Recent Comments

Prev  1130  1131  1132  1133  1134  1135  1136  1137  1138  1139  1140  1141  1142  1143  1144  1145  Next

Comments 56851 to 56900:

56851. lucia at 09:06 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       

       Point is, we don't know what happened. It would be helpful if we did but in the meantime let's not make the mistake of substituting with our imaginations what actually happened.

       Fair enough. One thing that certainly didn't happen is SteveMc did not threaten Karoly with legal action.
56852. dissembly at 08:32 AM on 16 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       I would also make the point that despite my mistake, a person on $16,000 a year would be completely immune to any compensation package benefits. But you're right, Tom, a person earning $2,000 more a year would recieve $300 back. I guess that proves I was trying to mislead everyone.
56853. Doug Bostrom at 08:21 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Tom: My personal opinion is that anybody who demands FOI requests of scientists should voluntarily make themselves available for FOI requests from all comers, and let it be known. Well, sure. Fair is as fair does; if transparency is good then FOI initiatives themselves should be fully transparent. After all, one of the justifications for FOI requests is to expose possible potential waste of taxpayer funds. FOI requests cost taxpayer funds to satisfy, so of course it follows that the FOI itself should be fully transparent so taxpayers may understand their money is not being wasted. Full transparency would of course involve all email contacts even remotely related to the promulgation of a particular FOI, any private discussion of the FOI (for after all, it's not really a "private" discussion when taxpayer funds are involved), any communications whatsoever concerning FOI requests. All of that information could be volunteered, used by FOI enthusiasts to set a good example. Really, to make the deal complete these people would offer third-party access to their personal records, right? Who'll volunteer? Any takers?
56854. dissembly at 08:11 AM on 16 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       "There is no justification for asserting such easily checked falsehoods." Well there is a justification, I was mistaken. I did a rapid check of the tax-free threshold on wikipedia, and skimmed the article without reading carefully enough. However, the point I make (along with every single other point I've made) is still valid: those on low incomes are still hit proportionately harder than those on higher incomes; compensation for them is systematically less effective. This is the case with any flat tax.
56855. Tom Curtis at 08:10 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       doug_bostrom @73, this testimonial reinforces why the repeated FOI requests by unappointed auditors constitute harassment. Should you get an FOI request for data from a study completed in 1988, for example, even if you were able to charge the time taken to satisfy satisfy the requests as costs (which is not the case in all jurisdictions), the time involved would be wasted time with regard to your current research. If only one or two FOI requests where involved, perhaps you could wear that. But with a half dozen (Karoly) or much more (UEA) the quantity of FOI requests could keep a researcher from active research for months or more. Nor, given the time limits set for satisfying FOI requests, can the FOI request be dealt with in available free time. It would need the highest priority. My personal opinion is that anybody who demands FOI requests of scientists should voluntarily make themselves available for FOI requests from all comers, and let it be known. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganda; and taking advantage of the fact that scientists are subject to FOI requests without taking on the equivalent administrative burden themselves smacks of hypocrisy.
56856. Tom Curtis at 07:59 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Further to Albatross's post @68, Gavin Schmidt weighs in on Real Climate.
56857. Doug Bostrom at 07:54 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       WheelsOC: Making scientific data available is definitely not trivial, in terms of either cost or effort. How about a testimonial? Our notionally two-car garage is 1/3rd occupied floor-ceiling by a polyethylene-tented enclosure equipped with a dehumidifier and containing ~100 boxes (and still growing) of papers, notebooks, diskettes, Zip disks, optical disks, old hard drives and antiquated laptops. It's effectively a museum of obsolescent data storage technology. We're maintaining a tomb for data that might need to be resurrected; King Tut would be proud. That's one researcher's work product dating back to ~1985. Best of intentions: "We'll scan the papers and dump the data to some sort of redundant disk arragement." Sure, right. Scan -all- of it? And "who's we," Kimo Sabe? And what about that PowerBook 170 that's not been fired up in 17 years? If it doesn't cough up data when asked, is it down to negligence? Nobody pays for this space and the electric bill is on us; NSF et al are coasting on our dime. Don't mention it, you're welcome. :-) This problem reminds of the article in the Journal of Irreproducible Results describing the isostatic adjustment of the East Coast of the US due to accumulating back issues of National Geographic.
56858. Tom Curtis at 07:46 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       I would like to draw everybody's attention to Chris McGrath's comment @63, referring to my comment @53. Let me state that this is not a legal opinion, but I have no doubt that Chris McGrath could draft that up as a formal legal opinion if so desired. Therefore, in the absence of a formal legal opinion by an Australian Lawyer to the contrary, anybody suggesting that McIntyre's letter did not constitute a threat of legal action is doing so in despite of the evidence, not based on it. In particular, McInyre is not a lawyer. His opinion as to his intention is decisive. He did not intend to make a legal threat, but his opinion as the the legal effect of his actions is irrelevant. Once he started using legal language, and legal forms in his letter, whether or not his letter constituted a legal threat became a legal issue; a topic on which he is not qualified.
56859. Tom Curtis at 07:36 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Lucia @61, the more reasonable inference is that Karoly was instructed to take them down because his universities legal department did not want the expense of defending them. Without evidence to the contrary, any speculation beyond that may well be slandering Dr Karoly. As it happens, Dr Karoly would have not difficulty in defending his claims, as Albatross @17 and @68 shows.
56860. WheelsOC at 06:54 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Making scientific data available is definitely not trivial, in terms of either cost or effort. Ars Technica has a series of articles about some of the bigger issues related to data retention and sharing, it might be worth a read for those not extremely familiar with the challenges. It was partly inspired by the CRU incident and questions people have about data availability, but it's more about the sciences generally than climate science specifically. Preserving Science Part 1 looks at raw materials. Part 2 looks at questions about what is actually relevant for retention and analysis. These issues have to be dealt with before data collection even starts, and continue after the immediate studies are published. Part 3 looks at the problem from the standpoint of digital data formats and storage hardware, which is not trivial to address. It also touches on some of the restrictions on data sharing that get in the way of this "I paid for it, it's mine!" mentality some folks seem to be displaying. Part 4 jumps from there into the problem of actually using old data (or even recent data from someone else's lab enviroment). A separate but relevant article, How Science Funding is Putting Scientific Data at Risk, examines who is expected (or expects not) to pay for indefinite data curation.
56861. Albatross at 05:49 AM on 16 July 2012
       Extreme heat becoming more likely under climate change
       These inconvenient facts and troubling findings probably explain why the fake skeptics and those in denial about the theory of AGW are in full damage control and spin mode. Denial is clearly very powerful, it is unfortunate that we humans are oftentimes so good at encouraging and reinforcing it. Alas, ultimately it means that we all potentially suffer, especially future generations.
56862. Dikran Marsupial at 05:46 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Carrick Your evasive reply is a great example of the problem with the climate debate. You completely ignored the substantive point of my post (that much of the data requested was not actually owned by CRU and they only had access to it on terms that did not allow distribution - just like their access to MATLAB - the topic you brought up), and chose to discuss the funding issue instead. Sadly I noticed the evasion. As to the finance issue, I wasn't talking in that paragraph about FOIs, I was talking about making code and data available as an ongoing activity (as some other posters were suggesting). That does have a cost, and it isn't trivial. Now, are you going to asnwer my original point?
56863. Doug Bostrom at 05:05 AM on 16 July 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Nice. Meta-science seems to be fixed on the menu so may as well prepare the dish properly, within the context of the scientific community.
56864. Albatross at 04:57 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       For those here (and elsewhere) who insist on defending Mr. McIntyre's repeated harassment and intimidation of certain scientists. [Mr. McIntyre] Surely if you have been paying attention to this sorry saga you would know in your heart of hearts that it is an establish fact, a truth, on the public record even that Mr. McIntyre is in the unfortunate habit of frequently promulgating misinformation and much worse too. It is not even a matter that is up for debate anymore. That Mr. McIntyre seems to believe in his letter to Dr. Karoly that he has never "promulgated misinformation" demonstrates that he is either being incredibly disingenuous or is out of touch with reality and needs to re-read everything he has written. I'll provide a few examples, there are many more: 1) Mr. McIntyre has said that: "However, as CA readers know, the resulting Yamal chronology with its enormous HS blade was like crack cocaine for paleoclimatologists" As DeepClimate shows, this accusation/insinuation is not only inflammatory, but it is also simply not true, and as such Mr. McIntyre is promulgating misinformation. Dr. Karoly is correct and has nothing to apologize for. There are many paleo reconstructions out there that do not use dendro data, never mind the much contested Yamal data. RealClimate also addressed McIntyre's misinformation on this issue. 2) McIntyre also repeatedly accuses pale climate scientists of "cherry picking" (ironic given how his code identified only those chronologies that have hockey-shapes to falsely claim that Mann's method produced a hockey stick even when fed persistent red noise). 3) Mr. McIntyre has also misrepresented facts about Dr. Trenberth. DeepClimate exposes Mr. McIntyre's distortion of facts and misinformation here. 4) Mr. McIntyre made false accusations about one of the figures in the Third IPCC assessment report-- that is, misinformation. Again, exposed by DeepClimate. 5) Here is an example of Mr. McIntyre being exposed for misleading readers in the Mail on Sunday. 6) Here is Mr. McIntyre exposed for promulgating misinformation and false claims to none other than the UK parliamentary committee investigating the theft of emails from UEA. Mr. McIntyre misinforming a parliamentary committee...! 7) Here is Mr. McIntyre exposed for cherry picking and quote mining text from the stolen emails to fit his narrative. That is misinformation on the part of Mr. McIntyre. 8) Here Mr. McIntyre is exposed for promulgating misinformation about Dr. Briffa's work and using it to (wrongly) insinuate fraud and misconduct. 9) McIntyre exposed for spreading yet more misinformation about Dr. Briffa, misinformation that was happily gobbled up by some denier pundits in the media. 10) "Here is Mr. McIntyre being exposed for falsely claiming that he had not been provided data and that pale scientists were withholding data from him, when in fact he had been in possession of the data for almost 5 years! There is much more of course, for example Mr. McIntyre being exposed for quote mining-- the net result being misinformation, by Deltoid Now Mr. McIntyre and his defenders of can choose to ignore such inconvenient facts, but that will not disappear them. As I show din my posts above, Dr. Karoly has nothing to apologize for, Mr. McIntyre does, and a lot too. If anything this whole saga shows Mr. McIntyre to either be incredibly disingenuous or completely out of touch with reality. As for the Gergis affair, even McIntyre himself advised his readers noted that the problem/s with the Gergis paper may not be of much consequence, or something to that effect. So once again, we have what is probably an inconsequential error that will not dramatically alter the paper's primary conclusions being elevated and spun as something much worse by "skeptics" and those who deny the theory of AGW. But that has not stopped McIntyre from trying to squeeze something to his benefit out of the Gergis issue. It is actions, such as this letter by Mr. McIntyre to Dr. Karoly, that have forced the formation of the climate defense fund. Ludicrous as this is, it is sadly the truth.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Resized picture.
56865. caerbannog at 04:26 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Dikran, most FOIAs allow for cost recovery. In principle, this cost recovery can be added to the university overhead account, and could even become an additional revenue stream. Oh, really? How much money has the CRU collected from McIntyre to recover their costs? How about the FOI's submitted by his followers? Were any of them billed? The CRU had to spend some time dealing even with *this* FOI request (linky here): I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested1] 1. the date of any applicable confidentiality agreements; 2. the parties to such confidentiality agreement, including the full name of any organization; 3. a copy of the section of the confidentiality agreement that "prevents further transmission to non-academics". 4. a copy of the entire confidentiality agreement, How much did the CRU bill this particular FOI requester for time/expenses? Dr. Dessler mentioned that he spent a good 20 hours of his own time dealing with FOI requests. To whom did he bill his time?
56866. Doug Bostrom at 04:07 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       I've been babbling about "ATR." That's ABR.
56867. Doug Bostrom at 04:02 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Come to think of it, as long as we're continuing to explore and thus emphasize the unscientific nature of "auditing" another thing we could learn and which is easily within the power of "auditors" to disclose is the content of the FOI letters sent to Karoly. Transparency is good; we've been told that everything should be published. Does anybody know where copies of the FOI letters to Karoly are made public?
56868. Doug Bostrom at 03:49 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Lucia: As to any statements about Steve Mc Karoly took down: if Karoly believed he could defend his previous statements, I think he should have done so. As it stands it appears Karoly took them down because he could not defend them. "Karoly took them down" and words to that effect concerning the ATR article are speculation, unless somebody has an authoritative confirmation that Karoly was responsible for the disappearance of the piece. Most of us will probably agree that Karoly does not have administrative privileges at the ATR website. There are a couple of realistic possibilities. Karoly may have asked ATR to remove the piece, or ATR itself found the comments generated by the piece to be a distracting waste of time to moderate. I see from the archived copy that the article had already attracted some ire; perhaps ATR didn't like the noise it encountered. Point is, we don't know what happened. It would be helpful if we did but in the meantime let's not make the mistake of substituting with our imaginations what actually happened. As to whether Karoly's remarks were "over the top" please do read Albatross' comment. For my part the thing I find most striking about the ATR imbroglio is that a fellow who writes and permits the sort of descriptive language found on CA should be so seemingly thin-skinned.
56869. Andy Skuce at 03:17 AM on 16 July 2012
       Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
       Eric @ 8: The derecho (Spanish for "right turn") Actually, "derecho" means "straight ahead"; it's "derecha" that means "right". You have to listen hard when getting directions in Spanish-speaking countries. See here. The wind-storm name derecho comes from the straight-ahead meaning. In English the word "right" can also be confusing. The important difference between "Go right at the junction ahead" and "Go right ahead at the junction" must confuse non-native speakers.
56870. Chris McGrath at 03:05 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       I am an Australian lawyer and I agree with Tom's points @53. I would have viewed the letter as a legal threat and advised Professor Karoly to take the same view. Several people in this comments thread have used Professor Karoly's comment to criticise him but that is the exact opposite of the purpose of this post, which is about a legal defence fund for scientists such as Professor Karoly who are harassed using the law and FOI procedures. Personally, I greatly admire Professor Karoly's work and his courage in engaging in the public debate about climate change.
56871. Dikran Marsupial at 02:11 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Carrick you say that software like MATLAB obviously can't be given away by universities, becuase the university does not have a licence to distribute copies. How about data that the university has licence to use, but not to distribute? I only ask as much of the data that has been requested by FOI, the university in question (mine) did not have a licence to distribute. Yet this was what the "skeptic" were making all the fuss about. I am broadly in favour of public bodies making as much software and data available, provided the funding is made available to support this additional activity. Public institutions, such as universities, these days are required to be good value to the tax payer, and part of this comes from exploitation of intellectual property, such as data and software. If you want to prevent them from exploiting this source of revenue, then the tax payer will need to replace it somehow.
56872. lucia at 02:05 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       doug_bostrom at 03:30 AM on 15 July, 2012

       Begging the question, "Or what?" What happens if Karoly ignores McIntyre?

       The most plausible thing to imagine is Steve McIntyre, a blogger, would write a blog post mention that he'd requested an apology and Karoly had ignored him. Karoly might not like this outcome but it is hardly a threat of legal action. As to any statements about Steve Mc Karoly took down: if Karoly believed he could defend his previous statements, I think he should have done so. As it stands it appears Karoly took them down because he could not defend them.
56873. Bob Lacatena at 01:51 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Carrick,

       Furthermore, the question regarding "who is paying for this" addresses "who owns this". It is a complicated question, but if the data and code are ultimately judged to be owned by the state...

       More complete drivel. This entire position is based on a ridiculous premise, and is of no value. You can stomp and rant all you want. This isn't happening, it never has happened, and it won't happen. It's a waste of everyone's time.
56874. Bob Lacatena at 01:49 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Carrick,

       Any code or data related to public policy decisions that is paid for by the public should be seen as publicly owned. Period.

       Absurd. I've seen this and things like it said so often, and it's literally laughable. Would you demand that every closed door session of the executive office or legislature, paid for by democratically elected officials, should also be open for review? Would you demand that you be allowed to read all e-mails and monitor all phone calls of any public office you choose, to make sure they're not wasting your tax dollars? Feel like driving a tank and firing the gun? After all, your tax dollars paid for it. The whole thing is a typical simpleton's fantasy. Take a few basic concepts, and grossly mix them together to reach an illogical conclusion -- in this case the basic concepts of democracy, taxation and ownership extending to the idea that you "own" parts of the government. People do not collectively own everything paid for with taxes. Even the government does not collectively own everything. The concept of ownership does not apply. The world is far, far more complex and nuanced than that. Claiming otherwise is like a child claiming that the sun must be a rubber ball because it's round and it bounces up and down. If you wish, look at your taxes as a membership fee. You have paid to belong to a country club. You get whatever benefits that the club agrees to bestow upon you, and nothing more. You do not own part of the grounds, rooms or furniture. You cannot choose to walk out with the silverware. You do not get to read through all of the files to make sure the club is managed exactly the way you would like. You are a member. You get the declared benefits of membership. Period. End of story. Simple syllogisms using basic, real world concepts tend to result in Alice in Wonderland conclusions, and that is where the "my tax dollars paid for it, so I get to see it" nonsense comes from. The whole argument is exemplary of the denial position. You want to be able to look at everything you can, because you hope that you can find some better excuse to argue against the science, and so you are motivated to misinterpret and misrepresent the situation, consciously or unconsciously, so that you can find even more excuses deny reality. It is utterly and completely insane that we are even discussing any of this. Scientists, thousands and thousands of them over the course of more than a century, have identified a problem, one which is quite probably the greatest danger faced by civilization since we discovered atomic weapons, and possibly ever. It is a problem which could completely reshape the face of civilization. And somehow this has actually been translated into an environment where some people really believe that there is some vast conspiracy, that scientists are purposely and maliciously misrepresenting the data, and that scientists should be subject to anything other than praise and gratitude, or at least common respect, for their efforts. I am just amazed. And appalled.
56875. Carrick at 01:16 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       chrisinoz:

       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 don't accept the use of FOI as a harassment tool against scientists. Where did I say that? My viewpoint is you wouldn't see as many legitimate FOIs if people were to follow what I consider to be solid practices in research, like the public archiving of their data and analysis software (with the caveat there are cases where the software can't be shared, because it is copyrighted by the university or other legal body, matlab is an example of that... I can't share matlab, though I can give my scripts and say "you have to purchase matlab plus the signal processing library" to use it). There are some who say we need to use R because then everything is public domain. There is a limit of how far even I am willing to go in that direciton. I've no problem with legitimate FOIs, but obviously find FOIs that can legitimately be said to be harassing to be problematic. in that regard, I wish people who make claims of harassing FOIs would publicly air those FOIs so the rest of us can make up our own mind whether we see it in the same light. And I wish more people would be willing to come down on the side of reason, rather than just agreeing with somebody's view that it is harassing because it serves their needs for a particular political debate.

       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.

       You left out an important clause here. The point related to research paid for by the public, not research in general. And leaving that out totally changes the meaning of what I said. Privately paid for research generally can remain private (though it is not always in their best interests to do so). You aren't even under an obligation to file patents or write papers in that case. The same goes for work performed for the public that is seen to have marketable value. I have work that is considered privileged intellectual property and the only way to get to that is via a NDA with my university. (In the US, this is based on the Bayh-Dole act.)

       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

       You're getting to quasi-legal theory at this point. Ultimately, in the US, any of the Congress, the Judicial branch or the executive branch could make a mandate that certain research results, paid for by public money, be made publicly available. The Judicial branch on a case-by-case basis, can similarly require that data and code be made available for review (even if not public), as in fraud cases. Generally I think your point is right that it is the funding agencies that establish the guidelines for when data, methods etc should be made public. NOAA is very hard-assed that way in terms of the requiremenst for sharing. But even then, Congress can always tell them to change their guidelines, so can the administration, and the judicial branch could tell them their guidelines are illegal, etc.

       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

       Again you're dipping into quasi-legal theory here. Whether McIntyre has any rights depends on treaties in place with other countries and how binding those treaties are in Australia. It appears that McIntyre has legal rights in the State of Australia, otherwise Karoly wouldn't have worried about any legal threats from McIntyre (and as you are probably aware foreign companies and individuals file lawsuits all of the time). The legal theory of how you would exclude him from certain legal rights that are not explicitly written into the the law in question (Australia's FOIA) would be a complex one. I would guess ultimately, if the FOIA isn't written that way, he has the same legal rights to petition for particular information as any other individual. Furthermore, the question regarding "who is paying for this" addresses "who owns this". It is a complicated question, but if the data and code are ultimately judged to be owned by the state, it is up to the state to decide whether it is in the state's interests for an individual (of their or any other nation) to have access to that code. I also work with data that are under export control, so I see that side too. There are data and code I cant' share with foreign nationals without getting the permission of my sponsor. Sometimes it's as simple as "this data came from a jet fighter but I can't tell you which one." (Generally we get permission to share part or all of the data when requests come in, but that illustrates the chain of ownership here.)
56876. GrantB at 00:29 AM on 16 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       dkaroly at 08:06 AM on 14 July, 2012 ..... In Australia, I have just received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre in Canada and am currently dealing with 6 different FOI requests. Tom Curtis at 20:29 PM on 15 July, 2012 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. Nice analysis Tom.
56877. Composer99 at 23:43 PM on 15 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       In reference to JohnB's claim that, as an Australian taxpayer he had license to examine any fruits of tax monies spent: (a) Taxes aren't equity. They are expenses. (b) Even equity, in and of itself, doesn't get one unlimited rights to information, or unlimited rights to interfere in the day-to-day operations in the organizations in which one holds it. I could own shares in one or more of the national banks where I live (Canada) - indeed, I probably do - but I would still be tossed out if I were to walk into a local branch and start treating it as my personal property.
56878. Bernard J. at 23:13 PM on 15 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       As another Australian tax payer I completely agree with Tom Curtis' comment at #52. Paying tax is a part of a contract with society to maintain the cohesion of said society; it's not carte blanche to pry into and hinder every aspect of public servants' work. Imagine if the same attempt to gain this unfettered access were to be given willy-nilly to all members of the public. The whole system of government would soon be bogged down with vexatious claims from every Tom, Dick and Harriet which a chip on the shoulder. This said, there are already channels in place for people to gain access to information as long as they follow appropriate procedure, and if they can demonstrate a valid need. This winnows the wheat from the chaff, and prevents the aforementioned hamstringing of the work of millions of people. And as much as the "auditors" pretend otherwise, science has its own procedures for oversight, and those procedures work more efficiently than could the ideologically-driven witch-hunts of non-professional lobbyists, bloggers, and sundry fringe-dwellers. On the matter of Karoly's letter, at most (if not all) of the institutions where I've worked the response would be just as as Tom describes in #53. McIntyre might claim otherwise, but 'Legal' would see it as exactly a threat, no matter the velvet glove of feigned "who, me?", and instigate the procedure that Tom outlines.
56879. Tom Curtis at 21:27 PM on 15 July 2012
       Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
       JoeRG @64, the problem is that we are discussing Vroomie's where he takes Giaever to task for saying that an atmosphere less Earth would be only around 35 K colder than it currently is. It is possible to suggest that Vroomie was nitpicking, and that Giaever clearly meant only a situation with no condensible GHG, or no condensible GHG plus water vapour. If the former, Giaever's attempted claim was correct, though his expression of it was not. However, once we accept Vroomie's criticism as the basis of discussion, as we have, we are discussing the difference between an atmosphere less Earth and one merely with no condensible GHG. If you want to consider only the radiative effects of the atmosphere, it is th later model you must consider, not the former. So, if you consider the former, you must consider more than radiative effects. Re: boiling water - comets at Earth's orbit will sublimate ice so that sunlight would certainly be strong enough to sublimate ice on an atmosphere less Earth if it where to perpendicular to the surface. If it where tangential to the surface, in contrast it would not warm the ice at all, and would result in no sublimation. So, the question is, are there portions of the Earth where, due to angle of incidence the sunlight is never strong enough to cause significant sublimation. The answer is yes, anywhere inside the arctic or antarctic circle, and probably anywhere outside the tropics. The result is that, in the event of no regular atmosphere, the water vapour atmosphere over the poles would necessarily be very thin, so that any thicker atmosphere that formed in the tropics would blow to the poles where the water vapour would precipitate as frost. Therefore a thick water vapour atmosphere is unsustainable in these conditions.
56880. Marco at 20:31 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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.
56881. Tom Curtis at 20:29 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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.
56882. JoeRG at 20:28 PM on 15 July 2012
       Ivar 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.
56883. Tom Curtis at 20:02 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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.
56884. chriskoz at 18:58 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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.
56885. doug z at 18:24 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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.
56886. Doug Bostrom at 17:19 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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.
56887. Eric (skeptic) at 16:55 PM on 15 July 2012
       Welcome 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.
56888. Eric (skeptic) at 16:49 PM on 15 July 2012
       Welcome 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.
56889. dubious at 16:35 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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.
56890. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 16:12 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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).
56891. Doug Bostrom at 16:12 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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.
56892. Eric (skeptic) at 16:07 PM on 15 July 2012
       Welcome 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.
56893. GrantB at 15:50 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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."
56894. Marco at 15:45 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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.
56895. Doug Bostrom at 15:39 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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.
56896. jimspy at 15:34 PM on 15 July 2012
       Welcome 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.
56897. JohnB7198 at 15:24 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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.
56898. YubeDude at 15:03 PM on 15 July 2012
       Welcome 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.
56899. Doug Bostrom at 14:45 PM on 15 July 2012
       Welcome 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.
56900. Albatross at 14:08 PM on 15 July 2012
       What 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.

Prev  1130  1131  1132  1133  1134  1135  1136  1137  1138  1139  1140  1141  1142  1143  1144  1145  Next