BBC BLOGS - Richard Black's Earth Watch
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

MPs' message of climate trust

Richard Black | 13:29 UK time, Wednesday, 31 March 2010

The first of the numerous enquiries into the state of climate science has just been published in the UK, and - you might be tempted to conclude - so far, so predictable, in terms of its conclusions and of the reactions to it.

Iceberg meltsIt's important to be clear on what the enquiry by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee did encompass,and what it didn't.

It isn't the main review into whether poor practice at the University of East Anglia (UEA) - allegedly revealed in e-mails and documents stolen from the university and posted on the web last November - changes the mainstream picture of global warming driven by humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases; that's for a later panel, chaired by Lord Oxburgh.

It isn't the investigation into who stole the e-mails and why - that's still in the hands of the Norfolk police force.

It isn't the global review of the state of climate science and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that's being handled by the Inter-Acadermy Council.

And there are other reviews, too.

Professor Phil JonesSo although the MP's report does make more than a nod to some of these issues, the focus is overwhelmingly on whether UEA or Phil Jones, the long-time director of the university's Climatic Research Unit, were guilty of poor scientific practice - and if so, why.

In doing so, it also touches on reaction to the so-called "ClimateGate" issue in the big rough-and-tumble world of politics that now encircles scientists working in the field.

In the days and weeks following the news of the e-mail hack, I've had many, many discussions about the issue with people working on climate change in the fields of science, policy and journalism; and the vast majority of the reactions I've had tally with the conclusions of the report.

The hacked e-mails and documents date back more than 10 years, and huge changes have occurred since then in three key areas: scientific practice, information technology and the expectations of society regarding openness and transparency.

A decade ago, scientific journals were mainly disseminated on paper, and thus the capacity to publish reams of background and workings was constrained by space. Now, many journals have their main or indeed their only existence on the web, which is never full; and the practice of publishing supplementary material in separate files is now commonplace.

A decade ago, I would have been struggling to write this on a computer with perhaps a couple of gigabytes' space on the hard drive over a 56k modem connection. The one I'm using now has more than 400G of memory, and the megabytes stream fluidly through my cable modem. Scientists, 10 years ago, were just as limited by now obsolete technology as anyone else.

A decade ago, we didn't expect Members of Parliament to publish details of their expenses, or bankers their bonuses. Now we do; and, through Freedom of Information legislation, all kinds of institutions have had to become more open in their dealings.

It is through this lens of change that the MPs have looked back at CRU and Professor Jones:

"On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies."

UEA accepts that it has been "taken to task on a number of issues which we are determined to address" - and this is clearly one of them.

DroughtHowever, on the most significant and potentially damaging of the accusations - that Professor Jones and other climate scientists sought to subvert the peer review process, and manipulated data in a manner calculated to produce a picture of rising temperatures (the infamous "trick" e-mail) - the university and Professor Jones are in the clear:

"...insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty - for example, Professor Jones's alleged attempt to "hide the decline" - we consider that there is no case to answer."

The vast majority of the raw data that UEA had been accused of hiding had in fact been freely available for years, the MPs found, while accepting the explanations Professor Jones has been giving for years as to why the few bits that remain could not at the time have been published.

There are implications for the government - re-framing bits of the Freedom of Information Act - for academic institutions - the need to properly resource areas tasked with responding to FoI requests - and for the media, with implicit references to a rush to judgement on the part of some journalistic institutions.

But in the main, it is in the established practices of scientists and their institutions that reform is urged - with the caveat that as far as this review was able to ascertain, individual scientists were not behaving fraudulently and the overall mainstream picture of climate science is not challenged.

There are a couple of other things worth mentioning about the report.

Firstly, it wasn't something that the Science and Technology Committee had to do, in the same way that UEA clearly had to mount an inquiry; committee members chose to do so themselves. And secondly, as their report admits, it was done in something of a hurry, as the end of this parliamentary term approaches.

Whether you think the balance of those two factors adds to or detracts from its credibility may depend largely on where you already stand on man-made climate change.

Some of the most vigorous critics have not leapt to endorse the report:

"The report is clearly biased and far too kind to Professor Phil Jones," said Benny Peiser of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, who had given evidence to the committee.

Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit also criticises what he sees as mismatches between the questions asked by the episode and the answers obtained by the committee.

Dr Peiser says the report "will be widely regarded as an attempted whitewash".

Absolutely, it will. But in parts of the opinion spectrum, anything that did not result in mass resignations and a conclusion that man-made climate change is a myth and a fraud would be so regarded.

What is more important is how its conclusions, and those of the other reviews yet to come, are seen across the broader mass of uncommitted people who simply expect scientists to do a good job, and were unsure whether the behaviour of Phil Jones and his fellow climate researchers was good enough that they could trust their conclusions.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 1:50pm on 31 Mar 2010, Vic Smith wrote:

    Climate change predictions are made without use of the scientific method. This does not imply that the researchers making such predictions are in any way being fraudulent. Senior thinkers in this field have stated publicly that normal science will not yield the answers that they look for.

    "Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking..." Mike Hulme

    They cannot be critised for a failure to carry out good science when they do not claim to be engaged in science at all.

    It is politicians and campaigners that make this claim on their behalf. Deliberatly or not, this runs the risk of misleading the public.

    Most people may or may not be familiar with the minutiae of the practice of science, but they will have an idea that it is something to do with the stuff that Einstein did.

    Climate-change researchers have decided to abandon science, in favour of their preferred method of enquiry, for reasons that they see as valid. This is entirely their right and, no doubt, they would defend their decision in the most vigorous manner.

    This does not change the fact that their method of enquiry has nothing to do with "the stuff that Einstein did".

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 2:10pm on 31 Mar 2010, minuend wrote:

    It is telling that the only MP who dissented from the majority view was a SCIENTIST, Graham Stringer.

    This reports higlights how much the politics of global warming has distorted the science.

    As a consequence it is little wonder that public scepticism is on the increase, and will continue to do so.

    People need facts not tricks nor whitewashes.



    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 2:22pm on 31 Mar 2010, CComment wrote:

    It would a major surprise if any politician sought to debunk the notion of climate change after they've been doom-mongering for years and so much taxation is justified by it. Caledonian Comment

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 2:25pm on 31 Mar 2010, Mike Haseler of SCEF wrote:

    In 2000 Dr David Viner of the CRU said: "..within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”" Today it has been snowing on and off all day, and the first daffodils are finally peeking out!

    The committee totally failed to address the main issue which was the mega overstatement of the scientific facts by the CRU through their highly partisan (i.e. non scienctific) behaviour. The public have been loosing confidence in climate forecasters for years. Largely as a result of the climate forecasters own inability to forecast the climate, and also because of their constant hyping of its supposed effects which we should all be able to see by now -- like the lack of snow! (And the latest research shows the North Atlantic drift, wrongly called Gulf stream, has not decreased in strength!) All this report has done is to give a green light to "business as normal", which in effect means the climate forecasters will continue behaving in a way that undermines public confidence, and fail to do anything to restore confidence or produce a credible temperature record.

    You couldn't have a worse scenario. Too much evidence of wrongdoing to support an outright vindication, but too week a condemnation to result in any meaningful action to restore public trust.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 2:36pm on 31 Mar 2010, oldgifford wrote:

    It seems the MPs had not understood what was going on so their report is somewhat useless, for instance the inundation of FOI requests was because people like myself, only submitted requests because Jones had refused the initial few requests for information. They also don't seem to have understood the importance of the 'hide the decline' tree ring data. If the tree ring data was suddenly found not to agree with measurements, then what evidence did Jones et al have to show the tree ring data prior to measurements starting around 1850, was any good? As soon as the tree ring data didn’t support their argument, it showed a decrease in temperatures, they hid it.

    The latest research obtained from shells in sediment cores taken from an Icelandic bay shows a very different profile to the tree ring data such as the Medieval warming period, something that Jones et al tried to dismiss. Why? Because it would have spoiled their argument that the recent temperature increases could only have been the result of man made CO2 and not natural, and that would have meant an end to their grants of hundreds of thousands of pounds to investigate man made global warming.

    We can only get to understand the reasons for climate change if we now have proper science and in my opinion Jones is not the person to provide this, he should go.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 2:49pm on 31 Mar 2010, Vic Smith wrote:

    The word "scientist" appears with great frequency in these debates. It would be interesting to see if there is any method by which one could be sure of recognising such a person.

    To maintain clarity of purpose, it would be useful to identify attributes that do not, of themselves, either singly or in combination, indicate that someone can rightly claim to be a "scientist".

    Not indicative:
    wearing a white coat;
    using scientific equipment;
    working in a building with "scientific", "laboratory" or "research"in its name;
    having "scientist" in their job title;
    having earned a PhD in a science-based subject;
    being well respected.



    We now need to compile a list of those attributes that a "scientist" must have. All would be required.

    Essential:
    scepticism, especially with regard to their own work;
    an open and enquiring mind;
    imagination;
    an ability to work in a painstaking manner;
    a commitment to attempting to expand our understanding of the physical world by the use of testable hypotheses;
    a tendency to react with enthusiasm when one of their hypotheses is falsified (as passing a test only adds slightly to our understanding by reinforcing what we already suspect to be true. When a hypothesis fails, especially if we have some insight into that failure, many exciting possibilities for new understanding are presented to us);
    the generosity to share freely any insights that they might gain.

    More astute minds will obviously quickly add more to these lists. They are offered as a starting point.




    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 3:20pm on 31 Mar 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    The real message of the report is not that Phil Jones is exonerated, but that the rest of climate science is damned along with him.

    He is no worse than the rest of them = they are no better than he is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 3:24pm on 31 Mar 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    When you mix science with politics you end up with politics. The believers and non-believers will not be changed and the non-believers have been successful in once again proving that the tail can wag the dog. That of course is not science but rather is politics.

    "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."

    — John Maynard Keynes

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 3:29pm on 31 Mar 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me" - fool me this many times and I'm either a certain Mr Bush or I'm a Pro-AGW blogger.

    Seriously though, even Dr. Jones himself admitted to some discrepancies in his work and that's without all the rest of the stuff in the emails.

    The "Nothing to see here, move along now" attitude is simply not good enough anymore.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 4:09pm on 31 Mar 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #6 persuademe wrote:

    "a tendency to react with enthusiasm when one of their hypotheses is falsified"

    [as essential for a scientist]

    Enthusiasm, OK, but let's not pretend that a scientist ever positively welcomes the discrediting of his/her favourite theory. It's an unwelcome development to nearly all humans to discover that they have been wrong all along.

    Science is a social process in which scientists generally try to disprove each other's work. But it is very rare for any human to enthusiastically try to disprove their own work. That is why it is so important for scientists' work (data, etc.) to be open to the scrutiny of other people, especially critics. That is why Phil Jones' neglect was so profound. That is why other climate scientists are also condemned if they do not stand head and shoulders above Phil Jones in their willingness to share results.

    By the way, let us not underrate the importance of a hypothesis passing a test. It may not "add to our understanding" much, but it does add to our confidence a lot, especially if the test is a real hurdle to get over. It's important in this discussion because the disagreement is largely about how much confidence we can have in climate science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 4:29pm on 31 Mar 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    I'm not suprised at all frankly at the outcome of this review.

    A group of MP's, commenting on proper conduct. I mean, seriously.

    Also, nicely missed was the fact that the review was cut short due to political reasons (as mentioned in the report itself), so it wasn't even a FULL investigation into the parts it was supposed to be reviewing.

    Unfortunatley, i don't hold much hope for the scientific review either- given the fact that the review board is stacked against impartiality.

    Nothing short of a full independant audit would satisfy me now, have the errors and falsehoods come so thick and fast.

    Notice it's snowing outside- wonder how long before the met office says this is the, warmest April on record....

    also to address -"Dr Peiser says the report "will be widely regarded as an attempted whitewash".

    Absolutely, it will. But in parts of the opinion spectrum, anything that did not result in mass resignations and a conclusion that man-made climate change is a myth and a fraud would be so regarded."

    And it will continue to be regarded as so, until they (climate scientists) decide to follow ACTUAL scientific process.

    Interesting that James Lovelock himself thinks climate science is a joke (despit still supporting the AGW theory..?!?!?)
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100032069/only-global-fascist-tyranny-can-save-us-now-says-nice-old-man/

    and for once, i don't find that Mr Dellingpole is overreacting with this article on the whitewa.... i mean review

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100032293/lying-cheating-defrauding-taxpayer-are-all-ok-announces-panel-of-mps/

    The very idea that the 'trick' can be written off as a 'turn of phrase' is pathetic and insulting to science. Hell, it's insulting to anyone EXCEPT those who stand to make trillions of the carbon scam.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 4:46pm on 31 Mar 2010, Mike Haseler of SCEF wrote:

    What is a scientist? For me the key aspect of science is the attempt to remove personal prejudice/opinion and to base arguments of physical evidence rather than personal opinion or views. Another aspect would be that a scientists is inherently sceptical unless or until the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of their assertions.

    So, e.g. a scientist would say: "the evidence shows the temperature this century is cooling at an average rate of -0.1C/decade ... however that may not be sufficiently long to draw any meaningful conclusions". In contrast a non-scientist would try to use arguments like: "An overwhelming majority of people (claiming to be scientists) BELIEVE that mankind is causing manmade warming". Or: because we can't think of any other reason the world warmed last century, in the absence of any conclusive proof, we think it was CO2 that did it ... and that's fine cause no one like CO2.

    In short: whilst not all sceptics are scientists, every true scientist is a sceptic!

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 4:47pm on 31 Mar 2010, Vic Smith wrote:

    As an indication of the nature of Atmospheric Science, consider that it admits Gaia Theory as verified.

    Gaia Theory proposes that the earth's surface, including the atmosphere and biosphere, can be considered as a single living organism.

    This theory has an advantage over man-made global warming theory, in that it can readily be falsified. There is also a test available on which most scientists agree. There is a set of criteria that an object must meet to be considered to be 'living'

    The theory predicts that the earth's surface can be classed as 'life'. If it fulfills the criteria required, then the test has been passed.
    Unfortunately, the test is not passed and the theory is falsified.

    Supporters of the theory however, instead of calling for adjustments to it that allow it to pass the test, have instead decided that the test is at fault and proposed a new one that the theory will pass.

    Perhaps someone should inform the consumers of science that the methods of Einstein and Newton have been discarded and a new type of "science" substituted instead.


    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 5:00pm on 31 Mar 2010, freddawlanen wrote:

    Climate change is inevitable because of the wanton destrucion of forests the world over for agriculture and 'bio-fuel', what isn't inevitable are things like consistent global warming or politicians actually doing something about it.

    Like every other major issue though, it boils down to power and therefore GREED, with the largest factor in every global issue, that of the worlds spiralling population, not even getting a mention.
    Is Professor James Lovelock right when he says that it's already to late for man to do anything about it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 5:02pm on 31 Mar 2010, infiniti wrote:

    The result of this review is not unexpected given that the allegations they were investigating were either false or greatly exagerated.

    It's funny to see skeptics complaining that scientists over-exagerate stuff when it's the skeptics who have avidly exagerated "climategate" any way they can. The assymetry of the "debate" is astounding. "Skeptics" can get away with pushing completely incorrect arguments about Phil Jones, peer review, etc without *any* repurcussions, but if a scientist so much as forgets to dot an i, they go mad at them and demand a public flogging in the media.


    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 5:15pm on 31 Mar 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    persuademe @ #1

    Just to be clear.........

    I fear that you are taking Mike Hulme's comment out of context. If you read the entire article, you will see that he is NOT saying that scientists are failing to engage in real science:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

    It is far more a matter of how that real science is viewed by the public and policy makers.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 5:31pm on 31 Mar 2010, Tenney Naumer wrote:

    Why do you quote McIntyre, who is not a scientist, on this issue?

    It is not balanced reporting to quote fossil-fuel industry hacks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 5:47pm on 31 Mar 2010, Kyle wrote:

    It worries me that the fact that these emails were stolen seems to be at the back of most people's minds right now. Prof Jones's private correspondence was stolen and yet this is of secondary concern. I'm worried as a student aiming to pursue a career in science that I must avoid ever expressing scepticism, or perhaps even humour, about my work in private.

    My very basic impression of the field, having studied a course in atmospheric science this year, is that there is a great deal of uncertainty and climate scientists (and other scientists) are the foremost critics of their own work. However, the basic physics of more CO2 = more trapped radiation = hotter seems fairly simple. It's just like the effect's namesake, a greenhouse.

    One more thing to note is that science, by its very nature, deals with uncertainty. If it's already known then it's of no interest to scientists. However, it is often difficult for scientists to convey their assessments of probabilities and hypotheses to the general public; just look at the criticism of the Met Office for getting the winter forecasts wrong. I think in this case we have to rely on the climate science community to audit itself more carefully and to be honest with themselves. The peer review process certainly helps to reduce bad science. I also wonder why some of the sceptics were unable to find data described as "publicly available". The practice of publishing Supplementary Online Material is extremely commonplace and necessary to prevent journals from being as thick as phone directories.

    Though the process might be long and difficult, one of my professor's favourite quotes by Max Perutz still applies: "In science, truth always wins."

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 5:55pm on 31 Mar 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    The Committee of MPs only took verbal evidence.

    That is tantamount to MPs asking someone if they lied, the respondent saying "No" and the MPs accepting the reply as evidence of good faith and honesty!

    To put it another way.

    If a group of members of the public asked of any MP if he/she had ever erroneously or deliberately claimed parliamentary expenses and the MPs all said "No" ....... would we accept the result that no MP has ever lied, cheated or defrauded the Parliamentary Expense Scheme?

    Pull the other one puuuurrrrrlease!

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 5:56pm on 31 Mar 2010, manysummits wrote:

    I see all the usual lobbyists are back now that CO2 is in the picture again!

    Isn't that curious? Where have you all been?
    =============================================

    Ghostofsichuan - Saludos from Canada!

    Your comment: "When you mix science with politics you end up with politics."

    Agreed - in spades!

    I was just thinking on the way over here that we need a council of elders to consider the situation anew amidst the events of the past year, and the Interacademy Council is doing some of that work as regards the IPCC.

    We will emerge from this with the entire Interacademy Panel on International Issues taking over the lead on science and the geophysical ramifications of that science (climate science), and they will speak in a clearer voice, devoid hopefully of political dumbing down.

    As for Phil Jones - the Ben Santer letter says it all - look it up on a search engine. Use your instincts - you will be led aright.

    Phil Jones should stay - he will be stronger for it and we will all benefit from his elder expertise.

    What we are seeing is simply an intellectually remote group (scientists), colliding with the masses. It is messy - no problem, it is meant to be and has to be. We will all be stronger for it.

    James Lovelock is back in action, in The Guardian - intersting thoughts, as always.

    President Obama is opening up the Atlantic offshore and the Arctic Ocean - kudos - we will reduce our dependence on mid-eastern and Russian oil immediately - then we will go nuclear and solar thermal - now!

    Ghost! Love that John Maynard Keynes comment
    ==================

    Extragrumpymike! I hope you are doing well. (reading between the lines)

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 5:59pm on 31 Mar 2010, Forlornehope wrote:

    Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of statistics, who spends a little time looking at Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit website, can easily establish how much, or how little, value to put on his comments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 6:07pm on 31 Mar 2010, Rainbow Zenned wrote:

    #11 LabMunkey

    "Notice it's snowing outside- wonder how long before the met office says this is the, warmest April on record...."

    You sound just like my Dad (an avid Mail-inspired sceptic). He too goes on about scientific method, and in the same breath confuses current local weather conditions and global climate trends.

    Might be worth an official government body denying Man-made global warming but backing one of the other warming theories to get all the various and contradictory anti-AGW camps to turn on each other for a change.

    I would welcome a full and independent audit of the whole debate which also encompassed the scientific method and undeclared interests of the main critics too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 6:20pm on 31 Mar 2010, infiniti wrote:

    "As an indication of the nature of Atmospheric Science, consider that it admits Gaia Theory as verified."

    No it doesn't. Nice try though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 6:42pm on 31 Mar 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 17.
    There's no evidence McIntyre is funded by the oil industry and in any case he has published at least one paper on the subject of climate and it is clearly relevant to mention what he thinks about this issue given that his blog is the source of many of the investigated FOI requests.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 6:59pm on 31 Mar 2010, Paul Kerr wrote:

    'Earth Watch
    Climate probe finds problems, but not with warming '

    'MPs' message of climate trust'

    rubbish!!!!!

    This is typical BBC politics, promote the consensus belief at all times regardless of the facts and of course that is exactly why Jones was there too
    Your soundbites are just like the CRU emails Richard Black! full of politics and nothing to do with science.
    You know full well the enquiry was not intending to make a judgement on the science of global warming nor did anyone mean to promote the climate sience!

    ''we decided to hold an inquiry into the disclosure of the data at CRU. On 22 January 2010 we therefore announced the inquiry inviting submissions on three key issues:
    •What were the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
    •Were the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
    •How independent were the other two international data sets (see paragraph 23)?

    The authors made it very clear that they would not be investigating the science of global warming OR ENDORSING WARMING quoting again,

    '14.If there had been more time available before the end of this Parliament we would have preferred to carry out a wider inquiry into the science of global warming itself.'

    so I must say again shame on you BBC! and Richard Black who writes very well on other enviromental issues but seems compelled to distort all reporting of climate issues to follow the party line

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 7:05pm on 31 Mar 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #12 isonomia wrote:

    "What is a scientist? For me the key aspect of science is the attempt to remove personal prejudice/opinion and to base arguments of physical evidence rather than personal opinion or views."

    That's more the key aspect of a saint -- or someone remarkably unbiased. There is no need for a scientist to be a saint, or even someone unbiased. He/she just has to be involved in an open dialogue with other people rather than hiding his stuff, he just has to insist on tests, and so on.

    In real life, most scientists are very biased, and it does science no harm at all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 8:13pm on 31 Mar 2010, Mike Haseler of SCEF wrote:

    Bowmanthebard, of course a real scientist is remarkably unbiased, just as a good judge is unbiased or a good civil servant is apolitical. That doesn't mean scientists don't have opinions, likewise judges and civil servants, but they have an ethos and working method that attempts to remove personal bias.

    The reason why science is held in such high esteem, is precisely because the high standards of evidence based argument - free as far as possible from personal bias - leads to a high level of confidence in the conclusions they derive.

    If you want to tap into the high level of confidence, then you have to work by the scientific method and remove personal bias. If however you are caught dressiing up your personal opinion in a thin veneer of "science" to give you own opinions an unwarranted credibility ... you get climategate.

    (PS. the above argument can't be considered science as it philosophical)

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 8:29pm on 31 Mar 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    17. At 5:31pm on 31 Mar 2010, Tenney Naumer wrote:
    Why do you quote McIntyre, who is not a scientist, on this issue?

    It is not balanced reporting to quote fossil-fuel industry hacks.

    Really..

    Peer reviewed
    expert Ippc reviewer...

    Either you are argueing from a position of ignorance, or know the real 'hockey stick' Michael Mann story, and try to spin it..

    Steve Mcintyre is a mining expert, and his industry is very happily running around the globe digging up lots of rare earth metals, for all those green technologies

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 8:33pm on 31 Mar 2010, Paul Kerr wrote:

    If you dont believe the degree of spin that can be applied to the reporting of this topic compare and contrast Fred Pearces reporting of the same subject (not that you would immediately recognise)

    'Hacked climate email inquiry cleared Jones but serious questions remain'
    'Climate inquiry has dodged key questions in its rush to clear the name of the harangued head of the Climate Research Unit'

    Then,

    'The MPs are clear that there are serious issues to address both in climate science and in the operation of freedom of information law in British universities'

    Could they really be talking about the same inquiry? shame neither can get to the truth of this 'hacked' question a little mystery yet to be clarified

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 8:46pm on 31 Mar 2010, D Dortman wrote:

    MPs shockingly find there's nothing to see here, no one did anything wrong, and no one is to blame even if they did.... much like every other enquiry ever undertaken in Government.

    Perhaps the only thing more predictably than that outcome was the one with the G20 police officer getting away with it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 8:46pm on 31 Mar 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    22. At 6:07pm on 31 Mar 2010, Rainbow Zenned wrote;
    "
    I would welcome a full and independent audit of the whole debate which also encompassed the scientific method and undeclared interests of the main critics too."

    Agreed totally, particularly the lest part of your comment!

    When you know where a person "Sits" on an issue, no matter what that issue may be, then you will know where he/she "stands" on that issue.

    It is so easy to remain "incognito" on this weblog and act like a "specialist" when in fact you may have ulterior motives and not know anything about the actual topic.

    Whenever I see a name quoted by a person from either lobby, I do my best to find out the background of that name.There are so many names associated with "climate research", I feel in an era of "information overload".But the name Lovelock jumped out at me, and I found out a lot about his background and expertise and concluded that he wasn't being funded by any source, including tax-hungry government and so was a person I could trust.On the other hand some of the other "names" being quoted frequently seemed to have a rather dubious background.These people I find less convincing.

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion but on a matter such as we are debating, some peoples opinions carry more weight than others.I have said before and say it again, I have no expertise in "climate science", So I "listen" to opinions published here (mainly). If I knew exactly where each person was coming from, I might be more inclined to listen to that opinion.

    On this subject, as a chemical engineer now long retired, I stick to what I learned years ago as a chemist.Whenever you burn a fossil fuel, you generate carbon dioxide and frequently (depending on the fuel) water vapour.No fuel is clean and the combustion process also produces other "nasties".
    You also burn up Oxygen.
    Nature reverses the process in many ways, and a balance is achieved, except now that CO2 is going up (slightly) and O2 is coming down (slightly) nature is no longer in balance and cannot cope with any more fossil fuel combustion.

    To me, this is not good.Whether excess CO2 has a 'green-house" effect or not is not the issue with me. WE must find alternative fuels to eliminate CO2 production and O2 depletion.(Altitude sickness at ground level?)

    This is not good for people and organisations that have significant funds vested in "fossil" fuels or even so-called bio fuels, especially fuels from forests cut down to produce Palm Oil etc.These people will always put "income source" first. Same is true for people who advocate an International Trade in "Carbon Credits".

    Thank you, Manysummits for your kind thoughts.


    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 8:46pm on 31 Mar 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Richard

    It is called 'climategate'
    Millions and millions of google hits on the word...

    SO why all this:

    "In doing so, it also touches on reaction to the so-called "ClimateGate" issue in the big rough-and-tumble world of politics that now encircles scientists working in the field."

    so called - what is that all about, bbc not missing the slightest opportunity to spin.

    Impartiality please.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 8:59pm on 31 Mar 2010, Ben Vorlich wrote:

    Lord Rutherford
    “If your result needs a statistician then you should design a better experiment”

    About says it all I think

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 9:20pm on 31 Mar 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Richard remember you work for the bbc and the taxpayer:
    Earthwatch is not part of RealClimate - (michael 'hockey stick' Mann, al gores poster boy)

    ---- Climategate email--------
    (ref, BBB's - Paul Hudson's - Whatever happened to global warming aricle in )Oct 2009)

    Michael Mann wrote:

    extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

    We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?"



    Has the bbc become advocates of AGW, instead of reporting it...

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 9:37pm on 31 Mar 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #25 Paul Kerr wrote:

    "'MPs' message of climate trust'
    "rubbish!!!!!"
    "This is typical BBC politics"

    Of course it is, but are you surprised to find that the BBC are part of the Establishment?

    Would your parents -- or grandparents, or great-grandparents -- have been surprised to find that the BBC are part of the Establishment? Of course they wouldn't. Their generations saw it for what it is, and will probably always be: a government-funded, Church-and-academia-approved organization.

    You probably belong to a 1960s-influenced generation that sees the BBC as "cutting edge" radicals. It's time to move on -- "Swinging London" is over.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 9:38pm on 31 Mar 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Jones planned to avoid FOI requests before he even got them, thats shown in the emails , so his excuse that they frustrated him holds no water at all.

    The origin of the FOI's request was the CRU's failure to provide data on published work , sometimes breaking the journals they where published in own rules on this.

    CRU HAVE BEEN found in breach of FOI rules , while the reason for not finding them in breach of the rules on other occasions has been because of time limits not their innocence

    They where not hacked (stolen) e-mails , Jones admitted long ago that is was a leak (inside job) and no evidence what so ever has been found of any hack , the author must be fully aware of this but is still trying it on. (ie the mp's expenses scandal was initailly spun as a criminal leak/hack)

    Given the state of Cru's ftp server and IT practices (shown in the past)
    It is very possible, that foia2009.zip. was a compilation of emails, code, docs put together internally, forseeing them complying with the latest foia requests, when this was turned down, a short while before the leak, the whistleblower just posted it on various places.

    Or even someone browsing around the ftp server just stumbled across it..

    This had happened a number of times in the past at CRU

    No russian hackers, big oil conspiracy theories required..
    Of course, the no one would be talking about the leak, if the CONTENT was not so damaging..

    The MP's expenses scandal is such a parallel..

    Imagine, if parliament had gagged the telegraph, and got their data back
    UK Politics would be TOTALLY different today.

    I've got a copy of FOIa2009.zip, as can anybody in the world with an internet connection.. Not even the BBC can put a lid on this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 9:45pm on 31 Mar 2010, anonymous65535 wrote:

    Your PC has more than 400GB of memory? What are you using? A Cray?!

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 9:49pm on 31 Mar 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Useful article.

    Minuend @2: Nice one genius. Only problem is Graham Stringer thought the report went TOO FAR in its criticism of the scientists.

    LabMunkey @ 11: Entertaining rant there. You blow any credibility though by linking to James Delingpole. He is to honest and accurate journalism, what Geoff Hoon is to principled and honourable politics.

    Paul Kerr @ 25: “Richard Black writes very well on other environmental issues but seems compelled to distort all reporting of climate issues”.

    If you think he writes very well about everything else, have you ever considered that you might therefore be wrong in your beliefs on climate change... After all, it is not like Richard Black's writing on climate change is out of kilter with the rest of the worlds science and environment journalists...

    Dortman @ 30: Nope, I think the only thing more predictably than that outcome was that the usual suspects would conclude that it was a whitewash!

    Barry Woods @32:

    Desperate stuff. 'Cimategate' is a contrived and lazy journalistic name for the hacked/leaked emails. Therefore to describe it is 'so called' seems entirely reasonable.

    Barry Woods @34: “Has the bbc become advocates of AGW, instead of reporting it...”

    No.

    Bowman @ 35: Yes. It's all a massive conspiracy. Grr establishment, mumble mumble, religion, the state, evil scientists, nasty BBC, money, whinge (repeat).

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 9:52pm on 31 Mar 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    From he Climategate emails it is manifestly clear that those with dissenting views are being refused access to the data and excluded from the peer review process and that data is being manipulated.

    No one can with honesty tell how far these practices undermine the basic AGW message. Yet our Government Chief Scientist and the chief scientists of DEFRA and the Met Office are all still sure and constantly repeat that the science is precisely 90 to 95% certain. They also say that the "hockey stick" enquiries are now "settled" (vindicating Mann) and point to the state of Arctic Ice (which is currently back to near normal) as evidence to support their position.

    Who are these people? Have they not heard or understood anything that has happened since last November? The MP's questioning them did not appear too convinced and the general public isn't either. How can they think we are so stupid?

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 9:55pm on 31 Mar 2010, Dave52 wrote:

    "that's for a later panel, chaired by Lord Oxburgh"

    Yeah, he of the wind farms... I wonder what conclusion he'll come to.

    It's been quite a day, climate gate dismissed, police brutality ignored and a trial without a jury. Brilliant.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 9:57pm on 31 Mar 2010, ADMac wrote:

    Richard said

    " the focus [of the MP’s report] is overwhelmingly on whether UEA or Phil Jones, the long-time director of the university's Climatic Research Unit, were guilty of poor scientific practice - and if so, why."

    The answer to the first question is that they were guilty of poor scientific practice.

    The answer to the second question is that they were guilty of poor scientific practice because, at the very least, they refused to share raw data and computer codes with other scientists which prevented their work being replicated. The fact that they did not want other scientists to replicate their work does not diminish their guilt.

    The fact that this poor scientific practice was common to the climate science community also does not diminish their guilt. If every married man murdered their wife it wouldn’t make wife murdering an acceptable practice.

    It’s not sufficient to say that the vast majority of the raw data that UEA had been accused of hiding had in fact been freely available for years. To replicate their work all data and all computer code would be required.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 9:57pm on 31 Mar 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Yorkurbantree has spoken...

    If you used your real name , I might be inclined to listen...

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 10:05pm on 31 Mar 2010, Paul Kerr wrote:

    @Bowmanthebard

    Agreed, regarding the voice of the establishment.
    But the concept that spin exageration and mistruths are required for presenting science to the public is a dangerous one. It seems what scientists feel they have to rely on to promote a consensus.

    The BBC coverage of science and nature was not always so politicized and we all genuinely benefitted as children from it. As a public organisation they have a duty to present factual discussions in an balanced educational way.

    Is there not a difference between presenting arguments and supporting the consensus view
    v.
    pretending the debate is over by spinning headlines in such a way the casual reader cannot understand the meaning of the inquiry outcome?

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 10:31pm on 31 Mar 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bandythebane @ #39

    "From he Climategate emails it is manifestly clear that those with dissenting views are being refused access to the data and excluded from the peer review process and that data is being manipulated."

    None of the above are true! First of all, as Richard Black has pointed out, the vast majority of the data was already publicly available, which begs the question "why did Steve McIntyre post a form on his blog encouraging his followers to send FOI requests to UEA"....... especially when most of the data was not really theirs to give in the first place!

    There was no underhand manipulation of data or exclusion of dissenting views from the peer review process - if you have REAL evidence for what you claim (rather than just a few private emails presented out of context), then you should present it.

    "Yet our Government Chief Scientist and the chief scientists of DEFRA and the Met Office are all still sure and constantly repeat that the science is precisely 90 to 95% certain."

    I suspect you'll find they actually say that the probability now EXCEEDS the 90 or 95% confidence level.... referring to the statistical analysis which has quite properly been used.

    "They also say that the "hockey stick" enquiries are now "settled" (vindicating Mann)"

    Indeed they are! The only truly impartial enquiry into the Hockey Stick graph, by the US National Academy of Science, found in favour of Mann. Even though they were critical of the original statistical analysis (which Mann fully accepts), they replotted his graph using their own statistical analysis........ and came out with exactly the same shape! Many other proxy-based studies have since confirmed Mann's findings. It is only high profile sceptics who perpetuate the myth that the Hockey Stick graph is still flawed.

    ........and point to the state of Arctic Ice (which is currently back to near normal) as evidence to support their position.

    How the following constitutes "back to near normal" is beyond me:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/05/arctic-sea-ice-climate-change-visualisation#zoomed-picture

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 10:41pm on 31 Mar 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    Richard,

    "MPs' message of climate trust" - isn't that rather over egging today's report?

    This was NOT an inquiry into climate change - just into the UEA's email leak and the unwise way in which the academics handle data requests. Having said that the childish way that the academics concerned have acted does not inspire any confidence.

    Here is another argument: let us suppose that there is something in an anthropogenic 'cause' for climate change (with which I do not agree!), but let us suppose there is for the sake of this argument, then it does not follow at all that changing the way we act will have any effect on the climate in the future, for better or worse. It is just illogical and unscientific to say that it 'will' have any effect at all (with any degree of certainty). There are quite simply far too many variables to be certain about anything 'working'.

    This is why I advocate the amelioration of the effects, rather that some speculative highly improbable changing in the way we emit gas. Better we save the trees, protect lives against floods, engage in the active limiting of our population but encourage other parts of the biosphere to grow! Get our population down to 4 billion by the end of the century - we are the real pollution, but lest we offend organised religion we can't say this!

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 10:54pm on 31 Mar 2010, Paul Biggs wrote:

    A blog written in the true Biased BBC-Libertarian Left style that we have come to expect.

    So, it's okay to nobble the peer review and IPCC processes, and it's okay to discard inconvenient tree ring data and replace it with instrumental data in order to hide the divergence of tree ring proxy temperature data from the instrumental data.

    I must do a blog post of my own comparing BBC climate reporting before and after the arrival of Black/Harrabin.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 11:52pm on 31 Mar 2010, SR wrote:

    @John_from_Hendon
    "let us suppose that there is something in an anthropogenic 'cause' for climate change (with which I do not agree!), but let us suppose there is for the sake of this argument, then it does not follow at all that changing the way we act will have any effect on the climate in the future, for better or worse"

    ---------------------------------------

    If AGW is correct, pumping less CO2 into the atmosphere will limit the temperature rise. There are uncertainties and many variables, but levels of atmospheric CO2 is a massive contributor to global temperature. The evidence for this is overwhelming and nobody has been able to construct a reasonable argument against it. The last hope of the sceptics seemed to be that the science was fraudulent. One investigation says it's not. Let's see what the other investigations say...

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 00:18am on 01 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #38 Yorkurbantree wrote:

    "Bowman @ 35: Yes. It's all a massive conspiracy. Grr establishment, mumble mumble, religion, the state, evil scientists"

    It's so sad to hear you and Richard Black calling these people scientists, assuming I'm against science.

    Who, according to Yorkurbantree, is a genuine scientist?

    I repeat:

    Who, according to Yorkurbantree, is a genuine scientist?

    Can you answer this question? Please answer it soon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 00:30am on 01 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #44, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Many other proxy-based studies have since confirmed Mann's findings. It is only high profile sceptics who perpetuate the myth that the Hockey Stick graph is still flawed.


    Certainly, many other flawed proxy-based studies have repeated sub-sets of Mann's errors.

    To suggest that the Hockey Stick graph is merely flawed is generous indeed.

    It is little wonder that we have an economic crisis when we have politicians who think that there is something 'clever' about the 'trick'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 01:10am on 01 Apr 2010, ady wrote:

    Is David Bellamy still not allowed to publicly comment on these things yet?

    Or is he still classed as an enemy of the state.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 02:36am on 01 Apr 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    A total whitewash and a stain on the UK's evaporating reputation. Reminds me of the recent inquiry into Tony Bliar's role in the run-up to the Iraq War.

    And why do you keep saying the emails were "stolen" when that is not confirmed or even likely?

    When the truth about how they were made available to the public comes out, and who did it, they will be recognized as the heroes they are.

    No wonder 1984 was set in Britain.


    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 07:01am on 01 Apr 2010, TeaPot562 wrote:

    Mann's hockey stick is based on BAD DATA POINTS until nearly 1800 A.D. How can anyone accept a graduation of data that ignores the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age?
    TeaPot562

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 08:17am on 01 Apr 2010, TVGgirl wrote:

    @44. Paul Briscoe

    Well said. And thanks Richard for a very clear and balanced overview.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 08:38am on 01 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe #44 who wrote...
    None of the above are true! First of all, as Richard Black has pointed out, the vast majority of the data was already publicly available, which begs the question "why did Steve McIntyre post a form on his blog encouraging his followers to send FOI requests to UEA"

    Because verification requires that you actually use the data that they used. What you're talking about is akin to a history student simply writing A+ on their final exam and telling the teacher that the information is readily available in the text books if there is a need to verify that the student actually knew the answers.
    =======================

    "There was no underhand manipulation of data or exclusion of dissenting views from the peer review process - if you have REAL evidence for what you claim (rather than just a few private emails presented out of context), then you should present it."

    This is data we're talking about, you know. There are no fingerprints of Professor Plumb to be found on a lead pipe in the study. The emails contain an outright admission of the behavior. There was a request. It was denied. The guilty parties commented in private emails that they had no intention of complying. Similar requests by more friendly peers were met.
    =======================

    "The only truly impartial enquiry into the Hockey Stick graph, by the US National Academy of Science, found in favour of Mann. Even though they were critical of the original statistical analysis (which Mann fully accepts), they replotted his graph using their own statistical analysis........ and came out with exactly the same shape!"

    You show a lack of any understanding about the workings of the scientific method here. Criticisms need not and most often are not from "impartial" parties. The scientific method works (when it's working properly) because of openness. If anything, "impartial" actually implies biased toward concensus.

    The inquiry verified his handling of the data he actually used. Much of the trouble is with the proxies themselves. They are now starting to use oxygen isotope analysis for more recent periods as it is a more direct proxy. Initial results with shells seem to indicate that the medieval warm period was about as warm globally as it is today...and that the Roman warm period was even wamrer.

    Of course, all this AGW nonsense may be a complete misunderstanding if indeed our current interglacial is analogous to the MIS-11 period. The little ice age may have simply been the failed return to a glacial period.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Isotopic_Stage_11
    =======================


    "........and point to the state of Arctic Ice (which is currently back to near normal) as evidence to support their position.
    How the following constitutes "back to near normal" is beyond me:"


    LOL, apparently you never read the legends of the sea ice extent charts...
    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

    Also...you probably don't realize that in recent years some of the ice monitoring satellites have completley failed (catastrophic sensor malfunctions). You probably aren't aware of the methods used to determine these figures either (which have recently been found lacking)...or the fact that the satellites actually under report ice by quite a bit verses physically verified ice cover. Most likely the chart you linked simply shows this under reporting bias after the satellites launched. Even older sea ice extent figures are likely to be even worse...as only a great fool would keep their ship close to the ice in mostly dark conditions without modern technology.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 08:40am on 01 Apr 2010, Flatearther wrote:

    As someone who gave written evidence to the committee, I have to say that I am appalled (but not surprised) at the lack of understanding of the three non-scientists on the committee, and their majority findings. They accepted many verbal statements and ignored hard evidence.

    They came up with the required conclusions.

    As widely predicted, and like most enquiries, it was a complete whitewash.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 08:58am on 01 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ #22 , Rainbow Zenned wrote:

    "You sound just like my Dad (an avid Mail-inspired sceptic). He too goes on about scientific method, and in the same breath confuses current local weather conditions and global climate trends."

    That was actually a joke- i accept it is hard to detect humour on a blog.

    "Might be worth an official government body denying Man-made global warming but backing one of the other warming theories to get all the various and contradictory anti-AGW camps to turn on each other for a change.

    I would welcome a full and independent audit of the whole debate which also encompassed the scientific method and undeclared interests of the main critics too."

    Undeclared interests? besides decent scientific process?

    Have you noticed that in no other scientific field do you have a situation where you can make unsubstantiated claims, with little to no evidence. Admit you lied, mislead and 'hid' data amd then still be held up as a bastion of truth.

    Oh, and for gods sake stop trying the 'in the pay of oil line'. You clearly have zero idea what you're talking about- unsuprising for a AGW-er. Go look at the financial supporters of the CRU to completely destroy that line of argument.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 09:05am on 01 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 55.

    that's what struk me most about it too.

    verbal testimony's, hardly looking at the evidnece. Great. May as well let them investigate their own tax returns too... oh,... wait.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 09:34am on 01 Apr 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    #47. SR wrote:

    Point by point...

    "If AGW is correct, pumping less CO2 into the atmosphere will limit the temperature rise."

    No, you are scientifically wrong. There is no proof that by lowering anthropogenic gas emissions of any particular gas that any particular change will occur. The 'causes' of planetary climate are simply not understood sufficiently well to be able to predict with any degree of certainty that any particular action will 'cause' any particular change. It is a wild guess.

    "There are uncertainties and many variables, but levels of atmospheric CO2 is a massive contributor to global temperature."

    No, again you are misstating the condition of the science. As we do not have a sufficient grasp of the way that the weather and climate actually operate the uncertainties in our models are so huge that your statement is simply wrong.

    "The evidence for this is overwhelming and nobody has been able to construct a reasonable argument against it."

    No, again there are models that exist that can and do provide better predictors (or at least as good) of future and past climate and weather (see the work on solar wind impact periods - google weatheraction)

    In total you completely overstate the case for CO2 and Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    There is also no evidence that stands-up to impartial scientific scrutiny that not doing what we speculate causes AWG will actually reverse it - the models of global climate are far too poor.

    However, we do know that bad climate and weather phenomena happen, rather like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and we can take steps to ameliorate the effects - these are the actions that are more rational from both a scientific and economic point of view and these are the actions that I would recommend.

    The CO2 lobby actually don't want to help ameliorate the effects they want to get economic benefit from reducing CO2 emissions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 09:35am on 01 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    LabMunkey at #57 on verbal testimony

    It is a bit of a red herring to conflate "testimony" with "evidence" and suggest that one is used instead of the other.

    Witnesses give testimony (be it oral or written) from their point of view. Evidence 'speaks for itself'. Both evidence and testimony are useful inputs to an inquiry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 10:14am on 01 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @59

    yes of course- you are quite right. Apologies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 10:17am on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 58. John_from_Hendon:

    you talk codswallop.

    "There is no proof that by lowering anthropogenic gas emissions of any particular gas that any particular change will occur. The 'causes' of planetary climate are simply not understood sufficiently well to be able to predict with any degree of certainty that any particular action will 'cause' any particular change. It is a wild guess."

    This is like denying evolution because current science cannot prove precisely all the exact steps between reptiles and birds. You don't address the overwhelming evidence for the bigger picture, instead you effectively erect a strawman.

    There is overwhelming scientific evidence that doubling co2 causes significant warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 10:26am on 01 Apr 2010, MaxSceptic wrote:

    Obviously the answer is to cut all the public (i.e. taxpayer funded) expenditure associated with AWG research and see if they can raise the funds from private sources.

    That'll set them squealing!

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 10:26am on 01 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Poitsplace @ #54

    Sadly, I don't have a lot of time to argue these points with you, Poitsplace, but one thing that seems to be conspicusously absent from your posts is real peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

    "Because verification requires that you actually use the data that they used. What you're talking about is akin to a history student simply writing A+ on their final exam and telling the teacher that the information is readily available in the text books if there is a need to verify that the student actually knew the answers."

    It's perfectly clear which data has been used and McIntyre could easily have obtained it without expecting UEA scientists to spend (apparently) around 18 hours on each FOI request.

    Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with full disclosure of data, but a system needs to be devised whereby scientists are not required to waste hours of time meeting FOI requests. This isn't the scientists' fault - it is a fault of the present system. I suspect that it will now change.

    "This is data we're talking about, you know. There are no fingerprints of Professor Plumb to be found on a lead pipe in the study. The emails contain an outright admission of the behavior. There was a request. It was denied. The guilty parties commented in private emails that they had no intention of complying. Similar requests by more friendly peers were met."

    I appreciate that FOI requests from some parties were selectively ignored, but this was clearly because they were seen as "vexacious" and unnecessary. I'm not saying that it was right, but it was, perhaps, understandable - McIntyre did blatantly encourage his followers to make life difficult for the scientists! You are clearly looking at this from the point of view of a sceptic, but you also need to consider it from the point of view of the scientists.

    Of course, what none of the above proves is that there was any underhand manipulation of data.

    "You show a lack of any understanding about the workings of the scientific method here. Criticisms need not and most often are not from "impartial" parties. The scientific method works (when it's working properly) because of openness. If anything, "impartial" actually implies biased toward concensus."

    Having worked in scientific research, I'm well aware of how it works. The problem in this case is that there are a whole raft of proxy studies using tree-rings, corals, bore holes etc. which all show the same basic pattern, yet on the other side we have one or two individuals (who are NOT experts in the field) who CLAIM that they know better. Personally, I would always prefer to believe the real scientists rather than a blogger who has close affiliations to a think tank funded by Exxon Mobil!

    "They are now starting to use oxygen isotope analysis for more recent periods as it is a more direct proxy. Initial results with shells seem to indicate that the medieval warm period was about as warm globally as it is today...and that the Roman warm period was even wamrer."

    Of course, the shellfish proxies suffer from all of the same problems as other proxies in that they only relate to one part of the World. Also, in this case they are clearly influenced heavily by sea temperature (and hence by the ocean currents prevailing at the time). Consequently, it would be very unwise to draw any conclusions regarding global air temperatures from these proxies.

    "Of course, all this AGW nonsense may be a complete misunderstanding if indeed our current interglacial is analogous to the MIS-11 period. The little ice age may have simply been the failed return to a glacial period."

    Speculation regarding MIS-11 (again based on proxies) is probably pointless. I quote from your Wiki link:

    "Recent isotopic and planktonic faunal data sets from high-accumulation rate marine successions in the North and South Atlantic indicate that MIS 11 was not warmer, but even slightly cooler than the Holocene."

    Even if we could say for sure that it was similar to the Holocene, it still wouldn't disprove AGW (any more than a warm MWP would!).

    Do you have a peer-reviewed scientific reference to back up your suggestion that the LIA was a "failed return to a glacial period"?

    "LOL, apparently you never read the legends of the sea ice extent charts..."

    Indeed I did. This is the definitive data (and, as far as I can see, the data you link to comes from here):

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    It strikes me that you are restricting yourself to looking at short term fluctuations rather than the long-term trends, which are clearly markedly downwards - see my previous link, plus the following:

    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure3.png

    It's also important to point out that ice sheet extent does not tell the whole story. Ice sheet depth is also well down.

    "Also...you probably don't realize that in recent years some of the ice monitoring satellites have completley failed (catastrophic sensor malfunctions). You probably aren't aware of the methods used to determine these figures either (which have recently been found lacking)...or the fact that the satellites actually under report ice by quite a bit verses physically verified ice cover. Most likely the chart you linked simply shows this under reporting bias after the satellites launched. Even older sea ice extent figures are likely to be even worse...as only a great fool would keep their ship close to the ice in mostly dark conditions without modern technology."

    Here is NSIDC's word on the recent transition to a new satellite sensor:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/060209.html

    If you're going to claim that the data is flawed, I think you need to come up with some real evidence!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 10:33am on 01 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 61 "There is overwhelming scientific evidence that doubling co2 causes significant warming"

    no there isn't. there's models, assumptions, 'suspect' readings. Admissions that no statistically significant warming has occured...

    i think what you're reffering to is political spin. Unless you care to link anything that would stand up to independant scrutiny?

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 10:43am on 01 Apr 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    To borrow from my reply to Newsnight's Susan Watts' remarkably similar view ('A neat ending then') to yours ('the vast majority of the reactions I've had tally with the conclusions of the report') regarding this committee and its conclusions:

    'The committee blamed the university, not the CRU, for "mishandling" of FoI requests.'

    I was still trying to marry 'reprehensible behaviour' of an outfit with 'a clean bill of health' for its head, until I remembered the committee's composition. In fact I think they want him 'back on doing the job' asap, doubtless having learned a few lessons.

    'Labour MP Graham Stringer did not sign off the report. He said the committee had gone beyond its remit'

    It can hardly be party political then. Why did he say this?

    38. At 9:49pm on 31 Mar 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:
    Useful article.
    Minuend @2: Nice one genius.


    All becomes a tad clearer, if perhaps not in the way some might have intended. I am intrigued as to why Mr. Stringer's qualifications, especially in light of his dissent, have not been made clearer in reports from some quarters.

    And he'd wanted them to go further by supporting his call for a "reputable scientist" sceptical of anthropogenic climate change to sit on the panels of the two other inquiries into email controversy currently underway. The committee rejected this.

    Why would they?

    Though this (accepting, with no offence intended, it is but a claim) does resonate:

    55. At 08:40am on 01 Apr 2010, Flatearther
    As someone who gave written evidence to the committee, I have to say that I am appalled (but not surprised) at the lack of understanding of the three non-scientists on the committee..


    The MPs acknowledge throughout their report that they have had to rush through this inquiry, with no time to explore all of the questions that they might have wished to.

    So... as flawed as the very thing they were 'investigating', and hence as much real value, save for providing some headlines to 'carry on, nothing to see here'. And folk wonder where the trust has gone (no pun intended).

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 11:03am on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    64. LabMunkey wrote:

    The overwhelming scientific evidence that doubling co2 causes significant warming consists of models, lab studies, observations of present climate and paleoclimate data of past climates. Even scientists that don't think manmade global warming is a problem agree that doubling co2 causes significant warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 11:16am on 01 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 68. At 11:24am on 01 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @66.

    in a LAB environment yes. In the real world system? it's not as clear cut as you'd like to think.

    models- you can discount straight off
    lab studies- useless in real world systems
    observations??- based on the 'no statistically significant warming' statement i'd ask you to revist that one
    paleoclimate data- has huge sections unexplanable by the co2 model.

    come on, you're asking a scientist here who spends his life evaluating the validity of data, not just your average blooger (no offense intended or superiority implied). Almost ALL the 'evidence' used to support AGW is either flawed or explained in other manners.

    Couple that with it being a completely untestable theory... it's not sience by anyone BAR a climate scientists standards.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 11:30am on 01 Apr 2010, Kev wrote:

    I'm not a Scientist but even I know a Theory is just a Theory until it's results can be replicated across multiple labs/scientists.

    This was the problem with Cold Fusion, some scientists could replicate the result, some could not. In the end the inability to recreate the 'science' caused it to be labeled as a failed Theory.

    This is why with climate research access to the data in order to be able to recreate the results to me would appear to be essential. However what we actually see is the over reliance on the review process and the Government modifying the Freedom of information act so this data can be protected!!!

    Can you imagine if the same thing had happened to cold fusion, huge labs all around the country would still be wasting millions trying to get it to work.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 11:42am on 01 Apr 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    I watched part of the house of commons debate on this subject in question and I especially watched the body language of the participants. Methinks that accused are just hard working, dedicated scientists who are trying to do their best.

    Most issues are caused by an overwhelming work load and insufficient time or resources to complete every task to exacting specifications required. I bet there are many people reading here who would understand this problem from their own experience of work. If it is that important, give the scientists more resources and protection for their e-mails from outsiders. Hands up any of you who would like your emails targeted for public scrutiny?

    I still trust the scientists. I understand that scientists cannot predict things with absolute certainty, they can only work with the technology available. As the technology improves, the measures become more accurate and the results of earlier measures have to be adjusted to link up. There is not much credit in being a back seat driver.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 12:02pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 68. LabMunkey wrote:

    "models- you can discount straight off"

    which ones?

    "lab studies- useless in real world systems"

    That's like claiming studies of dino fossils are useless because they aren't examining the real thing. Demanding that scientists need to look at live dinosaurs before we can know anything about them!

    "observations??- based on the 'no statistically significant warming' statement i'd ask you to revist that one"

    The statement only means on short timescales the significance of warming diminishes it doesn't mean it isn't warming. This is true whether or not doubling co2 causes significant warming.

    "paleoclimate data- has huge sections unexplanable by the co2 model."

    On the contary past climate changes are consistent with high climate sensitivity which is compatible with very significant warming from co2.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 12:03pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    "This is why with climate research access to the data in order to be able to recreate the results to me would appear to be essential"

    and in climate science the data is available to recreate the results.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 12:16pm on 01 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    @paul Briscoe #63 who wrote...
    "Sadly, I don't have a lot of time to argue these points with you, Poitsplace, but one thing that seems to be conspicusously absent from your posts is real peer-reviewed scientific evidence."

    And since part of what we're talking about is a VERIFIED corruption of the peer review process...that is perfectly understandable. Of course, it was entirely absent from yours as well, you hypocrite. Pot, meet kettle.
    ======================

    "It's perfectly clear which data has been used and McIntyre could easily have obtained it without expecting UEA scientists to spend (apparently) around 18 hours on each FOI request."

    No it is NOT perfectly clear. They do not necessarily use all stations and without knowing which exact stations were used, the results would be different. I also find it extremely unprofessional that he wouldn't just toss all that relevant data into a single folder.
    ======================
    "McIntyre did blatantly encourage his followers to make life difficult for the scientists!"

    It doesn't take 18 hours for EACH request...it takes 18 hours for ALL requests. Once you've filled one request you have all the data lumped together. I know you MUST have heard of the internet. I mean...Richard Black doesn't personally mail you each of his columns, my replies and post your responses, does he?
    ======================

    "Of course, the shellfish proxies suffer from all of the same problems as other proxies in that they only relate to one part of the World"

    Actually they don't suffer from all the same problems. Its a first order proxy...temperature DIRECTLY impacts the ratios. Almost all other temperature proxies are indirect...X is related to Y is related to temperature.
    ======================

    RE:MIS-11
    I think you missed the fact that the milankovitch cycles are fairly similar. At that time there was a skip in one of the phases of the glacial cycle and the interglacial continued.

    ======================

    RE:Sea ice "It strikes me that you are restricting yourself to looking at short term fluctuations rather than the long-term trends, which are clearly markedly downwards - see my previous link, plus the following:"

    And it strikes me that you have entirely discounted natural variation. As some of the (only recently discovered) persistent ocean/wind currents have switched to different states...anyone with an eye towards verification either way would be watching. That's how science works. IF natural variation from these currents was a big part of the cause then it would be expected to change. It is also interesting that just before the switch there was such a drastic change in behavior.
    ======================

    "If you're going to claim that the data is flawed, I think you need to come up with some real evidence!"

    Well the NSIDC site isn't working. If you dig around for their news you'll find that at one of the times there were headlines of horrible drops in the arctic ice (feb 18, 2009) they discovered that sensor drift had caused under-reporting of about half a million square kilometers. DOH!

    I forget the URL and don't have time to post it but...if you'll check the canadian ice extent maps for navigation (higher) verses the ice extent maps for the satellites (lower)...you'll find there's usually a fairly pronounced difference along the edges. Back before 1979, figures like the navigation maps are all we have and figures are therefore higher. Go back much before world war 2 and the error levels likely rise quite a bit because there is little verification by air...and they are likely to err toward the high side since they didn't plow through the ice simply to establish the existence of open water farther in.

    I guess my main complaint is that yours involves two different data sets which just happen to have fallen entirely within two different periods in the long term ocean cycles. It truly is an inconvenient coincidence...essentially all detailed data we have on ice extent and climate variation comes with satellite measurements and those satellites launched after a natural warm period began. There is no doubt that this seriously taints all our recent data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 12:25pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 67. blunderbunny wrote:

    The fact is that is that arctic sea ice extent has been in long term decline for decades. A few years of growth is insufficient to claim it's recovered or back to normal. Indeed you can find other examples of short term extent increase at points in the past few decades, but that didn't lead to the longterm decline ending, it was just part of the variation within the longterm decline.

    Paleoclimate and instrumental temperature records have evolved as the science has progressed. Even Mann 1999 showed a medieval warm period, it just wasn't as warm as other reconstructions. No reconstructions support the idea that the MWP was definitely warmer than present - not that such a thing matters to anyone but the skeptics anyway. How much warming doubling co2 results in does not depend on how warm the MWP was.

    The instrumental record of temperature over the 20th century has been derived from independent methods by seperate research teams. The raw station data is publically available for years. One of the analyses has had it's source code up online for public download since at least 2008. Skeptics largely ignore all this transparency and robustness of the result with tactics that resemble pretending that it all doesn't exist.

    I would say instead of remembering Galileo we should remember how the tobacco industry successfully sponsered attacks on the credibility of the science linking smoking to lung cancer. That shows how easy it is for science to be unjustly smeared by non-scientists. This involved spreading the rumor of uncertatinty to dismiss the science and attacking the reputation of scientists. All the while feigning a deep concern about the integrity of science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 12:35pm on 01 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @72.

    no it isn't. adjusted 'anomolous' data is available. nothing more. if you were a scientist you'd know the difference.

    @71

    models- correct me if i'm worng, but every single model that has been used to predict future climate changes has diverged from reality the minute it was set running.


    lab studies.

    it is nothing of the sort, again something you'd actually know if you'd spent any time in a laboratory. Claiming co2 will behave the same was in a lab (sealed, controlled, pure environment) than in the real world system (not fully understood, numerous unknown mechanisms/interactions, weather patterns etc) is just so far from credible that it's laughable.

    as for the dinosaur analogy, yes, very detailed and 'accurate' extrapolations can be made from studying their remains. Can you from that then accuratley predict their behaviour, past the base instincts? of course not.

    observations.

    hang on, wasn't the rapidly warming RECENT timescale used as prima evidence that co2 was the cause... how can this be the case if co2 has increased (almost exponentially) yet temp hasn't...

    paleoclimate data.

    i point you to any of mago's posts on forcings and interglacial periods.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 12:49pm on 01 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @74

    The raw station data is publically available for years

    no it isn't. you're reffering to anomolous data AGAIN. which is something completely different.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 12:54pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 73: "No it is NOT perfectly clear. They do not necessarily use all stations and without knowing which exact stations were used, the results would be different."

    You don't need to know exactly which stations were used. The general result should not depend on a specific set of stations.

    In science you reproduce other's results not their "work". In this case you would make your own selection of stations and see if the result differs from Jone's results. If it does it demonstrates his results are non-robust and therefore cannot be trusted. On the otherhand if your results match Jone's results then the fact you both achived the same results using different set of stations reinforce those results as robust and not simply due to choice of station selection.

    You see it's clear how the scientific process should work here. Did skeptics bother doing this? Ie finding out whether the choice of stations make a significant difference to the result?

    If not then their jumping to sending FOI requests looks more like an attempt to create a smear story than a wish to actually verify an aspect of the science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 12:59pm on 01 Apr 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    #61. infinity wrote:

    "you talk codswallop"

    No I don't - your simplistic nonsense is just that, so simplistic that it is just silly. Try thinking please.

    "There is overwhelming scientific evidence that doubling co2 causes significant warming."

    The problem with your statement is that the CO2 levels rise AFTER the warming has occurred in the data (and then only some of the time in the historic data sets). However solar wind changes happen before the earth warms (or cools). Stop being so blinkered and think logically, before you become abusive.

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 1:01pm on 01 Apr 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    So, the MPs have found that there is no conspiracy.

    The obvious conclusion, then, is that the MPs must also be part of the conspiracy. That's the great thing about conspiracy theories.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 1:08pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    75. LabMunkey wrote:

    "no it isn't. adjusted 'anomolous' data is available. nothing more. if you were a scientist you'd know the difference."

    Raw station data is publically downloadable from the GHCN site. You could alternatively spend some time obtaining raw station data from individual national met offices. In any case the raw station data is indeed available to anyone who wants to use them scientific purposes. Where do you think Jones and Hansen got the data from?

    "models- correct me if i'm worng, but every single model that has been used to predict future climate changes has diverged from reality the minute it was set running."

    They've done fairly well. Models in the 80s predicted warming which we have had. Coincidence? Maybe. But the power of models is as tools to show us the consequenece of scientist's understanding of how the climate works. Scientists have quantified a lot of aspects of climate like convection, insolation, IR properties of gases with lab work, observations of the atmosphere and oceans, etc. They've formed a number of laws and equations governing these things. Models are when we bung all that knowledge into a computer to see what the sum of that knowledge produces. One thing it robustly shows (ie again and again, even with different written models) is high climate sensitivity.

    So models tell us that the physics in the books show high climate sensitivity. So it's not a question of are the models wrong, but are the physics books wrong. Maybe, but given this is our best quantified understanding of the climate it's not correct to simply dismiss all of this.

    "it is nothing of the sort, again something you'd actually know if you'd spent any time in a laboratory. Claiming co2 will behave the same was in a lab (sealed, controlled, pure environment) than in the real world system (not fully understood, numerous unknown mechanisms/interactions, weather patterns etc) is just so far from credible that it's laughable."

    Well IR absorption works in the atmosphere as it does in the lab for example. Couple that with atmospheric measurements too and this is why the radiative forcing from a doubling of co2 is so well pinned down. Radiative models are very accurate for this reason too. The lab work looks at individual parts of the climate. It takes models to put the results together and calculate the emergent behavior of the sum.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 1:08pm on 01 Apr 2010, jazbo wrote:

    A fair and balanced post Richard. However, for pits sake, can we drop the "alarmist" imagery. What exactly does the photo of a desert have to do with anything - other than the fact that deserts have always existed, are always dry and animals always die in them.

    Utterly irrelevant to the piece and purely there to give a rapid visual "climate change is massive and evil" stimulus.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 1:13pm on 01 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:

    from the article:

    "On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies."

    --------------------------------------------------

    Suggest????? How about DEMAND???

    Its funny (almost) that the climate science community has different 'common practices' than the rest of the scientific community...

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 1:15pm on 01 Apr 2010, jazbo wrote:

    Regardless of this outcome, it does not alter some fundamental facts.

    1. Code was not fit for purpose and was heavily commented as such. If confusion reigned in one part of the CRU, then it was in all areas and therefore diminishes the trustworthiness of that data.

    2. "Hide the decline" very clearly relates to the hiding of a declining trend on an IPCC graph relating to tree ring data, because otherwise it would be questioned as to why it was heading in the opposite direction.

    3. Jones has since admitted there has been no statistically significant warming for years.


    I will now scroll down to read the endless "its C02/not C02 because..." posts which are boring everyone to tears.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 1:16pm on 01 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @77
    "Did skeptics bother doing this? Ie finding out whether the choice of stations make a significant difference to the result?
    "

    yes, and significant stations were left out. the cold ones as it happens.

    also on the subject of station validity, kindly explain the bolivia results for the last ten years...

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 1:20pm on 01 Apr 2010, jazbo wrote:

    I would also say that bearing in mind someone was mad enough to let the G20 police officer off, despite video evidence of him backhanding a member of the public across the face, then why on earth should we take any notice of a group of MPs toeing the official line in a cosy chat with Dr Phil.

    The establishment has one agenda, and it does not involve us.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 1:24pm on 01 Apr 2010, jazbo wrote:

    44. At 10:31pm on 31 Mar 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bandythebane @ #39

    "None of the above are true! First of all, as Richard Black has pointed out, the vast majority of the data was already publicly available"

    Yes RealClimate keep spouting this nonsense as well.

    Was,indeed is, ALL the data available? Including the processing code and methodology?

    No.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 1:30pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 78: "The problem with your statement is that the CO2 levels rise AFTER the warming has occurred in the data (and then only some of the time in the historic data sets)."

    More importantly though, over the course of the co2 level rise, temperature rises. Which isn't inconsistant with the co2 level rise causing warming is it?

    Additionally my statement is based on far more than just ice core data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 1:39pm on 01 Apr 2010, jazbo wrote:

    "It's perfectly clear which data has been used and McIntyre could easily have obtained it without expecting UEA scientists to spend (apparently) around 18 hours on each FOI request."

    Completely untrue on both sides of the pond.

    Have a look at GISS' site and read how they extrapolate data from weather stations in 1200KM grids. With literally thousands of weather stations around the world, GISS now only use around 1200, with some 1200KM grids not with real data - its guestimated from adjacent areas and tweaked.

    Why?

    Nobody other than Schmidt and Hansen etc know what the 1200 stations used are or how they process the data to get the finalised becaon-red global maps on the GISS site.

    Why?


    The GISS data does not include a SINGLE actual temperature reading from a real weather station in the area showing the worst warming - ie the north pole, its all extrpolated from stations further south.

    Why?



    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 1:45pm on 01 Apr 2010, jazbo wrote:

    77. At 12:54pm on 01 Apr 2010, infinity wrote:

    "You don't need to know exactly which stations were used. The general result should not depend on a specific set of stations."

    Then why are so many stations removed from the results, if the "general" result does not depend on a spcific set of stations?

    Why have a global heat map where there is no actual data for large areas of that map being used?

    Yes we DO need to know what stations are used and WHY.

    Open, honest science.

    Publishing that would not be tough yet Gavin etc refuse.

    Why?


    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 1:49pm on 01 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 91. At 1:51pm on 01 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 80

    "Raw station data is publically downloadable from the GHCN site."

    i am unable to get at the raw data. i am presented with anomolous, graphical representations of yearly averages etc etc. but not the raw data for the monthly/weekly/daily readings.

    NOw i'm genuinley interested in this. If i'm just doing something wrong i'd LOVE to get at the raw data. please- if you have time. select a random data set- from anywhere (i chose birmingham 'cos the accents funny) and link it. I can then follow that pathway model to other data.

    "Scientists have quantified a lot of aspects of climate like convection, insolation, IR properties of gases with lab work, observations of the atmosphere and oceans, etc. They've formed a number of laws and equations governing these things. Models are when we bung all that knowledge into a computer to see what the sum of that knowledge produces. One thing it robustly shows (ie again and again, even with different written models) is high climate sensitivity.
    "
    i coulnd't disagree with this more. We can argue this point but it's been done by others far more effectively than i could. I stand by my assertion, that the models are worth squat- for two reasons

    1- they are based on incomplete knowlledge and NEVER include all the variables (full ocean models being an example)
    2- they were created to FIT the data not the other way around. their predictive capacity is nil. If you think otherwise please link.

    "So models tell us that the physics in the books show high climate sensitivity" in a pure system, maybe. in the climate? no, and the data suggests otherwise. look at the ice core data. honestly.

    "Well IR absorption works in the atmosphere as it does in the lab for example" correct, but the logical fallacy is that it can then override any feedback mechanisms in the realy system.

    seriously, if in bilogy, with exceptionally well known pathways (more so than climate) there is still a high probability that in vivo tests will be proved completely useless by in vivo tests. this is the same principle.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 1:53pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 84: "yes, and significant stations were left out. the cold ones as it happens."

    How do you know which stations were left out if the station list wasn't released?

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 2:01pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    83. At 1:15pm on 01 Apr 2010, jasonsceptic wrote:
    Regardless of this outcome, it does not alter some fundamental facts.

    "1. Code was not fit for purpose and was heavily commented as such. If confusion reigned in one part of the CRU, then it was in all areas and therefore diminishes the trustworthiness of that data."

    The results are backed up by other temperature analyses. The results therefore cannot be dimissed as code quality issues at CRU.

    "2. "Hide the decline" very clearly relates to the hiding of a declining trend on an IPCC graph relating to tree ring data, because otherwise it would be questioned as to why it was heading in the opposite direction."

    It wasn't an IPCC graph. Most of the graphs over the years showing the instrumental and paleo plots had them overlapping, not spliced together.

    "3. Jones has since admitted there has been no statistically significant warming for years."

    Which you'd expect given a 0.2C/decade warming trend and significant ENSO variability.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 2:13pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    88. jasonsceptic wrote:

    "Why"

    read the published papers. They explain the whys. Your arguments above consist of you simply announcing your own ignorance.

    "Why" should we regard that as an argument at all?

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 2:27pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 89. jasonsceptic wrote:

    But GISTEMP have published the stations they use. And anyway as I have already explained you don't need anyone's specific list to check the results.

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 2:33pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    90. blunderbunny wrote:

    "It’s certainly enough to state that any long term Arctic decline has, at least for moment, abated"

    No it's not. "For the moment" is meaningless. Until there is a longterm reversal you cannot conclude an end to the longterm decline. The past two summer minimums have actually acted to reduce the linear trend of the past 30 years. We aren't anywhere near a stage where we can conclude sea ice decline has ended.

    Realclimate didn't claim there was no MWP, only that it was regional.

    "Next, we move on to reconstructions that point to the fact that the MWP was warmer than today."

    Yet you don't provide any reconstructions that show the MWP was definitely warmer than today.

    "Finally we get to the modern instrumental record, such as it is. Again, I’d like to point you to the NIPCC report"

    Read Hansen 2010 and see other independent verifications of the temperature record. The NIPCC's claims are largely, if not all, bogus.






    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 2:34pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    91. LabMunkey wrote:

    "i am unable to get at the raw data. i am presented with anomolous, graphical representations of yearly averages etc etc. but not the raw data for the monthly/weekly/daily readings."

    There is an FTP site on the GHCN site. It has files containing raw station data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 2:37pm on 01 Apr 2010, jon112dk wrote:

    Fuel tax just went up again. Not to grab money of course - purely to save the 'environment.' I wonder why it is that a report from tax addicted MPs doesn't really convince me?

    Sorry, the great majority of people have seen through this whole scam.

    Here's the sort of thing that might influence us. Reinstate the tax concessions Brown just scrapped for bio-fuel. Restrict it to locally produced, sustainable sources only. Then double the tax concession so that farmers and fuel companies find it worthwhile to produce.

    Measures like that would cut straight through the scepticism. Cut the tax, keep our quality of life, save the 'environment' - very difficult to be suspicious of that package.

    Endless reports from yet more people with a clear vested interest are a complete waste of time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 3:24pm on 01 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @infinity

    Honestly, mate, doesn't any of all this give you even a moments pause for thought, just curious?

    I guess, much as you might be unable to comprehend people's questioning of the current AGW status quo, I'm unable to understand why each small nail in its coffin doesn't at least tweak the curiosity of people on the other side of the argument. I suppose that I can understand a lack of acceptance, that what a sceptic might consider to be a nail, may not be what a pro-AGWer would consider to be a nail, but I just can't understand the lack of interest them.

    Science is an adventure of discovery, if we and it didn't embrace sceptical enquiry then we'd still just be banging the rocks together.

    It seems as though you're run off your feet this afternoon, so I'd better leave you to it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 3:44pm on 01 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @97. thank you for the clarification.

    after a brief look i saw this:
    10160395001 FT. NATIONAL 36.52 4.18 942 805R -9MVDEno-9x-9WARM CROPS A

    using the readme, i've converted the '942' into celcius (/10), which gets 94.2 'C.

    that cannot be right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 3:58pm on 01 Apr 2010, oldgifford wrote:

    Lots of comments about how the data from various bodies all agree so AGW must be true. I was researching the CET figures and found discrepancies with the station data, this was the reply from the Met Office. Make what you will of it. It seems they couldn't even get the locations of the stations correct. The last sentence says it all, and yet we are happy to commit trillions of dollars on theories relying on rubbish data? We need a proper scientific debate on this but funnily enough the BBC doesn't see fit to mount one. This is the sort of controversy Horizon used to explore until they dumbed it down and used horrible music tracks to drown the presenters.

    "It is inevitable that available archive versions for some stations will differ between data held by National Met Services, including the Met Office, and those in the archive prepared by the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia. Indeed, explicit wording to this effect was required in the letters sent to gain permission to release data under the purview of each NMS.
    Most of these data recovery and digitisation efforts occurred in the days before widespread computer networks, designated world data centres etc. Therefore such vagaries as the choice of record version (there are often several paper records for the same station that may differ), choice of stored data accuracy, exact location details, and length of record digitised are bound to differ for at least some stations. Further, either the NMS and/or CRU may have applied adjustments to the data. Differences between the archives cannot be used in any meaningful or quantifiably defensible sense to infer the absolute quality of either the CRU archive or records held by others."

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 4:37pm on 01 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Poitsplace @ #73

    "And since part of what we're talking about is a VERIFIED corruption of the peer review process...that is perfectly understandable. Of course, it was entirely absent from yours as well, you hypocrite. Pot, meet kettle."

    Me, a hypocrite? Well I would be a hypocrite if I believed that the peer review process was biased...... but I do not. Please will you kindly point me to the place where there is "verification" that the peer review process has been corrupted. The scientists certainly spoke in their emails about papers they didn't think should have been passed and they spoke about boycotting a journal which had published a seriously flawed paper, but I have seen NO evidence that they did in reality prevent sceptic papers from being published or included in IPCC AR4. The real "problem" is that there are very few real scientists who do not support the science of AGW and most of the counter arguments to AGW do not constitute sound science.

    "No it is NOT perfectly clear. They do not necessarily use all stations and without knowing which exact stations were used, the results would be different. I also find it extremely unprofessional that he wouldn't just toss all that relevant data into a single folder."

    As I said above, the problem here is the system, not the scientists. Some of the data is not publicly available and that is not the scientists' fault, so "tossing" it all into a folder is simply impossible. The best solution, obviously, would be if everything was available from one place online..... hopefully, that will be the outcome. I'm sure the scientists would be happier too, as it would allow them to get on with their work.

    "It doesn't take 18 hours for EACH request...it takes 18 hours for ALL requests. Once you've filled one request you have all the data lumped together."

    That's not what I've read...... and the point was that McIntyre encouraged bloggers to make requests for different countries to maximise the amount of work the scientists would have to do. That's hardly professional, is it?

    "Actually they don't suffer from all the same problems. Its a first order proxy...temperature DIRECTLY impacts the ratios. Almost all other temperature proxies are indirect...X is related to Y is related to temperature."

    The point I was making had nothing to do with the reliability of the different proxy methods. The point is that the shellfish proxies are measuring sea temperature rather than air temperature, so they are especially sensitive to any change in ocean currents (which are not indicative of global temperatures). In particular, sea temperatures around Iceland would be considerably affected by changes in the North Atlantic Drift.

    "RE:MIS-11
    I think you missed the fact that the milankovitch cycles are fairly similar. At that time there was a skip in one of the phases of the glacial cycle and the interglacial continued."

    Is there peer-reviewed literature to back this up? Even if there is, I still don't see how it disproves AGW.

    "And it strikes me that you have entirely discounted natural variation. As some of the (only recently discovered) persistent ocean/wind currents have switched to different states...anyone with an eye towards verification either way would be watching. That's how science works. IF natural variation from these currents was a big part of the cause then it would be expected to change. It is also interesting that just before the switch there was such a drastic change in behavior."

    Poitsplace, I have a science-based PhD and postdoctoral research experience, so you don't need to tell me how science works.

    The whole point of looking at long term trends is that they allow you to look beyond the short-term natural variability. IF there was to be a gradual growth in ice extent continuing over the next twenty to thirty years, you would then have a point....... but for any truly objective person the existing data only supports one conclusion - a gradual downward trend. It simply isn't sound science to draw conclusions based on just a year or two of data when there is such an obvious long term trend.

    Re your comments on satellite measurement of sea ice extent......

    I've pointed you to NSIDC's explanation of the switch from one sensor to the next. They have also explained how thay have validated and calibrated the new sensor against the old one - ie. sound science. So unless you can come up with real evidence that the data is flawed I'm frankly unimpressed...... it could so easily be just another assertion doing the rounds in blogosphere!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 5:28pm on 01 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    bombarded with foi requests...

    Jones and his colleagues were discussing strategies to block, not comply with email requests, before they EVER recieved any.....

    5 minutes looking at the emails would tell you this...

    Of course all that was being asked is what should have been provide to the journals,as part of the policy..

    Mcintyre, and others had published peer reviewed science, and was an expert reviewer for the IPCC....

    Of course you probably know this, you are just spinning away for RealClimate.

    Jones:

    IF the Freedom Of Information Act does ever get used by anyone, there is also Intellectual Property Rights to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be HIDING behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at the University of East Anglia who has been given a post to deal with them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 5:53pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    It is disheartening to see the familiar "whitewash" of misinformation, unsubstantiated claims and distortion put forth in these public forums by those in denial about AGW. It is all rather silly and tedious, and one would think that we would have progressed beyond that by now, but it seems that portion of the population who have a propensity to believe in conspiracy theories and/or suffer from Dunning-Kruger won't move on. Well, the rest of us do want to move on.

    If anyone wants to know what the science says about such myths as the MWP being global, then please go over to a wonderful site called SkepticalScience. It is a polite forum and the science of global warming and climate change are discussed making reference to reputable peer-reviewed papers.

    For the record, this whole fiasco fabricated by those in denial about AGW has taken an awful toll on Dr. Jones and his family, but some in their zeal appear not to care for such "trivial"matters.

    Jones has been largely exonerated, especially on the mendacious and fallacious allegations of "data fudging" put forward by some faux science blogs. Those in denial about AGW cannot deny that fact, and that has to hurt. Nor can they deny the absolute vacuity of the arguments and myths put forward by those in denial about AGW, not to mention their debunked pseudo science of the 'skeptics' (e.g., Lindzen and Choi-- debunked, McClean et al. debunked, Soon and Balliunas, debunked, to ad infinitum).

    It seems that poster "Infinity" has being trying to stem the tide of misinformation. Thanks to him/her.

    Someone remarked that Stringer is the only scientists and the only one on the HoC committee. Well no. The truth is that Dr. Naysmith was the only true scientist on the committee, and one of repute at that, and Dr. Naysmith did endorse all the findings of the committee.

    Mr. Singer was a chemist in the plastics industry. Mr. Stringer did agree with the HoC committee's finding that Jones had not subverted the peer review process. Regardless, it is interesting that Mr. Singer cited a recent book by some prominent "skeptics" when he asked Dr. Jones questions. It was very much a case of fiction versus fact. In the end, fact one out and Jones was rightfully vindicated.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 6:04pm on 01 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    jasonsceptic @ #86 & 88

    "Have a look at GISS' site and read how they extrapolate data from weather stations in 1200KM grids. With literally thousands of weather stations around the world, GISS now only use around 1200, with some 1200KM grids not with real data - its guestimated from adjacent areas and tweaked."

    First of all, I'm presuming that you relise that the GISS data is not the same as the data (the HADCRUT data set) handled by UEA? FYI, there are whole papers dedicated to explaining the procedures used in the handling of the temperature data. Part of the problem, as demonstrated by a number of false claims that scientists have fiddled data, is that most of the sceptics who seek to check the data lack the professional competence to do the job properly.

    I fully accept that in this internet age the system for data presentation needs to be overhauled, but this runs the danger that some might use the data inappropriately.

    The purpose of the handling is to produce "smoothed" mean temperature data which removes most of the background "noise" from fluctuations caused by ocean cycles, volcanoes etc.. This is neither "guestimating" nor "tweaking" as it is done in a way that does not introduce a bias. Naturally, if you take the view that AGW is a hoax, you will view the process with suspicion, but it is in fact a sound scientific approach.

    "The GISS data does not include a SINGLE actual temperature reading from a real weather station in the area showing the worst warming - ie the north pole, its all extrpolated from stations further south."

    Agreed, but it would obviously be impractical to have a permanent station on floating pack ice. Also, as the same procedure has been used throughout the temperature record, this does not introduce a warming bias.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 6:11pm on 01 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Blunderbunny @ #99

    "I'm unable to understand why each small nail in its coffin doesn't at least tweak the curiosity of people on the other side of the argument."

    The point is that what many amateur sceptics see as "evidence" that AGW is not real is not proper scientific evidence at all! Sadly, far too many of the counter-arguments used by sceptics are completely bogus. So there isn't really any genuine scientific evidence that refutes AGW, which is why there is such a strong consensus amongst the scientists.

    So in my book Infinity is on pretty solid ground!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 6:36pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    OldGifford @101, you fail to realize that the global surface-air temperature (SAT) data are corroborated by independent radiosonde data (RATPAC) and two satellite products (UAH and RSS). Not to mention the marked increase in oceanic heat content, decline in Arctic sea ice and more importantly the dramatic loss of multi-year sea ice in the Arctic, as well as accelerating ice loss form Greenland and both the WAIS and EAIS. Other metrics from the biosphere also corroborate the warming (earlier green up, later senescence).

    CO2 is know to increase temperatures Fourier and Arrhenius figured that out in the 19th century
    CO2 levels are increasing, and are currently higher than they have bee for over 750,000 years
    CO2 levels are increasing because of human activities (e.,g., burning fossil fuels and deforestation), isotope. studies have clearly shown this. We are also increasing other GHGs (CH4 and N20).

    The only real debate is exactly how much warming we can expect if we continue on this path. Some 'skeptics' claim as little as 0.5 C warming for doubling CO2 (aka climate sensitivity) , but they have been unable to demonstrate that without cherry-picking the data. That and the awkward fact that we have already warmed by almost 1C in the last 130 years or so by increasing CO2 by less than 40%. And that previous glacial cycles would not have been possible if climate sensitivity was indeed so low.

    Numerous scientific studies, using paleoclimate data (and model data), have demonstrated that climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 is 3 C, with a range of 1.5 C to +5 C. What is interesting is that the probability of climate sensitivity drops off dramatically below 3 C, but there is a very long tail extending all the way up to +8C.

    Anyhow, that +3C, is a global mean, and suggests that certain regions (especially the continental regions at high latitudes) will warm much more than that.

    In the past, Milankovitch cycles set in motion warming or cooling, however then CO2 was a feedback (an amplifier), that is why in the past CO2 lagged temperature changes. Scientists know this, they also know that there are numerous drivers/forcers (solar, volcanoes, aerosols, clouds) and have quantified their contributions. Currently, we are using CO2 as a forcing mechanism, and research using observations has shown that the earth has been in a net (positive) energy imbalance since the 1950s. That is we are accumulating heat, for now, most of that heat (and we are talking an incredible amount of heat) is going into the oceans year-after-year, but the atmosphere is also clearly warming too.

    Don't expect that the globe will warm uniformly, don't expect winters to end (we are not changing the tilt of the axis of rotation here), don't expect a monotonic increase in temperatures, and do not expect the scenarios for 2100 (and the clock does not stop at 2100, sea levels will continue to rise for centuries after 2100) to be realized now, today. But do expect a steady, long-term increase in temperatures and all the feedbacks and consequences of that warming. You and I won't experience the worst of it, not even close.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 7:00pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 109. At 7:38pm on 01 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    "expert reviewer for the IPCC"

    It's meaningless, all this means is the person requested the draft, whether or not they submitted a comment on it. Anyone can do that, it isn't an authorative title.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 7:44pm on 01 Apr 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    Depressing
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/depressing.html

    ……….it seemed as if we had the warmists on the run.

    ……..a more realistic appraisal might suggest that we have not even dented the underlying agenda.

    Miliband is paving the way to get the Kyoto treaty protocols back on track for agreement in Mexico later this year, as part of an international treaty. And he wants to pull in developing countries into the treaty maw, with them offering some "commitments" of their own – more cosmetic than real – in order to cement in the developed (or "Annex 1") countries into the deal.

    This move comes alongside a meeting between Gordon Brown and "billionaire financier" George Soros, Obama's economic adviser Larry Summers, economist Lord Nicholas Stern and other finance ministers. In parallel, they were working on stitching up the financial package which is so central to the real agenda.

    Their headline goal is to raise $30bn (£20bn) a year immediately and $100bn a year by 2020, ostensibly "to enable developing countries to adapt to climate change."

    Whatever mechanisms are eventually agreed, however, of one thing there can be absolute certainty. Very little of the money allocated to this cause will ever reach its stated destination. As with the current aid programme, most of it will be soaked up by banks, finance houses, investors and brokers, in fees and commissions. Huge amounts will line the pockets of governments in the recipient countries, and NGOs will grow fat and rich.

    Britain brandishes olive branch to restart global climate change talks
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/31/ed-miliband-restart-climate-change-talks

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 7:47pm on 01 Apr 2010, Veronica wrote:

    Re your disingenuous headline to this article. To be fair, the role of this committee was not to inspect the science, it was to look at the process of the "leak" and the fairness of the FOIA requests.

    Nothing said about the leaker / whistleblower either, we note.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 7:48pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    BarryWoods @103,

    "Mcintyre, and others had published peer reviewed science, and was an expert reviewer for the IPCC...."

    Yes, he practically insisted that he be a reviewer. Also, you fail to mention that pretty much anyone can be a reviewer. I would take issue with you use of the quantifier "expert", self-proclaimed expert would be more accurate. Anyhow, how about we just agree to disagree on his scientific standing.

    As for the rest of your message, please pay attention to format. It is not obvious what portions of your text are something someone else said and which parts are your response. I'm not trying to be snarly here, it would really help if you used quotation marks.

    posted at 1848 UTC

    For the track record Barry (because at the end of the day this is what really matters):

    Do you understand that AGW ids a legitimate threat and concern for the planet in coming decades and centuries? If not, why not?

    Also, please stop quote mining and taking quotes out of context. Did you guys learn nothing from the findings of the HoC committee. They also had access to all the emails Barry. They are, fortunately, just not prone to conspiracy theories as some are. Jones was under assault by McIntyre's clan. Jones is smart enough to know what McI wanted to do with the data-- nothing. McI had the Yamal data since 2004 and in 2009 was still making accusations on his blog of people hiding data and refusing to share data. How irresponsible and disingenuous. Also, why did McI not simply go to the original providers of the GHCN data, and avoid all the frustration of licensing and data sharing agreements enforced on CRU and The Met Office? Aaah, couldn't harass scientists involve din AGW research that way now could he? I'm sure that Heartland would have coughed up some money to purchase the data if required.

    NASA GISS have shared their code and data, and those in denial are still not happy. In fact, they do not even know what to do with the code. Unlike the Clear Climate Code project people, who have managed to independently replicate the NASA GISS code and verify that it does indeed work.

    These demands for data and code and raw data etc. are just stall tactics Barry. So sad that you and Richard here fail to see that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 8:03pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Jasonsceptic, the MSU satellite data go to 82.5 N. That is pretty close to the pole. Now look at this graphic:

    http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt

    Now compare it with the the NASA GISS graphic:

    http://tinyurl.com/y99oxvt

    Notice the extremely good correspondence, including over the Arctic. And no, the satellite data are not calibrated with surface station data in any way.

    The surface warming in NCDC, JMA, GISS and HadCRUT, and global radiosonde data.

    I do not honestly know what the point of your objections are, other than to try and confuse others and to convince yourself that there is no need to take action on AGW. I also find it telling that you believe that you have this all figured out when scientists have been working for many decades on the best way to construct a global temperature record. It is not a trivial problem that can be solved here, on a blog, by you or me.

    No serious 'skeptic' of AGW no claims that there has been no long term increase in temperatures. That boat sailed a long time ago.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 8:03pm on 01 Apr 2010, julie_101 wrote:

    As someone who is working on reconstructing past temperatures using shells i wanted to clear up a couple of points for Poitsplace and Paul Briscoe. The oxygen isotope composition of shells (and corals and other organisms) are a result of both temperature AND the oxygen isotope composition of the water which is related to salinity. It is difficult to separate the temperature and salinity effects to produce absolute temperature records without some other information. In corals we can use ratios of elements within the skeleton such as strontium/calcium to directly work out temperature and therefore also the salinity. However, it is proving more difficult to find something similar in shells but we are continuing to try so that we can get more data from high latitudes and so get a better idea of how global climate has changed in the past.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 8:05pm on 01 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe #102:

    "That's not what I've read...... and the point was that McIntyre encouraged bloggers to make requests for different countries to maximise the amount of work the scientists would have to do. That's hardly professional, is it?"

    As far as I'm aware, the rules are that a MAXIMUM of 18 hours should be used to process a FOI request - the vast bulk of them should take a tiny fraction of that. Besides, processing FOI requests is clerical work, so if it was left to the scientists to do then the organisation at UEA is very poor indeed.
    According to McIntyre, the FOI 'bombings' only started after the first few very reasonable requests were stonewalled.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 8:08pm on 01 Apr 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    Never acutally seen a sub-atomic partical but modeling in labs say they are there but of course that is not application in the "real world", except for the chair I sit on. Quantum physics is modeling and not only that but includes things that it cannot explain. Yet we go into space and measure things we can not see based on this math.
    The deniers would say it is all untrue....lab models are such bunk, you know.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 8:27pm on 01 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Infinity #96:

    "Realclimate didn't claim there was no MWP, only that it was regional."

    Perhaps, but because evidence of it exists in Greenland, large parts of Europe, China as well as southern Africa, and because it lasted for hundreds of years, it's a bit unlikely.
    Even if it was local, then why does everyone start screaming AGW because parts of Canada were a few degrees warmer than normal this winter - despite the fact that most of the rest of the NH was anomalously cold.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 8:33pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Informative posts Paul Briscoe. Thanks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 8:45pm on 01 Apr 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    If Phil Jones were a mechanic and he fixed the brakes on your car. Would you trust the brakes in an emergency?

    If the political committee were your doctor, would you trust the diagnosis?

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 8:54pm on 01 Apr 2010, TellingBone wrote:

    Who cares whether the climate changes or not, as long as the weather stays the same.

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 9:03pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Veronica @ 111-- Nelson :)

    "Nothing said about the leaker / whistleblower either, we note."

    Intriguing. Do you know something the police don't. All the evidence, from forensics, points to the information being hacked. The hacking was not limited to CRU. The Real Climate server was hacked, and other science web sites have been hacked, and NASA has had private information stolen off its servers and posted on contrarian blogs. There have also been repeated attempts to hack into the computers of climate researchers in Canada.

    Do you see a pattern? The contrarians and 'skeptics' seem to have a tendency not to respect rules. Ironic then how they go about loudly making unsubstantiated and fallacious allegations of fraud and misconduct of others. Their goals are clear-- misinform, confuse and delay, at all costs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 9:05pm on 01 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Presumably the BBC will have people looking at the submissons to the next climategate enquiry...

    I wonder if Richard Black will do any reporting on the submissions by Mcintyre and Mckitrick.
    All this information ids freely in the public domain, the criticism and evidence is out there for anyone (thanks internet) to see

    Can't link directly (bbc don't seem to like pdf's)

    http://www.cce-review.org/Evidence.php?page=2&order=e_date

    From McKitrick's (61page submission, worth reading in full)

    "[51] There have been suggestions that Jones was under siege with requests for data and became uncooperative out of sheer frustration. As superficially plausible as this sounds, the timeline
    shows it is untrue. Jones’ remark to Mann that he would delete data rather than share it, was made before he had received data requests. At the point in time that Jones wrote the above email
    he had received one request for a list of station identifiers from McIntyre back in 2002, in reply to which he had promised to post the information (but did not do so), and one request from Warwick Hughes the summer of 2004 for a list of stations, in response to which he had referred Hughes to the WMO. I had never contacted Jones asking for his station data, and apart from his 2002 request neither had McIntyre, nor had we any given any indication of planning to do so during this interval. Any campaign by McIntyre and me to get the station data was in Jones’ imagination."

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 9:05pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 124. At 9:09pm on 01 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Only posting extracts here, because i very much doubt it will appear anywhere else on the bbc website...

    [53] The reference to sending “loads of station data” to Scott, presumably meaning Mann’s associated Scott Rutherford, indicates that Jones was willing and able to send the station data when so inclined. It appears that his inclination was influenced by a preference for uncritical recipients. This is borne out by the fact that Warwick Hughes emailed Jones later that same month (February 18 2005) telling him that the WMO had not replied to his emails, and asking for
    another contact person. Jones replied that he was traveling and would reply soon. Before doing so, on February 21, Jones wrote (1109021312.txt) to Mann, Bradley and (Malcolm) Hughes

    I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU
    station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act ! Jones then responded to Warwick Hughes on February 23, saying in part:

    Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We
    have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make
    the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find
    something wrong with it.

    This email is not in the East Anglia compilation, but it is available online at (my comment: you'll need to look at the submission for the link, because it is a pdf link) It is hard to imagine a
    sentiment more antithetical to good science. Once again, it was not sent by someone who was being “besieged” with unreasonable requests for data, it was sent by someone who had, to that point, only received two requests over the previous three years, for data he had already promised
    to release, and who had readily shared “loads of” the data with a trusted colleague."

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 9:13pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Peter317 @115:

    "According to McIntyre, the FOI 'bombings' only started after the first few very reasonable requests were stonewalled."

    Not even close. So b/c they didn't respond immediately they way they wanted, their actions are now justified? No. Anyhow, you seem to have bought McIntyre's propaganda. He has been anything but reasonable. And just what, may I ask, has he done with the data he so vehemently demanded? I'll answer for you. NOTHING. There should be very serious consequences for making vexatious requests, and McI should be held accountable for his misconduct.

    The HoC committee ruled in favour of Jones. Deal with it.

    Maybe Russell and Oxburgh will not, but I doubt it.

    And anyhow, failure of the FOI system (it was not just Jones, but also UEA), even if true, is no reason to delay taking action on AGW. And in your heart of hearts, you know that. You are just looking for excuses to do nothing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 9:24pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    The template provided by McI to his followers to make the vexatious requests is shown below.

    McIntyre said:
    "I suggest that interested readers can participate by choosing 5 countries and sending the following FOI request to david.palmer at uea.ac.uk:

    Dear Mr Palmer,

    I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]

    1. the date of any applicable confidentiality agreements;
    2. the parties to such confidentiality agreement, including the full name of any organization;
    3. a copy of the section of the confidentiality agreement that “prevents further transmission to non-academics”.
    4. a copy of the entire confidentiality agreement,

    I am requesting this information for the purposes of academic research.

    Thank you for your attention.

    Yours truly,

    yourname"


    The authenticity of the above can easily be confirmed by going to CA.


    You can read more revelations at:

    http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/interesting-note-on-the-fois/

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 9:29pm on 01 Apr 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    113. Albatross

    And no, the satellite data are not calibrated with surface station data in any way.


    And the results are still open to different interpretations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 9:29pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Peter317 @117;

    Please read this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html


    You really are trying very hard to muddy the waters and detract from the fact that Jones and CRU have been, largely, vindicated. This thread is meant to be about the HoC committee and related information.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 9:35pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Cariboo @119, you do realize of course that there are over 3000 climate scientists in the world. You can try and smear Jones all you want, but the radiative forcing of GHGs is indifferent to that. It is also rather odd that you insist on smearing Jones given though the bi-partisan committee found no wrong doing on his part. Keep smearing him does not change that fact, although I guess you are not interested in facts but perception.

    To take your rather silly analogy further, if I were are sick with cancer, would I listen to you or the oncologist (Jones)? Sorry, but I'd stick with the expert.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 9:40pm on 01 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    the file was called foia2009.zip.. it did not contain personal emails, ie take the dog to the vets, only stuff relevant.

    A more simple explanation, is that this file was put together internally at CRU, for the purpose of fulfilling an foi request.

    It is entirely possible (there is a history of of file being left around their ftp server, in a public acceessibly space) that someone just stumbled across it, internally or externally..

    That they then tried to post it on real climate, or elsewhere is entirely separate issue.. Many it security professonal are of the opinion that such is the nature and content of the emails, that this is far more the likely scenario (what suspect a conspiracy when simple 'mess' up or incompetance will explain it)

    To get together all the contents as a 'hack' would suggest an inside job, but my bets are an foi compilation that just got leaked.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 9:49pm on 01 Apr 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    Albatross

    The hacking was not limited to CRU. The Real Climate server was hacked, and other science web sites have been hacked, and NASA has had private information stolen off its servers and posted on contrarian blogs. There have also been repeated attempts to hack into the computers of climate researchers in Canada.


    Any server on the internet will have someone attempting to hack into it for various reasons. There is nothing unusual in a server being hacked. Unauthorized access can be curtailed for all but the highly skilled hacker by following basic security measures. A hacked server is generally the result of abysmal performance of the system administrator.

    The Canadian case is based on the theft of a laptop that belonged to the researcher. What was being stolen, the laptop or the data? Probably the laptop as I am sure it would be an expensive one with all the bells and whistles (paid for out of public funds).

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 9:51pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Cariboo, you are missing the point. The contrarians frequently cite the satellite MSU data as being superior to the global SAT data.

    The reality is that the satellite data, especially the UAH data, have issues. Then again, all data have issues.

    That said, don't you find it telling that radiosonde data, satellite data and at least four independently derived global SAT datasets are in excellent agreement regarding the warming?

    So the contrarians can't have it both ways. Well, they need to make up their minds which data they do and do not trust. Problem is all the independent data show warming.

    Anyhow, we are going off topic here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 9:53pm on 01 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    I might be prepared to listen to albatross... If he used his real name.

    What is a 'climate scientist'?

    As far as I am awrae ther is no theory of 'climate, no great book...

    An astro-physicist is a climate scientists, so is a physicist, oceanographer, an statisticain, a geologists, a paleogeologist. ,etc,etc...

    it is a very complex problem with cross diciplinary expertise required..

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 9:58pm on 01 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Barry Woods and others......

    In truth the Climategate emails had an awful lot to do with the activities of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick and the scientists' response to them.

    Some of you are very quick to post links to blogs which criticise the scientists and virtually deify McIntyre. I think perhaps it's time to redress the balance a little:

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/04/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-1-in-the-beginning/

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-2-barton-wegman/

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/10/mcclimategate-continues-yet-another-false-accusation-from-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/

    Some of you won't like the source, but it's hard to refute what the articles are saying, as they are very well researched.

    I wonder whether facts such as these explain why the parliamentary enquiry came to the conclusion it did........ ie. the correct one.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 10:03pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Barry @ 133:

    Feel free to dismiss inconvenient truths. And whether or not I use my real name (how do I know for sure that Barry is infact your real name, this is the internet) does not change the facts. That is a very lame argument.

    As for your claim that "As far as I am awrae ther is no theory of 'climate, no great book..."

    Actually, your comment is quite telling. In fact, there are a number of books on the subject of climate science and related disciplines-- I do agree with you that it is a diverse field. Anyhow, Google will help you find them. Now I am just not sure what your point of your post is, other than to perhaps try and detract form the inconvenient truth (for you it seems) that Jones was, by and large, vindicated. Had one taken the time to look into the facts before hand, this outcome would have been quite predictable.

    As for the list of climate scientists, the University of Toronto has a database:

    http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/


    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 10:11pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Barry you are here spouting McIntyre's theories about the data being compiled for FOI release. That hypothesis can easily be refuted. Go and do some reading at DeepClimate:

    The file was called "foia2009.zip."

    "FOIA is by far the more commonly used acronym in the U.S. The rest of the English speaking world? Not so much."

    Again, the forensic evidence point to a hack, not a leak. It would also, been much easier to discover the source or reason for a simple "leak". The police and computer experts have not been able to do that.

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/06/the-times-climate-e-mail-hackers-aimed-to-maximise-harm-to-copenhagen-summit/

    Does one really wish protect criminals in one's zeal to persecute climate scientists?

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 10:22pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Cariboo, @131:

    As yourself, why would a leak or whistle blower hack into RealClimate to try and upload the 'leaked' data?

    As for "The Canadian case is based on the theft of a laptop that belonged to the researcher."

    There have been thefts and break ins, yes. But their computers are frequently being attacked hackers trying to break the access/security codes. They have even had "hackers" posing as IT personnel. Also, evidence from the break ins suggest that the thieves were looking for passwords to access the government computers.

    Now none of this suggests that the people trying to hack the Canadian climate researcher's computers are the same as those who hacked into RealClimate or CRU. It does demonstrate that the 'skeptics' are pretty desperate, are intimidating and harassing scientists.


    Gosh, I really do wish we could harness the energy from the spin of the contrarians.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 10:24pm on 01 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Albatross #128:

    "Please read this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html"

    Please read this rebuttal:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 10:27pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Cariboo,

    "A hacked server is generally the result of abysmal performance of the system administrator."

    Hacks don't appear out the ether of space. Someone has to be doing, and their intent is almost always malicious. Whether or not they succeed is determined by how good the security is versus the skills of the hacker.

    Even if the security is not good, that does not absolve the person from hacking into the system for goodness' sakes. Are you even listening to what you are saying/suggesting?

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 10:43pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Peter317, I have no interest in reading what an alarmist like Lubos Motl has to say on the MWP. He is a physicist, has not published in the field of dendrochronology and is a known contrarian with a rather nasty track record. In other words, he can't be trusted and has no authority to speak to the Mann et al. (2009) paper. The data and code of which are freely available.

    Motl's 'rebuttal' is a blogpost, northing more until he takes the time and effort to get it though peer review.

    Now can we please try and stay on topic?

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 10:48pm on 01 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    to really see what's been going on look up john mashey's 'crescendo climategate cacophony' paper.

    i think i've been following these stories too long since none of it shocked me...just bau :o(

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 10:50pm on 01 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @infinity

    Okey Doke, you'll need to search for some of them because of the rules about links to pdf files

    But here are some links to Medieval Warm Period Related Papers and Reconstructions(note the geographic spread):

    The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503

    New Temerature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool

    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=39136&tid=282&cid=59106&ct=162

    The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa

    http://home.arcor.de/gheiss/Personal/Abstracts/SAJS2000_Abstr.html

    Then we have Canada

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-lake-6195.html

    Plus you can also search for "Summer temperatures in the Canadian Rockies during the last
    millennium: a revised record"

    South America

    Search for "A quantitative high-resolution summer temperature reconstruction based on sedimentary pigments from Laguna Aculeo, central Chile, back to AD 850"

    China

    "Alkenone-based reconstruction of late-Holocene surface temperature and salinity changes in Lake Qinghai, China"

    and

    "Climate variability in central China over the last 1270 years revealed
    by high-resolution stalagmite records"

    New Zealand

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v279/n5711/abs/279315a0.html

    Greenland

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/82002932/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 10:52pm on 01 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Albatross #128:

    "You really are trying very hard to muddy the waters and detract from the fact that Jones and CRU have been, largely, vindicated."

    I posted ONE slightly OT reply to a point Infinity made, and that means I'm trying very hard to muddy the waters, does it? What sort of grand conspiracy do you imagine I'm part of?

    In any case, what's your motivation for posting here? Why are you so worried about what a few sceptics think anyway? I mean, the science is robust, is it not? Nobody is going to convince you otherwise, so I'm not going to try. And regardless of who wins the next election, the government is going to go all out to sacrifice the entire economy at the AGW altar, regardless of what anyone says. So why waste your breath?


    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 10:54pm on 01 Apr 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    129 Albatross

    I guess you are not interested in facts but perception.


    Fact seem to be few and far between. Lot of hypotheses. So it comes down to credibility. Whom does just. And I will not take your word for it

    To take your rather silly analogy further, if I were are sick with cancer, would I listen to you or the oncologist (Jones)? Sorry, but I'd stick with the expert

    Credibility again. Unlike you I think Phil Jones does not have much.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 10:58pm on 01 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #140:

    "Motl's 'rebuttal' is a blogpost"

    Yes, a rebuttal to a blogpost, nothing more.


    "Now can we please try and stay on topic?"

    I'll get back on topic just as soon as you do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 10:59pm on 01 Apr 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    132. Albatross
    That said, don't you find it telling that radiosonde data, satellite data and at least four independently derived global SAT datasets are in excellent agreement regarding the warming?


    It is not a question of is or is not there any warming but what are the causes.
    You have the write to your opinion based on whatever you want. Allow me the same latitude.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 11:03pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Umm, blunderbunny, this thread is about the HoC committee's findings.
    Please stop spamming us with stuff.

    PS: Even if the MWP period was warmer globally than it is today (note none of the reconstructions remove the MWP, they are in disagreement as to the exact amount of warming), three things:

    1) That does not change the fact that radiative forcing is CO2 is now a driver of climate change.
    2) That the planet has been experiencing a positive net energy imbalance since the fifties, and that imbalance is mostly b/c of elevated GHGs.
    3) That does not change the fact that the global SATs circa 2050 and beyond will be significantly warmer than the MWP.

    Next, you'll be telling us that the planet was warmer than it is now x number of years ago, so elevated GHGs can't be to blame for the observed warming now. And so on goes the obfuscation by the contrarians.

    Have you watched Professor Alley's talk that he gave at the AGU meeting last year? I highly recommend it. And if after watching it, you still disagree, please go and argue with Dr. Alley should you be so brazen as to presume that you know more than he and his colleagues do about the biosphere and climate system both past and present.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 11:14pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Peter @143,

    You are distorting and making strawman arguments. I'm here, in part, to try and stem the tide of misinformation and rhetoric which those in denial about AGW insist on disseminating in public forums.

    Your rhetoric, unsubstantiated allegations and absurd references such as "AGW altar" do nothing to advance your cause I might add.

    The deniers had an excellent opportunity to state their case convincingly with the HoC committee and they failed, miserably. I know that angers you, but take it up with your contrarian friends.

    I do not need convincing, it is you who does. You will, no doubt, deny the findings of the Russell and Oxburgh committees too I'm sure, should they find in favour of Jones et al.. If those committees find Jones guilty of scientific misconduct or fraud then I will not question their findings, or post here going but, but but....

    The sad part is that even if they do find him or CRU guilty, it does not affect radiative transfer theory that has been understood by scientists for over 100 years now. The physics and nature are wholly impartial on this game being played by the 'skeptics', and will simply continue responding to the forcing mechanisms, of which CO2 is a major player.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 11:31pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Carioboo,

    "Whom does just. And I will not take your word for it"

    Fair enough. But me thinks that you won't take anyone's word for "it" should their word not agree with your ideology. I for one do not defend some of the things he said in those emails. That said, we'd probably all be shamed if our emails or hard drives were hacked.

    Let us step back and ignore Mann, Jones and the CRU for a second.

    That leaves say 3000 climate scientists minus, what, four? Do you honestly think the remaining 2995 scientists are all corrupt, biased and engaging in fraudulent science and some bizarre "conspiracy"? No, of course not. But that is what some ideologues want you to believe.

    Now please apply you skepticism to the motives and "science" of the contrarians? Are you honestly willing to believe someone like Watts or McI over the cadre of the world's top scientists, just b/c the 'skeptics' are telling you what you want to hear?

    Also, were Fourier, Arrhenius and Tyndall also in on this worldwide "conspiracy and hoax"? No.

    The reality is that the skeptics are the ones with a huge credibility problem. Unfortunately, they are not accountable to anybody, nor are they being held to account. Well, that has to change, and I imagine in the coming years it will.

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 11:42pm on 01 Apr 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    139. Albatross
    Hacks don't appear out the ether of space. Someone has to be doing, and their intent is almost always malicious. Whether or not they succeed is determined by how good the security is versus the skills of the hacker.

    I think I said that, you just paraphrased me.
    Even if the security is not good, that does not absolve the person from hacking into the system for goodness' sakes. Are you even listening to what you are saying/suggesting?

    I am not absolving any illegal act. I have been on the receiving end of hacking and I know that all but the most ardent and skilled hackers can be turned at bay by the most basic security measures. In my pre- retirement life, being a system administrator was what I did. The hackers are out there doing what hackers do for whatever reason.

    What I am suggesting is hacked servers are the result of bad server administration (for the most part). I started out in my earlier post saying that. Why are you trying to twist it into something else? Disagree with me if you will but do not twist my words to fit your agenda, that is dispicable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 11:42pm on 01 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Peter 317 @145,

    "Yes, a rebuttal to a blogpost, nothing more."

    No, you are distorting. Motl's blogpost is a "rebuttal" to a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal (i.e., Science) by Mann et al. in 2009. The Mann et al. paper was discussed at SS.

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 11:57pm on 01 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Albatross @ 148:

    " I'm here, in part, to try and stem the tide of misinformation and rhetoric which those in denial about AGW insist on disseminating in public forums."

    Why do you think that I, as a member of the public, shouldn't be free to voice any opinions I may have on a public forum? I will not be 'censored' by you, or any other self-styled defender of 'the science'.
    As I said before, why do you think that 'the science' needs defending anyway? And what qualifies you to speak for the science? How many papers have you published?
    Don't get me wrong, you're free to express your opinions, just kindly stop attacking me for expressing mine.
    And before you accuse me of being off-topic again, just go back and count the number of OT posts you've made.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 00:01am on 02 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Peter317 @ #137

    Peter,

    There is, with respect, one huge difference between John Cook's Skeptical Science site and "The Reference Frame" you linked to. The Skeptical Science site backs up what it says with peer-reviewed scientific literature - that is the whole point of the site (and why it is such a useful resource). John Cook pulls together all of the important scientific literature relating to a particular argument in one place...... and makes it very clear how little scientific literature there is that supports the various counter-arguments. Counter-arguments are frankly worthless unless they are backed up by verifiable scientific facts.

    You'll note from Albatross' link that with respect to the MWP, Skeptical Science links to a new paper by Mann et al - a paper which pulls together proxy data from multiple sources. The point it makes is that whilst there may have been occasions in the past 1000 years or so when individual locations have been warmer than today, there is no evidence that the Earth as a whole was as warm as it is now.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 00:02am on 02 Apr 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    149 Albatross
    But me thinks that you won't take anyone's word for "it" should their word not agree with your ideology.

    I think you have done an admiral job of summing your self up. I on other other hand can be convinced, just show me the credible and believable evidence. On that front you are doing very poorly.

    I for one do not defend some of the things he said in those emails. That said, we'd probably all be shamed if our emails or hard drives were hacked.

    Why are you bringing that up again? It should be plain that emails received at your place of work are the property of your employer and not private. Further email is like a post card, any one can read it during and after transmission, strictly speaking not private even if intended to be private. Bearing that in mind, do not say anything in email that you would not say in a lift/elevator.

    Let us step back and ignore Mann, Jones and the CRU for a second.

    Why, because of credibility issues?

    That leaves say 3000 climate scientists

    What 3000 climate scientists, the ones that the IPCC claims that turn out to be political appointees for the most part. It would be best to leave that kind of exaggeration to used car salesman.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 00:10am on 02 Apr 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    Smoking Gun: CRU Data Too Inaccurate To Detect AGW
    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/13134


    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 00:12am on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Cariboo, I was honestly not trying to twist your words. If it came across that way, then I am sorry. And, for the record, I do not have an agenda as alleged by you.

    That said, please re-read your posts about the hacks. IMHO, it sounded like you were defending the hackers, and placing the responsibility solely at the feet of CRU. Yes, the system administrators have responsibilities too, but we should not let that detract from the fact that hacking is illegal. Servers get hacked because there are hackers.

    And while I have your ear, the relative contribution of the various forcing mechanisms has been quantified. Murphy et al. (2009, JGR-A) has demonstrated that the net positive energy imbalance (and resultant warming) in the climate system since the 50s can be mostly attributed to elevated GHGs. CO2 is not the only player, any climate scientists or someone who has bothered to do some research of their own knows that obvious fact, but CO2's role in modulating global temps. is becoming increasingly evident and its relative contribution will increase as GHG levels continue to rise. I suggested to someone else that they watch Dr. Alley's talk at the AGU last year, I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the issue of AGW.

    Got to go.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 00:12am on 02 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    Been biting my tongue for the last hour or so, but I just can't resist this one. You all really, really need to look at the current arctic ice coverage:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Go on, if only just for curiosity's sake.

    Not only hitting within 2 std devs, but now also hitting 1979 - 2000 mean!

    Off to bed now, enjoy yourselves


    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 00:16am on 02 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Just to add to Albatross' post @ #149, I'll post again a link to the "timeline" of AGW research:

    http://www.slrtx.com/blog/climate-science-timeline/

    This hopefully puts into proper perspective the ridiculous assertion that the entire scientific community has conspired to manufacture AGW. Again, there are links to the original papers, some of them over 100 years old. I am actually amazed at the foresight of some of these individuals, who did their work without the modern equipment we now take for granted.

    The article also links to a very informative "Baloney Detection Kit":

    http://www.slrtx.com/blog/baloney-detection-kit/

    I'll say no more!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 00:19am on 02 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Albatross @151:

    "Motl's blogpost is a "rebuttal" to a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal (i.e., Science) by Mann et al. in 2009. The Mann et al. paper was discussed at SS."

    My bad. I just assumed it was the same SS '104 sceptical arguments' blogpost I had read 104 times before.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 00:28am on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Peter I am not censoring you, nor is that my intention, now you are going being unreasonable. That is the moderator's job should they see it fit.

    I am not attacking you, merely questioning and challenging unsubstantiated allegations and rhetoric posted by some here in a public forum. Your words are here for all to read. Nobody is censoring you. But, if you make fallacious or misleading or mistaken comments, then people will call you on that.

    I will note, that the people defending the science from attacks posting here, for the most part, provide data and facts to support their assertions. I think that should be required of everyone wishing to engage in this debate. The lack of compelling evidence, or factually correct evidence, put forward by the contrarians to the HoC committee is not the fault of the HoC committee, and probably why they ruled in favour of CRU and Jones. Just as Russell and Oxburgh probably will, not b/c of some conspiracy, but b/c they are considering the facts and placing events and actions in their appropriate context.

    I am not engaging you on off topic posts, we have all gotten quite side tracked as often happens in these forums.

    Now I kindly ask of you to stop engaging in rhetoric and accusing people of "censoring" and "attacking". The 'attacks" on science and scientists, in contrast, have been very well documented.

    I have to go, for now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 00:34am on 02 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Peter317 @ #152

    "Why do you think that I, as a member of the public, shouldn't be free to voice any opinions I may have on a public forum? I will not be 'censored' by you, or any other self-styled defender of 'the science'."

    Peter,

    Nobody is trying to "censor" you. However, one of the problems with this debate is that so many of those contributing to it do not properly understand the science and blindly reiterate things they have picked up from internet blogs and the media....... things which are either fundamentally flawed or completely bogus.

    Might I suggest that you read the following, which gives a big hint as to where many of the arguments employed by sceptics have come from:

    http://www.countercurrents.org/masters081209.htm

    There is plenty of other literature which describes the same phenomenon and the money of Exxon Mobil and others still supports such activities.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 01:11am on 02 Apr 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To Ghostofsichuan #116, and to all

    I'd like to try something here - a scenario, and a series of questions.

    I will understand if no one chooses to answer, but a Confucian perspective, or a native American perspective, might help break us out of our western civilized paradigms?
    ===================================

    Scenario:

    - We have a planet in peril,
    - threatened by a climate change bifurcation, or change of state,
    - a biodiversity crisis on land and sea,
    - and an unstable geopolitical situation,
    - in which increasing famine is a virtual certainty,
    - and further resource wars a distinct possibility

    i.e., both a geophysical and a geopolitical crisis

    - both growing
    - neither being addressed other than in words
    - in an exceedingly intertwined and complex world
    - implying the near certainty of an unexpected and an unpredictable failure or failures
    - which will possibly collapse both the Holocene inter-glacial and our civilization, possibly simultaneously.

    Q-1) What is the responsibility of a man, given the above scenario, who believes himself to have some ability in science, some ability as a writer, some understanding of politics and business, and has always been considered by others to be a natural leader?

    Q-2) Does it matter that this man is no longer young?

    Q-3) Is a man who is actually retired absolved of responsibility?

    Note:

    The questions are posed thinking that there is a natural answer for a natural man, but that there may be very few natural men in civilized society.

    Q-4) Is it possible that unnatural civilized man is the one failing to react to a clear and present danger, and that this is the root of the problem, i.e., we are no longer instinctually natural?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 01:39am on 02 Apr 2010, TeaPot562 wrote:

    @blunderbunny #142 & #147:
    Very nicely done. Thank you!
    TeaPot562

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 02:24am on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Cariboo @154,

    "I on other other hand can be convinced, just show me the credible and believable evidence. On that front you are doing very poorly."

    What an odd statement. Have you actually read WGI in AR4, all of it? The compelling, overwhelming evidence is there Cariboo, but you are clearly unwilling to accept it. Your "skepticism" seems to be unidirectional. Questioning (not believing?) pretty much everything from IPCC, yet endorsing faux science from contrarians and giving them carte blanche.

    I would agree that the IPCC could and should do a better job at communicating the science and dispelling myths-- on that front they are doing poorly. However contrary popular opinion amongst "skeptics", the IPCC only permanently employs about 10 people. They urgently need an experienced communications and PR team.


    "What 3000 climate scientists, the ones that the IPCC claims that turn out to be political appointees for the most part. It would be best to leave that kind of exaggeration to used car salesman.
    Now you are being disingenuous. It is not an exaggeration at all. AR4 was written with the assistance of about 400 scientists from across the globe who volunteered their time and expertise. Those scientists were tasked with assimilating, integrating and summarising the body of science on climate change from the (mostly) peer-reviewed scientific literature, and there are currently about 3000 scientists involved in the field. Earlier I provided a link to a database of climate scientists from around the world at the University of Toronto-- please go there and look.

    Just a closing comment, since you "can be convinced", I'm hoping that you will be convinced when CRU and Jones are (probably) exonerated by Russell and Oxburgh. Although I am doubtful given your obvious distrust and unwillingness to accept the findings of the HoC committee.

    Anyhow, we are off topic, again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 05:31am on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Blunder bunny,

    Hold your excitement re Arctic ice, you are getting excited by what is essentially noise in the signal. First, while there is inter-annual variability and that the long-term trend in Arctic se ice extent is down (and the negative slope is statistically significant too); Second, you are neglecting the fact that the extent of the thick MY ice in February 2009 was less than 10%, when back in 1980 it was about 35%. Third, the negative trend (slope) in minimum Arctic sea ice extent has been increasing the last decade.

    For decrease in (more than two year old ice) see Fig. 5 at nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/040609.html
    For trends in min. Arctic sea ice extent see www.nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html (scroll down to the Table)

    Now should the MY, ice show a long term increasing trend that is statistically significant in the coming decade or so, then we might al have a legitimate reason to believe that the Arctic sea ice is no longer in trouble.

    Re your much touted 'global' MWP. As mentioned earlier that is a red herring. Regardless, you ignore the fact that Mann et al. (2009) based their reconstruction of the last 1500 years using over 1000 proxy records from around the globe. You cited, a cherry picked, nine records, of which five are outside the N. Atlantic sector (where the MWP was strongest). In fact, some of the proxies you provided above were probably included in Mann et al.'s 2009 paper.

    And people wonder how we get off topic. Sorry, but I can't let the misinformation in a public forum go unchecked, and if that means going OT so be it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 05:40am on 02 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 167. At 05:48am on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    For Cariboo,

    http://www.ipcc.ch/press_information/press_information.htm

    My numbers were for AR4. For AR5:

    "We are pleased to announce the completion of the nomination process for the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), scheduled for completion in 2013-2014, will be the next comprehensive assessment of all aspects of climate change by the IPCC. Over 3000 experts were nominated by IPCC national Focal Points or Observer Organizations.

    As is the case for all IPCC reports, the author selection process is being carried out by the Working Group Bureaux, which are comprised of leading scientists representing all regions of the world, elected by the IPCC members (the governments of the world’s nations). The Bureaux follow the IPCC Principles and Procedures for selection based on criteria that cover expertise, range of views, and geographical representation. The Bureaux will also consider the need for experts from developed and developing countries, gender balance, and experts new to the IPCC process.

    Approximately 600 to 700 scientists will be selected as Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors. Many additional experts will be invited to participate as Contributing Authors as the work on the Fifth Assessment Report progresses. The author teams will conduct the scientific-technical assessment using procedures that emphasize comprehensiveness, scientific independence, openness, thorough review and transparency.



    The numbers for AR4:

    "Experts from more than 130 countries contributed to this assessment, which represents six years of work. More than 450 lead authors have received input from more than 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents."

    ( http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html )

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 08:48am on 02 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:



    A quote from a member of the public, elsewhere:

    [quote=kiteless]A thought:

    Climate change is a natural occurrence, whether we like it or not. We are being told to "fight climate change", ergo we are fighting to stop a naturally occurring event.

    This is not a good thing, surely?

    [/quote]

    This is where the BBC has a DUTY to inform, and explain

    When the bbc says climate change it deliberately mixes it up with man made climate change... (the rest of the media is just as bad, but they are a bit dim - ie gmtv below)

    Does the BBC think every single natural process that has caused climate change (naturally) throughout human history. deserts come and go, sea level rise and fall, etc,etc.

    Let alone pre/history - ie the previous 4 billion years, before humans approx 6,000 year blink of an eye (ie written records)

    Only the insane would deny 'climate change' (which is how AGW advocates try to paint the sceptics.)

    ie gmtv poll..

    do you believe in climate change ? yes/no...


    rather than:

    Do you believe in (natural) climate change? yes/no
    Do you believe in man made climate chnage? yes/no

    And to be really honest add another:

    Do you belive in catastrophic, unprecedented global warming (climate change)due to man's co2? yes/no

    I imagine if the BBC(honest enough) were brave enough to ask the general public this they would get a result that they would not like.

    The bbc uniquly has a duty to explain, inform and be impartial..
    If they did it would help the public understan the debate..

    yet, it appears that they would 'spin' the debate rather than clarify it, as they are advocates of agw not reporters/analysts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 10:40am on 02 Apr 2010, Jonathan wrote:

    Again Mr Black's "headline" is misleading - suggesting that this panel has confirmed that AGW is a reality. It is not within the gift or remit of these MPs to establish that. They are not qualified scientists and have no access to the models and data to support such a conclusion; none of us does - except for the likes of Dr Jones who refuses to share them.

    Apparently, since it is common or standard pratice for "climate scientists" to not share their data or methodologies, this failure by the CRU is excused. What this fails to ask is why is it common practice, when other scientific areas behave differently and make data and methods available? Really, if they have nothing to hide and their conclusion are unchallengeable, why are they hiding it? Also, such a justification is sophistry; it is common for white drivers to drive aggressively - this is alright because that what white van drivers do.

    There may be little doubt, whichever side of the climate fence one finds oneself is that this episode has beed damaging to the climate lobby's cause and this report does little to assuage the concerns or establish confidence. Sceptics and denialists as they are labelled (and it is the labeeling that is so wrong by Mr Black) have no reason to change their minds when the reasons for doing are not laid bare. I'm afraid "because I said so" is not a worthy or adult argument.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 10:44am on 02 Apr 2010, oldgifford wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 171. At 10:50am on 02 Apr 2010, oldgifford wrote:

    The Bureaux will also consider the need for experts from developed and developing countries, gender balance, and experts new to the IPCC process.

    What one earth does gender balance have to do with science?

    This makes a mockery of the whole process.

    Incidentally on the topic of the science debate, unfortunately you will not find that many scientists who are willing to speak up with non AGW theories because they will lose their grants or tenures. Prof. Vincent Courtillot remarked that he had plenty of climate related investigation he would like his PhD students to carry out but he could not ask them to do it as if the found against AGW it would destroy their careers before they started.

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 11:29am on 02 Apr 2010, knownought wrote:

    Boys, boys, boys! Play nicely, stop this fighting. It's Good Friday, now run along and eat your Easer eggs and don't get chocolate everywhere.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 11:31am on 02 Apr 2010, peakbear wrote:

    "A decade ago, I would have been struggling to write this on a computer with perhaps a couple of gigabytes' space on the hard drive over a 56k modem connection. The one I'm using now has more than 400G of memory, and the megabytes stream fluidly through my cable modem. Scientists, 10 years ago, were just as limited by now obsolete technology as anyone else."

    Nearly 20 years ago my university connection was a solid 8Mbit between London and Reading (what I use now) , using the Super Janet network especially designed to link up the national supercomputing facilities between London, Oxford, Manchester and Edinburgh so we could run GCM's and crunch molecular structure simulations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 11:49am on 02 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 175. At 11:51am on 02 Apr 2010, peakbear wrote:

    "The hacked e-mails and documents date back more than 10 years, and huge changes have occurred since then in three key areas: scientific practice, information technology and the expectations of society regarding openness and transparency."

    As was shown my the emails IT hasn't in this field in the last 20 years. individual Fortran programs just isn't a sensible choice these days to process varied input data. Modern scripting languages and Relational databases are. Also scientific process hasn't changed at all. Replication of results is always the key feature and if they had done the IT bit correctly that would be a single button press on your computer. The whole peer review process is more a feature of what expensive lab equipment you might need and the methods used to try an replicate someones results. The Climate community have no such restrictions and the amount of data we are talking about is tiny, even for 10-20 years ago.

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 12:15pm on 02 Apr 2010, manysummits wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 177. At 12:34pm on 02 Apr 2010, JRWoodman wrote:


    I think a lot of people misunderstand what the House of Commons' Enquiry was setting out to achieve.

    The committee's primary aim was not -- for the benefit of the rest of the country -- to establish whether the activities of the CRU were acceptable. Its primary aim was to establish -- for the benefit of the politicians themselves -- whether or not the activities of the CRU were acceptable; so that they can continue to be confident of the science when they come to draw up policy.

    I'm sure they will now consider that the deniers' mischief has achieved very little other than to waste their time; which I suspect for most deniers is the primary aim.

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 12:39pm on 02 Apr 2010, texasfrank wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 179. At 12:42pm on 02 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 180. At 12:56pm on 02 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Albatross @160:

    I posed an opinion (in reply to Infinity) that it seemed unlikely that the MWP was a purely local event.
    It was neither an assertion nor an allegation, merely MY opinion.
    Even Phil Jones has voiced the opinion that the MWP was probably as warm, or warmer, than today.
    An opinion is an opinion. You can choose to accept, reject or challenge it.

    To which you replied that I was deliberately trying to muddy the waters in an attempt to detract from the findings.
    This, to me, was neither a rejection nor a challenge, but rather an unwarranted attack.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 12:58pm on 02 Apr 2010, Tom wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 182. At 12:59pm on 02 Apr 2010, Dermot OLogical wrote:

    All caps emphasis below is mine:

    Richard Black: "...expect scientists to do a GOOD JOB, and were unsure whether the BEHAVIOUR of Phil Jones and his fellow climate researchers was GOOD ENOUGH.."


    Phil Jones: “Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

    Phil Jones: "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I THINK I'LL DELETE THE FILE RATHER THAN SEND TO ANYONE. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
    WE ALSO HAVE A DATA PROTECTION ACT, WHICH I WILL HIDE BEHIND."

    Phil Jones' science and behaviour was absolutely, positively and without question, NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 1:26pm on 02 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 184. At 1:53pm on 02 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 178 texasfrank

    I don't see McKitrick mention the published Benestad 2004 comment to his paper.

    The satellite temperature and ocean sea surface temperature records show warming too, and these cannot be accused of being that way due to correlation with socio-economic indicators. There are no flying or floating cities.

    Additionally a pattern of warming in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere is expected, which would tend to cause a coincidental correlation with socio-economic indicators as many industrialized nations can be found in this location. The exception is also notable - that the warming in the arctic cannot be explained as caused by urbanization.

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 2:44pm on 02 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re Barry Woods:

    There has been no no statistically significant warming since 1995. It has been warmer in the past. The rate of warming has been similar in the past. There is evidence that much of the recent warming is due to the increase in greenhouse gases. There is evidence that doubling co2 leads to multiple degrees celcius of warming. None of these statements are in contradiction.

    You say "From the available data, in order to reproduce, test audit Jones, et als work. You need to know, what data was used, what subset was used, what adjustemnts, etc,etc."

    I agree that is needed if we were auditing Jones. But that's a red-tape bureaucratic action and not the practice of science.

    It's Jones's result of global temperature over the 20th century that is of scientific interest. And determining whether or not Jone's result is valid does not require an audit. It does not require his source code. It does not require knowing the subset of data he used.

    We only need enough of a description of what he did to allow us to do something similar. We do it in our own way and see if we obtain the same result, or a different one. Jones's result should not depend on choice or implementation of algorithm, or choice of data selection. It should be robust to those choices.

    Raw station data is freely available. The description for what Jones did are sufficiently laid out in papers to give a head start (arguably we should even be able to reproduce his results even without reading his description of methodology). There's enough info to tackle the problem independently - taking the raw data, applying some adjustments, which may be based on Jone's description or ones completely of our own making - and then obtaining a global temperature record result.

    Then we can compare that result with Jones's result. There should be no difference if Jone's result is valid. If there is a big difference then that implies the result Jone's obtained is dependant on choice of algorithm or subset of data. In any case it renders it invalid.

    It's quite clear how the science can be tested in this way without requiring the source code, station lists, etc. And so the silence from skeptics over the recent 10+ years is quite amazing considering how much focus they have put upon the question of validity of Jone's result.

    If somewhere like ClimateAudit would just take the raw station data, apply some adjustments they thought valid and produced a global temperature record result of their own, then we'd have something to compare to Jones and Hansen's result and therefore have a much better understanding of just what disagreement skeptics are actually claiming. We might even find out that the results skeptics get is so similar to Jones's and Hansen's results that it would effectively end the questioning of these results.

    Call me a cynic but I think that latter sentence is enough of a reason to explain why skeptics have not gone down this route. For all the skeptics talk of just wanting to uncover the truth, it's glaringly apparent that they have not bothered to do the above and instead have gone down the "audit" route.

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 2:46pm on 02 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    to emphasis the subtle spin in the article:
    The BBC says:

    “The hacked e-mails and documents date back more than 10 years, and huge changes have occurred since then in three key areas: ”

    Richard then repeats 3 times in the article,
    A decade ago,
    A decade ago,
    A decade ago (clearly implying all the docs/emails were 10 years old.

    the last email was 4 days old at the time of the 'act of whistleblowing'

    One of the more major ones was to contact Richard Black, about BBC's Paul Hudson's: Whatever Happened to Global Warming? (oct 11, 2009)

    Maybe someone should put in a FOI request for any emails from Michael Mann, or the 'team' to the bbc, for this correspondence, less than 2 months before Copenhagen.

    Or did he just ring.

    Mere members of the public have no method, beyond the comments section here, of contacting the 'authorities' of (man made) 'climate change'.

    And the media wonder why people are still sceptical, the media/politicians blame lack of science education, then puzzle how to get the 'message' across.

    What is the environments team, science education/background that qualifies them see fit to 'educate' the BBC audience.

    Or are they all humanities/arts graduates.

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 3:04pm on 02 Apr 2010, JRWoodman wrote:


    #182 Dermot OLogical writes: "Phil Jones' science and behaviour was absolutely, positively and without question, NOT GOOD ENOUGH."

    I think we can agree that Phil Jones' behaviour -- though perhaps, for some of us, understandable -- was, in your words, 'not good enough' (I guess, with hindsight, he himself might also agree with you!). However his comments had absolutely nothing to do with the science and everything to do with a vendetta from a group of deniers -- and maybe a few sceptics -- trying to waste his time and undermine his work. I'm sure those now jumping on their high horses have similar motives.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 3:21pm on 02 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 189. At 4:47pm on 02 Apr 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    (sigh)

    OK. They've tried too hard to be gentle with the beleaguered Jones. So Jones's professional reputation remains broken with the general public. And he is now getting even more flak because people who should have explicitly publically condemned him felt sorry for him.

    But "whitewash"? In my experience, whitewashes don't

    1. Stress they wanted more time.
    2. Stress they had limited scope.
    3. Stress they had limited resources.
    4. Stress there are related inquiries in the pipeline.
    5. Ask for those related inquiries to be open.

    Finally a point. If this was a real whitewash the pro-AGW side would be jumping up and down with glee, claiming vindication. Does anyone see that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 5:03pm on 02 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #189 JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "If this was a real whitewash the pro-AGW side would be jumping up and down with glee, claiming vindication. Does anyone see that?"

    Agreed, and as an anti-AGWer I'm jumping up and down with glee over this damning line:

    his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community

    Oho! -- Why, it must be a remarkably unscientific "community" then, mustn't it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 5:10pm on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Barry, you are making wildly off-topic comments and allegations here. You are also rehashing emails that have been explained, refuted and supported by the body of evidence and science. You misquoting Trenberth's (travesty) email is just one of the many misleading examples. Trenberth's email has been placed in context, the very paragraph above the quote that you cherry picked refers you to a journal paper in which Trenberth explains the issue in great detail, and no, the "issue" is not what you have been led to believe. And that is just one of many examples.

    I sincerely understand that you are upset by what you perceive to be going on here. Also, I don't doubt that you sincerely believe that you are onto something big and that some great injustice is being forced upon us. That said, I would caution you about judging people before they have had a fair "trial", as I am sure you would not want to happen to you should someone make fallacious accusations in public about you, especially if they continued doing so even after you were vindicated by an HoC committee.

    The contrarians had an opportunity to submit evidence to the bi-partisan HoC committee, you could have submitted evidence too. As it happens, the contrarians were so desperate that they infiltrated the IOP, and as a result the evidence submitted by IOP was tainted. In the end it was a shambles for the contrarians, and yet again even when they had a perfect opportunity, they failed to making a legitimate and convincing case. They have only themselves to blame for that, and I would suggest that much of your anger and frustration is misdirected. The contrarians have had over 30 years to make a convincing case, science after all is fallible, but they have not, they have succeeded in taking serious action by 30 years.

    Don't be too disheartened, there are still the Russell and Oxburgh committees and they will be more rigorous than the HoC committee. That said, it probably also means that the actions of the contrarians will also be scrutinized in greater depth. So I suspect that both CRU and the contrarians will be held to account should there be any proof of misconduct. We'll have to wait and see.

    Anyhow, have a good Easter wherever you are.

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 5:24pm on 02 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    That is your opinion...

    Infiltrated!!! the IoP

    I though the AGW believers were the ones accusing the 'scpeptics' of conspiracies.

    My complaint is with the bbc...

    I used examples, which i think any rational person would ask, the science does not appear to be that settled.

    And that possible the bbc is too close to their sources.

    the emails and documents were not 10 years old (some were, some were last week - at the time)

    I want impartial reporting from the bbc, not advocay..

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 5:46pm on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Peter317 @180,

    At @115 you said: "Perhaps, but because evidence of it exists in Greenland, large parts of Europe, China as well as southern Africa, and because it lasted for hundreds of years, it's a bit unlikely."

    I then referred you to Mann et al. (2009), so I did challenge you-- with the Mann et al. paper-- you apparently then did not follow the link that I sent you, or if you did, you did not read it. Anyhow, you dismissed my challenge and countered with a post written by a notorious blogger.

    The best evidence we have is that the MWP was largely regional. Mann's study is by far the most comprehensive one undertaken thus far. Mann is one of the world's leading paleoclimate scientists. My impressions of the MWP are based on what the most comprehensive science says, what the leading experts say. It is not my opinion.

    Anyhow, Yes, my tones was probably too harsh and I apologize for that. I certainly would not consider it an "attack", but a strong take-down. I see myths been perpetuated day after day on the web, and at times my patience runs thin. The contrarians deal in doubt Peter, and myths or confusion are a great means of fabricating doubt. That is a fact. And suggesting that the MWP was global knowing that Mann et al. (2009) is out there is disingenuous. It is also a red herring in terms of the validity of AGW.


    Peter @180:
    "Even Phil Jones has voiced the opinion that the MWP was probably as warm, or warmer, than today."
    Wrong--you are misrepresenting Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones has not claimed that the MWP was global, nor has he stated that the MWP was as warm or warmer as current temperatures as you claim. In his recent BBC interview he said,

    "Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented."

    Dr. Jones also said in the same BBC interview that:
    "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions."

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 6:10pm on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Barry, and no need to be so derogatory. And before dismissing the IOP fiasco, at least make the effort to establish the validity of the concerns raised by many of its members. For starters, go and ask IOP who drafted their evidence submitted to the HoC committee. IOP has refused to release details of the source of the submission, nor will it release the names of the other two sub-committee members responsible. This from a group demanding transparency and openness in science. That is not acceptable.

    Evidence shows that the IOP draft was very likely written by Peter Gill (an oil industry consultant). Also, look into the background and involvement of the IOP's former "Energy Group" between 2002 and 2008. Specifically, Terri Jackson and, yes non other than Peter Gill. In 2007/8 Gill joined the energy sub-committee of the IOP Science Board. Jackson will be speaking at the upcoming Heartland Conference (" Google "Heartland Institute") in 2010, and she has close ties with another discredited contrarian, Monckton.

    This has been a huge embarrassment for the IOP and they are losing members over it. Anyhow, the above are facts. Feel free to verify them, you will have to get the IOP to divulge who wrote their evidence for them.

    I have noticed quite the shift in stance of the BBC on the AGW file since last December. In fact, Mr. Black here and Paul Hudson have been practically fawning over contrarian bloggers. So I f am complaining and you are complaining perhaps they are doing a pretty good job, except like the IPCC, they should stay away from citing/consulting grey literature (i.e., contrarian bloggers).

    And barry, your complaint is clearly also with the CRU, Jones, Mann and other prominent climate scientists, not just with the BBC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 6:46pm on 02 Apr 2010, ScudLewis wrote:

    @BarryWoods - you have a point & I agree that a certain part of the narrative of the piece could be considered as being a little misleading.

    "The hacked e-mails and documents date back more than 10 years, and huge changes have occurred since then in three key areas: scientific practice, information technology and the expectations of society regarding openness and transparency"[Black, see above]

    It is clearly not the case that ALL the 'emails' were a decade old (a large volume were actually very recent). I have no details of the dating of the other documents that were referenced so I have little comment, other than it wouldn't have been that impossible to have been more transparent and open without being forced to do so (the committee commented on the cultural aspects). Anyway - publishing stuff on the web is not that new a phenomenon, is it? Or even that difficult 10 years ago?

    "It is through this lens of change that the MPs have looked back at CRU and Professor Jones."[Black, see above]

    Perhaps there has been a cultural paradigm shift - but it may be that people are just becoming fed up with some institutions that drag their feet on being more open - especially publically funded ones and when the technology exists to help this process.

    However, you can see that it wasn't a total 'whitewash' and the committee does make the following statement:

    "The Deputy Information Commissioner has given a clear indication that a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 may have occurred but that a prosecution was timebarred; however no investigation has been carried out. In our view it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved."[HC 387-I Summary, p.3]

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 6:49pm on 02 Apr 2010, Lucas Velozo wrote:

    ...A Theory of Apparent Opposites: Moving from an inconvenient truth to a convenient solution

    One of the greatest things about nature is the ability of “apparent opposites” to work together in resolving problems and creating great things. Perhaps one of the greatest examples of all is the sexual union by male and female organisms in the reproduction of species. But one can also look at the Sun and water in contributing to the photosynthesis process (“apparent opposites” as water puts out fire). Recently, medical researchers found evidence that eating transgenic tobacco prevents cervical cancer (most people would associate tobacco to being a cause of cancer!). Human reason and dialogue enables conflicting and opposite interests to be resolved peacefully. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In a world full of dilemmas, we could perhaps modify the physics tenet to “for every action there is an opposite yet compatible reaction.”

    Issues surrounding environmental preservation and sustainability have come under great scrutiny in the past decade. Oil products (and its derivatives) are arguably one of the main culprits in environmental degradation. The reality of the matter is that our consumption patterns are damaging our natural environment – a damage that could potentially be irreversible. That it is an inconvenient truth cannot be disputed. What we can do, however, is to turn the inconvenient truth into a convenient solution.

    In the legendary film Armagedon, the President of the United States passionately articulated our ability to engineer our common courage in resolving problems that are common to people all over the world:

    “I address you tonight, not as the President of the United States, not as the leader of a country, but as a citizen of humanity. We are faced with the very gravest of challenges. The Bible calls this day Armagedon: the end of all things. And yet, for the first time in the history of the planet, a species has the technology to prevent its own extinction. All of you praying with us need to know, that everything that can be done to prevent this disaster is being called into service. The human thirst for excellence and knowledge, every step up the ladder of science, every adventurous reach into space, all our combined modern technologies and imaginations, even the wars that we fought have provided us the tools to wage this terrible battle. Through all the chaos that is our history, through all of the wrongs and the discords, through all of the pain and suffering, through all of our times, there is one thing that has nourished our souls and elevated our species above its origins, and that is our COURAGE.”

    The underlying theme in the film is quite powerful. Workers from an oil rig are called upon to save the planet that is about to be bombarded by a number of meteors, wiping our species from the face of the Earth. The fact that the “heroes” are from the oil industry is ironic because it is they that will essentially prevent the natural catastrophe from occurring (the oil industry preventing natural damage. hold on. what?). And this brings us to the environment. Global warming and environmental degradation caused by human activities are arguably natural catastrophes waiting to happen. The author of this blog has enthusiastically spilled an extensive amount of electronic ink on the recent oil discoveries in Brazil. But the author is also aware that oil products do harm the environment. We must therefore combine our modern technologies and imaginations and go further up the ladder of science to ensure that the “apparent opposites” – oil products and the environment – can work together in providing a platform of sustainable co-existence. Our dependence on oil will not, realistically, be replaced by biofuels any time soon. Thus we must adapt our technology in order to prevent irreversible damage to our environment, and thus ultimately, to our very own well-being. Arguably, the convenient solution is under construction. Governments around the world are addressing environmental issues like never before. Even oil companies are working hard to improve their technology and reduce externalities.

    Human beings only tend to react en masse in a state of emergency. A state of emergency is primarily the work of psychological stimuli. The convenient solution to the global inconvenient truth therefore begins with a change of mindset. We are now faced with the gravest of challenges of this century. It is time that “everything that can be done to prevent this disaster is called into service.”

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 6:54pm on 02 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 198. At 7:11pm on 02 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 199. At 7:36pm on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Blunderbunny @197,

    You are way off base. And you resorting to juvenile name calling does not do your cause any good. Really, do your folks or loved ones know that this is how you choose to behave in public? You might want to re-read your posts; Infinity, Paul and I have had to correct you several times for making misleading and even erroneous statements.

    So I'm afraid that you are the one who needs to do some reading of the literature, who is pontificating and making a fool of themselves (e.g., your comments about the Arctic sea ice extent). And no, you have not provided nearly enough evidence to support your argument (which is a red herring as I have now mentioned a few times now). You can start with Mann et al. (2009). And while you are at it, read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect and how it might apply to you.

    Have a pleasant long weekend.

    PS: Have you watched Professor Alley's talk at the AGU meeting yet? No need to answer, but please do watch it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 7:48pm on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Rob @198,

    The data and code are freely available. Write a paper refuting Mann et al. (2009) and publish it in Science. Until then you are blowing hot air and making unsubstantiated allegations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 7:51pm on 02 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "the contrarians were so desperate that they infiltrated the IOP, and as a result the evidence submitted by IOP was tainted"

    Sounds like someone didn't take their pills today.

    Don't worry -- I'm told a tinfoil hat can be remarkably effective too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 8:11pm on 02 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    It appears that some posters would rather refer posts to the moderators than check their accuracy.

    Mann himself issued a correction regarding his orientation of the Tiljander proxies but claimed, as always, that it didn't matter.

    Readers would be able to read the correction and make up their own minds as to the importance but there are some here who are afraid of allowing independent thought.

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 8:16pm on 02 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    A bit of background for those open minded enough to check things for themselves:

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/07/another-correction-from-upside-down-mann/

    There is, of course, much more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 8:31pm on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Rob@202-203, you are spanning the thread with OT posts. Again, you or McI are free to publish a paper refuting Mann et al. (2009), or post about it the next time BBC has an article on the MWP.

    Now that you bring up McIntyre, let us discuss how Mr. McIntyre submitted incorrect (and hence misleading) evidence to the HoC committee. Even though this was brought to McIntyre's attention, and Mr. McIntyre acknowledged that some of his figures were wrong, it seems that Mr. McIntyre took no actions to notify the committee, nor it seems, did he take any actions to provide them with the corrected figures. If true, that would be a serious breach of conduct (misleading parliament), and that does make a difference and does matter.

    If McIntyre did take prompt and exhaustive actions to inform the HoC committee of the errors in his submission, please provide evidence of that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 8:53pm on 02 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Albatross

    You appear to have a very limited grasp of not only the science involved in all of this, but also of the english language. The MWP was not regional and if you can be bothered to read my post #142, you'll find the evidence that you've been requesting.

    All in all, you must be a very blissful individual...............

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 9:03pm on 02 Apr 2010, Harvey wrote:

    The data has been fiddled, adjusted, lost.
    But you can still trust it.
    And we're politicians, so you can trust us to when we say you can trust the 'scientists'.
    After all, "the science is settled."

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 9:21pm on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Blunderbuuny @205, how you do like to insult people, and please stop projecting.

    I did read @142, and even followed the links, when provided. If you wish to take part in advancing the science, please take the nine proxies (five of which are outside the N. Atlantic region) provided @142, write up a paper and submit it to Science under the title "The MWP was global" as a counter to Mann et al. (2009). Good luck. If it passes muster with the editor and reviewers, and is not refuted by your "peers" after being published. I'll accept your hypothesis.

    Regardless, you debating the extent of the MWP is totally irrelevant to the HoC committee and its (almost sweeping) vindication of CRU and Jones, or radiative transfer theory of GHGs for that matter, so please do stop obsessing about it and move on.

    You are clearly trying to detract form the HoC committee's finding against the 'skeptics'. This is a "Dover moment" for the contrarian crowd (look up Kitzmiller vs. Dover).



    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 9:29pm on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Harvey, please explain to us (and the HoC committee) how which data were fiddled and how.

    The thermometer data have to be adjusted to take into account a myriad of factors which can introduce a warm or cool bias (change in time of observation, change of shelter, change of instrument, change of location). Please explain why this should or should not be done citing science papers, or how it should be done differently.

    Exactly which data do you allege was "lost" by CRU?

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 9:33pm on 02 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Albatross

    No need for me to write the papers, they are already written and as you might know, if you'd spent long enough in the education system, a paper would need to new and original ;-)

    Any time you need a little help with all of that, please feel free to give me shout, these blogs are supposed to be informative and educational afterall.



    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 9:55pm on 02 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    204, Albatross wrote:

    Rob@202-203, you are spanning the thread with OT posts.

    This my sixth post on this thread all of which have been in response to posts by others.

    Meanwhile Albatross has made more than thirty posts.

    Albatross continues:

    Now that you bring up McIntyre, let us discuss how Mr. McIntyre submitted incorrect (and hence misleading) evidence to the HoC committee. Even though this was brought to McIntyre's attention, and Mr. McIntyre acknowledged that some of his figures were wrong, it seems that Mr. McIntyre took no actions to notify the committee, nor it seems, did he take any actions to provide them with the corrected figures. If true, that would be a serious breach of conduct (misleading parliament), and that does make a difference and does matter.

    If McIntyre did take prompt and exhaustive actions to inform the HoC committee of the errors in his submission, please provide evidence of that.


    He did take prompt and exhaustive actions, as always:

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/26/mcintyre-submission-with-figures/

    The fact that Albatross was unaware of this demonstrates a need for broader reading habits.

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 10:06pm on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Blunderbunny @209, you are probably referring to the debunked 'paper' by Loehle and McCulloch (in a non peer-reviewed journal (E&E) not carried by the ISI), or the debunked paper by Soon and Baliunas (2003) in ClimateResearch which caused such a fiasco b/c contrarians had subverted the peer-review process. As I said before, the paper has to pass muster in a peer-reviewed journal and not be refuted by peers after publication. Both these papers failed that very basic test of science.

    And before you make fallacious allegations of 'gate keeping', the HoC committee found in favour of Jones et al.

    "Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers."

    In contrast, did you know that Dr. Mashey has determined that at Climate Research in 2002 and 2003 Soon and de Freitas were simultaneously reviewing each others' papers? No wonder the journal faced a revolt.


    Moreover, as stated by the HoC committee:
    "The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable."

    Well, the faux science of the contrarians has been demonstrated time and time again to be the very antithesis of irreproachable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 10:29pm on 02 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Blunderbunny,

    I'm not at home at present so I only have limited time.

    I did take a look at the links you posted at #142.

    There is nothing like enough detail in the literature you linked to to say that the MWP was global. Certainly, there is evidence from a number of places around the World that at some time between (say) 1300 and 800 years ago there were periods when those places were warmer than average. However, there is no evidence that they all coincided.

    It is quite likely that the MWP, as originally described for the North Atlantic, resulted from ocean cycles and such warm periods for high Northern latitudes may well have coincided with cooler periods in Southern latitudes. So unless warmth in Northern and Southern latitudes can be shown to have occured together, it cannot be claimed that the MWP was a global phenomenon - the data currently available points to the fact that it was not.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 10:38pm on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Rob, thanks for the update. You are right I should have known that. But to be fair I did preface what I said with words like "seems", and I did volunteer that I might be wrong by asking for evidence to the contrary. Anyhow, sorry for wasting your time on that one, and apologies to Mr. McIntyre. I should have guessed that I was "debating" a McIntyre acolyte.

    I wonder if he would have figured it out had TomP not alerted him to his error? The same TomP who the folks at CA berate and ridicule. The CA bloggers really do owe Tom a huge thanks.

    Really, 30 posts already? Well, with posts like #206, is it any wonder.

    As for your recommendation about broadening my reading, always happy to do that, please just do not expect that to include a partisan and faux 'audit' blog run by a retired mining executive who makes it his business to harass scientists (see post #126), and saying things which are not permissible to repeat here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 11:07pm on 02 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Rob I noticed that McI did not post a time and date of when he provided the corrected version of his submission( see Update at link you provided). TomP alerted him on 1 March 2010. Any idea when he submitted his correction?

    I particularly enjoyed the hypocrisy behind this comment by McIntyre in his 'evidence' to HoC:

    "The Climategate Letters are replete with examples of unprofessional language, which on occasion rises to defamation”

    Now just what did McIntyre say? "James Hansen and his disciples have a more jih..ist approach"

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/29/6912/

    And that is just one of several examples of McIntyre using unprofessional and inflammatory language in the public forum.

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 08:44am on 03 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    @Those defending Mann and Jones
    If you have not provided the information on your methods, data collected and data used...you have not been peer reviewed" That's just the way it works. Anything short of that might just as well be an opinion piece.

    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 08:50am on 03 Apr 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Barry Woods at post 186

    'Or are they all humanities/arts graduates.'

    Humanities and Arts graduates are just as interested in science as other people. In fact, if you look at the history of art, you will find that artists comment about scientific progress through their work. As science progresses, so artists comment about it in terms of visual language. The art is 'read' by others and a dialogue begins. Art is a close observer of all phenomena, and its language is in terms of visual form.

    'Mere members of the public have no method, beyond the comments section here, of contacting the 'authorities' of (man made) 'climate change.'

    Don't kid yourself ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 09:12am on 03 Apr 2010, oldgifford wrote:

    Albatross wrote:in 107

    OldGifford @101, you fail to realize that etc.etc.

    My post did not mention any of the things you refer to and what right do you have to assume that I know nothing of the things you mention?

    We continually receive new data that contradicts the previous data, this is the process of discovery, but you have to look behind the headlines to the small print to find out what is really going on.

    You mention carbon related earth warming. When I researched the subject in depth to prepare a paper for publication I could only find theories that contradicted other theories. I could not find proof that CO2 had significantly raised temperature compared to natural phenomena, only theories. For example one theory says the ice core estimations of CO2 are incorrect –see article by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. found on this site.
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

    If he is correct then our assumptions about current levels of CO2 being much higher than previous levels need adjustment. Indeed Mr. Gore’s famous presentation showed significant increases in CO2 after warming, not the other way round.

    Theories need to be supported by observations, yet no one has explained to me why when man made CO2 has been increasing massively, the temperatures have both risen and fallen. According to the various IPCC models we should be frying by now but it hasn’t happened. That suggests to me that the natural variations are capable of overriding AGW.

    My own paper shows remarkable correlations between the Earth’s magnetic field and global temperatures, much closer than any IPCC models, but of course correlation does not prove cause and effect, but I am not the only one to observe variations in the Earth’s magnetic field with temperatures.

    My original point was that the data from CRU cannot be relied on. Note it may have adjustments but no one seems to know what they are and on which datasets they were used. If the current theories about urban heat islands and the change in the use of measurement stations are correct then we cannot rely on any of the supposedly accurate data from about 1960 onwards.

    I am sure we humans contribute to the overall global temperature, but by how much is now debatable and we need that scientific debate. Trillions of dollars depend on the facts and closer to home 37,500 old folk died last winter because they couldn’t afford to heat themselves properly. That figure is going to get worse as we go down the eco friendly power generation route and fuel prices rise faster than older peoples incomes. It seems our wind turbines are only 7% efficient so what is going to supply power for us when the wind stops blowing?

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 09:18am on 03 Apr 2010, peakbear wrote:

    Albatross @211

    How does a paper get 'debunked' apart from just opinions of people. Have you read the methodology and results of Mann 98/99 and the related follow-ups. In my opinion they're useless and the fact they disagree with the bulk of other proxy evidence suggesting a MWP shows they should be disregarded as evidence. Why can't people move onto the more 'settled' science showing unprecedented warming. For those people who think the MWP is regional could they at least demonstrate the physical mechanism of how that works? How exactly did the ocean currents change to only make Europe warm? The Argo floats are currently measuring the vast majority of the energy in the climate system, they are pretty much definitive measurement of which way the Earth's temperature will go.

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 09:42am on 03 Apr 2010, ADMac wrote:

    221 @Albatross wrote

    And before you make fallacious allegations of 'gate keeping', the HoC committee found in favour of Jones et al.

    "Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers."


    Did the HoC committee not read the email where Jones did everything he could to suppress the publication of Ross McKitrick's Urban Heat Island Effect. Phil Jones openly admitted that he wanted to keep this publication out of the IPCC report at all costs, “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    You don’t need to be any kind of scientist to interpret Jones’s words.

    The general public will see this as yet another example of dishonest politicians.

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 09:57am on 03 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #216 sensibleoldgrannie wrote:

    "Humanities and Arts graduates are just as interested in science as other people."

    More importantly, scientists need to listen to humanities and arts people, as they had to before there was a separate category of people who call themselves "scientists".

    Scientists often make serious conceptual mistakes, usually because they "didn't see the wood for the trees" -- in other words, they haven't stood back far enough to get a synoptic view. For example, many scientists use a mathematical formalism for assigning (what they call) "probabilities". They are so familiar with the formalism that they don't understand what it means. A statistical claim about relative frequency is NOT a claim about how likely a theory is to be true. Few scientists are aware of that. Few have given any thought at all to the nature of evidence, or the nature of truth itself.

    Yet these people have the arrogance to use a percentage to tell the rest of us how certain we can all be about AGW. Outrageous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 10:01am on 03 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 222. At 10:14am on 03 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Albatross

    Just a final shot, so to speak. I've been pondering this morning, what could possibly be offensive about informing some random idiot that they are, indeed, a tad intellectually challenged and I wondered what your opinion was on that sort of thing?

    It seems very odd to me that someone would jump up and down, "denying" the existence of something (the MWP) and then when they've been presented with some peer reviewed evidence of its worldwide existence, they continue to "deny" it.

    It looks to me, as if, you wish to pick and choose which particular peer reviewed papers that you're choosing to believe/accept and I was just wondering at what point you became the final arbiter of what's right and wrong?

    Perhaps, you'd like to explain that position to the rest of us?

    Maybe, you're in the process of producing a paper on it "The Medieval Warm Period - An Early 21st Century Myth - Because I said so"

    Who's the Contrarian now?

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 10:33am on 03 Apr 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    oldgifford at post 217

    It would be nice to read your paper. I believe that all of the scientists are right but they are only REALLY right when they join up the dots and link all of the perspectives. The interesting thing about having an 'artistic' mind is that we process information in a non linear way. By flitting from one source to another, backwards and forwards, we see a different picture to those stuck in linear mode. When we physically view the world we pick out features (google for info) our eyes are flicking backwards and forwards, pinpointing the features and skimming over the predictable data. The trouble with linear analysis is that it may be accurate but it is slow and if there is a mistake early on in the process, the mistake continues to the end. Read Edward de Bono if you ever get spare time.

    Barry Woods
    Shame on you, such blasphemy on the day before Easter Sunday. Your interpretation made me laugh but I am now waiting for the bolt of lightening 'cause I laughed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 1:14pm on 03 Apr 2010, oldgifford wrote:

    223. At 10:33am on 03 Apr 2010, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:

    oldgifford at post 217

    It would be nice to read your paper.

    Thanks www.akk.me.uk

    Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles,
    A Possible Connection

    Always interested in comments negative and positive :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 8:04pm on 03 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Sigh,

    BlunderBunny, Energy and Environment is not officially considered a peer-reviewed journal. Nor is it carried by the ISI. That is not my ruling, that is just the way it is, that is a fact. If you have an issue with that, go and argue and insult those official groups who made that ruling/decision.

    Again, you distort and twist. I have not said that I have demonstrated that there was no MWP, the latest and most comprehensive data to date suggest that the MWP was real, but that it was very likely not global, Mann et al. and other experts in the field have said so, they are saying that not I. Now, I really cannot spell it out any clearer for you than that.

    If someone manages to publish something which challenges Mann et al's. (2009) findings, and asserts that the MWP was indeed truly global, and if their work is not refuted or found to have hideous errors (such as McLean et al., Soon and Baliunas, Loehle and McCulloch etc.) which render the findings practically useless (and that is not me determining that, that is the scientific community's assertion), then the scientific understanding has advanced, and the text books and IPCC can update.

    Regardless, at the end of the day whether or not the MWP was global is irrelevant to the theory of AGW-- the contrarians know that, but it is a rather good trick which has been manufactured to confuse people. Now you will, of course, probably disagree with Dr. Richard Alley and other eminent scientists. That is your choice/problem, and please feel free to contact them directly and tell them that they have it all wrong.

    I am done trying to have a rational and reasonable "discussion" with you. Now you have a nice Easter weekend.

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 8:16pm on 03 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Peakbear @218, Mann et al. do discuss possible mechanisms for the regional nature of the MWP. One possible mechanism is the AMO.

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 9:31pm on 03 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    AdMac @219,

    "Did the HoC committee not read the email where Jones did everything he could to suppress the publication of Ross McKitrick's Urban Heat Island Effect. Phil Jones openly admitted that he wanted to keep this publication out of the IPCC report at all costs, “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    You are misinterpreting the entire situation I'm afraid. You are probably referring to the infamous paper McKitrick and Michaels (2004), hereafter MM. What you fail to say is that their paper is cited in the IPCC report, see section 3.2.2.2 "Urban Heat Islands and Land Use Effects". So no, it was not censored. But should it have been excluded because it was poor science? Probably.

    As an expert in the field, Jones is perfectly entitled to his opinion. It was his understanding that the science in MM was seriously flawed, and with good reason. Scientists are very often very blunt with each other, anyone who has had a paper peer-reviewed knows that. Anyhow, when other scientists tried to replicate MM's paper they found some serious problems. Most notably, they had used degrees instead of radians, and they calculated the statistical significance incorrectly. There were other issues as well. So the reality is that Jones' concerns and reasons for wanting to keep MM out of the IPCC were perfectly legitimate.

    It should also be noted that MM appeared in the journal Climate Research, a journal at which the peer review process was known to have been subverted by contrarians ('skeptics' of AGW) who were simultaneously reading each others' papers. As a result seriously flawed papers made it though peer 'review'.

    Anyhow, when other scientists used the corrected methodology and tests it was found that the 'economics' signals were dramatically reduced and no longer statistically significant--- MM were attempting to show that the observed warming was b/c of the UHI. Well, no, it isn't, as is clearly demonstrated by independent satellite data and radiosonde data and the loss of glacial ice.

    So Jones had very good reason to be concerned and for wanting to keep inferior and seriously flawed science out of the IPCC. In the end, in the interest of "balance" the MM was cited in the IPCC when it probably should not have been.

    So the HoC is probably aware of what transpired in the example you gave and why, and that is why they still found in favour of Jones.

    I encourage you to look into the background and affiliations of McKitrick, and Michaels in particular. You will be disappointed as to their true agenda, and who has been giving them money for their "research".



    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 9:41pm on 03 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    PoitsPlace @215,

    I think you meant to say, or should have said:

    "Those accusing Mann and Jones
    If you have not provided the information on your methods, data collected and data used...you have not been peer reviewed".

    The contrarians submitted their evidence and the evidence they submitted (not surprisingly) was unsuccessful in convincing the bi-partisan HoC committee of any serious wrong doing. They did find some problems with how FOI requests were dealt with, so it was not a white wash.

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 10:12pm on 03 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    oldgifford @ #217

    With regard to Jaworowski, you should note that the journal he published his articles in is not peer-reviewed and the rest of the scientific community does not agree with him.

    I'm not at my normal computer and hence don't have my usual links to hand, but here is his Wikipedia entry:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski

    You've mentioned your own paper (I think you have done so before). Is there any chance that we can see it?

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 10:20pm on 03 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    juile_101 @ #114

    Sorry, I missed your post before!

    Thanks for the clarification regarding the shellfish proxy studies.

    Based on the points you made, would you say that the coral proxies remain more reliable indicators of past temperature than the new shellfish ones?

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 10:29pm on 03 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Some peple here are very well informed. It is odd how the 'big' oil funded denial machine, doesn't have as nearly as much money for PR as all the AGW advocacy groups.. (climate audit, watts up have to rattle the tip jar to fund massivley increased bandwidth)

    How to talk to a sceptic. (link found on RealClimate)
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

    to lighten the mood again (sceptics have more fun - worked at woodstock)
    found on a blog:

    "It's late fall and the Indians on a remote reservation in South Dakota asked their new chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild.

    Since he was a chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky, he couldn't tell what the winter was going to be like.

    Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared.

    But, being a practical leader, after several days, he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, 'Is the coming winter going to be cold?'

    'It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold,' the meteorologist at the weather service responded.

    So the chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared.

    A week later, he called the National Weather Service again. 'Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?'

    'Yes,' the man at National Weather Service again replied, 'it's going to be a very cold winter.'

    The chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.

    Two weeks later, the chief called the National Weather Service again. 'Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?'

    'Absolutely, ' the man replied. 'It's looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters we've ever seen.'

    'How can you be so sure?' the chief asked.

    The weatherman replied, 'The Indians are collecting firewood like crazy."





    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 10:54pm on 03 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 233. At 01:23am on 04 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @ Albatross, numerous:

    If you want to know the time that Steve McIntyre informed the parliamentary commission then ask him yourself, CA is not RC.

    As for TomP, if he had not noticed an error then it is almost certain that someone else would. TomP was given credit for spotting the error. TomP is still allowed to post at CA. CA is not RC.

    McLean et al and MWP?

    With Loehle and McCulloch every complaint that I am aware of also applies to 'mainstream' climate papers where they 'don't matter'. Some of the issues were brought to the attention of RC by posts at CA but they were NOT credited. RC is not CA.

    The objections against Soon and Baliunas were primarily the use of precipitation proxies and some grid cell issues. You need to be made aware that not only did Mann use precipitation proxies but in some cases he got them on the wrong continent let alone grid cell. Of course that 'didn't matter'.

    To criticize the use by others of precipitation proxies when you not only use them yourself but also use tree-ring data that the collectors never intended to be used as a temperature proxy and also use sediment data known to be contaminated by building work upside-down seems strange to say the least.

    But, of course, that 'doesn't matter'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 04:38am on 04 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Rob,

    You are right, CA is not RC, RC is run by real climate scientists. And as far as I know, RC do not investigate IP addresses of visitors like CA has done.

    Yes, McI acknowledged TomP, I note that he did not thank him. You are squirming--TomP found it and none of McI's ardent acolytes. And here is something else interesting, he made the original post on 26 February. TomP notified McI of his error on 1 March. So despite all his acolytes having access to the PDF file to critique it for two days (and it is busy blog) not one of his 'eagle-eyed' acolytes had spotted the mistake-- in fact, they praised it (incl. Loehle). Not to mention the fact that some of his closer allies like RomanM, bender and Mosher probably proof-read it for him. His fans clearly just tow the line and do not apply their critical thinking skills. Then again, their skepticism is clearly uni-directional as demonstrated by the fact that McI doe snot see it fit to audit papers by skeptics (e.g., McLean et al).


    Yes, the way I wrote the sentence it may sound like I was suggesting the McLean paper was about the MWP (when it is of course not), my point was it is one of the many contrarian papers which have been solidly refuted after publication.

    There were other objections about the Soon and Baliunas paper than the ones you chose to cite here. You are being incredibly Disingenuous. Being a CA acolyte, you should know that there were three primary (and damning) criticisms of the Soon and Baliunas paper, see here for details:

    http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2003/prrl0319.html

    You are right, the errors found in Mann's work in the past make a small difference, a difference that are well within the uncertainty-- that is why it does not change their conclusions. Also,the hockey-shape curve has been corroborated by numerous independent proxy temperature reconstructions using everything from sediments to corals.

    McIntyre and you know that, but the whole point is to make mountains out of molehills, smear and harass scientists. He uses dog whistle techniques and his acolytes are only too happy to disseminate the noise/prpaganda. This fact has long been established. So I agree with you, in the greater scheme of things "it doesn't matter"; "it" being McI.

    McI has published one peer-reviewed paper, way back in 2004. Recently his blog reads more like a gossip column, he has to keep the rhetoric going, delay and confuse in lieu of science. McI recently admitted to the Globe and Mail recently that "I’ve got to keep feeding the blog.” So "feeding the blog" is much more important to him than the science, he is disinterested in the science and has no interest in advancing it. It is much easier to throw stones and feed his acolytes the gossip they wish to hear (e.g., see my post at 214).

    Now what is really telling about the HoC committee is that McKitrick, McIntyre and other 'skeptics' all had the opportunity to craft and submit evidence to make a convincing case, yet such was the vacuity of their 'evidence' that it had no bearing on the committee's findings. And that has got to hurt, big time.

    History is going to paint a very sad and damning picture of CA and M&M, not to mention its uncritical followers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 07:56am on 04 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    In 10 years time, 9 out of 10 people will probably be claiming, Inever 'really' believed in catastrophic man-made global warming.

    thanks to the internet, those politicians and media people that were browbeating everybody about it, will not be able to pretend otherwise.

    Yes, RealClimate is not Climate Audit, may we all be very thankful for that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 08:50am on 04 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 237. At 10:20am on 04 Apr 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    236. At 08:50am on 04 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.


    Kinda reminds me of the days, not so long ago, when the mods happily allowed through here the notions of a collective that included the advocacy of jailing those who views which did not totally support, and hence enhance, 'the narrative'. Even with the odd 'who are you.. really?' dark mutter.

    Alive and feisty still, though. If choosing odd targets, as again ably demonstrated by BBC climate analyst and objective reporter Roger Harrabin's editorial guide Ms. Abbess, as she and another not-so-merry crew revel in the re-education of the Guardian for straying from the path.

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 11:04am on 04 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "We be many"

    Oh yeah? As a matter of fact, most people are bored senseless with this sort of religious fanaticism. Look at the size of the cars people drive, or would drive if they could afford it. Look at the proportion of people who voted "the wrong way" in the Science Museum's "Show me the proof" web vote.

    By the way, did the Science Museum actually make a representation on behalf of the people, as they promised they would, to the powers that be at Copenhagen?

    I think the Science Museum conveniently forgot their representation when the message from the people became: "most of us are not convinced by the supposed "scientific proof", most of us don't care very much about climate change, and most of us wish our governments would repair our economies instead of taking everyone for a ride with their expenses."

    I'll bet David Cameron could regain his lead if only he openly admitted he was wrong about climate science, wishes he hadn't been photographed on a snow junket with huskies, and wishes to dissociate himself from Greenpeace religious fanatics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 11:32am on 04 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    At least Lovelock has the honesty to admit he is against democracy:

    "It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while." (in the article entitled "Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change", The Guardian, Monday March 29.)

    But really, anti-democratic and/or violent religious nutters are all psychotic , aren't they?

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 12:16pm on 04 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    @Albatross #228 who wrote...
    "I think you meant to say, or should have said:

    "Those accusing Mann and Jones
    If you have not provided the information on your methods, data collected and data used...you have not been peer reviewed".

    The contrarians submitted their evidence and the evidence they submitted (not surprisingly) was unsuccessful in convincing the bi-partisan HoC committee of any serious wrong doing. They did find some problems with how FOI requests were dealt with, so it was not a white wash."


    The fact that you could confuse an appointed committee dealing with legalities with the scientific concept of "peer review" is worthy or ridicule not permitted in this forum.

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 3:16pm on 04 Apr 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    In an organisation like UEA, funded almost entirely by us the UK taxpayers, why on earth should Jones or anyone else ever be publishing scientific papers without revealing the data and methods they used to achieve their results?.

    Without release of data and methods, how can the validity of their results ever be proved?. No one can ever replicate them. If their work cannot be replicated, how can it be anything more than hearsay?.

    Even if climate science was still a quiet little backwater with no influence on our lives, its appallingly low scientific standards would be a disgrace. With the importance its science has been given it threatens to be a national calamity.

    My understanding is that Graham Stringer the panel chairman was alone on the panel in having a reputable scientific qualification and that he was outvoted by the non scientists on the panel.

    Beddington, Slingo and Watson have I am sure plenty of scientific qualifications, but they did not appear to have access or any interest in the panel submissions. Their complacency in the face of this impending catastrophy for the reputation British Science was breathtaking.

    Professor Acton had been well briefed (presumably by Jones), but his degree is in History and who amongst us can imagine how a man like him (as he appeared) can possibly ever earn his £489,000 per annum salary.

    Richard may draw what comfort he can from this enquiry, but to me it looks like a farce.

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 3:36pm on 04 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #241 bandythebane wrote:

    "Professor Acton had been well briefed (presumably by Jones), but his degree is in History"

    He sounds ideally qualified to me -- after all, what is climate science if not history?

    Consider the method:
    (1) Look at the present to get indications of what the past was like. (2) Assume that the future will be like what the past would have been like on the assumption that present indications are reliable (in other words, choose the right tree).
    (3) Extrapolate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 4:37pm on 04 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 241: "Without release of data and methods, how can the validity of their results ever be proved?. No one can ever replicate them. If their work cannot be replicated, how can it be anything more than hearsay?"

    Dr James Hansen at NASA has managed to reproduce Jones's result. He did so without needing to know Jones's methods or data Jones used - that's because he did the work himself from scratch. As anyone can do.

    The Japanese Meterological Agency using NOAA data have also managed to reproduce Jones's result independentally.

    The real discrace is that skeptics are trying to pretend that the validity of the result rests on Jone's releasing every step and data file. It doesn't. Even if Jones had never existed we would still have that scientific result from other sources.

    These inquiries are not a whitewash at all, they are simply manned by competent people who are willing, unlike the skeptics, to understand reality.

    As for Jones specifically, he has has published both explaination of his methods and the data he used. This is sufficient enough to enable someone to attempt to reproduce Jones's results using his methods.

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 5:11pm on 04 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #243 infinity wrote:

    "Dr James Hansen at NASA has managed to reproduce Jones's result. He did so without needing to know Jones's methods or data Jones used - that's because he did the work himself from scratch. As anyone can do."

    I think you're missing what has to be repeatable in science. Two astrologers can "manage to reproduce" each other's "results" in the sense that both can agree that "when the Moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars, then peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars". Two Tarot card readers can "manage to reproduce" each other's "results" in the sense that both can agree that the happy squirrel card portends death.

    That's not the sort of thing that needs to be repeatable in science, or what counts as "success" when it is repeated. Two plagiarists will "manage to reproduce" each other's "results" as long as they plagiarize from the same source!

    What needs to be repeatable in science are predicted observations. For example, every time you heat water, it boils at 100 degrees. As far as I can see, climate science has successfully predicted almost no observations at all, let alone been able to predict them with such regular success that they can be repeated at will.

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 6:48pm on 04 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 246. At 7:21pm on 04 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Bandythebane @241:

    "My understanding is that Graham Stringer the panel chairman was alone on the panel in having a reputable scientific qualification and that he was outvoted by the non scientists on the panel."

    That would be wrong about Stringer being the lone scientist of repute on the committee. We have been over this already on this thread, you guys are just rehashing the same misinformation. Read this thread carefully and the information about the real scientist on the committee and Mr. Stringer's rather intriguing background and views on some things. Dr. Naysmith was the reputable scientist on the committee and he supported their findings. Also read this,

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/31/climategate-investigations-round-1-cru-exonerated/

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 7:22pm on 04 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bowman @ #244

    You're expectations are unrealistic. We're not talking about theoretical maths or logic here. We're discussing the science of a dynamic system.

    For example, if you look at the GISS and HADCRUT temperature data, they are produced using different stations. The temperature distribution across the Earth is never quite the same on different days, so even if the methodology was exactly the same, the chances of the 2 datasets coming out with exactly the same mean temperature for any day are very small..... but they would be expected to average out at the same over time.

    However, it isn't even that simple. First, we have to add in the fact that one set does not include any data for the North Pole. The scientists also have to cope with the fact that weather stations were not originally set up with global monitoring in mind, with multiple changes of equipment, site and technique over the course of the temperature record.

    Then we have the Radiosonde data, which was hit by a problem of its own when it was discovered that the temperature sensor was inadequately shaded from the sun, meaning that the daytime readings were too high. Similar problems have dogged the ocean temperature records.

    Given all of the complications, there is actually a remarkably good agreement in temperature data between the various sources. Take a look at Figure 6 in the following Skeptical Science article:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

    In fact, the entire article shows just how well the various different bits of evidence for AGW fit together. The article links to the relevant scientific papers to back up what it is saying.

    If you look at each piece of evidence in isolation you might get the impression that the evidence for AGW is unconvincing...... and this is invariably the approach that sceptics use. However, it is when you look at all of the separate pieces of evidence together (the "big picture") that you start to understand why the scientific community is convinced that AGW is happening.

    Let's put things into even sharper perspective. A while ago, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in the GISS temperature record. However, this actually made around 1/1000 of a degree Celsiuis difference to the record. You'll see more on this, plus further information on temperature datasets here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

    Given your previous posts, you may also find the following Skeptical Science article interesting. It explains which aspects of AGW science are understood with the greatest certainty and why:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-science-settled.html

    With both of the above articles, you can access further information, plus the peer-reviewed literature supporting it by following the links in blue.

    PS. Happy Easter Everyone!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 7:26pm on 04 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Infinity @243, don't forget that the Clear Climate Code were able to reproduce the NASA GISS global SAT record. So we have,

    HadCRUT,GISS, JMA, Russian global SAT analysis, NCDC, satellite (UAH and RSS) and radiosondes (RATPAC) all in excellent agreement about the observed warming globally.

    Something the denialists have been unable and unwilling to do. Why? Because they know that when they reproduce it they will get the same answer, and their argument would go down in flames. Much easier to (try and) poke holes and spread myths.

    Those in denial are very desperate and it is showing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 7:50pm on 04 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Poitsplace @240,

    Oh dear, now you seem to be going the route of blunderbunny. Resorting to ridicule and insults in lieu of substance.

    That said, maybe we are just getting our wires crossed. The first para was poking fun at you, and the fact that the "skeptics" rarely publish their papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals, and oftentimes when they do, those papers are very quickly refuted by their peers (e.g., McLean et al.; there are of course many more examples).

    The second para was a separate thought/issue, maybe I should have made that clear. Namely, that they had a golden opportunity to make a convincing case to the HoC committee and they failed. Now instead of getting mad at the committee or me, please redirect some of that anger and frustration at the incompetent 'skeptics' who botched their evidence to HoC. They failed you. Really, I cannot overstate the vacuity of their 'evidence', not to mention the fact that they were all practically singing from the same sheet of misinformation sourced from contrarian blogs.

    Now before you try and ridicule someone, first try and entertain all possibilities. Or, please ask for a clarification.

    Anyhow, the contrarians here are just rehashing the same debunked points and disseminating the same myths. I'm going to let the contrarian whitewash resume and enjoy the rest of my easter with my family.

    Infinity, welcome back and good luck to you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 8:12pm on 04 Apr 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Happy easter to you Paul and everyone else too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 9:20pm on 04 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    I don't know where my previous comment has gone, that makes sense of a number of following posts, the way the BBC has modearted it makes out I said it:

    But the Greenpeace guy that wrote this:

    "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

    And we be many, but you be few"

    Is not just some activist...

    He is the communications director for Greenpaeace in India.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/04/greenpeace-we-know-where-you-live.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 10:39pm on 04 Apr 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Well Richard, you got one thing right. The two sides (pro and anti AGW) are still polariised!
    It would be rather humerous if it weren't so serious. We live in the 21st century with amazing technologies all around us but we still rely on 19th century technology for energy production!
    And they call us "Homo Sapiens"!

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 10:52pm on 04 Apr 2010, climateheretic wrote:

    If the earth's climate is getting hotter then as per UN, Greenpeace,WWF, Catlin Artic Survey report (ahem), BBC, UK government and Uncle Tom Cobbledy et al, then one would expect the artic ice to be melting, no ?

    We have heard from numerous bodies that the arctic will be ice free in 10, 20, 50 years.

    Turns out this ain't true and artic ice is at the same level it was at from 1979 - 2000.

    Answer that one , all ye believers in the great fiery apocalpyse that is caused by the evil carbon dioxide !



    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/04/death-spiral-for-warmists.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 00:24am on 05 Apr 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    Infinity,I presume the Jones "result" you were referring to in 243 related to the instrumental record which hardly qualifies as an experiment. Since they are all using variants of the same flawed (mainly NOAA) data base it would be quite surprising if Hansen and the Japanese couldn't manage to fiddle some kind of fit.

    I wasn't aware that Hansen ever did anything similar in relation to the Jones'work on say palaeo-dendrology. This involves a lot more interpolation and cannot be reliably replicated without knowing precisely what was done.

    When I went to school you had to write up your experiments with a section on "measurements" and another on "method". If you omitted anything on either you got nought out of ten - pretty much what I would give Jones.

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 01:02am on 05 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    248: I couldn't say it better

    Re 254: "Since they are all using variants of the same flawed (mainly NOAA) data base it would be quite surprising if Hansen and the Japanese couldn't manage to fiddle some kind of fit."

    but what does this have to do with the accusation that the science is uncertain because *jones hid data*?

    It sounds like you are retreating from such a claim. better yet if your fellow skeptics would abandon that silly claim also.

    This new complaint of yours doesn't fly either. The NOAA database provides raw station data, which is unadjusted with only QA performed. That too shows a similar pattern of warming.

    Furthermore if you didn't trust the NOAA's QA'd results for whatever reason, the the station data is available from national met offices. Someone could collect that data and reproduce what NOAA has done.

    All the way down the science is sound. The skeptics don't have a case whatsoever.

    Complain about this comment

  • 256. At 01:05am on 05 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 257. At 08:16am on 05 Apr 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    251. At 9:20pm on 04 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:
    I don't know where my previous comment has gone, that makes sense of a number of following posts, the way the BBC has modearted it makes out I said it:
    But the Greenpeace guy that wrote this:
    "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
    And we be many, but you be few"
    Is not just some activist...
    He is the communications director for Greenpaeace in India.


    It has been referred, which in theory means 'someone' has objected. The reasons would be interesting, if one ever hears. Maybe its the new 'watertight oversight' lockdown option? Maybe it will be restored. Of course there is the catchall off topic technique, which can be applied anytime, if often in a hard to fathom manner.

    On some blogs I have tried to point out that one swallow does not a summer make, but had not until now fully appreciated the commenter's seniority. Hence my view that the organisation's response would be key. So far, they seem to have been taking tips on managing poor PR from our politicians here and far from nipping a bud seem intent on bringing in a JCB to keep on digging through an entire orchard's worth of barrel bases.

    Which rather suggests the 'fight' preferred in some quarters is not for anything but rather merely against a lot.

    Pity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 08:56am on 05 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #247 Paul Briscoe wrote:

    "You're expectations are unrealistic. We're not talking about theoretical maths or logic here. We're discussing the science of a dynamic system."

    My expectations are perfectly realistic for the science of other dynamic systems such as the solar system.

    Your relaxed attitude to repeatability will yield nothing worth believing. That is why climate science doesn't deserve to be called science, and doesn't deserved to be believed. It's what people believe if they haven't thought about what makes a scientific theory belief-worthy. Rigour isn't enough.

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 11:06am on 05 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    To make sense of some comments following my post that has apparently been complained about:(removed - referred to mods)

    GreenPEACE: (a Communications Director)

    "we know where you live'

    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html

    "The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws."

    Full article and context in the link above:

    Reported here:
    Science Blog of the Year (2008)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/03/climate-craziness-of-the-week-greenpeace-posts-threats/

    And here (website of the author of the 'Hocket Stick Illusion)
    just heard him discussion program on the bbc (so a safe link)

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/4/quote-of-the-day.html#comments

    aricle about his bbc world service interviwe here:
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/31/bbc-world-service.html

    I don't see how anybody could complain about the above and get it removed.

    Demonstrates the 'political' climate with respect to (man made) climate change, in context of the MP's responses, they just look ridiculous.


    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 11:16am on 05 Apr 2010, SheffTim wrote:

    253. "Then one would expect the Arctic ice to be melting, no?"

    Warmth and cold wasn't evenly distributed across the Arctic this winter. For reasons explained on this page (a negative Arctic Oscillation produced areas of high pressure over parts of the Arctic...)
    http://sites.google.com/site/whythe2009winterissocold/

    Ice growth in the Bering Sea (N. Pacific) was sufficient that the amount of ice-covered Arctic Ocean has nearly returned to the 1979-2000 average. Being newly formed this ice will be thin and unlikely to remain for long. The Bering Straight is usually ice free in summer. e.g.
    http://www.capetocape.org.uk/Marker%20pages/Bering%20Strait.htm

    Over other areas of the Arctic Ocean it has been warmer than average. On the Atlantic side of the Arctic, ice coverage has been unusually low in the Atlantic sector; including the Barents Sea, part of the East Greenland Sea, and in the Davis Strait.

    There's a recent video report on this year's Bearing Sea ice (Alaska Dispatch) here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMF0CCBNsKw&feature=player_embedded#

    Just as one hot summer is not evidence of global warming, nor a cold winter evidence of global cooling, so one season's sea-ice (in one part of the Arctic) can't be used to determine long-term trends.

    Overall the long-term sea ice trend is still downwards, and it is highly unlikely that we'll see the same conditions that caused this year's winter again next winter.
    Graph of the long term trend - 1979-2010 - here:
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure3.png

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 12:35pm on 05 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Albatross @248:

    "Those in denial are very desperate and it is showing."

    You seem to be a bit too well-informed, too off-pat with your answers, too passionate and a bit too arrogant to be just your normal, interested, member of the public who normally comments on these forums.

    Which makes me suspect that you're an insider.

    Either that, or you probably have no social life worth mentioning.

    If you are an insider, then just who is showing desperation now?

    Care to share your real name with the rest of us?

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 12:51pm on 05 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bowman @ #258

    "My expectations are perfectly realistic for the science of other dynamic systems such as the solar system."

    Bowman,

    The solar system and the Earth's climate system are hardly directly comparable. Nevertheless, Scientists would probably face many of the same problems as climate scientists if they were trying to measure gradual changes in the solar system.

    "Your relaxed attitude to repeatability will yield nothing worth believing. That is why climate science doesn't deserve to be called science, and doesn't deserved to be believed. It's what people believe if they haven't thought about what makes a scientific theory belief-worthy. Rigour isn't enough."

    With respect, Bowman, there isn't really such a thing as "repeatability" in a multi-variable dynamic system (as you never get exactly the same conditions twice). This is why your approach is unrealistic and why a different scientific approach is required.

    Still, if you think you know better than the entire scientific community, you should write a paper on the subject and see if you can get it published.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 12:59pm on 05 Apr 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    is it too much to ask that the BBC will run the Greenpeace "we know where you live" story?

    is it too much to ask that all will condemn violent behaviour, either physical or verbal, from all sides?

    is it too much to ask that we can all unite to condemn Greenpeace and withdraw any support or donations until the offending material is removed from their website, the author is sacked (not asked to resign) and Greenpeace make an unreserved apology to everybody?

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 2:57pm on 05 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #262 Paul Briscoe wrote:

    "The solar system and the Earth's climate system are hardly directly comparable."

    They can be compared in one crucial respect: one is lawlike in its behaviour, and therefore predictable. The other isn't lawlike, and therefore isn't predictable.

    Climate scientists think that they have a reason to think the future climate will resemble the past climate, even though there are no lawlike connections between them. That represents a deep failure to understand laws, lawlike behaviour, induction, evidence, the nature of prediction, etc., etc.. In my opinion it is folly on a grand scale, misinformed by half-baked epistemology from the seventeenth century and earlier.

    "if you think you know better than the entire scientific community, you should write a paper on the subject and see if you can get it published."

    1. How dare you compare the miserable efforts of climate scientists with the work of physicists? You make an arrogant and mistaken assumption when you lump them together -- conveniently for you -- under the single heading "scientific community"! Climate science is to physics what Dan Quayle was to Jack Kennedy. I have studied physics, and Mr Climate Scientist, you are no physicist!

    2. We are given to believe (by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) that the exclusionary and protectionist activities of Phil Jones were "in line with common practice in the climate science community", and you now suggest that to be the beneficiary of such bent behaviour in peer-reviewed publication is a reliable endorsement? Pull the other one!

    3. I am obviously addressing deeper and simpler questions than are addressed in the peer-reviewed "literature" of climate science -- about the nature of evidence, repeatability, induction, laws, etc.. The "peers" wouldn't have a clue about that stuff. They don't think on that level. They look at the numerical minutiae and don't think about the nature of laws.

    4. I have no interest in academic publication, as I think the spoken word is superior to the written word, and peer review is irredeemably corrupted by the love of mediocrity and conformism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 3:01pm on 05 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Why not report it BBC?

    It was a greenpeace COMMUNICATION Director:

    that wrote it in an article about climategate:

    "Will the real ClimateGate please stand up"

    on the offical greenpeace website..

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 4:16pm on 05 Apr 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    The science, Infinity, isn't "uncertain because Jones hid the data", it is uncertain because it is uncertain.

    The largely worthless papers Jones, Briffa, Mann et al produced regarding climates before there was instrumental data affect the issue not one jot. I rather suspect that the instrumental "weather station data" isn't much kop either even if there it was possible to get at it before the charlatans got their hands on it.

    Perhaps the satellite and ocean data is better. I am in no position to judge, but it hasn't been going long enough for it to tell you anything very meaningful.

    I just think that if people are planning to take billions of our money from us they should not be doing so at the behest of scientists who e.g. don't know what a "representative sample" is, don't know how the centre their data or assess confidence limits when they are doing principal components analysis and repeatedly contradict themselves on basic issues when challenged.

    Don't take my word fro all this. Just read Andrew Montford's book on the Hockey-stick Illusion and you will get it all spelt out in simple layman's terms.

    I think some of the Climategate scientists like e.g. Ken Briffa are well aware of what a pig's ear they have made of all this. Some perhaps aren't and others I suspect may simply be hanging on a few years more so they can collect their pensions before the balloon goes up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 5:59pm on 05 Apr 2010, Rab wrote:

    I was taught that in science a theory is proposed, experiment takes place - with proper controls - to prove or disprove the theory and then there is continuous rechecking as new information or results are obtained. There is a continuous cycle of looking, checking, looking, checking and so on. At this, I find it strange for any scientist to close the book on anything saying 'the argument is over'.
    It isn't so long ago that 'scientists' were fearing that the next ice age was imminent. Let's leave this to real climate scientists - not politicians or scientists in other fields. See Manhattan Decleration on Climate Change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 7:18pm on 05 Apr 2010, jayfurneaux wrote:

    Barry Woods 251. A few on both sides of the climate debate need to calm down.

    Some of the climategate scientists have received death threats, which have been passed onto the police.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/hacked-climate-emails-death-threats.

    Other climate scientists and activists have also received such threats.
    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2766202.htm

    http://www.tierramerica.info/nota.php?lang=eng&idnews=3337

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/advocates-report-death-threats-20091215-kuog.html

    Of course there have always been the poison pen letter writers, the living room extremists and other emotional incontinents that let off steam but would never put words into actions. But...

    Greenpeace has mounted non-violent actions against an individual in the past. The chairman of Union Carbide at the time of the Bhopal plant explosion was charged with culpable homicide, but fled India and refused to return to the trial. Greenpeace served an arrest warrant on him in the USA.

    I don't see "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work." as a threat of harm.

    Less invective, more reasoned discussion. Play nicely in the sand-pit now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 7:40pm on 05 Apr 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @jayfurneaux #268

    yes there have been idiots threatening climate scientists and both sides of this argument condemned the idiots. This is different.

    This is the Gene from Greenpeace India (official Greenpeace - not some idiot emailing a threat to a climate scientist), who is advocating breaking the law and coming after prominent sceptics. No matter how AGWers and Greenpeace try to dress this up.

    The BBC runs many Greenpeace stories showing Greenpeace in a good light, it's time they ran this one

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 8:47pm on 05 Apr 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Bowman at 238 & 239:
    Good God, are you lot still going on about that science museum poll. The reality is that the vast majority of people who visited the Science Museum said that they accepted the mainstream science – i.e. real people who are interested in science said the opposite of your beliefs. Then on a separate online poll, a few thousand people worldwide said the opposite. Only problem with that is that the poll was linked to by the ‘denialosphere’ and the dutiful activists duly went over and voted accordingly! The fact that you think an open access online poll is an academically rigorous form of measurement, just goes to show that your approach to reliable evidence is entirely arbitrary...

    “I'll bet David Cameron could regain his lead if only he openly admitted he was wrong about climate science, wishes he hadn't been photographed on a snow junket with huskies, and wishes to dissociate himself from Greenpeace religious fanatics.”
    a) David Cameron has a lead of 10 points.
    b) There are political parties that believe climate change is a conspiracy. They are called UKIP and the BNP. Unfortunately for you they are on course to win zero seats in the next general election. Your beliefs clearly don’t excite the populous as much as you would like to think...

    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 8:49pm on 05 Apr 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Barry Woods and others (except jayfurneaux) regarding Greenpeace:

    I really do hope you are being sarcastic!

    Environmental activist from organisation with long history or non-violent direct action writes blog suggesting more activism against people whose actions are deemed to harm the environment. How on earth is that a news story? Next you’ll be berating the BBC for not covering the recent revelation that the Pope is a Catholic...

    The BBC didn’t cover in any detail the recent revelations that fossil fuel lobbyists have been paid millions to spread disinformation on the internet about climate change. The reason they did not, of course, is because everyone knows it is happening and it is not news either. Now, if there was evidence that scientists from the UEA had been beating up fossil fuel lobbyists, then that would be a news story!

    Barry @251: the creepy blog you link to is that of a self-professed ‘Conservative scientist’. Personally, I prefer my scientists to be objective. ‘Ideology first’ is always a dodgy path to wander down...

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 9:11pm on 05 Apr 2010, Gea Vox wrote:

    I don't know what anyone's so het-up about... we know the CRU hack was itself a scam, we know that the 'skeptics' accusing scientists of dishonesty (and, BTW, a scientist is, *by definition* a skeptic!) are in fact those profoundly dishonest, disreputable individuals serving an ultra-conservative lobby of interests so tightly bound-up with fossil fuels that their accusations of foul play really is the kettle calling the pots, pans and even the crockery 'black'!

    LOL What a farce!

    Now are we going to get an apology from all the Climate Change Deniers?

    No, we are not... they will lie, twist and deceive, telling us night is day, in the service of their masters.

    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 9:41pm on 05 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    jayfurneaux wrote:

    indeed....

    no justification...
    Anyone making death threats over an unproven scientific theory should be prosecuted.

    It is unfortunate that in the last decade, that those in power and authority, politically and in the media have allowed (I might say encouraged or turned a blind eye) this polarised acrinomous climate to occur:

    In the past 4 months.

    I've been told by Greenpeace:

    "We know where you live"

    Gordon Brown - Prime Minister
    "Flat Earther sceptics" - "anti-science"

    Ed Milliband - Minister of State - Energy and CLIMATE
    'climate Sabatouers'

    For those that observed an 80plus year old labour party member being removed from party conference under anti-terrorism laws. Ed's statement is worrying, if you are sceptical to unprecedented, catastrophic man made global warming..

    Plus of course, outrageous government televisions add, like 'Bedtime stories' aimed at scaring our children with a CO2 monster, this was propaganda..

    Whilst, I sympahtise with Phil Jones' family, and I'm sure some nutters have probably done this.. It is exactly what Steve Mcintyre and many others have been enduring for years.. No one objected to this from in authority for years..

    Phil Jones probably has not has as much sympathy as he deserved - due to his 'Cheering News' climategate email on hearing of the death of a leading sceptical scientists.

    The Guardians George Monbiot. (just try climate denial - search on the guardians website

    Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial. (2006)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/21/comment.georgemonbiot

    Rightwing climate change deniers are all for free speech - when it suits them
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/13/weather-snow-climate-change-frank-furedi-witchhunt

    I'm not right wing - George
    How do you think I feel confronted by this.

    I have many friends in climate research and relatives in the green movement that are spokes people that you probably know of...
    We are friends, look after each others children, live our lives...
    Yet George throws this language around

    Followed by this,
    Monbiot's royal flush: Cut out and keep climate change denier cards
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers-monbiot-cards

    Dr David Bellamy - No 1 deniar

    That was despicable.

    I look to the BBC, to challenge any type of this behaviour, especially amongst the media and politicians

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 11:39pm on 05 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bowman @ #264

    "They can be compared in one crucial respect: one is lawlike in its behaviour, and therefore predictable. The other isn't lawlike, and therefore isn't predictable."

    Not quite correct! As has been discussed in previous threads, the Earth's climate is NOT truly chaotic and aspects of it (most notably temperature) have been successfully predicted using computer models.

    "Climate scientists think that they have a reason to think the future climate will resemble the past climate, even though there are no lawlike connections between them. That represents a deep failure to understand laws, lawlike behaviour, induction, evidence, the nature of prediction, etc., etc.. In my opinion it is folly on a grand scale, misinformed by half-baked epistemology from the seventeenth century and earlier."

    Your opinion, Bowman - nothing more!

    "How dare you compare the miserable efforts of climate scientists with the work of physicists? You make an arrogant and mistaken assumption when you lump them together -- conveniently for you -- under the single heading "scientific community"! Climate science is to physics what Dan Quayle was to Jack Kennedy. I have studied physics, and Mr Climate Scientist, you are no physicist!"

    Less of the "how dare you" please! You may be a physicist, but you clearly have a very biased view of climate scientists. As I've already pointed out, your expectations of climate science are totally unrealistic and your attitude is an insult to the huge number of very talented scientists who work in the field.

    Theoretical physics may be neat and tidy with perfectly reproducible results, but the fact that climate science, ecology, medical science and the like are not does NOT in any way render them inferior sciences to yours! If everyone applied your flawed logic, it would be impossible to study them, which is patently ridiculous. They may not work according to rules that you are familiar with and their slightly "imperfect" nature makes their study more difficult, but the methods used represent sound science and the scientists are deserving of your respect.

    I would also point out that quite a number of physicists work in climate science...... and John Cook, whose Skeptical Science website I linked to, is also a physicist. Did you read his articles?

    "We are given to believe (by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) that the exclusionary and protectionist activities of Phil Jones were "in line with common practice in the climate science community", and you now suggest that to be the beneficiary of such bent behaviour in peer-reviewed publication is a reliable endorsement? Pull the other one!"

    Unless I'm very much mistaken, the comments of the Committee related to releasing data and NOT to the peer-review process. I have seen NO evidence that the peer-review process has been corrupted - just a few emails presented out of context. Do you have REAL evidence for what you claim?

    "I am obviously addressing deeper and simpler questions than are addressed in the peer-reviewed "literature" of climate science -- about the nature of evidence, repeatability, induction, laws, etc.. The "peers" wouldn't have a clue about that stuff. They don't think on that level. They look at the numerical minutiae and don't think about the nature of laws."

    What that statement tells me, Bowman, is that, far from thinking "more deeply", you haven't actually considered the facts objectively at all! You are entitled to your opinion, but given that there are plenty of physicists contributing to climate science, one would imagine that they at least are capable of thinking as deeply as you claim to be able to! Again, you are doing climate scientists a grave injustice to claim that they are incapable of thinking deeply and laterally about their science.

    "I have no interest in academic publication, as I think the spoken word is superior to the written word, and peer review is irredeemably corrupted by the love of mediocrity and conformism."

    I beg to differ! The spoken word, once uttered, can be quickly lost forever. When you put something down in writing it is so much more important to be able to substantiate it........ or else be picked up on it! In my opinion, you shouldn't be expressing in word things that you would not be prepared to submit to writing.

    I'm not impressed, Bowman!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 07:42am on 06 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    i'll dip in again to respiond to 272.

    "profoundly dishonest, disreputable individuals serving an ultra-conservative lobby of interests so tightly bound-up with fossil fuels that their accusations of foul play really is the kettle calling the pots, pans and even the crockery 'black'!"

    i would strongly suggest that you, and anyone else toeing the 'deniers=big oil line' to go look at the list of primary funders at the CRU. This information is freely available.

    Statements like the one above (copied from your post) just show that the loudest, and most ardent supporters of AGW know next to nothing about what they are talking about.

    don't get me wrong- there are some AGW supporters on here that put together a very good argument, and deserve being treated with respect and full attention. You, unfortunatley, and a few others are not among them.

    Finally to pick up on something that's been posted a few times already, but i feel is worth highlighting;

    Richard- was it your intention to deliberatley mislead with the articles title? I mean, i know you're desperate to keep the flow of 'support up' but the inquiry really did NOT do as the title suggests...

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 07:56am on 06 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Yorkurbantree said:

    Barry @251: the creepy blog you link to is that of a self-professed ‘Conservative scientist’. Personally, I prefer my scientists to be objective. ‘Ideology first’ is always a dodgy path to wander down...

    That is your label - Yorkurbantree -
    When you label peopl you deny them their humanity.

    His name is Lubos Motl.

    An Assistant Professor of Physics - Harvard University.

    He uses his real nam on his blog - yorkurbantree
    He puts a photo of himself on his website - yorkurbantree
    He uses his real name at the greenpeace website - yorkurbantree
    He resigned from HArvard and returened to czech republic, to be able to have scientific freedom - yorkurbantree.

    I imagine Lubos Motl could tell you - yorkurbantree - a thing or 2 about recieving anonymous threats and abuse over a number of years..

    He has posted in the Guardian comments section and on various pro agw science blogs...

    I suggest you pop over to his blog, and chat directly with him, and debat your 'idealogy with him.

    Instead of hiding behind a anonymous user name, besmirching him o the bbc website...


    We could always invite him over to stop by here..

    I'm sure the bbc environment team would welcome a contribution to the debate from a respected physicist:

    Czech Luboš Motl is a Czech theoretical physicist who works on string theory and conceptual problems of quantum gravity. Motl was born in Plzeň. He received his master degree from the Charles University in Prague, and his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Rutgers University and has been a Harvard Junior Fellow (2001-2004) and assistant professor (2004-2007) at Harvard University.


    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 08:28am on 06 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #274 Paul Briscoe wrote:

    "I'm not impressed, Bowman!"

    Let's get back to basics:

    I suggest we return to an example I used in an earlier thread that helps to illustrate the problem. Suppose you give an infant some flat coloured shapes -- discs, triangles, squares, etc. in assorted colours. By sheer coincidence, all of the squares happen to be green.

    The infant extrapolates from the shapes he has been given as follows: "all squares have four corners" and "all squares are green".

    The first extrapolation is OK, because with plane figures there is a lawlike connection (i.e. a strict correlation) between the number of sides and the number of corners. The second extrapolation is not OK, because it enshrines a mere coincidence as something universal. (Or to put it another way, it treats an accidental generalization as a law.)

    Obviously, whether the extrapolation is OK or not OK is a matter of "how the world beyond the infant's experience is arranged". The infant doesn't have to know with certainty how the world beyond his experience is arranged to extrapolate reliably -- we never have certainty -- but if he is to have a decent reason to think his extrapolation can be trusted, he has to have some reason for thinking that more than mere coincidence in involved, and that involves testing his guesses.

    There is a long philosophical tradition dating from Plato (and earlier) that treats the human mind as not really belonging to the physical world at all. It's supposedly "spiritual" rather than "made out of matter" like the brain. Even people who say the mind is part of the physical world tend to suffer from bad habits of thought that can be traced back to this tradition. For example, it is very common to suppose the mind is essentially a "centre of consciousness" like a cinema-goer looking at a "screen" of his own expereinces, which might not reflect what the outside world is like at all because it's "cut off from the outside".

    Within that tradition, a theory of knowledge has become firmly established over the centuries in which it is assumed that all the "cinema-goer" can rely on are "things on the screen of his own experiences". This is the equivalent of the infant relying solely on the exclusively green squares he has been given already. This tradition misinforms methodology in psychology, much of recent statistics, and yes, climate science. It doesn't matter much what we call it -- "internalist" or "inductivist" or whatever -- its most important feature is neglect of testing and law, and reliance instead on "internal experiences" -- which in the context of science means prior obervations.

    We don't have a reason to think there are lawlike connections between past climate and future climate, and plenty of good reasons for thinking there aren't. The way to find out is to try to understand the climate, not to try to get a computer model to simply ape what the climate has done so far, to the best of our very limited knowledge.

    Complain about this comment

  • 278. At 08:59am on 06 Apr 2010, Dave_oxon wrote:

    @Bowman,#277, #264 (and others)

    On one of Richard's previous blogs we discussed the issue of inductivism at length. A brief excerpt of our discussion:

    I wrote: my post #500...shows the attempt to de-couple the numerical effects of tuning from the science embodied in the purely theoretical aspects of the model.

    you replied: Maybe I've been unfair/uncharitable in failing to see the purely theoretical aspects of the model. If so, I'm sorry, because I'm genuinely interested. But what would a "purely theoretical aspect" of a model look like...?

    I replied: Many processes within the models are represented by their respective mathematical models of the physical processes involved. For a specific example I refer you to the paper of Hansen et al describing one of the earlier versions of their GCM:
    "Efficient three-dimensional global models for climate studies: Models I and II", Hansen et al, Monthly Weather Review, 111(4) pp609


    You didn't subsequently respond to this post.

    Yet, on this thread, you have written such things as:

    #242:(1) Look at the present to get indications of what the past was like...(2) Assume that the future will be like what the past...(3)Extrapolate
    #258:That is why climate science doesn't deserve to be called science
    #264:Climate scientists think that they have a reason to think the future climate will resemble the past climate, even though there are no lawlike connections between them
    and:4. I have no interest in academic publication...


    I can only assume that your comment about "having no interest in" the literature means that the only information you have about the practise of climate science comes from the internet/blogs. If that is so, it means you are very ill informed and your opinions (as that is all your posts amount to if not backed up by research) count for nought.

    In #277 you return once again to your arguments about inductivism:
    We don't have a reason to think there are lawlike connections between past climate and future climate

    Yet this is no longer a valid argument as I have pointed you to the literature that shows that this is NOT the methodology being followed as the models clearly contain theory based relationships.

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 08:59am on 06 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ richard. i see you've changed the title. A comment on why would be nice- but well done for doing so (and i'm not being sarcastic here), if it was a genuine mistake, you've corrected it- that is all we can ask.

    oh, and you all may want to read this

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100032648/greenpeace-goes-postal/

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 09:11am on 06 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bowman @ #277

    "We don't have a reason to think there are lawlike connections between past climate and future climate, and plenty of good reasons for thinking there aren't. The way to find out is to try to understand the climate, not to try to get a computer model to simply ape what the climate has done so far, to the best of our very limited knowledge."

    Bowman, I'm only interested in what the science tells us.

    There are good reasons to believe that, over the course of Earth's history, temperature has been determined primarily by 2 factors - solar intensity and CO2. At the risk of insulting your intelligence, I suggest that you watch the following informative video on the subject:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU

    So in fact, there ARE strong connections between past and present climate. The problem lies in the fact that there is a lot of natural variability in climate which needs to be filtered out before the underlying trends can be studied in detail. This doesn't, as you appear to suggest, invalidate the science - it just makes it more challenging. As I said in my last post, if we used your approach nobody would even attempt to study the climate....... and that's just folly.

    You are doing a massive disservice to the scientists to suggest that they are not trying to understand the science of climate..... and in fact your suggestion only betrays your own ignorance and prejudice. Physicists (amongst others) have put a great deal of thought into climate change. Consider the following pronouncement by the American Institute of Physics:

    http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

    So this IS sound science, Bowman - it just doesn't sit within the neat little boxes you seem to expect it to!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 281. At 09:56am on 06 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #280 Paul Briscoe wrote:

    "Bowman, I'm only interested in what the science tells us."

    Since you have no criteria of your own to judge what is and what isn't science, you are simply a conformist who takes the word of the authorities rather than thinking for yourself. And nothing could be less scientific than that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 10:04am on 06 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #278 Dave_oxon wrote:

    "You didn't subsequently respond to this post."

    I didn't bother responding because the paper you referred me to did not address the issue that I have been banging on about for months. In fact it was a drearily complicated bit of busywork from an old-fashioned inductivist that seemed to have no interest at all in questions of BELIEF and REASONS for belief, which is what we are all really talking about here.

    The worst thing about peer-reviewed papers is that they are constitutionally incapable of asking fundamental, discipline-threatening questions. They're a complete waste of time for this sort of discussion.

    Really, I'm not interested in anything someone else may say, because a person only understands an issue to the extent that he/she is able to put it in his/her own words.

    Complain about this comment

  • 283. At 10:04am on 06 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #281 bowman

    i have no idea what your definition of 'thinking for yourself' is. if you exclude all authority figures (and this should include your parents, teachers, lecturers etc as well) what are you left with? imho you're heading down the cartesian route to solipsism.

    much better to chose your authority figures carefully with a sceptical eye (something most 'sceptics' seem to fail to do).

    Complain about this comment

  • 284. At 10:32am on 06 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Bowman at #282

    "Really, I'm not interested in anything someone else may say..."

    Indeed - that's the impression you've been consistently giving!

    Complain about this comment

  • 285. At 10:43am on 06 Apr 2010, Dave_oxon wrote:

    @Bowman, #282:

    I didn't bother responding because the paper you referred me to did not address the issue that I have been banging on about for months.

    No it didn't, it answered the specific question you asked i.e. "what does a theoretical aspect of a model look like".

    If you are going to ask questions and then decide on completely different criteria as to what constitutes an acceptable answer then meaningful debate with you becomes impossible!

    Complain about this comment

  • 286. At 11:22am on 06 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #277 who wrote...
    "The infant extrapolates from the shapes he has been given as follows: "all squares have four corners" and "all squares are green"."

    Exactly...and mother nature has not been kind to us with respect to climatology. The cooling in the 40s (which was blamed on aerosols) and the recent warming were blamed on man's activity...when in reality there was a very detectable change in the long term ocean cycles. The warming since the 40s is the actual number we should be using to determine the warming rate, not the rate since the late 70s.

    The rate since the late 40s is about .6C per century. This is hardly alarming...and even less alarming when you realize it appears there was a pre-existing warming trend. Even assuming 100% of the warming was from CO2 forcing and doubling the rate (just to be safe), we find that in order to keep warming to under 2C...all we have to do is limit ourselves to burning only 100% of the fossil fuel reserves thought to exist. Seems pretty easy to avoid thermogeddon to me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 287. At 11:22am on 06 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #285 Dave_oxon wrote:

    "No it didn't, it answered the specific question you asked i.e. "what does a theoretical aspect of a model look like"."

    I never used the vague and slightly loopy phrase 'theoretical aspect of a model', never mind asking what it refers to might look like!

    Please, please try to see the bigger picture -- the wood instead of the tree right in front of you!

    Complain about this comment

  • 288. At 11:24am on 06 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #283 rossglory wrote:

    "much better to chose your authority figures carefully with a sceptical eye"

    And when have you done that? -- Have I not asked you before how you distinguish phrenology from physics?

    Complain about this comment

  • 289. At 11:42am on 06 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    @Albatross #249 who wrote...
    "Anyhow, the contrarians here are just rehashing the same debunked points and disseminating the same myths. I'm going to let the contrarian whitewash resume and enjoy the rest of my easter with my family. "

    Whatever. You can say "debunked" all you want. All you have is consensus and a hypothesis that was never verified in the first place (the actual forcing by CO2). When the dust settles on this they'll have found that *doh* it turns out that the exponential increases in energy transport by water vapor and convection negate the vast majority of any potential forcing. Transfer by convection/latent heat stands at 57%...so already the CO2 forcing is restricted to less than half of the theoretical maximum.

    Complain about this comment

  • 290. At 11:55am on 06 Apr 2010, Dave_oxon wrote:

    @Bowman, #287

    I never used the vague and slightly loopy phrase 'theoretical aspect of a model', never mind asking what it refers to might look like!

    ... actually you did, albeit qualified with a follow up comment. My link (repeated here) in post 278 takes you straight back to the post where you asked this question:
    "...what would a "purely theoretical aspect" of a model look like, if not a simple, clear, albeit risky explanation of something we didn't understand before?"


    You are free to publicly retract your declared interest in this matter if you wish but to deny you asked the question is dishonest. If you prefer to argue that it was, in fact, a rhetorical question (intended to show that there are , in fact, NO non-inductivist qualities in climate science) then you appear to have already made-up your mind on the matter and further debate with you is pointless.

    As far as it relates to the "bigger picture", it is extremely important as this example goes right to the heart of the matter: there are aspects of the model that are not just inductivist extrapolation, therefore the models are falsifiable, therefore they follow the scientific method. This is a direct counter to your accusation of climate science being purely inductivist - in the discussion we've been having, the picture doesn't get much bigger than this!

    Complain about this comment

  • 291. At 11:58am on 06 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I'm raising a couple of very simple, fundamental questions, and in response I keep getting directed into a smokescreen of complication. Why? -- Either you lot do not see what the problem is, or else you do not want to address it!

    My concerns about the methodology and basic conceptual apparatus of climate science will not be addressed by any paper that assumes the very methodology and basic conceptual apparatus I'm calling into question. Please -- no more references to papers that are peer-reveiwed by people who do not see the problem! -- That sort of peer-review is worse than useless. It is no better that Spike Milligan's saying "my uncle was a great man -- I know because he told me so himself".

    The problem is this: to predict reliably, we need to be able to apply laws. To apply laws we need to have understanding. That requires us to distill the important bits out of the extraneous "noise". We have not the slightest reason to suppose that a model will ever be able to distill the important bits out of the "noise" like that. We need hypothesizing and testing instead. SIMPLE hypothesizing, mind!

    My problem is really very simple and straightforward. If you train a chimp to wear a tuxedo, smoke a cigarette, drink tea with its pinkie sticking out, etc., when you put it back in its cage it will not write the collected works of Noel Coward. All it has done is "ape" the most superficial aspects of being human. Similarly, all a model of the past climate can ever do is ape the most superficial aspects of the past climate. In the absence of laws that are fully grasped by the human mind -- in all its simplicity and with its modest talents -- it is simply doing what a trained ape does.

    Simple question: In what way will the future climate be similar to the past climate?

    Can anyone offer a simple answer to that question?

    Complain about this comment

  • 292. At 12:21pm on 06 Apr 2010, oldgifford wrote:

    sensibleoldgrannie and Paul Briscoe and anyone else who might be interested.

    Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles,
    A Possible Connection

    download from www.akk.me.uk

    Always interested in comments negative and positive :) and you can have the spreadsheets if you want them. It’s an observation and I suggest possible mechanisms but unfortunately I have not been able to find a link between terrestrial and space weather. We know the sun has massive solar cosmic ray storms that hit us and disrupt our power supplies, but do they have an effect on our weather? If you can point me in the right direction it would be appreciated.
    Why aren't there more scientists producing non AGW papers? Perhaps because they know their careers and grants would disappear.

    MWP, certainly in the Northern Hemisphere there is physical evidence that the climate was warmer then than now- Greenland, grape vines etc. Why am I sceptical about the amount of AGW we have, mainly because all the projections and computer models have not proved correct?

    Something to ponder. It is quite possible for the seas to heat up independently of surface temperatures because of the number of hot fissures in the crust that leak into the seas cause massive amounts of hot water. That hot water then presumably rises to the top. So increases in sea surface temperature may have nothing or little to do with AGW.

    On the sun’s rays heating the surface of the seas. This would not lead to hotter temperatures at depths because water is a lousy conductor of heat without convection currents, that’s why you can hold a test tube of water at the bottom whilst holding the top in a Bunsen flame which boils the surface of the water. You will get heat transfers with the various ocean conveyors. So where do you put your temperature monitoring sensors?



    www.akk.me.uk

    Always interested in comments negative and positive :)and you can have the spreadsheets if you want them.

    Why aren't there more scientists producint non AGW papers? Perhaps because they know their careers and grants would dissapear.

    Complain about this comment

  • 293. At 12:26pm on 06 Apr 2010, peakbear wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe @274

    "Not quite correct! As has been discussed in previous threads, the Earth's climate is NOT truly chaotic and aspects of it (most notably temperature) have been successfully predicted using computer models."

    The use of GCM's to extrapolate temperatures is one of my biggest issues. The model's have loads of valid experimental uses but are notoriously bad at maintaining energy balance. For example historically,
    they get too hot at the equator and too cold at the poles so literally a 'flux correction' was coded in to just move more energy polewards. Lots of experiments have also nudged drifting temperature back to
    the mean so that the more useful 'weather like' features of the models could be tested in an experiment. It is no surprise the models struggle at this as we can see from he studies what difference a 1 or 2 watt
    watt change in energy balance is supposed to have on temperature.

    Basically the science behind weather modelling is pretty basic. We're talking classical and statistical mechanics and classical thermodynamics. We're not talking Quantum mechanics and Relativity here. The complexity and chaotic nature of it means we can't analytically solve the Navier-Stokes equations (That is what we use computers for) but the actual models are extremely crude and limited it what they can tell us. As I've said there are lots of really good uses for them,
    ie forecasting the weather 2 or 3 days ahead and illustrating large scale features of the climate, but forecasting temperature 100 years ahead isn't one of them. I'd be interested to see what the same models
    said 500 years ahead. If the one predicting a 8 degrees rise in temperature has the seas boiled away surely we could reject it now.

    Much simpler models could be used to show the linear extrapolation demonstrating the CO2 -> increased water vapour -> increased temperature -> Loop that the models seem to show now. In many ways more simple models are better to isolate the important features. If you're interested in seeing
    what the models actually do there are some you can download and run now. Past the actual solving of the differential equations to model fluid dynamics the science and parameterisations used aren't particularly hard. The computer you're using now probably has as much power than those generating some of the results in TAR 2001.

    Complain about this comment

  • 294. At 12:39pm on 06 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #290 Dave_oxon wrote:

    "You are free to publicly retract your declared interest in this matter"

    I was quoting you -- hence the quotation marks! I have never heard the phrase used except by you, and I was having a stab at trying to grasp what it meant.

    Why don't you have a stab at telling me in your own words, the way I had a stab at telling you in my own words? It's your phrase, not mine!

    Complain about this comment

  • 295. At 1:25pm on 06 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #oldgifford

    "Why aren't there more scientists producint non AGW papers? Perhaps because they know their careers and grants would dissapear."

    it's good to be sceptical about this stuff, but the main reason non-agw papers don't get published is because the evidence does not support them. there are still grey areas and the models are not perfect (but pretty good giving their limitations). but agw is the only hypothesis that explains what we are seeing across the planet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 296. At 1:32pm on 06 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #bowman
    "We have not the slightest reason to suppose that a model will ever be able to distill the important bits out of the "noise" like that."

    that completely misses the point of models. they're useful in 'what if' scenarios but in essence they apply what has already been 'distilled' in other ways.

    "Simple question: In what way will the future climate be similar to the past climate?

    Can anyone offer a simple answer to that question?"

    you should know that simple questions don't necessarily imply simple answers. but the bottom line is future climate is unlikely to be similar to (recent) past climate if we keep pumping greenhouse gases in to it!

    so two straightforward anwsers and no references to peer reviewed papers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 297. At 1:39pm on 06 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #288 bowman
    "And when have you done that? -- Have I not asked you before how you distinguish phrenology from physics?"

    because phrenology never had the backing of post enlightenment bodies such as the national academies, royal society, defra, woods hole institute, met office etc etc etc (as i've said many times). you seen to like setting up these 'reductio ad absurdum' situations as if they have relevance to the debate here. they don;t.

    and from your free-thinking perspective what is the difference between physics (and not just school level - say high energy particle physics) and phrenology. if you're told the higgs boson exists how are you going to verify it? do you have several billion to set up a collider in your garden?

    Complain about this comment

  • 298. At 2:10pm on 06 Apr 2010, Dave_oxon wrote:

    @Bowmanthebard, #294

    Why don't you have a stab at telling me in your own words...

    ...because you're going over exactly the same ground we covered a few weeks ago and I have "had a stab at telling you in my own words" with examples where appropriate (see links to my previous posts at #278) which you have dismissed as "a drearily complicated bit of busywork" (ref #282).

    The fact I have referred to specific examples in the peer-reviewed literature actually strengthens my arguments as it demonstrates that I have sufficient appreciation of the methodology to discuss it. The fact you "have no interest in academic publication" (ref #264) points to the fact you don't have sufficient knowledge to know what you are arguing against and that you are unwilling to find out.

    I feel I have responded to your accusation against the science and found it wanting - you appear to be clinging to your accusation by steadily declaring more and more parts of the body of scientific knowledge as inadmissable in the discussion.

    I have nothing further to add!

    Complain about this comment

  • 299. At 2:10pm on 06 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/05/ipcc-and-the-law-dome-graphic/

    Complain about this comment

  • 300. At 2:13pm on 06 Apr 2010, Dave_oxon wrote:

    @rossglory, #297

    do you have several billion to set up a collider in your garden?

    No need - they're going to set one up in the London circle line tunnel ;o)

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hadron-collider-ii-planned-for-circle-line-1932744.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 301. At 2:15pm on 06 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    @rossglory

    In implying that the models are useful in 'what-if' scenarios, you also imply that they have accurate predictive capability.

    When we do have a model which can accurately predict the climate (which will probably not be for a very very very long time, if ever), then it would be valuable for what-if scenarios.

    Until then, the models only really give us clues to the vast amount that we don't know - as opposed to what we do know...

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 302. At 2:29pm on 06 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    Interesting, the article is about the common practices of climate science and suggested reforms - does no one have any comments related to the topic at hand? It would seem that anything related to 'climate change' on Richard's blog deteriorates int an argument around specifics of sensitivity an other aspects of the science - very disappointing indeed.

    I find it interesting (and very English) that even the BBC's coverage of Dr. Jones before the House of Commons indicated that the 'hard questions' were not asked and that Dr. Jones appeared to have been on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

    The conclusions very softly state that reforms are needed and plenty of excuses are given - such as Richard's claim regarding the internet of ten years ago - well, ten years ago, most academic institutions were either on fiber optic or upgrading to fiber optic networks - very high speed - it would have been more like 20 years ago that one had a 56k modem. So, that excuse doesn't fly. Ten years ago, the WWW and the internet were both in place, and had plenty of bandwidth (speed) and storage space. So, that doesn't fly either. Ten years ago, many people in Europe were already getting broadband offered into their homes.

    Ten years ago, most universities were already connected to the 'backbones' that form the basis of the internet...none of these excuses fly.

    Care to do a bit of fact-checking Richard???

    Its obvious that the House of Commons 'softballed' the UEA - the alternative would have been disastrous for the university and the politicians.

    I hardly consider the House of Commons to be an independent review of the processes and practices of the University. Does anyone really think that the MPs didn't have an interest in seeing this 'uglyness' go away?

    I really did get a good laugh out of the 'doesn't affect the climate science or conclusions' bit... how can in not place so much of the 'science' in question if the peer review process was completely hollow as Dr. Jones testified - no one had ever asked for anything but his final paper and conclusions...who checked his work?

    This is not how science works - it is how religion works. A Cardinal in the Vatican writes something, passes it by the pope who says ok...and out it goes...

    Why don't we rename UEA to The Church of East Angelica???

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    PS - so sorry for being 'on-topic'

    Complain about this comment

  • 303. At 3:11pm on 06 Apr 2010, SimonInRio wrote:

    Lack of a good grounding in science at schools seems to be the real problem here, leading to a population which is incapable of looking at the situation regarding climate change and seeing what is happening and to journalists who do not seem to be able to see the wood for the trees. This particular blog is one of the least intellectual on the whole BBC site. There is an absolute consensus among scientists that the planet is warming. There are uncertainties involved, how much, how fast, but the overall trend is clear - warming. Those who think we should not do anything about it should stand up and say that what happens after their death doesn't matter, since there is no reincarnation or life after death, and that we don not wish to change our lifestyle one bit to help future generations, rather than trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. The idea that scientific consensus means nothing and is somehow involved in a conspiracy is ridiculous, and shouldn't be believed by anyone with a milligram of common sense, but journalists are too often guilty of treating non-scientific BS and reputable science on an equal basis (being "balanced"); if more journalists had science degrees, perhaps we would get less of this. For the record, I think that global warming will produce major negative effects for at least certain populations, at some as yet undetermined time in the future, maybe sooner than later, but that no matter what evidence emerges, nothing much will be done and the planet will just have to live with whatever is in store. Hope it's after I'm dead and gone, though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 304. At 4:09pm on 06 Apr 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    oldgifford at post 292

    Thank you for your offer, I shall take another look. Did not get back to you earlier to acknowledge looking on your website, sorry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 305. At 4:31pm on 06 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #301 larrykealey

    thanks larry. i think we've been down this route before. my baby degree in environmental science doesn't trump your ??? but we can still agree to differ i hope.

    Complain about this comment

  • 306. At 4:33pm on 06 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #300 dave_oxon

    superb, i did spot the day of publication! i bet it would never produce valuable science due to points failures or somesuch :o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 307. At 4:36pm on 06 Apr 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Not being a scientist, only an interested observer, I have been searching the Internet archives for information about extreme weather and climate events from the past and I have also been looking at real time graphs of activities going on right now. I have a heap of questions to ask but I don't know how to express them.

    SimonInRio if we seem a bit thick why don't you enlighten us and educate us instead of poking fun at our lack of knowledge. Here you have a captive audience who are only to willing to learn and to make up for a lack of a good scientific education. Lead us to the best maps of where the major negative effects of global warming will occur.

    For educators there is a good site called USGS which I have found very informative at all levels.

    come back manysummits

    Complain about this comment

  • 308. At 4:41pm on 06 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bowman @ #281,

    "Since you have no criteria of your own to judge what is and what isn't science, you are simply a conformist who takes the word of the authorities rather than thinking for yourself. And nothing could be less scientific than that."

    You do me a considerable disservice by suggesting that I am simply taking the word of the "authorities" (whoever they are). I have ample experience of science to think things through for myself and do so constantly. However, any scientist worth their salt cannot ignore the huge body of evidence which backs up AGW and the dearth of evidence that contradicts it.

    On this blog I have seen any number of calls for myself and others to "think for ourselves". However, in my view that is just a tactic to distract people away from the one thing that you cannot provide - real evidence to back up what you are saying.

    As others have already pointed out, since you have declared that you have no interest in the scientific literature, you cannot hope to understand the science nor make a valued judgement as to whether it is valid. As such you have nothing of value to add to this discussion.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 309. At 5:00pm on 06 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Peakbear @ #293

    There are clearly still uncertainties in the use of GCM's and I confess that they have remained my main concern regarding the findings of the IPCC. However, as I have looked firther, my doubts have actually receded.

    First of all, climate (as opposed to weather) is not truly chaotic. Certainly, there are chaotic elements, such as unpredictable vocanic eruptions, but climate is in effect "self-correcting" in that after a chaotic perturbation it moves back towards steady state:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted.htm

    This article likens the climate to being "on a leash" and I think this is a very good analogy. Consequently, if smoothed temperature data is used to remove the background "noise", the trends in climate can be modelled:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

    It's fair to say that scientists have been far more successful in modelling global temperature than climate change, which is why they quite openly admit that there is less certainty regarding the precise effects of rising global temperatures on climate.

    The other great uncertainty (and again, the scientists are quite open about this) is what the effects of clouds will be - they can have both positive and negative feedback effects. This is why the confidence limits on the projected warming by 2100 are so wide.

    In conclusion...... are there uncertainties? Yes! Does this mean that computer models are of no value? No!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 310. At 5:20pm on 06 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Oldgifford @ #292

    Thanks for posting the link to your paper.

    I'll have to spend some more time on it, but at present I'm trying to figure out how you combine magnetic pole position and temperature as a single co-ordinate on one axis to plot against time on the other.

    Thanks again,

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 311. At 5:39pm on 06 Apr 2010, oldgifford wrote:

    295. At 1:25pm on 06 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:
    "it's good to be sceptical about this stuff, but the main reason non-agw papers don't get published is because the evidence does not support them.
    there are still grey areas and the models are not perfect (but pretty good giving their limitations). but agw is the only hypothesis that explains what we are seeing across the planet."

    Sorry but I don't agree. Why are we currently flat/cooling when man made CO2 discharge is increasing? Why don’t the IPPC models work?

    We could easily have a mix of AGW and natural warming. If you look at the CET temperature graph, the rate of increase between 1695-1733 was greater than the increase from 1962 – 2006. I chose minimums to maximums to try and compare apples with apples. Thus the rhetoric that "more rapid increase in temperatures than we have ever seen before" is perhaps not true. I did compare CET temperatures, not global temperatures, as prior to 1850 we only get proxies for global temperatures which have been proved to be unreliable. Overall the linear trend line shows about 1 degree warming over the period. If you look over the period 1930 to 2008 the change in anomaly based on the 1961- 1990 mean is very similar to the graph shown where the New Zealand NIWA discusses Temperature trends from raw data. This suggests that for at least one part of the southern hemisphere, the temperature trend is almost the same as that in our little bit of the northern hemisphere. Could one stretch this to suggest the way CRU and NOAA compute their global temperatures is perhaps not as good as they think it is?

    Also disagree abut the reasons for not seeing non agw papers. As per my earlier post scientists are shying away from raising their heads over the parapet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 312. At 6:01pm on 06 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Oldgifford,

    Please ignore my last post - I now see what you've done!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 313. At 6:56pm on 06 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    @ Dave_oxon:

    As "observational evidence" for a theory, I count its passing tests. I am not inclined to count as evidence the "data" which shaped it (or which it was designed to fit, or which suggested it in the first place -- not in science, anyway).

    As the story of Kekulé and the benzene molecule illustrates (it doesn't matter whether the story is apocryphal), the way a theory is dreamt up, cooked up, or otherwise cobbled together really doesn't matter. What matters is how it "pans out" in explanation and prediction.

    I am further prepared to accept some "peripheral indicators" as "non-observational" evidence -- indicators that give a theory the "ring of truth" such as simplicity, modesty, etc..

    When you refer me to the technical literature, or speak of "the huge body of evidence which backs up AGW", it's clear to me that we are counting different things as evidence.

    I'm not sure how we can engage with each other, since we are clearly missing each other's points by about a million miles, but I would have thought the best idea would be to keep it simple and use our own words rather than referring to supposed authorities -- authorities that the other regards as wholly non-authoritative.

    If you don't agree with that, alas, we can't communicate!

    Complain about this comment

  • 314. At 7:09pm on 06 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #297 rossglory wrote:

    "phrenology never had the backing of post enlightenment bodies such as the national academies, royal society, defra, woods hole institute, met office etc etc etc"

    I judge phrenology to be a pseudo-science because it never explained anything. It just looked for correlations and hoped to extrapolate from any it found. It should have been trying to understand what is going on in the brain by making up hypotheses and then testing them.

    Something remarkably similar to phrenology continues today: looking at brain-scans, seeing which parts light up, correlating them with subjective reports, etc.. -- Future generations will laugh at that, and shudder at the money that was pumped into it.

    "from your free-thinking perspective what is the difference between physics (and not just school level - say high energy particle physics) and phrenology."

    No one understands particle physics -- but particle physicists have the honesty and integrity to admit it. They do the next best thing to understanding it by guessing, testing their guesses, and speculating wildly about what could really be going on. Meanwhile, the predictive power of particle physics is absolutely stunning.

    None of the above apply to phrenology or climate science, by the way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 315. At 7:15pm on 06 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Paul Briscoe #262: "if you think you know better than the entire scientific community, you should write a paper on the subject and see if you can get it published."

    Paul Briscoe #308: "You do me a considerable disservice by suggesting that I am simply taking the word of the "authorities" (whoever they are)."

    They seem to be the peers who review the papers in the journals you take so seriously.

    Paul Briscoe #308: "On this blog I have seen any number of calls for myself and others to "think for ourselves". However, in my view that is just a tactic to distract people away from the one thing that you cannot provide - real evidence to back up what you are saying."

    The difference between us (and between me and many others on this blog) is that we count different things as evidence. This is an extremely deep difference, and it affects what our words mean. We are equivocating much of the time because we mean different things by "evidence".

    Complain about this comment

  • 316. At 10:00pm on 06 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    @rossglory

    Certainly we can agree to respectfully disagree, but the point stands - if the model cannot make accurate predictions, it is useless for what-if scenarios. Furthermore, for a one hundred year climate model - it will take one hundred years to prove it out...even longer, cause ya ain't gonna get it right the first (dozen) times...

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 317. At 10:01pm on 06 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:

    Paul Briscoe #308: "On this blog I have seen any number of calls for myself and others to "think for ourselves". However, in my view that is just a tactic to distract people away from the one thing that you cannot provide - real evidence to back up what you are saying."


    Paul, I think the point many people are making is that there is not enough real evidence to reach any 'real' conclusions at this point.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 318. At 11:19pm on 06 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bowman @ #315

    "The difference between us (and between me and many others on this blog) is that we count different things as evidence. This is an extremely deep difference, and it affects what our words mean. We are equivocating much of the time because we mean different things by "evidence"."

    No, it's way simpler than that. I am prepared to consider scientific evidence objectively whereas you assign arbritrary barriers to what you will even consider. This makes it impossible for you to properly assess the science. Consequently, you have nothing to contribute to the debate. Consequently, there is no value in our discussions continuing.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 319. At 11:30pm on 06 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    LarryKealey @ #317

    "Paul, I think the point many people are making is that there is not enough real evidence to reach any 'real' conclusions at this point."

    No Larry. There's plenty of evidence. You just need to be open-minded enough to give the science its due and not have unrealistic expectations.

    I've already linked to this today, but it represents a very good precis of the scientific evidence..... from a scientific body that I would imagine even you would have some respect for:

    http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

    Here's another summary which explains what is well understood and what uncertainties still remain:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-science-settled.html

    You also know that I can point you to a lot more evidence if needs be...... but there's no point because no amount of evidence is ever likely to change your mind!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 320. At 07:45am on 07 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    bowmanthebard #315: "The difference between us (and between me and many others on this blog) is that we count different things as evidence. This is an extremely deep difference, and it affects what our words mean. We are equivocating much of the time because we mean different things by "evidence"."

    Paul Briscoe #318: "No, it's way simpler than that. I am prepared to consider scientific evidence objectively whereas you assign arbritrary barriers to what you will even consider."

    I have explained the circumstances in which I think induction is a reliable form of reasoning, in other words in which I accept inductive evidence. I have explained the usual necessity of hypotheses and the important of test, in other words why other forms of evidence are required for scientific theories to be believed.

    I think you simply haven't given the idea of evidence any thought. You're not interested in philosophy, still less naturalized epistemology, and don't want to engage with the subject because it sounds alien to you. That's the honest answer, isn't it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 321. At 08:17am on 07 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #319 Paul Briscoe wrote:

    "You also know that I can point you to a lot more evidence if needs be...... but there's no point because no amount of evidence is ever likely to change your mind!"

    It's more likely that LarryKealey and you count different things as evidence, rather as different people count different artifacts as "more valuable" or "more beautiful"...

    I wonder how many people on this blog thought the evidence linking green vegetables and avoidance of cancer was overwhelming. Today's papers are full of the "revelation" that there isn't a significant link after all.

    I'm not saying there is or isn't a link -- just that blindly extrapolating from a correlation in a sample is usually worthless, especially when exact figures are given, as if the sample were perfectly representative of the population at large. This sort of sloppy inductivism has to end. I think the general public, using common sense, have had their fill of it. It's the one thing they can be sure of getting five times a day, if they read the papers!

    Complain about this comment

  • 322. At 08:23am on 07 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bowman @ #320

    I think you simply haven't given the idea of evidence any thought. You're not interested in philosophy, still less naturalized epistemology, and don't want to engage with the subject because it sounds alien to you. That's the honest answer, isn't it?

    You are correct in that I have no interest in your approach - it is irrelevant and in my opinion arbritrary. In truth no scientific study of dynamic natural systems is ever likely to meet your criteria for being acceptable. This is why I believe your approach is unrealistic.

    I have worked in scientific research to PhD level and beyond (not climate science by the way) and I am therefore very familiar with the way science progresses. If we used your apporach we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages.

    Let's agree to differ!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 323. At 08:32am on 07 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Oldgifford @ #292

    I've now had time to take a longer look at your paper and others on a similar theme (as you're probably aware, there are several).

    It is indeed interesting. The problem you face in getting it accepted is that there is no obvious physical mechanism by which the shifting poles could be causing the warming. Also, there is an established mechanism for the warming in the enhanced greenhouse effect, so unless you can actually prove that this is wrong, the magnetic field effect can at best account for a part of the warming.

    Still, it's impressive work!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 324. At 08:44am on 07 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #bowman
    "The difference between us (and between me and many others on this blog)"

    .... not just on this blog but just about everybody else. we could have a million different discussion with slightly different definitions of evidence but it's pointless. the scientific community's understanding of evidence has discovered a vast amount about the world, nature, societies and more using their definition. and depsite your protestations, climate scientists are no different.

    keep your definition and the rest of the world will move on and leave you behind i'm afraid.

    Complain about this comment

  • 325. At 09:14am on 07 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @324.

    not to kick a hornets nest or anything but...

    there is a very valid point on the definition of the peer review. As the climate scientists haven't released their methods and raw data, they can't, actually, be said to have been peer reviewed....

    This is the case in my field- biochemistry, my old field, microbiology and pretty much ALL other scientific fields. So why not climate?

    Complain about this comment

  • 326. At 09:17am on 07 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:



    Even the Guardian report it..

    Not the BBC?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/06/greenpeace-gene-hashmi-climate-sceptics

    Greenpeace could learn a simple lesson on manners from George WashingtonThreatening climate sceptics and warning Twitter followers you are armed with a knife are not smart moves from Greenpeace India's communications director, Gene Hashmi


    Remeber Gene Hshmi - Communications director GreenPEACE

    says:

    We know where you live

    A threat in anybodies language...

    Please let me know of a contecxt where it is not a threat.

    Complain about this comment

  • 327. At 09:31am on 07 Apr 2010, peakbear wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @309
    "The other great uncertainty (and again, the scientists are quite open about this) is what the effects of clouds will be - they can have both positive and negative feedback effects. This is why the confidence limits on the projected warming by 2100 are so wide."

    Clouds aren't simulated at all in any of the models, past a parametisation that is coded in. (We still don't understand how they form). Also the Ocean models are extremely crude, basically they need to run on a much finer grid scale and we don't have many measurements to calibrate the models against, though Argo should change that. My point still is you can't use the models to churn out a single temperature after a 100 year one when we know that this is primarily from the parameterisations put in and not from the internal calculations of the model. Also why does the IPCC average together 20 models which differ greatly and claim that is a more accurate prediction??, that just isn't a valid approach. What would be more useful if is saying things like 'Model 1l heats Britain 5 degrees in 20 years but cools Iceland by 2 and makes the Sahara very wet', then the prediction could be used to verify this model against observations. There are plenty of features being simulated which could be used for model verification.

    Complain about this comment

  • 328. At 09:35am on 07 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #322 Paul Briscoe wrote:

    "You are correct in that I have no interest in your approach - it is irrelevant and in my opinion arbritrary. In truth no scientific study of dynamic natural systems is ever likely to meet your criteria for being acceptable."

    Do you mean "chaotic" systems or "dynamical" systems rather than "dynamic" systems such as the solar system? (The word 'dynamic' usually just means it involves forces.)

    As a matter of fact, I think weather forecasting has made huge strides, mostly because it involves a number of hypotheses describing well-understood physical entities (such as cyclones and anticyclones, coriolis forces etc.) and processes (precipitation, convention, etc.). Most important for the present discussion, the computer models used in weather forecasting are tested every day and adjusted when their predictions turn out to be wrong, as they often do. And the people involved usually exercise due modesty -- in other words, they limit their forecasts to the next few days or so.

    Please note that the computer models used in weather forecasting are not "tested" against prior data, but against future observations!

    "This is why I believe your approach is unrealistic."

    I'm being realistically sceptical. Scepticism is the most realistic approach to many speculative ventures, and it is the essential approach to sceptical ventures that pretend not to be speculative, because these are plain dishonest.

    Complain about this comment

  • 329. At 09:36am on 07 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #224 oldgifford

    interesting stuff. just wondered if the correlation has held up to 2009.

    Complain about this comment

  • 330. At 09:37am on 07 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #326 Barry Woods wrote:

    "Please let me know of a contecxt where it is not a threat."

    Well it is often used as a joke. And the word 'trick' is often used to refer to a clever and completely legitimate bit of problem-solving.

    Complain about this comment

  • 331. At 09:42am on 07 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Barry at #326

    As you say, context is important. Unfortunate then that you leave so much of it out.

    Here is part of a statement by Ananth, the International Programme Director for Greenpeace:

    "We got this one wrong, no doubt about it. I’m holding up my hands on behalf of the organisation and saying sorry for that. Peaceful action is at the very core of what we do, so any language that even comes close to suggesting that’s not the case is something we cannot support."

    For the full posting, see:

    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/03/will_the_real_climategate_plea.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 332. At 09:44am on 07 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #324 rossglory wrote:

    "we could have a million different discussion with slightly different definitions of evidence but it's pointless. the scientific community's understanding of evidence has discovered a vast amount about the world, nature, societies and more using their definition."

    I was unaware that I or the "scientific community" had any such definition. I guess that although they do not have a definition of a the word 'evidence', scientists do have a more or less vague set of expectations and intuitions that constitute an understanding of what to count as evidence. I think physicists, chemists and biologists have an entirely different understanding from that of climate scientists and psychologists.

    By the way, what is this "community" I keep hearing about? There's no "scientific community" -- science is not a support-group-hug, you know!

    Complain about this comment

  • 333. At 10:07am on 07 Apr 2010, peakbear wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @309
    A lot of this goes to the heart of the differences between us observation/data centric people and the modellers. Generalising, the first group tend to be Applied Physics/Geology/Engineering biased and the 2nd group very Mathematician/Theoretical Physics biased . I'm not sure you are aware how basic the models really are. Even the task of solving the equations is numerically unstable and damping has to be added to remove the spurious signal caused by this. The complexity of them is due to the hundreds of extra bits added like ice/forest/mountains/albedo etc. most of which aren't going to be important to global temperature. As you and I have pointed out the models are a very valid approach if you know what you are looking for and set the correct boundary conditions/parameters for your experiment. You then 'always' need to validate your model against observations to test your hypothesis, this is the stage we are currently going through as we see lots of the IPCC models are now falling out of there confidence intervals. We can use the past to test the models too. The GCM's therefore need to model the little ice age, MWP, Holocene optimum, the ice ages the very warm Jurassic period when dinosaurs ruled the world etc.. If they can't do that then you can't use them to model the future, especially when we don't know large amounts of the science behind weather, it is a very young science still.

    Complain about this comment

  • 334. At 10:27am on 07 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Bowman at #332

    "I think physicists, chemists and biologists have an entirely different understanding [of what to count as evidence] from that of climate scientists...."

    So, what does that mean for a scientist working in the field of climate research whose primary education and training is as a physicist (or a biologist or a chemist)?

    Once again Bowman, where is your reality check?




    Complain about this comment

  • 335. At 10:28am on 07 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe #322 who wrote...
    "I think you simply haven't given the idea of evidence any thought. You're not interested in philosophy, still less naturalized epistemology, and don't want to engage with the subject because it sounds alien to you. That's the honest answer, isn't it?"

    Personally, I'm a lukewarmer. I think CO2 does something...just not much. Have you even bothered to look at how much radiation, convection and latent heat increase with just a 2C increase in the surface temperature?

    While CO2 forcing is SUPPOSEDLY 3.7 watts per square meter...a 2C increase in the temperature of the atmosphere/surface would increase the outgoing radiation by over 6 watts per square meter.

    Increasing surface temperatures by 2C also pushes the energy crossing the troposphere through latent heat and convection up by about 12 watts per square meter.

    In order for the temperature of the earth to rise by 2C with even the theoretical maximum forcing by CO2 (which has never been established...since over half the energy is carried through the troposphere by convection/latent heat) the remaining feedbacks must total over 14watts per square meter of positive forcing. Without that much positive feedback it's just not possible to get even 2C of warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 336. At 10:55am on 07 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Rossglory at #324 (...the rest of the world will move on...)

    Indeed. And to borrow another's words [because he put it so memorably and elegantly, in my view]:

    "We are not students of some subject matter, but students of problems. And problems may cut right across the borders of any subject matter or discipline."

    (Popper, K. R. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963, p. 88).

    Complain about this comment

  • 337. At 11:00am on 07 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    bowmanthebard #332: "I think physicists, chemists and biologists have an entirely different understanding [of what to count as evidence] from that of climate scientists...."

    simon-swede #334: "So, what does that mean for a scientist working in the field of climate research whose primary education and training is as a physicist (or a biologist or a chemist)?"

    I'd say they've fallen from grace!

    Actually, I think there's a lot of that about, because of the old CP Snow division between arts/sciences. Only in the last 150 years or so have people classified themselves as "scientists" as opposed to "natural philosophers", and I think the new division has been disastrous for both. Most people in arts/philosophy nowadays simply take the word of whoever calls himself or herself a "scientist" as authoritative. It was not always so. It used to be quite acceptable and expected for philosophers or even artists to question scientific theories and cast doubt on scientific assumptions. Often important new ideas were introduced that way. For example, Goethe played an important part in introducing the idea of opponency in colour-perception.

    For their part, scientists are no longer being forced to explain their theories in laymen's terms -- always a "baptism by fire" for any theory (which is why it's still insisted upon in law courts -- that is almost the main point of a jury). Worse, present-day scientists are not asking fundamental, simple questions -- about the nature of evidence, for example. That is a terrible failing, every bit as bad as the humanities person's failure to learn basic science.

    I should add that Einstein, Feynman and Dawkins spring to mind here as exceptions to the recent pattern.

    "Once again Bowman, where is your reality check?"

    I'm not sure what you're asking here. I've spent most of my adult life as a so-called "scientific realist", trying to get a better grasp on what it means to say something is real. So are you asking for my entire life's work in a single sentence? -- Well OK, try this: to be real is to have causal powers. There. Now I'll have to explain what it means! (But I'll leave that till another day.)

    It seems to me that if a physics-trained person gets involved in climate science, and unquestioningly goes along with its inductivist methodology, he has given up on the methods of physics, and that person is no longer entitled to call himself/herself a physicist. I've done quite a bit of mathematics, by the way, but once I took up philosophy I no longer called myself a "mathematician", so what's the big deal?

    Complain about this comment

  • 338. At 11:12am on 07 Apr 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Don't sit here arguing about the same old things. There is real stuff going on right now in real time. It is interesting to watch graphs change dramatically and real events occur within the same time frame. C02 is only one small part of a much bigger picture of which we mere mortals have absolutely no control over.

    Complain about this comment

  • 339. At 11:28am on 07 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Bowman at #337

    "It seems to me that if a physics-trained person gets involved in climate science, and unquestioningly goes along with its inductivist methodology, he has given up on the methods of physics, and that person is no longer entitled to call himself/herself a physicist."

    There is a lot of sweeping assumptions piled in here. It seems to be little more than prejudice on your part.

    Complain about this comment

  • 340. At 11:48am on 07 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #339 simon-swede wrote:

    "There is a lot of sweeping assumptions piled in here. It seems to be little more than prejudice on your part."

    I've given a pretty clear reason why induction is not to be trusted in the absence of lawlike connections (in the analogy I used of the infant with the coloured shapes). Instead of calling me "prejudiced", why don't you address my concerns? I'm giving reasons, you're calling me names!

    Complain about this comment

  • 341. At 12:31pm on 07 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Bowman at #340

    Where is your 'lawlike connection' which establishes that a physics-trained person who gets involved in climate science unquestioningly goes along with its inductivist methodology?

    Prejudice.



    Complain about this comment

  • 342. At 1:12pm on 07 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    bowmanthebard #337: "if a physics-trained person gets involved in climate science, and unquestioningly goes along with its inductivist methodology, he has given up on the methods of physics"

    simon-swede #341:

    "Where is your 'lawlike connection' which establishes that a physics-trained person who gets involved in climate science unquestioningly goes along with its inductivist methodology?"

    Do you see the word 'if' up there on the first line? It's essential! Here's another "if":

    IF a physics-trained person gets involved in climate science, and resists its inductivist methodology, by insisting on the hypothetico-deductive method so beautifully exemplified in the great and glorious science of physics, he can hold his head up high and call himself a "physicist" without fear of contradiction from bowmanthebard.

    Complain about this comment

  • 343. At 1:18pm on 07 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    Looking for a 'Lawlike' connection between past climate and future climate is a bit airy fairy and ridiculous. It's far more useful to try to replicate the common feature of both past and future: the climate system itself. This is what the models are attempting and it is well within the realms of valid science. There are various elements of the climate system that are assumed to be constant because the laws of physics don't change - here is the closest thing you will get to a lawlike connection.

    Now, climate models today do a very respectable job at hindcasting the previous 50 years or so. This is without 'apeing' or fudging the variables. It just so happens that our models are getting better at predicting a complex system. Is this a surprise given that our understanding of the climate system is improving year-on-year?

    Complain about this comment

  • 344. At 1:48pm on 07 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Bowman at #343

    So, physicists, chemists and biologists don't necessarily have an entirely different understanding from that of climate scientists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 345. At 1:50pm on 07 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @simon-swede

    In the physical sciences, if I were to publish some ground breaking work. I would publish my findings in a paper and then other interested groups would contact me and I would pass on to them my data and any methods that I’d used in creating my results and arriving at my conclusions - They would then attempt to duplicate my work.

    Only if they were able to confirm my results, would my initial work start to gain any general acceptance.

    Sometimes theories are published long before the adequate means to properly test them exists and these bits of work will remain theories, until the experimental or observational evidence can be amassed, to prove that they are conceptually "true"(obviously, for a given value of true) or indeed even vaguely accurate.

    If you look at something like string theory (Note: the word "theory"). This can be used to explain some of the things that we see in quantum mechanics and it can also explain some of our cosmological problems, but it is having a "bit" of trouble integrating quantum mechanics with relativity and at the moment we lack the ability to measure the predicted ripples in space-time that would be required to test if the theory is anything more than that.

    So, it remains just a theory.

    Whilst many people are working on that particular theory or flavours thereof and whilst many others are working on the numerous other competing theories, none of the parties or groups involved have started talking about a "consensus".

    Just because, 97% of string theorists (A damned unlikely percentage, if you’ve ever been out for a beer with them) think something might be so, doesn’t mean that it is.

    Even if we finally end up in the position to test the theory observationally and find evidence that it might be correct, that’s likely to be just for a period of time, because as new evidence comes to light the theory itself may be shown to be inadequate or it might be in need of some modification (branes, spring to mind here.... but that’s just me).

    If you just look at Newton’s laws, these are sufficient to in general predict the motion of the planets and the odd spaceship or two, but they start to breakdown in extreme conditions and sometimes they even break down in simple orbital slingshots. Hence the need for something else, enter relativity, which itself has it’s own problems.........

    This has always been the way in science and it seems to me that many climate scientists have forgotten this. They cling to ideas, which not only seem to be observationally challenged, but also seem to rest on some very dodgy data and very unscientific methods and what’s their response to all of this?

    A considered re-analysis, a pause for thought perhaps?

    Nope, they start using words like "denier" and "consensus" and then they attempt to subvert the peer review process!

    These are not the acts of people that I would consider to be scientists and that’s the basic problem that I and many others have with them. If you want to find the true denier, then you don’t have to look much further than the person who’s not willing to enter into the debate on the subject.

    Complain about this comment

  • 346. At 2:07pm on 07 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 325 LabMunkey:

    "not to kick a hornets nest or anything but...
    there is a very valid point on the definition of the peer review. As the climate scientists haven't released their methods and raw data, they can't, actually, be said to have been peer reviewed...."

    Published peer-reviewed studies on climate science contains detailed description of the methodology of the study. I haven't seen one yet that doesn't. How do you manage to interpret that as "climate scientists haven't released their methods"?

    Raw data for various aspects of climate is widely available - evidentally as there are multiple scientists publishing studies based on the same raw data.

    I am no expert but my impression is that peer review doesn't involve needing the raw data or implementing the methodolgy anyway. It involves reviewing the methodology is sound and the conclusions drawn are sound. Ie it's the kind of thing you do by reading the paper and does not require replicating the work. Is that not true for most fields of science? I suspect it is true for most fields of science, including ones not controlled by the climatati.

    There seems to be an attempt in this thread by certain individuals to cut climate science off from the rest of science, to try and claim that climate science is somehow unique in how peer review operates. This may be nothing more than a tactic to faciliate unjustified attacks on climate science. I for one would like to see these individuals provide some evidence of their assertions that climate science is unique in it's practices.

    Complain about this comment

  • 347. At 3:07pm on 07 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    simon-swede wrote:

    I read the original Green peace article...

    It was no doubt rhetoric to inspire the faithful..
    Which, as a communications director - gene should very well know could inspire the 'nutters' in the organisation..

    'IN the context, and out of the context..'

    If you go there now, they leave out a bit:
    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html

    this bit:

    “We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.”

    “‘We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.’


    in context of this, and the fact that I totally disagree with them, this is a threat to me:

    'We know where you live'

    If a communication director has the authority to write this, what do you think some of the more extreme eco people might do..

    animal rights extremists have done some pretty awful things, and they are only saving animal, not the planet

    Complain about this comment

  • 348. At 3:29pm on 07 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    Blunderbunny @345

    Can you give specific examples of where climate scientists are hanging on ideas that are 'observationally challenged' and hang on 'dodgy data'? The scientists themselves spends a great deal of time and intellectual effort ensuring that those two things you mention do not occur. i.e., that the conclusion reached is valid. This is the very basics of what they do.

    Maybe some people are confusing the science with the political response. The two are completely different. Whether a 10 tonne block that has fallen from a tall building crushes you is not dependent on whether Newton's theory of gravity or a more precise theory is correct, only that that the block is falling at a momentum within the range that is necessary to crush you. We know that an amendment to Newton's theory will not change the eventual result - and it can similarly be said that slight changes to AGW will not change the overall conclusion either. In other words, the RESULT drives the political response and the VALIDITY OF THE METHODS drives the science. Climate science, like any other science, is continually being tested and new, better theories are bound to supplant the existing ones - however, AGW is more akin to saying that heavy blocks fall off tall buildings than stating how gravity behaves on a quantum level - i.e., it is difficult to see how small changes to the multitude of theories explaining the observational evidence will change the general conclusion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 349. At 3:36pm on 07 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ infinity # 346.

    For example, i was under the impression that the papers regarding the temperature readings did not include exact details of the stations used, why some were selected over others, and why proxies were arbitrarily dropped once they diverged from thermometer readings.

    There are huge swathes of papers on melting ice, habitat loss, and other peripheral matters and this is often cited as a proof incarnate of AGW. These papers often DO have the methidologies (the nasa ice one (satellite detection of sea ice) is a very good example of this and not only includes the calculations etc but actively points out the weaknesses in it's OWN data- this approach i like, a lot).

    But, papers on the causal link between co2 and temperature, often heavily reliant on models, do not include the model settings, the parameters, the OMISSIONS and as i said above- specific details on the stations used.

    i've asked you this before, and i ask directly again. How do you explain the Bolivia temperature reading results?

    It is this, shall we say, CORE part of the discussion that i'm interested in. The vast majority of the peripheral papers are good science, the fact they are used to bolster the argument (wrongly) does not detract from the fact that the majority is good science. It's the CORE sections (correlation, models, predictions) that are the poor side.

    Whenever climate science is called into question, a peripheral paper is used as proof that the 'procedures' are being met properly. But that's not what we're interested in- and that's why I and other sceptics, will continue to challenge the theory.

    If, there is information out there on the reasons behind the staggeringly small number of stations used, the ones that were moved and why, the ones that were invented (as mentioned in the code) and why. Why the models detract immediatley from reality, why non of their predictions have come true- why they have done and repeatedly STILL lie about sea level rises... i'd love to see it.

    there's just lots that doesn't get answered.

    It's all- but look over here, this is good...

    Complain about this comment

  • 350. At 4:01pm on 07 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #346 infinity

    with regard raw data, i recall that before the advent of the internet and large data storage devices it was not general practice (inside or outside climate science) to release raw data.

    you;re spot on wrt to the current 'climate science is not science' meme. not sure where it started but it's being touted fairly regularly now. total nonsense of course....imho.

    Complain about this comment

  • 351. At 4:15pm on 07 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #336 simon swede

    quite. and environmental science does just that. in some ways i think it's the pinnacle of science pulling in expertise from so many different disciplines to solve the biggest problems we face.

    i have have enjoyed studying it immensely :o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 352. At 4:24pm on 07 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #332 bowman

    you really are pushing the 'climate science is not science' meme hard here. it's not going anywhere though. you;ve created a big barrier in your head but it just doesn;t exist in reality (despite claiming to be a 'scientific-realist'). you keep implying 'we' don;t get it, but the reality is 'we' don;t agree.

    "By the way, what is this "community" I keep hearing about? There's no "scientific community" -- science is not a support-group-hug, you know!"

    you are a wag (or maybe just a wum). of course there's a scientific community and it consists of scientists (you know the chaps in white lab coats and wild hair).

    Complain about this comment

  • 353. At 4:33pm on 07 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @348. SR that's a really good analogy- obviously i disagree on AGW, but it's good to know where you're coming from (genuinley)

    Complain about this comment

  • 354. At 5:02pm on 07 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Labmunkey @ #325

    "there is a very valid point on the definition of the peer review. As the climate scientists haven't released their methods and raw data, they can't, actually, be said to have been peer reviewed....

    This is the case in my field- biochemistry, my old field, microbiology and pretty much ALL other scientific fields. So why not climate?"

    There is an important distinction between the work you may have done (and, incidentally, the work I did) and the work done by climate scientists to study global climate. Most of the data used by UEA does not actually BELONG to them and there are some countries which are still very reluctant to release raw data. I suspect that this is why the culture of not automatically releasing raw data arose.

    I am quite sure that UEA will work to get all data released, as it is in everyone's interests for this to be done, but only someone specifically looking for a conspiracy would presume that the present situation has any sinister significance.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 355. At 5:05pm on 07 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #labmunkey
    "also on the subject of station validity, kindly explain the bolivia results for the last ten years..."

    did you follow the house of commons enquiry at all? no one sensible is suggesting the planet is not warming. even if there was rank stupidity or connivance at nasa, the station record is not the only evidence of warming.

    you are not challenging the theory at all just quibbling over minute (and irrelevant) parts of the evidence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 356. At 5:11pm on 07 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Peakbear @ #327

    "Clouds aren't simulated at all in any of the models, past a parametisation that is coded in. (We still don't understand how they form). Also the Ocean models are extremely crude, basically they need to run on a much finer grid scale and we don't have many measurements to calibrate the models against, though Argo should change that. My point still is you can't use the models to churn out a single temperature after a 100 year one when we know that this is primarily from the parameterisations put in and not from the internal calculations of the model."

    If you read IPCC AR4, you'll see that the scientists are perfectly open and honest about the limitations of the present models, but that doesn't mean that they have no value. They ARE capable of accurately predicting temperatures in particular, regardless of how simplistic they may be.

    Also, IPCC AR4 has whole sections headed "key uncertainties". I'm not sure what more they can do!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 357. At 5:15pm on 07 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bowman @ #328

    "I'm being realistically sceptical. Scepticism is the most realistic approach to many speculative ventures, and it is the essential approach to sceptical ventures that pretend not to be speculative, because these are plain dishonest."

    As I've already said above, it's time for us to agree to disagree. I simply cannot accept that your approach represents "realistic scepticism" - it is anything but realistic. I also beg to disagree with any suggestion that the science of AGW is "speculative".

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 358. At 5:24pm on 07 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @SR

    If you're looking for specific examples then you need only go back through some of these blog entries to find them. Please feel free to peruse mine if you want. You could start by looking at Richard Lindzen's work. Then you could move on to a critical appraisal of the proxies that have been getting used/not used and the methods used for their analysis. You could then go on to look at the attempt to erase the MWP and LIA from history, you could also read up on Biffra's work, do a bit more research on dendroclimatology and then you could take a quick look at the NIPCC paper. After you've finished absorbing all of that, you could then take a second look at the CRU emails. Plus, whilst you’re at it you could attempt to find an explanation of the recent temperature readings from Bolivia, as that would be nice and would be much appreciated by the rest of us.

    When you've done all of that, if you've not at least found some grounds for the case that these guys are not quite “doing science” exactly like the rest of us? Then I'd argue that you've not really been paying that much attention.

    All of this really goes way beyond who might be right and who might be wrong, it strikes at the very heart of what you and we are being told and why we are being told it.

    I have heard some people say that the ends justify the means and that it doesn't matter if the odd fact is distorted or ignored here or there.... providing our economies are moved onto a more sustainable footing it’s all well and good.

    If that's a generally held view, then that’s okay, but don't try to tell me that it's science - It's then a deeply political movement and not a scientific one.

    If someone raises genuine concerns about ones work, then one is not only obliged to acknowledge those concerns, one is also obliged to investigate them. This simple part of the process that the rest of like to call science seems to be what's missing from some peoples work.

    I've have read some very good papers from the pro camp, but as was pointed out by a previous poster those papers are mostly around the periphery of the body of work rather than its core.

    There are number of valid criticisms of some of this work and they are simply not being addressed by those involved or the community at large. I’d only ask that anyone that’s interested uses a little critical appraisal, as far as all of this is concerned.

    Complain about this comment

  • 359. At 5:59pm on 07 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Poitsplace @ #335

    Sorry, that statement you attributed to me should have been clearly marked with quotations, as it was Bowman who said it - my fault!

    I'm intrigued to know where you get your figures from as they don't seem to tally with the ones I've seen. Do you have a reference?

    The important figure is surely the temperature rise required to restore the Top of Atmosphere (TOA) outward flux to balance with the incoming radiation (given that loss of heat to space is only by radiation):

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

    It has been shown that the stratosphere actually gets colder with AGW. Consequently, I'm not clear how increased cycling of heat within the troposphere due to convection and latent heat significantly impacts on the TOA radiation. Again, do you have a reference?

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 360. At 7:22pm on 07 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #357, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    'it's time for us to agree to disagree.'

    OK, and I apologize for what looks like me "trying to have the last word", but I just can't let this pass without comment:

    'I also beg to disagree with any suggestion that the science of AGW is "speculative".'

    That's one of the fatal attractions of inductivism. In reality (or at least in reality as I claim it is) theory is "underdetermined by data" -- in other words, many different theories can be compatible with the same set of observations. So guesswork is absolutely unavoidable in science. And that make a lot of science look very uncertain, even arbitrary (as you said yourself of my own position).

    One of the great attractions -- i.e. poisonous, insidious attractions -- of extrapolating from prior data is that it looks like there's no guesswork involved, because the data dictate the theory. Alas -- all that has happened is the detail in the theory is at best artifactual, like looking at your own eyelashes reflected in a microscope eyepiece instead of something genuinely in the specimen.

    So although climate scientists admit that there is no certainty in science, they deny that there is guesswork, which is the next worst thing!

    Sorry, again, for what looks like a deliberate parting shot!

    Complain about this comment

  • 361. At 7:27pm on 07 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #348 SR wrote:

    "Climate science, like any other science, is continually being tested"

    Please point me towards these "tests" with a link of some kind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 362. At 8:59pm on 07 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bowman @ #360

    The science of AGW does NOT rely on extrapolating into the future from past data:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

    The problem for scientists lies in the fact that policy makers require projections of future temperatures and climate before they will take action on emissions. Therefore, it has been necessary to develop models in an attempt to estimate what will happen in the future. The scientists themselves are perfectly open and honest about the uncertainties in these models and the fact that they are less than perfect in no way invalidates the science itself.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 363. At 9:24pm on 07 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #362 Paul Briscoe wrote:

    "The science of AGW does NOT rely on extrapolating into the future from past data:"

    Kindly refer me to just ONE place where a guess is made, followed by an observation/experiment which genuinely tests that guess. (Better still, describe it in your own words.)

    By "genuinely tests" a guess, I mean the guess is a real guess, not some ad hoc construction specifically designed to agree with some pre-existing "data".

    That's all I'm looking for.

    Complain about this comment

  • 364. At 9:55pm on 07 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bowman,

    Why use the term "guess" - that's hardly scientific!

    You might want to have a look at the early research which established AGW science and ultimately led scientists to look into it in far more detail:

    http://www.slrtx.com/blog/climate-science-timeline/

    Break the habit of a lifetime and actually READ a paper or two! A good place to start would be John Tyndall (1859). Then Guy Callendar (1938) and Gilbert Plass (1955). There is some astonishing insight in these early papers.

    Once you've read the science the above papers established it becomes far easier to understand how everything which has followed has merely been aimed at improving scientific understanding and providing additional data to increase the confidence levels.

    This is sound science, Bowman, however much you may want to portray it as something inferior!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 365. At 11:28pm on 07 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #364 Paul Briscoe wrote:

    "Why use the term "guess" - that's hardly scientific!"

    No, it just doesn't sound scientific to you.

    But actually, guessing is the heart of science. (Followed by testing, of course.) It gives me a vertiginous feeling to see that this is so little known. What a marvel-rich, undiscovered country we inhabit when we ask fundamental questions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 366. At 11:39pm on 07 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    @infinity

    re #347

    When I was writing peer-reviewed articles and according to longtime friends who still are writing peer reviewed articles...

    Peer reviewed means that your results were replicated. A description of methodology is not adequate...THE METHODOLOGY, all the data, derivations, everything required to reproduce the results is require.

    The reviewer need not agree with your methodology, nor your assumptions, and may clearly state so, but that is actually acceptable - what is not is for the results not to be reproduced. Granted, if your assumptions are ridiculous than no one is going to publish you anyway (unless it is climate science...)

    In every other science, if the results are not readily reproducible, then the only place it gets published is the 'Journal of Irreproducible Results" - no one else will accept it...

    And that is the way it should be. Can you argue with this?

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    The whole issue is that 'climate science' does not adhere to these well established protocols and requirements for 'peer review' or publication.

    Complain about this comment

  • 367. At 11:48pm on 07 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:



    @Paul

    Your link:

    http://www.slrtx.com/blog/climate-science-timeline/

    references E Lorenz - founder of both computer climate modeling and chaos theory. It is interesting that Dr. Lorenz believed that neither weather nor climate would ever be predictable nor accurately modeled. It is interesting that your timeline leaves this out...

    BTW, we know Al Gore didn't invent global warming, he just popularized it and made a hundred million or so (so far) off it...

    @Bowmanthebard

    Without "guessing" we would all still be in the stone age. I had a professor who used to say that it is all 'hat tricks' - you pull a rabbit out of the hat, see if it fits, if it doesn't throw it away and pull out another...scientific methodology...;)

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 368. At 00:51am on 08 Apr 2010, slrtx wrote:

    @LarryKealey (#367)

    As the owner of the timeline, I can tell you I did not leave Lorenz's comments about climate models out on purpose.

    I'll be sure to add that comment to the timeline.

    As I believe I clearly stated in the introduction to the timeline, I'm open to any comments about inaccuracies or additions.

    No slant. Nothing to hide. Just the facts.

    PS - I added the Gore thing as a joke aimed at others who really think Al Gore is the "puppet master" behind AGW science. I also hear Mann or Jones blamed for AGW. And the IPCC get's its share of the blame, even though it didn't exist prior to 1988.

    If you find other issues with the timeline, or anything else on my site, feel free to let me know. I have a contact form on my site, or you can comment on the pages/posts directly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 369. At 06:37am on 08 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe #359 who wrote...
    "I'm intrigued to know where you get your figures from as they don't seem to tally with the ones I've seen. Do you have a reference?"

    Well, if you just grab one of those radiation balance charts they clearly indicate that even the climate scientists assume 17 watts/meter is taken into the atmosphere by convection and 80 watts/meter by latent heat (might have to cut and paste the link)

    http://climateknowledge.org/figures/WuGblog_figures/RBRWuG0086_Trenberth_Radiative_Balance_BAMS_2008.GIF

    But water vapor goes up exponentially...with temperature. Its very straight forward.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point#Constant_pressure
    ===================

    "The important figure is surely the temperature rise required to restore the Top of Atmosphere (TOA) outward flux to balance with the incoming radiation (given that loss of heat to space is only by radiation):"

    The short answer is "yes". But in specifiying TOA you kind of wash your hands of the entire atmosphere. It is the interactions within the atmosphere that you're talking about...and CO2 is only a minor player at this point. There are many "almost right" moments in this current fascination with CO2 and many "completely wrong" moments.

    ===================
    "It has been shown that the stratosphere actually gets colder with AGW. Consequently, I'm not clear how increased cycling of heat within the troposphere due to convection and latent heat significantly impacts on the TOA radiation. Again, do you have a reference?"

    No, it is ASSUMED that it causes the stratosphere to get colder. The models make this assumption...and it has not been observed (although recently a lack of solar activity has changed the temperature of the stratosphere some recently). This is a bit of a problem for the AGW hypothesis.

    Without going into the other issues I have with the way they treat GHG forcing, let me just say...the simple fact that latent heat/convection are already dominating atmospheric energy transport and the exponential nature of their increases...should be sufficiently compelling evidence that feedbacks MUST be extremely weak or more likely negative. With no powerful positive feedbacks there is no significant reason to use GHG forcing as a criteria for making policy decisions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 370. At 06:59am on 08 Apr 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    367. At 11:48pm on 07 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:
    "BTW, we know Al Gore didn't invent global warming, he just popularized it and made a hundred million or so (so far) off it..."
    And this is the main thrust of the debate/discussion.
    Depending on the policy finally established (if governments ever do get to agree)then someone, somewhere will make a lot of money and and someone will lose a lot.

    Those that recommend that we replace fossil-fuels with an alternative( whatever is suitable and where-ever that may be)are in fact playing into the hands of "alternative" fuel "suppliers"( Nuclear Power, Wind power, Sun Power or whatever......).But the suppliers of fossil fuels (mainly coal)have deep pockets and big reserves which they expect to glean big income sources from for years to come.

    They are not prepared to give in too easily.We are just "meat in the sandwich" ready to be manipulated this way or that.

    We also have a major communication problem. All of us.

    When two teenage people use a 'text' massage to communicate on their cellphone, they leave me totally confused, certainly not the 'spelling' or 'grammer' I am used to from my schooling days but they communicate exceedingly well.
    When we use 'words' to communicate with each other we think that we will be understood. But despite the fact we appear to be talking the same language,one persons interpretation of a "word" is rarely identical to another person's. So we argue and bicker among each other without truly 'understanding' each other.

    In the end, we will be favourable to one side or the other and someone will stand to gain or lose a lot of money.

    Al Gore tried to convey a simple message to as many people as possible. It didn't matter to him that he stretched a few scientific facts in the process! But he got HIS message across! As a result, the decision makers (aka those people WE vote in to run nations and governments on OUR behalf) came up with an 'interim' measure called "Carbon Credits" and Al Gore cashed in on that.

    In NZ we play Rugby Union as a passion. When you find a hole in the opposing defence, you drive through it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 371. At 08:44am on 08 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #367 LarryKealey wrote:

    "Without "guessing" we would all still be in the stone age. I had a professor who used to say that it is all 'hat tricks' - you pull a rabbit out of the hat, see if it fits, if it doesn't throw it away and pull out another...scientific methodology...;)"

    That strikes me as a fair account of what happens in genuine science. One way of checking whether what we are doing is genuinely scientific is to see how obvious the guessing is. In honest sciences, it's pretty obvious.

    In other words, if you don't see a rabbit, you should smell a rat!

    Complain about this comment

  • 372. At 08:46am on 08 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 355.

    and i never once claimed that it wasn't- despite prof jones' assertion that it hadn't, statistically.

    Are you aware, specifically of the exact issue with the bolivia data?

    @354.

    and i am not suggesting that the difficulties in releasing data is proof incarnate of a conspiracy. I am fully aware (due to currently working in a private company) of the difficulties surrounding publication and confidentiality- especially with regards to data. However, i would never claim that any of my work was peer reviewes, without being able to supply the data for it to be verified.

    there's a subtle but very important difference, and it smacks of dishonesty. If you don't have the freedom to publish the data, you don't publish the paper. simple as that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 373. At 10:48am on 08 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Poitsplace @ #369

    Well, if you just grab one of those radiation balance charts they clearly indicate that even the climate scientists assume 17 watts/meter is taken into the atmosphere by convection and 80 watts/meter by latent heat (might have to cut and paste the link).

    Here's the original from Kiehl and Trenberth, as reproduced in IPCC AR4:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html

    "But water vapor goes up exponentially...with temperature. Its very straight forward."

    Agreed, which is why climate scientists consider water vapour, a greenhouse gas, to be a positive feedback in AGW. Certainly, you would also expect the contribution of latent heat to atmospheric warming to increase, but you haven't explained how this invalidates the scientists' estimates of overall forcing.

    "The short answer is "yes". But in specifiying TOA you kind of wash your hands of the entire atmosphere. It is the interactions within the atmosphere that you're talking about...and CO2 is only a minor player at this point. There are many "almost right" moments in this current fascination with CO2 and many "completely wrong" moments."

    The scientists hardly "wash their hands" of the entire atmosphere, as IPCC AR4 clearly demonstrates. Also, CO2 isn't just a "minor player". The original paper Kiehl and Trenberth states:

    "For the clear sky, water vapor contributes to 60% of the total radiative forcing, while carbon dioxide contributes 26% to the clear sky
    radiative forcing."

    That's 26% of 350 W/m2!


    "No, it is ASSUMED that it causes the stratosphere to get colder. The models make this assumption...and it has not been observed (although recently a lack of solar activity has changed the temperature of the stratosphere some recently). This is a bit of a problem for the AGW hypothesis."

    Stratospheric cooling has indeed been observed:

    http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-17.html

    Indeed, there are a number of references to it in IPCC AR4 - just run a search.

    ".....the simple fact that latent heat/convection are already dominating atmospheric energy transport and the exponential nature of their increases...."

    Except that the graphic you linked to shows that their role is small relative to the greenhouse effect.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 374. At 11:11am on 08 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    LabMunkey @ #372

    In my own experience of peer review it is unusual for reviewers to look especially deeply into raw data. They are far more interested in how it has been handled, presented and discussed. After all, looking at raw data does not in any way prove that it is correct.

    So the only real way of checking whether a scientist is doing things correctly is actually to repeat the measurements yourself - this is surely what reproducibility is really about.

    Of course climate science presents a problem in that the measurements are only valid at a single point in time. This is why the various different datasets effectively validate each other in this case. It's not perfect, but it is the best that can be achieved in this case.

    I found these articles quite interesting:

    http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2919

    http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1001

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 375. At 1:15pm on 08 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 366. LarryKealey wrote

    If peer review requires the reviewers reproduce the work then wouldn't it be more than capable of catching non-reproducable results? This confuses me because from what I heard of that case of the south korean scientist, non-reproducable results passed peer review. There was a similar case in the US if I recall correctly in which the results within a load of peer reviewed papers were found to be non-reproducable much later. Was that a failure or peer review? What confuses me is that if peer review requires the work to be reproduced I can't see how these incidents would have occured.

    I have also heard that peer review isn't supposed or capable of catching fraud. But if peer review requires reproducing the work then I can't understand how that could be true.

    I also wonder about practical issue, it confuses me how it would be possible for a reviewer to reproduce work based on an experiment in one of those massive colliders or reproduce work in biology that required several months of growing something? Are such experiments scientifically invalid because they can't be reproduced during peer reviewed (even if they can be reproduced by others at a later date)? It also troubles me how a single reviewer could find the time to reproduce months-long work of others and still find time to do their own work.

    "The reviewer need not agree with your methodology, nor your assumptions, and may clearly state so, but that is actually acceptable"

    I thought this was what reviewers were looking at and if they disagree with the methodology and assumptions then that is enough to cause them to give an unfavorable view which could determine that the paper will not be published.

    Complain about this comment

  • 376. At 1:17pm on 08 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    paul,
    well we've got different experience there then. Without the data to check the claims, the peer-review is worthless. I accept your distinction about the replication- but i still think, from my experience, that the withholding of data invalidates any serious claim of conclusive peer-review.

    "Of course climate science presents a problem in that the measurements are only valid at a single point in time. This is why the various different datasets effectively validate each other in this case. It's not perfect, but it is the best that can be achieved in this case."


    self validating data sets. You're kidding me right? that wouldn't even get through an in-house audit...

    Re-the articles you linked. As is often the case (on both sides) the articles either miss the point completely (as in the first case) or attempt to mislead through intentional or un-intentional misunderstandings.

    Specific example- the cru 'leaked/hacked' emails. Much of the coverage focus' around the word 'trick' and the 'language' of the emails. These are interesting points, but peripheral to the REAL issue- the code (which started the revelations on the station data, again i mention bolivia here and will keep doing so until an AGW-er gives me an explanation for it) and the peer-review perversion were the real issues.

    But these were never addressed. I wouldn't have cared if the review had looked at them and then said they were fine, but they haven't- they've concentrated on the 'soundbites' in an attempt to use the small, inconsequential parts of the debacle to mask the more important ones.

    Again, i feel i need to qualify my position before i get berated by agw-ers.
    i think the world, on the balance of evidence, had warmed.
    I think C02 MAY be adding to this effect.
    I DO NOT think co2 has anywhere near the effect that is touted by the IPCC et al.
    I do not see sufficient compelling evidence to even suggest CO2 is the cause, coincidental is not causition.
    I do not accept scientific consensus as evidence(and neither should any scientist)
    and i am opposed to drastic co2 cutting measures- though support a general decrease.

    i am 100% behind the replacement of fossil feuls with renewables (so long as it isn't wind)

    more importantly i think land use and population are FAR more worrying issues than co2.

    Complain about this comment

  • 377. At 1:36pm on 08 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @LarryKealey and Paul Briscoe

    I'm with Larry, if you can't make available your raw data sets, then you can't publish a paper that's based on them. This happens in many fields, a lot of scientists involved in government projects are unable to publish their work in what one might call a traditional manner.

    If you're insisting that agreements with other governments mean that the Raw data cannot ever be published/shared, then that's it, it’s really all over for climate science - Case dismissed.........

    We can pack up these blogs, the IPCC and regular AGW gravy train and get on with doing something more useful - I'm sure that Richard will make an excellent Royal Correspondent ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 378. At 1:51pm on 08 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    @xtragrumpymike

    Regarding all those fossil fuel companies with deep pockets - in reality they WANT the carbon taxes, they want the prices for fossil fuels to be driven up - that way they make more money.

    Think about it, if gasoline was still a buck a gallon in the US, they would make about fifteen or twenty cents on it - with it at $3 - they make 0.45 to 0.60 per gallon on it. They apply profit margin on a percentage basis - so the (artificially) higher the cost - the more they make. Same with the electric companies burning coal.

    Same with the government - aside from excise taxes, they are applied on a percentage basis - higher price, more taxes...

    Interesting how everyone makes money here except those of us who have to pay the bills.

    Cheers Mate.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 379. At 1:58pm on 08 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:

    368. At 00:51am on 08 Apr 2010, slrtx wrote:

    @LarryKealey (#367)

    As the owner of the timeline, I can tell you I did not leave Lorenz's comments about climate models out on purpose.

    I'll be sure to add that comment to the timeline.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    You might also do a bit of research and include the reasons why Ed Lorenz believed that neither weather nor climate could ever be predicted.

    Keep in mind, there was a great deal of research going on at the time with a focus around 'weather control'. Dr. Lorenz also made it clear that we could never 'control' (or tackle, if you prefer) weather or climate because while we could introduce inputs into the system, we could never predict the affects upon the system of those inputs.

    These are all tenets of chaos theory (and non-linear dynamics). Where in your timeline do the climate modelers throw away the established mathematical theory so that they can claim to 'predict climate change' and suggest that we can 'tackle climate change'??

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 380. At 3:03pm on 08 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Infinty #375

    Papers would be reviewed and published, but in general the would be considered to be much more than a speculative punt until those results had been confirmed either by re-analysis or re-observation. In the case of climate science papers you would need to make your source/raw data available to other interested parties, so that they could attempt to reproduce the results of your analysis.

    With colliders, you'd tend to do both. You'd make your data available to other interested parties, so that they could confirm your discovery as being reasonable interpretation of the tracks that you’d detected and you and others would attempt to replicate the experimental results in further experiments.

    It should be noted that, most of the LHC experiments are targeted at trying to confirm other bits of research. It may obviously find some new things as well, but the search for the Higgs, is a search for a theoretical particle that could lead to the validation of the standard model. In other words it's just an attempt, albeit a very big and expensive one, to confirm a nice theory by way of expermental observation.

    If maybe you're searching for dark matter particles which don't turn up very often, then you'd first attempt to explain any strange readings you might have detected in any other possible way and once these attempts had failed or been exhausted, you might reasonably conclude that you'd successfully detected dark matter and you'd publish (as has happened not too long back).

    You'd then supply your data to others for re-analysis and we'd all sit back and wait for an eternity to see if something similar happened again and in the mean time you could bask in the glow of potentially having found something novel/new. Unless, of course the group who was looking at your data discovered that your detections coincided with your security guard microwaving his lunch (which, hasn’t happened as far as I’m aware)

    Whilst all of this was going on, I'm sure if anyone asked you then you'd explain that dark matter was just your best guess at what you'd detected and it would stay just as that, a best guess/an interesting thing that I did last Tuesday until there was some confirmation.

    If you guys are happy at being classed along with the best guessers, then I guess that I'm happy with that too. Unfortunately, it seems that most warmists and climate scientists would claim to be a lot more certain than that and that's the basic problem.

    If they won't or are reluctant to let other people look at their source data, then it looks as if there is some sort of deception going on.

    Surely you must at least understand that point, even if you choose not to agree with it, you must be able to see that it could "feel" wrong?

    Complain about this comment

  • 381. At 3:15pm on 08 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    "why Ed Lorenz believed that neither weather nor climate could ever be predicted"

    So he was wrong because people do indeed predict (forecast) weather. Then again I doubt he actually believed what you claim.

    Complain about this comment

  • 382. At 3:49pm on 08 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @381.

    and the accuracy you would give this predictive power?

    Complain about this comment

  • 383. At 3:51pm on 08 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @my own post

    Ooops, mea culpa. Please excuse my typos:

    "Papers would be reviewed and published, but in general the would be considered to be much more than a speculative punt until those results had been confirmed either by re-analysis or re-observation."

    Should read:

    "Papers would be reviewed and published, but in general THEY would NOT be considered to be much more than a speculative punt/nice theory until those results had been confirmed either by re-analysis or re-observation."

    I guess the point of all of these posts, from myself and my sceptical brethren is that it would seem that at least the guys at CRU and some of their email sharing confederates may not have been following what we might consider "best practices" and it would seem that they have also been evasive/unresponsive to requests for their data. In any other academic field this would be considered to be more than a little bit "naughty" and people might rightly then go on to question their results and any conclusions that they might have reached.

    To coin a phrase, "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof" and this just hasn't been forthcoming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 384. At 4:10pm on 08 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @infinity #381

    Need I point you in the direction of Michael Fish and Hurricanes?

    Or perhaps the slightly more recent example, from Satuday's F1 Qualifying session.

    Sorry, mate, couldn't resist ;-)

    You're right. Forecasting is way, way better than it used to be, but given the old descent into chaos thing it's never going to be 100% or indeed anything very much like that(Obviously, a lot will depend on the granularity of the prediction that you're trying to make). But, you'll just get me back into trying explain modelling and fluid dynamics again and that's never good, so I'm stopping here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 385. At 5:21pm on 08 Apr 2010, slrtx wrote:


    @LarryKealey (#379 and #367)

    You bring up some good points, but so far I'm hitting a dry well on the evidence that Lorenz's opinions in any way has affected the ability for models to work.

    You are right, Lorenz did have opinions about this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Norton_Lorenz

    But, I need links, urls - solid evidence. Perhaps since you seem to know about this, please post the links to help me review your claims. So we don't go back/forth on this here(sorry, BBC), I suggest you post comments on my timeline page, or just send me your info via my contact page.

    I'm open to constructive criticism and suggestions, but I don't have a lot of free time to chase every claim. I need solid leads.

    If I find anything worth posting, I'll be sure to post it. But, it may take time, if I have to spend my time to figure out where you are getting your information.

    Thanks, slrtx

    Complain about this comment

  • 386. At 6:04pm on 08 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    LabMunkey @ #376

    "well we've got different experience there then. Without the data to check the claims, the peer-review is worthless. I accept your distinction about the replication- but i still think, from my experience, that the withholding of data invalidates any serious claim of conclusive peer-review."

    I'm not saying that the data could not be made available if requested. I'm merely pointing out that it would not normally be included in a scientific paper and would also not ordinarily be requested, as most reviewers take such things on trust. The most important thing is that there is enough detail given to allow someone else to carry out the same experiments and analysis.

    When it comes to climate science, I think you are actually using the wrong term in "witholding", as it is clearly understood by those working in the field that some of the data CANNOT be made publicly available. The term "witholding" implies something willfull, which it is not.

    "self validating data sets. You're kidding me right? that wouldn't even get through an in-house audit..."

    No! Not self-validating. The point is that you cannot reproduce something such as a temperature record because each measurement relates to a specific point in time.... unless we have a time machine we can't go back and measure it again! The point I'm making is that there are a number of different datasets monitoring global temperature. The fact that they all show the same trend indicates that none of them are likely to be erroneous.

    Ultimately, it is the multiple studies on each topic, all reproducing the same outcome, which provides the confidence that the data is correct.

    "Re-the articles you linked. As is often the case (on both sides) the articles either miss the point completely (as in the first case) or attempt to mislead through intentional or un-intentional misunderstandings."

    We'll have to agree to disagree on that! There are problems with data availability in climate science, but these are NOT of the scientists' making - they are being subjected to wholly unwarranted personal attacks.

    "Specific example- the cru 'leaked/hacked' emails. Much of the coverage focus' around the word 'trick' and the 'language' of the emails. These are interesting points, but peripheral to the REAL issue- the code (which started the revelations on the station data, again i mention bolivia here and will keep doing so until an AGW-er gives me an explanation for it) and the peer-review perversion were the real issues."

    Regarding the code, as I understand it, there is NO evidence that it was ever used in a paper - indeed UEA have categorically DENIED that it was. You need to read Dr Tim Osborn's submission to the recent parliamentary enquiry, which clarifies this point. The most pertinent sections are presented here:

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/10/mcclimategate-continues-yet-another-false-accusation-from-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/

    Also, I have seen NO evidence of "peer-review perversion" - just a few cherry-picked phrases presented without their full context. There is actually plenty of evidence available online, if you care to look, which shows that the scientists did NOT subvert the peer-review process.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 387. At 6:14pm on 08 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Blunderbunny @ #377 (& #383)

    "I'm with Larry, if you can't make available your raw data sets, then you can't publish a paper that's based on them. This happens in many fields, a lot of scientists involved in government projects are unable to publish their work in what one might call a traditional manner.

    If you're insisting that agreements with other governments mean that the Raw data cannot ever be published/shared, then that's it, it’s really all over for climate science - Case dismissed........."

    Of course, that argument suits sceptics, who find CO2 emission limits unpalatable, down to the ground!

    However, your argument is wholly unrealistic. Mankind has to get to the bottom of this issue, whether you like it or not, and the scientists have to operate within the confines of their field.

    I refer you back to comments in my previous post regarding the total impossibility of "reproducing" actual data in climate science. It is the multiple sources of data which provide confidence in this case.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 388. At 7:49pm on 08 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @387:

    "If you're insisting that agreements with other governments mean that the Raw data cannot ever be published/shared, then that's it"

    Like Sweden, for example? That was one of the countries identified by Phil Jones as being unwilling to allow their data to be published.

    What ACTUALLY transpired was that Jones asked the Swedish met office for permission to publish CRU-adjusted Swedish data.
    To which they refused, telling him that they, quite understandably. had serious issues with him publishing 'adjusted' data and passing it off as their data. The raw unadjusted data is anyway available from the Swedish met office website.

    Complain about this comment

  • 389. At 8:02pm on 08 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @386:

    "Also, I have seen NO evidence of "peer-review perversion"

    You might find this video enlightening then, particularly the first panellist:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itE2NiZZH_k

    Consider this as well:

    1) 'Peer' means one's equal.
    2) In the case of climate scientists, their peers are other climate scientists.
    3) Their work is therefore largely reviewed by other climate scientists.
    4) We are told that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with the AGW consensus.

    Don't you see that as a rather obvious source of bias?

    Complain about this comment

  • 390. At 8:10pm on 08 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #387 Paul Briscoe wrote:

    "that argument suits sceptics, who find CO2 emission limits unpalatable, down to the ground!"

    Interesting bit of punctuation there. The commas suggest that the middle bit is a parenthetical clause. In other words, "ALL sceptics find CO2 limits unpalatable", with the dark hint that we're only interested in politics.

    For the record: I couldn't give a monkey's uncle about CO2 emission limits, I'm not in the pay of Big OIl, I'm a left-wing guy in favour of high taxes, I'm an ex-academic who thinks the science stinks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 391. At 9:16pm on 08 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe #387

    Sorry Paul, but that's not an answer.

    I've taken great lengths to explain to you and others what problems that my sceptical brethren) have with the way that "science" is being conducted by some in the arena of, let's call it "climate studies" for the minute (using the word science in relation to all of this is starting to stick in my craw) and we get this:

    "However, your argument is wholly unrealistic. Mankind has to get to the bottom of this issue, whether you like it or not, and the scientists have to operate within the confines of their field.

    I refer you back to comments in my previous post regarding the total impossibility of "reproducing" actual data in climate science. It is the multiple sources of data which provide confidence in this case."

    Science that is not reproducible is simply not science!

    If you can't even reproduce what someone else has just done, then you cannot make any predictions or come to any conclusions. You would simply just be making stuff up.......

    Complain about this comment

  • 392. At 9:54pm on 08 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Peter317 @ #317

    I'm afraid that I don't have sufficient bandwidth at present to watch the video.

    What I can say, though, is that I have read of 2 claims relating to peer-review in the Climategate emails. Further back up this thread I have linked to video which shows why the first was unjustified. With regard to the second...... although Prof. Jones spoke of "changing the peer review process" to keep papers out of the IPCC report, the papers DID actually appear, indicating that he did not act on his words.

    There is an important point which seems to be missed by far too many - these were private emails between individuals whose unguarded comments do not necessarily reflect what they might do in practice. For example, Ben Santer talked of violence, yet there is no indication that he is really a violent man. How many of us have said things to our friends and colleagues in anger or out of mock "bravado" that we would never actually act on? Quite a lot, I suspect! What might McIntyre and McKitrick's private emails reveal..... or Senator Inhofe's?!

    "1) 'Peer' means one's equal.
    2) In the case of climate scientists, their peers are other climate scientists.
    3) Their work is therefore largely reviewed by other climate scientists.
    4) We are told that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with the AGW consensus."

    Exactly the same applies to all fields of science, as only people working in the relevant field are placed to adequately review it. It is, I suppose, inevitable that some sceptics will view this with suspicion where climate science is concerned....... but then we're coming back to the "conspiracy theory" again, which the "timeline" I linked to above puts into proper perspective.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 393. At 9:58pm on 08 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Bowman @ #390

    No, it was not my intention to imply that all sceptics take that view, although I acknowledge that it could be construed that way.

    I have a tendency to use more commas than I should on occasion.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 394. At 10:34pm on 08 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Blunderbunny @ #391

    "Science that is not reproducible is simply not science!

    If you can't even reproduce what someone else has just done, then you cannot make any predictions or come to any conclusions."

    Sorry, but I don't accept that argument at all. It's patently obvious that you cannot "reproduce" a past temperature measurement and patently ridiculous to suggest that this fact invalidates all scientific studies which involve the use of a temperature record. It certainly requires a different approach from the one you may be familiar with, but that doesn't make it bad science. The SENSIBLE approach in this case is to have multiple measures of global temperature....... which is exactly what the scientists have done.

    "You would simply just be making stuff up......"

    Well that's what it comes down to, in reality, isn't it? You just don't TRUST the scientists not to make stuff up! I clearly can't alter that, so I guess that we'll have to agree to differ!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 395. At 10:59pm on 08 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @392:

    "Exactly the same applies to all fields of science, as only people working in the relevant field are placed to adequately review it."

    I'm afraid I cannot agree.
    As a rather pertinent example: a specialist in, say, dendrochronology, may know a great deal about tree rings, but not have specialist knowledge of statistics.
    Said dendro chap then does statistical analyses of his data and comes to a conclusion but, because he doesn't know enough about statistics to avoid the very numerous pitfalls which trap the unwary, he ends up fooling himself (and most of his peers) into believing that his conclusions are robust.
    A statistician, who doesn't know much about dendro stuff, then looks at his work and immediately sees the glaring holes.
    And that's something that's not peculiar to climate science - many scientific and engineering disciplines have practitioners who may be experts in their particular field, but who know just enough about statistics to be dangerous.
    It's all too easy to fool yourself with statistics.
    And it's not just statistics either.
    All scientific work benefits by exposing itself to as wide a field of expertise as is practical, and suffers when that field is narrow.

    Complain about this comment

  • 396. At 11:28pm on 08 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 391. blunderbunny wrote:

    "I refer you back to comments in my previous post regarding the total impossibility of "reproducing" actual data in climate science. It is the multiple sources of data which provide confidence in this case."

    How about you tell us exactly what results in climate science are in doubt because you think they are not reproducible? You must have quite a list from the sounds of it. So go on give us just 5.

    Complain about this comment

  • 397. At 11:38pm on 08 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    388. Peter317 wrote:

    "Like Sweden, for example? That was one of the countries identified by Phil Jones as being unwilling to allow their data to be published.

    What ACTUALLY transpired was that Jones asked the Swedish met office for permission to publish CRU-adjusted Swedish data. To which they refused"

    That amounts to the Swedish met office forbidding Jones from releasing the data requested by FOI. Which is what Jones claimed. So this proves him right. He was not allowed to release the data.

    "telling him that they, quite understandably. had serious issues with him publishing 'adjusted' data and passing it off as their data. The raw unadjusted data is anyway available from the Swedish met office website."

    The FOI requests demanded the data Jones's held, not the Swedish met office data he didn't. Jones was not allowed to release what he was asked for.

    If skeptics wanted the raw temperature data they could get it off from the Swedish met office website. If they want the copy Jones has, the Swedish met office forbid him from releasing it. Legal restrictions.

    Tell me again what your point is here other than proving Jones was right?

    Complain about this comment

  • 398. At 00:15am on 09 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Peter317 @ #395

    Peter,

    There are any number of different scientific disciplines within the climate science field and between them they are more than capable of carrying out a thorough peer review. I think climate science is being singled out unfairly because some are so determined to discredit the science.

    I don't, for example, hear people criticising medical scientists over peer review...... except, perhaps, for the tobacco industry when it was trying to discredit the science linking smoking to cancer!

    Of course, bad papers do get through the net and it is sometimes necessary for responses to be written by other scientists to correct problems or poor science. However, this is not peculiar to climate science - it is true of EVERY branch of science.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 399. At 00:23am on 09 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Peter......

    One other thing I didn't point out with regard to your last post was that the US National Academy of Science did its own statistical analysis of the original Mann et al tree ring data...... and then proceeded to produce almost exactly the same graph from it as Mann had done.

    In fact, I have no problem with the science being audited by people such as McIntyre - in my view this benefits the science. However, it is critically important that the auditing is entirely objective and impartial.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 400. At 06:39am on 09 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Paul at #374 and subsequently

    Thanks!

    Complain about this comment

  • 401. At 06:57am on 09 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe #373 who wrote...
    "Agreed, which is why climate scientists consider water vapour, a greenhouse gas, to be a positive feedback in AGW. Certainly, you would also expect the contribution of latent heat to atmospheric warming to increase, but you haven't explained how this invalidates the scientists' estimates of overall forcing."

    Actually, latent heat and convection are known and admitted to be negative feedbacks. You're confusing it with the supposed additional greenhouse type forcing from water vapor...but even combining water vapor and CO2 absorption, the energy carried by latent heat goes up much faster.
    ===========================
    "water vapor contributes to 60% of the total radiative forcing, while carbon dioxide contributes 26% to the clear sky
    radiative forcing."

    That's 26% of 350 W/m2!


    You're letting yourself be fooled by really bad propaganda. Why aren't you counting the energy from in front of you, behind you, to your left and to your right? That's over 1500 watts per meter! What matters is the overall outgoing radiation...as you have already said yourself. Of all the energy radiated away by the atmosphere...the bulk of it currently travels through latent heat and convection. This means that the skew between absorption and emissions is already being strongly moderated through non-radiative means.

    ===========================


    "Except that the graphic you linked to shows that their role is small relative to the greenhouse effect."

    And that is the biggest tragedy here. The whole "back radiation" concept is included in a poor attempt to explain the greenhouse effect...but it clouds the issue. Forward radiation is all that matters...as you've pointed out. Radiative balance boils down to overall absorptive efficiency verses overall emissive efficiency...and where the heck the energy for emissions comes from is a big part of that. Because of the oceans, as temperature goes up here on earth, more and more of the radiated energy will come from the water cycle.

    This is also the reason the long term ocean currents cause such a significant fluctuation in temperatures. As they go through their cycles they cause significant fluctuations in cloud cover, latent heat and convection.

    Complain about this comment

  • 402. At 08:32am on 09 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #374 Paul Briscoe wrote:

    "climate science presents a problem in that the measurements are only valid at a single point in time."

    Every individual measurement in all sciences is taken just once. It's observation types rather than individual observation tokens that are repeatable. For example, each individual measurement of the gravitational constant is unique, but Cavendish's experimental setup can be repeated at will, and inasmuch as the results of repeated experiments agree, there is a clear repeatable observation type.

    "This is why the various different datasets effectively validate each other in this case."

    Are you saying that each "dataset" should be treated as a token of an observation type, as above?

    That’s an interesting suggestion – if we accept it, the observations that can be repeated are measurements that different individual datasets reliably agree on.

    “It's not perfect, but it is the best that can be achieved in this case.”

    Nothing’s perfect, but sometimes imperfections are tarted up to look better than they really are. Within what sorts of tolerances do the datasets agree, and can future datasets be confidently predicted to agree as well?

    Complain about this comment

  • 403. At 09:00am on 09 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Poitsplace @ #401

    "Actually, latent heat and convection are known and admitted to be negative feedbacks."

    I'm presuming that you are referring to "lapse rate feedback". This is already taken into account by the scientists in their climate models.

    "You're confusing it with the supposed additional greenhouse type forcing from water vapor...but even combining water vapor and CO2 absorption, the energy carried by latent heat goes up much faster."

    No, I'm not! Why would latent heat increase "much faster" than water vapour feedback when both rely on exactly the same mechanism - namely increased water vapour in the atmosphere? ....... and as I've pointed out above, the scientists do allow for this effect already.

    This is a scientific evaluation of lapse rate feedback:

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10850&page=24


    "You're letting yourself be fooled by really bad propaganda."

    No! It comes straight out of a scientific paper quoted in IPCC AR4. Do you have a paper that contradicts this?


    "And that is the biggest tragedy here. The whole "back radiation" concept is included in a poor attempt to explain the greenhouse effect...but it clouds the issue. Forward radiation is all that matters...as you've pointed out. Radiative balance boils down to overall absorptive efficiency verses overall emissive efficiency...and where the heck the energy for emissions comes from is a big part of that. Because of the oceans, as temperature goes up here on earth, more and more of the radiated energy will come from the water cycle.

    This is also the reason the long term ocean currents cause such a significant fluctuation in temperatures. As they go through their cycles they cause significant fluctuations in cloud cover, latent heat and convection."

    Sadly, I don't have time to debate this with you just now, but I think you need to come up with a scientific reference or two to support your views. As I stated above, it's clear that the scientists are well aware of the effects of convection and latent heat and have allowed for them. It isn't as though they haven't thought things through!

    In particular, you need to better explain how back radiation is unimportant when any additional radiation reaching the Earth's surface adds heat to the system...... and it certainly does exist:

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 404. At 09:36am on 09 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe

    You are still apparently not understanding what I've been telling you. Even if your measurements cannot be retaken, they form your initial data set. This initial data set should be shared with other interested parties for re-analysis.

    If you cannot do that, this really is not and I do mean NOT science.

    The checks and balances that exist in science are there for a very good reason!

    That reason being to protect the rest of us and science itself from charlatans and frauds.

    If one chooses to divorce yourself from these practices then, then one is forced to ask the question (Which it seems even George Monbiot is asking) - Why?

    Comments like the one from Dr. Jones about why should he give his data to someone that just wants to pick holes in it, show a complete lack of understanding of what might be considered the "normal" scientific method, that's precisely why you should give the data to him. If there are holes to be picked than you got it wrong, if there no holes then you're on the right track and “jobs a good’un”, so to speak.

    I really do fail to comprehend, your apparent lack of comprehension!!!!

    This is certainly how the rest of us behave, what makes those that indulge in “Climate Studies” so special?

    As to inifinity’s question about what results I have a problem with, given the apparent endemic practices.... it would be ALL of them, the UEA CRU’s complete body of work. Their only way out of this mess, is to publish everything and hope that they haven’t all been as cavalier as it looks as if some of them might have been.

    This is not going to go away - It could even be the final nail in the coffin. When George turns on you, you know you really must be in trouble :-(

    Complain about this comment

  • 405. At 09:48am on 09 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Blunderbunny at #404

    You seem to miss the fact that auditing someone else's work is not the same as seeking to reproduce their research let alone performing one's own original research.

    Complain about this comment

  • 406. At 09:51am on 09 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe

    Oh, and by the way.

    "One other thing I didn't point out with regard to your last post was that the US National Academy of Science did its own statistical analysis of the original Mann et al tree ring data...... and then proceeded to produce almost exactly the same graph from it as Mann had done."

    As the whole basis of dendroclimatology is currently being called into question, this isn't really a terribly valid point is it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 407. At 10:17am on 09 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe #403 who wrote...
    "No, I'm not! Why would latent heat increase "much faster" than water vapour feedback when both rely on exactly the same mechanism - namely increased water vapour in the atmosphere? ....... and as I've pointed out above, the scientists do allow for this effect already."

    Hmmm, let's see what would happen if we doubled the content of water vapor in the atmosphere. The theoretical maximum "radiative forcing" (ignoring that almost all of its energy is carried by latent heat) would go up by a few percent. However the energy carried by latent heat and the more powerful convection all of that lighter water vapor would cause goes up to...well would you look at that...more energy than the atmosphere even radiates now. Obviously this can't happen...because convection and latent heat are extremely powerful negative feedbacks.

    Just because they have something in common doesn't mean they're the same.
    ========================

    "As I stated above, it's clear that the scientists are well aware of the effects of convection and latent heat and have allowed for them. It isn't as though they haven't thought things through"

    Its pretty clear that they haven't...nor have you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 408. At 10:29am on 09 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Simon

    When the work that you are talking about is simple data analysis, then what you call an audit and I've been calling re-analysis amounts to the same thing. And in the case where the work is just that, then this re-analyis by either another team or individual would then amount to reproducing the work. If the, lets call them an auditor (sticking with the general theme), comes to same conclusion at you did. Then this lends weight to your work, without this weight you're essentially the same as the man down the pub.....

    But re-analysis can only work where there is full disclosure, if you give someone an adjusted data source, then this process would not be useful and would not validate the work that you'd done. If you can, apparently, only give someone an adjusted data source then the work in question should be looked at very sceptically indeed.

    Hence, as you can probably tell from all of these blogs, there's a lot of scepticism out there. Only complete openess can salvage anything from this mess. Poorly performed science, can never be a basis for a global change.

    It really doesn't even matter if you might be right! You cannot take decisions affecting the whole world on the basis of science that might be even a little dodgy.

    As I've said previously, I just cannot understand how you guys on the warmist side of the argument cannot understand this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 409. At 10:41am on 09 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 404. blunderbunny:

    "As to inifinity’s question about what results I have a problem with, given the apparent endemic practices.... it would be ALL of them, the UEA CRU’s complete body of work."

    Lets take HadCRUT3, the CRU instrumental surface temperature record analysis as published by Phil Jones. That scientific result has been reproduced by NASA. You and me can access the data to reproduce it too. So what exactly is your problem with these results?

    Complain about this comment

  • 410. At 10:54am on 09 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    poitsplace appeals to a 1D climate model in his head to dismiss 3D climate models written by physicists which perform actual calculations on super computers. You can't make this stuff up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 411. At 11:15am on 09 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @infinity

    As I understand it the data that you mention is neither unadjusted, unsmoothed, un-interpolated or unfiltered. In other words, it's essentially valueless data.

    I don't see what your problem is? Dr. Jones has already admitted that and indeed that's the finding of the committee above, that this data has not been shared when it has been legitimately requested.

    You (the warmist collective) seem to be just trying to ignore all of this and I’m afraid that it's not going to go away.

    Fred, George and the Gurniad, have already jumped ship on this particular issue it’s only a matter of time until the rest of you are forced to follow - Groupthink and consensus cuts both ways you know.

    Complain about this comment

  • 412. At 11:36am on 09 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    The NAS panel stated that the Hockey Stick was 'plausible' because it resembled 'independent' studies.
    What they failed to make clear was that the 'independent' studies had many of the same issues.

    The NAS panel stated that Bristlecones should not be used for temperature reconstructions.
    All bar one 'independent' study used Bristlecones.

    The NAS panel also gave a range of validation statistics that they considered were necessary for a reliable reconstruction.
    Again, the NAS panel failed to make it clear that not only MBH98 but also all the 'independent' reconstructions failed these tests.

    Complain about this comment

  • 413. At 11:41am on 09 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    411. blunderbunny wrote:

    "As I understand it the data that you mention is neither unadjusted, unsmoothed, un-interpolated or unfiltered. In other words, it's essentially valueless data."

    You understand wrong. You should avoid drawing wild conclusions about an entire field of scientific results until you understand things a bit better.

    You haven't addressed how NASA managed to reproduce HadCRUT3. If the necessary means to reproduce the HadCRUT3 results are unavailable as you claim then that shouldn't have been possible should it? By avoiding addressing this contradiction with your argument you are essentially avoiding something that hints very strongly that your arguments are wrong.

    Raw station data is available from individual met offices around the world, some of it requires payment but given skeptics claim it's so important to check the science, that should be no problem. Jones cannot and does not control access to national met service station data.

    Raw monthly mean station data is available from GHCN - free of charge. They took the raw station data from individual met services and compiled a database of monthly mean temperature for stations around the world. It's been QA'd, but not adjusted. Again Jones cannot and does not control that.

    It's all out there. NASA and the NOAA have reproduced Hadcrut3 results. Amateur bloggers are reproducing the HadCRUT3 results too. Your complaints about the scientific results are empty. All you really have is some scientically irrelevant argument about how Jones responds to emails.

    Complain about this comment

  • 414. At 11:53am on 09 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #234, Albatross claims that I am squirming and disingenuous.

    I guess that I have won that argument.

    The Hockey Team did indeed criticize the lack of decadal resolution in the paper by Soon and Baliunas. This is the Hockey Team that removes two decades of data to 'hide the decline'.

    Is 10 years now climate not weather?

    As for “Also,the hockey-shape curve has been corroborated by numerous independent proxy temperature reconstructions using everything from sediments to corals.”

    Sediment variation caused by building work and used upside-down. Confirmation indeed!

    Complain about this comment

  • 415. At 11:55am on 09 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Blunderbunny at #408

    I agree that it is important to check for errors. But if all you do is audit someone else's work then you will not advance 'science'. Instead, you will simply be perpetually going round in circles!

    Complain about this comment

  • 416. At 12:11pm on 09 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @infinity

    I'm sorry mate, but that's just simply untrue and my level of understanding is just fine, thanks very much.

    Are you saying that even the very limited rebuke delivered by the committee above, has no grounds or basis in truth/fact?

    I'm not really sure that's a very sustainable position.

    What are your opinions on the Guardian's bit of investigative journalism then?

    Complain about this comment

  • 417. At 12:32pm on 09 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @infinity

    How about I point you in the direction of:

    "Revised optimally averaged global and hemispheric land and ocean surface temperature series including HadCRUT3 data set"

    by,

    "Philip Brohan, John Kennedy, Simon Tett, Ian Harris and Phil Jones"

    Which describes how they intened to create HADCRUT3 - you can see from this, that it is definitely not the RAW dataset. You really, really should check all of your facts you know.

    Can I expect an apology/retraction?

    Complain about this comment

  • 418. At 12:35pm on 09 Apr 2010, andrew9999 wrote:

    @poitsplace #369 #407 etc
    (paul briscoe)

    I'm a little mystified about how your exponential rise in the rate of evotranspiration with temperature is powered, where does the extra power come from?

    It seems like a leap of logic to say that because the amount of water vapour carried by air rises exponentially with temperature therefore the RATE of water evaporated at the surface rises exponentially with temperature. The extra power to evaporate the water at the surface must come from somewhere and according to you this rises exponentially, so what changes exponentially: the power of the sun, obviously not; the back radiation?. I just don't understand, am I missing something?

    Complain about this comment

  • 419. At 12:46pm on 09 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    whoa.

    @ peter- re data inclusion in papers.

    I think we've been talking at cross purposes here. I accept that it is not usual to include data with a paper on submission- what i don't accept is that after the initial review- the data is not THEN checked.

    @ infinity

    i've looked at some of that raw data- i linked a section for you so you could look at it (earlier on), i also asked a question- i.e. how did a place in birmingham reach 98'C....

    ALSO, i'm still waiting for an explanation for the boilivia data.

    Finally, the nasa data has also been called into question for 'inconsistencies' with published and RAW data. the links for this are in these threads.

    Complain about this comment

  • 420. At 12:50pm on 09 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @417. not really, it's not like he's actually going to read it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 421. At 1:09pm on 09 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 416 blunderbunny:

    "I'm sorry mate, but that's just simply untrue and my level of understanding is just fine, thanks very much."

    Your response is highly inadequate, but I'll leave it there. I doubt you will continue making these "non-reproducable" claims...for a while.

    "What are your opinions on the Guardian's bit of investigative journalism then?"

    I couldn't care less, I read the Daily Mail, never the Guardian and don't intend to change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 422. At 1:17pm on 09 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    417. blunderbunny wrote:

    "Which describes how they intened to create HADCRUT3 - you can see from this, that it is definitely not the RAW dataset."

    HADCRUT3 is not supposed to be a raw dataset. It's the result of processing raw data. They used raw temperature data obtained from national met services to do that.

    How do you explain how NASA managed to reproduce the results? And the NOAA? And a couple of bloggers? Evidentally the CRU HadCRUT3 result is reproducable.

    "Can I expect an apology/retraction?"

    It's you who should be retracting your false accusations against climate science and perhaps even apologizing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 423. At 1:42pm on 09 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Infinity (Always liked the screen anme by the way)

    With regard to HADCRUT3 being a Raw Data set or not, I would refer my learned colleague, back to his earlier answer in post #413:

    A quote from me:

    "As I understand it the data that you mention is neither unadjusted, unsmoothed, un-interpolated or unfiltered. In other words, it's essentially valueless data."

    And your response to that quote:

    "You understand wrong. You should avoid drawing wild conclusions about an entire field of scientific results until you understand things a bit better."

    I'm still waiting for my apology, but I guess we'll have to wait for next ice age before that's going to happen - You never know that might not be too far away ;-)

    As to my understanding limited or otherwise, I think I seem to be holding my own at the moment and I certainly seem to have done a bit more research than you have.

    Complain about this comment

  • 424. At 1:46pm on 09 Apr 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    Climate Sensitivity

    Regular readers will know that I am a firmly sceptical of CO2 being the primary driver of global warming, but accept man does have a role in climate change due to deforestation, land use change etc.

    Roy Spencer has a new paper which has finally been accepted by the Journal of Geophysical Research after Spencer went back to basics with the reviewers and convinced them the paper was correct. The process took 2 years. The date for publishing has not yet been decided.:

    The main message of the paper is that feedbacks are, in general, not observable in the real climate system because natural variations in cloud cover obscure them. This is the cause-versus-effect issue I have been harping on for years: You cannot measure cloud FEEDBACK (temperature changes causing cloud changes) unless you can quantify and remove the effect of internal radiative FORCING (cloud changes causing temperature changes). Causation in one direction must be accounted for in order to measure causation in the other direction.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/update-cloud-forcing-paper-finally-accepted-to-jgr/

    Well done, Roy.

    Could more people please pay attention and try to understand climate sensitivity, which is what the argument boils down to?

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 425. At 2:20pm on 09 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    "As I understand it the data that you mention"

    The data used to *reproduce* the HadCRUT3 result isn't HADCRUT3 which *is* the result. The data used is raw station data. That's how NASA managed to reproduce the result - because the result isn't dependent on anything CRU or Phil Jones own.

    Complain about this comment

  • 426. At 2:29pm on 09 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Mango #424

    That's great news, mate. Climate sensitivity is still the 64 trillion dollar question after all.

    I seem have got sidetracked into arguing over what is and isn't science. Still, I guess that's the nature of the Beast.

    Complain about this comment

  • 427. At 3:22pm on 09 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Infinity

    Okay, as we seem to be at an impasse. I’ll just refer you back to one of my earlier statements from this thread:

    "I don't see what your problem is? Dr. Jones has already admitted that and indeed that's the finding of the committee above, that this data has not been shared when it has been legitimately requested."

    It’s honestly not worth going round the houses with you. One minute the data is the raw dataset, the next, it’s not.

    I told you that it was their results not the raw data itself and I pointed you at their own paper telling you how it was created or at least how it was going to be created.

    You’ve squirmed around a bit, but what’s the point?

    It’s a nice day outside and I for one intend to enjoy it. If you can’t acknowledge the evidence that people on your side of the fence might have been just a tad dubious in their scientific practices, then it’s not really my fault.

    I hope you and everyone else on the blog have a good weekend

    Complain about this comment

  • 428. At 5:42pm on 09 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @399:

    "One other thing I didn't point out with regard to your last post was that the US National Academy of Science did its own statistical analysis of the original Mann et al tree ring data...... and then proceeded to produce almost exactly the same graph from it as Mann had done."

    Probably because they made essentially the same mistakes, amongst which were:

    1) They used a much longer time constant for filtering the proxy data than for the instrumental data - the longer the time constant you use, the more the result starts resembling a straight line. Apples and oranges.

    2) If you cut off a signal (eg at the last year for which data is available) then any amount of filtering is going to introduce noise into the pass-band, which can very well be indistinguishable from the signal you're trying to measure. And the higher-order filtering you use, the more noise you inject. There are techniques for minimising this effect, but they depend on an accurate guess as to the shape of the curve after the cut-off point. Get this guess wrong, and you might as well not have tried.

    3) If the noise is significantly greater than the signal you're trying to detect, and the frequency is of the same order of magnitude, forget it. The more filtering you do in order to get rid of the noise, the more you attenuate the signal you're trying to detect. And the higher the order of the filtering, the more noise you inject - see point 2 above.
    This is fine if you know exactly the size and shape of the signal you're trying to detect and you're just interested in seeing whether or not it's present, but otherwise, it's an impossibility.

    Complain about this comment

  • 429. At 5:47pm on 09 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @398:

    "I don't, for example, hear people criticising medical scientists over peer review."

    Please don't get me started on THAT. I do try to have a life outside of blogland, you know ;-)

    "it is true of EVERY branch of science."

    Precisely one of the points I was trying to make.

    Have a good weekend...

    Complain about this comment

  • 430. At 6:07pm on 09 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Infinity @397:

    The way I understand it, the FOI requests were made because they could not replicate the results with the raw data.
    If Jones was not allowed to pass on the adjusted data, he could have told them how he made the adjustments - instead of leaving them to guess.

    Complain about this comment

  • 431. At 6:14pm on 09 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @399:

    "In fact, I have no problem with the science being audited by people such as McIntyre - in my view this benefits the science. However, it is critically important that the auditing is entirely objective and impartial."

    As a certain comedian once remarked, "If my friends laugh at my jokes, that's one thing. But if the hecklers laugh at my jokes, then I know that they're really funny."

    Complain about this comment

  • 432. At 6:31pm on 09 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    @andrew9999 #418 who wrote...

    "I'm a little mystified about how your exponential rise in the rate of evotranspiration with temperature is powered, where does the extra power come from? "

    That is exactly what I'm asking. Where the heck is this energy supposed to come from? I mean, obviously it would come from the ambient energy as heat. But that means that it absorbs that ambient energy at the ground, lowering the maximum possible temperature increase. Then that energy is dumped across the tropospheric gradient, entirely bypassing radiative transfer for that leg of the journey.

    Complain about this comment

  • 433. At 6:44pm on 09 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 419. LabMunkey:
    "@ infinity

    i've looked at some of that raw data- i linked a section for you so you could look at it (earlier on), i also asked a question- i.e. how did a place in birmingham reach 98'C...."

    You are looking at the wrong file. I think the column you are looking at is height above sea level not temperature.

    "ALSO, i'm still waiting for an explanation for the boilivia data."

    What kind of explanation?

    "Finally, the nasa data has also been called into question for 'inconsistencies' with published and RAW data."

    Again very vague. "Links in the thread..."

    Complain about this comment

  • 434. At 7:47pm on 09 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    427. blunderbunny wrote:

    "I don't see what your problem is? Dr. Jones has already admitted that and indeed that's the finding of the committee above, that this data has not been shared when it has been legitimately requested."

    The problem is you extrapolate something quite scientifically irrelevant into some bold claim that ALL scientific results from the CRU (and perhaps beyond) cannot be reproduced and are therefore not adequate science. When in actual fact all it means is Jones's working cannot be replicated *exactly*. Jones has provided enough info that you can closely follow his work but not enough that you can exactly follow it.

    The scientific validity of the instrumental surface record does not depend on being able to replicate Jones using the exact same method and data.

    Jones hadCRUT3 analysis provides an answer to the question "what do station temperature data tell us about global temperature over the past 100+ years?". If there is a valid answer then any valid method or selection of data should obtain it.

    Indeed NASA used a different method and a different selection of stations and find the same result. The result is clearly not dependent on anything secret Jones has done - or else others wouldn't have found the same result.

    Phil Jones has published detailed explaination of the methods used to compile HadCRUT3. Furthermore scientists at NASA and NOAA have done likewise for their methods. If someone wants to try to reproduce Jones's result (and NASAs) you can take the data of a different selection of stations and apply slightly different method. You could follow Jones's method quite closely to do this, if you want, or you could use a completely different method of your choosing. If you get a different result from HadCRUT3 then you know the HadCRUT3 result is dependent on station selection or a specific methodology and therefore it is wrong. If you get the same result, you've just reproduced the HadCRUT3 result.

    Jones doesn't *own* the raw station data, he *used* it. Jones doesn't need to provide the raw data as long as the raw data are available elsewhere, which it is.

    Raw monthly mean temperature data for about 6000 stations around the world can be downloaded for free from the GHCN site. It's monthly mean temperature data taken from raw station records. It has been through QA to remove invalid data, duplicate records, etc, but essentially it's raw.

    If you don't even trust that you can always go grab the daily temperature records from national met services around the world.

    So the idea that the data is hidden away and noone can check the science is conclusively false. The only thing that you can't get hold of is specific things like the exact working Jones used, the model of his desk and the type of ink he used. But you don't need that stuff for any scientific reason.

    Ironically by replicating Jones's working exactly you will just get the same result and won't know whether that result depends on the selection and method used.

    So what relevance does Jones withholding station data have on the science?

    Nothing.

    Sure it looks bad (and that's the only reason to not do it), but in light of the fact that data wasn't required to check his results, and who was asking for the data, I can understand why he reacted as he did. I can understand that certain people will ask for stuff hoping to find some kind of nitpick with it. Something like the equivalent of not crossing a 't' so they can make such a molehill into a mountain and launch a big Blog Story about it.

    There was no need to obtain Phil Jones's exact working for any scientific reason. If you want to check HadCRUT3 you can reproduce the result using station data from elsewhere. You don't need the exact working, in fact following the exact working and method would just yeild the same exact result, which would be pointless. It wouldn't tell you if that result depended on station selection and/or the method.


    Complain about this comment

  • 435. At 8:58pm on 09 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Infinity

    You're not having a good day are you mate?

    Sadly, you seem fixated on your own personal idea of what constitutes reproducable results, what constitutes raw data and most importantly what constitutes the proper scientific method(At least, as the rest of the world understands it).

    Perhaps, you might benefit from taking a science course or two - I really am at a loss for any more words on the subject and I think I'm going to leave there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 436. At 10:43pm on 09 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Blunderbunny @ #404

    "You are still apparently not understanding what I've been telling you. Even if your measurements cannot be retaken, they form your initial data set. This initial data set should be shared with other interested parties for re-analysis.

    If you cannot do that, this really is not and I do mean NOT science."

    Blunderbunny,

    I have a science-based PhD and postdoctoral research experience, so please don't try to lecture me on how science should be performed!

    Clearly, if you are looking for a reason to dismiss science you don't like, you're always going to home in on a problem of this nature.

    However, the fact remains that the data DOES NOT BELONG TO UEA! Your suggestion that the fact it cannot all be made publicly available (80% of it is!) should prevent it from being used is ridiculous...... and NO, I do NOT agree with you that it prevents it from being considered science.

    Scientists in other fields also have to work within similar constraints and this does not invalidate their work.

    If you want to believe that it is inadmissible because of data availability problems I obviously can't change that. Perhaps one outcome of the Climategate affair will be a more sensible system leading to full availability of data......... but I rather doubt that it will make any difference to your views!

    I've said all I intend to on this matter, so let's just agree to disagree!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 437. At 10:59pm on 09 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Poitsplace @ #407

    I'm not at home just now and don't have much bandwidth or time, so I won't attempt to tackle your points in detail.

    The problem is this........

    You appear to be suggesting that you know better than scientists who have made study of climate their life's work. You are saying that their peer-reviewed literature and the whole IPCC AR4 report are incorrect.

    Yet you have provided no evidence to suggest that you are an authority on the subject, let alone provided scientific references to back up what you are saying.

    As such, your arguments are simply not credible.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 438. At 11:10pm on 09 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Peter317 @ #428

    "Probably because they made essentially the same mistakes....."

    So you're saying that the highest scientific body in the US knows less about statistical analysis than you do?

    I'm wondering whether the arguments you present are your own or someone else's. Certainly, McIntyre continues to claim that the improved statistical analysis used by Mann et al is still flawed, but others disagree and McIntyre's own handling of the tree-ring data has also come in for criticism. In other words, his continued criticisms are merely assertions rather than statements of fact.

    Also, there's no escaping the fact that plenty of other proxy studies, only some of which are tree-ring based, have backed up Mann's work.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 439. At 11:16pm on 09 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Peter317 @ #429

    I won't ask you to indulge us, but the point I was making is that most people are not expressing concerns over peer-review (and data privacy) in medical research......... even though there are many parallels with climate science.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 440. At 11:32pm on 09 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Just before going to bed, I thought it might be a good idea to remind everyone what can happen when amateurs, who don't really know what they're doing, start looking at raw temperature data and draw totally the wrong conclusions:

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

    Here's another that Anthony Watts hosted:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

    ........ and here's the explanation of why Willis Eschenbach got things horribly wrong:

    http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/

    This probably explains why some scientists argue that full disclosure of data is a mistake. Personally, I don't agree, but the above shows that there are real drawbacks!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 441. At 00:06am on 10 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @438:

    "I'm wondering whether the arguments you present are your own or someone else's."

    Don't patronise me. Signal processing is one field I can claim to have some expertise in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 442. At 00:11am on 10 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe

    Just curious regarding the PhD mate - I'm guessing it's not in physics?

    As I said earlier, in my last response to infinity - I'm at a loss about how to continue with this debate, so I'm leaving it there.

    Though, you could do a lot worse than quickly looking up "ponds and fleishman", but what do I know about science................ Plus, as you seem to be interested in things medical, one wonders if you've ever seen an FDA submission?

    Complain about this comment

  • 443. At 00:18am on 10 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @439:

    "..... even though there are many parallels with climate science."

    You're right on that one. A lot of it is unmitigated rubbish.
    Just one small example - I grew up as part of an entire generation who believed (yes, including me) that eating more than one egg a week was bad for you.
    Until it was shown that Ancel Keys' conclusions were based on blatantly cherry-picked statistics. Nowadays it's difficult to find a doctor who'll admit to having believed it.

    Anyway, I'm off to bed now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 444. At 00:23am on 10 Apr 2010, andrew9999 wrote:

    @poitsplace #432

    I think you misunderstood me or I didn't make myself clear, what I was asking was why should the rate of evaporation go up exponentially with temperature, what reason is there to say it would?

    Complain about this comment

  • 445. At 00:33am on 10 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @439:

    "the point I was making is that most people are not expressing concerns over peer-review (and data privacy) in medical research"

    Sorry, missed your point .. must be tired.

    Could it be to do with the fact that it's almost impossible to open a newspaper or switch on the TV or radio without being bombarded with climate change propaganda?
    Why, if the science is so solid, is everybody so hell-bent on trying to silence/discredit/marginalise a few sceptics?

    Apart from the fact that, by anyone's measure, it's going to cost us trillions.

    Now I REALLY must get off to bed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 446. At 00:35am on 10 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    442. blunderbunny wrote:

    If you want to convince me all you had to do is explain how NASA managed to reproduce Jones's result when you claim it's not reproducible.

    That's all you had to do. I asked you twice to explain that contradiction and you little more than avoided doing so. I kind of don't blame you though because I don't think it is possible to explain it. I think your "accuse everyone of not understanding science" and then leaving is the best option you had.

    Complain about this comment

  • 447. At 00:54am on 10 Apr 2010, lburt wrote:

    @andrew999 #444 who wrote...
    "I think you misunderstood me or I didn't make myself clear, what I was asking was why should the rate of evaporation go up exponentially with temperature, what reason is there to say it would?"

    Because that's just the way it works when you warm up a world covered mostly by water.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point#Constant_pressure

    Complain about this comment

  • 448. At 02:21am on 10 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @399, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Peter[317]......

    One other thing I didn't point out with regard to your last post was that the US National Academy of Science did its own statistical analysis of the original Mann et al tree ring data...... and then proceeded to produce almost exactly the same graph from it as Mann had done.


    Very confusing statement!

    The NAS panel stated that Bristlecones should not be used in temperature reconstructions.
    MBH98 used Bristlecones (as did most of the 'independent' reconstructions).

    The NAS panel stated that a single validation statistic was not acceptable and recommended others.
    MBH98 and all the 'independent' studies failed this test.

    Statistics or not, if a method gives a high weighting to a data series not only known to be contaminated by building work but also used upside-down then you should assume that you have a problem.

    The entire concept of weighting noisy data series by correlation is inviting spurious results.

    Complain about this comment

  • 449. At 08:54am on 10 Apr 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    The NAS panel also stated in a congressional hearing that they essentially agreed with Wegman

    But, besides the point.

    Whether the hockey stick is broken or not, it doesn't matter, because temperature rise or fall doesn't tell us the cause of the rise.

    Climate sensitivity is still the key

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 450. At 5:24pm on 10 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Peter317 @ #441

    I wasn't patronising you. It was a perfectly reasonable question, as I needed to establish whether you were making points of your own or were basing comments on something you had read online.

    What was your speciality?

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 451. At 5:51pm on 10 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Peter317 @ #443 & #445

    Peter,

    I think the problem you describe in relation to medical research has a lot to do with the way it is presented in the media. Each new study is heralded by the papers without being placed into proper context with other exisiting science.

    The classic example of this was when one doctor claimed that the MMR vaccine caused autism in children.

    As a whole, though, I'd say that medical research has continued to deliver increasing life expectancy, so the scientists must be doing something right.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 452. At 6:38pm on 10 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #448

    "Very confusing statement!"

    No! It's completely accurate. The NAS were critical of Mann's original statistical methods but accepted that they made little difference.

    "The NAS panel stated that Bristlecones should not be used in temperature reconstructions."

    I have to confess that I can't find this statement in the NAS review (although it is a long document)! Perhaps you can find it?:

    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

    I think the following account from the Guardian's recent "Climategate" analysis provides a fair and balanced account of the "hockey stick" affair:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-michael-mann-steve-mcintyre

    The final paragraph puts it in proper perspective:

    "Was it flawed research? Yes. Was it hyped by the IPCC? Yes. Has it been disproved? Despite all the efforts, no. So far, it has survived the ultimate scientific test of repeated replication."

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 453. At 10:01pm on 10 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Infinity and Paul

    Sorry chaps, but I just got fed up with arguing with people who apparently don't know what they are talking about - No more, no less.

    With regard to NASA reproducing results, that’s okay, but other’s could not. It was their conclusion that this was because the available data had not been used to perform the analysis – Hence the Freedom of information requests.

    Also, it should be noted that those involved have admitted not the releasing data and, indeed, that was the finding of the committee.

    So, we’ll try this approach. You both seem happy with the committee’s findings, yes?

    The major finding was that data that had been legitimately requested had not then been supplied.

    So, I’d ask you to consider what information that this could possibly be and why those involved would admit to not having supplied it. If, indeed, all of that data was already in the public domain, as you’ve been trying to claim..... There would be no need for the ruling, now would there?

    Complain about this comment

  • 454. At 10:44pm on 10 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #452, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    “....
    RobWansbeck @ #448

    "Very confusing statement!"

    No! It's completely accurate. The NAS were critical of Mann's original statistical methods but accepted that they made little difference.
    ….“

    Yes, the paper continued to fail the NAS panel's recommended validation statistics.


    “....
    "The NAS panel stated that Bristlecones should not be used in temperature reconstructions."

    I have to confess that I can't find this statement in the NAS review (although it is a long document)! Perhaps you can find it?:

    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
    ….“

    Pages 51 and 52.


    “....
    I think the following account from the Guardian's recent "Climategate" analysis provides a fair and balanced account of the "hockey stick" affair:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-michael-mann-steve-mcintyre

    The final paragraph puts it in proper perspective:

    "Was it flawed research? Yes. Was it hyped by the IPCC? Yes. Has it been disproved? Despite all the efforts, no. So far, it has survived the ultimate scientific test of repeated replication."
    ….“

    The replications also fail the NAS panel's recommended validation statistics.

    Even prominent Hockey Stick manufacturers are beginning to see the light:

    http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/5/1645/2009/cpd-5-1645-2009.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 455. At 11:01pm on 10 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Blunderbunny,

    I think you must be talking about a different review to the one we've been discussing here!

    There were a number of different aspects to the review and the FOI issue was just a part of it:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8595483.stm

    You'll note that the MP's considered that responsibility for witholding data lay with UEA, NOT Prof Jones and the other scientists of CRU.

    Clearly, UEA considered the requests "vexatious" and I'm far from the only person who believes that view to be justified, especially given the multiple requests for data from 5 countries. The mistake UEA made was that they just ignored the requests. I quote:

    "......university authorities should have supplied the data to those who requested it, referred them to where it could be found, or where appropriate, argued that the multiple requests were deliberately vexatious."

    The committee concluded that Jones' actions were "in line with common practice" within the field. Also, as we've pointed out endlessly, the data does not belong to CRU and Prof Jones and his team are not at liberty to release it all - this is NOT an excuse, it is a FACT. Meaanwhile, most of the data is already freely available.

    I would also add that I can't remember the last time I saw raw data attached to a scientific paper (and not just in climate science) - after all, the journals would not want this cluttering up their pages when figures presenting the analysed data are far more informative.

    So while Prof Jones has been pilliaried by the blogosphere, the MP's actually found that his reputation "remained intact"............ which is hardly the picture we get from your last post, is it?

    I have said time and again that it would be better if all data was publicly available and this will hopefully be one positive outcome of all this. However, the picture you are trying to paint is far from balanced and accurate.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 456. At 11:21pm on 10 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 453. blunderbunny wrote:

    "With regard to NASA reproducing results, that’s okay, but other’s could not."

    Does it not strike you as odd that NASA can do it but these "others" could not? NASA didn't have access to the withheld data either.

    The answer is that the "others" didn't even try to reproduce the results and futhermore the withheld data isn't needed to reproduce the results.

    What these "others" were trying to accomplish is a very good question, it might have to do more with motives than trying to check the results. They've certainly done nothing to correct misconceptions as to what they were trying to do and what they couldn't do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 457. At 11:57pm on 10 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @450:

    Apologies. I thought you were inferring that I couldn't think for myself.

    I have always worked with control systems and signal processing, although I've (together with the rest of the world) moved from the analogue to the digital domain - now it's all software. (giving my age away there)

    I do happen to know a lot about filtering, feedback etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 458. At 00:06am on 11 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @451:

    Perhaps I should have drawn a distinction between medical science and things like epidemiology.

    Medical science, as such, is a fairly solid discipline - although sometimes they get things spectacularly wrong.
    On the other hand, fields like epidemiology - which relies heavily on statistics - very often get things completely wrong.

    Yes, I agree that often it's the media that gets the wrong end of the stick, but I would argue that this is far more so when there's politics involved - such as in climate science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 459. At 00:11am on 11 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #454

    "Pages 51 and 52."

    Rob,

    Those pages don't even come close to saying that Bristlecone Pines should not be used for proxy studies! They certainly discuss a POSSIBLE effect of CO2 which might impact on certain samples, but that's hardly the same thing..... especially as Mann et al did not continue the proxy reconstruction beyond 1960 anyway (albeit for other reasons).

    Surely you must have more than that to make such a claim?

    "The replications also fail the NAS panel's recommended validation statistics."

    In fact, many of the newer proxy studies are not "replications" in any case...... and many are not even tree-ring based. Are you suggesting that these too fail the NAS panel's recommendations? If that's the case it seems very strange that the key message to emerge from the NAS review was that they broadly agreed with Mann's findings!

    Even Mann changed his statistical analysis in the light of the reviews...... and given that the NAS admitted that it made little difference in any case I'm not sure why you are making such an issue of it.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 460. At 01:44am on 11 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Infinity and Paul

    Might I humbly suggest that you guys actually read the stuff that you attempting to blog about(The following are extracts for the committee's report):

    "Graham Stringer: You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, the weather stations, all the information, the codes, have been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?

    Professor Jones: That is not the case.

    Graham Stringer: Why is it not?

    Professor Jones: Because it has not been standard practice to do that.

    Graham Stringer: That takes me back to the original point, that if it is not standard practice how can the science progress?

    Professor Jones: Maybe it should be standard practice but it is not standard practice across the subject."

    Which then leads to following committee finding:

    "It is not standard practice in climate science and many other fields to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. We think that this is problematic because climate science is a matter of global importance and of public interest, and therefore the quality and transparency of the science should be irreproachable.

    We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data used to generate their published work, including raw data; and it should also be made clear and referenced where data has been used but, because of commercial or national security reasons is not available. Scientists are also, under Freedom of Information laws and under the rules of normal scientific conduct, entitled to withhold data which is due to be published under the peer-review process. In addition, scientists should take steps to make available in full their methodological workings, including the computer codes. Data and methodological workings should be provided via the internet. There should be enough information published to allow verification"

    Not really sure how much less like experts you could make yourselves look, but please keep digging.... I'm still awaiting that retraction by the way.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 461. At 02:03am on 11 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    Also as an Addendum to the post above, we have this from the Institute of Physics:

    "Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information."

    And the Royal Society of Chemistry said that the:

    "true nature of science dictates that research is transparent and robust enough to survive scrutiny. A lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if this conjecture is not well-founded. This has far-reaching consequences for the reputation of science as a whole, with the ability to undermine the public’s confidence in science."

    And on the other side of the argument we have you two, plus those that indulge in Climate Studies.... I certianly know which side of the fence I'm on. Plus, still curious about that PhD........

    Complain about this comment

  • 462. At 02:15am on 11 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @459, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #454

    "Pages 51 and 52."

    Rob,

    Those pages don't even come close to saying that Bristlecone Pines should not be used for proxy studies!
    …..........”

    From the NAS report page 52:

    While “strip-bark” samples should be avoided for temperature reconstructions, attention should also be paid to the confounding effects of anthropogenic nitrogen deposition (Vitousek et al. 1997), since the nutrient conditions of the soil determine wood growth response to increased atmospheric CO2 (Kostiainen et al. 2004).


    They specifically state that “strip-bark” samples should be avoided for temperature reconstructions.

    This is the Hockey Stick manufacturers preferred variant. The overwhelming majority of proxies used to provide the North American temperatures were from Donald Graybill who specifically sought CO2, not temperature, fertilized samples.

    I will concede that although they caution against the use of non-strip-bark Bristlecones they do cite some geographical locations where their use may be acceptable. However these are of little use in producing Hockey Sticks.

    The NAS panel stated a range of tests that should be used for reliable validation of temperature reconstructions. Why they then failed to point out that MBH98 and all the 'independent' reconstructions cited had failed these tests is a mystery. Politics?

    As for the newer reconstructions you need to check-out 'Upside-down Mann'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 463. At 02:17am on 11 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Infinity #456

    You asked, if it struck me as odd that NASA had been able to re-produce the CRU results, without full access. To which, my reply is:

    You're right that's definitely odd, very odd..............

    I think that given how badly you guys are doing at the moment, that's actually more of a question for you..... So:

    Yes, that is odd. Thanks for pointing that out - Please explain?


    Complain about this comment

  • 464. At 03:03am on 11 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 460. blunderbunny:

    You continue to ignore answering the question of how NASA have reproduced Jones's results. Sorry but it's not a question for me, it's a question for you to explain.

    You are the one who is claiming that NASA shouldn't have been able to reproduce Jones's result because Jones has withheld the means to do so. How did NASA do it then? That's a question you need to answer.

    I can answer it - NASA managed to get the same result as Jones because the means of producing a global surface temperature record does not depend on anything Jones has or ever had. The data to do it are publically available. Anyone can work out what the station data says about global temperature and therefore check Jones result.

    The committees words are not in disagreement with that. The committee are talking about releases that go way beyond what is necessary - nice to haves. For example:
    "It is not standard practice in climate science and many other fields to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers"

    Indeed it is not and the reason why it's not standard practice is that it isn't scientically necessary to do so. The raw data is almost always available elsewhere, that's where the scientist publishing the paper got it from. Publishing a copy of that data along with the study might be nice to have, but not necessary.

    In short you don't need anything Jones cannot provide to compile a global temperature record.

    By the way the NASA analysis has all the raw data publically available for free and the source code free to download. So there really are no excuses for claiming the surface temperature record is in doubt because it cannot be reproduced - in the case of NASA's analysis the result can not only be reproduced but the working can even be replicated.

    Complain about this comment

  • 465. At 03:26am on 11 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 461 blunderbunny:

    The IOP statement is wrong with regard to the instrumental temperature record. If different choices, omissions or statistical processes lead to different conclusions (ie the result isn't robust), then that could be shown without needing anything from Jones. And indeed the independent reproduction of the results by NASA using different choices, omissions and statistical processes rather suggests the result is robust. Therefore this possibility (hiding non-robustness of the result) evidentally wasn't the reason behind refused requests.

    The Royal Society of Chemistry submission is exactly the kind of thing I would write, I agree with it:
    "lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if this conjecture is not well-founded"

    The conjecturre is not well-founded, but by Phil Jones not passing on data the rumor mills start and the science is smeared as not robust, even though such a conclusion is "not well-founded" (see my previous posts for why it's not well founded).

    The RSC is saying it looks bad, not that scientific results are in doubt because of it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 466. At 03:46am on 11 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Infinity

    You really, really, really don't read do you? If you scroll back you will find the relevant quote from Dr. Jones - please just google the report directly and read the quote yourself, title is:

    "The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia"

    Neither NASA nor anyone else had enough information to replicate their work. The mentions, that you'll find of NASA if you actually bother to go and read the document will inform you that NASA did their own analysis with their own data - They didn't re-use the CRU data!

    Please do me the curtesy of at least trying to familiarize yourself with the subject.

    Now we could also get into what's wrong with the NASA work, but what's the point. You don't even understand what we're trying to discuss at the moment.

    Plus you seem to be ignoring all the previous "this is not how science is done stuff...." In this regard the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry and myself are as of one mind and those in the climate studies arena, especially the ones at the CRU are going to have to start making changes ;-)

    BTW: I really would recommend that you either start reading some stuff or you just stop digging a hole for yourself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 467. At 03:55am on 11 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Infinity

    I'm struggling with how to talk to you on this, moderation prevents me from saying the things that I would normally say to you and my tone is becoming increasingly difficult for me to maintain.

    So, I'd just recommend some sort of science 101/primer course and a bit of background reading. Maybe we'll be able to have more engaging discussions at some point, but it's not going to be any time soon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 468. At 08:42am on 11 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Blunderbunny @ #460

    The point I was making was that your description of the "main findings" of the MPs is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

    It was never in doubt that FOI requests had been denied. The main criticism of sceptics with Climategate was that it proved the scientists had been fiddling data and corrupting peer review. The scientists were found to have no case to answer.

    Also, although the MPs commented that the FOI requests should have been met and that they considered all data should be freely available, they also acknowledged that Prof Jones was following normal practice - as such, it's hardly fair to say that he was doing anything wrong.

    If you take a glance bacck at the original article by Richard Black which started this thread, you'll get a better idea of the point I'm trying to make. It simply isn't normal practice to supply raw data with scientific papers in this and most other fields of science that I have studied. In this internet age it's probably time for a rethink - but to suggest that Jones was wrong for following a system that has worked well for decades is unreasonable.

    It is the obvious bias in your account of the review which I object to.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 469. At 09:04am on 11 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Blunderbunny @ #461

    With regard to the IOP submission, you seem to have forgotten about the following serious question marks over its objectivity:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/climate-emails-institute-of-physics-submission

    Also, with regard to the RSC submission, you have selectively quoted it, as some of the key points came towards the end, where the RSC gave very strong hints as to why they believed the situation had developed....... commenting that ALL contributors to the debate (ie NOT just the AGW scientists) should be subjected to the same close scrutiny. I don't have the submission to hand here, but from memory I think it's points 7, 8 and 9 that you need to read.

    BTW, my PhD was a bit of a mixture, involving both chemistry and microbial ecology.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 470. At 09:21am on 11 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #462

    Rob,

    When you talked about the NAS review, you talked in terms which led me to believe that there was a definitive statement that Bristlecone pine trees should not be used for proxy reconstructions. All I can see is a review of the available literature with a comment buried away in the body of the text which implies that there could be problems.

    So this was hardly considered a major criticism on the part of the NAS. My comment that by ignoring data after 1960 Mann et al probably avoided major problems with CO2 also still stands.

    You'll also note that not everyone agrees with this assessment anyway. Please note the final paragraph of this Realclimate article (not written by Mann!):

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/a-treeline-story/

    Now that Mann et al have altered their statistical analysis, my take on this is that we've reached one of those situations, common in scientific debate, where neither side of the debate is clearly right or wrong - we're just talking different approaches and interpretations here.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 471. At 12:47pm on 11 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 466. blunderbunny wrote:

    "Neither NASA nor anyone else had enough information to replicate their work. The mentions, that you'll find of NASA if you actually bother to go and read the document will inform you that NASA did their own analysis with their own data - They didn't re-use the CRU data!"

    That's been my entire point all along. NASA reproduced Jones's result without needing any of the data or info Jones had. So tell me why skeptics needed the info Jones had in order to reproduce the 20th century instrumental temperature record?

    You see? The instrumental temperature record does not fall into doubt because Jones did or did not release some information. Yet skeptics on this very thread are trying to pretend it does. They are trying to pretend that release of data by Jones prevented them checking the 20th century instrumental temperature record.

    You are confusing replication with reproducing results.

    Complain about this comment

  • 472. At 1:11pm on 11 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Here's a fact sheet. Call it Instrumental Surface Temperature Record 101.

    1) HadCRUT3, the analysis by Dr Phil Jones and GISTEMP, the analysis by NASA are both attempts to determine the evolution of global temperature over the 20th century.

    2) Both the HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP analyses take surface station data as input, but they take it from different sources and use different subsets of the data.

    3) Both the HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP analyses also use different methods, and therefore each analysis also uses different source code.

    4) The results of HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP are remarkably similar. They paint the same picture of global temperature over the past 100+ years. It's obtaining that picture which is the entire objective of this particular science.

    5) Therefore it cannot be claimed (legitimately) that the result (global temperature over the past 100+ years) depends on any particular methodology or subset of data, or any individual (eg Dr Jones).

    6) Others such as the NOAA and JPA have done their own analysis and found a similar result. There is some overlap in data used and methodology used, but sufficient differences exist to reinforce point #5 above (and points #9 below)

    5) Both CRU and NASA GISTEMP have published detailed description of method used to peer review.

    6) The NASA analysis is more transparent, in that the GISTEMP source code as well as the raw data used can be downloaded online.

    7) In contrast the CRU source code is not available and so intermediate steps cannot be replicated.

    8) Third parties have taken the GISTEMP source code and raw data and replicated the analysis.

    9) A third party has the option to perform their own analysis, using their own methods, writing their own source code from scratch. The raw station data is afterall available to download.

    10) Skeptics emphasise point #7 and argue the result cannot be reproduced. This involves ignoring all other points. It's quite clear from all points above that a third party if they wished too could check if the picture painted by HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP follows logically from the station data. See point #9.

    11) It is in fact better to attempt an analysis using different methods and data selection, rather than using the exact same method and data selection as either CRU or NASA. The entire point of doing an independent analysis is to check whether data selection or methodology choice affects the result. To do that you want to use *different* data selection and *different* methodology. Not the same one, that will just yeild the same result.

    Complain about this comment

  • 473. At 08:03am on 12 Apr 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @infinity #472

    How do you know all the above is correct, when even CRU can't reproduce the data and NASA have admitted GISS is worse than HADCRUT?

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 474. At 12:16pm on 12 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    473. wrote: "How do you know all the above is correct, when even CRU can't reproduce the data and NASA have admitted GISS is worse than HADCRUT?"

    How do I know it is correct? Because I have bothered to check the scientific sources and publications and actually investigate this issue. I have downloaded the raw station data onto my computer for example. Ie I've stared right at stuff that numerous skeptics claim doesn't even exist.

    Mainly though the big difference is I don't get my info about climate science from Fox "News" (the spreader of the "NASA have admitted" spin you speak of)

    Complain about this comment

  • 475. At 1:25pm on 12 Apr 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @infinity #474

    I have downloaded the raw station data onto my computer for example. Ie I've stared right at stuff that numerous skeptics claim doesn't even exist.

    Perhaps you could send the raw data to CRU, as they seem to have lost it

    Mainly though the big difference is I don't get my info about climate science from Fox "News" (the spreader of the "NASA have admitted" spin you speak of)

    Are you saying that Hansen didn't say to Reto Ruedy to use the CRU data because it was better than GISS? Because if you are, could you give us valid reasons why you would believe this.

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 476. At 7:29pm on 12 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mango,

    "Perhaps you could send the raw data to CRU, as they seem to have lost it."

    Reply to The Times article by CRU:

    "No data has been lost. The collection of land surface air temperature data by the Climatic Research Unit goes back to a time when there was insufficient computing data storage capacity to retain all versions of data records on computer - unlike today when all versions may be kept thanks to greater storage capacity. ... Much of the earlier data exists in World Weather Records volumes (published by the Smithsonian Library) and, of course, original data will still be available from the appropriate national meteorological services."

    In other words, all of the original data IS still availble..... and the original accusation is a misrepresentation of the facts.


    With regard to the other point you made about CRU data being "better than GISS", this too is a misrepresentation. If you check the whole series of emails by scrolling down, you'll see that there is a lot of context added in the others which was ignored by the sceptics who reported this:

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/30701146/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001/

    First of all, you'll see that the comment wasn't from James Hansen. Rather it was from Reto Ruedy to Doyle Rice (a reporter, I think).

    The third email in the series, from James Hansen himself, puts a different perspective on things. First of all, it points out that the GISS data set extends its coverage to include the Arctic. You'll also note that he says "I would not claim that one was superior to the other". He also draws attention to the benefit of having the different sets.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 477. At 8:29pm on 12 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 475. MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    "Perhaps you could send the raw data to CRU, as they seem to have lost it"

    If they needed it, they could download it themselves. I've still got this data here that many skeptics insist doesn't exist. Are you one of their number or not?

    Phil Jones has pointed out that raw station data is available from other sources too (eg where I got it) so there's no discrepancy between what I am telling you and reality. The CRU had raw data years back when they started their analysis program. They subsequently lost that. It makes a nice spin story for the psuedoskeptics who can appeal to some toyland version of science to fool the rubes, but as I have pointed out in many posts above it has no actual impact on either the validity of the scientific result or the ability to reproduce it.

    "Are you saying that Hansen didn't say to Reto Ruedy to use the CRU data because it was better than GISS?"

    The main reason I call it spin is because the psuedo-skeptics committed many slight of hands to draw their conclusion. Most of it I think is pure ignorance - they don't have the foggiest idea what they are talking about. They have been tricked by the toyland science lectures coming from the pseudo-skeptics and they genuinely (but incorrectly) believe that the hadCRUT analysis is in doubt. Therefore NASA telling a reporter to use the hadCRUT instead of GISTEMP is a big deal. But the premise is wrong, so it isn't.

    What is less easy to attribute to their ignorance is the following. Ruedy made his statement in 2007 concerning what he knew of the CRU analysis and their own analysis back then. If the CRU analysis had been discreditted in 2009, do you not think Reudy's 2007 opinion on the matter would perhaps change in light of that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 478. At 00:45am on 13 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    470, Paul Briscoe wrote:
    “.........
    RobWansbeck @ #462

    When you talked about the NAS review, you talked in terms which led me to believe that there was a definitive statement that Bristlecone pine trees should not be used for proxy reconstructions. All I can see is a review of the available literature with a comment buried away in the body of the text which implies that there could be problems.
    …......“

    “A comment buried away in the body of the text”. Where else?
    A comment such as “strip-bark” samples should be avoided for temperature reconstructions.

    You also state:
    “......
    You'll also note that not everyone agrees with this assessment anyway. Please note the final paragraph of this Realclimate article (not written by Mann!):

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/a-treeline-story/
    …...”

    For a thorough discussion of that amusing post start here:

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/17/salzer-et-al-2009-a-first-look/

    P.S. The post 1960 issue is different although it does provide further evidence against the use of tree-rings as temperature proxies.

    P.P.S. Have you checked-out 'Upside-down Mann' yet?

    Complain about this comment

  • 479. At 00:48am on 13 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @455, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    I would also add that I can't remember the last time I saw raw data attached to a scientific paper (and not just in climate science) - after all, the journals would not want this cluttering up their pages when figures presenting the analysed data are far more informative.


    Yes, journals don't want data cluttering up their pages.

    They do however make public archiving of this data a condition of publication. Most journals even provide web space for this data and other information.

    It is called 'supplementary information' (S.I.).

    Unfortunately climate science publications appear to be unwilling to enforce this requirement.

    Enforcement is possible as Keith Briffa recently discovered when the Royal Society forced him to publish his supplementary information after he failed to provide it to interested parties.

    I guess accusing the RS of being big oil shills was ruled out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 480. At 08:14am on 13 Apr 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe #476 & Infinity @477

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/

    We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

    If either of you have the raw data, please post links and i will let CRU know where to find it

    With regards to GISS / CRU:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climate-gate-data-giss-admits/

    The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings

    (read the pdf link)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/shocker-crus-jones-giss-is-inferior/

    Jones states in an email to Wigley GISS is inferior

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 481. At 09:13am on 13 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #478

    Rob,

    We could argue endlessly about this, as McIntyre has done. Ultimately, though, it all boils down to whether you believe that Steve Mcintyre is a reliable source of impartial information. I do not! Why:

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/04/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-1-in-the-beginning/

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-2-barton-wegman/

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/10/mcclimategate-continues-yet-another-false-accusation-from-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/

    In the light of the above, I do not consider McIntyre and McKitrick to be credible sources.

    For a detailed rebuttal of many of McIntyre and McKitrick's criticisms, check out a paper by Wahl and Ammann (2007). Sadly, this is a PDF, so I can't link to it directly.

    Also, here is Mann et al's rebuttal of the "upside down Mann" claim made by McIntyre:

    "The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre.
    Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of
    predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests
    only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical
    grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander
    and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that
    none of our central conclusions relied on their use."

    Sorry, the original letter (by Mann, Bradley and Hughes) also only seems to be available in PDF format.

    The bottom line is that despite the flaws in the original Mann et al proxy reconstructions, the scientific community does accept the body of evidence taken en masse as being reliable.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 482. At 09:28am on 13 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #479

    Here is a more balanced view of data archiving:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving

    You'll note that, as Richard Black pointed out, this is a very recent development. Certainly, there was no such archive when I was involved in research.

    Also, my reading of Nature's policy is that they require the data to be archived but do not stipulate that it must be publicly available - this would be unrealistic given the commercial sensitivity of some data.

    The emphasis seems to be more on sharing of information amongst scientists than making data available to the public.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 483. At 09:39am on 13 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mango @ #480

    Did you even read the statement from CRU and think about its real implications?

    Why would CRU need to store the raw data themselves? It doesn't belong to them anyway. They could easily place a request to the various contributing countries if they needed to access it again for any reason. Frankly, I think you're creating an issue where there isn't one.

    Regarding the Anthony Watts article, I tend to ignore them because I don't tend to find them reliable sources of definitive information...... although they're very good if you're after the latest spin!

    So what if Prof Jones did express the opinion (IN PRIVATE) that his data set was better. It was, after all, just his opinion and you could argue that he would be expected to take that view.

    What matters, at the end of the day, is that all of the data sets come up with broadly the same results.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 484. At 12:21pm on 13 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Paul and Inifinity

    Not that I want to re-open our circular set of postings, but:

    "Also, my reading of Nature's policy is that they require the data to be archived but do not stipulate that it must be publicly available - this would be unrealistic given the commercial sensitivity of some data.

    The emphasis seems to be more on sharing of information amongst scientists than making data available to the public."

    I wasn't wanting the data made available to the general populous, only to interested parties (Note: I would definitely include McIntyre as an interested party).

    It's certainly standard practice in other fields of scientific endeavour and I was under the impression that it was standard practice everywhere. Put it this way, no-one else that I've talked to apart from on this and other AGW flavoured blogs thought that requests to share their data/methods were unusual in any way.

    A large number of scientists, spend a lot of their careers confirming other peoples results and most ground breaking work is not really considered to be much more than a speculative punt until it conclusions have in some way been confirmed elsewhere.

    Obviously, this is not always possible, but you should certainly expect and be prepared for the requests. That doesn't mean that every bit of work you'll do would always go through this process, but the controversial/ground breaking ones definitely would, as these are the ones that will most interest other parties.

    In areas where commercial sensitivities, might preclude a full release of certain information, then the burden of what is required as evidence/proof of efficacy is generally much, much higher and an FDA submission would be a good example of this. Even then, bad work can still slip through the net, but you’re hopefully making that less likely by setting the bar that much higher.

    It seems that science is being practiced in a number of ways, not all of which would be considered to be “Best Practice”. If those involved in a particular area, want the rest of us to take them seriously, then they should be adopting these “Best Practices” and indeed, that was the finding of the committee.

    If they are correct in their conclusions, then this can only strengthen their case. If however they are not, then I guess there will be a reckoning of some description.

    Complain about this comment

  • 485. At 1:13pm on 13 Apr 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe #481

    You prefer to rely on the word of an anonymous blogger (deepclimate) rather than both the Wegman Panel and the NAS Panel?

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 486. At 1:17pm on 13 Apr 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe #483

    Why would CRU need to store the raw data themselves?

    So that others can reproduce their work and verify the "added value" data

    Infinity tells us he has the raw data, CRU need it to reconstruct the temperature history to show how they arrived at the "added value" data, which can be checked by others.

    I'm sure the CRU would be very grateful

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 487. At 5:43pm on 13 Apr 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe & Infinity

    I think i should have posted this post:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/en_route_from_the_un.html#P94857174

    here

    Warmist regards

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 488. At 6:52pm on 13 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    "Infinity tells us he has the raw data, CRU need it to reconstruct the temperature history to show how they arrived at the "added value" data, which can be checked by others."

    Unless you think I don't have the raw data I don't see your point. I have it, CRU knows about it. Dr Jones has even cited the source i got it from to point out that in contradiction to skeptic claims, the raw data is available, just not from him. Dr Jones has further pointed out that if he needed to he could reconstruct the value-added data from raw as he did in the first place. But he also points out that this is not necessary and would just be a waste of time.

    Skeptics can take raw data, as I have done, and perform an analysis of it to see if the CRU result (the global temperature record) naturally follows from that raw data. If it does then who cares about CRU value-added data? If it doesn't then, again, who cares about CRU value-added data? You can validate the global temperature record results without needing to know whether the CRU value-added data is correct.

    Psuedoskeptic focus on whether or not we can replicate the CRU analysis as a red herring, or perhaps as a phil jones witchhunt. It has no importance for the science, it wouldn't validate or invalidate the 20th century temperature records. There is a way to check those records, but skeptics haven't bothered doing it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 489. At 7:15pm on 13 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Blunderbunny @ #484

    I would be interested to know which "other fields" you believe it is standard practice to make all raw data publicly available - there can surely be very few where there are no commercial constraints.

    I have no intention of going back over the same ground again and again. I simply don't agree with your assertion that it is normal practice to make raw data publicly available. In most circumstances, the raw data does not tell you much anyway - checking it will never tell you whether the measurements were taken properly or recorded correctly. Consequently, it is only by having different teams of scientists doing parallel studies that you can really hope to confirm results...... and this is exactly what happens in climate science.

    It is now just over 20 years since I worked in scientific research. At that time, if you wanted to keep up to date with the scientific literature, you had to go to the library. In fact, even based at a university, I had to visit the British National Library a number of times to find all the papers I needed (quite a lot were obscure!). There were few amateurs who could be bothered with this, so it was very much the domain of professional academics.

    The papers never included the raw data. However, this wasn't seen as a problem as much was covered by commercial confidentiality anyway. In truth, even if you had the raw data, it was very unlikely to tell you if the scientist had done anything wrong.

    The system works because scientists as a "breed" are trained to be objective and sceptical. So the peer-review process allows most errors to be picked up by others in the field..... and where scientists suspect that someone has got their facts or results wrong they simply repeat the experiment to see if their own results agree.

    You may be critical of this approach, but it is the system which has delivered the overwhelming majority of advances in science over the past century or so. In truth, it works very well.

    What has changed is the arrival of the internet. Suddenly, anyone with a computer can study scientific literature at home and become an "armchair expert" and individuals with an axe to grind are suddenly demanding to see the raw data related to papers. Personally, I am not convinced that this is actually a healthy development, as it allows lobby groups with their own agenda to skew scientific debate towards their chosen outcome. However, it does seem to be the way things are going, so I guess we have to live with it.

    The system used in climate science came into being in the era when I was involved in research. It may not be transparent enough for amateur bloggers determined to discredit the science and it may well have to change to meet new (but not necessarily better) standards. However, this does NOT mean it is bad science.

    I will therefore continue to stand up for the scientists, who are overwhelmingly honest, hard working and determined to improve Man's understanding of this complex science.

    I suspect that we may have to agree to differ!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 490. At 7:25pm on 13 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mango @ #485

    "You prefer to rely on the word of an anonymous blogger (deepclimate) rather than both the Wegman Panel and the NAS Panel?"

    Mango,

    You may not LIKE what Deepclimate has to say, but it is nevertheless very thorough and pretty difficult to argue against the facts presented.

    As you'll see from the second link, there are major question marks over the impartiality of the Wegman panel. I have no such concerns about the NAS review, which was balanced and fair....... and, as you probably know, broadly agreed with Mann et al.

    The main reason why I posted the links to Deepclimate is because far too many people seem to consider McIntyre and McKitrick to be impartial "auditors", giving their views a credibility they simply don't deserve. They are clearly NOT impartial and very few of their views stand up to the rigour of peer-review.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 491. At 7:46pm on 13 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mango @ #486

    "So that others can reproduce their work and verify the "added value" data

    Infinity tells us he has the raw data, CRU need it to reconstruct the temperature history to show how they arrived at the "added value" data, which can be checked by others."

    Why do we keep on going over the same old ground? I'm quite sure that CRU don't need the raw data again to prove their "value added data".

    The vast majority of the raw data is readily available (and where it isn't that's not CRU's fault). Much of it can be found here:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/

    The methods used for producing the "value added data" are also published.

    In my book, they cannot do any more until all data can be made freely available........ and that's not within their power at present.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 492. At 10:33pm on 13 Apr 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @481, Paul Briscoe

    The deepclimate posts are just mudslinging.

    You state:
    “In the light of the above, I do not consider McIntyre and McKitrick to be credible sources.”
    I am not concerned about the motives of McIntyre and McKitrick merely the maths.
    (although much of the deepclimate mudslinging appears wildly off-target)

    You also state:

    “For a detailed rebuttal of many of McIntyre and McKitrick's criticisms, check out a paper by Wahl and Ammann (2007).”

    You really need to improve your knowledge of this subject. That paper is infamous:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html


    You continue to quote Mann:

    “The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre.
    Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of
    predictors. …........”

    The insensitivity to sign when noise is involved is a problem, not something to boast about.

    As I mentioned in an earlier post even Caspar Ammann, who you cited in defence of Mann, is beginning to see the light:

    http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/5/1645/2009/cpd-5-1645-2009.html

    A way to go yet but a step in the right direction.

    Complain about this comment

  • 493. At 00:00am on 14 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #492

    Rob,

    It's clear that we will have to agree to differ over this!

    I appreciate that sceptics don't like Deepclimate, but it is thorough and I have seen precious little of its content actually refuted. So simply dismissing it as "mud-slinging" doesn't wash for me. Frankly, there is so much propaganda and character assasination of climate scientists going on at Climateaudit that it's high time someone redressed the balance and subjected Mr McIntyre's activities to close scrutiny........ and in truth, you do not need to read Deepclimate to see that McIntyre and McKitrick are not impartial. As such, their views are not credible.

    You claim that it's the maths you're interested in, yet you continue to counter peer-reviewed literature by citing primarily blog comments from the same source...... and you then ridicule another peer-reviewed paper by quoting Bishop Hill, which isn't even run by a scientist and is probably the least reliable source of information on AGW that I have ever come across.

    What I do find credible is the NAS review, which although critical of some aspects of Mann et al's original paper, broadly agreed with his findings - if all of McIntyre's (and Monckton's) criticisms were really justifed it is inconceivable that a truly independent panel of this nature would have found in his favour.

    As I said, let's agree to disagree.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 494. At 01:09am on 14 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Paul and Infinity

    1) Apparently, we're still unable to read...... If you go through my posts I use the term interested parties.

    2) You don't publish all your data with your paper, but you do make it available to those that are interested - as and when they request it!!!!

    It's really not down to me to provide you both with a science education, so how about the wiki entry on the scientific method(note: this does involve some reading) for starters:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Then you might like to scroll down to the section on confirmation(described a bit more concisely than I've managed, but then I think I'm working with a lower common denominator) - I think that the 1750's probably pre-dates any experience that either of you may have with science, but maybe I'm wrong - Are we perhaps approaching our 3rd century?

    And you guys have the cheek to question, my understanding of science?????

    Complain about this comment

  • 495. At 01:26am on 14 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    You have to just love wiki sometimes - I think with not very much trouble we can at least get back to Francis Bacon:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Organum

    (1620 - Bacon's work described many of the accepted principles, underscoring the importance of theory, empirical results, data gathering, experiment, and independent corroboration.)

    The key word here is "corroboration" - Though, you might also wish to note "Empirical Results", in fact I think all of the words above should be noted by those involved in climate studies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 496. At 07:09am on 14 Apr 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe & Infinity

    Sorry, boys, but you're wrong. As I stated CRU does not have the raw data on which their temperature history graphs are constructed - they tell us this themselves at:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/

    We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

    The times verifies this:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

    And even RC doesn't list the CRU raw data on it's website:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw

    so essentially CRU are saying "trust us". Sorry, guys, that doesn't hold water.

    So, Infinity may be trying to imply that he has the CRU raw data, but he is either being economical with the truth or he's a little mixed up - i prefer to think the latter, but post a link, Infinity, and CRU will be very grateful.

    The link that Paul gives in #491 is not the raw data. Paul, if you follow the links you will see that CRU tell us it's not the raw data and there is link above that tells us it's not the raw data.

    Why does it matter?

    It's called the scientific method as stated by blunderbunny.

    What if CRU have made mistakes in their historical analysis? If the raw data could be re-assembled, we could really look at the historical temperatures and see if there is a problem. As it stands, we have to take their word for it.

    Jones said GISS is inferior in an email to Wigley and NASA's Reudy has confirmed GISS isn't as good as CRU, so we can't even look to GISS.

    I have always said I accept recorded temperatures have risen but without the raw data, who knows?

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 497. At 07:26am on 14 Apr 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe #490

    Paul, I really would read a few things before assuming that deepclimate is right and M&M and Wegman are wrong:

    The Jesus and Casper paper as pointed out by Rob and the congressional hearing report on the HS:

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:31362.wais


    CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

    DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.

    CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–

    DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.

    CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.

    DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?

    CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.

    MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.


    You guys need to read more than just RC and deepclimate if you want a rounded view of what is happening

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 498. At 09:22am on 14 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Blunderbunny @ #494 & 495

    You are trying to extrapolate methods and procedures which were originally developed for pure theoretical research to an applied field where a different approach is required.

    Nobody is arguing against the principle that experimentation should be repeatable, but we are in grave danger of travelling full circle here...... and going back to the point that in some lines of science it is physically impossible to repeat measurements which relate to a particular point in time. In this special case the only way to achieve repeatability is to have several different groups measuring the same thing - which, as I have pointed out, is exactly the approach used in climate science. If sceptics are not happy with this then perhaps they should set up a temperature dataset of their own.

    It would actually be quite easy to set up a new dataset using the existing raw data, but, as the sceptics undoubtedly already know, this would simply show that the HADCRUT, GISS and NCDC datasets are correct. By failing to do this and instead complaining about lack of transparency, they can perpetuate the myth that the science is flawed.

    Also, in your link to the Wiki article, you have drawn attention to the "confirmation" section, which in turn links back to the data archiving section........ which in turn acknowledges that this aspect is a recent development. I have pointed out that climate research and the methods it employs pre-date this. I have, however, also acknowledged that this is going to have to change, which is one of the points to come out of the Parliamentary review.

    The reason why I have continued to debate this with you is because you seem determined to pin a misdemeanor on Phil Jones and his colleagues, when the review clearly stated that they were merely following normal practice for the field.

    You will also note that the key reference cited for the HADCRUT temperature dataset is this one from 2006:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006548.shtml

    So the scientists clearly met the criteria for data archiving for the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 499. At 09:35am on 14 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @My own post #494

    Before, somebody pedantic points it out, the line:

    "Are we perhaps approaching our 3rd century?"

    Was wrong. Obviously, you'd already be in your 3rd century.

    What can I say? It was late, I was annoyed and going for a sort of humorous feel/sarcastic idiom. It should either have been "4th century" or "3rd centenary".

    Mea Maxima Culpa[look wiki’s even improving my Latin – shame about those climate pages though]

    Complain about this comment

  • 500. At 09:40am on 14 Apr 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mango @ #496

    Fair enough. On closer inspection, the data at the link is clearly not the raw data, but as has been pointed out time and again, around 80% of the raw data is freely available from the countries which actually own it - it does NOT belong to CRU and is therefore not theirs to hold. PERIOD!

    You will, however, note that the link I gave has a statement at the top about contacting CRU if you are after a particular item and it states "Some are available on-line, others must be requested from the person responsible for them."

    The problem in this case was that UEA chose to ignore FOI requests which it (IMHO justifiably) considered to be vexatious when it should have either told the individuals why it was refusing their requests or pointed them to the actual sources for the raw data.

    I fully accept that this system is far from ideal and the Parliamentary review clearly felt the same, but it is a product of history and circumstances and NOT part of some sinister plot to hoodwink the World!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.