Climate-gate and other media-centric climate-change contentions
Matt
a thread that was started on a facebook profile, since it
has gotten very long for that medium. This first one is long,
but provides the posts in sequence, to preserve the history.
Initially posted on Lance King's facebook profile:
Hackers break into University emails and uncover the global warming
conspiracy. Mainstream media is whitewashing this story -- so it is up
to us to get this info out! Link to this video, Digg it, make your own
responses, tweet, and do everything you can to expose this
international conspiracy.
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
It's with good reason the "mainstream media" has largely ignored this
story... the entire story is based on a poor understanding of the
fundamentals of climate science.
Alex Jones, as well as other climate change deniers, have singled in
on a single e-mail, on which they're basing "climate-gate". If you
think about it, that in and of itself, is actually telling. They stole
tens of thousands of e-mails, and were able to come up with only one
to support their cause. They went looking for a grand conspiracy and
found a single e-mail. So, let's look at the e-mail in question:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (i. e. from 1981 onwards) and
from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."... See More
First off, what is Mike's trick? Mike, is Michael Mann. And his
"trick", is not a trick in the nefarious sense, as when you
deliberately attempt to deceive. Rather, trick is meant in the sense
of, I have a very difficult problem, here's a trick or an easy way to
solve it. Ironically, this isn't some grand secret or some diabolical
plot. Mann published a paper in 1999 specifically describing this
"trick" in great detail. For a summary go to...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/briffa.html
So what problem did this "trick" solve? Climate scientists have two
types of temperature data; real / instrumental data (taken by actual
thermometers) and proxy data (ice cores, soil samples, etc.). The
proxy data is known to have a large variance, as it's not actual
instrument data. Within climate science, there's a twenty year period
where both types of data were collected, until proxy data was no
longer considered of value. During this twenty year period, the proxy
data and the actual data were in conflict. The actual, real,
instrument data showed a rise in temperature, while the proxy data
showed a decline. However, that decline was not outside of the known
variance, and to that end, wasn't truly in conflict.
What Michael Mann recognized (and wrote about in 1999) was that when
reconstructing and depicting climate change graphically, that the
proxy data (which is known to have a wide variance) should be de-
emphasized (or "hidden"), during this twenty year period, as to avoid
the misinterpretation of this change. However, as you can clearly see,
they never actually hide the proxy data, it's simply de-emphasized as
Mann suggested it should be...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
If you're interested in climate change conspiracies, I'd highly
recommend "Everything's Cool"...
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Everything_s_Cool/70059382?strackid=520d722935a9e1a2_0_srl&strkid=1944417253_0_0&trkid=222336
December 6 at 1:17pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
Greg, thank you for your insightful and well thought out response! I
would ask you to elaborate on why there are more (Many more)
scientists and climatologists that disagree with this synopsis of
Global Warming than there are that "Believe" it to be true. We all
know the earth and it's climate is in constant flux, it's always been
this way. So my ... See Morequestion is, how can they determine
without a doubt what is happening based on only 100 years of data that
really has only recently been highly detailed data.
It's at best a "GUESTIMATION", It's not based on enough fact based
data to conclude a scientific statement. Therefore my non believing
friend, wouldn't that make it a "leap of faith"?
December 6 at 1:29pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
more to my point, of course the earths climate is changing, we have
always dealt with this, and we have always adapted, It's human nature,
so why then do we need to find ways to pull trillions of dollars out
of the people in order to adapt in this particular case? Agenda...
Control...
December 6 at 1:31pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
Lance... here is a list of scientific bodies and their respective
positions on global warming. I think you'll find that any assertion,
that the majority of the scientific world denies global warming or
denies that it is man-made, is simply not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
To sum up, the article states, "An increasing body of observations
gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the
climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the
warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
activities. Since 2007, no scientific body of national or
international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."... See
More
It then lists the positions of scientific bodies. You'll find, as the
opening statement summarizes, there is almost no disagreement on this
issue.
December 6 at 2:16pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
Greg, using Wikipedia as a resource, is not what I'd consider an
accurate form of information, how do I know this to be true? I have a
wiki page about me, and it's available for anyone to post anything
they want about me, including "Inaccuracies" and the ironic part of
this is, I can't edit it myself to correct these "Inaccuracies".
December 6 at 4:56pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
I will say this though, I was reluctant to post anything by Alex
Jones, he's a fear monger, and is doing his best to shake it up out
there on so many levels.
Still I think it's safe to say that logic and common sense should be
used when talking about "Climate Change" Ask yourself how much money
"Cap and Trade" will equate too for the powers that ... See Morebe.
Ask yourself how much money Gore's been making championing this view?
ask yourself if you've actually noticed it warmer in the last year?
Ask yourself why "cow emissions" create 20% more CO2 than Humans do?
Ask yourself, what is it that Trees and Grass and plants breath?
And then tell me that CO2 is a real issue here!
December 6 at 5:07pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
Lance... two things. First off, Wikipedia is accepted as a source for
academic research at universities. It's been demonstrated to be more
accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Unlike a page dedicated to
someone like yourself, these hot-button topics are very tightly
controlled. People can't simply make changes on a whim, as they might
on ... See Moreyour page. Wikipedia has varying levels of change
control, depending on the popularity of the topic. Finally, you'll
notice at the bottom of that page, every single statement, by every
single scientific body, has a link to the press release / statement.
As I said, as far as the scientific community is concerned, the issue
is settled.
As for cap and trade... there are two things to keep in mind. First,
we have no idea what shape it would take, here in the U.S., much less
globally. As with any drastic policy shift, it will be preceded by
rhetoric, misinformation and eventually compromise. And as with
anything, it all comes down to application. If we do decide we should
control our emissions as a nation, a cap and trade system could be an
effective tool. I'm not necessarily an advocate of C&T; I'd have to
see the details. Second, when we talk about money and the powers that
be, the bigger question to ask is, if the scientific community has in
fact weighed in on the issue definitively, who is fostering the belief
that global warming is a topic still open to debate? I'm not one for
conspiracy theories, but it certainly seems that the very powerful oil
companies have a lot to lose if there was a real push to stop using
their product. They also have the type of resources necessary to
impact the shape of this debate. Again, if you get some time, I think
you'll find that documentary I recommended, "Everything's Cool:, quite
interesting.
December 6 at 7:10pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
Greg, it's always a pleasure to talk with you, you're well spoken,
respectful, and intelligent, I appreciate you taking the time to weigh
in here in order to show your thoughts, I will check out the video.
Oil Companies may very well have an interest to that end, that would
be logical. I'll read up a bit more and do a bit more research on the
subject.
December 6 at 9:01pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
Thanks Lance. And likewise on chatting with you. It's a shame the
folks we send to DC can't be as civil and respectful when it comes to
different points of view.
December 7 at 7:31am
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
Greg, did some research and I'm going to call Alex Jones a Patriot,
not a fear monger for his stories on these letters, I don't believe
he's doing this for capital gain, I believe he'd doing it because he's
an American that believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
and is afraid of the possible far reaching implications of government
control he see's as possible.
December 7 at 1:54pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
Greg,
I¿ve always been very conscious of Nature and and what I would call
myself ecologically minded, grew up as a kid in the woods, my parents
were very liberal and brought me up as a 60/70¿s child that was health
conscious and spent a lot of time outdoors, I love nature and I for
sure want it to be around forever for future generations to enjoy. I
wrote a song about it, called Nightmare ; ) I based my company on that
lyrics title, I¿m fully aware of how we as humans effect the earth. I
¿m also a conservative and I believe that doing things in a
conservative manner is the best ways to approach things, meaning do
things effectively in the most efficient and cost effective manner.
Conservative people are less wasteful than non conservatives in a
number of ways, we reuse things, we don¿t have to have the nicest
newest toys, we don¿t have to have the coolest designer clothes right
when they come out, we shop at garage sales, and discount stores, we
buy used cars and are savers in general, not spending as much money
and watching our finances closely, as a by product conservatives are
in general people that save and create wealth and jobs and are
independent business people because of who we are by nature.
Let¿s just start off by saying, what if it¿s true ¿Hypothetically
¿ that the world is getting warmer by industrial byproducts and animal
and human exhalations.
... See More
Wouldn¿t it make more sense to legislate that each and every person on
earth plant 2-3 trees a year a natural filters rather than hurting the
economy world wide more by the far reaching course / effect of Cap and
Trade? Wouldn¿t they want to help agricultural companies, farmers to
produce more, and mandate certain logging practices through out the
world to help find the Natural balance of things, wouldn¿t they want
to look at how help the earths oceans filter more of these gases?
Why haven¿t the big boys of the media other than Fox reported on these
letters or the huge response of them? This is big news, Read this
headline:
GOP links climate emails to EPA policy, but White House defends
warming data:
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/70347-gop-links-climate-emails-to-epa-policy-but-white-house-defends-warming-data
Read what is proposed, and then the link below, Cap & Trade bill is
already passed the House in June.
http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/money_politics/archives/2009/06/house_passes_ca.html
The interesting part about this is that in this blog, on Business
week, it ¿says¿ that the public poles have shown that people support
this move, and yet the responses at the bottom of the story are all in
disagreement with the story. Seems evidence suggests otherwise, I
think the ratio in fact was about 99-1 that in no way support this
bill.
There is a strong argument here on what the powers that be hope to
achieve with such legislation, is it really something that is for our
children and the betterment of our world, or just another tightening
of the rope of monetary and legislative control? Are the conspiracy
theorists correct when they are talking about the shift to a world
government and how this piece falls into the puzzle?
I've been researching and read through all of the press releases you
sent me links for, I still need to see the video you reference,
however I read the entire pages on ¿Scientific opinion on Climate
Change¿ that you sent and the page on CO2 on Wiki, and I'm now
searching for the actual letters that are in question so I can read
these for myself. Each and every press release from each and every
territory was almost verbatim of the preceding one. With no data, just
that they've concluded that global warming is due to human co2
emissions. Each and every statement by each and every territory is
only two paragraphs long. To me it seems ignorant of the IPCC to think
would not question such statement further.
Honestly though, at this point, there is no data that has been shown
to support the claims. only people showing a few graphs, of which are
invariably questioned, especially the infamous Hockey stick graph Al
Gore used in his presentations in 2007 that is now been removed from
from any and all IPCC information because of their embarrassment about
how obvious it was miss represented. The graph you sent me in this
link http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/briffa.html
is extremely different than the one Gore showed, yours link is showing
temps actually down to 1998, and nothing beyond that. This is a link
to the original graph that Gore showed and what it would look like
without Michael Mann¿s Nature Trick
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/global-warming-hockey-stick-debunked
and here is another link with very interesting info
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/10/30/arctic-sea-ice-another-hockey-stick/
and here is another of thousands of links discrediting the IPCC¿s
findings by a credible
resource http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Food for thought, I recommend everyone go out there and spend at least
an hour or five and do some internet research there is an amazing
amount of discussion out there and food for thought beyond our own
general feelings on the subject. My general feelings have not been
altered by all that I read and I need to get back to work now and not
focus on politics for awhile.
Stay positive, the future will unfold as it should, we can and will
make a difference, just hold the world and the worlds peoples best
interests in your hearts!
December 7 at 1:54pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
Wow... there's a lot there. Thanks for the detailed response and all
the links. I've got some reading to do.
December 7 at 2:00pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matt Samudio
Hi Greg & Lance ...
With respect to the topic of "scientific concensus", I'd like to point
out two things.
First of all, concensus carries very little weight in science, as it
logically means almost nothing when considering the truth/validity of
hypotheses. Remember that the "scientific concensus" was once that the
earth was flat. Less dramatically put, its often the case that the
truth is held at one or more points by a minority. It is only through
first actually *being* correct, and then that correctness being
verified, that hypotheses actually earn the label of "truth",
regardless of the number of people involved.... See More
Secondly, I would direct your attention to this petition:
http://www.oism.org/pproject
... which clearly demonstrates that whatever "scientific concensus"
does exist, its not inclusive enough to be meaningful anyway, since
31000 - yes, that's thirty-one-thousand, scientists adamantly sign
their names to a statement that they reject the hypothesis that global
warming is caused by human activity.
As far as organizations go, the bigger and more "official" they are,
the more they are steered by politics and suspect of being lap-dogs
for the direction of the moment.
Hopefully, this helps clarify at least a portion of the topic.
Sincerely,
Matt
December 7 at 3:34pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
Thank you Matt for the link for validating my claim of the "Majority
of Scientists" don't agree with global warming being real. And
further; to limit CO2 would only hurt the environment. Which in its
self seems so elementary, especially when looking at one of the major
ways in which they measure CO2 readings was the "Size of Tree
rings" (the ... See Morebigger the ring the more CO2 that year)
equating to that trees grew more with more CO2. Which would naturally
translate into that trees creating more oxygen for us to breath on
those years. it's a symbiotic relationship, The more CO2 there is, the
more plants grow, and use, and the more oxygen they then produce. So
if you limit the amount of CO2 it would then naturally hinder plant
growth and oxygen in the biosphere.
December 7 at 5:11pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matt Samudio
No problem, Lance - and extremely good points, by the way :) Here's a
couple other "common sense" items for your scrapbook...
With regards to both Co2 and global temperature, its well-documented
that the times in the earth's history where the temperature was the
highest were also the times when Co2 levels were highest, and at the
same time, O2 levels were also the highest. At these times, bio-
diversity was also the greatest, further supporting your notion that
more Co2, as well as higher temps, is a good thing for life. There
were critters alive then, like 6-foot insects, that couldn't survive
without the ultra-high oxygen levels and are extinct today precisely
because Co2 is too low to support the plant life, which in turn
produces enough oxygen, for them.
Common sense item number two leverages pure mathematics. Of the
"greenhouse gasses", Co2 constitutes a minute .04% of the atmosphere,
whereas water vapor constitutes a constant but fluctuating level of
between 2% and 3%. Even though Co2 is a more "efficient" GHG by as
much as 120%, the water vapor out-strips it in volume by 7500%, which
is still over 700 times the GHG effect, even with the efficiency
difference taken into account ! The only "response" to this from the
GW advocates is that water vapor capacity in the atmosphere can only
increase with a temperature rise, which must be caused by a Co2
increase, but that is a classically circular argument - of course
there are other possible causes for temperature difference ! This is
further born out by the fact that in all data showing a correlation of
rise in Co2 with rise in temperature, the majority of samples actually
show the relationship to be Co2 rising*after* temperature rises, which
is a serious counter-indication of Co2 causing temperature rise in
actual practice.... See More
And, last but not least, common sense item number three points out
that global temperature increases on earth have been roughly
correlated with global temperature increases on Mars, as well. This
clearly indicates a major solar contributor to climate change, which
may not disprove man-induced effects, but most definitely puts the
burden of proof very squarely at a point where no sufficient case for
man-induced global warming has been presented, that doesn't rely on
completely ignoring the influence of the sun.
December 7 at 9:25pm · Delete
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matt Samudio
... sorry, extra "0" ... that's "over 70 times the GHG effect" - have
to stay honest and correct :)
December 7 at 9:28pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
Haven't had a chance to read through all of Lance's links... but I
will. I'm not sure what's there yet, so I can't comment. As for Matt's
points, these are all arguments I've heard before, and can quickly
comment on. However, since I don't know Matt, let me simply preface my
post by saying that all of my comments are offered in the spirit of
respectful debate.
The Earth was "once believed to be flat" argument is one you hear a
lot. With all due respect, it's a false argument. However, I'll let
Isaac Asimov address it, as he does a better job:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm... See
More
In addition to Asimov's far more eloquent argument, I'll simply point
out that you dismissed my claim of scientific consensus as invalid,
and in the very next paragraph offered up your own. That seems
contradictory.
As for the "30,000" signatures... it's not something that can be taken
seriously. Aside from the "petitions" fraudulent beginnings, almost
none of the signatories are climate scientists. Here's just one of the
many articles commenting on the petition. It speaks to the fact that
only one tenth of one percent of the "scientists" who signed are
actual climate scientists.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
Don't care for HP, Google it and you'll find dozens of links about its
beginning and the background of its signatories.
There still seems to be this idea that most scientists believe that
global warming isn't real. Aside from the Wiki article I shared, that
shows that ALL scientific bodies weighing in on the issue do so on the
side of global warming being real and man made, here is yet another
link that shows how actual climate scientists weigh in on the issue:
Lastly, and let me quote Matt:
"As far as organizations go, the bigger and more "official" they are,
the more they are steered by politics and suspect of being lap-dogs
for the direction of the moment."
So what you're saying here is, scientist who believe global warming is
real are swayed by politics, but those who share your beliefs haven't
been? That seems a bit convenient.
Finally, if you would like to continue to put forth the idea that
"most scientists" don't believe in global warming, can you share with
me an actual scientific body that contradicts the following statement
made in the Wiki article I shared:
"No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is
known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent
climate change."
If your position is in fact the majority (as has been stated many
times), you should have no problem offering up the position papers of
at least a handful of respected scientific bodies that deny global
warming. If you can't do so, then I'm not sure by what right you claim
this majority.
December 7 at 11:23pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matt Samudio
Hi Greg, glad to "meet" you - I do appreciate your effort to address
points rationally. I do believe that you were not able to actually
address these, though - in fact, I think you missed the points being
made. I'll elaborate one by one:
The point of the "flat earth" is simply an illustration of how wrong
concensus can be - Asimov says nothing in contrary to that in the
article you mentioned. In fact, its trivially true that no matter how
many people believe something that is incorrect, their concensus will
not make it correct. It may be that there is some other "flat earth
argument" that you believe has been debunked, but this one is air-
tight. Though it doesn't prove anything with regards to climate
change, it does emphasize the burden of proof - concensus *cannot* be
a sufficient or even relevant piece of evidence - global warming
advocates must go further to make their case for spending our money.
I did not offer the petition as an argument from concensus - I offered
it as a counter-example to the claim of concensus. One cannot claim a
concensus if there is significant dissent. I was in no way trying to
say that 31000 scientists form a concensus for the rejection of global
warming, only that they form a credible dissent that raises doubt on
claiming there is a concensus in favor of global warming in the first
place.... See More
Its really a two-pronged statement: concensus is meaningless for
establishing truth, and even if it were meaningful, there isn't a
clear concensus, anyway.
With regards to "debunking the petition", the claim that the petition
doesn't reflect sufficient expertise is completely false. Such would-
be "debunkers" like to claim that only 39 scientists qualified in
climatology have signed the petition, as if that isn't enough ? They
seem to ignore the 113 Atmospheric Scientists and the 341 qualified in
meteorology, which are both relevant disciplines. Other "hard science"
practitioners are also qualified from the standpoint of understanding
scientific method enough to disqualify data handling techniques for
the purposes of scientific conclusion.
"So what you're saying here is, scientists who believe global warming
is real are swayed by politics, but those who share your beliefs
haven't been ?"
I am absolutely not saying that - my statement is an implicit
rejection of the appeal to authority fallacy that exists in citing
"every important science organization", which is dubious on many
fronts, not the least of which is who decides which ones are
"important", and where they get their funding from in order to *be*
"important".
"If your position is in fact the majority (as has been stated many
times), you should have no problem offering up the position papers of
at least a handful of respected scientific bodies that deny global
warming. If you can't do so, then I'm not sure by what right you claim
this majority."
There are a number of problems in this statement. The first is the
initial conditional, which is precisely what my original point
attacks: I do not believe its true that a position being in the
majority must necessarily enjoy institutionalization. There are many
potential motivations for "powers that be" to endorse what is in their
interests rather than what is either correct or even popular.
The second issue with your statement is that I actually don't make the
claim that you're trying to address - I don't need to. I don't need to
claim any sort of majority to make a coherent case for dissent.
Instead of putting forth the idea that "most scientists don't believe
in global warming", all that's needed is "some credible scientists
don't believe in global warming", and that "some" could even be just
one, if the credibility were sufficient. I'd say that 39
climatologists provides that in spades.
The third issue with your statement gets into the topic-at-hand,
climate-gate. You're asking for examples of "respected scientific
bodies" expressing dissent, when the allegation in discussion is
specifically focused on documentation of measures to both manipulate
which bodies are to be considered "respected scientific bodies", as
well as exert suppressive influence over any dissent those bodies may
wish to express. Combined with the original point that I made about
such bodies, and the potentially dubious nature of their determination
and realization, makes the request for cites from them not just an
appeal to authority fallacy, but also specifically addressed by the
very point its used to question.
So, to that point, I absolutely do believe that despite the actual
science supporting theories of human-caused global warming being
seriously flawed, all or most of the "scientific bodies of national or
international standing" have persisted in allowing their credentials
to be used to support the theories, and I do believe this has been for
political motivations, not scientific.
Tue at 9:40am
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
OK Lance... let me take a crack at some of those links/questions.
1. Why haven¿t the big boys of the media other than Fox reported on
these letters...
As I explained in my previous post, because it's a non-story that the
Alex Jones' of the world would like to be a story. The e-mails don't
actually prove anything other than the fact that Alex Jones doesn't
appreciate the difference between proxy data and actual data. I
understand why Mr. Jones would love for this to be a story. He'd love
to create the perception of a scandal, as he lacks actual scientific
evidence to support his cause. Again, they went looking for a grand
conspiracy, found a single e-mail, and then had to twist it, take it
out of context, and rely on the fact that most people would have no
idea what "hide the decline" means and infer malicious intent. In
actuality, what the CRU hack demonstrates, is the absence of a grand
conspiracy theory that Mr. Jones bases his career upon.... See More
2. Cap & Trade...
The link you posted referenced the 1,000+ page bill passed by the
house. It doesn't offer up too many specifics, so I'm not clear what
point you're trying to drive home. That said, and as I noted earlier,
cap and trade is not something I inherently oppose or advocate for.
3. The Briffa reconstruction as opposition to the hockey stick...
I'm a bit confused here. It seems you're offering up the Briffa
Reconstruction as a defense against the hockey stick. Briffa works for
the CRU, who you began this thread to discredit. Regardless, the
Briffa reconstruction is based solely on a certain type of tree-ring
data (high-latitude tree-ring density measurements collected by Briffa
and colleagues). In their original article Briffa and colleagues are
very clear that the post-1960 data in their tree-ring dataset should
not be used in reconstructing temperatures due to a problem known as
the "divergence problem". where their tree-ring data decline in their
response to warming temperatures after about 1960.
4. The NCASI report contradicting the hockey stick...
Craig Loehle's article doesn't actually debunk the hockey stick. He
simply speaks to differences in their conclusions and the conclusions
of others, and gives the reasons for those differences (tree ring
data, time series length, geographical regions included).
If there's something I missed or didn't specifically comment on, let
me know and I'll attempt to do so. Cheers.
Wed at 8:53am
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
I've got a lot on my plate at the moment, no time to verbally spare
you on this right now, I will ask that Matt respond to this simply
because I don't have the time to track down and comment right now
farther.
I can say this though, "A NON STORY"? are you kidding me?
Wed at 10:32am
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
No worries. These debates can go on forever, and grow quite tedious,
especially when you have to type out these responses. I'm perfectly
happy to let this one wind down.
Wed at 10:59am
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
Greg, it's not that I want to let it wind down, I'm just amazed that a
man of your intellect doesn't even entertain the possibility of
corruption or counter agenda when we're talking about the level of
power money and possible global effect regarding this topic when I've
shown you so much, it's almost disheartening. It's not that I want to
Win the discussion, I just want validation that there are a lot more
people out there in disagreement with this than you are wanting to
admit.
Wed at 11:04am
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
Lance... you really need to tour with a band in the NJ, NYC and Philly
areas so we can have this conversation over a beer. This thread has
left me with almost no time to start trouble on UM.
I appreciate your frustration. And believe me, I feel it in equal
measure. So let me take one more crack at things...
What started this thread was an alleged smoking gun. It's my
contention that this smoking gun is not a smoking gun at all
(something I carefully elaborated on in my initial response). And not
only don't I think it's a smoking gun, I believe it actually
underscores the desperation in the denial camp. Not only have they
resorted to crime to further their agenda, but they've not been able
to produce anything of value from that theft. They'd like everyone to
be led astray by the words "trick" and "hide the decline". Words that
appeared only in a single e-mail (among the tens of thousands they
stole). Words that were used in a private e-mail, between two
colleagues, with the expectation that those words were understood in
the context they were intended. But folks like Alex Jones hope that
those who don't know what Michael Mann's "trick" is (which was
documented for the entire world to review in 1999) and who don't
understand the phrase "hide the decline" (which simply means to to
emphasize actual temperature data over proxy data) will be led to
believe there's something insidious going on here. Mr Jones realizes
we live in a soundbite world and if people merely hear the words
"hide" and "trick" they'll never bother to look below the surface and
discover that those words don't have nefarious underpinnings. Finally
on this point, what gets lost in all the noise, is that one e-mail
between two scientists, doesn't have the slightest impact to the
empirical data collected by thousands of scientists all over the
planet. Had this e-mail said, "This whole gravity thing is a pack of
lies", would that make it so? Mr. Jones would like us to believe it
would (that would be great for book sales).... See More
And let me throw something back at you. You asked me if I've
considered "the possibility of corruption or counter agenda" here. I
would ask you the same thing. It's been said many times, by both
people on the Right and the Left, that oil runs the world. After all,
we've fought two wars over it in the last twenty years. Those who sell
it have never had bigger profits, nor have they ever had more
influence than they did during Bush's tenure. There is likely no
corporate force more powerful nationally and internationally than Big
Oil. To what lengths do you imagine they'd be willing to go to protect
their interests and make sure people don't recognize that their only
product may be destroying the planet? If there are powerful interests
working behind the scenes to shape this debate, my money is on Big
Oil, not Big Science.
Finally, I hope you're right and I'm wrong. I hope global warming
isn't real. I hope that tomorrow science will find that they were
wrong... that we're not destroying our planet. However, either way, I
want to stop borrowing money from China to pay the Middle East. I want
the planet's 5 billion cars to run on an energy source that wouldn't
kill you if you closed your garage door while burning it. I want to
see the U.S. supply the world's energy, not consume it.
Wed at 12:42pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
Greg,
yes oil companies certainly have money, but they also have limited
supplies, they know their product is going the way of the dinosaur,
(pun intended), they'll be out this product in 50 years if continued
use continues at the rate we consume this product in the world today.
They're looking and hoping to find the next product, not worried about
not selling what they have, they'll have no problem selling what they
have.
and to the point of the stolen letters, let me point out one fact in
data reporting. "It's an egregious transgression to manipulate
statistical information data with any outer formula. It simply cannot
be accurate, you can only use the numbers that are part of the
equation. Much like if you were a computer programmer and you were
working in a certain programing language, you cannot interject a
variable from a different code script and have it work. ... See More
It's hack science and that is why there are over 31,000 scientists
that are calling it that!
Wed at 1:57pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
Lance... how much oil they have is an unknown. Much like global
warming, there are various schools of thought on this.
I'm not sure whose quote that is, but I would agree with it. However,
and I suspect this is the crux of our disagreement, I don't believe
that was done.
As I alluded to earlier, these debates are difficult, and even more so
via FB. That said, I believe I understand yours and Matt's position, I
simply disagree.
Wed at 2:10pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
So your saying you feel the "Trick" the Michael Mann used adding an
"outer formula" in his findings is good science?
Wed at 2:26pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
I'm not sure, but I think you're mixing two separate arguments. Mann's
"trick" was about weighting real, actual temperature data over proxy
data. This seems perfectly logical to me. And apparently it seemed
like good science to everyone else, as his published paper on this
"trick" met with no fanfare, from either side of the aisle, when it
was ... See Morepublished ten years ago. However, rather than me
commenting on the what and the why, here's Mann's take on the e-mails:
http://www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-his-own-words-stolen-cru-emails
As for the "outer formula", I'm not sure what you're referencing. Can
you provide a link? When I do a Google search on "Michael Mann" AND
"outer formula", it comes up empty... zero links.
Wed at 2:47pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
I have to admit, I'm assuming a little on this one, I'd heard a
scientist call in on talk radio and say his thought about the letters
in question, and rebroadcast his words on that here, I'm assuming at
the moment that the data he was referring to was the trick in
question, but when I think about it, he was talking about just that
the numbers didn't add up, they we're not properly formatted to work
in a data or statistical or scientifically quantifiable way.
Wed at 2:55pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
OK. Thought I missed something that was said by you or Matt earlier.
There's been a lot to take in during this thread... which is good.
These kinds of discussion force us to do some reading and challenge
our beliefs in a positive way.
Wed at 2:58pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matt Samudio
Hi Lance and Greg - sorry it took me a while, I was pretty busy at
work the last two days...
"As I explained in my previous post, because it's a
non-story that the Alex Jones' of the world would
like to be a story."... See More
"The e-mails don't actually prove anything other than
the fact that Alex Jones doesn't appreciate the
difference between proxy data and actual data."
Actually, that's not precisely true - its the
indication in the email of how proxy data is
inappropriately used that is the relevant bit.
First, I think we can agree: its not the simple
appearance of the words "trick" or "hide the decline"
that indicate anything, as would-be debunkers would
cite as merely "colloquial".
The "trick" being referred to is *replacing* sample
data with *biased* proxy data, which is what
invalidated the hockey stick graph. Proxy data must
be unbiased, and also must only be used when there
is no *actual sample data*. What Mann did was replace
actual sample data with proxy data that he knew would
reinforce the upward trend. They are claiming that
this is OK to do because the actual sample data
diverged from correlative samples, but THAT's what
is bogus. Valid scientific method would dictate
that the divergence be explained instead of replacing
sample data with proxy data. Its just as likely
that the divergence is *accurate* and the correlative
samples off, and that's the real rub - in the case
of the hockeystick graph, EITHER way would have
resulted in the absence of the upward spike - the
ONLY way the spike happens is when the PROXY data
is used ! This is why the email is indicative of
fraud - not only do they know that the hockeystick
graph was debunked because of this, but they
intentionally used the same technique.
"I understand why Mr. Jones would love for this to be
a story."
I'm confused as to what "Mr. Jones" you're referring
to ... surely you don't mean the Phil Jones, program
director of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit ?
He certainly would *not* want this scandal.
"In actuality, what the CRU hack demonstrates, is the
absence of a grand conspiracy theory that Mr. Jones
bases his career upon...."
I would rather think his career will be broken by
any such conspiracy rather than based on it.
Anyway, the one email in question is just the tip
of the iceberg exposed by the released files. If
you believe that discounting the "trick" point saves
the day for the CRU, then I'm afraid you'll be
in for a surprise.
The overwhelming bulk of "science" used to support
assertions of man-made contribution to climate change
is actually results of model simulations fed by
"real" data. Even if that "real" data is assumed
to be accurate (which is actually in question now),
the model simulations are hugely complex computer
programs which either accurately or inaccurately
simulate the real world, and significant portions
of their source code was included in the files
released. The code clearly shows extensive use
of contrived "adjustments" that have no backing
science to justify them, and also don't appear
in any of the literature citing the simulation
results. This is where the more serious damage
is done to the credibility of the global-warming
conclusions.
"The link you posted referenced the 1,000+ page bill
passed by the house. It doesn't offer up too many
specifics, so I'm not clear what point you're trying
to drive home. That said, and as I noted earlier, cap
and trade is not something I inherently oppose or
advocate for."
I believe the concept itself is sufficiently clear
to merit evaluation. Under what ideology could it be
conscienable for the government to redistribute wealth
by artificially front-loading the cost of energy with
taxes, and siphoning the proceeds toward business owned by the very
people that lobbied for the legislation ?
"In their original article Briffa and colleagues are
very clear that the post-1960 data in their tree-ring
dataset should not be used in reconstructing temperatures
due to a problem known as the "divergence problem". where
their tree-ring data decline in their response to warming
temperatures after about 1960."
That's not an accurate portrayal of reality - the divergence
is not explained - there is no determination that the
divergence is a result of warming temperatures, and the only
thing that Briffa clearly acknowledged was the existence of
the unexplained divergence - they did *not* invalidate the
tree ring data. The fact is, the tree ring data simply
doesn't follow the same trend that instrumented temperature
measurements did - but those instrumented temperature
measurements are just as questionable as the tree ring data
is, so concluding one way or the other without backing
science is disingenuous.
Of course, the advocates of man-made global-warming theories
would prefer the instrumented temperature data be considered
truth, but that data has also been seriously questioned as
biased, because of the placement strategy of the
instrumentation, which was conspicuously trended to be
close to both natural and human-influenced "hot spots",
which would yield measurements biased upward.
"Craig Loehle's article doesn't actually debunk the hockey
stick."
While I'm not familiar specifically with Craig's article,
it's not particularly needed to debunk the hockey stick,
which has been thoroughly debunked by numerous parties,
including Mann himself, who abandoned the whole thing in
favor of his completely new paper, submitted Sep 9, 2008,
which uses a completely different sample set and modeling
strategy. While he never openly admitted that the hockey
stick was "bad science", he did admit that he had no need
to apologize because he had "been explicit all along about
the uncertainty surrounding his work". Why the new paper,
and no continued defense of the original ?
Ironically, the new Mann report has also been criticised
for wrongful mathematics, with only denial as a response.
Considering that Mann long refused to provide data and
code for review of his first paper, and only did so when
a congress investigation was launched over it, its likely
that it will be quite some time before anyone gets a
meaningful look at what Mann has actually done to
arrive at these latest claims.
"What started this thread was an alleged smoking gun.
It's my contention that this smoking gun is not a
smoking gun at all"
I contend that whether or not a smoking gun can be
found in all this is yet to be determined. The
possibility itself is enough to be news, though.
"Not only have they resorted to crime to further
their agenda"
That's not indicative of anything - if proof of
a crime is suppressed by law, it would take a
crime to uncover it - there's nothing new about
that, and it indicates nothing about what's
true or not.
"but they've not been able to produce anything of
value from that theft."
Only according to your analysis, which I think
abbreviates the reality.
"They'd like everyone to be led astray by the
words "trick" and "hide the decline"."
That's a "strawman" - that is not at all the
argument presented by analysis of the released
files. I'll agree that there are some who
misinterpret things that way, but they are
just as misled.
... continued ...
Yesterday at 9:35pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matt Samudio
"You asked me if I've considered the possibility
of corruption or counter agenda here. I would
ask you the same thing."
BigOil has only one agenda, the one they're... See More
supposed to have: to make money. The only
question is how well they stay within the law to
do so, and I don't think there's much evidence
or reason to believe they're any worse than any
other industry in that respect. Government,
however, is supposed to have a very explicitly
limited agenda, and its very clear that they are
stepping far outside of what they're supposed
to be doing, and there's plenty of reason to
suspect corruption.
"After all, we've fought two wars over it in the
last twenty years."
That's very debatable - I don't actually think oil
has been a singular, decisive element of any of our
wars. But even if it were, that wouldn't be an
indication of corruption with BigOil - it would
indicate corruption with the government !
"Those who sell it have never had bigger profits"
Interesting that you should bring that up - the fact
is, that government makes more money off of BigOil's
profits than BigOil does.
"There is likely no corporate force more powerful
nationally and internationally than Big Oil."
Exxon only brings in 9% more than Wal-Mart, and
pays dramatically more in taxes, and has to
distribute way more to stockholders, which are
mostly people like you and me. In the rest of
the top ten, BigOil only made 92% of what the
non-BigOil entries did. Conoco lost $17-billion
this year. The next appearance of oil in the
fortune 500 is Marathon, which brought in much
less money that United Health Group.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis and
U.S. Department of Energy, the combined excise,
income, windfall, and corporate taxes paid by
BigOil have out-stripped BigOil industry profits
since 1977. Yes, the oil industry actually pays
more in taxes than it actually has left after it
pays the taxes. NO other industry is taxes this
heavily.
"my money is on Big Oil, not Big Science."
Big Science is not who's suspect - its
Big Government, who's power to corrupt and
compel is unparalleled. Big Science is a
sitting duck to that power, because *most*
their funding, especially with regards to
climate, comes FROM BIG GOVERNMENT.
"I'm not sure, but I think you're mixing two separate
arguments. Mann's "trick" was about weighting real,
actual temperature data over proxy data."
Absolutely wrong - it was about substituting proxy
data for real data simply because of an unexplained
divergence in the real data.
"This seems perfectly logical to me."
Only because you apparently mis-understood it.
"And apparently it seemed like good science to
everyone else, as his published paper on this
trick met with no fanfare"
Again, I disagree - there has been plenty of
criticism on this point:
* McIntyre and McKitrick
* American Geophysical Union
* Committee on Energy and Commerce
* National Academy of Science, 2006 report
Another thing I find irritating is that the
commonly-cited endorsement of the National
Academy of Sciences for Mann's work is
accompanied by a "disclaimer", where it is
related that "The substantial uncertainties
currently present in the assessement of
surface temperature lowers our confidence
in this conclusion" and "because the
uncertainties inherent in temperature
reconstructions for individual years and
decades are larger than those for longer
time periods, even less confidence can be
placed in in the original conclusions by
Mann et al. (1999)"
... which basically says that while they
endorse the conclusion of global warming,
they recognize significant uncertainty in
the data, which significantly reduces their
confidence in Mann's work.
This same academy contends that precisely
the methods used (reconstructing sample
histories using proxy data) can very well
lead to questionable results. They support
this with some examples of wide variations
in reconstructions performed by different
organizations using the same proxy methods.
All in all, I reasonable suspicion of two-facedness
all around the topic, from many of the "pro-theory"
participants.
Yesterday at 9:38pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lance King
Elementary my dear Watson!
Yesterday at 10:29pm
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
Matt... wow... between these two posts and the earlier one, that I
never got to, there's a lot to respond to. I appreciate you taking the
time to respond in such great detail. Unfortunately, for me to respond
in kind, to each of your points and counter-points, would take me a
long time. Unfortunately, I have two finals and a project do in
the ... See Morenext 8 days. However, I don't want to simply blow off
our discussion. Is there two or three points that you'd like me to
respond to in the short term?
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matt Samudio
Hi Greg - I know, its alot - sorry about that :)
I'd expect it to take some time to respond, and I'd
be fine waiting, though I appreciate how much time it takes ...
... See More
I think the gist of where I'm going with all the points is that
rational people can indeed disagree/debate on these topics - they're
really not all that "settled", and neither side is as easy to "put to
bed" as some would want to believe. In many ways, the "evidence" that
we're willing to accept is influenced by our existing positions on
fundamental topics, and there's no getting around that, because
invariably evidence by itself is inextricably tangled with the
fundamentals of its source.
If I were looking for any response in particular, I guess I would be
hoping for agreement that to get beyond the current "quibble" over
certain "details of evidence", we'll have to table some of them as not
sufficiently populated with unbiased evidence to resolve, and move on
in search of more meaningful observations/insights.
An example of what I consider more meaningful would be discussion of
critical elements that have NOT been addressed by supporters of man-
made climate change theories, such as taking into account solar
influence on climate. From the perspective of scientific method, to
even begin to conclude climate change is man-made, ALL other
alternatives would have to be eliminated, and solar influence has most
definitely NOT been eliminated. This, along with the philosophical
points along the lines of why the "questioned until proven beyond
reasonable doubt" methodology hasn't been upheld with regards to human
influence on climate change, are good topics to get to, instead of
being stuck on which side of a science community "he-said/she-said"
social conflict we individually fall on.
Here's to great, insightful discussion :)
Matt
PS - I'm open to taking this to a different forum, if that's something
you and/or Lance would prefer - maybe facebook is a good medium -
maybe not - I'll be happy to follow your preference :)
5 hours ago
#=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg Hasbrouck
Matt... superb response. Very few people recognize how deeply our
personal perspectives inform every issue we're introduced to. I'd
agree completely with 95% of what you just wrote.
The only point I would debate you on is, whether or not solar variance
has properly been accounted for. As you pointed out, many of these
issues come down to how sufficiently populated each of us feel the
data is. Clearly, those who don't believe GW is man-made, often point
to solar variance as a possible culprit or believe the research is
insufficient. And of course, those on the other side believe they've
done their due diligence. Here's a link from Yale University that I
think speaks to this issue pretty well:
By the way, in the first of your very detailed responses, you rebutted
many of the points I made about consensus. Since "consensus" is a
topic that I don't need to spend any time researching, let me tackle
that one quickly.
The issue of consensus was not one I raised. Lance asked me to
"...elaborate on why there are more (Many more) scientists and
climatologists that disagree with this synopsis of Global Warming than
there are that "Believe" it to be true." Now, I think we all agree,
consensus does not decide an issue. However, it often frames a debate.
It has a way of shifting the burden of proof. I responded to Lance's
inquiry for two reasons. First, he asked me a direct question. Second,
I felt it necessary to point out that any belief that the majority of
the scientific community denies that global warming is man-made is
false.
While I have provided lists of dozens and dozens of respected national
and international bodies who support the position that global warming
is man-made, the only counter offered to my claim, was an internet
petition. While you're free to speculate about the political leanings
and motivations of each of the scientific bodies I provided,
speculation is merely that. Conversely, I believe I can demonstrate
that the petition you offered is barely worth the paper it's printed
on. To begin, of the 30,000 "scientific" signatures, only 578 fall
into the broader category of climate sciences. Those 578 break down as
follows:
Atmospheric Science (113)
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)
Astronomy (59)
Astrophysics (26)
As you can see, a mere 39 climate scientists signed this. However,
these numbers don't even begin to account for the many deceptions that
underlie this petition. As an example, the paper was made to mimic
research papers at the National Academy's prestigious Proceedings of
the National Academy journal. Of course, that journal had nothing to
do with this petition.
Again, this IN NO WAY decides the issue. However, as I said, I didn't
raise the issue of consensus. I merely attempted to demonstrate which
of our positions is actually supported by scientific consensus.
Lastly, I'm fine with continuing this thread here. I'm currently
working up some responses to your earlier posts. I'm not sure if Lance
would prefer we take this offline or perhaps to FB mail, as this is on
his profile. Regardless, it continues to be a pleasure discussing this
with you. As I noted earlier, having your views intelligently
challenged presents a great learning opportunity. Cheers.
3 hours ago
Matt
> dozens of respected national and international
> bodies who support the position that global
> warming is man-made, the only counter offered
> to my claim, was an internet petition.
Actually, it wasn't offered as a true "counter",
in the sense that it would be pretended to refute
the others. It was simply referred to as an
example of where some credible dissent is found,
which is all that's needed to counter the claim
of "concensus".
> While you're free to speculate about the
> political leanings and motivations of each
> of the scientific bodies I provided,
> speculation is merely that.
Well, that's where climate-gate, and other such
exposures, comes in - they turn speculation into
concrete possibility.
> I believe I can demonstrate that the petition
> you offered is barely worth the paper it's
> printed on.
Yes, we can agree on that, from the standpoint of
the petition's ability to seriously prove anything.
I agree the way the petition was created was an
exercise in corrupt beaurocracy, but part of my
position is that the process leading to the
endorsement of "dozens of respected national and
international bodies" for a government takeover
of energy production through wealth redistribution,
when the government(s) hold their meal tickets,
is probably just as corrupt.
But, I actually believe there is an alternate value
to be found the petition's existence, which I'll elaborate
on a little later in this post.
> Second, I felt it necessary to point out that
> any belief that the majority of the scientific
> community denies that global warming is man-made
> is false.
Hmm ... I think I got that the first time around,
and indeed I still find contention with the
statement, i.e. I believe its premature to say that.
You're basing it on a perceived concensus, which
we've swimmingly beaten to the death it deserves,
and further, I believe I've established the grounds
for questioning even that the perceived consensus
implied a "majority" of scientists. To say that
all of the world's "credible scientific organizations"
is equivalent to a credible majority of all scientists'
beliefs is not logically congruent.
I'm not trying to say that I can prove a majority
believes one way or the other, I'm simply identifying
the questionability of leaping from organizations to
individual scientists. Indeed, I hearken back to what
I feel is really the important point: that there is
credible dissent, which is sufficiently proven by
merely showing a few credible dissenting positions.
> The only point I would debate you on is, whether
> or not solar variance has properly been accounted for.
Ah, seems like we'll possibly have a good debate
on that one.
> As you pointed out, many of these issues come down
> to how sufficiently populated each of us feel the
> data is. Clearly, those who don't believe GW is
> man-made, often point to solar variance as a
> possible culprit or believe the research is
> insufficient. And of course, those on the other
> side believe they've done their due diligence.
Excellent point, and I absolutely agree with you
on those insights.
> Here's a link from Yale University that I think
> speaks to this issue pretty well:
That is a pretty good representation of the GW
advocate position, and would be fairly compelling
if there weren't alot more to the story. Check
out this link:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com
I daresay it addresses what is claimed in the
link you provided, and also ties in an impressive
amount of correlative science in support of
the position that solar influence has not been
adequately discounted.
"I merely attempted to demonstrate which of our
positions is actually supported by scientific
consensus."
Yet I think we can both agree now how meaningless
that is.
> As you can see, a mere 39 climate scientists
> signed this.
Yes, but I consider that significant dissent.
> However, these numbers don't even begin to
> account for the many deceptions that underlie
> this petition.
That's an interesting point ... I think if you
accept the premise that issues underlying a
presented/published position can be considered
toward invalidating that position, then we'll
have as much to talk about with the
government-sponsored pro-theory positions
as we do with this petition.
> As an example, the paper was made to mimic
> research papers at the National Academy's
> prestigious Proceedings of the National
> Academy journal.
Yes, another interesting point - a demonstration
of how a few frilly scientific words can draw in
masses of people, no ? The fact that it resembles
the pro-theory position in look/feel as well as
responses to its content says something. The only
real difference is in the "authority" (i.e. "vetted"
identity and qualifications) of the people cited.
So, if the petition can be garbage, why can't the
other positions ? If you want to cite the corruption
in the origins of the petition, you'd better be
prepared to prove the absence of similar corruption
in the halls of government around the environmental
lobby and their decades-long crusade to wield
government power in their agenda's direction.
Let me be clear about where this point's crux
is... the collectivist left sees the power-grab
potential in leveraging the environmentalist
left's agenda to pass government-growing law.
Using government funding to pay science to
conduct research with the goal of finding
evidence for the environmentalists' "holy grail"
of crisis, doesn't lend credibility to the
unbiased nature of those scientists' results.
Citing the community of similarly government-
funded science does nothing to resolve that
credibility issue. When "all the credible
scientific organizations" is the same as "all
the scientific organizations the government
deems credible enough to fund", the matter is
no closer to being resolved, either. Academia
is no help here, either, because they are more
"in bed" with the environmentalist left than
anyone. When there are credible, even though
relatively "isolated" (i.e. not on the payroll
of an "approved" organization) scientists that
object to the results, they simply can't be
ignored because of the illusion of a "concensus"
in the government-funded camps.
> I'm currently working up some responses
> to your earlier posts.
Excellent :)
> Regardless, it continues to be a pleasure
> discussing this with you. As I noted earlier,
> having your views intelligently challenged
> presents a great learning opportunity. Cheers.
Indeed, I'm likewise enjoying the discussion with you :)
> I'm fine with continuing this thread
> here.
> I'm not sure if Lance would prefer we take
> this offline or perhaps to FB mail, as this
> is on his profile.
How about we move it to a usenet group ? We can
even post quick one-liner pointers to the group
in Lance's profile, for anyone following there.
I've put the whole history so far into the start
of a thread in alt.politics.media and we can just
continue there - I'm sure others may join in, too.
Here's how you'd get to the group:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.media
... and the thread itself:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.media/browse_thread/thread/314948ba75ffdb12#
I've put this post there as a "next", and
if you're game, we can just continue posting there.
Matt
Lance King:
> I'm fine with the continuation here, wish there was a way to almost
> promote it, since there is more info in this one discussion than any
> other place I've ever seen on the subject. It certainly could open
> some on the fence eyes/minds in either direction depending on
> their leanings.
With the conversation in the usenet group, its also included in the
google archives, which means it will get much more exposure, and
regulars to the newsgroup will also see it.
> cool, I've book marked the conversation, it's a heck of a read with
> a few "read more here" and odd punctuation but the gist is certainly
> still understood. feel free to send the link out to your friends that
> would like to join in the fun!
Yeah, and you can also post up-to-date "reminders" on your
facebook wall if you'd like to refer people to the newsgroup
thread - just include the URL :)
Lance King
Greg
>in the sense that it would be pretended to refute
>the others. It was simply referred to as an
>example of where some credible dissent is found,
>which is all that's needed to counter the claim
I disagree on two points.
First, the example you chose to prove credible dissent, actually
illustrates a lack of true dissent. If there was true dissent, there
would be no need for the Petition Project to pretend to have 30,000
signatures, when they actually have 39. If there was true dissent,
there would be any number of scientific bodies, governments and
universities who supported a position of dissent. There are none. In
the end, there is (near complete) agreement on AGW in the world of
science.
Second, dissent is great. It's a critical component of democracy.
However, when we give way to dissent in the face of overwhelming
evidence, we lose ourselves in inaction. The fact of the matter is,
there will always be dissent. There are people who still believe the
earth was created in six days, there still exists a Flat Earth
Society, and there are people who believe we faked the moon landing.
All of these groups offer dissent. All these groups have their
"evidence". Point being, dissent, in and of itself, doesn't have
inherent value.
>Well, that's where climate-gate, and other such
>exposures, comes in - they turn speculation into
>concrete possibility.
As I've said before, and as I still believe, "climate-gate" only
underscores the desperation in the denial camp. They've combed
through the tens of thousands of private e-mails they stole and found
only one they could twist to satisfy their agenda. If they had
science to rely on, they wouldn't rely on hackers. If anything, the
fact that they've tried to create a "climate-gate" out of one e-mail,
whose content they've misconstrued, only serves to shine a spotlight
on the conspiracy theory nature of the entire denial movement.
>Hmm ... I think I got that the first time around,
>and indeed I still find contention with the
>statement, i.e. I believe its premature to say that.
>You're basing it on a perceived concensus, which
>we've swimmingly beaten to the death it deserves,
>and further, I believe I've established the grounds
>for questioning even that the perceived consensus
>implied a "majority" of scientists. To say that
>all of the world's "credible scientific organizations"
>is equivalent to a credible majority of all scientists'
>beliefs is not logically congruent.
On one point, we agree... we've beaten it to death (I might add, we've
done a nice job of it). Where we disagree is, I fully believe there's
a real and demonstrated link between the world's scientific
organizations and the majority of scientists. Earlier, I shared a
link to a U.S. World Reports study that shows as much. Here is yet
another link that shows that 97% of climate scientists believe in
AGW.:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
>I'm not trying to say that I can prove a majority
>believes one way or the other...
And that's one of the major differences in our two arguments; I'm
saying I can demonstrate an overwhelming majority... and I'm saying I
have.
>I'm simply identifying
>the questionability of leaping from organizations to
>individual scientists. Indeed, I hearken back to what
>I feel is really the important point: that there is
>credible dissent, which is sufficiently proven by
>merely showing a few credible dissenting positions.
By your standard it's credible, by mine it isn't. And let me state
this again, because it can't be stressed enough for anyone who is
silently following this thread... not one scientific body of repute
holds a position of dissent. As I noted earlier, there's dissent on
nearly every topic. The fact that a position is not universally held,
proves little.
In the spirit of equine abuse, let me make one final point on
consensus and dissent; they're not of equal value. As the link above
shows, as did the links prior, 97% of climate scientists believe in
AGW. 97 and 3 are not equal. They are in no way in equal.
>That is a pretty good representation of the GW
>advocate position, and would be fairly compelling
>if there weren't alot more to the story. Check
>out this link:
>http://climatechange1.wordpress.com
The link you've provided couldn't possibly illustrate my point more
perfectly. I provided you a link from Yale University. You rebutted
with a link from a wine maker.
A wine maker.
Erl Happ, who wrote the article you shared as your counter to my Yale
University paper, describes himself thusly, "I am a winemaker and
grape-grower with a strong interest in climate." This is credible
dissent? This is who you'd have rebut the finest institution of
higher learning on the planet? A wine maker?
>Let me be clear about where this point's crux
>is... the collectivist left sees the power-grab
>potential in leveraging the environmentalist
>left's agenda to pass government-growing law.
>Using government funding to pay science to
>conduct research with the goal of finding
>evidence for the environmentalists' "holy grail"
>of crisis, doesn't lend credibility to the
>unbiased nature of those scientists' results.
>Citing the community of similarly government-
>funded science does nothing to resolve that
>credibility issue. When "all the credible
>scientific organizations" is the same as "all
>the scientific organizations the government
>deems credible enough to fund", the matter is
>no closer to being resolved, either. Academia
>is no help here, either, because they are more
>"in bed" with the environmentalist left than
>anyone. When there are credible, even though
>relatively "isolated" (i.e. not on the payroll
>of an "approved" organization) scientists that
>object to the results, they simply can't be
>ignored because of the illusion of a "concensus"
>in the government-funded camps.
Earlier you insightfully pointed out how we bring our own already
formed perspectives with us to every issue. I'm as guilty of this an
anyone. I don't deny that for a second. However, you look at the
evidence that supports AGW and dismiss it as a left-wing conspiracy.
A conspiracy that not only would need to include all the world's
governments, but the worlds of academia and science in their
entirety.
Would this be the same Left who was completely out of power over while
consensus on AGW was coalescing?
Would this be the same Left who with complete control of all three
Houses can't get a single bill passed?
Would this be the same Left who is so poorly unified, that they need
to cut deals amongst themselves just to reach an agreement on
healthcare?
Is this the Left that you'd like me to believe has managed to get
every scientific body, every world government, and every university
(no matter how well funded some universities are by right-wing donors)
to push forward this agenda?
And to that end, it seems we're at an impasse. I say this not to be
confrontational or dismissive. I've very much enjoyed this debate.
I've learned a lot, both about my position and yours. You're clearly
a very intelligent person, very well written and I suspect I would
love to debate any number of issues with you over a few beers.
However, it seems we're locked in an exercise in futility. When all
is said and done, we've both looked at the evidence and are satisfied
with the conclusions we've each reached. I think you'd admit, barring
new evidence, we're not going to change each others minds. And I
still have my damn school work to finish. Wow... I hate school
(specifically business statistics).
Matt
welcome "breathers".
First, Greg, I'd like to invite you to not feel
stressed over a need for quick response - please
do take whatever time you need for "taking care of
business", I'm sure I'll need to do the same :)
Rest assured that I'll not "blow you off" if you
have to delay a response because of your workload.
Second, I don't think we're at an impasse - I think
we're getting ready to move past what I've called
"quibbling" and into some more interesting debate,
which I'd characterize as more philosophical - at
least I hope so.
So, I'll first try to wrangle a bit more with the
current direction, and then I'll switch gears.
> First, the example you chose to prove credible dissent,
> actually illustrates a lack of true dissent.
I couldn't disagree more - I chose to refer to it
simply because of its immediate visibility and the
fact that 39 climatologists, an actually very
significant number, dissent.
Can you show that 39 climatologists were actually
involved in the "process" whereby all "credible
scientific organizations" endorse man-made climate
change theory ?
At any rate, this cannot at all be seen as an
indication for absence of other choices I could
have made.
> If there was true dissent, there would be any
> number of scientific bodies, governments and
> universities who supported a position of dissent.
Again, I couldn't disagree more. As I said ealier,
institutionalization isn't required for dissent or
even a majority. In this context, in case
clarification is needed, "institutionalization" is
exactly what you're talking about: the adoption of
a position by institutions, i.e. "credible organizations".
Surely you can't deny that there is historical
support for thinking that institutionalization
doesn't prove anything. All one has to do is
remember when "the world's experts" believed
something that turned out to be false.
> In the end, there is (near complete) agreement
> on AGW in the world of science.
Again, I object to the equivalization of "the world
of science" and institutionalization - its just not
reality. I'll definitely concede that AGW has been
institutionalized, but I don't agree that "the
world of science" is convinced.
> However, when we give way to dissent
> in the face of overwhelming evidence, we lose ourselves
> in inaction.
Ah, here we have a more philosophical point. I
believe you're referring to what many would call
"paralysis of analysis", where dissenting input of
a trivial nature is allowed to prevent meaningful
conclusion, and the action that would result from it.
Yes, we'll agree that this pattern is a "Bad Thing",
but what we won't agree on, I suspect, is that the
debate over AGW is exhibiting that pattern.
> Point being, dissent, in and of itself, doesn't have
> inherent value.
Yes, we can agree on that, as well - its the essence
of the "paralysis of analysis" pattern - the pattern
couldn't exist unless some measure of dissent were
to be considered trivial.
> The fact of the matter is, there will always be dissent.
...
> All of these groups offer dissent. All these groups
> have their "evidence".
True enough, and though we can agree that those
examples of dissent are trivial, I don't agree that
dissent on AGW is trivial, or even of the same nature
as those examples.
> They've combed through the tens of thousands of
> private e-mails they stole and found only one they
> could twist to satisfy their agenda.
I believe you're incorrect there - as I mentioned
before, a landslide of source code was included, which
is rife with irrefutable evidence of contrivance in
the modeling cited in support of AGW. This is an
absolutely huge piece of "dissenting evidence" that
needs to be addressed - and its bigger than many might
at first catch on to. How could "all credible
science organizations" endorse a theory *before*
knowing that the models supporting it were badly
fudged ? The answer: they obviously endorsed the
theory without investigating very much.
> If they had science to rely on, they wouldn't rely
> on hackers.
Faulty logic again - first, you're assuming they
don't have science to rely on (which I think is false)
and that they wouldn't value the information uncovered
by the hack, anyway (which I also think is false).
Second, as I've said before, if the results of an
admittedly criminal behavior happen to provide
visibility to truth, the criminality doesn't change
that reality.
I don't think AGW skeptics rely on hackers, as you
state - neither do they expect their case to. I think
that the hackers' behavior happens to be effective
against beaurocratic institutionalization when
reason can't necessarily be.
> If anything, the fact that they've tried to create a
> "climate-gate" out of one e-mail, whose content they've
> misconstrued, only serves to shine a spotlight
> on the conspiracy theory nature of the entire denial
> movement.
At this point, its seeming to me that you may have
not had a chance to read through my ealier comments
on what the hack turned up - its alot more than just
one email, and that email is by no means mis-construed.
I'd like to suggest that you review what I said about
the source code, and the relevance of the letter, and
let me know if that makes sense to you or not. Also,
once you've digested my take on the actual issue with
the email, utilize that insight on the other emails
identified as problematic.
> And that's one of the major differences in our two
> arguments; I'm saying I can demonstrate an overwhelming
> majority... and I'm saying I have.
Actually, I don't think that's a good description
of the differences between our arguments:
You're arguing that you have demonstrated overwhelming
concensus, and that such concensus both implies the
absence of meaningful dissent, and provides meaningful
support for the conclusion (AGW).
I am arguing that such concensus is meaningless, and
that meaningful dissent can and does exists, even in
the face of the form of concensus that you demonstrate,
and that such concensus is not sufficient for the
conclusion.
In short:
1) In science, only correctness matters - no matter
how many people or organizations "believe" something,
or how few "believe" its converse, the truth will
only be found with whoever is actually correct.
Concensus is meaningless.
2) Similarly to concensus, authority is meaningless.
While credentials can provide a foundation for
believing someone is qualified to hire or engage
for work, it doesn't make their actions or their
results correct - only actual correctness does.
Appeals to authority are meaningless.
3) All "credible scientific organizations" have endorsed
AGW. While we're not in disagreement about this,
institutionalization is not a new phenomena. It
amounts to an appeal to authority that isn't
meaningful in determining truth, and has historically
been just as faulty as not.
4) In spite of undeniable organizational
institutionalization, there remains serious questions
and uncertainty about the actual science claimed to
"prove" AGW - regardless of how few people hold it,
who they are, or the circumstances under which
revealed.
So, what I'd propose is that we get past the
"quibbling" of consensus and authority, and discuss
the merits of the actual science involved, and the
logical/philosophical points around it.
> In the spirit of equine abuse, let me make one final
> point on consensus and dissent; they're not of equal
> value. As the link above shows, as did the links prior,
> 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW. 97 and 3 are
> not equal. They are in no way in equal.
You're both correct, and vitally wrong here.
Where you're correct is that the "sides" of consent and
dissent are not equal.
You're trying to say that 97% is a concensus of greater
value than the dissent of 3%, but nothing could be
more incorrect.
The "sides" of consent and dissent are most assuredly
not equal, but what makes them unequal, what determines
which side is "greater" than the other, is correctness,
NOT the numbers on each side !
... hopefully we're ready to get off of "concensus"
> The link you've provided couldn't possibly illustrate
> my point more perfectly. I provided you a link from
> Yale University. You rebutted with a link from a wine
> maker.
>
> A wine maker.
... and this proves my point - you're relying too much
on appeal to authority. Did you read what our wine
maker had to say ? I guarantee that he didn't come
up with it all by himself ... and what's most indicative,
what he's laying out cites far more data from "accredited
sources" than did the study that AGW's concensus
relies on.
Even though you're trying to argue from concensus and
authority, *I* am NOT. If I were, I wouldn't have
bothered with mentioning the petition (though I may
have mentioned that at least 39 climatologists dissent),
and I would have taken the tack more from wikipedia's
article on dissenting individual scientists, which
include William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus of
Colorado State University's Department of Atmospheric
Science, or Richard Lindzen and Alfred P. Sloan,
professors of Atmospheric Science at MIT and members
of the National Academy of Sciences. Its particularly
interesting to note the last two, because even though
their organization endorses AGW, at least two of its
most "scientific" members don't.
But that's part of my point: concensus and authority
only mean so much (and pretty much nothing at that), so
I don't choose to go into all that - I'm trying to
get you away from it :)
> ... the article you shared as your counter to my Yale
> University paper
... again with the appeal to authority ...
If I were to write down a discussion of the same
points that a Yale University paper (unknown to you)
did, would you discount them simply because I was
doing the writing ? What would you think upon finding
out about the Yale paper ? What if you were to then
find out that the contents turned out to be garbage ?
What if you found out the contents were true ?
Put these events in different sequences ... you
should come to the conclusion that who wrote what
you're reading is incidental, especially with
regards to the truth of the contents.
> However, you look at the evidence that supports
> AGW and dismiss it as a left-wing conspiracy.
Well, we have to keep our positive assertions
straight, now. I'm not making any positive assertion,
AGW is the positive assertion. I'm only saying that
I don't accept AGW because I consider what support
it has to be possibly accounted for by other means.
That's far from making a positive assertion or
dismissal, its more of a challenge to produce
other forms of support beyond concensus and
authority.
> A conspiracy that not only would need to include
> all the world's governments, but the worlds of
> academia and science in their entirety.
I think that's a drastic mischaracterization, as well.
Suppose a woman married to a rich man is approached
by a lawyer who tells her "I have good news and bad
news - we think your husband is cheating on you, but
we can get you most of the money in the divorce - all
you have to do, beyond paying us a percent of the
proceeds, is pay us for the investigation to prove he's
cheating on you ...", how difficult is the woman going to
be to convince that her husband is cheating, and how
diligent is the "investigation" going to be ? That's
the pattern here, except that with government, they
have no such emotional attachment as the wife may
have had for her husband.
> Would this be the same Left who was completely out
> of power over while consensus on AGW was coalescing?
The "Left" I refer to has been alive and well since
FDR, regardless of who sits in elected seats at any
given time.
> Would this be the same Left who with complete control
> of all three Houses can't get a single bill passed?
Again, that's incidental to electoral politics.
> Would this be the same Left who is so poorly unified,
> that they need to cut deals amongst themselves just
> to reach an agreement on healthcare?
Again, you're referring to the elected - surely you
don't think the Leftist movement is limited to who
happens to be in office at any particular time, or
what strife they're having over any particular bills ?
> Is this the Left ...
No, you've not described the "Left" I'm referring to.
If you're convinced in the "strength and influence"
of BigOil, then you'll really be able to appreciate
the strength of the "Left" I refer to - they're the
ones preventing BigOil from drilling wherever they
want to.
> However, it seems we're locked in an exercise in
> futility.
I haven't seen it that way - it seems to me that we're
about half-way through it :) I'm hoping that I can
get you past concensus and authority, and into what
I consider more interesting ... like the fact that
the science supporting AGW, what all those "credible
science bodies" signed their approval to, revolves
around two things: correlating measured temperature
to Co2 levels as indicated by tree-ring data (the
"hockeystick" graph), and the computer models that
are set up to mimic that correlation, and then are
pretended to reliably repreduce all the rest of the
geo-climatic complexity necessary to give us meaningful
results. Looking at the objections to that scenario,
in that light, tells us far more than any form of
concensus or credential-based authority possibly can.
Maybe we can even get into the philosophy around
the politics side of this - what government's place
in these scenarios should be, why/why-not, etc...
Cheers,
Matt
Lance King
Post Greg!
This is exactly the kind of discussion that I would like intellectuals
on both sides of this topic to be reading or having out there in the
world, this is showing clearly
the common and more subdued finer points of the quick conversations
people have that don't equate to anything farther than the air they're
exhaling at the time they're
speaking the words.
Consensus -vs- Correctness
Good Science -vs- Contrived Data
Money /Power - vs - the Mass portrayal / believe of reality.
Lance King
differences in what Russian climatologists are call this!
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/16/climategate-just-got-much-much-bigger/
Lance King
about the reality of this scam.
I would recommend any doubters realize that OBAMA gave up in
Copenhagen for a reason, TOO MUCH HOT AIR was causing a lot of us to
SEE the truth much more clearly than they wanted us too through their
distorted skyline. So be careful, you know after a year or two, he's
going to try it again.
Lance King
it was nearly insignifigant compared to this. This man has gone
through the 1500 emails and has broken them down and explained each
one of them in relation to its signifigance. It is a long read, but it
is absolutely shocking, even to those of us that knew this was
bullshit all along
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
Lance King
about this discussion
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/22/steve-janke-copenhagen-goes-from-failure-to-farce-or-maybe-it-s-the-other-way-around.aspx
Lance King
irrefutable that this was an absolute LIE.
http://climategate.tv/?p=794