Who can you trust? Not scientists, say ... scientists
ExxonMobil is still pumping money into organisations which publish 'misleading and inaccurate information' about climate change, according to the Guardian. How rotten of them. How shocking. Or is it?
According to new research published in the journal PloS ONE, scientists (all of 'em, not just the ones in the pay of ExxonMobil) regularly publish 'unreliable' research.
'Even if conducted at best possible practice, scientific research is never entirely free of errors', note Thomas Pfeiffer at Harvard University and Robert Hoffman at MIT.
Now get this. Researchers who work on 'hot' subjects like climate change (and yeast, apparently) are more likely to get it wrong than those who slave away over the less glamorous aspects of science.
Fine, everyone makes mistakes. But what if members of the scientific community are deliberately publishing misleading and inaccurate research?
'In highly competitive fields there might be stronger incentives to 'manufacture' positive results by, for example, modifying data or statistical tests', concludes the study.
Worrying stuff. If it's true - here's hoping that the study's authors made a few mistakes themselves.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~36~RS~)
Comments
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
There's the sort of "scientist" you should be wary of.
For some reason, they've not yet found a place where "free market" isn't the very darned best solution there is.
"Researchers who work on 'hot' subjects like climate change (and yeast, apparently) are more likely to get it wrong than those who slave away over the less glamorous aspects of science."
And because they're "hot", they are more likely to be spotted.
See Plimer's paper and the multitudinous errors spotted that were found *because* Plimer worked poorly on a hot topic.
"'In highly competitive fields there might be stronger incentives to 'manufacture' positive results by, for example, modifying data or statistical tests', concludes the study."
Happened several times with medical trials.
Tobacco firms produced papers that were falsified.
Plimer's work, the same.
But the Heartland Institute is getting better: they're putting their "papers" on blogs instead, where though they may be "hot" topics, there's nobody able to review and check them.
Complain about this comment
My Dear Shanta - thank you for (yet another) quite insightful article. I must agree - we should hope the authors made a few mistakes, but unfortunately, I doubt that any errors they made effect the conclusions nor outcomes of the study.
There was an article (on JunkScience) yesterday (can't seem to find it at the moment) in which a acclaimed climate scientists who was a principle researcher on the IPCC reports stated that scientists are often encouraged to present their cases as being "scarier" in order to garner attention. He also mentioned that many doubts, reservations, etc are left out - as stating "the sky is falling" will garner more media attention and ultimately, new grants for the researchers.
It is a difficult problem. How do we seperate science from politics? The only answer I have is to be skeptical of everything I read - on both sides of the debate. After all, "the squeeky wheel gets the grease". What is likely to garner more attention, after all: a paper which suggest that catastrophy is emminent and there is little doubt? or that "our simulations show there is a possibility of catasprophy; however, many doubts remain"?
I really don't know the answer to this one. Universities have moved from the realm of "academia and study" into more "business like models" in the last 20-30 years, where they not only go after research dollars, but also are under great pressure to acquire patents and profit from their research and discoveries in the commercial marketplace. As long as Universities retain the "commercial enterprise" aspect, I am afraid this is going to continue to be a bigger and bigger issue. This was one of the factors for my departure from Academia (as well as the liberal establishment). The pressures often lead researchers to "overstate" their cases while "understating" their doubts - and the system encourages them to do this.
One approach might be to have a "review board" of scientists to conduct real "peer review"; however, I have my doubts as while many would assert a "scientific concensus", it has been my experience that most scientists don't agree on most things. When you find scientists in complete agreement - run, as fast as you can - because something has obviously gone very wrong.
It is not just academia:
Take a look at "Nature". The editors of the magazine are pretty much all in the "climate change gang"...so, if you disagree with their point of view - or find fault with something they have already approved and published - you have no hope whatsoever of being published in Nature.
I think it is worth stating that "science can't really prove anything, only disprove". Those "scientific truths" that we cling to are mearly those which, over time have not yet been disproven - which is far different than saying they have been "proven".
Cheers for the article.
-Kealey
Complain about this comment
"which a acclaimed climate scientists who was a principle researcher on the IPCC reports stated that scientists"
Is this the principle researcher who asked to review the IPCC report, which ANYONE can do?
If his source of authority is that, then there's not a lot of authority there.
"I think it is worth stating that "science can't really prove anything, only disprove". "
Then how come AGW isn't disproven?
Nobody has managed to disprove CO2 doubling temperature sensitivity being about 3C per doubling. Nobody has been able to prove their pet theory that isn't CO2 dominated explains the results.
If science can only disprove, how come AGW is still robust.
PS if it can't prove anything, why does gravity work? Surely since it's a physical law, it can only be disproven, breaking gravity and making us all fall upwards for a change...
Complain about this comment
I'd call that misleading journalism Shanta.
"Researchers who work on 'hot' subjects like climate change (and yeast, apparently) are more likely to get it wrong."
You make it read as if you're quoting the paper's conclusion verbatim, yet the Pfeiffer/Hoffman paper doesn't make one mention of climate change, but does mention yeast studies, the author's area of expertise. It does use the words 'hot research fields'.
Its conclusion is: 'The current model of pre publication peer review, however, can hardly be intensified. Post publication evaluation, on the other hand, shows a promising potential to increase the reliability of scientific knowledge. A recent study, for example, indicates that flaws in scientific publications are more likely detected post-publication if they appear in high impact journals.'
The author (only Pfeiffer wrote the paper) also promotes Wikis as a means of disseminating information and encouraging errors to be pointed out.'
I'm unconvinced that in 'highly competitive fields' errors are less likely to be noticed than in 'low popularity' fields. In high popularity fields there are more likely to be more people knowledgeable enough to pick out errors than in low popularity fields where only one or two people (if that) have sufficient knowledge.
As for climate, a great many significant papers are published in 'high impact journals' (Science, Nature etc).
I'm also unconvinced by Pfeiffer's case that Wikis have proved to 'reliably disseminate knowledge'. You trust everything Wikipedia says, right?
Honest errors are also very, very different from deliberate disinformation campaigns.
The DeSmog Blog whistle blows on deliberate disinformation campaigns.
http://www.desmogblog.com/
A book covering such deliberate campaigns is being published this later year; 'Climate cover-up'.
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245001586&sr=1-1
Complain about this comment
Tim, what's the betting that CuckooToo, Jon, et al don't complain about this post going on about Climate change when there's other important environmental issues to be getting on with..?
Complain about this comment
Everyone has been brain washed, about this so-called Climate Change. Trust me, this was started a few years ago by a person called AL Gore. He was the Ex-Vice President of the US and is a loony left wing democrat. This man is the biggest Hypocrite on two legs. He has not once displayed an example what he is preaching. This is nothing but Left Wing Politics telling a whole bunch of lies, with an excuse to introduce more Taxes on the working man. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
" 6. At 7:56pm on 08 Jul 2009, bilshatri wrote:
Everyone has been brain washed, about this so-called Climate Change. Trust me, this was started a few years ago by a person called AL Gore."
Really?
So Arrhenius in 1856 as an adult was actually Al Gore when he was younger???
Complain about this comment
Maybe reincarnation of Arrhenius now
Complain about this comment
" Maybe reincarnation of Arrhenius now"
So Al Gore travels through time?
Or does time go backwards? Because even if Al Gore is Arrhenius reborn, the standard timeline for use ordinary mortals is that Arrhenius would STILL have been first to propose global warming from human production of CO2.
That having been earier in the calendar than Al Gore, even if he was reborn...
Complain about this comment
Here is the executive summary of the Guardian story:
Big Oil gives money to some US bodies. My lefty mate does not like those bodies. Have I written enough now ? [No. Need a bit more about Big Oil - ed].
Complain about this comment
Here's an executive summary of Jack's position:
"It's cooling I tells ya!"
Then gives out data showing a warming trend.
Then runs away and hides.
Hey, Jack, if you think the story is wrong, why not prove it, rather than just go "Oh, it's all just a left-wing conspiracy"?
No proof?
Complain about this comment
"Everyone has been brain washed, about this so-called Climate Change. Trust me, this was started a few years ago by a person called AL Gore." #6.
Or, you could go back further and blame Mrs Margaret Thatcher. (The only working scientist to go on to become British PM.)
"I want to pay tribute to the important work which the United Nations has done to advance our understanding of climate change, and in particular the risks of global warming. Dr. Tolba and Professor Obasi deserve our particular thanks for their far-sighted initiative in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. . . the need for more research should not be an excuse for delaying much needed action now. There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level." M. Thatcher.
From: Speech at 2nd World Climate Conference. 1990.
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108237
Complain about this comment
@Tim
Good Evening, hope you are having a nice night.
Not to be rude, but aren't you nit-picking a bit in your critisism of Shanta? I did not find it (the story) to be "misleading". If anything, I think she may have made an honest mistake, with no attempt to be deliberately misleading. She did not change the "jist" of the story, nor slant. I must admit, I did like the sarcasm around "yeast research". But really? (purposefully) Misleading? Is that really fair? I for one, shall give her the benefit of the doubt.
With regards to Margaret Thatcher - you are quite right. She certainly played it. But as I understand it, she "used" the climate change agenda to achieve her own agenda. It was a very different world at that time. I doubt she would go along with what has become of the whole "climate change thing", nor any of the current proposals to "deal with climate change". How many statements do you think politicians make that they truly mean? She "patted a couple of UN scientists on the back"...I don't think she ever dreamed of the carbon taxation schemes that would come from the whole climate change thing...
(BTW: I am a BIG fan of Ms. Thatcher)
I want to thank you for the link you provided for the content of her speech. I enjoyed reading it very much. She, and her "parner in crime" Ronald Reagan were both amazing orators. I believe a lot of what she said still holds true today. I particularly like the statement:
"Mr. Chairman, people may disagree about the effects of increased man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But everyone agrees that we should keep in healthy condition the forests and seas which absorb a large part of it here on earth. We would be wise to do that for other reasons too: for the beauty of the forests and the infinite variety of species which inhabit them, and to preserve the food chain and the balance of nature in the sea." [M.Thatcher]
My view today, as well as then.
As for Mr. Gore:
Al Gore just came along, popularized it and made it very profitible for some...including, of course, himself.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
@Tim
I also really like this quote from the speech:
"We shan't succeed if we are all too inflexible. We shan't succeed if we indulge in selfrighteous point-scoring for the benefit of audiences and voters at home. We have to work sympathetically together. We have to recognise the importance of economic growth of a kind that benefits future as well as present generations everywhere. We need it not only to raise living standards but to generate the wealth required to pay for protection of the environment.
It would be absurd to adopt polices which would bankrupt the industrial nations, or doom the poorer countries to increasing poverty. We have to recognise the widely differing circumstances facing individual countries, with the better-off assisting the poorer ones as we agreed to do under the Montreal Protocol." [M.Thatcher, 1990]
------end of M. Thatcher quote---------
Sorry, just a little trip down memory lane. I think she will be remembered as "one of the greats". Remembered for a very long time.
Unfortunately, it would appear that we are doing just that: Adopting policies which will have devistating economic consequences to industrialized nations - as well as dooming the third world to increased poverty. It really is a shame.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever writes: (in regards to my assetion that science can't really "prove" anything, only disprove)
if it can't prove anything, why does gravity work? Surely since it's a physical law, it can only be disproven, breaking gravity and making us all fall upwards for a change...
-------end of yeah_whatever writes---------------
Your writing makes no sense to me; however, I shall endeavor to answer:
("If it can't prove anything, why does gravity work" - what has one to do with the other?) Might also I note that "gravity" has not been disproven - that does not mean that our current theory of gravity has been proven, nor does it suggest that "gravity does not work". And by the way - are you referring to the equation F = G*m1*m2 / r^2 when you say "gravity"? If so, it should be noted that G (Universal Gravitational Constant) is an observed value - not derived from an equation. It is a number, approximated to a certain number of decimal places, based upon observations. So, while this "Law of Gravity" appears to hold true, it will undoubtedly be disproven when we understand enough to derive the value of G - from mathmatics and new theory.
Current theory suggest that gravity works because of a force, imparted by particles called gravitons - this force is exerted by every body on every other body - it is an attractive force. There is still a great deal that we don't know or understand about gravity. We see its affects, but we really don't understant how it works. There are also a lot of inconsistancies within the theory of gravity - much of it related to "dark matter" in the Universe. Many believe that an better understanding of gravity will lead to the "holy grail" of physics - unified theory.
It is interesting that you bring up gravity...
Recall "Newtons Laws"? Theories on motion (and gravity) which were considered by many to be "proven" - hence, "Laws"? Well, along came this gent named Einstein - who showed that Newton's Laws were WRONG. While Newton's Laws are still taught - and are useful for certain applications. They have been "proven" to be wrong. Consider for a moment that Einstein's theories have never been "proven" - they are just that - theories, but they do prove that Newton's Theories are wrong. Here we are some 80+ years after Einstein's Theory of Relativity was published and scientists are still working on experiments to validate portions of his theories (not the same as "proving"). Some of those validation experiments taking decades of work - just to build the required aparatus to conduct the experiment and sometimes years to carry out the experiments - which may or may not prove useful. Simply amazing.
In time, I suspect that Einstein's theories (at least some of them) shall be disproven and a new theory will be presented...
As for AGW being disproven. Well, to be honest, we simply don't know enough. I tend to be skeptical of the theory in its current form. A lot more real research needs to be done. A lot of evidence and research suggest that the biggest "man made" driver for climate change is actually land use and not CO2 emissions. The Carbon-cycle is at this point, very poorly understood, when we develop a better understanding, new theories will be put forth and AGW (as it exists today) will be disproven. That understanding will not come from "guys sitting in dark offices, drinking way too much coffee, running computer games - or excuse me, simulations". It will come from developing a better understanding of the interrelated processes involved in Earth's climate System. The hard science - in the field. The real world the real work.
Cheers.
PS - @yeah_whatever - if you don't work on your posts a bit, I shall quit responding. Please, all the two or three word rantings...really quite rude - do you talk to people that way? - or is it just your "blogging style"? Really, it is quite rude.
Complain about this comment
"Your writing makes no sense to me;"
Your belief system makes no sense to me.
"Might also I note that "gravity" has not been disproven"
Yes it has. Newtonian gravity has been disproven. Quantum gravity has too. We currently do not have a law for gravity that works.
"As for AGW being disproven. Well, to be honest, we simply don't know enough. I tend to be skeptical of the theory in its current form."
There's this "we" again.
YOU don't know enough.
You haven't read the IPCC reports and you don't know what climate models are modeling. You believe that models cannot be used for climate modeling. You won't see if you're right and you won't believe you can be wrong.
You cannot be skeptical of something you haven't even read.
That is just ***believing*** something is wrong from personal incredulity. A logical fallacy.
"A lot of evidence and research suggest that the biggest "man made" driver for climate change is actually land use and not CO2 emissions."
Cite?
Because all the reports seem to think 1/3 comes from that use.
And AGAIN this is not a proof that AGW is wrong. Why do you bring it up yet again to do so?
"The Carbon-cycle is at this point, very poorly understood,"
There's this "we" thing again. You don't know if the climatologists don't understand it because you haven't read any of their works.
And what's so hard to understand? We have created a new source and a significant one. We haven't created a new sink. The ***skeptical*** view would be to take the simplest scenario (Occam's razor) and expect anyone wanting to change that to prove their case. The simplest one is that with no new sink, CO2 will rise.
Measurements show a rise.
And if land use is a big driver, then this can only be the case when CO2 is changing, since a large part of no change is no change.
You are inconsistent and irrational.
" when we develop a better understanding,"
This "we" thing again.
Do you have anything that says where the CO2 from this new source is going? Do you 100% understand how that works? If not, then you must by your espoused reasonings discount that possibility and accept that there is no sink.
"That understanding will not come from "guys sitting in dark offices, drinking way too much coffee, running computer games - or excuse me, simulations"."
And again you don't understand. You say you've done simulations. Were they games? Why not?
You haven't read the source for the GISS model, you haven't read the papers in Science, you haven't even read the IPCC reports as demonstrated by asking questions about the models and science that are answered by those sources.
"It will come from developing a better understanding of the interrelated processes involved in Earth's climate System."
And you assume again that this is not done. You assume that the understanding we have now is insufficient for climate work and yet have no proof of this, just "gut feeling".
You don't even know what the current understanding is, as has been demonstrated with your questions about it.
So how can you say with your lack of what the understanding is, that the understanding is insufficient?
Complain about this comment
"Not to be rude, but aren't you nit-picking a bit in your critisism of Shanta? "
Not to be rude, but aren't you always nit-picking a bit in your criticism of climate research and the IPCC members in particular?
Complain about this comment
I've always wanted to know why all these climate sceptics secretly in the pay of big oil, that post on articles like this, have appalling grammar and spelling.
Can anyone shed any light on this? And is it just me that has noticed this?
Surely no correlation with their intellect...
Complain about this comment
You might just want to review your grammar in the first sentence there old boy. "These climate sceptics....THAT post on articles like this"???? The odd comma wouldn't go amiss either.
It's called Muphry's law apparently. :-)
Complain about this comment
I wonder how Bish missed post #6...
He doesn't like rude people, he says. He told me...
Complain about this comment
At the moment anything I say seems to be referred to the moderators. Have I upset someone there?
Complain about this comment
Yeah_Whatever
This is a test: you are a liar.
Complain about this comment
I think the moderators are taking the mickey. Either that or it's actually a computer program coded by dislexic monkeys.
Shanta, you need to get this sorted. I've got better things to do with my time than try to work out how to get comments through the moderation here.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@Bishophill
i am also having many posts refused and yet other, more vociferous posters have theirs passed
something is not quite right
Complain about this comment
Good evening,
Very odd indeed - comments are moderated externally, so I can't look into it right now. I'll check tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
@ BishopHill
I find the best thing to do is to ignore the rantings of one poster and concentrate on the well argued case from the others. I don't even bother to read that poster's comments anymore. It is through debate, rather than rantings, that two sides can, at least, understand each other.
But I also get referred to the mods quite frequently so perhaps it is rantings that are allowed and debate isn't (which would perhaps be a sign of a change in tack by the BBC as the rantings must surely only undermine the pro-AGW lobby's case!)
Complain about this comment
"I find the best thing to do is to ignore the rantings of one poster and concentrate on the well argued case from the others."
You mean ones that agree with you, Boring?
And Chutney, you never answered:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/is_the_climate_warming_or_cool.html#P82634488
Complain about this comment
Here is a test, Bish:
You are an arrogant lying denialist.
Complain about this comment
It seems Boring's definition of "rant" is the same as frank's: Doesn't agree with me after I've repeated it several times.
Larry throws out "any more racial slurs", yet unless he can explain where these come from, there ARE no racial slurs.
And Bish complains that his posts are thrown away. Well, guess what? This is happening to all of us. Including me. But Bish has the martyr complex. It's all a conspiracy.
And does the definition of "well reasoned" mean to use Jack's numbers to prove cooling when if you actually use proper methods of finding trends in numbers you find instead that it is warming?
This doesn't seem to be "well reasoned" by any stretch of the imagination of any dictionary I've ever seen.
"Incorrect", yes.
"Lying", yes.
"Well reasoned"? No. Not really.
It would be interesting to read what he DOES consider "well reasoned". As far as I can tell, he's dismissed as "dogmatic religion" any poster who has said there is AGW, discarded as wrong any position that says the science is good and with Sherrif Tim has said that he's been completely wrong.
So as I say, it would be interesting to find out what he considers "well reasoned" that isn't one of the other denialists rants on the BBC blogs.
Complain about this comment
#28
And Chutney, you never answered:
perhaps because it wasn't directed towards me
you really should try to stop confusing people, yeah_whatever, you do it all the time, it's systematic of your posts
Complain about this comment
@shantabarley
#26
there does seem to be a problem shanta
for example, i have a real problem with the term "denier", because of the holocaust connotations - i think, as the son of a jewish immigrant, this term is highly offensive to jews and was deliberately coined to liken climate sceptics / realists to holocaust deniers, but when i complain, the offending post(s) aren't even removed temporarily and i receive an email moments later saying my complaint has been refused. I have had posts thrown out, because i have questioned the sanity of certain vociferous posters (using the same language used against me and others) on this and other bbc blogs
Complain about this comment
You may have a problem with "denier" but you cannot misuse the term "skeptic".
You don't believe AGW.
You wont accept any evidence that AGW is real.
As has been demonstrated here on this thread.
" I have had posts thrown out, because i have questioned the sanity of certain vociferous posters "
And I have had posts thrown out for calling someone a "loon".
So I try again without the "loon" and it gets through.
I don't go crying to mummy and say that there's a conspiracy against me.
You do.
"perhaps because it wasn't directed towards me"
Yes it was:
in response to your query #54 on the "Is it warming or cooling", I posted:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"What would convince me in AGW is a rise in global temperatures over the next decade."
OK.
From the hadley data that Jack used to "prove" it was cooling, the anomaly average for the last 10 years is:
.404
The anomaly average for the 10 years previous to that is
.238
Therefore this decade is warmer than the previous decade.
I take it you both will now be convinced of AGW.
You can check the data here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I take it you both will be convinced of AGW".
Complain about this comment
And silence returns...
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#34
perhaps because not everybody can waste their employers time posting almost continuously on blogs
to answer #33, i really didn't realise you were directing this at me, probably because i, and i suspect many others, don't bother to read your rants, because they are boring, rarely to the point, verbose and insulting, but in answer to the question of warming / cooling:
on another thread / blog you state 30 years is a good time period to measure climate. According to Spencer (try to respond without the usual attacks on the man or claims that because he believes in God he can't be a real scientist):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
The current anomaly is 0C measured against the satellites
Complain about this comment
"perhaps because not everybody can waste their employers time posting almost continuously on blogs"
You seem to have no problem until you're caught in a corner.
Neither does Bish. Or Larry. Or Frank.
It's only when there are uncomfortable questions to answer that you can't dodge that you stop wasting your employers time.
"to answer #33, i really didn't realise you were directing this at me, probably because i, and i suspect many others, don't bother to read your rants,"
a) That's rather closed minded.
b) Rather stupid when YOU asked ME to respond
c) Rather convenient for you to avoid consequences of your illogic
d) Proven incorrect by your responding to my posts and therefore having to have read them
And after reading some posts, you STILL haven't answered the question.
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
"try to respond without the usual attacks on the man or claims that because he believes in God he can't be a real scientist"
I didn't. I state and it is 100% true and valid, that if someone overrules science when it comes in conflict with their religion, they are not a reliable scientist.
And you can't tell a trend from one data point.
Complain about this comment
PS How can Chutney know it wasn't directed at him if he doesn't read my posts?
Complain about this comment
because you pointed me towards your post?
"perhaps because not everybody can waste their employers time posting almost continuously on blogs"
You seem to have no problem until you're caught in a corner.
and you have proof that i spend most of the day posting here?
bored with you and your rants
Complain about this comment
" because you pointed me towards your post?"
But you had to read my post pointing you to the post for me to point you to that post.
But you say you don't read my posts.
So how could you read my post that pointed you to that post to then know that post existed?
"and you have proof that i spend most of the day posting here?"
Yes.
The posting history.
Duh.
Complain about this comment
don't talk rubbish
Complain about this comment
And still you avoid:
Since the data shows that this decade, despite being one touted as cooling is warmer than the previous record, and since you said that you would agree AGW was correct if this was shown, do you now agree that AGW is correct?
If next decade turns out cooler, then you can re-visit that assumption (though, remember, it took four decades of increasing temperatures to make you agree AGW was real, which should mean unless you're predisposed to a particular stance [which isn't skepticism] at least two cooling decades would be needed) But until then, accept that AGW is real and proven.
Go on Chutney.
Complain about this comment
Chutney, I'm directing you to post #41 above.
Just so that you read it.
Complain about this comment
As far as i can recall, i have never said i would agree AGW was correct if you or anybody could prove it hasn't cooled in the last decade. If you have read that into any of my posts, then you are wrong
As usual, you are confused
I don't even doubt recorded temperatures increased towards the end of the last century, but just because temperatures have risen, it does not mean man or CO2 is responsible.
As usual, you extrapolate statements in your own mind, read into those statements what you want to read and come up with the biggest load of rubbish i have ever read on these blogs
you really do need to examine your reading comprehension skills and i am not the only person on these forums to have noticed this
Complain about this comment
You did on post #54 of is the climate warming or cooling.
By your lack of answer, I take it you will not be persuaded that AGW is happening no matter what proof is shown.
This is not skepticism.
"but just because temperatures have risen, it does not mean man or CO2 is responsible."
Then what do you say is doing it?
CO2 has risen.
Temperatures have risen.
What do you think it is? And why?
What IS your "reason" for denying AGW so vehemently?
Complain about this comment
Chutney, I point you towards post #44
Hey, go with what works...
Complain about this comment
my post #54 is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/is_the_climate_warming_or_cool.html#P82633761
and states:
@yeah_whatver
and your response to the second part of Madman2001's post
here's a reminder:
What would convince me in AGW is a rise in global temperatures over the next decade.
Let me ask you the same question: what would convince you that we are not in the throes of AGW? What if global temperatures remained steady over the next decade? What if global temperatures dropped over the next decade? If not a decade, how long??
as i said earlier, as usual, you extrapolate statements in your own mind, read into those statements what you want to read and come up with the biggest load of rubbish i have ever read on these blogs. you really do need to examine your reading comprehension skills and i am not the only person on these forums to have noticed this.
and in answer to your question, what would convince me that AGW is real, is very simple - empirical proof. Now i know you will claim you have empirical proof, but the reality is you have a correlation that proves nothing
Complain about this comment
Shanta
Your moderators removed a comment I left which was merely correcting a spelling mistake I had posted in an earlier comment. This apparently broke the house rules.
I'm done here.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#36
in response to my question about Spencer recording a zero degree anomaly for the period June 1979 - June 2009 (according to you a good period to record a trend in temperature), you replied:
And you can't tell a trend from one data point.
despite the evidence presented, you still hold to the belief that AGW is genuine and despite CO2 emissions continuing to rise and the 30 year temperature anomaly showing zero, you still hold to the belief that AGW is gebuine.
Now that is being in denial
Complain about this comment
Hi BishopHill, there's no news yet from the moderators on why they're removing your posts. I'll let you know as soon as I find out. Very sorry that you've had to waste so much time testing the system.
Complain about this comment
"despite the evidence presented, "
WHAT evidence?
There was evidence posted that it has been cooling the last decade.
That evidence actually showed warming.
"emissions continuing to rise and the 30 year temperature anomaly showing zero"
And that is only a problem to the denialists strawman that CO2 is the only component of warming. This is a denialist strawman, not the reality.
You cannot show a trend from one point.
"Now that is being in denial"
?
Denying basic statistics so you can make up a lie so you don't have to face facts is denial.
Refusing to believe the evidence or the physics if it shows AGW a reality but accepting anything that denies AGW's existence is denial and credulism.
You are no skeptic.
You merely deny, deny, deny.
If this one point is so humungously important, what single temperature anomoly would make you believe AGW was proven?
I don't remember you saying when 1998's record maximum (or the other records in 2003, 2005 and 2007) turned up "well, I guess AGW is real, then".
You change what you will accept as proof depending on what will not prove AGW.
Denialist.
Complain about this comment
Mango, you copied a commend from another so thereby including yourself in their stance. You didn't disagree with their request to see a decadal increase thereby indicating acceptance.
And then later on when I ask what you would consider proof, you ignore it.
When I ask how you can ignore it, you say that you don't read mu posts.
When I ask how can you know I asked why you ignore them if you ignore them, you rambled on about how this was all rubbish and you couldn't understand it (and still, do to so, would have had to read even more posts of mine, proving your statement that you didn't answer because you don't read my posts wrong).
You dodge and avoid having to say what your "skepticism" is based on. This is because there is nothing that would make you say "AGW is probably right then" because you deny it could ever be true.
Denialist.
Or answer the question: what would make you say "AGW is correct".
Complain about this comment
" Hi BishopHill, there's no news yet from the moderators on why they're removing your posts."
Have you read his posts? Maybe they fell foul of the moderation demands legitimately.
I've had posts removed from here by moderators, but nothing from you about why or how. Nor even any apology for it.
I had one removed (without apology) for containing nothing worse than "...you wibble on about...".
I've had posts cut for saying wattsupwithtat is biased and contains lies no apology, EVEN THOUGH the thread contains the same accusations against RealClimate and, when I put them to the moderators for the same reason, it is refused and I'm told that I should counter their arguments, not raise it with the moderators.
So why the love-in with Bish?
Complain about this comment
Lets look at the temperature graph again.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
The low point at the end of that graph is higher than ANY year previous to 1998.
Yet we have a cooling ENSO. A sunspot-less sun.
So "it's colder now" doesn't even work unless you ignore EVERYTHING before 1998 and the physical reality.
Ignoring physical reality is not what a skeptic does. Ignoring data is not what a skeptic does.
It's what people who merely CALL themselves "skeptic" to hide their dogmatic and unfounded belief that AGW is wrong.
Complain about this comment
"http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
The current anomaly is 0C measured against the satellites"
Well, looking at that, this data is Spencer's but he's not put his raw data or his methodology up there. He's added 11 satellites (there are more than that up there), so how does he select them? It's monthly temperature, but no error bars. He has a temperature anomaly but doesn't say what the zero is. And it's for 30 years alone.
He says "our most stable satellite is AMSU-A" but doesn't say what this effect has on the data. "most stable" means somewhat unstable. What does that do to the measurements? "Most stable" also means out of 11 instruments, 10 are less stable.
And the data disagrees considerably in places from other sources where their measurements are more direct (that is, thermometers).
You seem awfully secure that HIS data is valid yet you discound GISS or Hadley data because of things you do not know about this data set either.
As I've said before, you're not skeptical. You're selectively credulous.
PS this year is half way through.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#50
And that is only a problem to the denialists strawman that CO2 is the only component of warming.
Then why are alarmists pusheing CO2 as the great evil?
Denying basic statistics so you can make up a lie so you don't have to face facts is denial.
and denying the basic fact that in 30 years, the temperature anomaly is zero, is what? Not denial? Hey, it was you that said 30 years could establish a trend! Given that atmospheric CO2 has increased around 50 ppm in the last 30 years, doesn't this give some clue that CO2 is not the main driver behind climate? How you can read that and not even have the slightest doubt is beyond me. Denial, religion maybe?
Refusing to believe the evidence
what evidence? Zero anomaly over 30 years? a slightly raised global ice value? a computer model! a bird that nests 3 days earlier than "normal"? a tree that is slightly further north than it should be?
the last 2 are evidence that something may have changed, but they are certainly not empirical evidence that mans emissions are the cause.
I don't remember you saying when 1998's record maximum (or the other records in 2003, 2005 and 2007) turned up "well, I guess AGW is real, then".
that's because i didn't - this is called weather, you should learn the difference between weather and climate my friend ;)
#51
Mango, you copied a commend[sic] from another so thereby including yourself in their stance.
nonsense, you have implied that. I am interested in the answer though and unless i have missed the answer amongst the sea of your rants, i am still waiting
Or answer the question: what would make you say "AGW is correct".
as i have answered before - empirical proof
Complain about this comment
#53
try reading the information presented by spencer instead of adhering to your dogma and you will have your explanation
Complain about this comment
#54
so how does he select them
perhaps he uses the same selection methodology that the alarmists use?
Complain about this comment
"perhaps he uses the same selection methodology that the alarmists use?"
Which begs the question:
Why do you trust his data to tell you what the temperature is doing?
Complain about this comment
"what evidence? Zero anomaly over 30 years? "
You can't have an annual anomaly for a period of less than a year.
You mean the zero anomoly that is as far as you know created in the same way as the anomoly that shows the last full year being hotter than any year previous to 1998?
"a slightly raised global ice value?"
I notice you don't say WHAT ice value.
Is this the WINTER extent of the antartic, where the sun shines not? Is this ice extent which can extend when ice melts because it can be mobile?
"the last 2 are evidence that something may have changed, but they are certainly not empirical evidence that mans emissions are the cause."
Uh, that empirical evidence can be gained yourself with:
1) An IR camera
2) A candle
3) A sealed clear container
4) A cylinder of CO2
Complain about this comment
#56 whu?
Complain about this comment
"Hey, it was you that said 30 years could establish a trend!"
Yes, so to see if the trend is UP or DOWN, you need something to compare it to.
Which doesn't exist in that graph.
And no error bars.
Your kind kept whinging about how there were no errors on the temperature graphs when talking of the GISS graphs. Why not here?
Your arguments against GISS/HC data are only valid arguments if you place them on all forms of proof. Including the ones you want to believe in, else you're not skeptical. you're just kidding on you are.
Complain about this comment
#58
so, by implication you agree that alarmists select data to show that AGW is real.
does the alarmists use of selctive data not worry you or make you the least sceptical about their claims?
does the alarmists use of selective data not make you think they have an agenda?
does the alarmists use of selctive data not make you want to question the alarmists, instead of acting like a sheep and blindly following their lead?
Complain about this comment
#59
Uh, that empirical evidence can be gained yourself with:
1) An IR camera
2) A candle
3) A sealed clear container
4) A cylinder of CO2
yes, ok, we all know this works in the lab and we all know the properties of CO2, but we live in the real world and in the real world CO2 does not gather together in cylinders
Complain about this comment
here's an expiment for you
take the following items:
1) An IR camera
2) A candle
3) A sealed clear container
4) A cylinder of nitrigen, oxygen, co2 etc, mixed in the correct proportions to simulate pre-industrial times (i.e. ~280ppm CO2)
What happens?
Next add an extra 100ppm of CO2.
What happens?
Complain about this comment
" but we live in the real world and in the real world CO2 does not gather together in cylinders"
And so does the lab. So does the CO2 in a cylinder. So does the candle and the camera.
In what way does the cylinder change the activities of CO2? Are you saying it's self-aware?
Complain about this comment
"so, by implication you agree that alarmists select data to show that AGW is real."
No.
YOU wont accept GISS data because you can't see the raw data or the selection method.
YOU will accept Spencer's data because you can't see the raw data or the selection method.
I am pointing out that this is not skepticism, it's directed credulism.
Complain about this comment
#65
Are you saying it's self-aware?
there you go again, reading something into that is plainly not there
surely, even you must be aware that a cylinder full of CO2 does not replicate real world atmosphere and processes?
#66
"so, by implication you agree that alarmists select data to show that AGW is real."
No.
you can't have it both ways - by implication you have accepted the above statement in #58
Complain about this comment
So why then does the lab experiment not show how CO2 acts?
The lab experiment shows that it retains IR radiation.
You did do physics at school, didn't you?
There are *three* methods of heat exchange you know. What is the one beginning with "R"?
"you can't have it both ways - by implication you have accepted the above statement in #58"
I'm not trying to have it both ways.
I don't believe that the Hadley Centre data is faked to show warming.
You think that Spencer's data could be faked though.
Yet you accept it.
Why?
Complain about this comment
Mind you, this IS a good example of projection.
Chutney wants to reject Hadley Centre data because he doesn't know what they did to get it. But he wants to reject AGW and Spencer's unprovenanced data shows it. So he wants to accept it despite not knowing what he did to get it.
And he then projects this desire to have it both ways on to me.
Complain about this comment
"Are you saying it's self-aware?
there you go again, reading something into that is plainly not there"
So are you saying that CO2 acts the same in a lab as it does in real life, then?
Because if you aren't, how does it know?
If you are, then that's a change from your assertion that somehow "real life" makes a difference to the experiment.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#68/69
I don't believe that the Hadley Centre data is faked to show warming.
You think that Spencer's data could be faked though.
As Hadley refuses to release the raw data even though it is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, how can you be so sure? Faith?
And can i be sure that Spencers data isn't falsified? I can't, but given that Spencer takes the published data from Hadley, GISS etc (11 different instruments), and Gavin Schmidt tells us that the only way they can get the models to give the result they want is to average the models, i think Spencers approach is pretty legitimate.
#70
Of course CO2 acts the same way in the lab as it does in real life. Now tell me what would happen if your cylinder contained real air and not 100% CO2 or will you dodge the question again?
Complain about this comment
"Of course CO2 acts the same way in the lab as it does in real life. Now tell me what would happen if your cylinder contained real air and not 100% CO2 or will you dodge the question again?"
I could only dodge the question if it had been asked before, therefore dodging again is not possible.
You're the only one dodging questions.
And if you use ordinary air, the image would dim slightly. Since normal air contains CO2 and you'd be increasing the density of CO2 in the cylinder.
Just as we are increasing the density of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Your point for asking that was what, exactly?
Complain about this comment
The Hadley Centre HAVE given out their data:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
Complain about this comment
" but given that Spencer takes the published data from Hadley, GISS etc (11 different instruments),"
Uh, Hadley GISS aren't instruments. They are models.
AMSU-A/AMSU-B IRSAT and so on are instruments.
You don't even know what you're taking about, but you want people to believe you know what it means anyway???
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#72
this is the question you have dodged in #64
take the following items:
1) An IR camera
2) A candle
3) A sealed clear container
4) A cylinder of nitrogen, oxygen, co2 etc, mixed in the correct proportions to simulate pre-industrial times (i.e. ~280ppm CO2)
What happens?
Next add an extra 100ppm of CO2.
What happens?
#73
Phil Jones refuses to hand over the data:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6346
(this was part of the censored post from the other thread)
#74
the fact remains that spencer uses 11 different sources to present his no change analysis, hadley uses 1 - their own, which is manipulated to get the result. Perhaps Hadley should release the raw data that can be checked independently
Complain about this comment
The fact remains that you don't know what an instrument is.
How then do you know what the heck is going on?
You don't is the answer.
You just accept whatever half-baked scheme says what you believe.
The fact remains more than 11 are out there.
The fact remains that he hasn't put any error bars on his graph.
The fact remains that even though we're running at a sunspot minimum that hasn't existed anywhere before on that graph and also in a La Nina cooling cycle and yet with ALL of this making it cooler, the temperature of this one graph at this one spot in time still hasn't manged to show it cooler than the average over the period.
And you think this proves AGW is wrong???
Complain about this comment
If you add more CO2 to a cylinder, you will get less IR through it.
Complain about this comment
1) An IR camera
2) A candle
3) A sealed clear container
4) A cylinder of nitrogen, oxygen, co2 etc, mixed in the correct proportions to simulate pre-industrial times (i.e. ~280ppm CO2)
What happens?
Next add an extra 100ppm of CO2.
What happens?"
You get less IR through.
Complain about this comment
how much less?
Complain about this comment
As much less as the radiation equations say.
This is available in the local copies of Nature archives.
Complain about this comment
ok, clearly you don't know, so hazard a guess, would you say adding 100ppm CO2 would make any significant difference over 280 ppm CO2 in our little experiment?
Complain about this comment
" would you say adding 100ppm CO2 would make any significant difference over 280 ppm CO2 in our little experiment?"
Yes.
Complain about this comment
PS have you ever SEEN an absorption spectra for a gas?
Complain about this comment
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
Complain about this comment
#82
please expand on your answer
#83
yes i have
Complain about this comment
This may also help Chutney. Though you have no head for science or, indeed, logic.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectures/optd/optd.html
Complain about this comment
"please expand on your answer"
Yes, increasing CO2 concentrations from 280 to 380ppm will have a significant effect.
Complain about this comment
i see you're still dodging giving a proper answer, but that's what we expect from you
Complain about this comment
I have given you a proper answer.
Increasing CO2 concentrations from 280 to 380 ppm will have a significant effect.
Why? Do you know different?
Complain about this comment
and what is your definition of significant? answer properly and stop dodging the question
Complain about this comment
If you want, you can read the IPCC report.
It has how much that change in CO2 has.
Do you have any proof of a different value?
Complain about this comment
PS where are the answers to my questions.
I've answered plenty of yours.
It's a two-way street unless one side contains a closed-minded bigot...
Complain about this comment
And the Hadley Centre release their data as required by the FOIA.
Even if they don't, there's the GISS data.
Complain about this comment
11) "the published data from Hadley, GISS etc (11 different instruments)" when they aren't instruments
also passed without comment from the ever "skeptical" Chutney.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
the answer to our little experiment in #64 that you are trying so very hard not give is:
adding 100ppm CO2 to the mix, for all practical purposes and intent, would make no measurable difference whatsoever.
so how does the candle experiment you advocate prove the existence of AGW?
Complain about this comment
"so how does the candle experiment you advocate prove the existence of AGW?"
It proves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
And it makes a very significant difference.
Are you denying that there is an exponential tail off either side of an absorbtion line? (NOTE: You did say that you had seen absorbtion spectra before)?
Are you denying that as you go up in our atmosphere, temperature of the air goes down at least until you reach the tropopause?
Are you denying that adding 35% to the concentration of CO2 increases the optical depth of the atmosphere or the box in the lab by 35%?
These are not small effects.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if Chutney will ever answer questions...
He certainly asks a lot of them and DEMANDS an answer for each and every one.
Looks like one side of the street has someone who will converse and the other side (where Chutney stands) has someone who closes their mind and doesn't have an argument for their own dogma being correct, just re-states their dogma.
Complain about this comment
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
By 1956, such computations could be carried out thanks to the increasing power of digital computers. The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere, nailing down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#96
"so how does the candle experiment you advocate prove the existence of AGW?"
It proves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
nobody doubts CO2 is a greenhouse gas, although, and i think we can agree on this, not as significant as H20
now, how does this experiment prove the existence of AGW? The answer is it doesn't and you are doing your best to avoid giving that answer, aren't you?
as for the rest of your post, no i am not denying that, although I'd be interested to see where you get "adding 35% to the concentration of CO2 increases the optical depth of the atmosphere or the box in the lab by 35%". I agree the saturation band will get slightly wider, but are you saying 35% wider?
Complain about this comment
"nobody doubts CO2 is a greenhouse gas, "
Incorrect. Plenty of people do.
"although, and i think we can agree on this, not as significant as H20"
Incorrect. H2O rains out and has a residency time of weeks.
"now, how does this experiment prove the existence of AGW?"
"as for the rest of your post, no i am not denying that, although I'd be interested to see where you get "adding 35% to the concentration of CO2 increases the optical depth of the atmosphere or the box in the lab by 35%".
It shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Here:
"86. At 2:50pm on 12 Jul 2009, yeah_whatever wrote:
This may also help Chutney. Though you have no head for science or, indeed, logic.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectures/optd/optd.html"
Complain about this comment
"I agree the saturation band will get slightly wider, but are you saying 35% wider?"
Actually, optical depth will get 35% deeper at slightly (log dependence) more wavelegths.
Complain about this comment
You're not really up on O-level physics, are you...
Complain about this comment
i studied social sciences, a subject you clearly you didn't study
Complain about this comment
No, I studied something which informs me on the subject. Unlike you who are uninformed at best, misinformed most likely and misinforming others at worst.
You are heinously incompetent in assessing the science as has been shown multiple times on this thread alone. And NOW we see why: no training.
This is not normally a problem: someone willing to learn will learn.
But you don't want to learn.
You've been told it is all a scam and you like that idea better than the alternative.
Complain about this comment
Another dinger for the list (fjpicket should take note: he things all the self-proclaimed "skeptics" are open minded).
12) "the saturation band will get wider but not 35% wider" then when corrected, rather than "Oh, that's what you meant" gives out "i studied social sciences, a subject you clearly you didn't study" (though how this is clearly indicated is anyone's guess...).
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS