He really makes a laughingstock of himself in this feckless piece of disinformation about the Yamal affair. It reeks of desperation. He even manages to use my objections to NCDC using an incomplete, non quality controlled preliminary dataset posted on the web solely to keep volunteers updated of the survey status and for no other purpose, as an “unpublished” work suitable for scientific consumption. NCDC went ahead and used it for a paper anyway, despite my objections. Somehow in the bizarre hockey team entrenched mindset of Gavin, this is comparable to the team’s objections to releasing FOI sought data on Yamal. Note to Gavin – my file was already public!
You’d think a scientist could get this simple fact right.
Gavin writes:
UK FOI legislation (quite sensibly) specifically exempts unpublished work from release provided the results are being prepared for publication. So McIntyre’s appeals have tried to insinuate that no such publication is in progress (which is false) or that the public interest in knowing about a regional tree ring reconstruction from an obscure part of Siberia trumps the obvious interest that academics have in being able to work on projects exclusively prior to publication. This is a hard sell, unless of course one greatly exaggerates the importance of a single proxy record – but who would do that? (Oh yes: YAD06 – the most important tree in the world, The global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie etc.). Note that premature public access to unpublished work is something that many people (including Anthony Watts) feel quite strongly about.
Worse, McIntyre has claimed in his appeal that the length of time since the Briffa et al (2008) paper implies that the regional Yamal reconstruction has been suppressed for nefarious motives. But I find it a little rich that the instigator of a multitude of FOI requests, appeals, inquiries, appeals about inquires, FOIs about appeals, inquiries into FOI appeals etc. is now using the CRU’s lack of productivity as a reason to support more FOI releases. This is actually quite funny.
Furthermore, McIntyre is using the fact that Briffa and colleagues responded online to his last deceptive claims about Yamal, to claim that all Yamal-related info must now be placed in the public domain (including, as mentioned above, unpublished reconstructions being prepared for a paper). How this will encourage scientists to be open to real-time discussions with critics is a little puzzling. Mention some partial analysis online, and be hit immediately with a FOI for the rest…?
Our favorite Yamal tracking historian, Andrew Montford explodes Gavins claims at Bishop Hill.
Montford writes:
Gavin Schmidt has issued the official response to the recent excitement over Yamal. I have to say, even on a brief glance through it is a wild piece of writing.
Briffa, as we know, reprocessed data from Hantemirov and Shiyatov in his 2000 paper on Yamal. He used the same data again in his 2008 paper on regional chronologies. Schmidt says:
McIntyre is accusing Briffa of ‘deception’ in stating that he did not ‘consider’ doing a larger more regional reconstruction at that time. However, it is clear from the 2000 paper that the point was to show hemispheric coherence across multiple tree ring records, not to create regional chronologies. Nothing was being ‘deceptively’ hidden and the Yamal curve is only a small part of the paper in any case.
As McIntyre’s article is quite clear that the Yamal regional chronology dates back only to 2006 it can of course not be relevant to the 2000 paper. This is something that he makes quite clear in his article.
One of the purposes of Briffa (2000) was clearly to demonstrate the effect of RCS methodology on the Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 dataset. I have no objection to CRU claiming this “purpose” for Briffa (2000).
But, by 2008, this was no longer their “purpose”. Indeed, one doubts whether the editors of Phil Trans B would have accepted a 2008 paper with such a mundane purpose. The actual “purpose” of Briffa et al 2008 is stated quite clearly and was entirely different: it introduced and discussed “regional” chronologies.
Schmidt is therefore engaging in some serious disinformation. Unfortunately, this is not the only occasion. For example, he points out that McIntyre had long ago received “the data” from the Russians who originally collated it.
Full story here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/11/realclimate-on-yamal.html
Gavin should know by now that he can’t get away with this sort of stuff. I wonder what Phil Jones will do next week.
Even Angstrom proved the assertion wrong way before the 1960’s when he, pondering Arhennius’ notion of more c02 would give more heat, he doubled then halved the amount of c02 in a chamber from a base of what was to be found in the atmosphere. The level of radiation going through the gas barely changed on either case. The wavelength bands are too narrow for radiation absorption. Fair enough, that at the peak of 15 microns, there are wings at either side, but they coincide with the wavelengths of other gases, like water vapour, and where c02 is at its most active, it isn’t active in the average temperature of the earth range, which is 10 microns – which equates to 15C by wein’s displacement law. 15 microns is still -89C, which is where c02 absorbs energy. There may be a slight effect of increasing total atmospheric energy for a brief moment, but to call greenhouse gases a greenhouse effect is plain wrong. The earth isn’t bounded by barriers, so c02 only delays small amounts of radiation from leaving earth, and even then, at extremely cold temperatures. Only a small amount of co2 is required for this effect, and even then the magnitude is climatically insignificant as aforcing. A feedback perhaps.
That means that if there were no co2, surface temperatures would be the same, but the top of the troposphere (where co2 is at its most active) would be slightly colder
>>
P Wilson says:
May 14, 2012 at 3:21 pm
<<
I tried this argument last year on the following thread and was thoroughly chastised for my effort.
Jim
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises the level at which CO2 (and other greenhouse gases including water) radiates to space. Since it is colder the higher you go, this slows down the rate of radiation.
I think you’re puttnig the cart before the horse. The scientists are the agents by which the organizational bias (scientific corruption) happens. These organizations are groups of self-selected people, wherein groupthink, intolerance for dissent, and other signs of bias and corruption are there, if you’re open to seeing them. Go read the Yamal Yawner thread at RealClimate, and tell me this is a group of scientists that has a healthy view of scientific criticism, that embraces falsification. Go to the AGU journal, and find an article that’s published by a scientist skeptical of CAGW. These are the ‘tells’ that tendentious political advocacy has subsumed real science.
I have biases, of course. We all do. I believe my biases on this issue to be more of a result than a cause. I suppose I could be deluding myself about that. But I’ve always had much respect for science and it’s role in human history and human civilization. I just don’t think climate science, its confusion about statistics (conflating correlations with causation), the way science has been pressed into service of a “movement”, with unholy global governance political alliances (Greenpeace and other environmental eco-extremists, the UN, the Progressives, et.al) and particularly it’s addiction to computer models are a credit to that history.
Otter17 replied to me with: “Again, a lot of opinion and subjective views of the science/scientists there. Where is there specific evidence that a majority of scientific organizations, including the NAS, are corrupted? Why wouldn’t scientists leave these organizations in large numbers if they were indeed corrupt? What you describe sounds more like a conspiracy theory. I am skeptical of someone that puts out blanket accusations.”
To anyone seriously denying the groupthink and social, political, economic (peer-reviewed papers getting published, contradictory papers stuck in endless editing and comment delays), funding biases, funding preferences by government agencies, social feedback pressure by a peer group that promotes within itself, university peer-groups of extreme liberals and extreme bias against capitalism …..
Please, name ANY so-called “science organization” which has adopted its pro-CAGW “offocial” position as a result of an independent and organization-wide secret ballot vote by all eligible members (NOT a pre-selected group or a “responding to a poll group!” You will find that each of these organization positions has been taken over by its “national leadership” (government-focused, Washington-based) council or chair. When challenged by individuals at national meetings, the “leadership” denounces the claim, but still refuses national level ballots.
The membership of these so-called scientific organizations has NOT spoken. Only the NGO-chosen directors and chairs.
Mickey Reno says:
May 15, 2012 at 6:48 pm
“I just don’t think climate science, its confusion about statistics (conflating correlations with causation), the way science has been pressed into service of a “movement”, with unholy global governance political alliances (Greenpeace and other environmental eco-extremists, the UN, the Progressives, et.al) and particularly it’s addiction to computer models are a credit to that history.”
___________________________
See, that sentence just doesn’t sit well with me. When people start going on tangents about fears of unholy global government alliances, I tend to think that the fear of global government overrides a rational view of the science. It begins to go into conspiracy theory territory, at least from the outset with no direct evidence of multiple whistleblowers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Furthermore, paleo-records exists in addition to models.
RACookPE1978 says:
May 15, 2012 at 7:06 pm
“To anyone seriously denying the groupthink and social, political, economic (peer-reviewed papers getting published, contradictory papers stuck in endless editing and comment delays), funding biases, funding preferences by government agencies, social feedback pressure by a peer group that promotes within itself, university peer-groups of extreme liberals and extreme bias against capitalism …..”
__________________________
Again, this type of speech doesn’t sit well with me (evil anti-capitalists and extreme liberals, etc). To me, I see emotional attachment to political ideals (or hatred of other ideals) as a potentially stronger factor in the way people interpret certain science subjects.
Also, even if you are correct that only a handful of members in the NAS get to sign off on statements, then why don’t members leave in droves if they know the statement is incorrect or based on peer pressure, etc. Where are the whistleblowers?
otter17 says:
“…why don’t members leave in droves…”
How do you know they’re not?
Your appeals to authority are getting old and stale. Try arguing the science instead. That would be a welcome change to your head count fallacy.
Smokey says:
May 15, 2012 at 8:08 pm
“How do you know they’re not?
Your appeals to authority are getting old and stale. Try arguing the science instead. That would be a welcome change to your head count fallacy.”
______________________________
Oh, I would know since you would probably be the first person to let EVERYBODY know, haha. Plus, the scientists themselves would likely leave in disgust. Instead, we have quite a few NAS affiliated scientists supporting statements such as this in support of the integrity of science..
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.short
How about some evidence that the NAS is ethically challenged and/or compromised? This isn’t a head count fallacy so much as trying to ascertain why you would accuse an entire organization of poor ethics when you don’t have any specific evidence on that organization. I am skeptical of blanket accusations, and rightly so. Don’t change the subject.
Your earlier arguments hinged on either the NAS being on the whole incompetent or corrupt. Since you have provided no evidence of corruption, I would have to be convinced that you are more competent than the NAS. Most everyone would be skeptical of this, myself included considering the scientific evidence I have seen. Sorry.
Turning the tables now, what is your bias, Smokey? If you can put a blanket accusation out on a whole group of people, can I ask a simple set of questions? What views on politics or religion, etc. could possibly be influencing or putting blinders on your ability to see the science clearly and make rational risk mitigation decisions?
otter17,
Still avoiding discussing science, I see. Your appeals to a corrupt authority are getting old and stale. Wake me when they allow rank-and-file members to communicate using membership contact lists. Until then they are just another propaganda organ of the runaway global warming “carbon” cult, and you are their tool.
The NAS has been infiltrated by eco-ideologues who use a thin veneer of science to push their radical, debunked climate alarmism. Lemmings like otter17 repeat their narrative, never understanding that anti-science radicals have taken over key positions in the once reputable NAS, which has now lost all credibility. A few years ago MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen wrote an exposé of the NAS, naming names. Read it here, and pay particular attention to all of Section 2.
This corruption of a once fine organization is nothing new to skeptics, who have watched the ethical destruction of the NAS and many similar organizations. Apologists like otter17 either have no clue about what has happened, or they revel in the corruption. Based on otter17’s ignorant comments, I suspect the former.
If otter17 can specifically refute each of Prof Lindzen’s accusations, wake me. Instead I expect him to fall back on the corrupted authority of a hijacked organization that does not allow its membership any voice in it’s wild-eyed alarmist statements. The National Academy of Sciences is now no more scientific than Scientology, and it attracts scientific iliterates like otter17 along the way. That is why otter17 refuses to discuss the science; he is in over his head. Therefore, he parrots his endless appeals to a corrupted authority.
Smokey says:
May 15, 2012 at 8:56 pm
__________________
Still trying to change the subject despite being asked repeatedly to provide any bit of evidence to support the notion that that NAS is a corrupt authority. Just because you say so is not good enough. I also provided some discussion of science above, indicating that there is empirical paleo data.
When you say membership contact lists, do you mean a directory search such as this? It seems members ought to be able to search for one another and communicate easily enough by looking up their organization’s email address.
http://nas.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=MEMBERS_Main
Again, making statements that you assume that they are “another propaganda organ of the runaway global warming cult” doesn’t exactly make you look rational. Also, I am not a tool. Resorting to this kind of speech, I have to assume you concede your original points.
otter17 is a clueless tool. He posted this as his claim that members can “communicate easily”. Anyone can see that you must first have the membership list in order to make use of that page. Tool.
Smokey, Otter17 also ignores the peer reviewed paper showing scientists falsify data rather regularly.
As far as I am concerned, scientists and especially the learned societies need to be kicked off their pedestals the sooner the better.
Smokey says:
May 15, 2012 at 9:33 pm
otter17 is a clueless tool. He posted this as his claim that members can “communicate easily”. Anyone can see that you must first have the membership list in order to make use of that page. Tool.
___________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences
Oh, thanks for the Lindzen article link. Now that is at least something, though not very substantial since Lindzen is mostly conjecturing throughout. He doesn’t have nearly the standard of evidence to bring together for a law suit, and I’m sure American Tradition Institute would love to take on that case (if the evidence were there, though highly likely it isn’t from what I have seen). Furthermore, I believe Lindzen is still a member of the NAS. If the corruption was so bad, why wouldn’t he resign in protest? And even if he did resign, that is one scientist’s opinion of the state of affairs, possibly a wrong opinion. Also, Lindzen associates with the Cato Institute, which could potentially be a conflict of interest. Again, the claim you made was huge, but the equally huge evidence apparently isn’t there. No big deal; we all get carried away sometimes.
Anyway, probably best we take a break from this. The article comments will probably close soon, and you might benefit from some time to cool down. Take some time to re-evaluate things, understand your own potential biases, etc.
otter17 has run out of wiggle room: Prof Lindzen names names, so if he was not being honest, he would be the one worrying about lawsuits. But he is plainly unceoncerned, because he is telling the truth. In American jurisprudence, truth is an absolute defense. None of the conniving clowns Lindzen names will do anything about it besides tucking their tails between their hind legs and slinking away. They have thoroughly corrupted a once great organization, and they will not risk losing what they have done by fighting over their lack of probity in a court setting.
Like all tools, otter17 is beset by cognitive dissonance. He says, “…If the corruption was so bad, why wouldn’t he resign in protest? And even if he did resign…” &etc.
See, the tool will never admit that he is plainly wrong. He’s got all of his bases covered: if Prof Lindzen resigns, then Lindzen is wrong — and if he doesn’t resign, he is wrong, too. otter17 is the perfect tool, incessantly arguing, while learning absolutely nothing.
Gail Combs says:
May 16, 2012 at 11:19 am
“Smokey, Otter17 also ignores the peer reviewed paper showing scientists falsify data rather regularly.”
………..
“As far as I am concerned, scientists and especially the learned societies need to be kicked off their pedestals the sooner the better.”
_____________________________________
It is difficult to ignore that which I was unaware. Regardless, I am under no impression that all scientists are squeaky clean. I have seen dishonesty in my own profession, and I’m sure there are infractions within science too, as this study shows. It appears this study covers a wide variety of scientific fields, so your statement that scientists and scientific societies should be kicked off their pedestals is somewhat troubling to me. I see value in this study since it can identify areas of improvement to further hone the scientific endeavor, but to take a strong stance such as this seems quite over the top. Also, the study does not claim that data is falsified regularly, more like a few percentage points.
Plus, the study seems to imply that contrarian scientists would exhibit misconduct just as often as those that agree with climate change theory. The beauty of the scientific process is that these biases tend to be averaged out since they attempt to critically examine and refute other work. Furthermore, peer review can catch some biases, and rebuttals can catch more still. Also, work that is cited and is built upon by other research tends to show which papers are cream of the crop. Then, scientific academies such as the NAS observe the trends in quality papers such that reports can be collated for informing the American people. This general model has been around since the days of Isaac Newton and the founding of the Royal Society. The NAS has been around since the Civil War era when Lincoln commissioned it. To claim it is completely dysfunctional requires an extraordinary amount of evidence. People do this type of thing in an attempt to discredit evolution as well; they generally fail.
Smokey says:
May 16, 2012 at 4:12 pm
“See, the tool will never admit that he is plainly wrong. He’s got all of his bases covered: if Prof Lindzen resigns, then Lindzen is wrong — and if he doesn’t resign, he is wrong, too. otter17 is the perfect tool, incessantly arguing, while learning absolutely nothing.”
____________________
Sigh, that isn’t what I meant. What I meant was that Lindzen plus others resigning would be a sufficient cause to take notice. And why are you referring to me in the third person? It seems like you are trying to be disrespectful, but it just seems weird.
otter17,
I quoted your own words. You said in effect: ‘…if Prof Lindzen resigns, then Lindzen is wrong — and if he doesn’t resign, he is wrong, too.’ Heads I win, tails you lose, eh? Sorry, bud, your “gotcha” statement is disingenuous.
Why should we pay attention to someone who says that Prof Lindezen is wrong no matter what he does? In fact, Lindzen was in the middle of the issue, and a first-hand witness. You were not.
You just don’t like the fact that a first-hand eyewitness has destroyed your false narrative claiming that the NAS is not a corrupt organization. But as Lindzen recounts, the NAS has been taken over by eco-radicals, who wouldn’t know the truth if it bit ’em on the ankle. The same can be said about you.
No, I said his resignation would POSSIBLY be due to a wrong opinion of the situation. I didn’t mean it as a “gotcha” statement. I don’t discredit all his opinions out of hand, only that I am skeptical why such a huge issue as eco-radicals taking over the NAS doesn’t have more evidence. Lindzen also uses accusatory and seemingly biased language throughout his paper, which also raises some flags.
Have the evil eco-radicals also infiltrated the AAAS, AGU, AMS, Royal Society, and other National Academy equivalents throughout the world? How about the Department of Defense or the businesses associated with the US Climate Action Partnership? They all support action to mitigate climate change or imply widespread changes. Your insistence that the NAS has been taken over completely by eco-radicals is incredibly far-fetched considering the level of evidence shown. This is a HUGE deal if true. Where is the Congressional inquiry? Where are the investigative reporter investigations?