The Not So Clear Consensus on Climate Change

0 views
Skip to first unread message

James

unread,
Jul 28, 2005, 9:00:18 PM7/28/05
to
Title: The Not So Clear Consensus on Climate Change

Author: Dennis Bray Affiliation: GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germany

Abstract

One of the most heavily and most publicly contested scientific consensus in
the last decade has been in the debate concerning climate change, namely if
it is the result of natural causes or of anthropogenic activity. ). Using
evidence from survey questionnaires distributed among climate scientists,
the following suggests that consensus among climate scientists might not be
as clear as sometimes depicted.

Scientific consensus seems to be a key word in science to policy
transitions, particularly in those cases where uncertainty and risk are
high, those issues labeled as post-normal science. [1] One of the most
heavily and most publicly contested scientific consensus in the last decade
has been in the debate concerning climate change, namely if it is the result
of natural causes or of anthropogenic activity. Oreskes [2] claims that
evidence suggests that there is indeed a scientific consensus of
anthropogenic induced climate change as stated by the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). Using evidence from survey questionnaires distributed
among climate scientists, the following suggests that consensus among
climate scientists might not be as clear as depicted by Oreskes.

The inset to Oreskes essay suggests that "Without substantial disagreement,
scientists find human activities are heating the earth's surface". By
reviewing 928 abstracts Oreskes concludes that "Remarkably, none of the
papers disagreed with the consensus position". Oreskes goes on to argue that
"This analysis shows that scientists publishing in peer-reviewed literature
agree with IPCC, the national Academy of Sciences and the public statements
of their professional societies. [While on the other hand] Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is not
correct [emphasis added]. Oreskes' main conclusion seems to be that
"...there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate
change". Results of surveys of climate scientists themselves indicate the
possibility that Oreskes' conclusion is not as obvious as stated.

In the results of a survey of climate scientists conducted in 2003 [3] one
question on the survey asked "To what extent do you agree or disagree that
climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? A value of 1
indicates "strongly agree" and a value of 7 indicates "strongly disagree".
Countries, and number of responses from each country are as follows:

USA n = 372; Canada n = 14; Germany n = 56; Italy n = 14; Denmark n = 5;
Netherlands n = 4; Sweden n = 5; France n = 5; U.K. n = 18; Australia n =
21; Norway n = 3; Finland n = 3; New Zealand n = 6; Austria n = 3; Ethiopia
n = 1; South Africa n = 3; Poland n = 1 Switzerland n = 7; Mexico n = 3;
Russia n = 1; Argentina n = 1; India n = 3; Spain n = 2 Japan n = 3; Brazil
n = 1; Taiwan n = 1; Bulgaria n = 1

To the question posed above there were 530 valid responses. Descriptive
statistics are as follows: Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of mean = .080; Median =
3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84; Variance = 3.386 Frequencies: 1 strongly agree
50 (9.4% of valid responses) 2 134 (25.3% of valid responses) 3 112 (21.1%
of valid responses) 4 75 (14.2% of valid responses) 5 45 (8.5% of valid
responses) 6 60 (10.8% valid responses) 7 strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of
valid responses)

These results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not
all that strong and only 9.4% of the respondents "strongly agree" that
climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes. This is
however, a slight rise in consensus of the same survey conducted in 1996 [4]
that resulted in a mean of 4.1683 to the same question (Five countries -
USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Denmark only in 1996 survey, N = 511). In
the 1996 survey only 5.7% of the valid responses "strongly agreed" that
climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.

In fact, the results of the two surveys even question the Oreskes' claim
that the majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC, although this
has improved somewhat between 1996 and 2003. In the 1996 survey only 8.2% of
the valid responses 'strongly agreed' with the statement that the IPCC
reports accurately reflect the consensus of thought within the scientific
community while in 2003 the number rose to 22.8%. While there is a shift to
a greater level of consensus the results however, do not substantiate
Oreskes' claim. Lacking in Oreskes' approach to analysis is any notion of
the dynamics of 'scientific consensus'.

References 1. Funtowicz, S. and J. Ravetz. 1992 "Three types of risk
assessment and the emergence of post-normal science." in Krimsky, S. and D.
Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk London. Praeger 1992. 2. Oreskes,
Naomi. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" Science Vol.306, 3
December 2004 Vol. 1686 3. Bray, D. and Hans von Storch "The Perspectives of
Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 2003" 4. Bray, D. and Hans von
Storch "The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change,
1996"

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Sci
ence2.pdf

Also see
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?a7c15576-1e6c-4480-aa3c-7e521ea26a8
0

Roger Coppock

unread,
Jul 29, 2005, 12:45:20 AM7/29/05
to
I guess you can't keep a good lie down. The old tobacco
lobby was infamous for this type of non-survey.

Ask the same questions that a junior high science fair judge would ask:
--- What did the questionnaire look like?
--- How were the questionnaires distributed?
--- What defined a "climate scientist" in this survey?
- Remember that previous fossil fool lists of "Climate Scientists,"
like the bogus OSI list, included pet frogs, ants and goldfish,
TV actors, hairdressers, the dead, and non-entities.
--- The report says, "there were 530 valid responses."
- How many questionnaires were distributed?
- What made a response invalid? (Was it a vote for AGW theory?)
- How many invalid responses were there?
- Given the tendency for fossil fools to cherry pick their
data, is this "study" just another case of selected data?

This report would not pass muster in a junior high school science fair.
It is my understanding that a report of this study was rejected by
"Science" for publication. I can very clearly see why.

James

unread,
Jul 29, 2005, 10:09:06 AM7/29/05
to

"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1122612320.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

That wasn't even a good try Roger. The fact is that you are lying about
"scientific consensus" that is based on hyperbole and the constant lying of
others like you. Who do you think you are kidding? The OSI list that you
hate so much has also been proven valid. Any bogus entries in there came
from pricks like you trying to take the impact down a few notches. Even if
it were as high as 25%, you would still have a few tons of those PHDs that
know that this whole issue is junk science.

Hans Von Storch is not in the same category as those you love to point out
are not "climate scientists" but it doesn't matter when they see things your
way does it?

No doubt you are lying to your son as well. You should be charged with child
abuse of trying to teach him to lie.

Spin on Roger. Buddha is coming and boy is he mad at you.

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Jul 29, 2005, 11:29:04 AM7/29/05
to
In article <42e97fa0$1...@news.iglou.com>, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>Title: The Not So Clear Consensus on Climate Change
>
>Author: Dennis Bray Affiliation: GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germany
>
>Abstract
>
>One of the most heavily and most publicly contested scientific consensus in
>the last decade has been in the debate concerning climate change, namely if
>it is the result of natural causes or of anthropogenic activity. ). Using
>evidence from survey questionnaires distributed among climate scientists,
>the following suggests that consensus among climate scientists might not be
>as clear as sometimes depicted.

Details?

2003 is recent?

>question on the survey asked "To what extent do you agree or disagree that
>climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? A value of 1
>indicates "strongly agree" and a value of 7 indicates "strongly disagree".
>Countries, and number of responses from each country are as follows:
>
>USA n = 372; Canada n = 14; Germany n = 56; Italy n = 14; Denmark n = 5;
>Netherlands n = 4; Sweden n = 5; France n = 5; U.K. n = 18; Australia n =
>21; Norway n = 3; Finland n = 3; New Zealand n = 6; Austria n = 3; Ethiopia
>n = 1; South Africa n = 3; Poland n = 1 Switzerland n = 7; Mexico n = 3;
>Russia n = 1; Argentina n = 1; India n = 3; Spain n = 2 Japan n = 3; Brazil
>n = 1; Taiwan n = 1; Bulgaria n = 1
>
>To the question posed above there were 530 valid responses. Descriptive
>statistics are as follows: Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of mean = .080; Median =
>3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84; Variance = 3.386 Frequencies: 1 strongly agree
>50 (9.4% of valid responses) 2 134 (25.3% of valid responses) 3 112 (21.1%
>of valid responses) 4 75 (14.2% of valid responses) 5 45 (8.5% of valid
>responses) 6 60 (10.8% valid responses) 7 strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of
>valid responses)

Sorry, you've told us squat. Who were the respondents? How were they
selected? Who conducted it? This smells like the "Oregon" project.

>
>These results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not
>all that strong and only 9.4% of the respondents "strongly agree" that
>climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes. This is
>however, a slight rise in consensus of the same survey conducted in 1996 [4]
>that resulted in a mean of 4.1683 to the same question (Five countries -
>USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Denmark only in 1996 survey, N = 511). In
>the 1996 survey only 5.7% of the valid responses "strongly agreed" that
>climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.

Gee, 10 year old data. Ever hear of "grasping at straws"?

>
>In fact, the results of the two surveys even question the Oreskes' claim
>that the majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC, although this
>has improved somewhat between 1996 and 2003. In the 1996 survey only 8.2% of
>the valid responses 'strongly agreed' with the statement that the IPCC
>reports accurately reflect the consensus of thought within the scientific
>community while in 2003 the number rose to 22.8%. While there is a shift to
>a greater level of consensus the results however, do not substantiate
>Oreskes' claim. Lacking in Oreskes' approach to analysis is any notion of
>the dynamics of 'scientific consensus'.

I suggest the scientific literature and scientific organizations constitute a
current and more valid poll.

>
>References 1. Funtowicz, S. and J. Ravetz. 1992 "Three types of risk
>assessment and the emergence of post-normal science." in Krimsky, S. and D.
>Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk London. Praeger 1992. 2. Oreskes,
>Naomi. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" Science Vol.306, 3
>December 2004 Vol. 1686 3. Bray, D. and Hans von Storch "The Perspectives of
>Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 2003" 4. Bray, D. and Hans von
>Storch "The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change,
>1996"
>

Again, who are these people? Where was this published?

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Jul 29, 2005, 11:33:06 AM7/29/05
to
In article <42ea3880$1...@news.iglou.com>, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>news:1122612320.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> I guess you can't keep a good lie down. The old tobacco
>> lobby was infamous for this type of non-survey.
>>
>> Ask the same questions that a junior high science fair judge would ask:
>> --- What did the questionnaire look like?
>> --- How were the questionnaires distributed?
>> --- What defined a "climate scientist" in this survey?
>> - Remember that previous fossil fool lists of "Climate Scientists,"
>> like the bogus OSI list, included pet frogs, ants and goldfish,
>> TV actors, hairdressers, the dead, and non-entities.
>> --- The report says, "there were 530 valid responses."
>> - How many questionnaires were distributed?
>> - What made a response invalid? (Was it a vote for AGW theory?)
>> - How many invalid responses were there?
>> - Given the tendency for fossil fools to cherry pick their
>> data, is this "study" just another case of selected data?
>>
>> This report would not pass muster in a junior high school science fair.
>> It is my understanding that a report of this study was rejected by
>> "Science" for publication. I can very clearly see why.
>>
>
>That wasn't even a good try Roger. The fact is that you are lying about
>"scientific consensus" that is based on hyperbole and the constant lying of
>others like you.

So compile data on the % of papers in scientific journals supporting your
claim. Or the number of scientific organizations.


>Who do you think you are kidding? The OSI list that you
>hate so much has also been proven valid.


OK, big fat lie here.

>Any bogus entries in there came
>from pricks like you trying to take the impact down a few notches. Even if
>it were as high as 25%, you would still have a few tons of those PHDs that
>know that this whole issue is junk science.

Yeah, but that doesn't include you.

>
>Hans Von Storch is not in the same category as those you love to point out
>are not "climate scientists" but it doesn't matter when they see things your
>way does it?
>

Still haven't given any details. You'd flunk Stat 101.

W. D. Allen Sr.

unread,
Jul 29, 2005, 4:54:37 PM7/29/05
to
Leave it to Roger to shoot the messenger instead of refuting the message's
validity, which he was unable to do, as usual!

The question was simple enough that even a college professor could respond
knowledgeably ! "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change
is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?..."

Don't get it yet, Roger?

end

"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42ea3880$1...@news.iglou.com...

Roger Coppock

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 3:15:40 AM7/30/05
to
Sigh! More fossil fool reading comprehension problems.

Read my response again, WDA. My highly successful
attack was on the report's very poor methodology.
I've asked important questions, basic questions
that a junior high school science teacher would
ask, and no fossil fool has answered any of my
questions. In a formal debate, it would be my
point.

So that you can reread it, my post is below.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

James

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 10:20:17 AM7/30/05
to

"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1122707739....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Let's ask the same questions of the evidence you have of why you think there
is consensus. The fact is there are none and you want to accept the word of
one man in all of these organisations as if they were gods. Does it stroke
your ego that they are like minded as you? What a pathetic excuse you are.
Your argument wouldn't stand up to your own Jr High son whom you lie to.
Shame Roger.

To put it as you would, the study I have posted is the best science at the
time of it's taking and it indicates NO scientific consensus.

Roger Coppock

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 11:40:39 AM7/31/05
to

Brad Guth

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 3:12:28 PM7/31/05
to
Most folks would much rather believe in another infomercial lie. In
fact, it seems they'd much prefer that known liars be telling us such
lies upon lies without a stitch of remorse to boot, as representing the
very best we can hope for.

We've already measurably shifted the average albedo of mother Earth
towards the nearest space-toilet by a good measure of 5% within the
previous couple of centuries and, it looks like we/humanity might
exceed that mark of taking another 5% albedo hit within this century.
Thus contributing more solar influx of somewhat nasty energy-input that
has to go somewhere and thereby thermally accomplish something. In
addition to all of the snow and ice we've been melting like there's no
tomorrow, there's also been a rather horrific megatonnage worth of
artificially expedited erosion or sluffing of dry land that's for the
most part going into and thus displacing our polluted and O2 starved
oceans, that which already contain fewer than 50% of their average
diatom populations (multiple dead zones are now measured in tens,
hundreds and even a few thousand+ km2). Either way oceans are rising
and becoming more jellyfish habitat worthy, not to mention the spread
of oceans impacting our atmosphere with the more harmful and obviously
lethal consequences of H20 vapor.

Perhaps there's absolutely nothing to worry about. But just in case,
here's yet another of my typically lose cannon comments as to whatever
"Conspiracy Theories and the ET Presence" of the day; including the
vanishing cash of oil that'll soon have to be replaced with the burning
of Muslim blood.

Since there's not hardly enough oil nor even of relatively poor quality
coal to go around for long, as such I happen to agree that the
potentially long-term lethal folly of nuclear energy is about our only
last ditch hope of western humanity surviving a small portion of this
century without our going absolutely postal into WW-III.

Although, since energy-in = energy-out, I'm not at all certain the long
term solution is nuclear, especially once we've utilized most all
accessible nuclear materials that aren't deamed necessary for
sustaining all of our vast global cash of WMD and, we've obviously run
ourselves out of safe places to burry the nasty remains, and by then
we've obviously sucked ours as well as whomever else's last oil wells
dry as a bone (shifted the albedo of Earth down another good 10% from
what's become so nicely polluted and thus global warming as of today),
whereas perhaps it'll become good timing that we transport a fair
amount of squeaky clean He3/fusion energy as taken from the moon to
Earth, as then we're all set for WW-IV. Of course, we could have been
100% solar-stirling/PV/wind energy driven as of a decade ago, with
loads of spare/surplus clean energy for the productions of LH2 and H2O2
(at least then we can burn off whatever the remains of the worst
quality of oily-dirt and lowest-grade coal as extremely hot and
relatively clean).

On another similar testy topic of what we should or should not be
doing.

Since thus far there's been no stinking methane sign as derived from
any such Mars thermal signiture, not even a worthy warm spot worth of
any dead ET body or so much as a bug's worth or from any collective of
radiation proof spores, nor of their poop from within. Thus nowhere
upon such a geothermally dead and mostly sub-frozen planet such as Mars
should there remain any active cash of methane, unless it's of a
sub-frozen reserve from whatever had previously died off as of tens of
thousands if not millions of years ago?

I believe whatever existing life upon Mars is actually less likely than
upon and/or within our moon.

Obviously there's always been one absolute certain and proof-positive
method of sufficiently smart folks detecting the likes of really dumb
and dumber and thus easily snookered fools as being dumbfounded and
thereby bigoted and methane/fart generating ETs of this Earth, that is
for the likes of outsider ETs to tap into this pathetic USENET that
99.9% sucks (how hard could that be?).

Actual nonterrestrial ET's do not need any stinking microwave signals,
nor even a laser cannon as affording any such beacon as to detecting
our existence, as for just easily recording the ripe atmospheric
spectrum of methane and rotten-egg/sulphur stench of the rotting flesh
of countless millions upon millions of innocent souls as having been
sequestered upon this artificially global warming Earth, that should
have permeated our entire solar system by now, along with enough of our
living bio and fossil pollution plus the ongoing carnage generated
freons as created in sufficient volume and mass as to cause a galactic
fart that's equal to a local supernovae.

What a pathetic bunch of such LLPOF SETI/ETI freaks and absolute
three-faced bigots of anti-ET and thus anti-God pervert heathens that
are exactly like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), in that you can't
admit you've been snookered into making a few mistakes. How sad for
humanity that we'll all have to continue suffering over and over until
the very last two remaining bigots are having their final LLPOF contest
over those missing NASA/Apollo cows, as to their mutual auto-destruct
deaths.

Past life (once upon a time) upon Mars was likely of something doable
for perhaps 10,000 years at a time. Would you honestly like to
reconsider as to how that could have been the case?

Here's another interesting topic of typical MI5/NSA usenet banishment;
No Venus, No Sirius = No Apollo (at least not as upon the surface of
the highly reactive moon).
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/news.admin.censorship/browse_frm/thread/81925634199bd523/8be7b7dd252d2157?hl=en#8be7b7dd252d2157
~

Don't look now: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated within the
ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by; Brad
Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

z

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 11:20:53 AM8/1/05
to

You guys are your own worst enemies when you publish this kind of
nonsense, because it not only says the opposite of what you say it
does, but the fact that you can't tell that undermines your whole
position in general.

1) "These results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that


consensus is not
all that strong and only 9.4% of the respondents "strongly agree" "

Why would you use a mean for data as strongly skewed as this is? Of
course, the fact that the data is skewed strongly to the "support" side
is exactly what you are denying. But do you know how to draw a graph?
Maybe you should try it as a useful exercise. Here's the numbers again.
W'll wait.


>Frequencies: 1 strongly agree
> 50 (9.4% of valid responses) 2 134 (25.3% of valid responses) 3 112 (21.1%
> of valid responses) 4 75 (14.2% of valid responses) 5 45 (8.5% of valid
> responses) 6 60 (10.8% valid responses) 7 strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of
> valid responses)

How can anybody look at that graph and state with a straight face "that


consensus is not all that strong"

Of course, there is also the question of how anyone can state with a
straight face that 54/530 = 9.7%. Any reasonably sharp high school kid
would see the problem with that instantly. If you actually gave the kid
a pencil and paper, he'd be able to tell you that 60/530 is not 10.8%
either. Don't they have reasonably sharp high school kids in Germany
that Mr. Bray could hire to check his math?

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:39:28 PM8/1/05
to


No, we accept the word of thousands of scientists, almost all of those in the
field, and of all scientific organizations. We accept scientific data,
something you reject because it doesn't fit your political agenda.

>as if they were gods. Does it stroke
>your ego that they are like minded as you? What a pathetic excuse you are.
>Your argument wouldn't stand up to your own Jr High son whom you lie to.
>Shame Roger.
>
>To put it as you would, the study I have posted is the best science at the
>time of it's taking and it indicates NO scientific consensus.
>
>
>

You wouldn't know science if it bit you.

ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 10:53:04 PM8/1/05
to
The Barton letters are kind of like a survey, let's look at the
answers:

The untold story of the Global Warming Fiasco:


"Barton Investigation Uncovers
Key Puzzle Piece In
Global Warming Mystery

(July 24 2005)

Howling yelps of protest are yipping: "Inquisition"!
"Intimidation"!, and "Witch Hunt"! after the sending of some
letters by Rep. Joe Barton Chairman of the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce to key figures in the Global Warming Mystery.

Concealed by the volume and hysteria of the biteless bark of protests
by promoters of Global Warming Alarmism, was a quiet voice of caution
displayed by key figures in the investigation and their most prominent
supporters. Carefully hidden in their subdued message was a reluctance
to support what once was a major pillar of Global Warming Theory, the
claim that

"It is likely that the rate and duration of the warming of the 20th
century is larger than any other time during the last 1,000 years"."

continues===>
http://www.geocities.com/poncedeleon_1/ClimateChange/Rsquared.htm

the analysis is at this link accessable from the above link:

http://www.geocities.com/poncedeleon_1/ScientistsBackDown.htm

Coby Beck

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 2:56:16 PM8/2/05
to
<ponced...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122951183.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> The Barton letters are kind of like a survey, let's look at the
> answers:

> http://www.geocities.com/poncedeleon_1/ScientistsBackDown.htm

Hi ponce,

I read your page there >--^ and ISTM you are really grasping at straws,
trying to read alot into "what wasn't said" etc. For example from Hughes's
reply:

This finding [was] - that the increase in 20th century northern hemisphere
temperatures is "likely to have been the largest of any century during the
past 1000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the
warmest year". This finding did not rest solely on our work, as is made
clear on page 133 in section 2.3.2.2 of the IPCC TAR volume - "Climate
Change 2001"

from which you conclude: "Note that he is not saying that his study still
supports his finding"

Pretty thin, if you ask me. (I cherry picked the weakest link to make my
point, but the other criticisms are similar in nature). You dwell alot on
*your* opinion that the fast rate is the more significant finding of the
rate-of-change vs height-of-temperature findings and all your quotes from
the various letters mention the "highest in 1000 yrs" finding either first
or exclusively. To take this as some kind of backing down on the second is
rather a stretch. I think it is at least as significant that it is warmer
now than in over 1000yr (now it appears even 2000yrs at least).

If you want to know if these scientists have backed down from these
conclusions just check here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7 The
fact is the more the research comes in, the more convincing is the case for
these conclusions (both of them).

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")


ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 6:02:13 PM8/2/05
to
Coby,

I've spent a bit of time on RealClimate, and they say two things:

1. (quietly) their most convincing evidence is that their calculations
show that without extra CO2 we would be cooling.

2. (also quietly) The increasing heat they measure in the ocean over
the last ten years or so could be a "fluctuation".

I'm not here to debate AGW vs no AGW.

The latest study, Moberg shows comparable increases in four centuries
including the twentieth, if you don't count the the last two decades of
the twentieth century (not included in Moberg), which coincide with
unusual El Nino strength and frequency.

I'm of the opinion that the Barton letters are about the credibility of
the IPCC. I should have said so, to me it's obvious.

Ponce

z

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 12:50:15 AM8/3/05
to

ponced...@yahoo.com wrote:

> The latest study, Moberg shows comparable increases in four centuries
> including the twentieth, if you don't count the the last two decades of
> the twentieth century (not included in Moberg), which coincide with
> unusual El Nino strength and frequency.

That's like saying that people falling off a ten story building show no
negative health status outcomes, if you don't count the last foot or
two.

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 11:52:20 AM8/3/05
to
In article <1122951183.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,

ponced...@yahoo.com wrote:
>The Barton letters are kind of like a survey, let's look at the
>answers:
>
>The untold story of the Global Warming Fiasco:
>
>
>"Barton Investigation Uncovers
>Key Puzzle Piece In
>Global Warming Mystery
>
>(July 24 2005)

Published in which right-wing rag?

>
>Howling yelps of protest are yipping: "Inquisition"!
>"Intimidation"!, and "Witch Hunt"! after the sending of some
>letters by Rep. Joe Barton Chairman of the House Committee on Energy
>and Commerce to key figures in the Global Warming Mystery.
>
>Concealed by the volume and hysteria of the biteless bark of protests
>by promoters of Global Warming Alarmism, was a quiet voice of caution
>displayed by key figures in the investigation and their most prominent
>supporters. Carefully hidden in their subdued message was a reluctance
>to support what once was a major pillar of Global Warming Theory, the
>claim that
>
>"It is likely that the rate and duration of the warming of the 20th
>century is larger than any other time during the last 1,000 years"."
>
>continues===>
>http://www.geocities.com/poncedeleon_1/ClimateChange/Rsquared.htm
>
>the analysis is at this link accessable from the above link:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/poncedeleon_1/ScientistsBackDown.htm
>

Again you cite your own blog as evidence. Are you this dumb?

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 12:03:09 PM8/3/05
to
In article <1123018199....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,

ponced...@yahoo.com wrote:
>Coby,
>
>I've spent a bit of time on RealClimate, and they say two things:
>
>1. (quietly) their most convincing evidence is that their calculations
>show that without extra CO2 we would be cooling.
>
>2. (also quietly) The increasing heat they measure in the ocean over
>the last ten years or so could be a "fluctuation".
>
>I'm not here to debate AGW vs no AGW.
>
>The latest study, Moberg shows comparable increases in four centuries
>including the twentieth, if you don't count the the last two decades of
>the twentieth century (not included in Moberg), which coincide with
>unusual El Nino strength and frequency.
>

No it doesn't, not globally. And El Ninos have been around for a long time;
discounting 20 years because you don't like the data is dishonest.

>I'm of the opinion that the Barton letters are about the credibility of
>the IPCC. I should have said so, to me it's obvious.
>

Your opinion is worthless then. Please learn the science.

>Ponce
>

ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 12:35:41 PM8/3/05
to
Re: The last few replies.

Whoops, I 'm really living in the past, confusing William Connelly with
an old Governer of Texas!

My bad.

To the gentleman who can't find the reference to the twentieth century,
it's right there in front of you.

To Coby Beck, I can't help you.

To Lloyd Parker why would I ever answer you?

Coby Beck

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 2:15:26 PM8/3/05
to
<ponced...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123086940....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Re: The last few replies.
>
> Whoops, I 'm really living in the past, confusing William Connelly with
> an old Governer of Texas!
>
> My bad.
>
> To the gentleman who can't find the reference to the twentieth century,
> it's right there in front of you.
>
> To Coby Beck, I can't help you.

I didn't ask for any. But if you come to a discussion forum, it is strange
you only wish to pontificate and not discuss. I thought I made some
reasonable points and asked some straightforward questions.

ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 4:01:57 PM8/3/05
to
Coby,

Pontificating?

You ought to read your second to last post to me.

I have found forums with scientists, they're nothing like this here.

Doug

Coby Beck

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 4:57:31 PM8/3/05
to
<ponced...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123099317....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

So you'll be leaving then? Good enough.

As for my post to you:

you:
>> "Secondly, the argument that the climate should have naturally
>> "rebounded" with warming during the 20th century defies the actual
>> peer-reviewed scientific studies which, as discussed earlier, suggest
>> that the climate should have actually cooled during the 20th century,
>> not warmed, if natural factors were primarily at play. Anthropogenic
>> greenhouse gases are required to explain the observed warming"
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=167
>>
>> I don't think I'm alone in finding this more convincing than
>> paleoclimatology graphs.
>
me:
> It is not clear to me what significance this has for you or what the
> conflict is with paleoclimatology that forces you to chose one over the
> other.

Seems like a reasonable question, and one others asked reasonably IIRC.
What is the conflict between that excerpt and paleoclimatology graphs?

I apologize if the second part about how science differs from normal
discourse sounded patronizing to you, this was not my intent. But I am at a
loss as to why you would seize on the phrase "we are reasonably confident"
as some fruedian slip proving climatologists don't really know what is going
on. [discussion quoted below]. And you are refusing to elucidate. Tell me
where I am wrong or how I've misunderstood you or what wrong assumption I've
made about what you wrote.

If I were abusive or obstinate I would understand declining to respond,
however I think it is kind of rude to come to a discussion forum and refuse
to explain your position.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

=============================================[quote]
You wrote:
> This is from the comment section one of their articles on energy
> imbalance, it is responded to by Gavin Schmidt, coauthor on the paper
> that suggests fluctuation has still not been ruled out:
>
> Comment #10
>
> "The report says
>
> "Continuation of the ocean temperature and altimetry measurements is
> needed
> to confirm that the energy imbalance is not a fluctuation..."
>
> If it were a fluctuation, could that mean the imbalance is just a short
> term thing that could reverse in a few years?
>
> If so, does that invalidate the following claim just posted?:
>
> "Firstly, as surface temperatures and the ocean heat content are rising
> together, it almost certainly rules out intrinsic variability of the
> climate system as a major cause for the recent warming"
>
> Response: The longer the record, the more sure we will be that what is
> seen is more than a fluctuation. However, given the match of the data
> and models using the most up to date forcings, we are reasonably
> confident that it is not a fluctuation. There is always a chance that
> nature is conspiring against us, and so continued monitoring is
> essential to stregthen the conclusions. -gavin] "
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=148
>
> John, I'm not sure what you meant by "nah." here, perhaps you have a
> more enlightening comment?

I responded:

Well, I see Gavin's response saying "we are reasonably confident that it is
not a fluctuation" in the comment you quote and did not find anything else
in the article itself that supports what you said:

"and they [RealClimate] say two things:
...


2. (also quietly) The increasing heat they measure in the ocean
over the last ten years or so could be a "fluctuation"."

So, where do they (quietly) say this? Or if the above is enough for you to
read something sinister into it, I suggest that you do not understand how
science operates and how scientist express their conclusions. There is no
"proof" in science, only in mathematics, and conclusions are expressed in
terms of certainty with the possibility of things being different always
there.

So read the whole article with a sincere effort to understand and do not
grasp at a single sentence in a comment with an "aha! they don't even know
for sure!". The article explains at length what this finding means and how
it is consistent with many different expectations and how unlikely alternate
explanations are.

I think this difference between scienctific conclusions and a layperson's
idea of a conclusion is a big source of the noise in the whole AGW debate.
If you are in your living room and here a loud smash, run into the bedroom
and find shattered glass and a baseball on the floor, you say "a baseball
has broken the window" and leave it at that. In a scientific context the
scientist would talk about the pattern of glass fragments and the existence
of a foreign object and present a paper that says "we are reasonably
confident that a baseball struck the window with sufficent force to shatter
the glass and penetrate into the bedroom". Now do you really want to seize
on that phrasing and claim "aha! They don't even know it was a baseball!"
That is what you are doing here.

ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 9:33:54 PM8/3/05
to
Coby,

You complained that I don't want to discuss, yet

You've asserted that the finding of unprecidented rate of temperature
increase is stronger now. and then point to RealClimate, but that link
talks about unprecidented warmth, not unprecidented temperature
increase.

Nor does it address the obvious question your assertion creates,
how is the finding about the rate of increase stronger as you say, if
the most recent two studies show more variability than was previously
thought?

Doug

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 9:37:34 PM8/3/05
to
ponced...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Coby,
>
> You complained that I don't want to discuss, yet
>
> You've asserted that the finding of unprecidented rate of temperature
> increase is stronger now. and then point to RealClimate, but that link
> talks about unprecidented warmth, not unprecidented temperature
> increase.

Temperature is an intensive measure of thermal energy, it is also easier
to measure. This is a characteristic use of thermodynamics looking at a
quantity that is easier to measure to infer a the value of something
more difficult to measure.

josh halpern

Coby Beck

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 9:58:27 PM8/3/05
to
<ponced...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123119234.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Coby,
>
> You complained that I don't want to discuss, yet

It is very hard for me to even remember what exactly your point is with your
snip everything and start from scratch posting style...

> You've asserted that the finding of unprecidented rate of temperature
> increase is stronger now. and then point to RealClimate, but that link
> talks about unprecidented warmth, not unprecidented temperature
> increase.
>
> Nor does it address the obvious question your assertion creates,
> how is the finding about the rate of increase stronger as you say, if
> the most recent two studies show more variability than was previously
> thought?

Because it's still less variability than we have experienced this last
century.

Anyway. It's hot. It has not been this hot in at least 2000yrs. It is
getting hotter still. The temperature has never jumped this far this fast
before in the last 2000yrs. It is a result of fossil fuel burning. It will
continue unless we act as an intelligent global society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Oh yeah, and Joe Barton wants Mann, Bradley and Hughs's financial records.

ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 8:26:54 AM8/4/05
to
Coby,

You've been patient with me, and I'd like to explain some things.
I happened on this group by accident, I did not write that article for
this group.
Had I expected much of a reaction, I would not have placed it on three
threads.
Indeed, I might not have placed it at all, at least not right away.
It was confusing to me to try to respond to three separate threads that
had the same look.

I am somewhat familiar with the practice of using the prior quotes, but
in at least one case, they did not show up. (including this time)
Perhaps more importantly, I am not interested in a whole bunch of
tangential issues, so it is easier for me to keep things on point by
starting from scratch.

Here is the quote I was refering to, it's from the end of your post #21

"The
fact is the more the research comes in, the more convincing is the case
for
these conclusions (both of them). "

Here is your response:
Me:


"> Nor does it address the obvious question your assertion creates,
> how is the finding about the rate of increase stronger as you say, if
> the most recent two studies show more variability than was previously
> thought?

[you]:


Because it's still less variability than we have experienced this last
century.

I snip here because the rest does not address the point of interest to
me at this time.

I do not see how this supports your claim of it being more convincing.
You specify that both conclusions are more convincing. I still do not
see anything about the second claim being more convincing here. .

I hope I don't seem like I'm being delibrately blind here. What I see
is a repetition of the claim of less variability in the past.

I do hope this helps

Doug

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 1:24:31 PM8/4/05
to
In article <1123119234.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,

ponced...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Coby,
>
>You complained that I don't want to discuss, yet
>
>You've asserted that the finding of unprecidented rate of temperature
>increase is stronger now. and then point to RealClimate, but that link
>talks about unprecidented warmth, not unprecidented temperature
>increase.
>

OK, the earth is hotter now. That make you feel better than "the earth is
getting hotter faster now"?

ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 4:42:48 PM8/4/05
to

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>

>
> OK, the earth is hotter now. That make you feel better than "the earth is
> getting hotter faster now"?
>

Why do you ask?

If my original post was offensive, I'd be interested to know why.

I've changed the lead in, no howling, yelping or yipping, and no
biteless barks.

Would it amuse you to see it say "Barton 'Witch Hunt' Uncovers Key
Puzzle Piece In Global Warming Mystery?

z

unread,
Aug 5, 2005, 10:39:20 AM8/5/05
to

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <1122951183.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> ponced...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >The Barton letters are kind of like a survey, let's look at the
> >answers:
> >
> >The untold story of the Global Warming Fiasco:
> >
> >
> >"Barton Investigation Uncovers
> >Key Puzzle Piece In
> >Global Warming Mystery
> >
> >(July 24 2005)
>
> Published in which right-wing rag?

The "I'm still living in 1980 and I can't hear you" Times.

ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 5, 2005, 8:29:16 PM8/5/05
to
It's better than Monty Python's Argument Clinic Press.

ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 6, 2005, 6:44:04 AM8/6/05
to

ponced...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It's better than Monty Python's Argument Clinic Press.

Just to make the above more clear for anyone who hasn't heard the
original "Argument Clinic"

"The Argument Clinic

A reception desk in a sort of office building.

Receptionist: Yes, sir?
Man: I'd like to have an argument please.
Receptionist: Certainly, sir, have you been here before...?
Man: No, this is my first time."

[ then he is sent to a room and it goes on]

"[...] The man knocks on the door.
Mr Vibrating:(from within) Come in.
The man enters the room. Mr Vibrating is sitting at a desk.
Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Mr Vibrating: I've told you once.
Man: No you haven't.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I have.
Man: When?
Mr Vibrating: Just now!
Man: No you didn't.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did!"

[it goes on]

"Mr Vibrating: Yes I did!!
Man: Look this isn't an argument.
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is."

[it goes on]

"Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements
intended to establish a definite proposition.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't."

for the whole thing and punch line:


http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-python.html

Coby Beck

unread,
Aug 6, 2005, 11:37:43 AM8/6/05
to

<ponced...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123325044....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
> ponced...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > It's better than Monty Python's Argument Clinic Press.
>
> Just to make the above more clear for anyone who hasn't heard the
> original "Argument Clinic"
...
> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-python.html

And just to bring this back on the topic of climate change:

IPCC Scientist[IPCCS]: The earth is warming at a dangerous rate and it is
primarily due to fossil fuel burning. If we don't do something soon, the
consequences to life as we know it will likely be severe and human suffering
will be great.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

ExxonMobile Funded Think Tank[EMFTT]: The world isn't warming.

IPCCS: Yes, the earth really is warming, there is no doubt about it.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

EMFTT: The warming is normal.

IPCCS: No, the warming is likely more and faster now than at any other time
during the last 2000 yrs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

EMFTT: The warming isn't our fault.

IPCCS: Yes, the warming is due to rapid growth in atmoshperic CO2
concentrations.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

EMFTT: That's not our CO2, its nature's fault. The ocean and land emit way
more CO2 than we ever could.

IPCCS: Yes it is our CO2, we can tell the difference between natural and
fossil fuel emissions CO2 and our CO2 shows up in the atmosphere and the
ocean. Unlike the ocean and the land, we do not reabsorb exactly as much
CO2 as we emit.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm

EMFTT: CO2 could never do that. Its the sun. Its cosmic radiation. Its
soot in the arctic. Its water vapor. Its Milankovitch cycles. Its
unknowable.

IPCCS: It is quite clear that CO2 dominates the many climate forcing
factors.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm

EMFTT: It won't warm much more, in fact it might just as well cool off
again.

IPCCS: All of the best research indicates the warming will continue this
century and at a faster rate than in the last century. The computer models
we have both match past and current observations very well and show we will
warm by 3.5oC to 5oC more this century depending on the actions we take now.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

EMFTT: Well, even if it does warm, it will be good for us!

IPCCS: All the best evidence indicates droughts, famines and tremendous loss
of biodiversity. There is even a very real danger to the continued progress
of our civilization. We may experience population losses in the 100 of
millions or more.

EMFTT: Nature will fix it and the system will just readjust to take care of
everything.

IPCSS: Continuing down this same path will result in feedbacks and domino
effects that are both dangerous and impossible to fully comprehend. What we
are now doing will effect the entire planet for centuries and millenia to
come. We must act now to prevent further global warming.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm

EMFTT: The world isn't warming.

[.....]

ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 6, 2005, 1:05:27 PM8/6/05
to


Coby,

I'd complement you on that, but it seems like the proper etiquette is
to inform you that you came up short.
Your concern in this case is with the effects of AGW.

Elsewhere you've indicated concern about public relations for the
climate science commuity.

Well I'm the public, and I think a better job of explanation could be
done.
Turning around the argument clinic criticism doesn't change that.

Climate science is inexact, so I would think that making sure the math
is right, exactly right, would be important.
Also more important when so much is at stake, including credibility.

It appears to me a layman and taxpayer, that one of the IPCC findings
went too far.
Perhaps if they'd written a better report that wouldn't be the case.
Perhaps if they'd done so, there wouldn't be so much argument clinic
like discussion.

Doug L

Coby Beck

unread,
Aug 6, 2005, 2:49:05 PM8/6/05
to
<ponced...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123347927.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Coby,
>
> I'd complement you on that, but it seems like the proper etiquette is
> to inform you that you came up short.
> Your concern in this case is with the effects of AGW.
>
> Elsewhere you've indicated concern about public relations for the
> climate science commuity.
>
> Well I'm the public, and I think a better job of explanation could
> be done. Turning around the argument clinic criticism doesn't
> change that.

I really do appreciate what appears to be a sincere desire on your part to
understand this very important issue. So many people come here with fully
closed minds and the apparent goal of just making unpleasant noise. In the
interests of full disclosure, I feel like I should let you know that I,
also, am the public in this debate. I don't know how or why that may effect
how you take whatever I might write, but I do want to let you know clearly
that I am not a climatologist.

What this means in general is that I face the same dilema you do, trying to
assess the accuracy and importance of material that I do not have the
training or technical skills to understand in detail for myself. This is
the problem shared by the public in general when we interface with the
scientific community on any issue. But it is not an insumountable problem.

You are right that a better job of explanation could be done, but whose job
is this? Unfortunately this job falls on the shoulders of a media that
combines ignorance with an inappropriate application of the doctrine of
"balance." Balance may well be an appropriate guideline when it comes to
presenting opinions on the best foreign policy or presenting political
advocacy. But is *not* the right guideline when it comes to matters of fact
or matters of science. In these instances what is called for is integrity
and investigative journalism, two things that are hard to find in the
entertainment news media. So the media circus that results in exchanges
very similar to the farce I presented above has failed spectacularly to
inform you and me, the public.

So what can we do?

The first and most effective thing that you or I can do is read the actual
IPCC report in as much detail as we can handle. I don't know how much of it
you have looked at for yourself, but I will tell you that in my opinion
there is a great deal of it that is readily accessible to lay people and by
no means only in the Summary for Policymakers.

The second thing I did (well, simultaneous really) was to listen to the
discussions on this forum and ask a few questions of my own. There are
plenty of experts here who are very happy to either answer directly or
provide plenty of web available material to explain the FAQ's. There are
also people like me who are not experts at all but have understood the
basics enough to take the work of passing it along. (Arriving here, opinion
first, does not usually indicate someone who is ready to learn anything.)

For me, these two methods made the acceptance of GW being real and dangerous
and caused by CO2 emissions a slam-dunk case. There is no reason to doubt
it. What to do, and what will it mean in detail are definately open
questions, but the basic expression of the problem is as certain as the
earth is round. But granted, there remains a great deal of noise about it,
clouds of smoke and controversy that it would be foolish to ignore. When
there's smoke there's fire, right?

So the next thing you and I can do (again absent the ability to truly fathom
the technicalities) is attempt to assess the credibility of the different
sides.

It is at this point that the idea of consensus or no consensus becomes
relevant. Absolutely, consensus must *not* control scientists and the
research they do or don't do, but consensus among scientists is an important
guidline for the public. Absent some extraordinary evidence that the whole
field of climatology is corrupted and completely wrong on its basic
foundations, we the public should trust in the confidence of organisations
like NOAA, NAS, NSF, British Royal Society, IPCC, BAS and numerous others
around the globe. Science, especially with a broad consensus behind it, is
a reliable source.

On the other side of the debate, if you look well, you find vested
interests, illogic, selective use of fringe research, use of data that has
been discredited or supersceded and simultaneous pursuance of conflicting
lines of argument. This is a conclusion I arrived at through a sincere
attempt to judge the sceptic material on its merits. I don't expect anyone
to take my word on that and I won't argue it absent specifics, it is a
general conclusion.

As I wrote in more detail before, dealing with this is not the role of
scientists, though necessity is forcing more and more of them into the arena
of public relations. Some of them are very bad at it.

> Climate science is inexact, so I would think that making sure the math
> is right, exactly right, would be important.
> Also more important when so much is at stake, including credibility.

This brings us back to MBH98 vs M&M and the hockey debacle. Is it sound
science? Is it significant? This is a chance to put the strategies above
into practice. I don't know how to apply r2 statistical analysis to Mann's
proxy data. I don't know what RE statictics are. I have not opened the
data file that contains the infamous Bristlecone Pine series. So in short,
I am not qualified to judge these questions on technical merits alone. (Are
you? I'm quite sure Joe Barton isn't.)

So I am left to assess the sources of the technical discussion and the
merits of the non-technical arguments. I am very comfortable that the
"ayes" have it on the non-technical argument. There are plenty of other
studies that agree closely enough that it seems likely Mann did things
correctly. The study is 7 years old and no longer relevant. The
acknowledged "errors" touted by the "nays" are ones of documentation not
method. This is a single plank in a single floor of a multy-story
scientific platform.

As for sources in the technical discussion, it really seems to me we have
the overwhelming majority of expert people satisfied *in general* that there
is no scandal and no grave flaw in MBH98 and that is worth something. My
technical evaluation is worth something indistinguishable from nothihg. Joe
Barton's opinion somewhat less than 0 here. McIntyre clearly knows much
more than I about this study and all of the statistical analysis involved,
but he is from a different field and by association with McKitrick has some
credibility problems for me and sadly I have no choice but to weight his
opinion much lower than that of the many experts.

> It appears to me a layman and taxpayer, that one of the IPCC findings
> went too far.

Not only do I disagree, I don't think you have any solid basis for this
opinion. All I have seen you present is an effort to read alot into what
was not said in Mann's letter in response to Barton, which is, IMO, a
misguided approach.

> Perhaps if they'd written a better report that wouldn't be the case.
> Perhaps if they'd done so, there wouldn't be so much argument clinic
> like discussion.

Given the political importance of this issue and the failure of the media I
described above I don't think this is at all true. Consider the duration
and ferocity of the "smoking causes cancer" debate. Do you think any
summary report, no matter how well written, would have silenced the tobacco
lobbies?

ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 6, 2005, 5:29:41 PM8/6/05
to

Coby,

Thanks for the lengthy and reasoned reply, I hope you don't mind if I
start from scratch on this and just deal with reasonable (I hope)
summaries of your points.

On the media: They're hopeless, I'm mainly interested in what the IPCC
and their scientists are saying.
You are right in saying there would still be ferocious debate even with
an improved IPCC report.

On the M&M issue: You infer that your technical evaluation of this is
not up to assessing whether or not having the math exact is especially
important in an inexact science. Maybe you don't mean that, maybe you
only mean that there's not much reason to put much stock in McIntyre.
.

On the IPCC finding going too far: I looked for clues about this in the
responses not only because of the M&M controversy, but also because Von
Storch and Moberg found greater variability than Mann. Yesterday, I
looked at MBH98 and found nothing about rate of increase, so perhaps
that's why he calls it his primary finding. On the other hand, I
believe he is part of the IPCC, perhaps even a very important part, and
the Barton letters addressed both temperature level and rate of
increase.

You state that MBH98 is but a single plank in a multistory house. Yes
that's what it's supposed to be, but it's hard to tell if that's really
so. A better technical summary would make it more clear that this was
the case.

My crude research suggests that this is not the case. It appears that
one study depends on another study. So what's called "independent
research" is not as independent as it would ideally be. I think that
the Crowly study shows the rate of increase is unprecedented, it
depends on reconstructions by others. Yes, that's how science works,
but it's helpful to be able to see how it's working.

There are only a handful of Paleoclimatologists. It appears from the
names on the studies that most of them work with each other. There are
only a handful of data sets they can work from. Naturally some studies
use the same techniques for replication purposes, so there can be an
illusion about how many independent studies there are by a factor of
two perhaps?

Anyway, with so few data sets, it's hard to have independence in the
studies. If Mann and Jones for example are sharing code with each
other and not others (I'm not saying that happened) this could be a
problem especially in a situation where there are so few data sets to
work from.

Well that's enough conjecture. You have suggested reading as much of
the IPCC report as possible, and I have looked at it from time to time.
I'd like to just make some suggestion about how they ought to do the
IPCC report so some of these kinds of concerns could be minimized:

One simply cannot easilly glean from the report enough about the basics
behind their most important findings to determine:

1. Whether or not it is based on independent lines of research as they
say. (which lines of reasearch relate to which findings and what their
contribution is. and when a piece of research relies on a global
climate model of its own or that from another study) Also since
paleoclimaologists do not make their math transparent, whenever
paleoclimatology plays a role in a study or a study that uses it, it
needs to be highlighted.

2. Whether all basic logic for the findings is being highlighted. (So
that when the highlighted logic is found to be faulty, they can't say
"oh, but you missed this we have over here in the fine print, this is
the real reason we believe in our finding)

3. An explanation of how error bars are determined, especially on items
relating to major findings and variables derived from computer models.

*****It should be possible to find most of all this in one place with
pointers to the rest, much of it could be in a table or chart.***
Well that's enough for now

Thanks for listening
Doug L.

Coby Beck

unread,
Aug 7, 2005, 3:23:39 PM8/7/05
to
<ponced...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123363781.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> On the M&M issue: You infer that your technical evaluation of this is
> not up to assessing whether or not having the math exact is especially
> important in an inexact science. Maybe you don't mean that, maybe you
> only mean that there's not much reason to put much stock in McIntyre.

I guess this second one is closer to what I meant. It is certainly *not*
that the math does not matter. Have you identified some mathematical errors
in MBH98?

> On the IPCC finding going too far: I looked for clues about this in the
> responses not only because of the M&M controversy, but also because Von
> Storch and Moberg found greater variability than Mann. Yesterday, I
> looked at MBH98 and found nothing about rate of increase, so perhaps
> that's why he calls it his primary finding.

Did you read Joshua Halpern's long excerpt directly from the IPCC report? I
think that puts everything in its proper perspective and context, much more
so than reading dualing correspondance many years after the fact.

In the body of the SPM of the TAR, the totality of text that relates
specifically to MBH98 is this:

"New analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the
increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely7 to have been the
largest of any century during the past 1,000 years. It is also likely7 that,
in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the
warmest year "

This is very mildy stated, matter of factual and well supported by the study
it references. All of the other studies, including ones that do show
greater variability, also support those words.

> On the other hand, I
> believe he is part of the IPCC, perhaps even a very important part, and
> the Barton letters addressed both temperature level and rate of
> increase.
>
> You state that MBH98 is but a single plank in a multistory house. Yes
> that's what it's supposed to be, but it's hard to tell if that's really
> so. A better technical summary would make it more clear that this was
> the case.

It is *really* unclear to me how one can look at these documents and
conclude that the whole case rests on MBH98.

> My crude research suggests that this is not the case. It appears that
> one study depends on another study. So what's called "independent
> research" is not as independent as it would ideally be. I think that
> the Crowly study shows the rate of increase is unprecedented, it
> depends on reconstructions by others. Yes, that's how science works,
> but it's helpful to be able to see how it's working.

I think the methods build on each other and sometimes the conclusions of one
study depend on other studies, sure. But I don't know if new
reconstructions ever start with already finished reconstructions. If that
were the case then the kind of errors M&M accuse MBH of would propogate to
other studies, but I think these other studies take maybe the same datasets
but build from scratch from there.

BTW, this is exactly why "replicate" in science *does not* mean take the
same data and the same code and press "start" again. That would be the way
errors in arithmetic or similar would end up propogating all through a field
of science.

In terms of the case for AGW and MBH98, what if not only the study, but the
conclusion were wrong? Would that mean the CO2 is maybe not rising or that
it is maybe natural? Would that mean the model runs are less reliable?
Would that mean the climate change is not anthropogenic?

No. There is no house of cards built on this one study that would collapse
without it.

> There are only a handful of Paleoclimatologists. It appears from the
> names on the studies that most of them work with each other. There are
> only a handful of data sets they can work from. Naturally some studies
> use the same techniques for replication purposes, so there can be an
> illusion about how many independent studies there are by a factor of
> two perhaps?

There is always the chance that a misconception is shared amongst all the
specialist of a field. But the scientific process has long proved very
successful and self correcting. I can not for the life of me imagine how
direct intervention from Joe Barton will help anything.

> Anyway, with so few data sets, it's hard to have independence in the
> studies. If Mann and Jones for example are sharing code with each
> other and not others (I'm not saying that happened) this could be a
> problem especially in a situation where there are so few data sets to
> work from.

This is why you *don't* share code. And, BTW, I don't think you are right
that there are so few data sets available.

> Well that's enough conjecture. You have suggested reading as much of
> the IPCC report as possible, and I have looked at it from time to time.
> I'd like to just make some suggestion about how they ought to do the
> IPCC report so some of these kinds of concerns could be minimized:
>
> One simply cannot easilly glean from the report enough about the basics
> behind their most important findings to determine:
>
> 1. Whether or not it is based on independent lines of research as they
> say. (which lines of reasearch relate to which findings and what their
> contribution is. and when a piece of research relies on a global
> climate model of its own or that from another study) Also since
> paleoclimaologists do not make their math transparent, whenever
> paleoclimatology plays a role in a study or a study that uses it, it
> needs to be highlighted.
>
> 2. Whether all basic logic for the findings is being highlighted. (So
> that when the highlighted logic is found to be faulty, they can't say
> "oh, but you missed this we have over here in the fine print, this is
> the real reason we believe in our finding)
>
> 3. An explanation of how error bars are determined, especially on items
> relating to major findings and variables derived from computer models.
>
> *****It should be possible to find most of all this in one place with
> pointers to the rest, much of it could be in a table or chart.***
> Well that's enough for now

I don't think you understand what you are asking for. It is already a big
enough task to compile and write this summary, this kind of
cross-referencing audit trail is a lot of work, and IMO not a useful use of
anyone's time. Perhaps a better approach would be for a concerned
government to request an assessment of the IPCC report from a scientific
body working on its behalf. This group of scientists, well qualified to
assess the merits of the research and the strength of the conclusions can
then give its own report assessing the quality of the summary and the
reliability of its conclusions.

Doesn't that sound like a better approach?

ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 7, 2005, 4:44:40 PM8/7/05
to
Coby,
thanks again for a reasoned response, it's apt to be awhile before I
could look closely at all the issues you respond to.
I think for now we have to just agree to disagree about how this should
be dealt with.
Doug

Raymond Arritt

unread,
Aug 7, 2005, 5:06:22 PM8/7/05
to
ponced...@yahoo.com wrote:

> You state that MBH98 is but a single plank in a multistory house. Yes
> that's what it's supposed to be, but it's hard to tell if that's really
> so. A better technical summary would make it more clear that this was
> the case.

MBH98 is but one of a number of paleoclimatic reconstructions. And all
paleoclimate studies taken together still comprise only one part of the
evidence for anthropogenic global warming. I accept the AGW hypothesis
for now because it's the most consistent framework to account for a
large body of evidence from quite diverse methods -- e.g., paleo
studies, surface data analysis, coupled atmosphere-ocean GCMs,
phenological studies, even back-of-envelope calculations. Maybe that's
not what Coby meant by MBH98 being only a single plank, but that's what
I would have meant if I had said it. ;-)

If overwhelming evidence in the other direction should appear, I'll
change my mind.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages