hot enough for ya?

[Turdacious]

nice job ignoring his ethical failures in disclosing sources of funding

It was an ethical lapse on his part, but is it really worse scientific integrity-wise than making conclusions with hidden data?

Judith Curry gets it:

But the broader issue is the need to increase the public credibility of climate science. This requires publicly available data and metadata, a rigorous peer review process, and responding to arguments raised by skeptics. The integrity of individual scientists that are in positions of responsibility (e.g. administrators at major research institutions, editorial boards, major committees, and assessments) is particularly important for the public credibility of climate science. The need for public credibility and transparency has dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has increased. The climate research enterprise has not yet adapted to this need, and our institutions need to strategize to respond to this need.

https://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/ ... -research/

Moar Curry:

What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... mode=print

Don't forget that the paper which suggested a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism was peer reviewed, published in one of the most respected medical journals in the world, rereviewed by the institution that funded the science, and pronounced sound for a dozen years.

There's a difference between good science and marketing campaigns.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRgnZcoNk_Q[/youtube]

[dead man walking]

do you have anything that isn't old and hasn't been addressed?

comparing the many studies re climate across multiple fields(tempertures, ice, oceans, wildlife, for ex) in locations around the world to a single vaccination study is silly. even you know that

[Turdacious]

do you have anything that isn't old and hasn't been addressed?

comparing the many studies re climate across multiple fields(tempertures, ice, oceans, wildlife, for ex) in locations around the world to a single vaccination study is silly. even you know that

You mean like figuring out new ways to measure ocean height when there wasn't anything wrong with the old one?

[dead man walking]

do you have anything that isn't old and hasn't been addressed?

comparing the many studies re climate across multiple fields(tempertures, ice, oceans, wildlife, for ex) in locations around the world to a single vaccination study is silly. even you know that

You mean like figuring out new ways to measure ocean height when there wasn't anything wrong with the old one?

even by the old method sea levels are rising.

by your logic, we wouldn't use laproscopic surgery because we could do the operations with an old-fashioned incision and a scalpel

you got nothing, turd, but your determination to make a debate where none exists

[Swamp Fox]

Here is a non-scientific perspective from the sub-tropical zone.

The orange trees, azaleas, and many other plants used to start blooming here in March. For the last 5 years or more they have been starting in early February. This year some orange trees start blooming in January.

Recent winters in FL have definitely been the warmest in my lifetime.

[Sangoma]

Once again Turd beat me to it. I haven't seen any debate in climatology. Only the mockery of anyone who doubts the climate dogma. I must admit, the whole thing is exceptionally clever: it is the mixture of truth and lies, Goebbels style, which makes the debate complicated, especially when things get technical. The Earth is warming, that's true. But, is it because of human activity? So far the argument hasn't been convincing. It mainly consists of showing hurricanes, floods and forest fires on TV and repetition of the mantra that it is all because of CO2; eventually everyone forgets where it all started and the belief becomes ingrained into the public psyche. Pretty much like cholesterol theory of atherosclerosis or WMDs in Iraq in early 2003: the origins of neither are questioned these days.

As far as fraud goes, I think the proponents of the climate theories should shut their mouths. Every member of IPCC has direct interests in anthropogenic climate theory, including financial. Those who don't have been expelled from it years ago. Hockey Stick, the main argument on which your theory stands, is built on fraudulent data and extremely complicated mathematical massage of numbers designed to intimidate the average reader. The very idea of accusing oil industry funding anti-climate studies is doubtful: how does it profit them? Is there an alternative to fossil fuel that can be implemented right away and will deprive them of their profits? And, of course, receiving mega grants by the "scientists" from the government - which directly profits from all kind of industries - is all ethical and morally correct.

Fuck it, I want to see a simple argument about the anthropogenic origins of the current weather warming. Apparent and significant connections should be easily demonstrable. If they are not it means that the relationship between one and another is more complex than one variable (CO2) leading to another (temperature rise), and must be presented appropriately. But we all know that this will never happen.

[DrDonkeyLove]

I try to be open minded but what Smet and other warming skeptics say rings true to me.

Does anyone know how the average temperature today, or as predicted in 50 years, compares to the average temperature 10,000 years ago when the northern hemisphere was covered in ice? How about 100,000 years ago when there was much less ice and average sea levels were substantially higher? Do we know from history the difference a degree or two or ten really makes?

[dead man walking]

i am puzzled that someone would believe smet over the 97% of the climate scientists who support the view that mankind is altering the climate to damanging effect. smet pulls out the nazi card (reference to goebbels), makes a reductionist argument (the hockey stick), and trivializes the science, saying it is no more than the showing of storms on tv.

what do we know?

climate modeling has been relatively accurate

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climato ... -book.html

the work of climate skeptics has been (and is) substantively addressed

http://www.realclimate.org

the indicators of climate change are many, as i have said (not just rising temperatures and sea levels, but melting artic ice and most recently antarctic ice, changes in the timing and duration of seasons, acidification of the ocean, etc.) all of this stuff has been debated for some 25 years or more, and a consensus among scientists has emerged.

you don't believe them. so be it.

the evidence will continue to build, either for or against warming. eventually the debate, like that about tobacco, will be settled.

meantime, the sensible approach to this potentially dangerous situation is to take out an insurance policy. arguing that the warming is not occurring, or if it is occurring, it is not manmade puts off the day when you take out an insurance policy. by delaying, you increase the likelihood that youy will not be able to manage the problem later or that the cost will increase many times. i think risk management makes sense, which means we should insist our government take steps, like a taxing carbon and eliminating subsidies for insurance to cover oceanfront properties.

cheers.

[Herv100]

HIDE THE DECLINE

[Turdacious]

i am puzzled that someone would believe smet over the 97% of the climate scientists who support the view that mankind is altering the climate to damanging effect.

Or maybe he's in a field rife with too good to be true cons and snake oil salesmen, and sees similarities between these and climate 'science.' Maybe he understands that serious errors by others in his field can damage his reputation even if he's not the one making the mistakes.

If the science is so good, why is there so much fraud, and fraud at the highest levels?

[Sangoma]

i am puzzled that someone would believe smet over the 97% of the climate scientists who support the view that mankind is altering the climate to damanging effect. smet pulls out the nazi card (reference to goebbels), makes a reductionist argument (the hockey stick), and trivializes the science, saying it is no more than the showing of storms on tv.

what do we know?

climate modeling has been relatively accurate

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climato ... -book.html

the work of climate skeptics has been (and is) substantively addressed

http://www.realclimate.org

the indicators of climate change are many, as i have said (not just rising temperatures and sea levels, but melting artic ice and most recently antarctic ice, changes in the timing and duration of seasons, acidification of the ocean, etc.) all of this stuff has been debated for some 25 years or more, and a consensus among scientists has emerged.

you don't believe them. so be it.

the evidence will continue to build, either for or against warming. eventually the debate, like that about tobacco, will be settled.

meantime, the sensible approach to this potentially dangerous situation is to take out an insurance policy. arguing that the warming is not occurring, or if it is occurring, it is not manmade puts off the day when you take out an insurance policy. by delaying, you increase the likelihood that youy will not be able to manage the problem later or that the cost will increase many times. i think risk management makes sense, which means we should insist our government take steps, like a taxing carbon and eliminating subsidies for insurance to cover oceanfront properties.

cheers.

Don't you get a little suspicious about the 97% agreement about such a complicated phenomenon as climate? Sure, it may mean that 97% agree on the issue. It may also mean that the opponents don't get the funding for their research and/or don't get published. Try get the funding for the research that doubts the efficacy of an anti-depressant or a statin, let me know when you succeed.

As an example of selective publishing, here is an article that argues about the validity of climate models: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong I am sure there is serious reason why we cannot trust this guy.

In terms of reductionist argument about the Hockey Stick, what the fuck? Hockey Stick is the basis for the rest of the debate. It is supposed to show that temperatures of the planet have never risen as much as they have since 1900. It is extremely significant and therefore the debate around it must be transparent. Yet according to you my question is reductionist. Very much in keeping of the "debate" that takes place in this science. And, by the way, do you seriously suppose that a dissident website qualifies as "the work of the skeptics has been substantively addressed"?

Lastly, final last paragraph is exactly what I mean by the Goebbels style (call it Stalin, GW Bush or Pol Pot style if you wish, it's an old trick). It is straightforward fear mongering: "Take an insurance policy or it will be too late!" Unsubstantiated action is not an insurance policy. There is no proof that by reducing carbon emissions we will achieve or delay current climate change. And before you jump and scream that I don't believe that reduction in emissions is a good thing - I remind you of what I said earlier: pollution and overuse of resources is one thing, and anthropogenic climate change quite another. I am all for severely taxing 4x4s with 6 liter engines that take one person to work, or factories that expel tons of smoke into the atmosphere, but call the reasons their real names.

[buckethead]

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi won the Egyptian election with 97% of the vote, so of course no one doubts the election

[powerlifter54]

When you look into the data, and how it is massaged, anyone with a mathematical analysis background begins to scratch their head. The hockey stick graph and the climategate emails are very troubling. The famous 97% quote is actually 97% of the scientists who responded not who were polled. Check the 97% who responded and see what subject their PhD is in. Not convincing.

But ClimateChangedemanders most amazing characteristic is their unwillingness to do anything real about it except shut things down and pursue pie in the sky green energy free lunches. They are against wind farms and solar panels for environmental reasons and the bad fen shui, natural gas conversion of coal plants because fracking is deviltry, and nuclear because they saw The China Syndrome on TNT once.

How about we agree to disagree, and convert everything we can to natural gas, build wind farms and some nuke plants, develop battery technology, allow solar panels everywhere, get rid of laws requiring power to be bought only from utilities, and any other proactive step we can to be cleaner and more energy independent except paying fees to the UN while polluters like India and China laugh at us? It will take 25 years to develop all the technology, longer if the government tries to pick the winners. See Solyndra. We have that in Natural gas. So the chicken littles can run around and get nowhere or we can move forward.

[Grandpa's Spells]

When you look into the data, and how it is massaged, anyone with a mathematical analysis background begins to scratch their head.

Completely false. The people scratching their heads have a GOP partisan background. The math people all agree. The latest prominent "scientist" was just exposed as not disclosing his funding from the Koch brothers.

[powerlifter54]

When you look into the data, and how it is massaged, anyone with a mathematical analysis background begins to scratch their head.

Completely false. The people scratching their heads have a GOP partisan background. The math people all agree. The latest prominent "scientist" was just exposed as not disclosing his funding from the Koch brothers.

Actually i think the study the moonbats are worried about was not funded by the Kochs, he has received funding from the Kochs on other projects. Any issue with the authorS science? Haven't seen any just the Koch issue. When anyone deliberately shuffles data and removes outliers, the scope of which is all in the email trail, the question arises as to why they need to do that. That answer is also in the emails.

Have offered lots of workable common sense solutions we can implement now.But just like a few years ago when the usual suspects smirked on how we couldn't drill our way to energy independence, they just really don't want a solution that doesn't involve control in their hands. Not gonna happen.

We agree this is politics not science. So take every effort we can to be cleaner and more independent. If that is what you are really after.

[dead man walking]

Any issue with the authorS science? Haven't seen any

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ?wpmp_tp=1

have you read an explanation of the adjustments to the data?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/fiddlin ... burns.html

are you aware of this:

Zeke Hausfather, another member of the BEST team, has also shown that the adjustments act to slightly reduce the long-term warming trend as compared to the raw data.

[powerlifter54]

Yep. More true believers who write emails, and defend emails, just like this:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

What is even more amazing is nobody in the Circle of Doom has ever said anything like, yeah, we are true believers and went a bit nuts there for a while. We can do better. Nope, they double down and defend these and the other emails discussion of fraud. But since they got government grants that was ok.

Not willing to turn control of the economy and power generation over to these dolts.

[dead man walking]

dolts?

from a decidedly not true believer, funded in part by the kochs. dates to 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini ... wanted=all

here are the 2014 findings:

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/G ... letter.pdf

instead of grade-school name calling, cite a reputable scientist who has challenged richard a. muller's climate work.

[Turdacious]

dolts?

from a decidedly not true believer, funded in part by the kochs. dates to 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini ... wanted=all

here are the 2014 findings:

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/G ... letter.pdf

instead of grade-school name calling, cite a reputable scientist who has challenged richard a. muller's climate work.

So the Koch brothers are the only group funding honest science now?

[dead man walking]

they funded a "skeptic" and got hoist on their own petard

if only what smet said about stalinist repression of skeptics were true, this guy would have been exiled to a gulag and unavailable to conduct this research and fuck things up for naysayers

[Turdacious]

they funded a "skeptic" and got hoist on their own petard

Hardly. They hired a guy who does honest math to do what climate scientists should be doing-- proper research and results validation.

Muller in 2003:

Six editors recently resigned from the journal Climate Research because of this issue. Their crime: publishing the article “Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 Years,” by W. Soon and S. Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Without passing judgment on this particular paper, I can still point out that our journals are full of poor papers. If editors were dismissed every time they published one, they would all be out of work within a month or two. What made the Soon and Baliunas situation different is that their paper attracted enormous attention. And that’s because it threw doubt on the hockey stick.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/40 ... l-warming/
Soon and Baliunas were right FWIW.

Muller from 2004, where he again takes a giant shit on the hockey stick:

It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow.

In the same article, he also said:

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/40 ... bombshell/

He was on record for having these opinions years before the Kochs hired him, and they hired him anyway. When he came out as a climate-change believer, the Koch's did nothing to him. The Koch's believe in legitimate science, the scientific method, and the scientific process; the owners of the Climate Research magazine do not.

[dead man walking]

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co ... -increase/

direct observation of greenhouse effect resulting from co2.

co2 increases. temperatures warm. widespread effects are documented. cause or correlation?

am i chicken little or are you an ostrich?

the evidence will--or will not--continue to accumulate. perhaps i'll check back on this thread in a couple of years.

[Andy83]

The oceans seem to be rising is because the land mass is sinking due to all the fat people waddling around. Science.

[DrDonkeyLove]

they funded a "skeptic" and got hoist on their own petard

if only what smet said about stalinist repression of skeptics were true, this guy would have been exiled to a gulag and unavailable to conduct this research and fuck things up for naysayers

Follow The Money
This guy says the guy you criticized is getting a bum deal and it's the feds and green limousine libs influencing debate w/bags of dirty dollars.

Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, a group of media outlets — including the New York Times and the Boston Globe — have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda. But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding. In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.

Alex Epstein (THE Alex Epstein who wrote a book) says we should settle the fuck down.

The warming models may prove correct in the long term, of course, so Epstein asks a reasonable question: What if it becomes clear that, in the next 100 years, the seas will rise by two feet and the globe will warm by 2 degrees Celsius, as predicted by many climate scientists? The answer is simple, though often ignored by climate alarmists: we’ll adapt. Since the Industrial Revolution, and especially in the last 30 years, the human race has become progressively better at remediating the harmful effects of storms, heat, cold, floods, and so on. It’s irresponsible, says Epstein, to trivialize the power of technology to solve the problems generated by fossil fuels. Much of that technology could consist of fossil-powered techniques to capture and recycle or sequester carbon dioxide.

My solution is that we suck up all the extra water from the rising seas, desalinate it with solar, and use solar pumps to fill all the drought emptied lakes, rivers, and reservoirs in the world. As soon as I get my Ph.D, I'll be able to prove the benefits of my strategy with computer models.

[dead man walking]

My solution is that we suck up all the extra water from the rising seas, desalinate it with solar, and use solar pumps to fill all the drought emptied lakes, rivers, and reservoirs in the world. As soon as I get my Ph.D, I'll be able to prove the benefits of my strategy with computer models.

my goal is to develop a respectable squat. i will be checking your training log to see how you are coming with the deadlift.