Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
LongQ said:
durbster said:
It seems few/if any were aware of their work being listed on No Tricks Zone. I asked them what they thought about the site and descriptions ranged from, "a source of fake news", "totally misleading," through to "absolute and utter rubbish". A couple of us tried to find a way to register to protest but it seems it's invite only. I wonder why. 
Interesting durbster.Possibly politically interesting too.
Given the breadth of coverage and the extent of the net work of organisations and individuals who seek to promote and defend the warmist view I assume that anyone whose paper is mentioned on a non-aligned site will hear about it almost immediately. So I doubt that anyone you may have contacted would be unaware of the references - they would surely have been made aware at the time.
other stuff that I've deleted as not relevant to my point below #SavingPixels
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 15th January 10:57
From someone that has published in the academic literature, including in Science, I can tell you that certainly in my experience, poor research is very quickly outed (i.e. returned to author with constructive comments but not published). This is why journal 'impact factors' are so important and well regarded. It's not a perfect system (cue self-supporting warmist conspiracy theorists) by any means (e.g. it's not uncommon for papers to take up to two years to be published, although this has changed in recent years since the advent of 'preview' issues of journals available online ahead of print) but it's the best we've evolved to.
dub16v said:
From someone that has published in the academic literature, including in Science, I can tell you that certainly in my experience, poor research is very quickly outed (i.e. returned to author with constructive comments but not published).
Not if it undergoes pal review rather than peer review.Poor research in climate science isn't outed, it's published then promulgated by the BBC and others.
If you've had no involvement with climate science research and/or researchers, you may well be unaware of the prevalence of pal review and gatekeeping and assume it operates in a simlar way to other branches of science.
Also part of academic performance measurement relates to paper citations. There's no unique metric, with three main sources (citation search engines) which you will doubtless be aware of already.
The reason for this thread's existence is the majority shareholding of politics in climate science. As that Princeton chap rightly pointed out, we're dealing with pure belief dressed up as science.
turbobloke said:
dub16v said:
From someone that has published in the academic literature, including in Science, I can tell you that certainly in my experience, poor research is very quickly outed (i.e. returned to author with constructive comments but not published).
Not if it undergoes pal review rather than peer review.Poor research in climate science isn't outed, it's published then promulgated by the BBC and others.
If you've had no involvement with climate science research and/or researchers, you may well be unaware of the prevalence of pal review and gatekeeping and assume it operates in a simlar way to other branches of science.
Also part of academic performance measurement relates to paper citations. There's no unique metric, with three main sources (citation search engines) which you will doubtless be aware of already.
The reason for this thread's existence is the majority shareholding of politics in climate science. As that Princeton chap rightly pointed out, we're dealing with pure belief dressed up as science.
I'm not sure what constitutes poor research in your view, or indeed the journals that publish it (do you have any examples with high impact factors?), but it (the research) certainly won't have made it very far if that's the case. Or do you mean the BBC and others cherry pick the stories they want their readership to read to suit their (presumably biased) agenda? I think the BBC, and others, are obliged to share work that best reflects the science whether you agree with this viewpoint or not*. In which case, it begs the question as to whether you should be targeting the research community yourself and publishing peer-reviewed research to the contrary to contest this argument?
- let's also not forget that many professional bodies (including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Research Council, NERC, ICE etc.) also support this viewpoint. Presumably all part of pushing this political agenda?
The whole thing reminds me of Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The phrase was repeated so often that it becomes entrenched in the mind and creates a powerful "Groupthink" in the
same way as "Global Warming" "Greenhouse Effect" and "Climate Change" You cannot question these things without being called a Denier
The WMD was assessed by many scientists, Dr David Kelly amongst them and the whole idea was so politically driven
that most of the UK Parliament fell for it and started a war that continues to this day.
But we now know that the undeniable fact that Saddam had these weapons capable of being launched in 45 minutes was
totally untrue and the lie was to there to allow a different agenda to take place.
With global warming being caused mainly by human activity I remain unconvinced but also remain a "Possibilarian"
Whether is does harm or good in the long run averaged out over life on Earth is another thing
What should we be doing about it?
While there are things that we cannot agree on, hence the length of this thread, there are a few things I am sure we can all agree on.
1 We all want to breathe clean unpolluted air
2 We should conserve energy and go for renewables where economic
3 We should not be decimating rainforests
4 We should not grow food that is thrown away because of sell by dates or a few spots or because it is so cheap.
5 We should not be transporting so much unnecessary stuff around the planet in planes, boats trains and lorries
If we concentrate on these sort of matters then perhaps it will become more apparent as to how much these things
are affecting the climate.
I will watch this thread and others and remain a Possibilarian
The phrase was repeated so often that it becomes entrenched in the mind and creates a powerful "Groupthink" in the
same way as "Global Warming" "Greenhouse Effect" and "Climate Change" You cannot question these things without being called a Denier
The WMD was assessed by many scientists, Dr David Kelly amongst them and the whole idea was so politically driven
that most of the UK Parliament fell for it and started a war that continues to this day.
But we now know that the undeniable fact that Saddam had these weapons capable of being launched in 45 minutes was
totally untrue and the lie was to there to allow a different agenda to take place.
With global warming being caused mainly by human activity I remain unconvinced but also remain a "Possibilarian"
Whether is does harm or good in the long run averaged out over life on Earth is another thing
What should we be doing about it?
While there are things that we cannot agree on, hence the length of this thread, there are a few things I am sure we can all agree on.
1 We all want to breathe clean unpolluted air
2 We should conserve energy and go for renewables where economic
3 We should not be decimating rainforests
4 We should not grow food that is thrown away because of sell by dates or a few spots or because it is so cheap.
5 We should not be transporting so much unnecessary stuff around the planet in planes, boats trains and lorries
If we concentrate on these sort of matters then perhaps it will become more apparent as to how much these things
are affecting the climate.
I will watch this thread and others and remain a Possibilarian
Edited by Vanin on Monday 16th January 10:12
dub16v said:
LongQ said:
durbster said:
It seems few/if any were aware of their work being listed on No Tricks Zone. I asked them what they thought about the site and descriptions ranged from, "a source of fake news", "totally misleading," through to "absolute and utter rubbish". A couple of us tried to find a way to register to protest but it seems it's invite only. I wonder why.
Interesting durbster.Possibly politically interesting too.
Given the breadth of coverage and the extent of the net work of organisations and individuals who seek to promote and defend the warmist view I assume that anyone whose paper is mentioned on a non-aligned site will hear about it almost immediately. So I doubt that anyone you may have contacted would be unaware of the references - they would surely have been made aware at the time.
other stuff that I've deleted as not relevant to my point below #SavingPixels
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 15th January 10:57
From someone that has published in the academic literature, including in Science, I can tell you that certainly in my experience, poor research is very quickly outed (i.e. returned to author with constructive comments but not published). This is why journal 'impact factors' are so important and well regarded. It's not a perfect system (cue self-supporting warmist conspiracy theorists) by any means (e.g. it's not uncommon for papers to take up to two years to be published, although this has changed in recent years since the advent of 'preview' issues of journals available online ahead of print) but it's the best we've evolved to.
Certain web sites are clearly being watched - possibly by subscribers to make it easy - and almost every post made on them will receive "attention" - usually within 24 hours of posting.
Often, especially for the more forthright opinions, a number of critics will appear in a short time and others will pile in as the hours and days go by. Via their own blogs, post or messages to "peer" sites and social media they will draw attention to anything that they dislike.
That's fair enough. Part of the interchange.
If someone sees something that offers a chance of a hard hit against a site they dislike - misrepresentation of results for example, or the realisation that the paper could be interpreted in a way not entirely in line with the message they believe should be projected, it seems to be normal to alert the author(s) to the matter.
Whether the authors respond is, of course, up to them.
The Peer review process does not come into this in this context.
However I have it on decent authority, from a time long before the individual specialisms of climate data sources came to public recognition as "Climate Science", that even the more traditional branches of science subjects had become so specialised that, for a given specific area of research, there were relatively few knowledgeable who could undertake the reviews. Anonymous or not the authors can often work out who the reviewers are or are likely to have been. If you take the multiple specialisms required for climate stuff any reviewer is likely to come from a rather small set of people thought to be qualified in the subject matters. Ar at least one would hope the reviewers represent a balanced set of knowledge.
In other areas of Science the politics of opinions and pecking order may come into play - even if not overt in the review. After all, success is measured not just by number of accepted papers but also by attracting enough funding you keep departments running. There is competition for the crumbs from the table.
Climate research, on the other hand, seems to have relatively boundless funding available it one can work the potential sources. It seems to be thought of as a charitable activity. Lots of cash to go around,, researchers are only in competition for how much of it they can net for themselves and their departments/university.
Is that a boat one would want to see rocked?
It is my contention that such activity would make it unusual for researchers or their assistants, official or unofficial, to fail to follow up on apparently erroneous interpretations of papers.
If the work appears on an obscure site that gets 20 hits a year it may not matter much. But it is os one that has attracted enough attention in the past to be on some one's monitor list with regular claims of rebuttals of the article published then one would assume that it was understood to be some form of threat to the message and disinformation would be challenged by the authors of the misrepresented reports.
Or maybe a generic put-down of all such sites is considered to be an adequate response that reinforces the message without exposing anything too contentious.
Of course this assumes that peer review, however long it takes, is considered to me important before a paper is made public.
In recent times we have seen a lot of press releases related to papers not yet published - or through the peer review process one assumes since it is not mentioned - that are presented as major headline grabbing pieces of research establishing some absolute fact that may be correct because it is thought that something specific may happen although more research is required.
Peer review of new papers is, surely, just an first pass at verifying the science involved. It say, basically, that there is nothing too obviously wrong with the concept or the methods described so it's worth letting others understand if do see if they agree or can undertake experiments/analysis of their own to confirm the effect.
Where they are likely to get the funding to do this secondary checking is a question that I have never seen answered. Does anyone know?
dub16v said:
The peer review process is anonymous, there is absolutely no way of knowing who is reviewing your paper (certainly not in the journals I've published in).
Surely you know about this? You are in science and all that...."Jones wrote an email to Mann about two papers recently published in Climate Research – the Soon and Baliunas paper and another he identified as by "MM". This was almost certainly a paper from the Canadian economist Ross McKitrick and Michaels that returned to an old sceptics' theme. It claimed to find urbanisation dominating global warming trends on land. Jones called it "garbage".
More damagingly, he added in an email to Mann with the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL": "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"
That is an extract from The Guardian - there is of course more info out there about the very broken peer review process for Global Warming.
For me, the constant pushing of peer review as some sort of Gold Standard was one of the first easily seen through smokescreens to cover up proper analysis of the failing warmist case. Again Climategate clearly exposes this to any fresh observer.
In the non academic world I've been reviewed and also reviewed plenty and it is clear to have value it must be done by people with both the time and inclination to do it properly. So that is not pals nodding it through with a 10 minute skim read as so often seems the case (given the obvious errors missed).
The world is changing and the academics should at least try and move with it. Incredibly lengthy bureaucratic processes to churn out substandard tosh that is torn apart within days when exposed to true peer review (i.e. everyone) doesn't cut it. I'm thinking Steig, Marcott, Lewandowski etc. The IPCC process itself is similarly irrelevant. Several years to publish a dodgy dossier that is out of date before it is even printed. It's just (expensive taxpayer funded) jobs for the boys. Cull it.
In the same way the BBC can try and cling on to its ageing business model but Netflix, Youtube and the other streaming services will make it increasingly redundant (have you seen any youngster sit and watch "normal" TV recently?). Fight it or move with it?
If you're confident of your case stick it up for all to see. There is always someone cleverer and more knowledgeable than you out there on any particular subject who will correct you. If your goal is progress and the truth, embrace it (i.e. NOT the Phil Jones way).
In the non academic world I've been reviewed and also reviewed plenty and it is clear to have value it must be done by people with both the time and inclination to do it properly. So that is not pals nodding it through with a 10 minute skim read as so often seems the case (given the obvious errors missed).
The world is changing and the academics should at least try and move with it. Incredibly lengthy bureaucratic processes to churn out substandard tosh that is torn apart within days when exposed to true peer review (i.e. everyone) doesn't cut it. I'm thinking Steig, Marcott, Lewandowski etc. The IPCC process itself is similarly irrelevant. Several years to publish a dodgy dossier that is out of date before it is even printed. It's just (expensive taxpayer funded) jobs for the boys. Cull it.
In the same way the BBC can try and cling on to its ageing business model but Netflix, Youtube and the other streaming services will make it increasingly redundant (have you seen any youngster sit and watch "normal" TV recently?). Fight it or move with it?
If you're confident of your case stick it up for all to see. There is always someone cleverer and more knowledgeable than you out there on any particular subject who will correct you. If your goal is progress and the truth, embrace it (i.e. NOT the Phil Jones way).
Edited by Northbloke on Monday 16th January 11:06
LOADED DICE IN THE CLIMATE GAME by Garth Paltridge
Back in March of 2008, three of us sent off a manuscript to the Journal of Climate. It was a straightforward paper reporting the trends of humidity in the middle and upper troposphere as they (the trends) appear at face value in the NCEP monthly-average reanalysis data. NCEP data on atmospheric behaviour over the last 50 years are readily available on the web and are something of a workhorse for much modern research on meteorology and climate.
The paper did two things:
(1) It pointed out that, according to the NCEP data, the zonal-average tropical and mid-latitude humidities have decreased over the last 35 years at altitudes above the 850mb pressure level – that is, in the middle and upper troposphere, roughly above the top of the convective boundary layer. NCEP humidity information derives ultimately from the international network of balloon-borne radiosondes. And one must say immediately that radiosonde humidity data have more than their fair share of problems. So does the NCEP process of using an operational weather forecasting model to integrate the actual measurements into a meteorologically coherent set of data presented on a regular grid.
(2) It made the point (not an original point, but on the other hand one that is not widely known even among the cognoscenti) that water vapour feedback in the global warming story is very largely determined by the response of water vapour in the middle and upper troposphere. Total water vapour in the atmosphere may increase as the temperature of the surface rises, but if at the same time the mid- to upper-level concentration decreases then water vapour feedback will be negative. (There are hand-waving physical arguments that might explain how a decoupling such as that could occur).
Climate models (for various obscure reasons) tend to maintain constant relative humidity at each atmospheric level, and therefore have an increasing absolute humidity at each level as the surface and atmospheric temperatures increase. This behaviour in the upper levels of the models produces a positive feedback which more than doubles the temperature rise calculated to be the consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2.
The bottom line is that, if (repeat if) one could believe the NCEP data ‘as is’, water vapour feedback over the last 35 years has been negative. And if the pattern were to continue into the future, one would expect water vapour feedback in the climate system to halve rather than double the temperature rise due to increasing CO2.
Satellite data from the HIRS instruments on the NOAA polar orbiting satellites tend (‘sort of’, only in the tropics, and only for part of the time) to support the climate model story. The ‘ifs and buts’ of satellite information about upper tropospheric humidity are of the same order as that from balloon radiosondes.
Anyway, our paper concluded by suggesting that, in view of the extreme significance of upper-level humidity to the climate change story, the international radiosonde data on upper-level humidity should not be ‘written off’ without a serious attempt at abstracting the best possible humidity signal from within the noise of instrumental and operational changes at each of the relevant radiosonde stations. After all, we are not exactly over-endowed with data on the matter. The attempt would be similar in principle to the current efforts at abstracting a believable global warming signal from the networks of surface-temperature observations.
Suffice it to say that after 3 or 4 months the paper was knocked back. This largely because of an unbelievably vitriolic, and indeed rather hysterical, review from someone who let slip that
“the only object I can see for this paper is for the authors to get something in the peer-reviewed literature which the ignorant can cite as supporting lower climate sensitivity than the standard IPCC range”.
We argued a bit with the editor about why he took notice of such a review. We are not exactly novices in the research game, and can say with reasonable authority that when faced with such an emotive review the editor should simply have ignored it and sent the paper off to someone else. The argument didn’t get far. In particular we couldn’t get a guarantee that a re-submission would not involve the same reviewer. And in any event the conditions for re-submission effectively amounted to a requirement that we first prove the models and the satellites wrong.
A couple of weeks after the knock-back, and for unrelated reasons, two of us went to a small workshop on water vapour held at LDEO in New Jersey, whereat we told the tale. The audience was split as to whether the existence of the NCEP trends in humidity should be reported in the literature. Those ‘against’ (among them a number of people from GISS) simply said that the radiosonde data were too ‘iffy’ to report the trends publicly in a political climate where there are horrible people who might make sinful use of them. Those ‘for’ simply said that scientific reportage shouldn’t be constrained by the politically correct. The matter was dropped. I found after the event that the journal editor had come (I think specifically) to hear the talk. He didn’t bother to introduce himself.
I guess the story doesn’t amount to much. Perhaps it is significant only in that it shows how naïve we were to imagine that climate scientists might welcome the challenge to examine properly and in detail even the smell of a possibility that global warming might not be as bad as it is made out to be. Silly us.
Back in March of 2008, three of us sent off a manuscript to the Journal of Climate. It was a straightforward paper reporting the trends of humidity in the middle and upper troposphere as they (the trends) appear at face value in the NCEP monthly-average reanalysis data. NCEP data on atmospheric behaviour over the last 50 years are readily available on the web and are something of a workhorse for much modern research on meteorology and climate.
The paper did two things:
(1) It pointed out that, according to the NCEP data, the zonal-average tropical and mid-latitude humidities have decreased over the last 35 years at altitudes above the 850mb pressure level – that is, in the middle and upper troposphere, roughly above the top of the convective boundary layer. NCEP humidity information derives ultimately from the international network of balloon-borne radiosondes. And one must say immediately that radiosonde humidity data have more than their fair share of problems. So does the NCEP process of using an operational weather forecasting model to integrate the actual measurements into a meteorologically coherent set of data presented on a regular grid.
(2) It made the point (not an original point, but on the other hand one that is not widely known even among the cognoscenti) that water vapour feedback in the global warming story is very largely determined by the response of water vapour in the middle and upper troposphere. Total water vapour in the atmosphere may increase as the temperature of the surface rises, but if at the same time the mid- to upper-level concentration decreases then water vapour feedback will be negative. (There are hand-waving physical arguments that might explain how a decoupling such as that could occur).
Climate models (for various obscure reasons) tend to maintain constant relative humidity at each atmospheric level, and therefore have an increasing absolute humidity at each level as the surface and atmospheric temperatures increase. This behaviour in the upper levels of the models produces a positive feedback which more than doubles the temperature rise calculated to be the consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2.
The bottom line is that, if (repeat if) one could believe the NCEP data ‘as is’, water vapour feedback over the last 35 years has been negative. And if the pattern were to continue into the future, one would expect water vapour feedback in the climate system to halve rather than double the temperature rise due to increasing CO2.
Satellite data from the HIRS instruments on the NOAA polar orbiting satellites tend (‘sort of’, only in the tropics, and only for part of the time) to support the climate model story. The ‘ifs and buts’ of satellite information about upper tropospheric humidity are of the same order as that from balloon radiosondes.
Anyway, our paper concluded by suggesting that, in view of the extreme significance of upper-level humidity to the climate change story, the international radiosonde data on upper-level humidity should not be ‘written off’ without a serious attempt at abstracting the best possible humidity signal from within the noise of instrumental and operational changes at each of the relevant radiosonde stations. After all, we are not exactly over-endowed with data on the matter. The attempt would be similar in principle to the current efforts at abstracting a believable global warming signal from the networks of surface-temperature observations.
Suffice it to say that after 3 or 4 months the paper was knocked back. This largely because of an unbelievably vitriolic, and indeed rather hysterical, review from someone who let slip that
“the only object I can see for this paper is for the authors to get something in the peer-reviewed literature which the ignorant can cite as supporting lower climate sensitivity than the standard IPCC range”.
We argued a bit with the editor about why he took notice of such a review. We are not exactly novices in the research game, and can say with reasonable authority that when faced with such an emotive review the editor should simply have ignored it and sent the paper off to someone else. The argument didn’t get far. In particular we couldn’t get a guarantee that a re-submission would not involve the same reviewer. And in any event the conditions for re-submission effectively amounted to a requirement that we first prove the models and the satellites wrong.
A couple of weeks after the knock-back, and for unrelated reasons, two of us went to a small workshop on water vapour held at LDEO in New Jersey, whereat we told the tale. The audience was split as to whether the existence of the NCEP trends in humidity should be reported in the literature. Those ‘against’ (among them a number of people from GISS) simply said that the radiosonde data were too ‘iffy’ to report the trends publicly in a political climate where there are horrible people who might make sinful use of them. Those ‘for’ simply said that scientific reportage shouldn’t be constrained by the politically correct. The matter was dropped. I found after the event that the journal editor had come (I think specifically) to hear the talk. He didn’t bother to introduce himself.
I guess the story doesn’t amount to much. Perhaps it is significant only in that it shows how naïve we were to imagine that climate scientists might welcome the challenge to examine properly and in detail even the smell of a possibility that global warming might not be as bad as it is made out to be. Silly us.
Climategate's genuine emails revealed clique pal review and gatekeeping losing any anonymity within IPCC priestly circles, also data secrecy and journal manipulation.
These offer a suitable backdrop to Paltridge's account.
Clique email from Edward Cook, June 4, 2003
"I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. ... If published as is, this paper could really do some damage ... It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review -- Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting."
Clique email from Michael Mann, Mar 11, 2003
"I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."
Clique email from Tom Wigley, Apr 24, 2003
"Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc."
Clique email from Phil Jones, Feb 2, 2005
"The two MMs [Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] 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."
Clique email from Phil Jones, May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment -minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
Clique email from Michael Mann, Oct 27, 2009
"Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations."
These offer a suitable backdrop to Paltridge's account.
Clique email from Edward Cook, June 4, 2003
"I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. ... If published as is, this paper could really do some damage ... It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review -- Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting."
Clique email from Michael Mann, Mar 11, 2003
"I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."
Clique email from Tom Wigley, Apr 24, 2003
"Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc."
Clique email from Phil Jones, Feb 2, 2005
"The two MMs [Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] 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."
Clique email from Phil Jones, May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment -minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
Clique email from Michael Mann, Oct 27, 2009
"Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations."
robinessex said:
It's a 'man on the inside' that reveals what's really going on. Just how many other such instances are there? Dozens I suspect.
Many if not most of them have been aired in PH climate threads over the last ~15 years. It would be unreasonable to ask dub 16v to spend months trawling through all the climate threads covering that period of time, but then it's equally unreasonable to expect those who wrote and read those posts to do likewise. The fact remains that details are there in PH climate threads. I know because I posted many of them.
Silver Smudger said:
Sorry, slightly distracted by the odd wording here - How many replies have you actually had?
There were 35 papers listed. I sent 21 emails and have had 10 replies so far.So basically, almost a third of the papers listed by turbobloke would not validate his portrayal of their work. I see no reason to expect the rest would be any different.
turbobloke said:
Papers mentioned on any website are available for inspection via the scientific literature.
Broad-brush smears shooting the messenger don't cut it but as with many fails, there are few options open to the faith community these days, so needs must.
If carp political websites are the new subtopic then fakeclimate, skepticalwarmist and muchosmog are in the frame.
That's your response? It's a bit disappointing to be honest. Broad-brush smears shooting the messenger don't cut it but as with many fails, there are few options open to the faith community these days, so needs must.
If carp political websites are the new subtopic then fakeclimate, skepticalwarmist and muchosmog are in the frame.
Obviously you're way too invested in this to ever change course so I didn't expect you to retract your assertions - despite them being proved wrong - but I expected something more substantial than this odd, vague and somewhat incomprehensible ramble.
durbster said:
Silver Smudger said:
Sorry, slightly distracted by the odd wording here - How many replies have you actually had?
There were 35 papers listed. I sent 21 emails and have had 10 replies so far.So basically, almost a third of the papers listed by turbobloke would not validate his portrayal of their work. I see no reason to expect the rest would be any different.
turbobloke said:
Papers mentioned on any website are available for inspection via the scientific literature.
Broad-brush smears shooting the messenger don't cut it but as with many fails, there are few options open to the faith community these days, so needs must.
If carp political websites are the new subtopic then fakeclimate, skepticalwarmist and muchosmog are in the frame.
That's your response? It's a bit disappointing to be honest. Broad-brush smears shooting the messenger don't cut it but as with many fails, there are few options open to the faith community these days, so needs must.
If carp political websites are the new subtopic then fakeclimate, skepticalwarmist and muchosmog are in the frame.
Obviously you're way too invested in this to ever change course so I didn't expect you to retract your assertions - despite them being proved wrong - but I expected something more substantial than this odd, vague and somewhat incomprehensible ramble.
wc98 said:
durbster said:
So yes, discredited.
Not by your imaginary "establishment", but by the actual people who wrote the papers listed on a website both you and turbobloke have cited in efforts to provide a scientific basis for your argument.
Still laughing?
which member of the skeptical science team are you ? Not by your imaginary "establishment", but by the actual people who wrote the papers listed on a website both you and turbobloke have cited in efforts to provide a scientific basis for your argument.
Still laughing?
I'm not posting on anyone's behalf but my own and I've been on PH forever. I'm interested in science, and this topic exposes many problems with science communication. You simply can't convince people with facts or evidence. There's a more complex psychology at work, and I find that an intriguing intellectual challenge.
How do you convey a somewhat boring and simple truth to folk who are seeing a highly convoluted and elaborate conspiracy?
You can see above. Challenging the shoutiest posters in here to back up their assertions is almost ways met with either silence, or aggression and intimidation. That exposes the lack of substance in their argument which can only be a good thing for reaching the truth.
Whether any of this sways any casual readers or not is an intriguing question. Whether any right-minded people read this thread at all is another.
Also, it takes my mind off work for a bit.
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on my post, as it was your questions about the ocean cycles that gave me the idea to simply ask the people who study it.
dub16v said:
I'm not sure what constitutes poor research in your view, or indeed the journals that publish it (do you have any examples with high impact factors?), but it (the research) certainly won't have made it very far if that's the case.
i think your views are based upon your own field. for a good example see gergis et al .https://climateaudit.org/2016/07/21/joelle-gergis-...
LongQ said:
So, in the spirit of presenting facts, you will be providing a post soon with details of your exchanges with the authors who have responded?
No, I won't do that because they are personal emails. I was in two minds to share the quoted parts to be honest, but felt they were necessary to make the point. You can disagree with my point of view but I'm no liar. Lying on the internet is high-risk. Not worth it.
I've given you an honest account. You can choose whether to believe it or not.
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
So yes, discredited.
Not by your imaginary "establishment", but by the actual people who wrote the papers listed on a website both you and turbobloke have cited in efforts to provide a scientific basis for your argument.
Still laughing?
which member of the skeptical science team are you ? Not by your imaginary "establishment", but by the actual people who wrote the papers listed on a website both you and turbobloke have cited in efforts to provide a scientific basis for your argument.
Still laughing?
I'm not posting on anyone's behalf but my own and I've been on PH forever. I'm interested in science, and this topic exposes many problems with science communication. You simply can't convince people with facts or evidence. There's a more complex psychology at work, and I find that an intriguing intellectual challenge.
How do you convey a somewhat boring and simple truth to folk who are seeing a highly convoluted and elaborate conspiracy?
You can see above. Challenging the shoutiest posters in here to back up their assertions is almost ways met with either silence, or aggression and intimidation. That exposes the lack of substance in their argument which can only be a good thing for reaching the truth.
Whether any of this sways any casual readers or not is an intriguing question. Whether any right-minded people read this thread at all is another.
Also, it takes my mind off work for a bit.
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on my post, as it was your questions about the ocean cycles that gave me the idea to simply ask the people who study it.
"what period of time do you deem to be short to medium term ? you do realise pdo/amo cycles appear to be anything from 60 to 80 years . over and above that we have the lagged effect of solar cycles plus el nino/la nina dominated periods to consider ,along with periods of increased/decreased volcanic activity affecting aerosol concentration in the atmosphere.i would therefore suggest a period of monitoring in excess of 100 years would be required to even get a basic grasp of any trend.
another factor to take into consideration in the northern hemisphere is the north atlantic oscillation ,yet another major distribution mechanism of atmospheric energy.
the trouble is at the level knowledge is being claimed currently ,like ocean heat content to the zettajoule we really do not have the required information.
settled science ? i think not.
regarding warming oceans , i would suggest you have a look at ocean temperature trends on a regional basis. i don't think the answer you get will be what you expect, bearing in mind even today with argo (and all its faults) actual coverage measurement wise is pitiful . do you know how many square miles each float represents in ocean coverage resulting in massive extrapolation of the readings from each float ?
i can show you areas where there will be several degrees difference in water temp in a few hundred metres laterally , how do you think argo copes with that ? not to mention most of the volume of the worlds oceans exists below the coverage depth of 2000m the floats operate to (luckily for hiding the heat in the deep ocean according to some wink )
the main problem i have with people that study the various natural phenomena is many extrapolate findings from a very short period in time over very long periods leading to spurious assumptions that then become accepted fact. i first noticed this in marine biology , it was a heads up on what to look for when i first took an interest in the climate debate .
i have access to real time sea surface temperatures and some bottom temperatures in the north sea and north east atlantic. often there are big discrepancies with the stated temperatures in the satellite data, so that is one area where i know the accepted knowledge can often be incorrect.
i know the parameters used to initiate runs for weather forecasting on the mets supercomputer generate nonsense in all cases apart from nice steady lows or high pressures coming in from the west and south west. any other direction from north west round to south east the actual wind direction , strength and precipitation is wrong at least 75% of the time. i was going to start screen shotting forecasts from 48 hours out right up until the actual time of weather occurring but knew it was a waste oif time due to the huge amount of leeway the met give themselves in describing what is an accurate forecast.
i don't care whether a person is "right minded" in my opinion . it is up to the individual to sort the wheat from the chaff .at the end of the day it comes down to forecasts over the medium and long term vs reality and reality has not been supporting the predictions of climate doom.
ps, are you a member of the skeptical science team/forum . this has a bearing on this conversation, so it is not a personal dig if you are a member or not.
durbster said:
LongQ said:
So, in the spirit of presenting facts, you will be providing a post soon with details of your exchanges with the authors who have responded?
No, I won't do that because they are personal emails. I was in two minds to share the quoted parts to be honest, but felt they were necessary to make the point. You can disagree with my point of view but I'm no liar. Lying on the internet is high-risk. Not worth it.
I've given you an honest account. You can choose whether to believe it or not.
would you mind posting the email you sent making the enquiries, i would be interested in the wording
durbster said:
wc98 said:
the last time i commented at no tricks zone there was no requirement for registration at all. just name and email at the time of comment. something be amiss here.
Ah yes, you're right. I'll let the guy know and I've amended my post.But you can comment on some articles so I suspect comments are only open for a certain amount of time, or at the site owners discretion. That seems even more devious.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff