This article contends that there is so much government money to be made promoting Man-made global warming that the scientists on the dole will stop at nothing.
But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that “I’ll be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: “I think we should stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that “I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute.”
Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I’m hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it’s becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that’s nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.
Of course, Mr. Russell didn’t look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That’s because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.
People focus on the word trick, and don’t look at the full phrase. Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline.
Mike is Mike Mann, Nature is the journal where the hockey stick first appeared. Attempting to trick you into not seeing the decline.
The decline is in the value of tree proxies.
They are hidden by replacing them with actual measured temperatures. So now you see a hockey stick instead of a decline in proxy value.
The Nature part is significant. The originally hockey stick uses a similar trick. Add in instrument data at the end and average, producing a little bit more of an upswing.
A number of commentators are still falling for the lies that were spread by various scientists early on in the ClimateGate story. Instrumental temperatures were spliced on to the end of the graph to produce Phil Jones’ chart. It wasn’t just the dropping of inconvenient data, or putting thermometer records alongside, both of which were lies told by the scientists involved.
Here is the chart without Mike’s Nature trick:
http://uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138393!imageManager/4052145227.jpg
Here is the chart as presented, with Mike’s Nature trick(that really wasn’t the actual trick used by Mike in Nature, but much cruder, not very clever way of doing something)
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/wmo913.png
Interesting that there is no such thing is a degree in climatology.
http://examiner.com/x-3132-Philadelphia-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m2d5-What-is-a-Climatologist-precisely
In other words, people who claim to be climatologists could actually have a degree in any number of fields, from geology to meteorology. The problem is that none of these people have a degree in statistics, which might be more relevant than any of the other degrees.
Forgive me for blatantly stealing this quote from another commenter on Slashdot, but this is one of the best points I have seen made on this subject:
>
The Climatologists are taking a dataset that is both sparse temporally and spatially, measured by instruments never intended to be used for the purposes they are being used for and typically installed in a manner that introduces errors in the majority of the instruments who then adjust, normalize and homogenize the data using methods that are often poorly defined and just expect everyone to except it on their authority. When ever someone has the audacity to question their data or methods, the result is a vigorous ad hominem attacks which reeks more of politics or religion than scientific debate.
When was the last time a nuclear physicist ever said “The science is settled”?
>
# 33 Skeptic
“Well there goes THAT argument. That figure has been shown to be fake. There was never a comprehensive poll taken.”
Really? Where?
freddybobs68k,
You are asking me where a poll that doesn’t exist is.
Criticism and defence in journal are as important a part of science, as research and publishing. Any journal editor with a political agenda, which most do will misuse editorial privilege to support his own beliefs. This is why the most respected journals have elected editorial boards to consider controversial submissions.
#27 I can recall when it was announced that an institute in Hawaii had discovered that CO2 was going up. I knew at the time that this would have some sort of impact on climate. I’m sure it does have some sort of impact but then so does pavement. Pavement absorbs much more heat than a plant covered surface. Do you want us to remove all pavement and plant weeds?
I listened to the forecasters of doom and I looked at what they were saying. I had a clue about what had been said in the past and when I got a chance to better understand what they were doing I did the required reading. The data has been manipulated. That is not in question. The forecasts of most have been seriously invalidated. The more extreme the forecast the less likely it is. The NASA guy is a lier or a total incompetent. He used the same data for two months in a row for one thing. He should be fired.
The guy in England blandly said he lost his data. He is not good with records and he isn’t good with things like spread sheets and graphs. Without a huge amount of records you aren’t doing climatology. If you can’t show how you got your answer you aren’t even doing science.
I mean it, If this guys work were held up to the standard of junior high he’d get an F. The guy from NASA is no better. The same data for two months, and shifting through the data and sorting it to get the answer you want are two things these men have in common and that isn’t science.
You want us to do something to save the kiddies? The cold hard facts according the doomsters is that if the US does _everything_ Obama wanted in his money transfer program/cap and trade the expected results amount to a fraction of degree according to their modals. For a fraction of a degree, if the modals actually work, you want to hit everybody in the States with an extra $1200 or more a year on their energy costs?
The facts are that Obama and many of his friends stand to make a lot of money if this bill gets passed and enforced. Benefits to anybody outside the elite green energy movement are going to be invisible. I agree with you. Save the children. Don’t be a chump and get scammed by the hucksters.
Instead of bleating go on line and check. Maybe you can find out what the billions you want to give away to con artists will actually buy you. I got the amount of change cap and trade would buy off the net from people at the last green conference in Europe who were climatologist supporting the cause.
According to these people you can get change but in order to do something meaningful you will have to stop burning fuel to something near 100% which would bring us back to paleolithic levels and at that level long hog such as yourself is all to likely to go back on the menu because the planet could not feed this many people. Of course to fully meet the objective they would need to eat you raw and everybody would need to move to the tropics or freeze to death.
Green energy? Dude you would need to cover entire states with windmills and solar cells and have nuclear power on tap as back up at the least other wise the homes of America would be in a permanent black out.
That would still leave transportation. I suppose you want to run everything off batteries? The power is coming from where? Wind mills/solar cells/nuclear power and the only one you can count on is nuclear and the greenies want to have a t-rex every time you mention nuclear.
I ask you to think of the kids. Do you really want to live like a medieval peasant with out even the comfort of a warm fire or cooked food?
#13 I’m a science major. I know real science when I see it. Your “scientists” would have failed my courses doing science their way. They crapped all over everything I was ever taught about the right way to do science or even get a valid answer. My teachers would have flunked them and I’d have given them an F in any class I taught for any project they did.
#19 I’ll say this once. If you seriously believe that the people evacuated from Katrina were the first to be evacuated because of weather or climate event you are so ignorant you should not be allowed to talk in public if it weren’t for the fact that your total lack of depth of knowledge reveals exactly what your views are truly worth. The end of the old kingdom in Egypt was due to a drought so harsh that the living ate their children and the cities stood empty and abandoned.
The Sahara was once verdant and green but it dried up. The Southwestern Native American farmers perished or fled the four corners. The Maya ran into major problems. The people of Bolivia offered their children to the gods praying for rain but the gods left them to perish wretchedly in a parched land. The Barbarians over ran a Roman army and killed an Emperor in the region of Romania after they got down to trading their children to the Romans for dogs to eat.
Based on that claim,”people who relocated after Katrina were the world’s first climate refugees,” you geniuses have never even heard of the dust bowl! With a knowledge of past events that doesn’t even go back 100 years you want to claim you understand climate! Blah!
# 37 Skeptic
Keep up.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
“The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.”
This is the study.
You claim
“Well there goes THAT argument. That figure has been shown to be fake. There was never a comprehensive poll taken.”
You claim its fake. I assume (hopefully correctly) that you have something to back that up? No need to be coy – lets see it.
Hey Scott: I was impressed by the argument you made a few months ago that the “natural” temp of the earth would be MINUS 19C (or whatever) absent the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. You might regurgitate it here again for the knuckle draggers.
There is an “interesting” overall phenomenon here. Science is not ONE FACT–it is a body of work. Just as with evolution, the FACT at issue is not isolated. It gets support and credibility from “all” of science. It is but one sacred self revelatory truth. If you want to take one “issue” and hammer away at it, you miss the larger context.
Then go another way: use common sense. Not a scientific approach, but Einstein made something of it as a theory generator. Start with the notion of cause and effect. Can I dump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and have no consequential effects? Common sense says no. Seems to me the “burden” is on the deniers to advance exactly how those billions of tons of CO2 “make no difference.”
but don’t let a consensus of the experts, common observation, and common sense get in your way.
freddybobs68k, I am aware of that survey.
Do you even read the links you post? You certainly aren’t too critical of what you read.
Here is the first question that garnered 90% affirmation.
“Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?”
That’s like asking if the sky is blue. What is shocking is that 10% of those “American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Department” scientists disagreed!!!
Do you get the implication of that fact? Seriously, they don’t think the earth has warmed at all since 1800? Either 10% of those scientists are idiots, or the survey was tampered with… or some other dishonest manipulation.
AND, the 3,146 scientists surveyed in your sample are a drop in the bucket. Here is a counter survey for you. 31,487 scientists surveyed to date, agree with this statement:
http://petitionproject.org/index.php
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere”
That’s 10 times as many as your survey. I should point out that they don’t state that the earth isn’t warming at all, LOL.
Your survey is also plainly closed and most likely biased. All surveyed were from the “American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.” Compare that to the database of the survey link I posted:
Open to all scientists who “have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
#44 Skeptic
Okay. So I was hoping for some expose from some reputable source. Your claim was it was ‘fake’ ie completely untrue, constructed precisely to mislead. You did not supply that from a reputable source
So your argument is based on some of your own observations – ie you think its fake. Well fair enough – but thats not what you claimed.
Your it’s fake conviction is from “Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?” has 10% agree. Well lets take your claim that that the 10% that agree must be stupid. Lets say that they were in the 97%. Well that means 87% against 3%…..
So lets look at this
http://petitionproject.org/index.php
Well its not very convincing. Why?
o Because it doesn’t give their credentials
o It’s laughably poorly put together
o Because the people signing it don’t have to have scientific knowledge on the climate(!)
Didn’t they survey TV Weathermen and most of them didn’t believe in AGW or even GW?
Who cares? Well==thats not fair given AGW is based on consensus, fake or real?
The logic of it is sound though, and there is no logic to the opposition. Nit pickers like Skeptic but no analysis, no counter theory, no facts. Just nits.
To clarify ‘because it doesn’t give their credentials’
It does supply a summary of signers overall credentials. But there is no way to verify any of it – because it doesn’t list person, credential, position, contact etc. Moreover its trivial to fake (as other articles point out). Unlike the CNN cited article where the people are from a ‘legitimate’ directory, where you can go and call them up if you like.
Since few people actually understand the climate science, the whole issue is fueled by politics and people take sides based on politics.
I don’t understand the science but I acknowledge that many climate scientists do believe that humans are having a marked effect on climate change. I also acknowledge that there is an industry built around the acceptance of global warming where genuine criticism is rejected without debate.
The actual science has taken a backseat to politics and money, as usual.
“This article contends that there is so much government money to be made promoting Man-made global warming that the scientists on the dole will stop at nothing.”
There are respectable scientists saying that so I think we ought to consider the possibility of it being true.
http://everythingimportant.org/global_warming
Doubling CO2 levels, on its own, increases world temperatures by about 1-1.2C.
The question is what type of feedbacks do you get after that. The scientists have been selling that it is a matter of positive feedbacks dominating, and that’s how they get predictions of 4,5,6C of warming or more.
If it is instead a negative feedback, then the warming will be less than 1C.
#19 Misanthropic Scott
“So, I take it from the fact that you couldn’t dispute the main point of my post, that people are being displaced from islands in Panama right now, but instead attacked me for posting an article claiming that people had already been displaced from their homes by Katrina,….”
No effort was made to dispute the “main” point of your post. I did not attack you unless you feel everyone that does not agree with you fully is attacking you. You are not paranoid people are really out to get you.
“that you accept as fact that people right now are being displaced from their island homes due to sea level rise associated with climate change, correct?”
Put simply, NO.
“Wait. That’s probably too complex a sentence for you.”
Thanks for taking into consideration my reading disability. One of the joys of this blog is learning from an intellect such as yours. Today I learned how not to make a point from you. The next time you pontificate on climet change resist the urge to use New Orleans and Katrina as source material it only shows your ignorant.
I didn’t expect any more that that from you freddybob. A shoddy review on your part. That’s mostly because you don’t want to see anything that disagrees with your mindset.
The list of names along with all the details is available from The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Email them and see what they say. Every signature was filtered for duplicates, fraud (yup, climate alarmists tried to discredit the list by putting in fake names) and most importantly knowledge. You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.
You said: “Unlike the CNN cited article where the people are from a ‘legitimate’ directory, where you can go and call them up if you like.”
Well that isn’t exactly true. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that that the directory you refer to lists over 2000 geoscience departments, research departments, institutes, and their faculty and staff and is only available in print. There are conservatively 60,000 – 80,000 names in that book, of which only 3,100 answered he survey…. or less than 5%. Tracking them down would be a daunting task to say the least. It raises another question. Why did only 5% answer the survey when it would be to their advantage to support such a life or death cause? Hmmm?
One reason is because 95% don’t agree with the alarmist view. it’s not life or death to them and they have more important things to do.
So it seems that all your complaints about the Petition Project are unwarranted, and actually more aptly apply to your joke of a survey. It’s typical of the slight of hand tactics that many climatologists are using. Fit’s right in with the topic of this blog entry.
#53 Mextli,
Still no dispute on Panama though. And, at least please learn how to spell climate before posting next time.
Lyin’ MikeN and the hockey stick,
I know that all I need to do is point out once again the many times that the hockey stick has been vindicated and you will go away. You can’t post again because then you’d be admitting that you had seen the vindication and been proven wrong. Then you’d have to stop spreading the ridiculous lies about the hockey stick that has still withstood multiple attacks and come out shining.
Here are just a couple of threads on which we’ve already been through this and you failed to make your points because the hockey stick is indeed valid.
http://tinyurl.com/yzk58pr
http://tinyurl.com/yk4e6te
#26 – deowll,
That’s a lot of hot air just to say that climate changes and land erodes. How do you explain the measured 17cm rise in sea level that is causing these islands in Panama to sink?
You know, you skeptics seem to have a scripted set of questions. Here’s a scripted set of answers complete with links to nearly every point you’re likely to attempt on this thread. Each has links to the data backing it up.
http://tinyurl.com/dlufrj
Of course, it won’t convince anyone who desperately wants to believe that the world will be fine for the duration of their children and their children’s children, and so will not listen to the real evidence.
Remember, you’ll have to do a lot of clicking on any particular issue to get down to the peer reviewed data that is the source of the answer. The blog answers are unlikely to convince anyone. But, click through and there’s real data there.
On any subject that you click through and still don’t find the answer, feel free to ask. I’ll see if I can do better.
# 54 Skeptic
Look this is kinda sad.
“Why did only 5% answer the survey when it would be to their advantage to support such a life or death cause? Hmmm?”
Well you tell me. It sounds like you have a spectacular explanation. Perhaps scientists who don’t believe in AGW don’t believe in surveys? It’s a conspiracy where only the 5% who believe in AGW got the survey?
Oh its “95% don’t agree with the alarmist view”.
Its a survey, not a bomb – if you don’t agree, you mark as such on the survey.
I don’t really have a problem with the Petition Project per se. It just seems weak. There may be respectable people on there who have valid points. But waving it as my stick is bigger than yours doesn’t work – for the reasons pointed out.
Also I’m not saying the CNN survey is definitive either. I’m just saying weighing up the situation, it appears to have more weight than the Petition project for all the reasons discussed.
I mean why is it so clearly such an amateur job? These experts can divine climate even though they are not climatologists but are unable to put together or get the funds to put together a reasonable website.
Actually if you want to find something interesting compare scientific peer reviewed papers on ACW. The percentage that think its real and the percentage not. You don’t even have to factor out papers that were funded by gas, oil, coal.
And its great there are skeptics. Perhaps in the end they’ll prove there is no AGW, or whatever. Could absolutely happen. I saw a program last night on the history of the big bang theory. It was interesting that fred hoyle ‘steady state universe’ model was prevailed for most of the time, it was only as more and more evidence was produced that eventually his nemesis ‘big bang’ theory took hold.
All I’m saying is right now the consensus by scientists knowledgeable in the field is AGW is real. Over the last 10-20 years that position has strengthened with evidence. It may be thrown out, or be wrong. But there it is.
What is amazing to me – is even that reality can be distorted such that people claim that consensus doesn’t exist. But it does – like it or not. That’s not ‘the science is in’ – that’s just the current situation. You may not like it – but if you can deny that, then you are on the road to being able to deny anything.
believing in GW doesn’t make it true.
Fools spouting lists of “scientists” that believe it to be true, somehow think that it’s settled science because somebody signed their petition?
Get real and get a real fucking job instead of spouting on blogs about things that you have NO knowledge of
@Shubee (#50),
Wow, you have moved from hating the SDA Church to hating Israel in your signature link. Have you have had enough hating? Maybe you ought to find a new hobby, or maybe a church that doesn’t make you so angry…
@57 Misanthropic Scott
That’s a great link.
Let’s see your first link was to a blog post where you replied three days after mine, and are surprised there was no reply. In addition, you did not respond to the point of the post, where I pointed out errors in the use of proxy data to create a hockey stick.
Since that post, the author cited issued a correction, admitting the upside-down use of data. Michael Mann has yet to do the same.
At least you responded quickly to my post in your second link, but this was also 4 days after the original post. Yet again, you did not respond to the points made, and bring up a point about things being .6 degrees warmer in 100 years.
Perhaps you should stick to the points made in this thread before you refer to other threads.
Or perhaps not, since this thread is old anyway.
#62 – freddybobs68k,
I tried suggesting to them that they make it a bit less confrontational to skeptics so that it could be more persuasive to them. I think anyone who goes to that site and isn’t immediately turned off is likely already convinced by the evidence. I would like a site where I could point people and not have them offended the minute they click there.
Other than that, the questions are very well answered and digging will produce any level of depth you desire and are capable of understanding for the answer to any of the questions. I’ve also yet to hear a skeptic spew put forth an argument that isn’t on the list.
#63 – MikeN,
Since that post, the author cited issued a correction, admitting the upside-down use of data.
A correction to which you are about to post a link presumably.
This so-called vindication of the hockey stick, you frequently point to Mann ’08, which uses a proxy from Tiljander, upside down, and when this was pointed out, Mann not only didn’t correct it, he used it upside down again in a later paper! Given that Mann has now admitted to using instrumental temperatures in smoothing, perhaps he will admit to this upside-down usage in another 8 years or so.
Even having other papers validate the hockey stick only gives credence to the other papers, it doesn’t make Mann’s papers correct. When the other scientists refuse to state that Mann is in error, or say he is correct, that calls into question their own credibility and competence. The website RealClimate suffers a great deal from being associated with Mann.
The main things to look for in seeing if a hockey stick paper is valid or invalid.
1) Does it use bristlecone pines, foxtails, or strip-bark, which the NAS Panel in 2006 stated should not be used? Strangely the NAS Panel said this, and then referred to papers which did use these proxies to validate the hockey stick.
2) Does it use Tiljander in an upside-down fashion? Kaufman corrected this error, and I doubt it will be seen again outside of team Mann.
3) Does it use Yamal? A valid proxy on its own, the scientist who developed it chose not to publish a similar site which shows less extreme behavior in modern times. Yamal is great choice to use if you are trying to create a hockey stick.
4) Does it use an algorithm that tends to produce hockey sticks? Mann’s first papers used a PCA algorithm that tended to mine for hockey sticks, and his latest papers use a CPS method that does the same.