Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 Next
Comments 56601 to 56650:
-
Marco at 20:31 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Dubious @48: I think that if McIntyre sent a plagiarism claim to *any* university in this case, it would more than likely be dismissed right away. Pointing out an error does not constitute a novel idea or original work. However, it still constitutes, in my opinion, a legal threat. -
Tom Curtis at 20:29 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
McIntyre's letter to Karoly, by his own admission, states in part:"It has come to my attention that you have made the following untrue and defamatory statement about me .... I request that you either provide me forthwith with specific examples of the “misinformation” that you allege that I’ve promulgated or withdraw the allegation with an apology."
Let's start with "defamatory" which the Collins English Dictionary defines as:"defamatory [dɪˈfæmətərɪ -trɪ] adj (Law) injurious to someone's name or reputation defamatorily adv"
Note that the term "defamatory" is a technical term from the practise of law. By using a legal technical term, not to mention the later additional use of legal language "forthwith", "promulgated", "allege". It is clear, therefore, that McIntyre drafted his letter with the clear intent of making it look like a legal letter. What is more, as such letters are often the first step in defamation actions, if Karoly showed the letter to the legal officers of his university, they would no doubt have advised him to treat it as the first step in a defamation action; ie, as a threat of legal action. To do otherwise might well compromise their defence if McIntyre in fact proceeded to take such action. I think it is probable that Karoly did in fact show the letter to the Universities legal officers. I even suspect there is a university policy that requires him to do so. I further suspect that he was advised by said legal officer to take down the article, but to not apologize (which is taken as an admission of fault and could compromise any future defence). It would also not surprise me that he has been advised not to comment on the issue. These would all be very standard actions in the case of a threat of legal action. It is irrelevant to all this that McIntyre says he was not threatening legal action. He wrote a letter deliberately drafted to look like the first step in a legal action, and did not in that letter state that he had no intention to pursue any legal action over the matter. He thereby implicitly threatened Karoly with legal action. -
JoeRG at 20:28 PM on 15 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Tom @62: Thanks for the explanations. It's true that I assumed the model that you call "best case scenario". Surely you wonder why I did so. The question for me was: what do I want to compare? Well, I compared the model of the full transparent but cloudy atmosphere with the atmospereless situation under the same conditions on ground. If I want to know the pure radiative effect of the atmosphere it didn't made any sense for me to assume different ground conditions. That's why I came to the 270K, but up from the 255K for the transparent atmosphere with cloud albedo. And again I have to say that the radiative behavior of water changes the average temperature upwards due to the energy dispersion that already happens with the current state. Therefore I do not expect a large change in albedo, at least not for the oceans. Changing ground albedo results in differing conditions which make the comparison irrelevant. To the boiling water situation: From my point of view the resulting atmosphere of (mostly) water vapor will be adequate dense because the solar power is strong enough so that the frozen water sublimates as to see on comets. The gravitation of earth on the other hand is strong enough to protect the water from blowing away. Finally, this initiates a similar greenhouse effect like on Venus because water is almost transparent for short waves but it blocks (nearly all) long waves. This changes the conditions completely to an overheated planet. -
Tom Curtis at 20:02 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
JohnB @42, as an Aussie myself, I believe that no individual taxpayer pays for scientific grants, so no individual taxpayer has a right to set the conditions of those grants. Rather, it is the elected government acting for all of us that sets those conditions; and those conditions as set are the ones that apply. You may wish to forgo those small virtues of Australian political life - democracy and the rule of law - because you are an Australian taxpayer. I do not. -
chriskoz at 18:58 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Carrick @38, It was not my intention to label you as a denier, but to point out that you accept the use FOI as a harasment tool against climate scientists (as deniers do). You misread my comment or I wasn't clear enough, in any case I appologise. I do my research for a private company rather than a uni so my understanding of IP issues may be different than yours. I concur with you that the funder of the project is the owner of any code and data. However, the key issue is who is this funder or "funding agency". I'd like to learn what NSF can say about it but your link do not work. Your claim that "anything related to public policy decisions... should be seen as publicly owned" means to me, that if the results of any given research is choosen by policy makers to justify their actions, then said research automatically becomes public, any prior IP ownership is expired. Is that what you mean? That does not make sense. Politicians, with their decisions, cannot change the ownership of the research they read. If you mean "public is the funder of the research from its conception, therefore public is its owner", that is a moot statement for me. We are talking about "funding agencies" here. Therefore only funding agencies or people affiliated with funding agencies can claim the rights to the research. In the example of McIntyre vs. Karoly we are considering here, McIntyre cannot be affiliated with any funder. Even by the broadest possible definition of funding affiliation supporting Karoly's research (an Australian taxpayer - a very generous asignment) McIntyre cannot be so named because he's not an Australian taxpayer. -
doug z at 18:24 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Tom Curtis wrote at 11:03 AM on 15 July, 2012 "doug z @32, I am glad, then, to hear that you will be ignoring Anthony Watts, Jonova, Christopher Monckton, David Evans, and the host of so-called climate skeptics" Tom, I will ignore anyone and everyone who refuses to back up accusations, including all those you listed if you can name specific instances where they have done that. Given that we are discussing a specific instance where Karoly has done exactly that, then I take it that you agree with me that his credibility is in jeopardy unless he puts up or has the decency to apologise. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:19 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Don't worry, dubious. I was upset when I first read of Hayhoe and Dessler being wasted on ATI's sideshow but I'm over that; $250 contributed to CSLDF was cheaper than psychotherapy and I was permitted to do the "talk" part here, for free! Yeah, you get my point about the thread: it's not about science. ATI's clearly not about science. I'm less sure about McIntyre. There seems a correlation between the public profile of research and what research McIntyre finds objectionable and his language is freighted with self-defeating insults directed to the people he wants to cooperate with him; those are not features that suggest science as his main interest. The frequent resorts to FOI and sternly worded letters as opposed to the much simpler method of being polite and not running off at the mouth on his blog are also puzzling. Maybe his readers egg him on too much? He doesn't seem to get much science done but does talk a lot. May I ask what scientific progress is being advanced by counting coup over who identified what problem with the Gergis paper? And where's the scientific advance in demanding an apology from Karoly for perceived slights in a book review? Paleotemperature reconstruction any better as a result of the peripheral jangling? Looks like another "science-free zone" but perhaps I'm missing something. -
Eric (skeptic) at 16:55 PM on 15 July 2012Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
Sorry, I screwed up my links above in post 11. They both seem to work in my browser, but might not in others. -
Eric (skeptic) at 16:49 PM on 15 July 2012Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
Here's some more background on derechos: describing the atmospheric flows and other climatology. This article touches on longer term trends but there are probably much better studies of that elsewhere. Here's an article on another specific derecho: http://derecho.math.uwm.edu/papers/Weismanetal2012_WF.pdf with both a high CAPE phase and a low CAPE (occluded) phase. Obviously high CAPE will sustain a storm better like the one we had at the end of June. However, the dynamics are more important than the CAPE. I do not believe there is any consensus on changes in dynamics under global warming. Regarding more record highs than lows, the stations collecting record highs are not corrected for urbanization, so some of the increased ratio of record highs to record lows is due to urbanization. My own guess is a relatively small portion, maybe 1/4 or so. Another portion of the record highs are short records, not extending back to the 1930's or previous. Again that's a relatively small portion. The Norton, Kansas example from the video is neither. Their 118 beat the their 116 measured in 1936. -
dubious at 16:35 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
doug_bostrom: you get upset about the thread "veering off into... all sorts of things about science but not actually science" and then introduce General Hospital (if that is not veering off, I don't know what is). This whole thread is not about the science. It is about the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. Dr Karoly's claim of "a threat of legal action" was considered on-topic enough to have people commiserating him. Is it too much to ask him to support that specific allegation? I'm trying to gauge Dr Karoly from his behaviour. So far, he has said McIntyre has "repeatedly promulgated misinformation" and then withdrawn the claim (without apology) rather than justified it or even explained what he was referring to (as I said, I would be very interested to know if he is referring to the Gergis paper, about which Dr Karoly has very specific knowledge). He then claims "I have just received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre" without justifying it. I could well understand that the Marco's "the statement itself constitutes a claim of plagiarism" carries academic implications for Dr Karoly, but that is not what Dr Karoly has said here. Incidentally, Dr Karoly could easily address the plagiarism side of things by explaining how his team came to realise the mistakes in the paper, and what part (if any) McIntyre's blog played in it. As far as I can see, the radio silence on that is entirely self-imposed. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 16:12 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
@JohnB - a couple of points. 1. No, your don't as a matter of course get to see the data that you 'spend your money on' - whether it's research, cabinet papers, defense documents or a myriad of other data. Neither the spirit nor the actuality of FOI legislation is intended for you to look at the detail of anything you please. There is a lot of research paid for from government sources (or jointly funded by government and industry) that is not freely available to the general public, whether for reasons of security, its commercial nature, the fact that the data is being used in ongoing research or for whatever reason. (AFAIK, McIntyre has never paid one cent towards the cost of scientific research done in Australia, except perhaps indirectly paying licence fees on commercially developed applications (like wifi technologies developed by the CSIRO) - so if he is provided research data from anywhere other than Canada, it is because of the generosity of the relevant country). 3. It may well be that there would be disagreement among lawyers, let alone among laypersons, as to whether or not that letter constituted a threat of legal action. It's a moot point because it's my understanding that McIntyre has since said it doesn't, which could be taken to mean that he will not be pursuing the matter through legal channels. (In any case, assuming it's just another one of the multiple attacks on scientists, there is much more likelihood of 'success' by blog innuendo and 'outrage', whereas he would not be likely to win in court.) 4. Your post wrongly implies that government-funded researchers do not make data available after publication. Even though IMO describing the method is much more relevant and important (can the research be replicated), climate scientists are among those leading the way in terms of making data not only available but very accessible. There is a huge amount of data that you don't even have to pay for, provided to you freely, requiring virtually no effort on your part, courtesy of scientists from all around the world (and the taxpayers, businesses, organisations, philanthropists etc that pay for that research, whether it's you or more often, given the relatively small size of Australia, people in another country). -
Doug Bostrom at 16:12 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
GrantB, I refer to my own experience (nothing to do with McIntyre!) in making that judgement ("progression") as well as to the specific language used by McIntyre. It's easy to mistake the vector of a disagreement, particularly when one has no visible face or audible voice for cues in a conversation. I find a lot of McIntyre's stuff on his site pretty counterproductive in terms of being a basis for forming a better functioning collegial relationship with the research community. Even so, presuming I was his subject of the day I might well feel different even as his target if I could see the expression on his face and the tone of his voice while he was talking about my connection with fraud, scams, coverups, etc. Perhaps the supercargo of descriptive language piled on McIntyre's scientific opinions is in jest. Your own words convey the possibilities w/regard to Karoly and answer your own question to me: An apology has been asked for, if it is provided there will be no progression. (emphasis mine) No problem w/no further reverberations; it's hardly an earth-shaking matter, at least for us rubberneckers. -
Eric (skeptic) at 16:07 PM on 15 July 2012Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
The derecho (Spanish for "right turn") requires a right turn among other synoptic features, namely aligned winds at different levels and high CAPE. Here's a description: http://nws.met.psu.edu/severe/2012/30Jun2012a.pdf of the 29-30 June 2012 event. Much mention was made of CAPE and "energy" in blogs like Capital Weather Gang without mentioning the required alignment of winds. Here in the eastern US we get ubiquitous gust fronts from storms where the winds were not aligned properly (the gust front gets ahead of the storm and stabilizes the atmosphere ahead of the storm). I'll also mention my personal experience with adaptation. Unlike the more common solar feeds to the grid which provide less valuable power prior to peak needs in the evening, I have solar charged batteries which provide power when needed. The batteries ran my fridge for the 48 hours that my power was out. The second night was uncomfortable at 84 degrees especially for my guests, who were not used to it. My well water is electric from the grid but I used maybe 50 gallons out of 400 or so of stored water for drinking, flushing, and cleaning. Batteries however are not suitable for everyday use, that technology is coming, but not here yet. Instead they are ideal for emergencies like this along with judicious use of generators. Infrastructure needs to change. West Virginia electric distribution was poor with entire towns losing their main feeds over mountains. All radio stations except maybe 2 or 3 were knocked off the air. But people seemed to get by ok other than running out of gasoline and ice. Cell service worked where it is available (not everywhere due to mountains). Community pot luck meals were very common. At the other extreme, very urban Arlington VA had no useful cell phone service, no electric phones, no cable or internet other than very spotty cell service, no 911 service for at least a day, no traffic lights, and little gasoline. I live in between those two and had very few infrastructure problems. -
GrantB at 15:50 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
JohnB +1, as another Australian taxpayer. doug_bostrum. Why on earth would you consider a request for an apology as a first step in a progression? An apology has been asked for, if it is provided there will be no progression. Obviously someone, somewhere thought there was something wrong with Prof Karoly's review in the ABR because it has been withrawn. Any ideas about who did it and why? This will be my only post on this issue. It's been said somewhere before but I'll quote it again - "We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter." -
Marco at 15:45 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
I would like to point out that what people really mean and how others interpret his words are not always the same. For example, take the e-mailed threats we have seen in the last few months. Some can plausibly deny specific examples are threats of a violent nature ("it is just a warning" or similar excuses), but the receiver may equally plausible consider those same examples threatening in a violent way. The situation may well be the same in the case McIntyre-Karoly. Steve McIntyre may well have plausible deniability in claiming he did not utter a legal threat, while David Karoly may well have plausible reasons to interpret it as such. I specifically think of this comment of McIntyre: "I do not believe that you identified the error independently of the discussion at Climate Audit and accordingly it is my opinion that your failure to acknowledge Climate Audit in your public statement constitutes the use of ideas and/or work derived from Climate Audit without the appropriate acknowledgement" It does not state: "and I will take appropriate action to make you acknowledge our contribution" or similar. However, the statement itself constitutes a claim of plagiarism, which McIntyre fully knows to be legally actionable. Thus, Karoly has plausible reasons to consider a claim of scientific misconduct to be a threat of legal action. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:39 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
JohnB, so we don't lose the plot, are you speaking of a specific Australian researcher or just making a general point? Regarding Karoly, call me a weenie but if I received that letter I'd assume it was the first step in a progression, so to that extent I'd consider it a threat. I've been through a situation that began mildly and went to "formal" so perhaps I'm afflicted with PTSD. Reasonable people can disagree on this and still remain together under the reasonable tent. -
jimspy at 15:34 PM on 15 July 2012Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
YubeDude#7: I don't recall Greenman ever signing a pledge to produce only dry, objective, emotionless videos. At some point, after the science is explained and accepted, it becomes time to contemplate the enormity of what we're facing. I believe this video suffices in that regard. More so because it appears to be one of his most widely circulated, and if it inspires greater thought on the part of a greater number of people, that can't be a bad thing. -
JohnB7198 at 15:24 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
I feel I have to voice a comment as an Aussie on data etc. When a researcher is being paid by the Australian public, is using equipment bought for him/her by the Australian public, stores the data on a computer paid for by the Australian public in an office funded by the Australian public, then he doesn't own the data. If he doesn't wish to share, then I suggest he goes out and raises his own funds or buys his own satellite. But when it is my money paying for things then I get to see what my money has been spent on. I have no problems with any researcher being given first publication rights, that is only fair. But once published, I expect everything to be archived, including code. But if you don't want public scrutiny then don't ask for public money. It really is that simple. As for Dr Karoly, unless he can produce a letter from Mr McIntyre where legal action is threatened, his claim is BS. As the person making the claim it is his responsibility to provide proof. -
YubeDude at 15:03 PM on 15 July 2012Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
I found this video to be less than the usual Greenman effort. The moody piano track and repeated cuts to the Exxon CEO reminded me of a Michael Moore slant piece rather than a Peter Sinclair science video; overtly emotional and somewhat anecdotal. Still, most of his videos are very helpful and objective in formulating the discourse. This one, not as much. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:45 PM on 15 July 2012Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
How do we know the "events" will occur more frequently and with more intensity as climate change continues? Conservation of energy? Improbability of perfect distribution of extra energy in the atmosphere? Unless you're prepared to effectively contradict (saying "I doubt it" won't work) the fundamental physics of the situation you're claiming that an important "law" even farther down-- at the very bottom of physics-- is rotten. You can't do that, right? Or, you could show how additional energy in the atmosphere will be perfectly homogeneous. Atmospheric energy is not homogeneous now so that doesn't seem very likely. Let's put it another way. Walk into a wall at 1mph. Ouch, a little. Do it again at 2mph; oh, well, a bloody nose is not so bad. 5mph-- jeepers, who'd of thought it would feel so hard? 15mph isn't so fast either, but you might be killed depending on how your head bonks into the bricks. If your body could present its entire surface area to the wall simultaneously things would be ok up to quite a speed but unfortunately we're not constructed with the geometry of a sheet of plywood; bits of us stick out. -
Albatross at 14:08 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
In retrospect, perhaps Mr. McIntyre should proceed with legal action, if indeed such action is even plausible/possible. Because if he did, the discovery stage of proceedings would be, shall we say, very enlightening and damning, and by that I mean against the plaintiff, Mr. McIntyre. Remember, even the attorney general of Virginia (Ken Cuccinelli II) could not, even with all his influence and power, mount a credible and convincing case against Dr. Mann. But what his vexatious actions did seem to do were a) harass and intimidate Dr. Mann, b) by extension intimidate other climate scientists, c) feed/fuel conspiracy theories of "skeptics". Same goes for Republican Senator Inhofel's list of 17 climate scientists who he wished to bring to trial. Again, that went nowhere, but the message to climate scientists was very clear. Moreover, Christopher Monckton has repeatedly threatened legal action against climate scientists and those defending them but has not once followed through. Again, one has to wonder why? I'm seeing a clear pattern here. Threaten, intimidate...draw back...repeat. Despite all the fallacious accusations, the rhetoric, the threats of legal action against climate scientists nothing has come to fruition. No, that is not the result of some grand conspiracy, but the fact that the people making these claims and accusations ultimately have nothing. Keep in mind that in the past Mr. McIntyre has used his influence and his blog to mount/head a campaign of vexatious FOI requests against climate scientists. The comment's policy prevent me from speaking to motive for the actions of McIntyre, Inhofe, Cuccinelli and Monckton, but I'm sure that by now reasonable people reading this thread have some pretty good ideas of their own what is going on here and why. It is this steady stream of this baseless and mendacious acts by "skeptics" and deniers of the theory of AGW that have necessitated the formation of the legal defence fund. That is what the OP is about readers, please ignore the chaff being floated by those defending these heinous actions. -
JohnMashey at 13:45 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Penn State got sent an inchoate mass of complaints. Normally, such junk just gets thrown out, but they gave them the benefit of the doubt and combined them into 4 complaints that could fit the rules. They followed the rules, did an inquiry. Three complaints were eliminated as lacking evidence. The fourth was vague enough to have them form the investigation committee listed in #30. All this was done in the open, with reports published, following the standard rules. Most of those complaining about the PSU process seem people who obviously lack even minimal experience with academic misconduct proceedings, have no idea of the OSTP / ORI / NSF rules, have never filed a real complaint, obviously don't have associates who are misconduct experts, but do have clear opinions. If any of them want to be taken seriously, they can say who are they are and enumerate their relevant experience so we can assess the worth of their opinions, the way such works in the real world. As it happens, as a PSU grad, I actually know some of the people involved in this, think they are honorable, and know why universities guard their reputations carefully by running proper investigations. If someone has not pored over sources like ORI cases, or NSF's ... they need to. Recall that NSF also exonerated Mann. Is NSF part of PSU? I don't think so. Does NSF regularly investigation and take serious action? Yes. By contrast with PSU, see See No Evil at GMU, where they started with a weak, opaque process and couldn't even follow their own rules, then misled people about it and even denigrated the complainant, after a 2-year process that yielded obvious contradictions. There is more to come on that story, likely worse. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:38 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Dubious: What we might usefully do here is get to the bottom of Dr Karoly's assertion that: "I have just received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre in Canada." That is a very specific allegation - and very on-topic, in a thread about the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. Yes, particularly inasmuch as having the conversation wander about in that fashion beautifully illustrates the degrading effects of veering off into "meta-science" and perusal of all sorts of things about science but not actually science. By so doing, we change the topic from the science and any useful information it may convey and turn instead to an endless rotation of voyeurism and titillation, akin to the old "General Hospital" soap opera here in the US. For readers not in the US, "GH" was notionally about a hospital and the practice of healing but the daily plot involved scripted gossip having to do with which doctor was sleeping with which nurse, etc. Absolutely nothing about medicine could be learned from the program but of course there's an entirely human and magnetic fascination in being able to rummage through other people's private business. ATI understands the power of changing the subject very well; don't look at the science, look at James Hansen's compensation! -
Carrick at 13:23 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
chriskoz:That's an incorrect statement. And an indication that you, like most climate science deniers who try to harass the scientists, do not understand the limitations of FIO.
Chris, it's not an incorrect statement actually, because I'm an active researcher (not in climate science) and this is my position on the sharing of code and data. As to labeling me a "climate science denier"... simply because I don't agree with Karoly's obviously erroneous claims about being legally threatened doesn't suddenly make me a climate denier. What part of climate science am I supposedly denying?Only the data supporting the results of public policy research, and the detailed description of the algorithm (e.g. in the form of a patent that a person skilled in the art can implement) to reproduce the rsults must be disclosed.
That's your position, it's not one I agree with nor one that most US funding agencies agree with. But in any case, Karoly's data and method fits into this narrow definition, which is the reason I worded my original comment the way I did, to suggest the same idea. In any case, you mistake me for somebody without any experience in this area. I actually have inventions that are owned by my university and licensed out as products, so I fully understand the concept of intellectual property. At least in the USthe funding agency has "first dibs" on the any software, data, etc., they have to cede that right before the university can assume it. And they have strict rules about what the university can rightfully own. You might be interested in the US NSFs position on this. Neither Karoly's methods nor data are themselves commercializable products, so in my opinion upon publication of his paper they should be made publicly available so that any interested party may test the reproducibility and robustness of his results. These are good scientific practices, and ones that we should encourage all scientists to follow. -
dubious at 12:16 PM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
I don't believe anybody is going to get to the bottom of McIntyre vs Mann on this thread. Equally, I'm not sure how much point there is in debating Dr Karoly's assertion that McIntyre "repeatedly promulgated misinformation" because Dr Karoly himself appears to have withdrawn the entire review in which he made it, rather that provide any instances. I would much prefer that he had backed up the misinformation allegation - especially if he was referring to the role McIntyre's blog played in the withdrawal of Gergis et al (about which he has close knowledge). However, Dr Karoly appears not to be standing behind that. What we might usefully do here is get to the bottom of Dr Karoly's assertion that: "I have just received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre in Canada." That is a very specific allegation - and very on-topic, in a thread about the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. It's not an allegation of "potentially the first step in a legal action" or "a first step by McIntyre to threatening or pursuing legal action" - as some here have said they would interpret McIntyre's email. Can people stop trying to reframe what Dr Karoly said and focus on what he actually did say? Is there anything to support the actual allegation? -
LarryM at 12:11 PM on 15 July 2012Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
It seems the insurers are in a tricky position. Either they can ignore documented climate-related risk such as shown in this video and possibly incur litigation and the wrath of investors, or they can be honest about climate risks and possibly incur litigation and the wrath of the monied fossil fuel interests (both emitters and producers). They should go with the latter, because the risks are real and documented and would stand up to reasoned scrutiny in a court of law. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:50 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Chriskoz, to be fair I myself brought up the situation at Penn State, by way of illustration of "plausible deniability" of what you correctly identify as ad hominem attacks not addressing research concerns. RandomUK did help provide an example of how plausible deniability works, so perhaps it's all to the good. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:45 AM on 15 July 2012Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
An extension to LarryM's point about corporate risk assessments is how US insurance companies are caught between a rock and a hard place; acknowledging the connection between C02 and risk exposes insurance companies to all sorts of knock-on effects, as briefed in this piece. Excerpt: Insurers could be sued both by emitters that are trying to pass on liability, or by investors claiming they did not adequately disclose risks to the market. In 2010, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) asked companies to report how climate change may affect profitability, potentially opening the The courts have yet to rule on whether greenhouse gas emitters can be tied to climate events. way for investor lawsuits. ... In a 2009 report, Swiss Re argued “that climate change-related liability will develop more quickly than asbestos-related claims and [we] believe the frequency and sustainability of climate change-related litigation could become a significant issue within the next couple of years.” The asbestos claims took about 40 years from the first lawsuits in the 1950s to the eventual payouts, of up to $265 billion, in the 1990s, according to Swiss Re. The first climate change lawsuits were filed in 2004. But whatever the time frame or outcome, the threat of litigation is already having an impact by making companies more cautious about talking about climate change, according to several observers. “Acknowledging climate risk would be a risk for [any] company in an American context,” says Andreas Spiegel, at Swiss Re. “There is the risk that the company or the managers would be held liable for their actions in relation to that.” A lot of folks have confidently predicted that insurance companies will form a sort of "reality check" on climate change for the general population, given their focus on risk. But insurance companies in the US are squeezed; it seems some at least are trying to prolong their published ignorance of the problem for as long as possible. And really, can anybody blame them? What a mess they're facing already. -
chriskoz at 11:19 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
doug_bostrom @30, I back you up and care to add, that any case of "paedophilia at the university" has nothing to do with climate science and anyone's alleged incompetence in such matters does not affect his/her ability as climate science investigator/expert. I don't need to add that such argumentation qualifies as ad hominen attack prohibited by the comment policy. The person who brought this argument (RandomUK) has shown numerous other policy breaches (in his/her earlier heavily moderated posts), this one is just a top of a pile. -
LarryM at 11:18 AM on 15 July 2012Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
The plots at 5:40 and 6:00 of the number of natural disasters and the breakdown by geophysical (earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes) versus meteorological (storms, wind, floods) makes the point exceptionally well that the economic cost of increasing extreme weather events is real and substantial, which is the sort of thing that should get the attention of many businesses and insurance companies. Sooner or later, corporate risk assessments will need to explicitly include the effects of global warming, making it darn hard to deny its existence, and somewhat harder to avoid advocating action to mitigate its effects. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:13 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Doug z, see Albatross' helpful point-by-point above. It's not at all obvious that David Karoly has said anything for which he need apologize. The least definite is Albatross' point 4, which depends on whether one believes repetitious mention of the word "fraud" by McIntyre in connection with Michael Mann is a "claim of misconduct." -
Tom Curtis at 11:07 AM on 15 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
A quick correction to my preceding post. In the event of the Earth's atmsophere's being removed, there is likely to be areas of naked rock in the tropics as frost condensing there will be remelted during summer noon times and precipitate out elsewhere. That means the Earth's albedo will likely be closer to 0.6 than 0.8, with an estimated GMST of 245 K. Again, the actual temperature is likely to be substantially below this because of uneven surface temperatures. -
Tom Curtis at 11:03 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
doug z @32, I am glad, then, to hear that you will be ignoring Anthony Watts, Jonova, Christopher Monckton, David Evans, and the host of so-called climate skeptics who make repeated accusations of fraud against climate scientists without a shred of evidence, and without even the good grace to correct their errors when proven wrong. I believe McIntyre also belongs on that list, but at least he gives the appearance of backing up his claims so that he has a fig leaf to hide behind. -
doug z at 10:45 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
doug_bostrom asked at 03:30 AM on 15 July, 2012 "Begging the question, "Or what?" What happens if Karoly ignores McIntyre?" Well, for one thing, if Karoly ignores McIntyre's request, then a reasonable person might think that Karoly is not an honourable man, and ignore everything he says in the future. In my world, if you accuse someone of something then you should be able to back it up, or be man enough to apologise, and not bleat about non-existent threats of legal action. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:37 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
For those with access to the NY Times, here's the ultimate audit of scientists. Exactly where ATI would like to be. OK with everybody? -
Tom Curtis at 10:20 AM on 15 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Joe RG @61, in reverse order:"Do we compare the equilibrium temperature of the atmosphereless planet with the equ. temp. for the radiative balance on TOA? If so, why is it feasible to use the amount of radiation which results from a reduction of an atmospheric effect (clouds) - or did I just misunderstood your comment?"
Consider the following diagram:
From that diagram it is possible to determine the albedo of the Earth's surface. It is the reflected short wave radiation from the surface (23 W/m^2) divided by the incoming short wave radiation that actually strikes the surface (184 W/m^2). That is, it is 0.125, about 10% greater than the Moon's albedo. If you remove the atmosphere entirely, the full 341 W/m^2 of incoming solar radiation will strike the surface of the Earth. It must do so because there are no clouds to reflect the radiation, and no atmosphere to absorb it. The result would be that 42.6 W/m^2 will be reflected. So,
Even if we assume that the plants continue to grow with no atmosphere so that the land albedo is not increased;
Even if we assume that sea ice extent does not expand, and no ice sheets form on land; and
Even if we assume the extremes in temperature on the Earth's surface do not increase, and indeed that the surface has a uniform temperature,
the mean global surface temperature would fall from 288 K to 270 K; ie, four times the current best estimate of the difference in temperature between the holocene and the last glacial maximum.
That represents your best case scenario; and given that it is obvious that sea ice will extend and that albedo will rise rapidly.
*****
"The missing air pressure is compensated at about 1m depth. Besides, the boiling while freezing will end at the moment when the resulting water vapor forms an adequate atmosphere with the appropriate pressure by itself - and it will, because of the gravitation the water get not lost, except you have a source that blows it away."
If you don't mind my saying so, you need to think things through. First, the boiling (or rapidly evaporating) surface will drastically cool the surface, thereby rapidly cooling the oceans. The result is that the oceans will gain a crust of ice far quicker than simple considerations of temperature alone would suggest. Secondly, one meter of ice will stop the boiling, but it will also massively increase albedo. Further, It would strongly insulate the surface from retained heat in the ocean, thus preventing significant transfer of heat from the tropics to the poles at the surface. If it did not so insulate the surface, the Ocean would freeze completely very quickly, for ice has a very low emissivity for visible light (and hence a high albedo) but a very high emissivity for IR radiation. Thirdly, there are regions of the globe (most notably in the Arctic Circle) in which sunlight is insufficient to melt ice without the assistance of transported heat from the tropics. That means that any H2O atmosphere that starts to form from the boiling of the oceans at the tropics (due to low pressure) will precipitate out as frost in the arctic regions, thereby forming ice sheets over land, and increasing the depth of the sea ice over sea. This process may be stopped when sufficient water has boiled away to lower sea level significantly below the level of the ice sheets so that gravity can prevent the water vapour from being blown toward the very low pressure regions over the poles. To do that, however, sea level would need to fall by thousands of meters, giving Earth an ice age more intense than any it has experience in the past, including during Snow Ball Earth episodes. The consequence is that for all intents and purposes the albedo of Earth will rise to that of dirty ice (dirty because of ejecta from volcanoes). Even assuming equal temperatures over the globe, that results in a predicted temperature of around 186 K (albedo of 0.8 assumed). This is close to the best case for you assuming any remotely physical scenario. There would be a small greenhouse effect due to the very thin H2O, CO2, and O2/O3 atmosphere sustained by sublimation from Ice, dissassociation of H from H2O by UV light, and volcanism; but it would not raise the temperature by much. More later. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:15 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
RandomUK: The person who was supposed to investigate Mann at Penn State failed to investigate a paedophile at the university. McIntyre's point is that if someone can allow a man to rape children so as to have a winning sports team, the same man might whitewash Mann to keep the rapid flow of research funding. Since the investigation looked very much to any objective observer like a whitewash, this was a relevant point. Which person? Here are the people who handled Mann's case: Composition of the Investigatory Committee: Sarah M. Assmann, Waller Professor Department of Biology Welford Castleman, Evan Pugh Professor and Eberly Distinguished Chair in Science Department of Chemistry and Department of Physics Mary Jane Irwin, Evan Pugh Professor Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Nina G. Jablonski, Department Head and Professor Department of Anthropology Fred W. Vondracek, Professor Department of Human Development and Family Studies Research Integrity Officer: Candice Yekel, Director of the Office for Research Protections Were all of these people in on the "whitewash?" How exactly did they all participate in the coverup? Details, please, or how about an apology? You don't know any of these people but that doesn't mean you're free to drag them through the mud willy-nilly. The briefest of searches reveals other, easily available and more appropriate illustrations of research misconduct investigations. Perhaps it was an accident but McIntyre somehow chose the most inflammatory and nasty example possible and one that I'll add had nothing to do with scientific research. -
Doug Bostrom at 09:38 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Albatross mentions 5) It is true that the misleading claims made by Mr. McIntyre are about a sub-set of peer-reviewed papers (i.e., papers by by 'skeptics' pretty much get a free pass), he especially holds disdain for Dr. Mike Mann. Dr. Karoly spoke the truth. That seems fairly clear; I don't believe anybody searching McIntyre's site could disagree about Mann being a particular topic of fascination for McIntyre. 4) and 5) are a little more problematic. For instance, you can easily find McIntyre using the word "fraud" in association with discussion of Mann but I'm not sure McIntyre has said words to the exact effect of "Mann has committed fraud." We've a particularly rich language in English so we've words to describe the situation; "aspersion by innuendo" is one possibility. Accusation overshoots the mark but on the other hand McIntyre is a skilled rhetorician so he successfully steers us to conclusions without needing to make baldfaced pronouncements. ATI also has shown a particular interest in Mann, as well as Hansen. There is a unifying theme to researchers chosen for harassment; it seems for the most part the selection process is more about which researcher's work has generated more publicity about global warming as opposed to which researcher's work is more likely broken. Gergis et al is a nice example. As it happens there was a problem with the Gergis paper but that wasn't what attracted the attention of McIntyre and Crew; Gergis enjoyed unusual press coverage so eyeballs swerved in the direction of the paper. Of course it almost goes without saying that Mann and Hansen are the right in the bull's eye. RandomUK is among many who are very concerned with obtaining ice core analysis data. To a layman such as me, the focus on the analytic data as opposed to the cores themselves suggests suspicion of incompetence or worse. The first mention of Lonnie Thompson by McIntyre I can find is in connection with Mann; to a bystander Thompson seems to have been found guilty of some form of misbehavior through his work being associated with Mann. Clouded thinking. What about a fresh analysis of the ice cores themselves? Seems to me that a complete redo would be the best way to go, assuming there's some reason to doubt Thompson's results. Can anybody point to something in Thompson's actual publications justifying such an investment? That is to say, limiting one's power of imagination to exclude assumptions about nefarious behavior and looking at the publications themselves, is there a red flag? What's been offered in that way? There's an awful lot of pure process in the work of ATI and for that matter McIntyre. ATI's griping is purely about paperwork and McIntyre's not far behind. -
Tom Curtis at 09:33 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
RandomUK @25: 1) For the most part, instances of data not being supplied on request to Mr McIntyre have come about because the particular researchers did not own the intellectual property rights to the data, or where the data was being retained to secure priority of publication on information relevant to the data. Mr McIntyre has shown himself wholly uninterested in such trivial matters as to who owns the data and has a right to distribute it, and has frequently insisted that researchers should violate legal contracts to provide to him data. 2) On at least one instance Mr McIntyre has maintain he was not granted access to data which was freely downloadable from an FTP site. 3) On at least one occasion, Mr McIntyre has continued to make FOI requests for data that was not owned by the person to whom he made the requests, while in possession of the data, having received it from the person who owned the data, and to whom he had been referred upon making his original request. Facts (2) and (3) make it quite plain that McIntyre's primary purpose in his FOI requests is harassment rather than obtaining of the data. Further, I reject completely the silly notion that scientists should make their data and code freely available to anybody who requests it. Nor, in fact, do you accept (or anyone else, who is reasonable) accept that standard. You, and everybody else pushing this false standard, always make exceptions for scientists working in private industry - as they must if private industry is to employ scientists for profit. However, if private (or defense) scientists are to be exempted from this standard, it is not a standard for the proper practice of science. What is required of all scientists is that their published work fairly represent the data that they have; and that their work be replicable. For that purpose, it is necessary that they describe how they collected their data in sufficient detail that other competent scientists could gather equivalent data if required; and that they describe how they analyzed the data in sufficient detail that others can repeat the analysis. As it happens, the work of the Hadley Center and the University of East Anglia CRU was replicated by NASA GISS, and by the NCDC, and now by multiple others. None of them required Hadley's original data sets or algorithms to do so. On the contrary, they developed their own data sets and algorithms. Scientists often share data and algorithms as a courtesy, but it is always a courtesy, not a right. As such, scientists have every right to not extend that courtesy to those they have good reason to think will abuse it, such as McIntyre. -
Albatross at 08:51 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Doug and DK, DK, sorry. I'll try harder to stay within the guidelines, it is difficult though when certain people continue to make such ludicrous accusations. Doug, it is the actions by people like Mr. McIntyre that have necessitated the formation of the legal defence fund. I find it so very sad that in the 21st century climate scientists are being harassed, persecuted and reviled for simply doing their jobs. That this is happening is totally unacceptable and disgusting. This is the statement that McIntyre took offence to: "Commentators with no scientific expertise, ranging from politicians such as Republican congressman Joe Barton from Texas, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, or Republican Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma, to blog writers Stephen McIntyre and Marc Morano, have repeatedly promulgated misinformation and sought to launch formal investigations into Mann’s research, claiming professional misconduct or worse, even though it had been peer reviewed and confirmed by other scientists." 1) It is true that Mr. McIntyre is not a scientist and has no paleo climate expertise. Dr. Karoly spoke the truth. 2) It is true that Mr. McIntyre is a blog writer. Dr. Karoly spoke the truth. 3) It is true that Mr. McIntyre has repeatedly promulgated misinformation and sought to launch formal investigations into Mann's research. Dr. Karoly spoke the truth 4) It is true that Mr. McIntyre has made claims of misconduct by Dr. Mike Mann , including other climate scientists. Dr. Karoly spoke the truth. 5) It is true that the misleading claims made by Mr. McIntyre are about a sub-set of peer-reviewed papers (i.e., papers by by 'skeptics' pretty much get a free pass), he especially holds disdain for Dr. Mike Mann. Dr. Karoly spoke the truth. Let it also be noted that Mr. McIntyre has and repeatedly made mountains out of molehills, or other "skeptic" blogs have used his blog posts to do the same. So, in my opinion, the facts demonstrate that Dr. Karoly has nothing to retract or apologize for. The same, however, apparently cannot be said for Mr. McIntyre. -
RandomUK at 08:35 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
[Moderation comment snipped]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You can discuss transparency without discussing motives. Most of the other posters on this thread seem to be able to manage it, although often sailing close to the wind. I am factoring it into the moderation of the discussion, however your inflamatory agressive tone makes it very difficult to maintain a rational discussion and hence invites moderation. The comments policy at SkS means that it is not a good venue for the usual unproductive rhetorical arguments that dominate many other blogs and why the discussion is more science based. People post here because they like the atmosphere that the comments policy helps to create, so if you want to post here, the onus is on you to fit in. -
RandomUK at 08:26 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
"You can ask the original researchers who created the data for it." The whole reason for the need for FOI requests is that they refused to give the data! ""Repeatable and testable" does not stop at "doing the exact same analysis with the exact same data and exact same code."" No, and I never said it did. However it often will require that, especially in many of the cases of climate data where other researchers have not been able to come up with the same results even with the full data set at some point in processing. I was taught at the age of eleven to record my observations and method in enough detail to reproduce my results, and with any reasoning needed to come to whatever conclusion I gave. That stood me in good stead through not only a science degree but my current job too. Have researchers really all forgotten these basic principles? I don't know what you mean about self-styled auditors, but the people who trained me, the people who employ me and the regulators style me an auditor, as that is part of my job. I can tell you that all branches of science need auditing, medical and climate sciences the most urgently. -
WheelsOC at 08:17 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Then any result of the code is not science. If it is not repeatable and testable it is not science. If these people wish to participate in real science they should negotiate different terms for intellectual property. Ridiculous. Your standard for what constitutes science is what can be shared through a FOI request and what can be kept behind an IP paywall? [Inflamatory snipped] There are many ways to reproduce a study. You can ask the original researchers who created the data for it. You can ask the authors who used it in their own study for it. They can sometimes give it to you, sometimes you must go through a license, or they can refuse to share it for whatever reason and tell you go get your own data and do your own work. It doesn't even have to data or analyses of the kind that were used, as long as it can reasonably demonstrate that the findings of the researchers are not invalid. Cross-checking different lines of evidence, different data, and different methods are all ways that a conclusion can be verified in science. "Repeatable and testable" does not stop at "doing the exact same analysis with the exact same data and exact same code." Often such exercises are a waste of time anyway. One or all of those things can be different and the claim you've investigate can still be perfectly scientific. When several bloggers around these parts wanted to check the validity of NASA'S GISTEMP (I think it was), they went to the publicly available data and assembled their own subset, different from NASA's, and developed a method to average temperatures over the world over time, different from NASA's. There was no need to use the exact same data and same methods. I recommend you take a step away from the self-styled "auditors" and get some perspective from the broader scientific community about what constitutes acceptable standards.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can we all keep the discussion calm and resonable, whatever the percieved provocation. -
chriskoz at 08:00 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Carrick @12,you said: Any code or data related to public policy decisions that is paid for by the public should be seen as publicly owned. Period That's an incorrect statement. And an indication that you, like most climate science deniers who try to harass the scientists, do not understand the limitations of FIO. In many cases, the code those sicentists work with, is the intellectual property of the institutions where they work. In such case, the affected scientist cannot comply with the frivolous FOI request to release it, as it would be a breach of IP. Only the data supporting the results of public policy research, and the detailed description of the algorithm (e.g. in the form of a patent that a person skilled in the art can implement) to reproduce the rsults must be disclosed. Certainly, anyone can file any FOI requests. However, when such requests are demanding information constituing an infringment, then the receipient of such FOI can file a harasment lawsuit, which would have a very good standing. I excpect, in the coming years, the scientists who have been given legal advice by AGU, will become bold enough to start filing such lawsuits. Good luck. -
RandomUK at 07:53 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
response to moderator Hahahaha [Moderation complaint snipped]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is your final warning, comply with the comments policy and we will engage with the points you raise. Fail to comply and your posts will be deleted. Note moderation complains are off-topic and are deleted, after reading. -
RandomUK at 07:51 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
doug "But then neither is it the case that McIntyre's extended examination of sexual molestation of minors at Penn State in connection with star academics at Penn State has anything to do with the Penn State researcher with whom McIntyre is most interested." The person who was supposed to investigate Mann at Penn State failed to investigate a paedophile at the university. McIntyre's point is that if someone can allow a man to rape children so as to have a winning sports team, the same man might whitewash Mann to keep the rapid flow of research funding. Since the investigation looked very much to any objective observer like a whitewash, this was a relevant point. As for Ellen Thompson, correcting a small error in the very next post is hardly misinformation, is it? Let alone misinformation on the scale indulged by Mann, Jones, Briffa and so on, is it? [accusation of dishonesty snipped]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Note that parts of your post were not snipped. Please use this as an indication of the boundary of an acceptable posting style. -
RandomUK at 07:41 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
So, if climate science is so solid, and this blog so sceptical, [accusation of dishonesty snipped], and why do so few or the "sceptics" pull him up on it? McIntyre made no threat at all of legal action. He has stated so. Yet there are few comments on this and no correction of a serious misrepresentation. [accusation of dishonesty snipped] The problem you have is that the sceptics are actually honest. [accusation of dishonesty]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Accusations of dishonesty are explicitly forbidden by the comments policy. -
RandomUK at 07:35 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
[Inflamatory snipped]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Posting here is a a priviledge, not a right. Such an overly inflamatory tone is not conducive to rational discussion. Please moderate your posting style and familiarise yourself with the comments policy. -
JohnMashey at 07:26 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
re: 17 retractions How about McIntyre's absurd claims, shortly after the Wegman Report problems started getting noted at USA Today: Bradley copies Fritts and Bradley copies Fritts 2 wherein he somehow didn't notice the pages of permissions in Bradley's book, and also revealed clear lack of knowledge of textbook construction. Google: bradley copies fritts to see how widely this spread. I contacted Fritts, who was certainly quite angry about all this ... but not at Bradley. -
Albatross at 06:59 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Doug @13 gives us but one very recent example of why we should be dubious and skeptical of claims/assertions made by Mr. McIntyre. As for Carrick claiming "Two withdrawals in two months. Is that as record?", that sounds equally applicable to Mr. McIntyre. Moreover, correcting errors in papers is hardly an offence. That scientists strive to correct mistakes shows that they are interested in the pursuit of truth. That fact should be lauded, not used to suggest or infer that they are being incompetent or anything else having negative connotations. In contrast, "skeptics" rarely if ever retract or correct mistakes/misinformation in their scientific papers, rather they seem content to let their errors and misinformation stand. McKitrick (2004), Loehle (2005) and McIntyre and McKitrick (2007) and McShane and Wyner (2010) come to mind.
Prev 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 Next
