Reply With Quote
So you have more people on the same band wagon looking for fuel.
So?
Not going to change the real scientific facts of real geoscientists.
The controversies in climate science
Science behind closed doors
Two new reports say the science of climate change is fine, but that some scientists and the ins utions they work in need to change their at udes
Jul 8th 2010
THE winter of 2009 was a rough time for climate science. In November, in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate conference, over 1,000 private e-mails from and to researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), a part of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Britain, appeared on the internet, presumably after being stolen. At the same time a controversy was bubbling up in India over a claim in the 2007 assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the Himalayas could lose all their glaciers in 25 years, which was wrong. These events seemed to provide evidence of embarrassing incompetence, at the very least.
Explanations were demanded and committees were formed to deliver them. This week two of those committees reported. For the CRU and what became known as “climategate”, an independent panel was created by UEA and chaired by Muir Russell, a former vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow. The Dutch environmental-assessment agency was asked to look for other errors in the regional analyses of the IPCC’s report. Both the reports conclude that the science of climate is sound and that the professional characters of the scientists involved are unimpeached. But they raise important issues about how to do science in such an argumentative area and under new levels of scrutiny, especially from a largely hostile and sometimes expert blogosphere.
The Dutch agency found a few errors in the relevant chapters of the IPCC’s report, though none amounted to much. It also raised questions about concentrating on bad or worst-case possibilities rather than a range of outcomes. The agency did not say this was a bad thing—policymakers need to have the most critical information flagged up—but it thinks it would be better to explain more clearly what is going on.
Martin Parry, who in 2007 was co-chair of the relevant IPCC working group, says there was not a conscious decision to highlight negative effects, but to highlight important ones, as measured by such things as scale and irreversibility. The important effects are negative ones: this is why people are worried about climate change. A tendency for the IPCC process to produce outputs more worrying, at the margins, than its inputs does not necessarily show bias. It may reflect accurate expert assessment. But the risk that it is a sort of self-reinforcing groupthink merits attention.
Open to criticism
A form of groupthink certainly seems to have been at work in the climategate e-mails. The Russell committee was most exercised by a lack of openness at the CRU, in part explained, but not excused, by a sort of a siege mentality. The committee found that the scientists committed nothing close to fraud. It showed that the data needed to reconstruct CRU’s temperature records were widely available. Informed by a warts-and-all account of peer review from Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, a medical journal, the committee took the researchers’ harsh behaviour towards critics and leniency towards allies not as unduly partial or aggressive, but as part of the “rough and tumble of interaction in an area of science that has become heavily contested.” As an eminent historian of science put it to a naive scientist when the story first broke, “Everything you believe to be true once looked like this.”
But the committee did criticise the researchers for an unwillingness to pass on data to their critics, for failing to specify which weather stations they were using, for keeping quiet IPCC discussions that should have been public, and so on. This flowed through into “clear incitement” to delete files rather than have them surrendered under Britain’s freedom-of-information act. The committee found UEA’s procedures on freedom of information poor.
Rather remarkably, neither the Russell committee or the university has asked Phil Jones, who ran the CRU, whether he actually deleted e-mails with the intention of foiling subsequent requests under the act. The university says it takes very seriously the need to improve its openness. At the same time it has appointed Dr Jones to a new position as director of research at the CRU—“definitely not a demotion”—while abolishing the role of director and integrating the unit more fully into its school of environmental sciences.
In doing this UEA accepts that Dr Jones’s role in one of the most famous aspects of climategate—his “hide the decline” e-mail—was “misleading”, as the Russell report puts it, without deliberately intending to be so. The growth of some trees, as recorded in their rings, tracks temperature from the 19th century to the 1960s, but then ceases to do so: the two records diverge. In a graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation in 1999, Dr Jones cut off the divergent part of one set of tree-ring data and spliced on data from thermometers. The scientific literature contained full discussions about the problems of divergence and various ways of dealing with them, but Dr Jones’s chart had no readily accessible explanations or caveats.
The Russell report is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics. Nor does it, in some ways, fulfil its remit. One of the enduring mysteries of climategate is who chose the e-mails released onto the internet and why they did so. These e-mails represented just 0.3% of the material on the university’s backup server, from which they were taken. This larger content has still not really been explored.
And then there is the science. An earlier report on climategate from the House of Commons assumed that a subsequent probe by a panel under Lord Oxburgh, a former academic and chairman of S , would deal with the science. The Oxburgh report, though, sought to show only that the science was not fraudulent or systematically flawed, not that it was actually reliable. And nor did Sir Muir, with this third report, think judging the science was his job. So, for verdicts as to whether the way that tree-rings from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia were treated by the CRU produced good results, those following the affair will have to look for future developments in journals and elsewhere. The mode of production has been found acceptable, but the product is for others to judge. Science, in the normal run of things, should do that; and if it does so in a more open, blogosphere-inclusive way some good will have come of the affair.
-----------------------------------------------
Reminds me of the famous quote from Mr. Clemens: Rumors of the death of man-made climate change is greatly exaggerated.
So you have more people on the same band wagon looking for fuel.
So?
Not going to change the real scientific facts of real geoscientists.
I see your explanation as utter fabricated bull , and having zero merit.
And the climategate whitewash continues. Inbdependent panel?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...173414140.html
You realize you sound just like 9-11 conspiracy theorists who talk about panels being "whitewashes" when they say something they don't like, right?And the climategate whitewash continues. Inbdependent panel?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...173414140.html
Here's how you know when a person has no solid argument.
This doesn't help.
Climate Panel Urges ‘Distance’ From Reporters
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...rom-reporters/
Andy Revkin reports at Dot Earth that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, faulted in the past for a siege mentality, has urged its participating researchers to “keep a distance from the media” and send any press questions about their group work to supervisors.
Wall Street Journal dude.
Not exactly some anonymous right wing blog.
The WSJ is as wing-nut as M$M gets....
Proof: other articles from the WSJ...
Wall Street Journal: Gun-owners happier, richer than non gun-owners
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120856454897828049.html
American Dream 2: Default, Then Rent
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126040517376983621.html
Wall Street Journal columnist basically sez "The poor should pay more so the rich can play more"
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...oore-tax-poor/
Wall Street Journal: Oil Spill Is a Failure of Government
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6...-of-Government
I could go on all night...the WSJ is a conservative/GOP/Wing-nut mouthpiece
Curiously common occurrence: 1-) woman faints 2-) Obama pauses speech to ask for help
http://www.online.wsj.com/article/SB...+the+Web+Today
In 2008, Rupert Murdoch's company, News Corp, generated $33 billion in revenues, which is more than TimeWarner, Viacom or CBS. Only GE and Disney generate more revenues, and GE has a subtantial amount of non-media operations. Given the wide range of assets within the control Rupert Murdoch, you have to wonder when the GOP refers to the liberal media, what exactly are they referring to?
Publishing:
Free PressMagazines: Barron’s, SmartMoney (50%), Big League, InsideOut, donna hay, News America Marketing (In-Store, FSI (SmartSource), SmartSource iGroup, News Marketing Canada), Alpha, The Weekly Standard, The Weekend Australian Magazine, sundaymagazine, body + soul, STM (WA), home, TVGuide, News Magazine (Australia).
Newspapers:
Australia/Asia: More than 150 les including: The Wall Street Journal Asia, the Fiji Times, Daily Telegraph, Nai Lalakai, Shanti Dut, Gold Coast Bulletin, Herald Sun, Newsphotos, Newspix, Newstext, NT News, Papua New Guinea Post-Courier (63%), Sunday Herald Sun, Sunday Mail, Sunday Tasmanian, Sunday Times, Sunday Territorian, The Advertiser, The Australian, The Courier-Mail, The Mercury, News Limited, The Sunday Mail, The Sunday Telegraph, Weekly Times, The Weekend Australian, MX, Brisbane News, Northern Territory News, berland (NSW), Leader (VIC), Quest (QLD), Messenger (SA), Community (WA), Darwin Sun/Palmerson Sun (NT).
United Kingdom: News of the World, The Sun, The Sunday Times, The Times, News International.
United States: Newspaper holdings include the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Marke ch and Dow Jones Newswire; News Corp. also acquired the Ottoway group of community newspapers through its takeover of Dow Jones in 2007.
You know better. You have seen me show how the numbers pan out.
One thing for sure about topics like this, people will accept the publications and preconceptions they have, unless they actually understand the science themselves.
It was a rather toungue in cheek comment.
I have seen you post numbers that you believe are correct and support your case yes.
I have also seen you commit some rather astonishingly bad logical fallacies and display a blatant confirmation bias, causing me to give your assessments on this topic little weight.
You are far too biased and predisposed to believe anything that refutes man-made global warming/climate change/whatever. You apply rigorous analysis and skepticism to anything that comes out of the AGW camp, but completely fail to apply the same rigor to things you are predisposed to agree with.
That said, my post was more tongue-in-cheek than actual sentiment.
I do think your criticisms of the science have some merit, and you make some valid points. Your problem, and it is one you share with 9-11 conspiracy theorists, is that you NEVER admit someone you disagree with might have a valid point or two as well.
Hey, brah. How did you explain this one away again?
I explained that in another thread. Please notice, it does not specify greenhouse gasses, just the last 30 years. Black Carbon from Asia is the most significant factor these last decades. there is also the EPA laws since the 70's clearing reflective pollution from the air that cause the global cooling scares of the 70's.
Remember how the liberals said were were going to destroy our planet with global cooling back then?
Link? Or are you just rationing your keystrokes?
Well, it's not in this thread, and I know I composed it. I'm not going to look for it. I have at times forgot to hit the "Submit Reply" button, it it's actually possible that happened.
You use excuses like this so damn often.
Maybe two other times in the last two years?
You use excuses like this so damn often.
That sure is damn often!
My previous statement
Manny...
Stop being such a dumb- please.
Has there ever been a branch of science that has tried so hard and for so long to validate itself?
Serious question:
Is there any objective measurement over a given period of time that would dissuade an AGW catastrophist? For example, if the average global temperature anomaly had a flat or slightly negative trend for the next 50 years, despite a positive linear trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, would you start to doubt that CO2 drives temperature? If you say no, then you are are not basing your belief on science, your are basing it on faith.
So then you admit you could be using a non-existent post as a excuse not to respond to a request for information. How considerate.
Has there ever been a ST poster who spends so much time tilting at strawmen, loading the dice, and basically talking to himself?
Twice my ass. When confronted with someone wanting proof on something you default to the "search for it then - its not my job" excuse constantly. Its your MO. When you have nothing to back up what you're saying you default to the "its not my burden of proof" or don't be lazy tactic to cover your tracks.
Feel free to keep using it, but I'm fairly certain the (few) objective posters here see right through it every time.
What does this even mean?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
