The Alarmists Do "Science"
Charles Bell
November 21, 2009 Posted by John at 8:18 AM
Powerlineblog.com
[Begins . . .]
A fascinating, hot-off-the-presses story emerges from the emails that
were hacked yesterday from the University of East Anglia's Hadley
Climatic Research Centre. It is one of many exchanges that shed light
on the priority that the global warming alarmists give to politics and
career advancement over science.
The story began when Steve McIntyre, the same researcher who was
largely responsible for destroying Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph
purporting to show unprecedented warming in the 20th century, turned
his attention to a famous article published by Keith Briffa of East
Anglia's CRU in 2000. This article analyzed the diameters of tree
rings, including rings from an area called Yamal in Siberia, and
conveniently generated another hockey-stick shaped graph. You can read
an account of the ensuing controversy here [ http://tinyurl.com/ye3x8br
]. McIntyre's work appeared to show that Briffa had cherry-picked
trees in order to get the result he was looking for. One fact that
this story highlights is that global warming alarmists publish their
results in scientific journals, but refuse to make the underlying data
publicly available so that the validity of their analyses can be
checked.
[. . . and ends . . .]
[T]he conclusion an observer is likely to draw from the CRU archive is
that the climate alarmists are making up the science as they go along
and are fitting facts to reach a predetermined conclusion rather than
objectively seeking after truth. What they are doing is politics, not
science. When I was in law school, this story was told about
accountants: A CEO is going to hire a new accountant and summons a
series of candidates. He asks each applicant, "What is two plus two?"
The first two candidates answer, "Four." They don't get the job. The
third responds, "What do you want it to be?" He gets hired. The
climate alarmists' attitude toward data appears to me much the same as
that fictional accountant's attitude toward arithmetic.
1Z
> The Alarmists Do "Science":
The Denalists DON'T do science...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks,
who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn't just
reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked
through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have
been made without any evidence whatsoever.
McIntyre has based his `critique' on a test conducted by randomly
adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found
on the internet. People have written theses about how to construct
tree ring chronologies in order to avoid end-member effects and
preserve as much of the climate signal as possible. Curiously no-one
has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees
you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set
that you found lying around on the web.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/comment-page-2/
Charles Bell
. . . runs to a communist David Fenton web site to justify withholding
data from the public so it cannot be independently verified.
1Z
> On Nov 23, 6:06 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> . . .
>
> . . . runs to a communist David Fenton web site
...comes out with the usual crank conspiracy theory instead of
examining the evidence...
> to justify withholding
> data from the public so it cannot be independently verified.
"The chairman of the committee (Joe Barton, a prominent global warming
skeptic) wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data,
including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's
scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific
collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or
prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements.
[22] The American Association for the Advancement of Science viewed
this as "a search for some basis on which to discredit these
particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for
understanding."[24] When Mann complied, all of the data was available
for McIntyre."
The issue has been reviewed and re-reviewed over and over. The
conclusions always broadly support the hockey
graph, which can be still be derived without using any tree ring data
at all.
Charles Bell
Sunday, and Mann proven a fraud -- twice -- after he tried to revive
it another form, which is part of what the leaked emails from Hadley
was all about.
1Z
> The hockey stick hypothesis has been debunked in nine ways from
> Sunday,
Saying it doesn;t make it so.
The WP article makes it clear
that the basic idea stands up.
You are running on empty.
Charles Bell
> On 23 Nov, 12:58, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > The hockey stick hypothesis has been debunked in nine ways from
> > Sunday,
Fred Weiss
Whatever Bell is running on no one knows, but you Izzy are dizzy.
"The Hockey Stick was never accurate--and CRU knew it "
Or:
"ding, dong, the stick is dead"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/
Fred Weiss
1Z
> On Nov 23, 8:20 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Whatever Bell is running on no one knows, but you Izzy are dizzy.
More political blogs. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Fred Weiss
Facts are facts whereever they appear.
The truth is the truth whoever asserts it, if they have sound reasons
for it.
Furthermore, if we should have learned anything in recent days, the
mere fact that a scientist proclaims something to be the case, even
when backed with seemingly dazzling data - and even when many of his
colleagues, like lemmings, rush to embrace it - does not in itself
make it true. More is needed to substantiate a theory. Such as what
the theory purports to predict actually does happen.
Fred Weiss
1Z
> On Nov 23, 1:54�pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 23 Nov, 18:33, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 8:20 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Whatever Bell is running on no one knows, but you Izzy are dizzy.
>
> > More political blogs. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
> Facts are facts whereever they appear.
Anyone can write anything in a blog. Peer-review is another matter
> The truth is the truth whoever asserts it, if they have sound reasons
> for it.
Sound reasons would be things like evidenc and peer
review which the crank conspiracy theories wingnuts are
sorely lacking in.
> Furthermore, if we should have learned anything in recent days, the
> mere fact that a scientist proclaims something to be the case, even
> when backed with seemingly dazzling data - and even when many of his
> colleagues, like lemmings, rush to embrace it - does not in itself
> make it true.
Saying that doesn't make it false.
What have *you* got?
> More is needed to substantiate a theory. Such as what
> the theory purports to predict actually does happen.
GW models have undershot the evidence.
You have no shot in your locker.
RichD
> Furthermore, if we should have learned anything in recent days, the
> mere fact that a scientist proclaims something to be the case, even
> when backed with seemingly dazzling data - and even when many of his
> colleagues, like lemmings, rush to embrace it - does not in itself
> make it true. More is needed to substantiate a theory. Such as what
> the theory purports to predict actually does happen.
The time frame for global warming is 80 years.
I don't much care for the econazis who push
their statist agenda, but the deniers aren't
much better... they offer nothing but fingers in
the ears. Where is their science?
What if the Chicken Little scenario is accurate?
We're currently performing an experiment on
the entire planet, and no one knows the outcome...
--
Rich
Bert Hyman
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What if the Chicken Little scenario is accurate?
> We're currently performing an experiment on
> the entire planet, and no one knows the outcome...
Of course, what those who push the Chicken Little scenario advocate is
just as much an experiment, with an outcome that's just as unknown,
although the intermediate effects on the world's economies can be
reasonably well estimated.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Fred Weiss
> What if the Chicken Little scenario is accurate?
You mean shut down the industrial revolution - and commit suicide for
sure - just in case it's true that maybe, who knows, it's possible
that the earth is getting warmer (which isn't even necessarily a bad
thing)?
Did you ever hear of Pascal's Bet?
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Anyone can write anything in �a blog. Peer-review is another matter
Peer review? Like at East Anglia?
Fred Weiss
1Z
> On Nov 23, 6:57�pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What if the Chicken Little scenario is accurate?
>
> You mean shut down the industrial revolution
Yeah. Cos that's that's what's being called for. It's
not a straw man or anything...
1Z
Not like this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, if you take all the evidence that is rarely mentioned by the
Kyotoists into consideration, 555 of all the 625 glaciers under
observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich,
Switzerland, have been growing since 1980."
Guardian columnist George Monbiot tracked down the origins of
Bellamy's claim after the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich
told Monbiot that "This is complete bullshit."
Monbiot traced Bellamy's fantasy of growing glaciers back to a site
maintained by climate misinformation specialist Fred S. Singer and his
pollution-industry-friendly organization Science and Environmental
Policy Project. The SEPP commentary stated:
And indeed there is some evidence of that. The World Glacier
Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, in a paper published in
Science in 1989, noted that between 1926 and 1960 more than 70 percent
of 625 mountain glaciers in the [mid-latitude] United States, Soviet
Union, Iceland, Switzerland, Austria, and Italy were retreating. After
1980, however, 55 percent of these same glaciers were advancing. (my
emphasis)
So what of this 1989 paper in Science? Tim Lambert reports that:
" ...the source was a paper published in Arctic and Alpine Research,
not Science. And it was published in 1988, not 1989. And it wasn't
written by The World Glacier Monitoring Service but by Fred Wood of
the OTA. And it didn't say that 55% of 625 glaciers were advancing,
but that 55% of 446 glaciers were advancing. And it wasn't since 1980
it was from 1979 to 1980. So the only thing that SEPP/Singer got right
about the article was the 55% number. And that was the bit that
Bellamy turned into 555. So as well as Bellamy's statement being wrong
overall (the vast majority of observed mountain glaciers are actually
retreating), every single part of it was wrong."
"Complete bullshit" seems to be a bit of an understatement at this
point considering how far this totally incorrect claim traveled around
the internet. Even today, some version of the glacier myth seems to be
in circulation - making this an outrageous success for the
disinformation specialists and another explanation of why people are
still confused about the reality of climate change.
Charles Bell
>
> Indeed, if you take all the evidence that is rarely mentioned
How is this related to the fact that you hate black people?
1Z
Which bit of "fuck off" didn't you understand?
Charles Bell
The part where you explain why you hate black people. After all, you
have repeatedly required all of us "GW deniers" to explain why we
believe in Creationism and why we prefer to live in trailer parks and
would love to make love to Sarah Palin, bash gay people, believe in
God, King and Country, and pick our noses and eat our boogers. Given
your history in hpo with statements against black people, I think it
would be the very least you could do to advance this discussion is
explain why it is you hate black people.
Fred Weiss
That depends which enviroHysteric you talk to. But like you've never
seen a gov't regulation you didn't like, there never seems to be any
end in sight of controls on industry which an enviroHysteric doesn't
like - doesn't demand, actually.
Their latest thing is to stop commercial air flights. Rowboats and
canoes may be ok, at least until production really started to ramp up.
Then they'd find some objection to it.
They should have hailed genetic modification of seeds which greatly
reduced the need for pesticides. But they've opposed it. They won't be
happy until we revert back to pre-Industrial agricultural, which would
only lead to mass starvation. But that would achieve one of their main
goals, greatly reduced population.
We totally disproved Malthus but who would have thought his greatest
ally would emerge in the form of an environmentalist Grim Reaper,
intent on stripping away everything civilization needs for its
survival.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Guardian columnist George Monbiot...
Chief Propagandist for the AGW Hoax.
Have you read the emails coming out of East Anglia?
Or are you still in denial?
Fred Weiss
1Z
> > Yeah. Cos that's that's what's being called for. It's
> > not a straw man or anything...
>
> That depends which enviroHysteric you talk to.
e.g the ones in the real world versus
the ones you imagine.
1Z
> On Nov 24, 4:10 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Guardian columnist George Monbiot...
>
> Chief Propagandist for the AGW Hoax.
You're ignoring the evidence again.
Cat_in_awe
> On 23 Nov, 21:58, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 1:54 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 Nov, 18:33, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 23, 8:20 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Whatever Bell is running on no one knows, but you Izzy are dizzy.
>>
>>> More political blogs. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>>
>> Facts are facts whereever they appear.
>
> Anyone can write anything in a blog. Peer-review is another matter
Anyone can write anything in a peer-reviewed journal as long as it agrees
with the prejudices and predilictions of the reviewers. It's incest at its
best, signifying nothing in relationship to its truth value.
1Z
> Anyone can write anything in a peer-reviewed journal as long as it agrees
> with the prejudices and predilictions of the reviewers. It's incest at its
> best, signifying nothing in relationship to its truth value.
OK then. The whole of science is crap includign ID and CC denialism.
Charles Bell
> OK then. The whole of science is crap includign ID and CC denialism.
That's right. Socialists destroy anything they touch. The economy.
Science. Journalistic integrity.
Mark N
> Did you ever hear of Pascal's Bet?
Pascal should have stuck to math! :-)
Mark
Matt Barrow
"Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:828e1c1c-8163-47e5...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
As much as the initial reactions was that these were "...single emails,
taken out of context", the more people are digging, they more they're
finding that response more than lame. In addition, in reading the program
codes and comments, the sinister nature of CRU and even GISS is becoming
apparent, even obvious.
The gig is up, but I'd not hold my breath than much comes of it.
Matt
Matt Barrow
"Cat_in_awe" <rl31...@excite.com> wrote in message ...
> 1Z wrote:
>> Anyone can write anything in a blog. Peer-review is another matter
>
> Anyone can write anything in a peer-reviewed journal as long as it agrees
> with the prejudices and predilictions of the reviewers. It's incest at
> its best, signifying nothing in relationship to its truth value.
Which is eminently brought out in the ClimateGate emails. So-called "peer
Review" is as bogus as the fudged data at CRU and at Hansen's GISS.
Matt Barrow
x
x
x
x
1Z
> Which is eminently brought out in the ClimateGate emails. So-called "peer
> Review" is as bogus as the fudged data at CRU and at Hansen's GISS.
That would apply to the whole of science, then.
Jim Klein
These days, maybe so. This isn't the current
Age of Innovation, except maybe for coming
up with new forms of drivel.
I notice you didn't address his claim. Did you
know you have a habit of not answering direct
claims but rather pointing out other claims that
the claim supposedly implies?
And then not addressing those!
jk
1Z
> These days, maybe so.
You know that how?
>This isn't the current
> Age of Innovation, except maybe for coming
> up with new forms of drivel.
>
> I notice you didn't address his claim. Did you
> know you have a habit of not answering direct
> claims but rather pointing out other claims that
> the claim supposedly implies?
It is perfectly legitimate to counter an
arguemnt with the observation that
it is disruptive to the speaker's own
stance. cf the "Stolen concept".
BTW, no-one has yet answered my
question as to whether the behaviour
of evoluitionists and climate scientists
is being shaped by the amount
and kind of oppostiion they are
receiving from entrenched ideologies.
Jim Klein
> > I notice you didn't address his claim. Did you
> > know you have a habit of not answering direct
> > claims but rather pointing out other claims that
> > the claim supposedly implies?
>
> It is perfectly legitimate to counter an
> arguemnt with the observation that
> it is disruptive to the speaker's own
> stance. cf the "Stolen concept".
My point wasn't that there's anything wrong with
considering the implications of claims.
It was that every once in a while, it'd be nice
of you to consider the instances as well.
jk
1Z
> It was that every once in a while, it'd be nice
> of you to consider the instances as well.
What do you mean? He was apparently making
a point about peer review in general. Why should
I treat it as if is about CC specifically? Wouldn't
that be letting the wool be pulled over my own eyes?
Fred Weiss
> On 27 Nov, 14:47, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > It was that every once in a while, it'd be nice
> > of you to consider the instances as well.
>
> What do you mean? He was apparently making
> a point about peer review in general. Why should
> I treat it as if is about CC specifically?
If you can provide evidence of peer review being as compromised in
other fields as it clearly has been in climatology, that would
certainly be interesting.
Btw, it wouldn't surprise me. Establishments have a way of resisting
challenges to the prevailing wisdom. We, as Objectivists, know that
better than anyone. You as a characteristic defender of the prevailing
wisdom know it, too.
But that hardly constitutes an excuse for the machinations going on in
climatology, esp. given the vast public policy implications resting on
its claims.
Fred Weiss
1Z
> On Nov 27, 10:08�am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Nov, 14:47, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > It was that every once in a while, it'd be nice
> > > of you to consider the instances as well.
>
> > What do you mean? He was apparently making
> > a point about peer review in general. Why should
> > I treat it as if is about CC specifically?
>
> If you can provide evidence of peer review being as compromised in
> other fields as it clearly has been in climatology, that would
> certainly be interesting.
Cat in Awe thinks per-review as a whole is flawed.
"Anyone can write anything in a peer-reviewed journal as long as it
agrees
with the prejudices and predilictions of the reviewers. "
Talk to him about it.
> Btw, it wouldn't surprise me. Establishments have a way of resisting
> challenges to the prevailing wisdom. We, as Objectivists, know that
Every crank on the internet "knows" that
Fred Weiss
So speaketh he who characteristically defends the prevailing wisdom on
any subject - and who attacks anything in opposition almost soley on
those grounds alone.
That of course is precisely what the ClimateGaters were doing - and
which characteristically is just what you do.
Fred Weiss
Matt Barrow
"Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:828e1c1c-8163-47e5...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
The hell with the emails; read the program code snippets and the program
code comments. No context misapplication in there, just plain, unadulterated
fraud.
Whatever sentence Abramoff got, these fellows should get triple, as they
were
trying to "swindle" $trillions$ and to indirectly murder millions, even
billions.
Alas, they were trying to do a swindle on the government's behalf, so no
penalty will accrue.
Matt Barrow
1Z
> On Nov 28, 10:38 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 28 Nov, 14:23, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
> > > Btw, it wouldn't surprise me. Establishments have a way of resisting
> > > challenges to the prevailing wisdom. We, as Objectivists, know that
>
> > Every crank on the internet "knows" that
>
> So speaketh he who characteristically defends the prevailing wisdom on
> any subject - and who attacks anything in opposition almost soley on
> those grounds alone.
You say that like there is somehting wrong with it. But the
prevailing wisdom is the best bet -- it is more likely to
be right than the alternatives. That's why is it is taught in schools
and written up in encycolpedias. It isn't always right, and there
are specific cases where it has been proved wrong duting my lifetime.
But what's the alternative? You can't *systematically* be contrarian
about
everything because there are N alternatives to every conventional
truth.
Your choices are
a) adopt specific alternatives where you have good reason
b) adopt alternatives randomly
c) be guided by some unproven dogrma or ideology.
If you were doing (a) you would be doins something respectable.
But you *are* doing (c), along with most of the other CC denailists
(and *all* the evolution denialists).