to care for Grandma and Grandpa, since they didn’t have any daughters or marriageable sons.
The entire undeveloped world is now enraged, not about AGW but CLIMATE CHANGE, expecting massive financial compensation forever for any and all changes in the weather. You think they won’t exaggerate or falsify in order to stay on the dole? Nigerian corruption manages to skim the equivalent of all world aid to Africa every year! I think that in itself was the biggest eye opener at Copenhagen, enough, perhaps, to make everyone think again and slowly back away from the multi-headed monster they have created.
The real horror in life is not the ever changing climate. It is not tsunamis, hurricanes nor earthquakes.
The human horror is Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Idi Amin, Hitler, the French Revolution, the Red Guards, the US Civil War, Rwanda, Ukraine, WWI, WWII…… Watch some of the Okinawa footage on the History Channel. Just a little.
Blindly inviting, allowing, accepting the massive unbalancing of world power, as we have irrevocably already done, is our crime against HUMAN nature. I think the Western nations originally hoped we could control China and India through the UN, human rights pressure, environmentalism, peer pressure. Think again.
Selling our birthright for a bowl of soup comes to mind. The Grasshopper and the Ants. Aesop’s dog dropping the bone in the water …. Foxy Loxy and the true fate of Chicken Little….
Suppose (just suppose, OK?) that AGW can be mitigated by Peter Hearnden giving me all of his money for the next forty years. I have some data that will prove this, but the Canadians and French are a bit sticky on releasability. Most of my friends think this theory is valid – in the past, Peter didn’t have any money and it was cooler then. Out of an abundance of caution I think the money transfers should begin immediately.
I think Peter will want a bit more proof before this scheme is enacted.
Gurgle, gurgle, glug, glug …
Bye bye Phil. You’ve lost. You and your corrupt, manipulating peers won’t be missed.
Now we can get back to rational science and reasonable governance.
This account reminds me of the boot monument to Benedict Arnold. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument) Like Jones, he was initially a great soldier, but betrayed the cause. His leg was seriously wounded in the battle of Saratoga, so, the Americans erected a statue to his leg and were determined to hang the rest.
Phil Jones (2002) sounds like a great guy.
_Jim (07:58:55) :
The wild, unkempt hair, the jacket, open shirt/no tie…
http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/logic/godel3.gif
Peter Hearnden
China and India are doing nothing, so why should we? How much has Europe’s emissions gone down after all the money that has been spent on curbing emissions? China and India have nearly half the worlds population, don’t preach to westerners about doing nothing, travel to China and India. See how you go there, when you get a commitment from those two countries, get back to me.
Peter Hearnden (07:03:13),
“…suppose (just suppose, OK?) AGW science is right and we see 2-4C global warming for a[n] effective CO2 doubling. 2-4C warming is a lot, it’s something that will cost humanity a lot – BILLIONS, TRILLIONS probably.”
Yes Peter, well suppose (just suppose, OK?) that Al Gore believes that the Earth is going to be hit in 100 years time by a giant turtle currently hurtling towards us from the direction of Andromeda .
If he is right the collision damage will cost humanity a lot – BILLIONS, TRILLIONS probably.
So we had better start building some sort of extra-terrestrial shield, regardless of how many billions it costs, just in case he is right? A good idea?
Well actually, no!
Before a penny were spent I would want to see scientific proof that the threat was real.
Equally I would like to see irrefutable scientific proof from Jones, Mann, Wigley et al. that AGW is 95% certain before agreeing to governments blighting the world economy with suicidally costly defensive measures.
James F. Evans (08:12:48) :
Astronomy used to be considered the “Queen” of the sciences — no more, now, it is in crisis.
Apart from the queen being Mathematics, Astronomy is not in a crisis. On the contrary, e.g.
http://www.physorg.com/news186667261.html
Steve:
Nice summary.
All:
I am with IndianaBones – I know it is sometimes hard but please do not feed those who utter nonsense and have a feeble grasp of reality.
re: Peter Hearnden (03:13:12)
Peter
There is NO sceptic case. By definition a sceptic case does not exist. A sceptic is one who by definition thinks THE Case or YOUR Case may not be ironclad.
Let’s say that an engineer builds a bridge in my community. For some common sense reason, local to my area, I am sceptical that the bridge will support the traffic the engineer says it will. I research the plans and come up with a reason why the bridge may not work to specifications. I don’t have a case. I don’t want to build another bridge. I want the people that funded, designed and built the bridge to do it correctly.
So it starts getting out that there might be a problem with the bridge. Then one of the workers, an experienced concrete guy says that, while he’s not an engineer, every other bridge of this type, in this area, is constructed a certain way but this bridge is an exception. Finally the county commission hires a consulting bridge engineer to check it out. He may find that everything is fine or that there are problems.
The point is that anyone should be able to be sceptical about things that involve public funding (public data), public safety, or public regulations that severely disrupt normal conduct (drilling for oil, refining, driving, etc). Anyone! It’s up to the public agency to prove it’s case.
Again, I just noticed “Now, if we follow the AGW sceptic ‘do nothing’ approach” just above. Once more THERE IS NO SCEPTIC APPROACH!! There is no “do nothing approach”. It doesn’t exist. It may be a default case if certain people are wrong, but it’s NOT a sceptic case. The sceptic is not convinced, yet, that those in the know, really know. The sceptics, for good reasons, are not yet convinced of the AGW case. They haven’t been fully convinced yet. Some individual sceptics may have a differing view of the matter, but that is totally irrelevant. Prove the case first. Convincingly, with transparent data, and transparent procedures, and transparent motives.
You gentlemen are feeding the trolls. That is like wrestling with a greased pig in the mud. It gets you nowhere,but the pig enjoys it immensely.
Vincent (09:00:43) :
I think you’re over-thinking it 🙂
What Dr. Motl is saying is that, while one individual’s mishap might be attributed to unrelated personal/professional failures (e.g. being unorganized or simply incompetent), when we look at climate science community™ as a whole, there is a clear pattern of misrepresentation in one direction.
E.g. We are yet to see the IPCC citing a contra-AGWH grey literature publication.
Putting it in the words of a statistician: there is enough statistical evidence to infer a clear system wide bias towards the AGWH cause.
Peter Hearnden (07:05:55) :
“Dashing.Leech” – absolutely! A post I wish I’d written….
Nah, the moniker had promise as did Dashing’s failure to read and understand the problem with Climate “Science”. But if he wants Thorazine, he’s going to have to do a much better job in selling his own case!
Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
“One long ad hom, science content zero.”
If you have read me around the net or read the book you would know that my position is this. I believe in AGW. I am a Lukewarmer. The mails change nothing about the science. The mails are not science. Science is changed
by other science. What the mails do for me is cast doubt on the process.
That process must be fixed to restore trust. BTW it’s not an ad hom to point
out what a man said, what a man did.
“When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research?”
Like Dr. Jones? I will never get off their backs. I do respect the work of
peole like Judith Curry and others who support Open access. People who don’t? Sorry.
“Incidentally, who are you Mr Mosher? If you think it’s right that everything about Dr Jones should be public knowledge because it might cost us billion if he’s wrong so his science needs infinite testing, then it’s also the case that if you’re wrong it might also cost us billions and so everything about you should be public knowledge.”
You have a problem with logic. If you want to know about me, read my submission to parliament. I don’t think its right that “EVERYTHING” about
Phil should be public. The mails are public. people mis represent what they say. I clear that up for them. If don’t think the science needs infinite testing.
I reccommended in the book that Jones temperature series be “done over”
That effort is underway. The problem you have with a fellow like me is I don’t think Jones’ science is wrong. I think he behaved badly. That behavior leads to a lack of trust. get it? It’s up to him to fix that loss of confidence.
“Therefore I demand you place on public record all your scientifc notes, workings, jotting, e mails, code (every scrap) and papers for the last ten years. All of it, everything, every last word , figure and number. If you don’t do that i will be demanding it by FOI and I wont desisit, I’ll shower you with FOI request for a decade.”
Go ahead. Jones’ words still stand. Here is the funny difference you dont get. None of my words, my works, my facts will change what Jones said.
That is why I QUOTE HIM. his words not mine. You finish your little FOI
project against me and the doubt around Jones still stands. Now, by defending Jones you keep doubt alive. If doubt is kept alive people won’t act. If people wont act, it will cost us Billions. See what damage you are doing.
please child.
Jimbo (08:01:49) :
I would say CAGW is more akin to
polywater and nuclear winter.
scienceofdoom (02:30:13) :
I continue to enjoy your blog. The surface record should not be such a big deal. It’s largely an accounting task. a historical task. The “science” of area averaging and series adjustment is largely cook book statistics. I’ve said this repeatedly. By fighting over the issues in this the CAGW crowd have kept this issue alive longer than they had to.
Dashing Leech,
Your arguement seems based on ‘only climate scientists can judge other climate scientists and the like of SM etc should back off because they make schoolboy errors’..the old a little knowledge is a dangerous thing point.
Fair enough.
But where your arguement breaks down is when another climate scientist DOES criticise the method used by your pref climate scientists. And as there are quite a few examples of this your arguement is rather illogical. Do you get that?
Peter….I think we skeptics come from the problem we have with the Hockey Stick. For years accepted history, and science, said there was warm/cool/warm/cool/warm trend starting with the Roman Optimum (and before really) and ending with the LIA which we believed were coming out of. Then Mann comes along and says, nope, that never really happened, temps were flat etc etc. We all raised an eyebrow at this because its part of the written history, so we wanted proof – he may have been right, we may have been associating annectdotal evidence and hard data said something else.
But…really…when we asked to look at the evidence we got stonewalled. That made us suspicious, so we asked harder. In the end we find that the evidence for his Hockey Stick is not as robust as he maintains. This then makes us say “well hold on, if our MWP/LIA is now back on the menu (as Briffa/Jones have since indicated) firstly WHY did you try to say it the MWP/LIA did not exist, when your data does not prove anything, and if they did exist, what is unprecedented about now? Our suspicions being raised by this to an intense level, we then start looking under other stones, and what we find are quite a lot of assumptions have been made on less than robust data. We are now at a situation where I think the ‘concensus’ of opinion in the skeptic ranks is that the warming we see is prob about half that of what is stated (uhi/rural etc etc) and if THAT is the case, if we apply ENSO etc, where is the CO2 influence at all? Peter..if you cannot see our concerns based on that you are blind man? I can’t help you if you do not see that we may well have been counting angels dancing on the head of a pin for the last few years.
As an aside, I think I read the (non climate) science community having a bit of a night of the long knives here. Fellow scientists TRUSTED these guys to be true to the data, they backed them, without looking into it themselves, because they believed no scientist would go where Mann etc would go, trying to eek data from noise to such an extent. Now the rest of the community is embarrassed by this, what thier colleagues have done. And I think Jones & Briffa know it. He can’t back up his theory with data.
We all know what happens in a sealed lab experiment…it just does not seem to be happening in the atmosphere.
Sorry about the capital letters..am not shouting, just trying to get over the main thrust of the sentance.
Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
“When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research? ”
What “science” are we talking about here?
-Calculating some averages
-Plotting some datapoints.
Bah! You can do that after college! Just avoid putting in some secret fudge-factors and you are good to go!
But show us the data so we can check you spendt the tax dollars correctly, thats all. If you hide it, you probably have something to hide.
Gosh…..by the time I’d written my ramble a dozen people pipped me to it, more succintly too.
The posts here are getting huge. I can remember when it took all day to see another post. Blimey.
Ref – Leif Svalgaard (09:12:59) :
“_Jim (07:58:55) :
“The wild, unkempt hair, the jacket, open shirt/no tie…”
____________________________
But those glasses!!! Yuck!!!
That old farmer he’s standing next to reminds me of a fella I used to go fishing with. Called him “Granddaddy”.
VS
Putting it in the words of a statistician: there is enough statistical evidence to infer a clear system wide bias towards the AGWH cause.
If you do Bayesian, the probability that all that has transpired happened accidentally – all the data tapes being lost from the 80s, all the AGW symapathetic researchers getting loads of data, all the hiding behind IPR, all the FOIA evasion, all the chest-beating, hand-wringing, moaning, complaining, all the RealClimating – the probability must be miniscule.
🙂
Graphite (03:28:10) :
Thanks for that Steven – what we need is a presentation like that in court!
Well, we don’t get any time in court. we dont get to ask Jones the tough questions. I guess people can mail the article to friends and parliament and
their representatives, etc etc.
michel (01:38:14), thanks for the reference to Penquin Island. I’ve only read the Preface so far but have already found this gem:
“It is true that the scientific reasons for preferring one piece of evidence to another are sometimes very strong, but they are never strong enough to outweigh our passions, our prejudices, our interests, or to overcome that levity of mind common to all grave men. I follows that we continually present the facts in a prejudiced or frivolous manner.”
If/when CAGW is ever dead and buried, this could go on its headstone.
Something was odd with this questioning and it has finally dawned on me. The defence being offered by Jones was that “all the information is available from other sources …. it’s all as clear as day, the FOI were totally unnecessary”.
Except, whilst they asserted that it was all very simple and all the information was clear, the committee at the very end of the sessions had to ask Prof Beddington to contact them regarding exactly which data was really public.
Put it this way: “the Science and Technology Committee were forced to make a special request (FOI) to obtain information because Prof Jones had so obfuscated about the information that he had failed to supply it as requested.”
I really cannot believe that people would still defend this charade.
ESpecially after Dr. Jones’ comment that “There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 ”
The Naivete and gullibility of otherwise intelligent people is astounding.
Climate science is not even a “settled” discipline, never mind its content.
I have exactly Zero confidence that al factors have been adequately accounted for or even acknowledged.
Just for the CAGW crowd:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Jan_Hendrik_Schön
These people exist. There ARE dishonest Scientists.
Schon worked for Lucent/Bell at Murray Hill and KNEW perfectly well that
his work would be subjected to physical replication as well as scrutiny because he was supposed to come up with new stuff that would be produced and sold. Not just data, products. It did not stop him .
In this case we have Scientists of a similar not-fully-honest
bent who fell in with a bad crowd of Social engineers and Political masterminds ( to be kind) which gave them a license to cheat.
>>steven mosher (09:41:06) :
>>please child.
Smacked down with a Chad Ochocincoism. That’s gotta sting.
Dr. Svalgaard
Ref your insistance that the sun has nothing to do with ‘it’ (whatever ‘it’ is:-) This should brighten your day:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLAUn4Gy92ss
PS: I guess they ought to put “Climate Change” under Geology as a minor field of study. It seems to have nothing to do with the weather or solar physics, as you’ve always insisted.
Smokey (06:09:20) :
Good find.
Henry@ G.L. Alston
I think there is nothing wrong with adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Any biologist should be able to tell you that it is good for growth and acts as fertilizer for forests, crops, etc. Anything you have eaten today is dependant on CO2. The historical record also shows much higer CO2 levels in the past.
As you would have noted from my post: I think the warming properties and cooling qualities of CO2 are pretty much a tie.
I can also do a simple experiment that would prove that AHF (the heat that we produce together) is much more than the heat that can possibly retained by the 70 odd ppm’s of CO2 that were added to the astmosphere since 1960.
However, I have now come to believe that global warming as such is improbable, because earth has its own water cooling plant with built-in thermostat. I have also noted that since 2003 the tables (on the sun) have turned and that global cooling is becoming a real possibility.
Gaz (03:29:38) :
“This is all really sad.
You so-called sceptics are tying yourselves into knots trying desperately to prove that the intrumental temperature records are wrong, the UHI effects that have been allowed for are biasing the data, that the satellite records are wrong, that all the different proxy reconstructions are wrong, that the temperature data you think are rubbish show the world is cooling, that the glaciers aren’t retreating, that the ice caps aren’t losing volume, that the ice shelves aren’t disintegrating, that the saturation argument wasn’t disproved 60 years ago, that species aren’t migrating their habitats, that growing seasons aren’t changing, etc etc etc.”
Gaz. I am not a skeptic. That line of attack will not work with me. I don’t believe the temp record are wrong. I believe they ought to open and verifiable. For me this is not an issue of right and wrong data. It is an issue of public trust. You can whine that people should trust Jones, but they don’t. Judith Curry and others like me have been banging the drum for open access for the last two years. Everything you say about the changes is true.
All the more reason to get this episode behind us by answering critics directly rather than hiding.
jeez said:
Here’s the original quotation, from Samuel Johnson:
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.
Thanks, I’ll file both; yours as “jeez’s version”
@ Pascvaks (10:07:53) :
“Ref – Leif Svalgaard (09:12:59) :
“_Jim (07:58:55) :
“The wild, unkempt hair, the jacket, open shirt/no tie…”
____________________________
But those glasses!!! Yuck!!!
That old farmer he’s standing next to reminds me of a fella I used to go fishing with. Called him “Granddaddy”.”
Big smiles :))
After reading this account it is clear that Phil Jones is in a group of people whose lives are not governed by any guiding principles. Every decision is based on the idea that each issue is “gray” and must be considered independently of all others. How one feels about the issue is more important than any principles that may apply. The result of this is a life history when opened to public scrutiny appears inconsistent and contradictory.
These are the people who accuse more principled people of “black and white” thinking and unable to consider gray areas. They misinterpret consideration of principles first for black and white thinking.
Phil Jones may indeed be a very nice and good person, but just not a very good scientist due to his unprincipled nature.
I have no problem with Steve Mosher or his post but I do disagree with one of your comments.
“. By fighting over the issues in this the CAGW crowd have kept this issue alive longer than they had to.”
I think you are wrong here Steve. The flaws and errors are so systematic and one directional in bias that I think an honest surface temperature record with UHI and land use corrections that have some basis in reality, would eliminate most of the warming of the last 150 years. It would at least make it obvious that recent warming was not unusual, and may well criple if not destroy their entire cause.
I think the obfuscation and stalling is deliberate and at least on a subconscious level caused by this realization. It is very easy for scientists just like anyone else to fool themselves if the belief is strong in one particular direction.
Pascvaks (10:23:38) :
I guess they ought to put “Climate Change” under Geology as a minor field of study.
This would not be a bad idea considering that “Geology (from the Greek γῆ, gê, “earth” and λόγος, logos, “speech”) is the science and study of the solid and liquid matter that constitutes the Earth.”
What does the WMO say about data sharing?
IANAL but I don’t see where this supports the hoard and stonewall data policies that CRU developed
What difference does it make who Steve Mosher. Lets just say Steve Mosher is no one and knows nothing(like me say). If Steve’s hypothesis is correct, it’s correct, irregardless PNS aside for a minute. What Jones is saying is:
…..I believe in AGW, therefore, you should too because of who I am Trust me. Pay up…..
Aside from the truth, as best can be determined, Jones is no one either. In fact.
NO ONE IS ANYONE. Put the facts on the table.
I don’t see that mosher has anything to worry about from an foi mr hearnden I have no doubt that fenton comms or al gores 300mil have chcked out every nook and cranny of his and any other major skeptic and if there was anything even slightly dubious it would be promulgated everywhere. The fact that there is no such outcry imho opinion proves there is no evidence. Apart from romms accusation that macintyre was once on the same continent as barton(or something equally ridiculous) I doubt very little of their past or present activities is not already known. Anybody ever taken your trash away on the wrong day mosh?
………….and, truth be known, skeptics don’t care if the world is cooking to boiling point or not. That is not what we are about. We are just not going to tolerate lies, BS, and corruption of the cherished idea of Science as an empirical
seat of physical truth.
What is left unanswered so far in this whole mess is the critically important question.
We ALL (yes, even the so-called “deniers”) know that the world has warmed since 1850. 1850 is widely recognized to be towards the end of the Little Ice Age. To me, it would be mightily inconvenient if the earth had not warmed since then.
Most of us skeptics also acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE that human contributions to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere COULD be contributing to warming.
The problem is, that despite what all of the models purport to show, the REALITY is that from 1850-2010 the earth has warmed approximately 0.8 degrees celsius, or on average 0.05C/decade. What has not been answered are the following questions:
Is 0.05C/decade anything to worry about whatsoever, especially when we have been emerging from a little ice age?
Are the global historical temperature records even accurate? If so, how accurate? Even if we make the GENEROUS assumption that they are accurate to +/- 0.5C (and I do believe that to be a very generous assumption), that yields a range of 0.3C warming over 160 years (completely insignificant noise) to 1.3C over 160 years (well above insignificant noise, but still must be evaluated for human contribution percentage).
Has this warming trend, or an even stronger warming trend, happened in the past? (we don’t really know, this is one of the areas where the data and conclusions have been dodgy… from recent studies I have seen, this sort of warming trend is not outside of normal variation however.)
Is the earth warmer now than it ever has been before, or have we been warmer (perhaps far warmer) in the past?
Is the CO2 content of the atmosphere alarmingly high, or has it been higher (perhaps even much higher) in the past? (I have seen some studies that show it was on the order of 1000ppm (or 1 part per thousand, or 0.1%) in the past at times.)
I have also seen studies that warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels yield more abundant and productive plant life, which leads to more prosperous and healthy animal life. If this is indeed true, would this be a good thing?
What other variables are “forcing” climate. Are the other variables far stronger than CO2 as a forcing, or are they weaker? Is there ANY scenario under which CO2 can be shown to be the CONSISTENTLY dominant force controlling climate and temperature?
Until we have answers to these questions provided by falsifiable hypotheses which have undergone rigorous (or to use the CAGW term, “robust”) testing using the scientific method, we cannot draw any conclusions, much less formulate any policy whatsoever.
Thanks Steven for a nice clear and concise post about Dr. Jones involvement in the Climategate scandal.
Clear evidence that the man is guilty as charged and can no longer be considered as a scientist, along with the rest of the CRU crew. I find it quite ironic that the whole CAGW scam is based on data which has proved, in the fullness of time, to be worthless.
The CAGW Climate Scam is also having a disastrous effect on the UK political scene, where our politicians are already seen as dishonest, following the Iraq affair (reason for war based on more dodgy data) and fiddling expenses paid by the tax-payer revealed in another data ‘leak’.
PeterB in Indianapolis (06:23:55) :
Thanks Peter. You have my position represented fairly accurately.
They call me a skeptic. I believe in AGW.
They say the mails don’t change the science. I agree, they erode trust.
They say I attack the man. I quote the man’s words.
It must frustrate them.
Although, It already seems predisposed to whitewash the CRU and Jones, I certainly hope that Anthony, Steven Mosher and other guest posters, including Prof Ravetz, will be making submissions to the RUSSELL Inquiry.
Gaz (03:29:38) :
“This is all really sad.
“You so-called sceptics , etc etc etc.”
___________________________________
You’d be very surprised at how much the people here believe about the points you’ve listed (and many more). Stick around and read between the jokes and sarcasm.
Though I do believe that the vast majority might agree that Jones, Mann, Gore, Pachauri, and many others aren’t what they claim to be and are only out to feather their own nests; and accomplish a political objective -the redistribution of the world’s wealth according to their own formulae, a’la Marx.
Wondering Aloud (10:39:00) :
I have no problem with Steve Mosher or his post but I do disagree with one of your comments.
“. By fighting over the issues in this the CAGW crowd have kept this issue alive longer than they had to.”
I think you are wrong here Steve. The flaws and errors are so systematic and one directional in bias that I think an honest surface temperature record with UHI and land use corrections that have some basis in reality, would eliminate most of the warming of the last 150 years. It would at least make it obvious that recent warming was not unusual, and may well criple if not destroy their entire cause.”
We will have to disagree on this. I’ll suggest that we pick this discussion
on a science related thread. I’m a Lukewarmer. This thread really isn’t the right place to address your concerns. Simply, though, the land record is but a piece of the entire story. I’ve seen no data and no code that supports
a conclusion that MOST of the warming in the past 150 is spurious.
johnnythelowery (05:00:14) :
How many FOI requests did they get? It seems to me the relevance of the ‘make work’ FOI requests is proportional to the number they received. If they received 5,000 with McIntyre’s being just one, to which they have to respond to emails, taylor the data to the requests, etc. then that is something to talk about. Does anybody know the numbers of requests we are talking about?
2 FOI requests is not ‘make work’. Thx
REPLY: Sixty FOI requests, most for the same thing, which could have been satisfied under a blanket release. – A
Anthony….Thankyou! I suppose the next variable is over what expanse of time? However, given the importance of the issue, the size and extent and cost to industry, and given an employee to do this, does it really matter. He wasn’t going to give McKintyre what he wanted. And that is the end of the story really. Still, nice to know the true facts regarding the ‘make work’ insult. The only one making work is this context is the twit that didn’t provide the basics in the first place.
I eagerly await Jerome Ravetz’ article on ‘Post Normal Standard Practice’
_Jim (07:58:55) :
The wild, unkempt hair, the jacket, open shirt/no tie; it all fits the image one would conjure up for Moshpit …
Ha. That picture was taken on a lovely day trip to “the city of sadness”
Juifen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiufen
I did have a little pendant on. A scorpion.
Actually……Steve Mosher…..I am starting to believe there is something fishy with the temp record. I know you are a lukewarmer, and I frequent Lucias pages so know there are a lot who are. I think I was.
I was quite relaxed about our 0.7C warming…….but recent stuff has me now thinking a big part of it is indeed bogus. I’m steering towards the ‘actually…there is little temp variation outside natural’ and reading Bob Tisdale ENSO stuff makes me think the Lukewarmer bit is more Tepidwarmer…?
Maybe thats why Leif keeps saying ‘it ain’t the Sun’ because maybe it ain’t anything… Maybe 0.7C is actually only 0.4C…..where does that leave C02? Maybe 0.2C….
I’m now starting to look at the sat temps with a skeptical eye too. Maybe Lindzen is right? Theres nothing much to see?
Its fascinating to see how this has evolved.
I do think there is enough evidence now though to put the brakes on for a year of contemplation.
Steve Mosher: You believe in AGW? What……0.6c over_______years? How many years? What degree? Using thermometers acccurate to a +/- of ___________ F?
At every reading? What part of the 0.6C is AGW and which is natural? As you don’t have the raw data….how can you be sure? Or do you?
Is it trending to ‘normal’ or away from ‘normal’.
I think Steven has seen the light at last. I said some time ago what he has now come to realise. Well done Steven.
Peter Hearnden (07:59:33) :
“I’m asking why if we need to scrutinise every last letter and figure of Dr Jones’s output because he might be wrong and it might cost us BILLIONS if he is, why we should not scrutinise ever letter of AGW sceptic output because it might also be wrong (ie the AGW science might be right) and doing what AGW sceptics want us to do (which is nothing) might also cost us BILLIONS in climate related costs. Could you please consider that?”
Peter, I have considered “that”. Once again, the sceptics don’t have to have ANY output. It is up to the AGW theorists to PROVE their hypothesis. Without ANY proof, then the hypothesis remains a “what if”. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough resources in the world to prevent EVERY “what if”. Therefore, we have to be sure that the “what if” is more like a high probability. So far the AGW hypothesis remains a “what if”.
What if an asteroid were to hit the earth? What if a gigantic earth quake were to happen and the whole west coast of the USA were to separate from the mainland? What if a large number of volcanos were to occur at nearly the same time and send the earth into a new ice age? Boy, this “what if” game is fun!!
Sorry, I won’t spend a penny on a “what if”. There are too many other KNOWN and PROVEN threats to mankind that need tax payer dollars LONG before any cent is spent on a “what if”.
So, you see, I have considered it.
Steve (Moshpit),
You sure know how to throw a WUWT post party. Lively time here. Thank you and thanks Anthony & the Mods.
But, where are the capering gnomes? (to go along with the, well, you know who) There aught to be capering gnomes. Wait, don’t bother ….
With apologies to Judy Collins.
John
Vid S (08:18:11) :
“Coming from quantitative economics, I have no problems reading the average ‘climate science’ paper. That said, I would like to see Jones et al digest an average Econometrica publication (given that the IPCC can’t even interpret a p-value properly).”
Hope springs eternal! Maybe after climatologists admit that they can’t accurately predict the next 100 years’ climate, econometricians could perhaps admit to the limitations of modeling infinitely more complex human interactions.
Hmm so we had a good sampling of world “temperature” 150 years ago ? That must be a joke.
Anyway playing the “what if” what about if we had spend the Global Warming Money trying to advance science that predict earthquakes? Maybe would lead to nothing or maybe we would have saved hundred thousand of lives.
This is, I hope, not an ad hominem attack but is not Peter Hearnden the internet version of the man who used to walk round our local town in the fifties with a sandwich board proclaiming: “The End is Nigh!” ?
” Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research? ”
That assumes that Dr Jones (and MBHSH etc) are capable of science. The evidence clearly shows they are not. You call it research? Well at least you didn’t call it science which is a good thing because it surely is not.
Boris (04:25:50) :
“steven,
You assert that Jones’ attitude changed with the publication of MM05, but you are forgetting one very important event from 2005: Congressman Barton’s fishing expedition into the lives of climate scientists, which was essentially an attack on scientists (remember that Barton wanted not just details on the science, but details about the personal lives of Mann and others.)”
Boris. That is a fair observation, but chronologically challenged. I think it would be a beneficial to do a much more detailed chronology of this era. I don’t think Barton’s committee met in Jan or feb of 2005. One of the things that appears evident is that Jones didn not feel the heat the same way Mann did. Thru the course of the mails it is clear that Mann feels beleagured . He calls for help. Says he cant do this by himself. That is what makes that feb21 2005
mail from Briffa or Jones so interesting. It was like Jones to the rescue.
So, Mann felt like he was under attack. If Jones felt some sympathy for Mann that’s to be understood. But that doesnt change what he said to Parliament.
If he said ” look, mann was under attack. I thought the attacks were unfair.
I put my personal loyalty to Mann above my scientific practices. I defended my mann. I got caught up in his drama.” I would have no problem.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM with Jones explaining why he did what he did and explaining that they felt like they were under attack. But That’s NOT what he said. that’s what other people say. Let jones say it. Let Jones say that he sacrificed his scintific principles to defend his mann.
“Whether McIntyre was working closely with Barton or not–he seemed to be. So why would scientists share data with someone perceived as being part of the witch hunt against them? Thus, Jones started treating McIntyre differently, and while he may not have been justified in his actions, they are certainly understandable given the circumstances.”
Again, if Jones offered this defense my story would be different. And you focus on Mcintyre but forget Hughes. My story up to today has been “jones felt under attack; jones hid data as a result”
NOW, jones says he hid data as a part of a standard practice. he had a chance to say what you say that. he didnt. He could have said ” I refused data to Hughes because of a Barton investigation that hadn’t happened yet.”
I have no issue with somebody who wants to explain their behavior as a
reaction to a “perceived” attack. But they dont make that defense. You make that defense. They make a defense that is at odds with the facts.
stephen richards (11:32:03) :
“I think Steven has seen the light at last. I said some time ago what he has now come to realise. Well done Steven.”
Jones is very convincing.
mikef2 (11:15:01) :
Maybe 0.7C is actually only 0.4C
The difference between the current warm period and the period that ended around 1940 isn’t much more than 0.4C. I wouldn’t be very surprised if at least half of that turns out to be spurious (due to UHI and airports). Not much left to be explained by CO2 then. The next 10 years may give us more data to work with. If we get another 0.5C (or more) of warming, I’ll reconsider AGW theory. I just hope we don’t get 0.5C or more of cooling, even if it debunks AGW theory…
Henry Pool — I think there is nothing wrong with adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
That’s not the same as knowing, and knowing trumps any form of assumption, whether from the Hockey Team or from you. If it’s not OK for the Team to assume, it’s not OK for you.
For all we know (which isn’t a lot at this point) increasing CO2 could well be a nasty precursor to an ice age for reasons we have yet to discover.
The Team can be wrong, but that doesn’t make you right.
johnnythelowery (11:16:25) :
Steve Mosher: You believe in AGW? What……0.6c over_______years? How many years? What degree? Using thermometers acccurate to a +/- of ___________ F?
At every reading? What part of the 0.6C is AGW and which is natural? As you don’t have the raw data….how can you be sure? Or do you?
1. Radiative physics is sound normal science. RTE are “correct”
If you want to talk about the record and the accuracy or lack thereof, this is not the thread. If you want to talk about the accuracy of thermometers, this is not the thread. It’s also not a problem. I used to think so, but working through the problem analytically showed me otherwise. If you want to talk about the influence of GHGs versus natural variation, this is not the thread.
If you want to talk about GCMs, this is not the thread. I hang out at other places where we have those conversations. You are welcomed to join them.
Ps. you can all blame the “precautionary principle = pascals wager on me”
hehe. moshpit.
Theo Goodwin (05:33:29) :
This article is wonderful. It presents a smoking gun. In fact, it presents ground zero after the nuclear explosion. The hearings in Parliament have had a beneficial result. This article is that result.
When UEA finish their inquiry I intend to do the same. That inquiry is set up as a whitewash. they will not address all the issues. I refuse to participate in that.
They have no skeptics on the inquiry, no lukewarmers. So they will do their whitewash. we will get more statements from CRU. then, if they are not honest, the story will go on. They left Boulton on the board. That is the lever.
“James Chamberlain (07:32:41) :
I find it interesting that all of the alarmists, including the trolls on this site, acuse the skeptics of the very sins that they have committed and are committing. It reminds me of the cheating girlfriend. Once confronted with her crime, she yells at you and insists that YOU are or were cheating!”
This was an irony I noted early on.
Leif Svalgaard (09:28:30) :
James F. Evans (08:12:48) : “Astronomy used to be considered the “Queen” of the sciences — no more, now, it is in crisis.”
Dr. Svalgaard (09:28:30) wrote: “Apart from the queen being Mathematics, Astronomy is not in a crisis. On the contrary, e.g.”
http://www.physorg.com/news186667261.html
Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard, you provided the perfect example to illustrate my point that astronomy has employed a priori theories and then “massaged” or manipulated subsequent observation & measurement to make the theory fit the data.
The link Dr. Svalgaard provided discusses the age and size of the Universe, these two ideas flow from the so-called “big bang” hypothesis of the “beginning” of the Universe supposedly 13.7 billion years ago.
The so-called “big bang” theory controls astronomy at present: Want a grant with the purpose to falsify the “big bang”, most likely you won’t get it. Try to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal falsifying the “big bang”, and likely it won’t get accepted for publication. Apply for a teaching position at an astronomy post graduate school and disclose you reject the “big bang” theory — forget it — you’ll likely never get the job.
But the so-called “big bang” theory is the epitome of the a priori theory:
Catholic priest Georges Lemaître announced the idea in 1927. “Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’.”
Just 4 years before Edwin Hubble confirmed that the Universe went beyond the Milky Way galaxy. So, at the time Lemaître annouced his idea there was not in any way, shape, or form sufficient empirical observation & measurement to demonstrate his idea was anything other than a hypothesis, if not down right speculation.
Indeed, there is substantial evidence that Lemaître came up with the idea for religious reasons:
As related by Hannes Alfven (1908 – 1995), 1970 Nobel Prize winner in physics:
“‘I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed the theory,’ he recalls. Lemaître was at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo — creation out of nothing.”
There are numerous observations & measurements that falsify the theory.
But astronomy ignores the falsifications and “messages” the observations & measurements it can to make the evidence fit the a priori (an axiom before any observation and measurements have been taken) theory.
In Dr. Svalgaard’s link “gravitation lensing” is used as justification for determining the age and size of the Universe. Even taking “gravitational lensing” as valid, for the sake of argument, the analysis & interpretation concluding this leads to a valid determination of the age of the Universe, and, thus, when it “began” is questionable at best.
It’s really an educated guess, if that, which in scientific terms, is no better than speculation which isn’t science.
Yet, astronomy is dominated by this Creationist idea, the so-called “big bang”.
Perhaps, because the this foundational tenent of astronomy is as much, or more, a religious idea than anything rooted in Science, anybody who challenges the “big bang” is in for the same treatment that AGW proponents reserved for what they call “deniers” (Yes, this label has religious conotations, too).
So, yes, there is a religios tenor in the “faith” of AGW proponents for their idea, and now readers know why the same is true in astronomy.
If you know the history it puts things in proper perspective.
And at least partly why “modern” astronomy is in crisis, too
kim (04:36:45) :
Boris 4:25:50
The Barton Committee came about because the Piltdown Mann’s Hockey Stick was crook’d, not because of any sort of ‘attack on science’ as envisioned in Deep Climate’s deeply paranoid head.
===================
Kim. if you use Piltdown mann, please credit moshpit.
Screwtape UK (11:00:42) :
Although, It already seems predisposed to whitewash the CRU and Jones, I certainly hope that Anthony, Steven Mosher and other guest posters, including Prof Ravetz, will be making submissions to the RUSSELL Inquiry.
Different strategy. I’d rather let Boulton discredit himself.
BernieL (04:38:23) :
The main point Mr Mosher makes is very important to push out there right now.
Much press gives it that Jones consistently refused requests for his data.
Such a claim can be defended by policy, rules, protocol and even by the lesser crime of not wanting others to take a royal road to publication by lifting all CRUs hard work.
Mosher’s point is that Jones inconsistently refused requests for his data.
This is a lot harder to defend especially when clear patterns start to emerge in the inconsistency.
*****************************
Yes. people need to look at the exact practice. He shared it; he didn’t share it. He violated agreements; he upheld agreements. Standard scientific practice cannot be used to defend this. Post normal practice?
You see with Values in conflict, jones faced a dilemma. Uphold his scientific ethics or save the planet from skeptics who he thought wanted to manufacture doubt. By sacrificing his scientific ethics, he created more doubt than any skeptic. As someone who believes in AGW, I find that upsetting.
people on the AGW side dont like this argument.
Peter Hearnden (02:39:23) :
“Dear Peter.
Steven Mosher is not a public employee and not remotely subject to FOI requests. You really should have some understanding of the process involved.”
Dear ‘Jeez’,
If what people like Mr Mosher say is wrong it might cost the world billions because climate change science will have been right all along but we didn’t listen to it and sort the problems when we could because we listened to the Mr Moshers of this world.
**************************
problem for you peter. I believe in AGW. I don’t challenge the science of radiative physics. you think I’m wrong about that?
one of the lovely things about being a Lukewarmer is that the arguements against “skeptics” don’t work against us.
” Peter Hearnden (02:04:34) :
…because it might cost us billion if he’s wrong so his science needs infinite testing, then it’s also the case that if you’re wrong it might also cost us billions and so everything about you should be public knowledge. ”
My disconnect from alarmism is exemplified in the following analogy.
Consider a disease, say a bacterial or viral infection. We only bother about a disease when there are symptoms and we don’t like them. Our bodies are full of bacteria and viruses that might mutate from harmless/symptomless to serious/unpleasant but we don’t spend billions and billions just in case to prevent any possible mutation because we just don’t know if, what and when and how serious before we have symptoms.
When there is a disease with unpleasant symptoms we try the following
1. Find ways to eliminate (cure and prevent) the disease.
2. Find ways to ease or eliminate the serious/unpleasant symptoms.
There is a default way to achieve option 1. that is kill everyone with the disease. Not a pleasant or ethical option. Or we can prioritise human research effort into finding a cure but only when we know the symptoms are relatively unpleasant vs other disease priorities. We also address 2 while we research 1. In fact addressing the symptoms is often adequate and people live a ‘normal’ symptom free life with the disease while research continues.
Often, with diseases, spread will be quick once a mutation has occurred so we may get a pandemic that cannot possibly be addressed quickly enough.
Using the above as a sceanrio for considering AGW as a disease (or lurking virus/bacteria with no current bad symptoms). What are our current unpleasant symptoms? I don’t know any. Will it mutate into something nasty. I don’t know, nobody knows. If it does what form will the nasty symptoms take? Nobody knows. Where will the nasty symptoms occur? Nobody knows. They just guess. As climate is chaotic so such predictions will be chaotic (unpredictable).
If we do get nasty AGW symptoms they will manifest themselves in some way, somewhere and affect some people….but spread far more slowly than a global pandemic. And there will be countless opportunities to address the symptoms while science continues to try and understand the AGW disease development and spread.
So it’s not a case that we act all or nothing now. ie Not to stop people starving by starving them to death eg consequences of biofuels on food production.
So here we are with scientists with publically financed, ‘disease’ related data and being unwilling to share it.
You bet I’m a sceptic and I want to see the data and methods independently analysed not only for temperature predictions and reconstructions but those analyses that predict bad stuff. eg even if the Arctic was ice free, what’s bad in the general scheme of things and why? And they don’t seem to predict much good stuff for some reason. The stuck record is that things will get worse, get worse, get worse…..
@Jeez: I quoted Johnson’s statement, and gave him as the source, because I didn’t want Heber Rizzo to think you originated it.
But I didn’t think and didn’t say that you were claiming to have originated it. I thought you were just innocently quoting a saying that’s been floating around for centuries. People have just assumed it to be a bit of anonymous folk wisdom, not realizing that Johnson originated it.
sm 13:09:50
Heh, moshpit, at one time I thought I’d invented that term ‘Piltdown Mann’, but in checking at Climate Audit I found that I’d not been the first. Independent, anyway.
I think you should free the phrase, but I’ll remember to credit you in the future. It is a memorable phrase, and I’ve been pretty free with it for around 4 years.
==============
“He even says that he knows why McIntyre isn’t getting the same results — something that climate scientists would know but McIntyre doesn’t. Should he bother taking the time to teach McIntyre how to do it properly, spend time formalizing and explaining the code, and deal with the media and people who listen do McIntyre? Or should he do climate science?”
This is another fact challenged assertion.
1. Climate scientists would “know” this thing but Mcintyre would not.
A. The issue at hand is a question of statistics, not “climate science”
B. Climate scientists have no specialized understanding of stats. Witness
Michael Mann’s mis use of PCA decentering. A flaw pointed out by
McIntyre and confirmed by the inventor of the technique.
C. If a paper describes the steps as 1,2,3 and you in fact did 3,2,1
its not a climate science problem
2. he should not bother to take time to educate McIntyre.
You miss the point. Jones testified that others don’t have problems
replicating his work. Mcintyre did. he did because Jones left out a step
in the description in the paper. Next, What most people don’t know
is that Briffa and Osborne were also struggling with mann’s work. They
were preparing a paper critical of mann. They had to request data from him. He passed it on and told them not to let that “dirty laundry” fall into
the wrong hands. On the verge of writing a paper critical of mann, they
stopped. Jones came to mann’s defense. Then obsborn tried to help solve
the problems between mann and McIntyre, again thwarted. Finally, you challenge mcIntyre’s abilities. Wigley, Jones friend and co worker, disagrees with you and thought that mcIntyre had some excellent points WRT mann
and thought that mann’s work was a mess.
3. he should not take time formalizing the code?
You miss the point. Nobody is requesting this. Mcintyre did not request this. If Jones said ” I did not share code because it was a mess” I would have no problem. If jones wrote to steve and said.. “here is the code, its a mess dont ask me questions about it” I would have no problem. Jones didnt do that. I am focusing on what jones said.
4. he should spend time dealing with the media?
No.
here is your logic fail. I am saying that jones should have shared data and code so that he could “get back to doing science”
Instead he acted capriciously. Now, he is not telling the whole truth about that.
So, should jones talk to the media or do science? he should do science.
Share data; share code. If he did science to begin with he would be in
a different place today.
“I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series. I know why he can’t replicate the results early on – it is because there was a variance correction for fewer series.” -Phil Jones, “scientist”
This explains quite a bit of the global warming scare I think.
If I recall, I remember reading that the earlier temperatures had been artificially lowered in order to exaggerate (or help create) the warming trend.
James F. Evans (13:09:48) :
And at least partly why “modern” astronomy is in crisis, too
Yeah! let’s return to 19th century Astronomy.
Get over it, Evans, there is no crisis, Astronomy is in a Golden Age, right now. Do a bit of self-education.
REPLY: Ditto that – Anthony
Hey Mosher,
Finished your book last night. I’ve been a lurker (since about 2005) at CA, very occasionally at RC and mostly here lately. I have to say that I enjoyed the book quite a bit. Since I’ve been exposed to much of the debate, it read like a mystery novel to me. Well done.
“problem for you peter. I believe in AGW. I don’t challenge the science of radiative physics. you think I’m wrong about that?
one of the lovely things about being a Lukewarmer is that the arguements against “skeptics” don’t work against us.”
You might be surprised to know that’s not hugely far from my view. The radiative physics is clear, the magnitude of feedbacks less so. AGW sceptics would, to my mind, be much more credible if the adopted your stance. All there is to argue about is feedbacks because, as you say, the physics IS clear. We probably just disagree on the magnitude of feedbacks. You really could do with stressing your view to quite a few here….
Now, back to my question. It is this. Many AGW sceptics point to the cost of measures to tackle AGW saying the science isn’t proven so we should wait/do nothing. I can see there is a cost in acting, and that if the science is wrong that money would be wasted. it’s a view I can see people might reasonably have.
I can also see that if the science is right then we need to act to mitigate AGW, and soon. If the science is right (please just go with this, I know everybody here ‘knows’ the science is wrong, 100% wrong, unquestioningly wrong, daftly wrong, of course you all know that, but you might be wrong…) then there is also a cost if we listen to sceptic voices and don’t act. Now, (yes yes!, I also know I’m all the things I’m called as well) all I want to do is to get people to accept that other possible reality viz if AGW sceptics are wrong and we do what they want they will cost the planet BILLIONS. That, in my view, is another reasonable view to have.
Thus, it seems to me there is a case for sceptic opinions to be spotlighted just like you want Dr Jones and accepted science to be – if either POV is wrong it has vast costs. The vigour of responses to this suggestion makes me think I might have a point. So, Steve, what will your response be? So far I’ve been on the receiving end of name calling, dismissal, patronisation and rudeness and the odd considered reply. Can you bring yourself to admit I might have a point, that if you AGW sceptics are wrong listening to you will cost us all BILLIONS?
Indiana Bones (08:39:04) :
Good list. Leave out cold fusion. There is lots of evidence of LENR.
—
Ah, but it’s the PERFECT example of a theory whose baseline experiment was not sufficiently repeatable to be taken credibly. There’s a reason that researchers in the area no longer use the term “cold fusion.” That’s an example of science working.
When researchers go back to the drawing board, they can come up with a more refined approach that does deserve scientific backing. That’s how I feel about AGW. I’m not saying that it’s impossible. I’m saying that the science they’ve done up to now is in no way convincing. That doesn’t mean that they can never convince me if they start doing things properly.
steven mosher (10:24:42) :
Smokey (06:09:20) :
I noted an early use of the word “robust” there!
(John Daly. Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:03:09)
Steven- Thanks for a great post, and Anthony, thanks for providing lots of thought provoking “troller logic”. You can feel the pressure of the AGW masses.
I have read the entire list of comments and have several questions and comments based on all of this interesting interchange of ideas:
1. Would you rather be a skeptic or a sceptic? My preference is skeptic, as the term sceptic always reminds me of an underground container filled with bad smelling “Global Warming”. A word about “Leech” fields might also be appropriate here, but that could be construed as an ad hominem comment!
2. Do you think that Pete and Leech went to different schools together?
3. We know Al Gore invented the Internet. I also suspect he has also invented new methods of “deep earth temperature measuring” ! The one thing I would like to know, did Al invent algorithms? (This is probably an old joke.)
4. Finally, and most important, how do we get these “unsettled science” discoveries communicated to the politicians and the MSM?
Peter Hearnden
I know everybody here ‘knows’ the science is wrong, 100% wrong, unquestioningly wrong, daftly wrong, of course you all know that, but you might be wrong>>
As a lukewarm turned skeptic I resent that remark. I don’t “know” that the science is “wrong”. What I “know” is that the data is innacurate, missing or possibly fabricated, I know that the conclusions are misrepresented at best and grossly exagerated at worst, and I know that the predictions of the climate models based on the just mentioned data and conclusions fail to predict the emergence of a cooling trend, let alone quantify warming. That is not science, it is “science”.
As for a return to your argument, if the tax payer were to accept doomsday predictions at face value and fund mitigation strategies even 1% of the time, we would be flat broke in days, and incapable of responding to an ACTUAL emergency when it arises.
If someone screams FIRE! at the top of their lungs in the middle of the night, I am very likely to jump out of bed and check for a fire. If I kicked out the window and crawled naked into the back yard without bothering to check for smoke, flames, heat… you know…. EVIDENCE OF AN ACTUAL FIRE I would have a lot of broken windows and some very amused kids.
I’ve been following Steve Mosher’s developing account of this over the months and I have to say I’m impressed. It is one of the few analyses to a) follow the evidence closely and b) to allow the evidence to unfold. Plenty have jumped to conclusions that may have been more or less correct, but that correctness doesn’t obviate the logical fallacy and evidential insupportability (heh heh) of the jump, which you could call a Hockey-Stickian approach to Jonesian processual analysis.
There. I said it!
Peter Hearnden (14:11:46) :
“I can also see that if the science is right then we need to act to mitigate AGW, and soon”
I disagree strongly. The effect of mitgation is zero, or very near to it, if you are to beleive the climate models. Why ruin the worlds economies to achieve a 0.5 degree difference?
EdB, could you please provide evidence in support of this predicted economic ruin. What’s good for the goose and all that…
Steven Mosher:
“problem for you peter. I believe in AGW. I don’t challenge the science of radiative physics. you think I’m wrong about that?
one of the lovely things about being a Lukewarmer is that the arguements against “skeptics” don’t work against us.”
Gosh, Mr Mosher, I think you just killed Peter. Since he was hardwired not to attack those who believe in AGW, his circuits have melted.
Peter Hearnden (14:11:46),
You keep mentioning the science. You do understand that CAGW is money- and power-driven propaganda, but it’s surely not science. How can it be, when there’s no way to test or falsify their claims?
Even those pushing the CAGW scam know it’s a scam. Pachauri racks up millions of frequent flyer miles, and twenty thousand people fly into and out of Copenhagen, Bali, etc. Al Gore has multiple mansions and is a big owner of Occidental Petroleum, and he wastes more energy than a hundred working families use.
If those people actually believed what they’re trying to sell us, wouldn’t they be traitors to the human race for their profligate consumption of fossil fuels, and their enormous emissions of carbon dioxide?
See, Peter, they know the truth: CO2 is an inconsequential, harmless, minor trace gas. The problem is that the AGW lobby has been hitting everyone over the head 24/7/365 for many years, informing them they are bad people for emitting “carbon,” and that runaway global warming is right around the corner – unless we hand over a major part of our national wealth to the totally corrupt UN.
So even though the IPCC, and Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Rajendra Pachauri, Barack Obama, Al Gore and all the rest of the climate alarmists know they’re trying to sell us a pig in a poke, the general public has been frightened by all the scare stories – none of which stand up to scrutiny.
You can say “But what if…” about anything. That’s what these climate scamsters are counting on: your fear, which they have instilled in you with their constant propaganda.
If you want a real “what if” to worry about, an asteroid just missed the Earth by only 40,000 miles in January [for comparison, the moon is about 240,000 miles away].
But the payoff from setting up an asteroid defense is chump change compared with the $trillions that Cap & Tax would take from us and put into the CAGW scammers pockets.
I’ve found that those who know less of human nature are the most credulous and prone to be taken in financial scams. Ask yourself why the UN, Al Gore, Michael Mann and the rest act like there’s no problem whatever, while insisting there’s a climate catastrophe headed our way.
@Peter Hearnden ‘So, to re phrase my questions, suppose (just suppose, OK?) AGW science is right and we see 2-4C global warming for a effective CO2 doubling. 2-4C warming is a lot, it’s something that will cost humanity a lot – BILLIONS, TRILLIONS probably.’
Says who? Ah, but of course IPCC, or rather WG2 and 3. That is what the IPCC models actually do, they, simply put, suppose stuff. That’s why they call them scenarios, and stories. Do you even try to understand what that means.
IPCC never considered much of anything else than a negative effect after they agreed on the assumption that the possible effects in their scenarios would be negative. They don’t calculate the checks and balances, like for instance the negative effect isn’t offset by the calculated positive effect a doubling of CO2 will have for the Chinese people, and the Indian people, in upping their crop yield to support a doubling of their population into a middle class society. Neither do they calculate the positive effect the melting of glaciers have in parts of those two countries. More than a third of the population of Earth live in these two nations, and if they started to hunger en masse, it wouldn’t exactly be cheap to bail them out to protect the world economy.
Suppose that a doubling of CO2 concentration gives 4C degree warming in 90 years’ time. The only two things that there seem to be any type of consensus on is that it will probably become more cloudy, and we’ll probably have more precipitation. The ice won’t automatically melt just because the average temperature ups 4C degrees, but if it rains some more it’ll probably be good for hungry people, but only, of course, if irrational climate fantasies hasn’t spent all the money to put en end to the use of farmland for actually farming food.
This is probably a really stupid question and I apologize in advance. Has anyone ever reversed the predictions? Meaning: with the data available have _historical_ temperatures been “predicted” by various codes? Would that not be an excellent way to validate the code, to check its ability to function forward? Or am I hopelessly dumb?
Peter Hearnden (14:11:46) said:
Can you please specify the mechanisms whereby it is going to cost the planet billions, or rather, the people living on the planet?
That is, what is going to happen and what is it going to cost to recover from that?
Jaye (14:06:03) :
Hey Mosher,
Finished your book last night. I’ve been a lurker (since about 2005) at CA, very occasionally at RC and mostly here lately. I have to say that I enjoyed the book quite a bit. Since I’ve been exposed to much of the debate, it read like a mystery novel to me. Well done.
Thanks.
Peter
We probably just disagree on the magnitude of feedbacks. You really could do with stressing your view to quite a few here….
The best I can do is to point people to RTE. i think scienceofdoom does
a nice job.
In my mind if people would look at RTE and see that it is sound science the arguments would shift to feedbacks. I know this: I cannot convince anyone of RTE by questioning their motives or screaming “oil money”
Mr Heardnen
“The vigour of responses to this suggestion makes me think I might have a point.”
I don’t think you should draw that conclusion. 🙂
The mode of discussion in WUWT consists of free exchange of ideas (in rough hewn rhetoric sometimes). You might get a lot of responses. You shouldn’t read anything about that – in reverse psychological fashion.
Regards
peter:
“I can also see that if the science is right then we need to act to mitigate AGW, and soon.”
On this we may disagree. Judith Curry has passed me an interesting book on different approaches to the problem. That said I think we know enough to start some mitigation and adaptation programs.
Uncertainty doesnt mean you dont act.
To Peter:
Those advocating a course of action bear the burden of proof and persuasion. It seems the Pro-global warming faction wants us just to take their word for it. If the skeptics end up carrying the day with the policy-makers, and nothing is done, it will be because the pro-global warming group has ultimately failed their burden of proof. The conseqences that follow (real or imaginary) can’t be blamed on those wanting to test the alleged proof; it will be upon those who failed to persuade.
Peter Hearnden (14:11:46),
It is a conceit of the greatest magnitude to even consider that we mortals are in any position to ‘save the planet’ Even if we had caused CAGW, by our ‘greed and stupidity’ during the industrial revolution we do not have the knowledge or ability to control the earth’s climate.
Canute demonstrated to people like you so long ago that even he, the king, could not stop the tide from coming in. Yet some still hold onto this conceit that we can control the weather. To rush off and spend trillions of dollars to eliminate carbon emission is quite certainly going to destroy our economies and most likely kill millions of people in the process. All this is because the so called climate scientists think that co2 emissions have caused global warming. THINK.
The method being considered to ‘control’ the emissions is an economic one. This has already been proven to be a goldmine for the scam merchants with absolutely no evidence of a reduction in co2 emissions. This shows the level of intellectual application so far .It is a pathetic solution to the (non existent) problem imposed by politicians. SOLUTION! Give me strength.
And you Peter go along with this. You should watch the donut not the hole.
Doug.
John Wolf (15:35:50) :
This is probably a really stupid question and I apologize in advance. Has anyone ever reversed the predictions? Meaning: with the data available have _historical_ temperatures been “predicted” by various codes? Would that not be an excellent way to validate the code, to check its ability to function forward? Or am I hopelessly dumb>>
No such thing as dumb questions. If there were though, they would all be mine.
You are in fact correct. In order to validate a model one of the techniques is to predict temperature backward in time and see if it matches the records. The problem is that you have to have a record to match it to. We don’t have enough actual measurements over a long enough period of time (and what we are finding out now is the ones we do have are tainted in one way or another) so what some have done is buiild long term “reconstructions” based on everything from ice cores to tree rings to lake sediments. Much of the current controversy surrounds recontructions that appear more intent on matching the model they were meant to test than in matching the actual earth temperature. None of the models (that I know of) backward predicted the medieval warming period, but Briffa’s tree ring hockey stick data shows the mediaval warming period never existed, so the models got it right. Well Briffa’s tree ring reconstruction has been pretty much trashed given only one tree on the whole planet produces that result, but there’s lots of other reconstructions that don’t get much play in the media and all show the MWP:
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
John Wolf (15:35:50) :
I like it!
CodeTech (02:14:32) :
This is a very good summary, and I’d like to add my own thoughts (sorry if this is rambling).
An excellent post and too my eye – not rambling at all, and well worth reading.
Bingo, Moshpit, I found my use of ‘Piltdown Mann’ on 3/18/06 at the tail end of the 3/5/06 Humphrey thread at Climate Audit. For a couple of years I thought I’d invented it, but then checked the search function at CA and found a reference several months earlier, which I can no longer find. I suspect it was you then, but I don’t remember for sure.
======================
Those advocating a course of action bear the burden of proof and persuasion. It seems the Pro-global warming faction wants us just to take their word for it.
Well put…Unfortunately, its really easy to “Save the Planet” or “Free Tibet”, gain a sense of moral superiority, and then basically to nothing.
Paul Coppin (07:48:02) : Dashing_leech and Peter Hearnden: Your writings indicate neither of you have any understanding of science, how it is done, how it is evaluated, even what it is.
You both would be well advised to return to school, preferably a good institute of higher learning, and work to a serious degree in a scientific discipline.
I argued frequent long emails for six months with a PhD of science, who could not understand the difference between “proved” and “peer-reviewed” and because I, without degree, looked for the former while he, degreed, looked for the latter, I was wrong, mistaken, misled, misleading others, in need of training, etc.
That taught me about closure of minds.
OTOH, I read somewhere that Parliament had been told to go gently with Jones because he was “near to a breakdown”.
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) : Remember, if the sceptic case is wrong but we act upon it, then it will be scepticism that costs the world BILLIONS!
Peter Hearnden (07:03:13) : So, to re phrase my questions, suppose (just suppose, OK?) AGW science is right and we see 2-4C global warming for a effective CO2 doubling. 2-4C warming is a lot, it’s something that will cost humanity a lot – BILLIONS, TRILLIONS probably.
Peter Hearnden (14:11:46) : I can also see that if the science is right then we need to act to mitigate AGW, and soon.
…
all I want to do is to get people to accept that other possible reality viz if AGW sceptics are wrong and we do what they want they will cost the planet BILLIONS. That, in my view, is another reasonable view to have.
…
So, Steve, what will your response be? So far I’ve been on the receiving end of name calling, dismissal, patronisation and rudeness and the odd considered reply. Can you bring yourself to admit I might have a point, that if you AGW sceptics are wrong listening to you will cost us all BILLIONS?
Peter,
Let me try to clarify what I think one of the big disconnects is between what you are saying and what many others here are (I believe) trying to say. All of the above quotations from you indicate to me that you believe that, if a doubling of CO2 actually did cause an increase in global temperatures of 2C-4C, that it is a GIVEN that the net cost of this change in our planet would be to “cost us billions” or even trillions.
Even if the GCMs were correct (and we know, objectively, that they are not a correct simulation of what really happens), and the CO2 levels rose along with that increase in temperature, I believe that it has not been convincingly established that there would be ANY NET COST AT ALL.
I have yet to see any accounting which could be called both accurate and thorough with respect to what ALL of the changes would be in the event of such differential inputs. I think we have not yet reached the point where we can accurately say what the long-term cloud response on the planet would be over that time period for those sorts of temperature changes.
We know for certain that if we follow the alarmist prescriptions, there will be a significant impact to the economies and lifestyles of billions of people, and that many of these impacts will be significantly negative. There are studies out now which strongly suggest that the net mortality from a global temperature increase would be NEGATIVE. Many more people die each year from circumstances that are too cold, than die from circumstances that are too hot.
We don’t know to a strong degree what the NET change in habitats for animals will be… but we have seen that early attempts to quantify this were deeply flawed, in that they failed to take into account the possibility of habitats EXPANDING for many species under a marginally warmer world.
We know from studies conducted (ironically) in greenhouses that many plant species produce better yields and have better growing seasons under higher CO2 levels than we have today, which suggests that (from the plant’s perspective) the levels of CO2 are currently sub-optimal for these plants. This seems to tie in with why satellite surveys have confirmed that total biomass on the planet’s surface has been INCREASING as CO2 levels have risen. There is every reason to believe that, were CO2 levels to double from today’s level, that this trend would continue, and possibly expand greatly. The science of airborne fertilization via increased CO2 availability is also “established science”. We should take that into account.
All of this leads to the notion that the comparison should not rightly be between hypotheticals that someone might pose as to what sorts of local impacts particular areas and species might encounter, but instead should be based on a comparison on a NET LEVEL between several different scenarios. There are multiple different things that might “be wrong” with the current understanding of impacts, and these need to be weighed in order to make effective decisions.
We can assume that CO2 levels will continue to rise, eventually leading to a doubling from our current levels.
The question then becomes: what are ALL of the changes this will lead to in our world, and what are the NET differences in outcomes. If this change in CO2 levels leads to substantially increased cereal yields, for example, that might be a positive influence on our world. If marginally more people die from too much heat in certain areas, we need to understand how many OTHER people will be spared from death in areas that are no longer too cold.
For each habitat which has a northern boundary which expands due to warming, we need to compare what happens to its southern border. Did the net habitable area increase, or decrease? Are there more species which experience more favorable conditions than ones which experience net worse conditions?
These things simply have not been convincingly established yet, and many of the preliminary attempts to do so have been shown to have severe flaws.
Accordingly, we shouldn’t just accept that, even if the “skeptics” are wrong about the net change in temperature, that it means there will be an overall NET cost in the billions or trillions. That camp could be wrong about that, and there still may well be a net BENEFIT from that outcome.
Your assumption that it WILL cost us billions or trillions is BEGGING THE QUESTION. That hasn’t yet been established well, as far as I can see.
We do, however, know that the societal impacts from embarking down this road would be huge, and we don’t know whether, even if it were successful, that the net change would be at all beneficial when compared to having done nothing to engage in “mitigation”.
You seem to like to structure this as a “what if” scenario. What if we follow all of these prescriptions, sacrifice all of the things called for because of it, and the net outcome is that millions more people die BECAUSE we stopped the CO2 level from increasing? We pay a double cost, and then some. What if millions of people who otherwise could have been fed and survive under better crop yields instead die of starvation? What if there are billions of animals which could have lived in larger habitats under a warmer world, who end up dying from the lack of an expanded habitat? What of the trillions of plants which might fail to exist because we suppression of the expanding biosphere that we arrogantly chose to impose on the world through this scheme?
It has not yet been established that “choosing to act” is at all a known good. It could turn out to be downright evil. If you want to apply the precautionary principle, you need a full understanding of all possible outcomes, and their relative probabilities. We lack anything close to that yet.
Until we do, I think it’s extremely short-sighted to impose a known cost and possibly make things far worse in the process.
I think understanding that concept is key to understanding some of the pushback you see to these notions that we “have to act”.
Argh, a failed editing attempt! The last sentence in my fourth-to-last paragraph should be “What of the trillions of plants which might fail to exist because of the suppression of the expanding biosphere that we arrogantly chose to impose on the world through this scheme?”
Peter Hearndon:
G.L. Alston provided the salient answer.
However, if you fail to perceive that, then you’ll forever remain unenlightened.
Sorry for the typo: Hearnden vice Hearndon.
This is just a note of appreciation. It’s great that technology allows me to keep track of replies to my comment, even long after the comment was been mysteriously deleted.
……we tried to avoid accusing Professor Jones of CRU and UEA of outright fraud
I can also say that not only have you and others been soft on Jones, but to a greater extent people have been soft on Gavin Schmidt.
I would hope that this also stops soon.
p.s. I am not necessarily talking about you Mr. Mosher when i say this. But it’s odd to me that people can’t see he’s purely a mindless advocate for global warming grant money. I would have thought that what was revealed in regards to Schmidt and RealClimate from the ClimateGate emails people would have seen this. But many don’t.
Still there, Gaz at 3:29:38. Would you care to respond to my response at 4:59:04?
================
Peter Hearnden (14:11:46) : “…all I want to do is to get people to accept that other possible reality viz if AGW sceptics are wrong and we do what they want they will cost the planet BILLIONS.”
Let’s look at this. Assume the “skeptics” are wrong about climate sensitivity/feedback and that the Earth’s “average temperature” will rise 2 – 4 degrees Celsius over the 21st Century. There’s no evidence for this, mind you (models are not evidence), but let’s humor Peter and assume it.
Oops, now we have to assume the IPCC is right about the terrible cost of this scenario, except that we now know the IPCC has no scientific basis for many of it direst predictions (Himalaya-gate, Amazon-gate, hurricane-gate…) and has ignored the beneficial side of “assumed” global warming. Nevertheless, gritting our teeth, we assume disaster and move on.
Now we spend billions/trillions in cash and foregone economic development and make a few people rich curtailing CO2 emissions, but at least we prevent all those “assumed” disast–OMG, those freaking Chinese and Indians aren’t buying it and their increased emissions have negated our sacrifices and the world is suffering disaster, except those cursed Chinese and Indians with their growing economies are better able to adapt to changes than we are!
Wait, let’s really grit our teeth and assume those practical @#$% will actually forego certain wealth in fear of very dubious disast–BWAHAHA! Sorry…can’t go on…laughing…too hard!
Bottom line: If we do nothing about CAGW–and I mean nothing (no biofuel/windfarm mandates, no offshore/ANWR drilling bans, no coal plant bans, no nuclear plant bans)–then we lose nothing even if the AGW scenarios are correct. In fact, we stand to gain quite a bit compared to any Chicken Little scenarios we can imagine.
James F. Evans (13:09:48) : “And at least partly why “modern” astronomy is in crisis, too.”
Dr. Svalgaard (13:59:51) responded : “Yeah! let’s return to 19th century Astronomy. Get over it, Evans, there is no crisis, Astronomy is in a Golden Age, right now. Do a bit of self-education.”
Dr. Svalgaard, you are putting words into my mouth.
That’s just a straw man argument.
I never said I wanted to return to 19th century astronomy — on the contrary — astronomy needs to leave the 20th century, primarily the early 20th century, which was dominated by theoretical constructs, prior to the space age (as in “a priori” assumptions) unsupported by empirical observation & measurement.
(In essence, computer programs without the computers. Climate science, at least for AGW supporters, is in the same position as early 20th century astronomy, making assumptions then plugging in dodgy and partial observations & measurements, then claiming those observations & measurements demonstrate the assumptions — they don’t.)
Astronomy, like climate science, needs to take advantage of 21st century technological capability (the 21st Century truly is a Golden Age of observation & measurement cabability) and be open-minded & reasonably sceptical about how those the new observations & measurements are analyzed & interpreted, and not be straight-jacketed by old ideas that are increasingly coming under stress by contradictory observations & measurements.
GL Alston “Most of the skeptical community would like little more than to remove the secret witch doctor mask from the process.”
See, here’s where I disagree. That’s not all you want. You want to keep on digging and digging and digging until you find the evidence that it’s all the big hoax you are convinced it is. That’s seems fairly obvious to me. This isn’t all about better standards in science, it’s about finding the evidence that the scientists are trying to hoodwink us all on this particular matter.
All this talk about wanting to “replicate” their results by using not just the same raw data but also their computer code is really unconvincing.
(Note. re my previous comment, my earlier comment reappeared – either that or I have improved my search technique. Apologies either way.)
Cosmology is not Astronomy.
Gaz (19:04:20):
“You want to keep on digging and digging and digging until you find the evidence that it’s all the big hoax you are convinced it is.”
Yep.
But if the CAGW hypothesis can withstand the attack, it is on its way to being accepted climate theory.
If not, it was never scientific truth to begin with.
James F. Evans (18:48:00) :
and not be straight-jacketed by old ideas that are increasingly coming under stress by contradictory observations & measurements.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Astronomy is very much a 21st century endeavor. With instruments, both on the ground and in space, as never before. With increasing confirmation of our theories and nailing down with unprecedented precision the properties of our universe. e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf and [a bit more technical] http://www.leif.org/EOS/1002-2488v1.pdf . The latter starting with: “Rapid advances in observational cosmology have led to the establishment of a precision cosmological model, with many of the key cosmological parameters determined to one or two significant figure accuracy”
Do us all a favor and study these before you demonstrate your ignorance again. [Ignorance is no shame, but ignorance after having been shown the science is].
JimAsh (19:04:47) :
Cosmology is not Astronomy.
It is very much today. It is in cosmology that our astronomical research comes into focus and full bloom.
“It is very much today. It is in cosmology that our astronomical research comes into focus and full bloom.”
I completely agree. I knew my comment wasn’t that clever .
Kim: “Still there, Gaz at 3:29:38. Would you care to respond to my response at 4:59:04?”
You said: “You have put your finger on the real crime of the alarmists. Truly, we no longer know what we know or don’t know. Had they not blindly insisted on the settledness of the science, we might have made real progress toward the truth rather than chasing the chimera of carbon demonization.”
My response: I’m sorry, Kim, but I can’t remember anyone actually insisting the science was settled, let alone doing it blindly. The failure of Jones and his colleagues to get up and dance every time someone obviously bent on painting them in the worst possible light snaps their fingers doesn’t tell me “we no longer know what we know or don’t know”.
Myself, I think Jones’ response to the harrassment was understandable – not necessarily good PR, but neither was it an indication he is untrustworthy.
The tone of many of the comments here suggests Phil Jones is the spawn of Satan, as opposed to a scientist who got fed up with being bullied.
Steve Mosher: “You can whine that people should trust Jones, but they don’t.”
My advice to anyone not trusting Jones and the HadCRU data: use the NASA data set. And their raw data. And their code.
I think if anyone believing the science as summarized by the IPCC is wrong, then there’s really nothing stopping them from getting involved in doing some real scientific work of their own instead of hounding people who are.
Other than that, I can only repeat my earlier question:
Does anyone here really think that once all the raw temperature data comes to be freely available (instead of just almost all of it, which is the case now), that there is even the slightest chance that someone will come up with an analysis of it that shows something significantly different from what the various satellite and surface instrumental series already show?
Really?
On the other hand let me squander some bandwidth.
Leif’s comment about Cosmology and Astronomy merging closer into one discipline due to their interdependence and modern instrumentation
is exactly right.
Cosmology depends on astronomical observations to continue to develop,
or to confirm or falsify theory.
I guess I was trying to say that in some sense one would assume that Climatology would have a similar relationship with Meteorology and yet it does not seem so.
Gaz 19:40:13
Amazing that you would claim that alarmists have not called the science ‘settled’. This is what has most of the skeptics up in arms. We claim it isn’t.
So are you merely ignorant or are you being disingenuous?
============================
Do we call this one the Carbon Bubble? C02 Bubble? Carbon Dioxide Bubble? Or just Seltzer?
wakeupmaggy (09:01:37) :
Loved your paradoxymoronic (what a lovely word) rant – just wish it wasn’t such a good reflection of reality. So sad to see western civilization in a naval-gazing, green-hazed, self-hating suicidal spin. How did we become like this?
A sober man uses a streetlamp for illumination, while a drunkard uses it for support. A scientist uses data for illumination, while a policy advocate uses data for support.
Phil Jones may have been a sober scientist at one time, but now he appears intoxicated by policy advocacy. His descent is documented above. Few drinks intoxicate the intellectual’s mind more potently than the elixir of “noble cause.”
“Peter Hearnden: I can also see that if the science is right then we need to act to mitigate AGW, and soon”
So you want a solution now? No problem. Seriously. Shale gas! Enough natural gas to power us for 5 to 6 decades. That is a very low number but I assume we will take all coal and over aged nukes offline and replace them with natural gas. I also assume no thorium or Bussard nuke breakthroughs, no efficiency increase.
100% reduction in mercury, 99% reduction in nitrous, 40% reduction in sulfur and 33% reduction in CO2 (if that is still a concern of yours).
Given that we are polluting the very DNA of our planet with genetically modified foods, spewing depleted uranium around (billion year 1/2 life) and spreading mercury by the ton daily I can’t for the life of me accept that CO2 is a problem. But my plan will reduce it by 33%. What plan do you propose?
Leif Svalgaard (09:28:30) :
Apart from the queen being Mathematics, Astronomy is not in a crisis. On the contrary, e.g.
http://www.physorg.com/news186667261.html
I had believed that the many and various xgates had not jaundiced my view of science generally. I saw the link though and a vision of the headline “Astronomy not in crisis claims top Astronomer” flashed before me. I really need a break.
Gaz:
Steve Mosher: “You can whine that people should trust Jones, but they don’t.”
My advice to anyone not trusting Jones and the HadCRU data: use the NASA data set. And their raw data. And their code.”
Gaz, I’ve recommended that. Unfortunately the climate science types don’t want to take the recommendation that you propose skeptics accept. BTW NASA have no raw data. here is what you don’t get Gaz. If you want to convince people you have to first establish trust. telling people what to do is not an effective rhetorical strategy. telling people they should believe a consensus is not effective for a “see for yourself” audience. I’ve given my suggestions to fellow AGWers as to the most effective way of engaging skeptics. I’m afraid that your strategies do more harm than help. please stop helping. It’s hard enough with Jones on the team of AGW believers, don’t make the job any more difficult.
here is a suggestion: go tell people you believe in AGW and you believe that data and code should be free. that will help.
Gaz (19:04:20) :
”
GL Alston “Most of the skeptical community would like little more than to remove the secret witch doctor mask from the process.”
See, here’s where I disagree. That’s not all you want. You want to keep on digging and digging and digging until you find the evidence that it’s all the big hoax you are convinced it is. That’s seems fairly obvious to me.”
I think people should avoid trying to “intuit” People’s motives. they should
also not generalize. For example. McIntyre requested code because he could not replicate the results. If you took the time to read the mails you would see him talking with osborn about this. you would see that Osborn has to request the SAME DATA from mann that Mcintyre wanted.
If you are going to accuse people of bad motives NAME THEM.
who was the first person to write the words “free the code”
what were his motives?
how do you know?
When you can PARTICULARIZE your charge you are saying something worthwhile. Your speculations about motive are as interesting as one of the unscientific posts about sun spots that people complain about.
Kim. “So are you merely ignorant or are you being disingenuous?”
No, I am telling you that I’ve never heard a climate scientist say “the science is settled” nor seen any evidence that one has. I’ve heard them talk about likelihoods and probabilities and uncertainties. I’ve heard plenty of variations on the theme that the uncertainties are no longer such that action to curtail emissions can be put off any longer. But “settled”, no. That seems to be pretty much an urban myth. There’s a archived Wiki entry (User:William M. Connolley/The science is settled) that might shed some light.
Anyway, I’m there’s plenty of stuff people actually did say that you can take issue with.
kim (16:39:59) :
Bingo, Moshpit, I found my use of ‘Piltdown Mann’ on 3/18/06 at the tail end of the 3/5/06 Humphrey thread at Climate Audit. For a couple of years I thought I’d invented it, but then checked the search function at CA and found a reference several months earlier, which I can no longer find. I suspect it was you then, but I don’t remember for sure.
CRAP!
I came up with it “independently” in nov 07 and posted a picture of piltdown carving a hockey stick. Looks like you beat me! kudos buddy, hat tips to you when I finish that article.
Well, thanks, Steve, but I’d swear I searched Climate Audit awhile ago and found someone with precedence over my use. I also think Steve snipped my use of it at least once, but he’s snipped me enough that I’m not sure. Especially when I first was over there I had a tendency to drift into policy and religion, big no-nos.
=====================
Gaz 20:52:35 You are quibbling. “Uncertainties are no longer such that actions to curtail emissions can no longer be put off” translates to the ‘science is settled’ enough.
======================
And please, Gaz; don’t give me William Connolley. He’s one of the miscreants for his perversion of Wikipedia. What a shame.
===================
Peter Hearnden (03:13:12) :
Hello, the personal stuff starts.
I just don’t see why, if the sceptic case is so strong, it can’t be placed under the same scrutiny as the science? What has the sceptic case got to hide?
————–
Uh, well, certainly not the decline!!
Sir, I started to study “global warming” at the University of Illinois in 1975 and have specialized in methane mitigation for the past 30 years. I’m a serious scientist who has won awards from US and UK agencies, non-profits and state governments.
That being said, I am very skeptical of the scientific basis for action being proposed by many who are alarmist about climate change. At first, I thought I was simply reviewing sloppy science, lousy sampling technique, horrid statistical analysis and one-dimensional analysis with very poor models.
Upon reading the Climategate emails (I’ve read them all), and communicating with colleagues in astrophysics and other disciplines, I’m coming to believe that the public is being scammed. It is a hideous realization, one that I am resistant to making but increasingly drawn to conclude as fact.
Is the climate changing? Most certainly, and atmospheric carbon deposition plays a role. Thus has it ever been. Atmospheric deposition of carbon and other compounds deserves very serious study and analysis, and related issues of oceanic acidification, radionuclide emission from coal fired utilities and the like are rarely mentioned by the climate science community.
Is it a looming catastrophe, warranting the cessation of nearly all industrial activity because of dangerous hurricanes, melting polar ice etc.? I am skeptical that anything presented in these analyses supports such hysteria. In fact, I am becoming increasingly confident that the analysis presented by CRU, NASA and others is absolutely the opposite of observed phenomena.
If you want my emails and data, please let me know. We have far more emergent problems facing the ecosystem than this exaggerated topic of climate change, and I’ll be happy to teach you about them.
Henry @ GL Alston – Barry Kearns
I wholeheartedly agree with what Barry Kearns wrote earlier and I stick to that same argument..
Wat about the Carboniferous period when CO2 levels were into the thousands of ppm?
I think CO2 is like water and to ask for a limit on CO2 is just as non sensical as to ask for a limit on water. Unless you prefer deserts?
Bravo, Smokey. I read your posts regularly and they mirror my thinking exactly, except you write much more clever and to the point.
Has it been two years since the fantasy and fun filled days of Catlin Arctic Survey? It’s hard for me to believe and yet even harder still for the Catlin Crew.
Other than their mothers, who else will care?
James F. Evans (18:48:00) wrote: “and not be straight-jacketed by old ideas that are increasingly coming under stress by contradictory observations & measurements.”
Dr. Svalgaard (19:19:44) responded: “You don’t know what you are talking about. Astronomy is very much a 21st century endeavor. With instruments, both on the ground and in space, as never before. With increasing confirmation of our theories and nailing down with unprecedented precision the properties of our universe…[two PDF papers]…”The latter starting with: “Rapid advances in observational cosmology have led to the establishment of a precision cosmological model, with many of the key cosmological parameters determined to one or two significant figure accuracy”
Indeed, as I stated above, the technolgical cabability, for observation & measurement by both satellite in situ and remote (full electromagnetic wave spectrum) telescope, is at a Golden Age, on that we agree.
However, many of the ideas are old:
“big bang”, 1927, see comment (13:09:48) above.
“black hole”, roughly 1915, although rough ideas stretch back to late 18th century. A “singularity” with “infinite density, in an infinitely small volume — can’t be quantified.
“dark” matter, originally 1934 (has been updated), after galaxy rotational curves didn’t fit laws of gravity. Never been directly observed & measured. figures for amounts of “dark” matter as percentage of gravitational mass — all over the board, some as high as 95%.
“magnetic reconnection”, 1946 before space-age.
“neutron” star, 1934 updated 1967, “neutronium” never observed & meausured in the laboratory, and violates nuclear physics’ “island of stability” — neutrons fly apart and decay into electrons and protons.
“dark” energy, 1998, never been directly observed & measured, although claimed by some to be around 74% of the matter-energy of the Universe.
Many astronomers put “dark” matter and energy together at around 95% of Universe, both theoretical. 95% of the model is theoretical mass & energy that can’t be directly observed & measured and that’s called a “precision” model? You’re kidding me, right?
If it can’t be directly observed & measured, such as “dark” matter & energy and “black” holes can’t be directly observed or quantified as “infinity” can’t be quantified, again, how does that constitute a “precision” model?
Perhaps, of equal importance to the above criticisms is the question, how are these theoretical enities falsified?
What is the falsification test for these enities?
Falsification is a prime requirement of science (or I can say anthing because nobody can prove me wrong).
If they can’t be falsified and can’t be directly observed & measured, what are we really left with?
I’d suggest a lot less than meets the eye and is claimed in the astronomy community — “precision” is a self-serving label to deflect from the real state of affairs.
So, yes, there is a crisis in astronomy — and, of course, I wouldn’t expect a practitioner to agree, but there it is.
The so-called “big bang” is just the tip of the iceberg.
Gaz (19:40:13) :
‘Does anyone here really think that once all the raw temperature data comes to be freely available (instead of just almost all of it, which is the case now), that there is even the slightest chance that someone will come up with an analysis of it that shows something significantly different from what the various satellite and surface instrumental series already show?’
Really?’
From what I can gather, there is very little raw temperature data available. It has been so manipulated and ‘homogenised’ that any reasonable person has lost confidence in its veracity and in in those who are purveying it.
Henry Pool — Wat about the Carboniferous period when CO2 levels were into the thousands of ppm?
Wat indeed? It’s tempting to assume that increased CO2 isn’t harmful, but all the same, the point is that we don’t KNOW that it’s not. We don’t KNOW, really, much of anything. We don’t KNOW that an increase of CO2 in the present circumstances will produce a positive result, a similar result as in the past, and so on. It could well be that the IPCC warnings are correct. I don’t know. You certainly don’t.
All you have is a mere assumption based on little of substance.
Me, I’d like to game the system a bit in my favour and have a bit more science under our belts before we claim anything one way or another.
Gaz — See, here’s where I disagree. That’s not all you want. You want to keep on digging and digging and digging until you find the evidence that it’s all the big hoax you are convinced it is. That’s seems fairly obvious to me.
Read the above exchange. There’s a gulf between those who claim hoax and skeptics just as large as the gulf between skeptics and True Believers. That you don’t know this is rather telling, isn’t it?
Re: davidmhoffer (Mar 2 14:39),
“If someone screams FIRE! at the top of their lungs in the middle of the night, I am very likely to jump out of bed and check for a fire. If I kicked out the window and crawled naked into the back yard without bothering to check for smoke, flames, heat… you know…. EVIDENCE OF AN ACTUAL FIRE I would have a lot of broken windows and some very amused kids.”
Not sure where I saw it, but someone noted recently that it should be a felony to shout “GLOBAL WARMING” on a crowded planet.
Kim, I searched high and low for an example of someone actually saying “the science is settled”. I couldn’t find one, which I found surprising given the number of times is can be found in quote marks as if someone did in fact say it.
Steve Mosher: “Your speculations about motive are as interesting as one of the unscientific posts about sun spots that people complain about.”
That’s no skin off my nose. I was not making a scientific argument, just giving my impression of the general tone of the commentary on this blog and others like it. At times it reads like the final third of Lord of the Flies.
You say: “here is a suggestion: go tell people you believe in AGW and you believe that data and code should be free. that will help.”
Really? Help to do what?
As far as I know the CRU is arranging for that raw data to be available.
Then what?
Gaz (23:10:44) :
As far as I know the CRU is arranging for that raw data to be available.
Then what?
Gaz
They have lost the raw data.
Gaz (23:10:44) :
“Kim, I searched high and low for an example of someone actually saying “the science is settled”. I couldn’t find one, which I found surprising given the number of times is can be found in quote marks as if someone did in fact say it.”
You need to learn about a new website called “Google” — it really is amazing…
From http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0223/Senate-battles-EPA-in-greenhouse-gas-showdown
…
Instead of talking about dollars and cents, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson mostly found herself defending her agency’s key finding last year that greenhouse gases endanger human health and the environment.
…
“Let me begin by being direct: The science behind climate change is settled and human activity is responsible for global warming,” she said. “Not only have America’s top scientific institutions come to that conclusion, but so have numerous other industrialized countries.”
Re: Gaz (Mar 2 20:52),
“No, I am telling you that I’ve never heard a climate scientist say “the science is settled” nor seen any evidence that one has.”
The most recent instance I’m aware of is the statement released by Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, on Feb 19th.
Roger Pielke Jr had a blog post with that exact title on Dec 9th http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/science-is-settled.html.
Only today the Institute of Physics issued a statement which said pretty much the same
(from the Guardian) … The Institute of Physics has been forced to clarify its strongly worded submission to a parliamentary inquiry into climate change emails released onto the internet….
In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee “has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.”
It says: “That is not the case. The institute’s position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.”
I’m sure there are many more. You need to look a little bit harder next time.
PS even RealClimate once said “the science is settled – in favor of the contrarians” (but that post was on April Fool’s Day).
Doug in Dunedin (23:54:35) :
Gaz (23:10:44) :
As far as I know the CRU is arranging for that raw data to be available.
Then what?
Gaz
They have lost the raw data.
********************************
Only when we asked them for it. After this answer blew up in their face, jones wrote that he could reconstruct it if need be.
“Gaz: That’s no skin off my nose. I was not making a scientific argument, just giving my impression of the general tone of the commentary on this blog and others like it. At times it reads like the final third of Lord of the Flies.”
Most excellent. I thought you were making an argument, but you were just having feelings. If you see similarities between the tone of this and Lord of the Flies let me suggest that CAGW types are rather like the littluns.
Here’s one and most likely (one of those IPCC phrases) the source of all the other quotes:
Gore Takes Global Warming Message to Congress
G Alston: “Skeptics have a much simpler request — you make the claim, then you prove it.”
If climate scepticism consisted solely of that request, you would be correct. But the outcome would be one blog consisting of one statement. The reality is that climate sceptics do make claims – thousands, probably millions of them.
A brief sample taken at random:
“You are contradicting yourself.”
“Because there is no science what we have is lies damned lies and climate statistics…”
“AGW has become nothing more than another government program…”
“You have failed your assignment.”
“I think AGW is a religion…”
“He may be right about man-made climate change.”
“Really, skeptics, who’ve been called denialists, are just agnostic.”
Claims, one and all, and therefore open to challenge. Very few people are able to sit back, fold their arms and just say “prove it”. Most people want to offer their opinion. And so it is with climate sceptics.
“Gaz (23:10:44) :
Kim, I searched high and low for an example of someone actually saying “the science is settled”. I couldn’t find one, which I found surprising given the number of times is can be found in quote marks as if someone did in fact say it.”
As you didn’t mention any specific person, like a scientist and there are examples, but I found “someone” who actually did say “the science is settled”. Penny W(r)ong, Australia’s Climate Change Minister.
Feel free to replay it as many times as you like.
Henry@ GL Alston
GL Alston: “I don’t know. You certainly don’t”.
Which brings me back to my original posting (on the 2nd March 7:10:13): I could not find any relevant research done on CO2. Everybody thought that somebody would do it and in the end nobody did it. I also determined that Al Gore’s link that was supposed to show a correlation between warming and CO2 concentration was a dead end: the CO2 increases lagged the warming by 800 years or so. So warming came first, then followed CO2 increases. Just like we learned at college: cold water dissolves CO2 and warmer water releases it back into the atmosphere (remember boling weater to get rid of the CO2?).
“Gaz (23:10:44) :
Kim, I searched high and low for an example of someone actually saying “the science is settled”. I couldn’t find one, which I found surprising given the number of times is can be found in quote marks as if someone did in fact say it.”
Actually you did mention climate scientists in a previous post, but this is what I found just in a few minutes;
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/5064/Manufactured-Science-Another-IPCC-Scientist-Reveals-How-UN-Scientists-talked-about-trying-to-make-IPCC-report-so-dramatic-that-US-would-just-have-to-sign-Kyoto-Protocol
Of course, Govnt’s get all their climate change policy advice from the IPCC. I believe Gore may have been the first to coin (Pun inteneded) the phrase “the science is settled”. Wonder why?
Ah, so R Pielke jr said it. In December. I’ll have to check more often.
Of course there are plenty of climate scientists saying the science is at the stage where it makes a case for action, as (please note) I acknowledged above, but putting “science is settled” into quotes implies it was said by some particular person in those exact words, and usually at some particular time (like, before December, for example).
As a great philosopher once said, “When you can PARTICULARIZE your charge you are saying something worthwhile.”
I don’t think there’s any point pursuing this issue further, though. It’s been done to death. But please be judicious with your use of quote marks, guys.
Getting back to my earlier question, though, once the data are found again, reconstructed, retrieved from the original providing agencies or whatever, I’m still intrigued to know what those asking for the data expect to find.
I mean there clearly is some expectation. It was not just an intellectual excercise, was it, attempting to reproduce Jones’ work?
Or maybe I’m just having feelings again.
OK, I’m going now. I don’t have anything more to add to this topic. I’ve said my piece and you guys can take it or leave it.
I know how annoying trolls are and I don’t want to act like one here.
April E. Coggins (21:56:49) :
Has it been two years since the fantasy and fun filled days of Catlin Arctic Survey? It’s hard for me to believe and yet even harder still for the Catlin Crew.
Other than their mothers, who else will care?
The pilots who have to resupply them. Or yank them out when the polar bears stop drowning long enough to check their meat-to-bone ratio…
Dudes stop feeding the troll.
“However, many of the ideas are old:
“big bang”, 1927, see comment (13:09:48) above”
Hmm, Lamaitre may have had an idea, but I believe it was first sir Fred Hoyle who coined the phrase in an attempt to disparage the competing theory to the steady state. He said something like, (paraphrase) “Now they want us to believe that the universe came out of some sort of big bang.”
Still, the big bang has been confirmed with background radiation measurements, and the inflation version of the big bang resolves the earlier theoretical problems such as clumpiness.
Maybe we don’t know what’s at the “edge” of the universe or what caused the big bang, but cosmology has made some pretty amazing discoveries. Why, before Hubble (the scientist, not the telescope) the milky way galaxy was believed to be the whole universe. Now we’re talking about a universe that is expanding at an increasing rate in contradiction to what should happen with gravity. Sorry, what was the crisis again?
James F. Evans (22:04:59) :
So, yes, there is a crisis in astronomy
Did you read the papers? Did you understand them?
Brendan H (01:36:38) :
G Alston: “Skeptics have a much simpler request — you make the claim, then you prove it.”
The reality is that climate sceptics do make claims
A brief sample taken at random:
“You are contradicting yourself.”
“Because there is no science what we have is lies damned lies and climate statistics…”
“AGW has become nothing more than another government program…”
“You have failed your assignment.”
“I think AGW is a religion…”
“He may be right about man-made climate change.”
“Really, skeptics, who’ve been called denialists, are just agnostic.”
Claims, one and all, and therefore open to challenge.>>>>
Those aren’t claims, and I think you know that. Those are statements of opinion or position, and they are represented as such. Not a single one of those is a scientific claim. Since you don’t seem to differentiate between a statement that is part of a discussion, and a scientific claim, may I direct you to some of the latter:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/28/sense-and-sensitivity/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/spencer-spurious-warming-demonstrated-in-cru-surface-data/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/archibald-on-stellar-to-climate-linkage/
These are only a fraction of the science presented on this site, and even a brief perusal of the comments that follow shows that they are hotly contested even between skeptic and skeptics. Not a single one of your “examples” was a scientific claim. In brief, you chose a data set that had nothing to do with your argument. That’s not even cherry picking that’s exclusion of relative fact.
Gaz:
“Getting back to my earlier question, though, once the data are found again, reconstructed, retrieved from the original providing agencies or whatever, I’m still intrigued to know what those asking for the data expect to find.
I mean there clearly is some expectation. It was not just an intellectual excercise, was it, attempting to reproduce Jones’ work?”
There is an suspicion that the methodology was created to match an expectation/desired outcome. By going over the data manipulation (which isn’t intended in a negative connotation in this case) process it’s possible to determine if the steps in the process are justified and a proper way to treat the data.
Since the conclusions are based on the manipulated data, and most scientists are using the manipulated data as a baseline rather than starting over from scratch and deriving data themselves, it’s vitally important to make certain that this result has been treated properly.
Given that the CRU emails from Jones himself mention that he knows why McIntyre can’t replicate the work… an undisclosed “adjustment”… it would seem very unlikely that the process to go from raw data to Jones’ plot is fully justified.
Other people on this site have done independant spot analysis and discerned “steps” of adjustment in Jones work that is time dependant, and others have noted that apparently temperatures from rural stations have been adjusted UPWARD to match urban stations/eliminate the heat island effect.
Since Jones isn’t exactly forthcoming in explaining the process and the reasoning, it’s harder to validate or deny. Having access to the code could at least show you the process as was actually used, rather than the process as described in his paper. Whether any differences are due to a code bug or a deliberate fudge table can only be seen in the code. If the results are a matter of a fudge table, then it basically means that none of the data is valid.
Gaz, you are pretty amusing sophist. You are the one who introduced the quotes around the settling of science @ 20:52:35 and introduced the idea that the point could only be valid if there were a scientist who said it.
The last four months have seen a great unsettling of the science. It appeared to many that before the emails that the science was settled enough to make trillion dollar policy decisions, that ‘uncertainties are no longer such that actions to curtail emission can be put off any longer’. But now the uncertainties are such. All your sophistry isn’t going to change that.
===========================
And, in fact, Gaz, the uncertainties were never such. Politicians and scientists assured, even insisted, that the uncertainties were ‘no longer there’. Well, they were. It was a big lie, THE big lie.
====================
Addendum:
And if its a matter of a bug, or a flawed and unjustified premise for an adjustment, then the data is just as worthless. Basing theories on worthless data isn’t sound science and calls into question every conclusion that was based on that data.
This is an example of why the onus is on AGW to fullfil their FOI requests.
For the science not to be decided by a sloppy, disheveled, disorganized, disingenuious [snip] circumventer with a self serving Standard Operating Procedure from an unprofessional institution like the CRU.
Legistlated $7 a gallon (now at $2.80 in the US for you Brits)
‘……………………Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010. In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consume 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.
Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both………………’
“Gaz (03:05:16) :
Getting back to my earlier question, though, once the data are found again, reconstructed, retrieved from the original providing agencies or whatever, I’m still intrigued to know what those asking for the data expect to find.”
Gaz, the original data are gone. Long gone. CRU office moves and all, real data, who needs that when we have “value added” data? No amount of “reconstruction” (Which is exactly what has happended) will retrieve the real data. It’s gone!
Mike Haseler (02:39:28) :
“Can I make a plea to stop this focussing on “open data”. Yes the data should have been made available, but the main reason they didn’t want to make it available is because it would show how bad the data was in the first place.
Anyone who has ever had any real experience of temperature measurement knows what a difficult subject this is. It is bad enough in a carefully controlled laboratory, but in real life, in the real world, with real people … it is a nightmare….
I’ve also seen the same thing in factories: reading after reading after reading of absolutely perfectly running equipment which when you look isn’t working at all!
There are good reasons why we automated the temperature readings worldwide – but that WILL have changed the nature of those readings. It also means that there isn’t the same regular check of equipment so that e.g. insects, animals, moisture can contaminate the readings without anyone noticing for long periods….
The fact is this data was never intended for this purpose, and those “scientists” pretending their data analysis can make bad data good are kidding themselves!”
Very well put. I have also seen the “celulose graphite” factory data and have fired more than one tech after I caught their lazy a$$e$ cheating. Midnight raids on the analytical lab sure do give dishonest techs heart attacks…. and pink slips. Unfortunately we now have the International Standards Organization (ISO) telling us we can trust the data from our suppliers lab… yeah right. The recall of Salmonella contaminated peanuts and peanut butter after a third party auditor had given the plant a superior rating shows audit testing not checking paperwork is the key to good quality control.
“The auditor, paid for by Peanut Corp. of America, checked PCA’s Blakely, Ga., plant in 2007 and 2008 and gave it superior ratings both times, says Kris Charles, Kellogg spokeswoman.”
In1996 in the USA the food safety system was replaced with HACCP, allowing corporations to take over the control of food safety testing. We, in the USA have been paying for that decision with contaminated food ever since.
Al Gore and Bill Clinton have their fingerprints all over the transfer of the US food safety system to the corporations controlling the World Trade Organization. Amazing how a lot of the threads keep leading back to the same people.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/12/the-festering-fraud-behind-food-safety-reform/
Pascvaks (10:07:53) :
Ref – Leif Svalgaard (09:12:59) :
“_Jim (07:58:55) :
“The wild, unkempt hair, the jacket, open shirt/no tie…”
____________________________
But those glasses!!! Yuck!!!
That old farmer he’s standing next to reminds me of a fella I used to go fishing with. Called him “Granddaddy”.
That “old farmer” is Kurt Godel, one of the towering geniuses of 20th century mathematics. His two incompleteness theorems are among the most significant in all of mathematics.
Yarmy (06:18:05) :
That “old farmer” is Kurt Godel,
The dapper guy is Godel, the old farmer is Einstein
Yarmy (06:18:05) :
That “old farmer” is Kurt Godel,
The dapper guy is Godel, the old farmer is Einstein.
Ah, I misunderstood Pascvaks. A knee-jerk reaction as Godel is one of my heroes.
Leif Svalgaard (04:07:18) asked: “Did you read the papers? Did you understand them?”
Yes, I read the “sound wave” paper from a prior post, but the links are down, so I haven’t read the other paper.
In terms of the sound waves hypothesis I found it unpersuasive. It is claiming way too much for what those observations & measurements actually stand for (which I suggest science doesn’t know what they infer).
It’s called over-reaching, or trying to draw too much from a piece of evidence as to it’s actual significance or meaning.
Essentially, it’s an inference, which is not the same as direct observation for, in this case, the “beginning” of the Universe, nor the existence of “dark” matter or energy.
Inference is the process of determining if a piece of evidence or a chain of evidence leads to the existence or non-existence of a fact — what happened or if it did happen. In other words, a process of reasoning, or logical deduction, using known observations (evidence) to determine if some unobserved condition, event, or circumstance took place in a manner consistent with an assertion.
The analysis & interpretation of evidence to derive meaning, or significance, from those pieces of evidence is critical for proper inference leading to a conclusion consistent with the actual physical reality in question.
The same piece of evidence can derive different inferences depending on the perspective brought to the analysis & interpretation of the evidence.
Rival, opposed, or different analysis & interpretation of evidence is common and part of the scientific method and, indeed, any discipline where one is called upon to make conclusions about an ultimate condition, event, or circumstance without direct evidence of the event, itself, which is in question.
Obviously, rival, opposed, or different analysis & interpretation can lead to different conclusions about the ultimate existence or non-existence of a proposed fact.
A partial inference would be one were a condition, event, or circumstance point to another condition, event, or circumstance that may have happened, but the evidence infering the event does not provide convincing evidence — in other words, there still is uncertainty about whether the ultimate event took place or not, or what where the exact physical conditions that took place at the event or the time when the event supposedly happened.
To suggest sound waves (and I’m loosely paraphrasing) echo down through the ages (supposedly billions of years) and correctly infer the “beginning” of the Universe is more than can be claimed for them in my opinion, obviously, others are free to disagree with my opinion.
That’s Science.
Davidhoffer: “Those are statements of opinion or position, and they are represented as such.”
A statement of opinion is a claim that something is the case.
“Since you don’t seem to differentiate between a statement that is part of a discussion, and a scientific claim, may I direct you to some of the latter:”
You confirm my point: climate sceptics make claims.
“Not a single one of your “examples” was a scientific claim.”
I didn’t say they were. I said: “The reality is that climate sceptics do make claims…”
Interested parties would *love* to see an actual controlled study on this Gail; can you reference any?
No – not self-produced opinion articles; let’s see some actual lab results, showing industry-wide collusion. And let’s not have something like Consumer Reports used to report for frozen pizzas; contamination by insect parts and human hair has been going on for decades (long preceding HACCP).
.
.
James F. Evans (09:15:19) :
Yes, I read the “sound wave” paper from a prior post, but the links are down, so I haven’t read the other paper.
Try now.
I suggest science doesn’t know what they infer
Science does not know, but you do…
Rival, opposed, or different analysis & interpretation of evidence
So, what is your interpretation of these direct measurements?
What you miss is that modern cosmology is an observational science yielding precision measurements of the universe.
Astronomers are not ‘suggesting’ anything, they are measuring stuff and with amazing precision. Read the papers again. The sound paper is more accessible, so start with that. If you beat a drum and sprinkle powder on the skin you will see a pattern formed by the standing waves rippling over the drum. So the effect of the sound can be directly observed, same with the universe. Do us all a favor and make an effort.
James F. Evans (09:15:19) :
I suggest science doesn’t know what they infer
The report of the first five years of precision measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe spacecraft:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/0803-0732v2.pdf
Read it. And be awed. I am.
“That “old farmer” is Kurt Godel, one of the towering geniuses of 20th century mathematics. His two incompleteness theorems are among the most significant in all of mathematics.”
So that’s Godel! One of my favourite books is “Godel, Escher, Bach” by Douglas Hoffstader.
Leif Svalgaard (10:02:13) :
The report of the first five years of precision measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe spacecraft:
The first 376971 years of the life of our universe it was a fully ionized plasma, then when the temperature fell to 2967 degrees free protons and electrons recombined to form neutral Hydrogen and the universe ceased to be a plasma. At an age of 432 million years ultraviolet radiation from the first stars reionized 4.56 % of the matter.
Brendan H (09:29:50) :
I didn’t say they were. I said: “The reality is that climate sceptics do make claims…”
Wow. Are you related to someone named “Gazelle”?
1. You complained that skeptics should be subject to the same standard of evaluation for their claims as are scientists promoting AGW theories.
2. It was pointed out to you that claims can be refuted which has nothing to do with advancing differing claims.
3. You complained that skeptics make lots of claims and presented a list of examples which were not in fact claims.
4. I provided to you a list of things that were actually claims by skeptics and pointed to the refutation of same by, in some cases, other skeptics.
Now you are complaining that you never said that skeptics didn’t make claims. My complaint is that you either don’t remember what you said in the first place or you just make stuff up and hope no one notices. What value you hope to achieve is beyond me.
Gaz,
“Getting back to my earlier question, though, once the data are found again, reconstructed, retrieved from the original providing agencies or whatever, I’m still intrigued to know what those asking for the data expect to find.”
Why wonder Gaz?
These people asked Jones for his data:
1. Warwick Hughes. Hughes was looking at Jones 1990. he was trying to
understand Jones’s method, in particular he was trying to understand
the interpolation methodology and UHI. This is captured in the mails
between Jones and Hughes. Hughes is a published researcher in Australia.
2. Willis Eschenbach 2007.
Willis requested data in 2007. There was a discussion of two aspects
of Jones paper UHI and the calculation of spatial errors ( as I recall, it was
over two years ago). The request was straightforward. Willis asked
for a list of station names and the data for each station. Jones refused.
he claimed that the data was at GHCN. Some of it was, but without a list
of exact stations names ( which 3000 of the 6000 at GHCN) nothing
could be done. Finally CRU relented and gave the list of names ( this station in france, that station in germany)
3. McIntyre: McIntyre asked for the data for Jones 1990. They said they
lost it. But then they found it and posted it. Mc did a series of posts
on UHI and the sites jones picked.
4. 2009:
1. Mc requested the data that was given to Webster. he was denied
CRU argued that they had agreements which PRECLUDED the
release to “non academics” That was a lie, as confirmed by The FOIA
appeal office on Nov 13, 2009.
2. After Mac was denied, 4 ACADEMICS requested the data.
Why? to test the excuse that CRU gave to #1. CRU denied these
requests and claimed that international relations would be damaged
if the data was shared. They cited the agreements.
3. So we FOIAed the agreements. CRU found 4. of the 4, only one
precluded release to 3rd parties.
So, Gaz if you want to know what people expected to find you should probably ask them.
1. Hughes. Was just trying to figure out how jones got the answer he got.
Jones said ” we selected 84 stations in country X” we did this calculation
we found this. Hughes wanted to know what stations and what data from those stations. he had access to other data and was trying to reconcile. What did he expect to find? More data so he could do a better job.
But why should it MATTER what his expectation is? and how can Jones KNOW his expectation.
2. Willis. Ask him, what did he expect to find? The exact stations and data
that Jones used. What did he expect to find? If I had to guess, I suppose
Willis had an expectation that Jones selection of sites may have been
Biased. If Jones found No UHI, then there are two things you want to check: Station selection and processing approach.
3. McIntyre: same as #2.
4. The 4 Academics who requested the data? They expected to be denied.
All of us who have dealt with NDAs knew that the “non academic” restriction clause was a fiction. Since the denial of Mcintyre was on false
grounds basically CRU’s bluff was being called.
Now, What would I expect to find.
1. I don’t know, I’ve seen a lot of oddities in data.
How will the result change? Might change a little, no more than .15C
Uncertainty will probably go up, not by much.
Heh, Gaz, here’s Lisa Jackson, today, in Congressional testimony, and in quotes: “The science behind climate change is settled”. John Holdren has said essentially the same thing.
I’ve asked Chris Mooney when he’s going to write ‘The Democrats’ War on Science’. No answer. Maybe I should ask him about ‘Calm World’.
=======================
Any hypothesis must have some test that can falsify it. Without such a test anything can be stated and nobody can demonstrate it to be false.
This seems to a major problem for AGW “science”, as these AGW climotologists are now stating that colder temperatures are due to AGW — thus, in effect, they are claiming that AGW can’t be falsified.
It doesn’t wash and it isn’t science — perhaps, that’s why many people call AGW a religious belief — you have to take it on faith — many people are not willing to do that and insist on holding it to the standards of Science.
(This is also a significant problem for “modern” astronomy.)
Dr. Svalgaard, I’m still waiting for you to lay out those tests which could falsify the hypotheticals you claim to be reality. Without those tests, it’s pointless to go on for the reasons given above.
Regarding the WMAP paper, it’s conclusionary with little causal reasoning. It’s basically a paper that makes conclusions that people want to hear — it’s easy to state conclusions that people want to hear because they aren’t likely to challenge them, are they?
Dr. Svalgaard, you’ve heard of the concept of free parameters, I’m sure. Other people call those fudge factors — you can’t have “precision” with free or open parameters — the so-called “big bang” has a number of them.
“Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum.” — thus, no reason to resort to a “beginning” to explain present observations & measurements.
In other words, present observations & measurements record present physical conditions — not something that supposedly happened 13 odd billion years ago.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote of the WMAP paper: “Read it. And be awed. I am.”
Then you are easily awed. I’m not.
James F. Evans (17:30:11) :
Dr. Svalgaard, I’m still waiting for you to lay out those tests which could falsify the hypotheticals you claim to be reality. Without those tests, it’s pointless to go on for the reasons given above.
You do not understand that we are talking about observations and measurements [what you call empirical scientific method]. One cannot falsify measurements correctly made [except perhaps in climate science 🙂 ].
Dr. Svalgaard, you’ve heard of the concept of free parameters, I’m sure. Other people call those fudge factors — you can’t have “precision” with free or open parameters — the so-called “big bang” has a number of them.
The current measurements have none. Find one for me. If you cannot, I take it that you concede there is none.
In other words, present observations & measurements record present physical conditions — not something that supposedly happened 13 odd billion years ago.
Because of the finite speed of light we do not observe the present day universe. The CMB is 13 billion year old light. The light from the Sun shows the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago, etc.
awed. I’m not.
Ignorance is a thick shield and does that to you.
James F. Evans (17:30:11) :
I forgot:
“Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight.
In fact his 1926 [so not contaminated by modern physics and astronomy, right?] calculation has nothing to do with the CMB:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html
In fact, we owe to Eddington the realization that the universe is expanding according to General Relativity.
Dr Svalgaard (17:52:03) wrote: “You do not understand that we are talking about observations and measurements [what you call empirical scientific method]. One cannot falsify measurements correctly made [except perhaps in climate science 🙂 ].”
Yes, I understand the paper reports observations & measurements.
It is not the observations & measurements that I object to — it is to the inferences the paper’s authors claim for those observations & measurements, and, of course, the authors even make reference to the inferences.
And, this is the second time I have requested tests to falsify those inferences, not the observations & measurements, themselves.
It would seem that Dr. Svalgaard has no ability or tests to falsify his claims (the paper’s inferences) — so the claims might as well be that pink unicorns existed 13 odd billion years ago.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The current measurements have none (free parameters). Find one for me. If you cannot, I take it that you concede there is none.”
That challenge works both ways — find me a test to falsify the inferences, or I take it that you concede there is none.
But I will do you one better, here is one free parameter required of the so-called “big bang”:
“The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the discrepancy could be explained, Occam’s razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters…” — Plasma Cosmology.
So, now, Dr. Svalgaard owes a test which can falsify the inferences in the paper, but more generally, the overall “big bang” and its components such as “dark” matter and “dark” energy.
Again, Science does not have an image of what happened 13 odd billion years ago, it has present images and somehow must infer that the present images relate to something that supposedly happened long, long ago and far, far, away.
Dr. Svalgaad, in this instance it’s clear this paper is something you want to hear, whether it’s valid or not.
Sorry James F. Evans
In order for me to answer your question it would have to be a lot more specific. What specific inferences are you refering to? I suspect Lief doesn’t know either.
I am not attacking you, I think the way our view of the universe has eviolved over the last 50 years seems unlikely. It isn’t a good explanation it’s only the best we can do at this time.
James F. Evans (18:49:29) :
“The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests.
The deceleration parameter is not an adjustable parameter, it is derived from directly measured quantities and we have no choice in the matter of its value. It is defined as q0 = – a *a”/(a’)^2. Where a, a’, and a” are the acceleration, change of acceleration, and change of change of the acceleration all of which are measurable quantities. But since you mention it, tell us how you adjust it and quote me which exclusive values are required to match which tests.
So, now, Dr. Svalgaard owes a test which can falsify the inferences in the paper
You do not know what ‘inference’ means in this connection. It means this: if the mass M of an object is 5 grams and its volume V is 1 cubic centimeter, I infer that its density d is M/V = 5 grams/cc. I have measured M and I have measured V, so we infer d from these two measurements. There is nothing to falsify as the inference derives from the measurements.
Again, Science does not have an image of what happened 13 odd billion years ago,
When you look at the Sun, do you see as it is at present or as it was 499 seconds ago?
Dr. Svalgaad, in this instance it’s clear this paper is something you want to hear, whether it’s valid or not.
It sounds more to me that the paper is something you do not want to hear.
Dr. Svalgaard asked me question or should I say made a demand: “The current measurements have none (free parameters). Find one for me. If you cannot, I take it that you concede there is none.”
My answer was incomplete.
As I stated, the observations & measurements I have no objection to, only the inferences, and upon demand, I provided an example of a free parameter.
But there are two more free parameters that are central to the so-called “big bang”.
What are they?
Both “dark” matter and “dark” energy are free parameters. Both are only inferences, neither has been directly observed & measured — without those two free parameters the “big bang” fails. Neither are actual observations & measurements of the WMAP paper, only inferences.
What do I mean by free parameter?
Proponents of the so-called “big bang” are free to sprinkle “dark” matter and “dark” energy where they like or need to in order to make the hypothesis work — essentially pixie dust — to make the hypothesis viable.
So, for the third time, Dr. Svalgaard what tests do we apply to both “dark” matter and “dark” energy to falsify them?
Dr. Svalgaard, this is a direct question, the failure to answer exposes the “big bang” as one big complicated charade.
If there is none, then they fail to be scientific and the whole “big bang” fails by its own weight of unfalsifiable free parameters.
And, please don’t attempt to say they exist without question, both have never been directly observed & measured. If they can’t be falsified — they are non-scientific hypotheticals.
Even Wikipedia identifies “dark” energy thus: “In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.”
Wikipedia is friendly to astronomy, however, it isn’t so friendly to the sceptics’ position on AGW. Even so, Wikipedia states that “dark” energy is “hypothetical”. So-called “dark” matter is no less hypothetical.
Now, some readers might say, “Evans, you’re hijacking this thread, go away.”
But I will show you why it’s relevant in two ways: First, originally astrophysics was used as a justification for Man-made global warming.
How so?
James Hansen of NASA provided the Venus greenhouse analogy, saying that Venus was Earth’s twin and that Venus was very hot (over 500 degrees Fahrenheit) due to a runaway greenhouse effect where CO2 built up and caused the planet to heat up (Venus atmosphere is over 80% CO2), even though Venus and Earth’s atmospheres are completely different. Hansen promoted the analogy that Venus’ temperature was a preview of Earth if CO2 was allowed to build up, thus, astronomy was intimately involved from the beginning with the whole Man-made global warming scam.
From my experience, most astronomers whole heartly signed up for AGW. After all, the hypothesis was derived from their discipline.
Second, and more specifically to the “big bang”. A large part of AGW is infering what the temperature was like in the past before there were thermometers to measure temperature or thermometers were in wide-spread use. Going back literally thousands of years. Everybody knows about the Mann Siberian “tree ring” fiasco (that’s being kind), which was an attempt to infer temperature. And, how the AGW climotologists attempted to make the Medival Warm Period disappear.
In essence, AGW climotolgists were making infernces about what the past was like and claiming it as fact.
The so-called “big bang” is an attempt to do the exact same thing: Making inferences about what the past was like and claiming it as fact. Perhaps, that is why so many astronomers are supportive of the AGW hypothesis because they recognized a kindred endeavor and know the theory derived from their discpline.
There are differences, of course, there is much more evidence of what the temperature was like in the Medival Warm Period, than whether the Universe started in a “big bang” from a “primeval atom” some 13 odd billion years ago.
But the principles are the same, make observations & measurements and attempt to make inferences about the past and claim it as fact.
Science has a good idea of the Medival warm period from contemporaneous written accounts. No such evidence exists for when the Universe started, if it started at all. Some things Man will never know and must accept — when or if the Universe “began” is one of them. Man is not privileged to know. It is folly and arrogance to insist Man must know — accepting the wonder of the unknown is sometimes all Man can do — there is nothing wrong with that. Claiming otherwise is wilful delusion.
Davidhoffer: “1. You complained that skeptics should be subject to the same standard of evaluation for their claims as are scientists promoting AGW theories.”
I made no such claim. I said that climate sceptics make claims, and that claims are open to challenge.
“2. It was pointed out to you that claims can be refuted which has nothing to do with advancing differing claims.”
Where this pointed this out, and why is it relevant to my argument?
“3. You complained that skeptics make lots of claims and presented a list of examples which were not in fact claims.”
Yes they are. They claim that x is the case.
“4. I provided to you a list of things that were actually claims by skeptics and pointed to the refutation of same by, in some cases, other skeptics.”
Irrelevant. I mentioned nothing about refutation, merely that sceptics make claims. And again, you confirm my contention.
To Peter Hearndon et al; in New Zealand, as an example, the Precautionary Principle is properly employed in using various branches of science to research the ability of experimental structures to withstand earthquakes and applying the properly validated results of such research to provide input to building codes and thus to make buildings safe from most earthquakes.
Earthquakes are an omnipresent threat in many Pacific Rim countries, witness the recent Haitian and Chilean ‘quakes. The death toll in Haiti was horrific because the Haitian econmy has not been able to use building methods suitable for such and area: the death toll in Cile was much lower due to a preponderance of buildings constructed to a suitable building code. CAGW has NOT been proved to be a clear and present danger, so the Precautionary Principle does not apply.
I do not object to governments using the Precautionary Principle when a real threat exists; I object strongly when public servants say, but cannot prove, a major threat exists but insist I must continue to trust them and that us taxpayers should stay silent because we are ignorant of ‘the science’. Worse, when politicians who patently don’t understand the proper use of the Precautionary Principle and call me a ‘flat earther’ because I demand proof, I have to believe that there is a major problem with the so-called ‘science’. When I see major tax initiatives put in place, demands to dismantle the infrastructure of an industrial and entreprenurial base in society that has wrought a high standard of living and demands that I must subsidise less industrialised countries who have squandered their own natural resources, I suspect there is more than ‘bad science’ happening.
OT, Russ Blake,
Sorry, I still this and put it on FB as “fun quote of the day” – We know Al Gore invented the Internet. I also suspect he has also invented new methods of “deep earth temperature measuring” ! The one thing I would like to know, did Al invent algorithms?
You might find the comments entertaining:
“Finally, i can save the world with deadly lasers instead of deadly slide shows” Al Gore.
Actually, Al Gore invented invention.
Al Gore was tipsy dancing with Tipper and that was how Algorhythm.
James F. Evans (21:45:14) :
Before we go on [and we shall] you stated:
Again, Science does not have an image of what happened 13 odd billion years ago,
When you look at the Sun, do you see as it is at present or as it was 499 seconds ago?
It is important that you answer this direct question.
Gregg E. (03:28:52) :
it must amount to a full year.
It is not that simple. Suppose you are missing one hour, would you then throw away all the other 8759 measurements and not compute a yearly value? If a day is missing? or two? or a month? From the statistical properties of the data one can decide at which point is makes sense to accept the data even if some points are missing, so there is merit to discussing this.
“One long ad hom, science content zero.
When will you people get off the backs of people like Dr Jones and leave them to get on with their research?
Incidentally, who are you Mr Mosher? If you think it’s right that everything about Dr Jones should be public knowledge because it might cost us billion if he’s wrong so his science needs infinite testing, then it’s also the case that if you’re wrong it might also cost us billions and so everything about you should be public knowledge.
Therefore I demand you place on public record all your scientifc notes, workings, jotting, e mails, code (every scrap) and papers for the last ten years. All of it, everything, every last word , figure and number. If you don’t do that i will be demanding it by FOI and I wont desisit, I’ll shower you with FOI request for a decade.
Get it?”
At the risk of feeding a troll.
Pete, Mr. Mosher makes the informal case that Professor Jones (a publicly funded scientist subject to specific laws in the UK) perpetrated fraud (at worst) or at best played games with the dissemination of proprietary data (which seems clear by Professor Jones own hand) AND his description of what was or was not his “practice”.
After watching the professor before the Select Committee in it’s entirety after having read the e-mails in question at length, it was clear to me that he was playing games with the truth.
As objective evidence, with a strait face he claimed disclosure and transparancy while holding a 20+ year document in his hand. The information contained therein was clearly “dated”, and did not represent timely transparency or disclosure.
He also “fudged” the truth when he responded to an inquiry indicating that the data he used was available from the US. Of course that data is available in the states just as the words of the English language are in the dictionary. It doesn’t allow for replication of results unless one can identify:
1) Which of the dataset elements were included
2) Which of the dataset elements were excluded
3) What methodology was used to combine the dataset elements and in what sequence (e.g. the infamous Fortran code)
4) Were there instances of unintended exclusion
5) Were there instances of unintended redundancy
All of these factors play into why curious minds would want to have FULL DISCLOSURE of all of the above which Professor Jones clearly did not disclose and did not wish to disclose. After a reading of the e-mails, I’m not convinced he could replicate his own results if his life depended on it.
You can agree or disagree with Mr. Mosher’s assertions. A clever barrister could I’m sure make a persuasive argument to a jury (and at this rate, Mr. Jones may need a clever barrister).
You put forward a perversion of “golden rules” principles. There is no reciprocal obligation between Mr. Mosher and Professor Jones. Professor Jones is part of a plan (whether conspiracy or coincidence) to scare the world’s population into spending TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS (not the chump change Billions you reference) on upsetting the economies of developed and developing countries, and seeking to stifle development in the Third World in exchange for promises of “wealth redistribution” so self-important do-gooders can take pictures of peasants in those same lands while on holiday.
Your “risk management” philosophy is absurd. I happen to be a professional risk manager. Your “innocence” may be cute to some, but for grown-ups it’s absolutely insane for you to make a strait faced claim that (and I’ll paraphrase) “Jones/Hansen/Mann/Gore may be right, so who are you to question”. By your logic we MUST go down this crazy bunny trail on blind faith, because the aformentioned “High Priests” of “climate science” say we should.
There may indeed be SOME risks associated with Climate Change. A more measured approach would be to look for empiracle evidence of actual cause and effect vs. their claims that (and again I paraphrase) “we tried to find natural causes and couldn’t relate them, so IT MUST BE MAN MADE”. How laughable that they say that nonsense with a strait face and the good little sheeple believe them.
There are ABSOLUTE RISKS associated with a hasty migration from fossil fuels, and similarly with the use of Climate Change Alarmism as a vehicle for greater “Global Governance”. Those are risks many of us aren’t prepared to accept absence a compelling, overwhelming, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt certainty that the rewards of mitigation of so called AGW exceed the risks of the status quo.
Many of us WILL QUESTION AGW and it’s advocates because we are thinking human beings with curious minds. Those who are blind sheep are free to follow the IPCC shepherds and their cohorts, we will not.
GET IT???
Dear Steve Mosher,
You know, I am impressed by the tone and content of things you write here (I read your Climategate book, by the way, and it was both informative and enjoyable). I see you are a lukewarmer, and if I recall correctly, you mention that one thing that convinces you is the correctness of the radiative physics.
I count myself as an AGW agnostic with a leaning towards the hypothesis being false, based on the political shenanigans associated with it, what Climategate revealed about scientific malpractice, and the sorry state of the surface temperature record, as so often discussed at WUWT.
There sure as heck seems to be a lot of fishy business, but in all truth I can’t say for certain the hypothesis is wrong. Part of that is because I’m not a scientist in the field. I’m assuming that to understand the radiative physics side, a good grounding in maths and physics would be desirable, but maybe you know of some accessible information/explanation which wouldn’t dumb things down too much?
I tend to get lost sometimes when things get beyond a certain level of technicality, and I daresay I’m not alone in that. The statistics side of temperature measurement processing isn’t that bad; after a while, you get the flavour of certain concepts such as smoothing, trends, anomalies, adjustments, and so on. Also, one picks up lots of interesting and useful information about all sorts of weather and climate phenomena, so I understand a lot more than I did when I first started coming here when Climategate broke.
However, I’d really like to be able to understand radiative physics better than I do. Maybe if I did I’d be a lukewarmer too, who knows!
If you could point me to something on the Web or even in a book, I’d be most grateful.
James F. Evans (21:45:14) :
You are completely wasting your time trying to get a direct answer from Leif.
He & I have played this game on a few Threads now and when asked a Direct question requiring a Direct answer, he either changes the subject, asks another question or falls back on the I am a Scientist and know best.
Your description “It is folly and arrogance to insist Man must know” fits him to a Tee.
I don’t care how clever he is, he agues exactly as Ivory Tower CAGW scientists argue, so don’t bother wasting your time he won’t admit he is wrong, because he obviously never is.
A C, You are right. When a scientist is asked a Direct question there are two possible answers: A Direct answer that responds to the direct question asked;
or,
State they “don’t know.”
AC, as you point out Dr. Svalgaard can’t do that.
There is nothing wrong with stating you don’t know.
But Dr. can’t do that because of his own ideosyncrasies. And, because he knows he speaks for the larger community, so if he does say, “I don’t know,” he knows the larger community “doesn’t know”, either.
And, with my direct question asking for a falsifying test for “Dark” matter and “dark” energy, to admit he “doesn’t know”, is to admit these ideas are non-scientific and deserve no scientific respect.
Which as I stated above would falsify the entire “big bang” theory and all claims of “precision”; it ruptures the entire cosmology, and the cosmological mechanics that support it.
The problem for Dr. Svalgaard and the community is that a failure to answer a direct question is the same as responding that they “don’t know”.
As I stated, “There is nothing wrong with stating you don’t know.”
But it reveals there is uncertainty and Dr. Svalgaard can’t abide by that, and on crucial questions any uncertainty calls into question any claims of certainty. And, claims of “precision” go out the window and become a joke.
There is a crisis in “modern” astronomy.
Dr. Svlgaard addressed and quoted Evans (05:43:17) : “Before we go on [and we shall] you stated”, (21:45:14): “Again, Science does not have an image of what happened 13 odd billion years ago,”
And then Dr. Svalgaard asked: “When you look at the Sun, do you see as it is at present or as it was 499 seconds ago? It is important that you answer this direct question.”
The fallacy of this question is the implied assumption that the electromagnetic radiation observed & measured as contained in the WMAP paper was emitted at the time shortly after the so-called “big bang”.
But such an assumption is unwarranted.
(To directly answer Dr. Svalgaard’s question, yes, I see the Sun as it appeared 499 seconds ago.)
There are many physical explanations for the electromagnetic radiation observed & measured that don’t rely on the assumption that it was emitted shortly after the “big bang”, such as electromagnetic radiation “fog”.
There is no presumption and precious little evidence that the electromagnetic radiation observed & measured by WMAP dated from an emission 13 odd billion years ago.
Dr. Svalgaard’s argument is the last ditch refuge of any probability of validity, so he makes it.
But it fails.
So, I have answered Dr. Svalgaard’s direct question while he has cynically avoided answering my direct question.
This has already happened once before where Dr. Svalgaard asked a question and I answered it, but he refused to answer my direct question.
One starts to question Dr. Svalgaard’s credibility.
And, just as important, it still doesn’t answer the direct question I put to Dr. Svalgaard: “What tests do we apply to both “dark” matter and “dark” energy to falsify them?”
Dr. Svalgaard, will you answer the question or do we make the obvious conclusions?
It’s your choice.
Dr. Svalgaard, it’s okay to say, “I don’t know.”
It’s worse for your credibility as a serious scientist not to answer and then reveal yourself as a naked advocate, more skilled in propaganda than objective scientific responsibility.
AC, Yes, Dr. Svalgaard, “agues exactly as Ivory Tower CAGW scientists argue”, but it’s important that readers of this website know that.
So, that’s why I ask the questions.
James F. Evans (16:44:23) :
And, with my direct question asking for a falsifying test for “Dark” matter and “dark” energy, to admit he “doesn’t know”, is to admit these ideas are non-scientific and deserve no scientific respect.
You do not seem to know that dark matter and dark are directly observed and measured. You cannot falsify measurements. It is like asking for a test that would falsify that the [mean] distance to the Sun is 149,597,871 kilometers. This cannot be falsified as that is in fact the distance. Now, you say that all previous and current measurements are in error because a new measurement shows that the distance is only 1,234 miles and that the new measurements falsify the old. Similarly, you could claim that all measurements taken of he CNB including WMAP are in error and a new WMAP spacecraft will show that the Universe is real 19,78 billions years ago. So, indeed, the current numbers are falsifiable, but we maintain that it is not likely that they are false, because thousands of people have done their utmost to made sure that the instruments work.
To directly answer Dr. Svalgaard’s question, yes, I see the Sun as it appeared 499 seconds ago.
And the Andromeda Galaxy as it was 2.9 million years ago? As the quasar called SDSS J1148+5251 at a redshift (z) of 6.43 as it was 13 billion years ago. Remember you said: “In other words, present observations & measurements record present physical conditions”. It is obvious that they do not, as you have now admitted.
There is no presumption and precious little evidence that the electromagnetic radiation observed & measured by WMAP dated from an emission 13 odd billion years ago.
You are correct there is no presumption as we are talking about a direct measurement. NASA [who you often cite as ultimate authority] has just reported on the WMAP 7-year results: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ :
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is a NASA Explorer mission that launched June 2001 to make fundamental measurements of cosmology — the study of the properties of our universe as a whole. WMAP has been stunningly successful, producing our new Standard Model of Cosmology. WMAP continues to collect high quality scientific data.
NEW! WMAP 7-YEAR RESULTS, JAN. 26, 2010
The WMAP team has reported the first direct detection of pre-stellar helium, providing an important test of the big bang prediction.
WMAP now places 50% tighter limits on the standard model of cosmology.
WMAP has detected a key signature of inflation.
WMAP strongly constrains dark energy and geometry of the universe.
WMAP places new constraints on the number of neutrino-like species in the early universe.
WMAP has detected, with very high significance, temperature shifts induced by hot gas in galaxy clusters.
WMAP has produced a visual demonstration of the polarization pattern around hot and cold spots.
SEE THE DETAILS!
WMAP’s Top Ten
NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky
WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records!
WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of “flat” Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning measurements by over an order of magnitude
The CMB became the “premier baryometer” of the universe with WMAP’s precision determination that ordinary atoms (also called baryons) make up only 4.6% of the universe (to within 0.1%)
WMAP’s complete census of the universe finds that dark matter (not made up of atoms) make up 23.3% (to within 1.3%)
WMAP’s accuracy and precision determined that dark energy makes up 72.1% of the universe (to within 1.5%), causing the expansion rate of the universe to speed up. – “Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background (CMB).” – Science Magazine 2003, “Breakthrough of the Year” article
————-
But, If you are not privileged to know about these things [as you claim Man is not] perhaps you better not go and have a look.
Let me restate: there are no free parameters in cosmology. Everything is measured and empirical.
For anyone interested in how the WMAP measurements are taken:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr4/pub_papers/sevenyear/supplement/WMAP_supplement.pdf
Warning: rather technical, but so is the truth.
Dr. Svalgaard, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
Dr. Svalgaard states: “You do not seem to know that dark matter and dark are directly observed and measured. You cannot falsify measurements.”
Dr. Svalgaard, in your own paragraph where you claim that so-called “dark” matter and “dark” energy have been directly observed & measured, you fail to offer or provide any direct observations & measurements of same.
Dr. Svalgaard expects readers to take his assertion at face value with no supporting evidence. That’s not persuasive or , frankly, scientific.
So-called “dark” matter & energy are well known to be only inferred by indirect observation & measurement — so they are a hypothesis.
No direct observations & measurments of “dark” matter and “dark” energy have been made, not withstanding Dr. Svalgaard’s protests to the contrary.
Please provide a peer-reviewed paper’s quote that affirmatively states there is direct observation & measurement of so-called “dark” matter and “dark” energy.
If not, the inescapable conclusion is that Dr. Svalgaard statement is false.
And, so far, Dr. Svalgaard refuses to answer my question as to whether there is a test to falsify these hypothesis.
Dr. Svalgaard, states, “…the quasar called SDSS J1148+5251 at a redshift (z) of 6.43 as it was 13 billion years ago.”
Even if “redshift” is a correct inference of distance (which Halton C. Arp persuasively falsifies), for the sake of argument, the quasar at that distance, and, thus, time in the past (based on the time light takes to travel), actually falsifies the so-called “big bang” because it is a fully formed astronomical object at a time when according to the “big bang” hypothesis there should be no fully formed objects, rather, there should only be a “smooth” background radiation signal.
Further, just because a quasar, an astronomical object, has been spotted at that distance and so time (per hypothesis), that says nothing about the validity of the “big bang”, Lemaître’s 1927 supposed “primeval atom”, because a far older Universe would have many quasars in it, and, perhaps more important, infers nothing about the mechanics of how the Universe started.
Again, Dr. Svalgaard, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, Dr. Svalgaard states, “You are correct there is no presumption as we are talking about a direct measurement.”
No, there are only inferences.
The very WMAP paper you cite acknowledges these are inferences of the “big bang”, not direct observations & measurements.
The NASA document you cite, also, doesn’t claim there is direct observation & measurement of the so-called “big bang”. Instead, there are a list of observations & measurements that supposedly lead to inferences (also known as indirect observation & measurement) of the so-called “big bang”.
It’s not credible to mistate what scientific papers and documents report.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Let me restate: there are no free parameters in cosmology. Everything is measured and empirical.”
Dr. Svalgaard, apparently you don’t know the difference between direct observation & meaurement of the thing, itself, and indirect observation & measurement from which inferences are drawn as to the validity of a hypothesis. As in a direct observation & measurement of “A” which leads to an inference of the existence of “B”. There is no direct observation & measurement of “B” only an inference to its supposed existence.
Such is the case in the papers you present.
So, once again, Dr. Svalgaard, “What tests do we apply to both “dark” matter and “dark” energy to falsify them?”
It’s sad that Dr. Svalgaard can’t come to grips with reality and won’t admit to basic distinctions between direct evidence, and indirect evidence which then requires inferences to be drawn.
But it is an example of why “modern” astronomy is in crisis, today.
Readers, here, understand the distinction between direct observation & meaurement, and indirect observation & measurement requiring the drawing of inferences, even if Dr. Svalgaard can’t, so readers should take that into consideration when evaluating Dr. Svalgaard’s credibility and how much weight should be given to his opinions and statements on the subject.
James F. Evans (10:21:26) :
provide any direct observations & measurements of same.
Is there a measurement of the mass of the Sun?
James F. Evans (10:21:26) :
You did not answer my direct question about the Andromeda Galaxy at 2.9 million lightyears. Do we see it at is today or as it was 2.9 million years ago?
Remember: “In other words, present observations & measurements record present physical conditions”.
Dr Svaalgard,
How do we measure the sun’s distance? And Andromeda’s? And how do we calibrate the two different means of measurement?
supercritical (14:54:00) :
How do we measure the sun’s distance?
By bouncing radar signals off Venus and time how long it takes them to return.
And Andromeda’s? And how do we calibrate the two different means of measurement?
In our galaxy we find a class of stars that pulsate [Cepheids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable ]. There is a relation between how fast the pulsate and how bright they really are. From the observed brightness [knowing their real brightness we can calculate their distance]. Cepheids have been observed in Andromeda, so we know its distance.
Dr Svaaalgard,
thanks for your response, but could you tell me how the two different measurement methods are calibrated to each other?
The distances to the stars are fundamentally determined by the parallax, that is their movement in the sky caused by the Earth going around the Sun, so the Sun’s distance is the fundamental yardstick, and that are how they are calibrated to each other, because they have that in common.
There is another method of measuring distances to Cepheids, namely by light echos: they shine on dust in their neighborhood, and since the speed of light is finite the light variation shone on the dust is delayed compared to that from the star. By measuring the delay, multiplying by the speed of light, and measuring how far in the sky the dust is from the star, we can compute its distance. Since we measured the distance to the Sun by radar signals to Venus, the speed of light enters into both methods, so the distances are calibrated to what they have in common: the speed of light.
These methods give comparable results, so we gain confidence in their correctness.
Dr. Svalgaard, since you won’t answer direct questions put to you (if the answers don’t serve your purpose), there is little gained in a tit for tat back and forth discussion at this point. See A C Osborn’s (09:38:19) comment.
But there is enough of a record at this juncture, so, I’ll let readers decide for themselves whether your refusals and other responses are consistent with objective scientific responsibility. I’m tired of playing your game, but I do think it’s been demonstrative of what AGW climotologists and many astronomers do when the evidenciary inconsistencies in their respective disciplines are pointed out and questions are asked about those inconsistencies.
It was telling when you couldn’t bear to admit, “I don’t know” and instead all we got was evasions and word games.
Dr. Svalgaard, you’re smart — too smart by half — you think you can talk your way out of anything and readers won’t be the wiser for it.
But you’re underestimating the readers of this website.
James F. Evans (16:43:33) :
But you’re underestimating the readers of this website.
[Leif? ~ ctm]
Leif Svalgaard (21:43:08) :
James F. Evans (16:43:33) :
But you’re underestimating the readers of this website.
[Leif? ~ ctm]
Yes, I said I had overestimated Evans. I thought he was interested in learning about how the Universe works, but I was wrong.
Leif Svalgaard (23:01:42) :
Yes, I said I had overestimated Evans. I thought he was interested in learning about how the Universe works, but I was wrong.
The way forward that I was suggesting was to use the ‘Method of Elenchus’ or ἔλεγχος, being the central technique of this Socratic Method.
No direct observations & measurements of “dark” matter and “dark” energy have been made, not withstanding Dr. Svalgaard’s protests to the contrary.
This is correct, Mr. Evans.
I don’t see anything original or profound in Dr. Svalgaard’s posts — nothing that goes beyond explanations of the obvious on the level of a college textbook. As soon as there is an interesting or difficult question, Dr. Svalgaard carefully avoids it [snip]
Reply: And now you as well. This may appear reversed to readers, but this is the order in which I did things. ~ ctm
And Charles, don’t be so openly biased in Leif’s favor. I can speak only for myself but it is so obvious that, I am sure, I am not the only one who noticed.
Reply: Uh, the only one I snipped in this thread was Leif and someone else let subsequent comments through. However, I do not allow Leif bashing as Leif is a major contributor. ~ ctm
Thankyou Dr Svaalgard. As I see it, this elegant and ingenious explanation is based on the assumption that the light from a given object must have the same velocity when detected by all observers in the universe, irrespective of distance and relative velocity. Is this so?
supercritical (23:51:13) :
Thankyou Dr Svaalgard. As I see it, this elegant and ingenious explanation is based on the assumption that the light from a given object must have the same velocity when detected by all observers in the universe, irrespective of distance and relative velocity. Is this so?
This assumption is well tested and its consequences are numerous [ask survivors of Hiroshima or users of a GPS device]. But, as I said, the agreement between the two methods [parallax and light echo] makes the assumption unnecessary.
The costliness of warmist policies isn’t the basic reason researchers’ records should be open to scrutiny, it’s just an intensifier of that reason — which is that they were publicly funded, or that their records are needed to evaluate the scientific papers based on them.
Beyond that, there’s no justification for demanding that anyone else, such as a mere arguer, must “show his papers.”