Recent Comments

Prev  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  Next

Comments 69551 to 69600:

69551. Bob Lacatena at 05:10 AM on 24 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
       5, Ian, Excellent point, and something that always amuses me. Climate science "believers" are often accused of being in a religious faith (thus completely subtracting the word science from any meaningful sense in the debate). Yet this is exactly how deniers are viewed, as clinging to their position religiously, in spite of the evidence. And yet, now we must turn this back on ourselves, and ask if we aren't being religious in our secular appreciation of the science, by projecting this religious faith view of belief on the deniers who project it on us. Perhaps it is us who are so religiously wedded to science and facts that we can't see that we are unable to shed that burden and free ourselves from the need to believe in evidence and logic, or at least to realize that the evidence and logic, no matter how strong, are countered by the equally powerful forces of wishful thinking and common sense. [Okay, sorry, I just can't bring myself to even imply that full scale denial is anything but a bizarre, psychological impediment.]

       Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead. Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You've made your decision then? Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. Vizzini: Wait till I get going! Now, where was I? Man in Black: Australia. Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You're just stalling now. Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work. Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!

69552. Albatross at 05:07 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Dana @30, His/her motives also further undermine the whole "whistle blower" myth.
69553. dana1981 at 05:04 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       The Climategate hacker is clearly very misguided and misinformed in his misplaced motives for releasing these stolen emails. As a result, he's harming those he claims to want to help (poor nations). We'll have a post on this subject in the near future.
69554. muoncounter at 05:02 AM on 24 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
       MA Rodger#10: "The wobbles you tabulate & shown in the lower graph are climatic wobbles not economic ones." Sphaerica is, of course, correct; the growth of atmospheric CO2 is modulated by both economic activity and the absorption by the oceans. But emissions are clearly driven by economics and global events: data from CDIAC, graph source Finer scale graphics reveal no coincidences in this behavior. The annual increment in atmospheric CO2 bumps up and down, but tracks emissions very consistently. --source
69555. MA Rodger at 05:01 AM on 24 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
       Sphaerica @11 I don't think one displaces the other. Surely they just have different impacts. The short-term wobbles from the climate are going to be there whatever the emissions. It's the emissions, driven by economics, that ramps up the CO2 over the longer term. And to hone my graph-upliading skills, a wobble graph for you. (Hey, spot the volcanoes!)
69556. Albatross at 04:14 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       This excellent article from Richard Black at the BBC is well worth the read. "I have it from a very good source that it absolutely was a hack, not a leak by a "concerned" UEA scientist, as has been claimed in some circles. The Norfolk Police clearly see it as a criminal act too, a spokesman telling me that "the contents [of the new release] will be of interest to our investigation which is ongoing" And "In some reports, these figures were combined to form $37 trillion. But the bulk of that is to feed power to the poverty-stricken people FOIA 2011 cares so much about - nothing to do with climate change." And "The majority of poor countries lobby for more, not less, action on climate change"
69557. Grignr at 04:02 AM on 24 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
       Interesting examples! Confirmation bias has many causes and is difficult to "turn off," no less so for climate science than for other domains. There's a sort of opposite effect to the self-affirmation findings in the post. Specifically, showing your "credentials" on a topic can leave you free to express the opposite of what the credentials imply. For instance, proclaiming yourself to be non-racist first can make you more likely to display racism later, such as making a race-based hiring decision. This would seem to point in the opposite direction to the self-affirmation effects; I don't know if these two have ever been reconciled. (good ref is Monin, B. & Miller, D. T. (2001), Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81). And I'm not trying to be contentious, but it's important to note that a die-hard WUWT fan could read this post and think "Yes, confirmation bias is exactly why those SkS and Real Climate people believe what they do. If only they could open their eyes and drop their preconceptions." The processes that underlie, say, confirmation bias, or the illusion of truth effect, don't work one way for info that matches the real world and another way for info that's fantasy, they'll operate no matter what the actual veracity of the information.
69558. Albatross at 04:01 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       The real motivation for this whole affair is so transparent, and I sincerely hope that the media, politicians and public are not duped a second time. First, this release of the emails stolen back in 2009 has occurred a week before the climate talks Durban. The emails were initially stolen before climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009. Second, the hackers have explained why they think this is necessary and it has nothing to do with the science. The hackers say: "One dollar can save a life" "Poverty is a death sentence. Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels." So this is about them pushing their ideological, and horribly misguided agenda. People really need to understand where this is coming from. It is not about transparency, scientific rigor, complying with vexatious FOI requests from "skeptics" and deniers, or the IPCC review process. This pathetic and desperate ploy is only about people who are in denial about AGW pushing their ideological agenda, in the process holding us all back and ultimately bestowing more suffering and pain and poverty on those very people who they so righteously allege to care so much about. They are using those poor people in developing nations as pawns in a political game. And who alleges to care so much about such poor people and who weaves their plight into their narrative to stall taking action on GHGs? Those in denial about AGW Monckton, Christy, Spencer and others. Spencer and McKitrick (Steve McIntyres buddy) are members of the Cornwall Alliance who believe that: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception." In other words, burn fossil fuels at will because it (supposedly) helps the poor and the earth is self-regulating and self-correcting.
69559. Bob Lacatena at 04:00 AM on 24 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
       10, MA Rodger, I'm not sure why this has to be an oversimplistic either-or. Clearly the two largest factors in CO2 level are going to be: 1) Economic activity which directly generates CO2 2) Ocean surface temperatures that directly impact the ability of the ocean to absorb (or even release) CO2 More activity generates more CO2 -- a lot more. Higher temperatures retard the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 -- a lot more. Why must one completely displace the other?
69560. John Hartz at 03:37 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Suggested reading: "Climategate 2.0?: New Emails Hacked -- Pay No Attention to the Energy Industry Behind the Curtain" by Shawn Lawrence Otto*, The Huffington Post, Nov 23, 2011 Click here to access this article. *Author, 'Fool Me Twice'; science advocate; filmmaker; co-founder, Sciencedebate.org,
69561. Bob Loblaw at 02:55 AM on 24 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
       Sally@14: You've prompted me to download the guide. I also bought a copy of "Climate Change Denial" when it came out, but still haven't had the time to read it. Now there are two things on the list. Doug@15: From a Devil's Advocate position, I'd be tempted to argue the elitist opinion that "average intelligence" and "stupid" aren't mutually exclusive, depending on your definition of "stupid". For practical purposes, though, "stupid" (or a more diplomatic term) should be reserved for the small minority at the low end of the distribution. I am reminded of a comment on a course evaluation back in my teaching days that said "the mid-term was so hard that half the class got below average". My thought was "the mid-term was so easy that half the class got above average!". A first-year class, where the student clearly hadn't taken (or understood) statistics, yet. Another throwback from my teaching days: the course outline for the first-year climatology course (half of one term) was very similar to the outline for the third-year climatology course (a full semester). The level of detail in the course was much different, though. Start with simple explanations and gloss over the details, but have a way of coming back to the details when a deeper understanding is needed. The difficulty in the "debunking" process is that the "skeptical" position is often based on either a strawman version of the simple explanation (which might require details to show why it is wrong) or an inflation of the uncertainties in the details (thus trying to make it look as if climatologists know nothing). For that reason, the SkS Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabs are a great idea. Sometimes, however, complex subjects just require complex explanations.
69562. Tom Curtis at 02:51 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Further to my point (4) @25, Peter Thorne (one of the misquoted scientists) has this to say at Real Climate:

       "It seems that a couple of my mails have been highlighted by people wishing to take them out of context. Both related to a very early draft of the IPCC fourth assessment observations chapter that I was asked to review informally as part of the accepted report preparation pathway. This would have been in 2005 or 2006 not 2011. IPCC has several review cycles and numerous lead authors on each chapter to ensure balance and representivity. However, the very earliest drafts inevitably reflect the individual contributor’s perspectives. The review which I undertook was and still is intended to catch such cases and rectify before the formal reviews. I would note that none of the formal review versions retained the vast majority of the text that was being discussed in this email. In other words the process worked. I would note in passing that my understanding is that US FOIA precludes early drafts of papers and discussions thereof precisely because it is vital to be able to discuss fully and frankly scientific work prior to publication, peer review being a necessary but not adequate condition. It is good that scientists care about issues and imperative that they are allowed to discuss report and paper drafts openly if we want the best reports and papers possible."

       Peter Thorne's full comment is well worth reading.
69563. Albatross at 02:51 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Robert @9, I agree, but only to a point. Surely, you being in academia, you know that discussions whether it be in person or by email can be heated and emails are often really badly worded/phrased. People (including scientists under pressure in a highly politicized playing field who are being antagonized and misrepresented by "skeptics") are not perfect and that holds for you, me, your boss and perhaps even the person in your field who you admire and respect the most. How would we hold up under such scrutiny and relentless pressure? I'll be honest, probably not very well at all, especially after a while. Let me give readers an example of how an email exchange can be distorted. I sent a draft of my first PhD paper to my committee, most of them thought that it was a good start but that it needed more work. But one of them said it was half baked science and that he did not want to be associated with it. That really hurt, and in some ways they were right, so I buckled down and in the end we produced a solid paper that made it though peer-review, and the person who was originally so unhappy remained on as an author. Now, imagine someone quote mining my emails. They could easily infer three things: i) That I am incompetent and that we were conducting "half baked" science. ii) That there was not consensus and we were in-fighting. iii) That in subsequent dialogue when I was defending certain choices that I was trying to hide or cover something up. Science is not pretty, email is an awkward form of communication, people say stupid things in emails (period). It would be nice (but naive) if that were not true, but that is reality. The thieves and ideologues know that.
69564. MA Rodger at 02:37 AM on 24 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
       muoncounter @9 Absolutely true. 2010 was not a record year for CO2 level increase. The coincidence was simply this above average 2.3ppm (or 2.42) increase coincided with record emissions. I cannot agree with your final statement however. The wobbles you tabulate & shown in the lower graph are climatic wobbles not economic ones. They match the wobbles in ENSO pretty convincingly.
69565. Tom Curtis at 02:31 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       MarkR @19&20: 1) There is a difference between auditing and replicating. The gold standard in science is that all results should be replicable, and results which are not replicable are considered suspect. To replicate a result, you design an identical or equivalent experiment, gather your own data, analyse them and publish the result. There is no need to have access to the original research's data in order to replicate the observations. The Met Offices (Hadley) and University of East Anglia (CRU) papers on global temperatures where clearly replicable based on the information released with their papers. I know that because their results have been replicated by NCDC, GISS, and most recently by BEST. In auditing, the "auditor" tries to use your exact original data, and to reproduce your stated techniques to ensure that they reproduce the results you claim they reproduce. The difference between them is that replication shows a result to be robust, while auditing shows that no fraud has been committed. However, if there is no reason to suspect fraud (and there is not, in this case) there is also no purpose in auditing. Consequently, it has not been the standard in science that raw data has been preserved after the publication of a paper. Still less has it been the standard that that raw data has been made available to any and all that request it. Indeed, before the advent of modern PC's and the internet, such a standard would have been impossible to satisfy. Clearly what the FOI requesters where attempting to do was to audit the HadCRUT index, not replicate it. Given that there was good reason to think the "audit" would be a hatchet job rather than a genuine audit, and given that this supposed standard of free release of all data was in fact not the common standard at the time, there was no ethical (as distinct from legal) reason for Jones to release the raw data. 2) It is very far from clear that we should move to a standard of free access to raw data. If we were to do so, it would prevent any scientific publication of results from private or military research. Such publication would require release of either propriety information, or sensitive military information. Given the frequency of research partnerships between universities and private (or military) researchers, much university research would also be unpublishable for the same reason. Further, such a standard imposes significant cost and time constraints on researchers who would then need to fund both storage and access of the data, and its distribution on request. Storage would also require periodic transfer of files to more modern storage media, and updating of file formats to meet modern protocols. Given the large amount of research scientists can be involved in, this is a large commitment. 3) As it happens, both considerations apply to HadCRU. The Hadley SST index used information obtained from navy ships that was sensitive for military reasons. CRUTEM used data from propriety sources (mostly national meteorological offices) that could not be released in raw form except by agreement. And in fact, most of the raw data was not kept by the CRU in the form of a single file in any event. 4) Finally, with respect to emails, the notion that scientist's communications should all be available for selective and out of context misrepresentation to a scientifically illiterate public is absurd. If scientists have to treat every interpersonal communication as a press conference (as they would need to in such a situation), that would preclude any brain-storming. Nothing would be a quicker bar to effective research than an effective bar to scientist's being able to kick ideas around with each other without fear of misrepresentation.
69566. Bob Lacatena at 02:22 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       The comments on FOI say nothing more than anything that was already said in other e-mails. Clearly, the thieves went through every e-mail they could already, looking for the juiciest bits, and released them in 2009. Today, unable to hack into another source of fodder that they could manipulate and count on sorry bloggers like A-"the cause"-W to trumpet and misrepresent, they are left with instead releasing the stuff that didn't cut it the first time. They are counting on the fact that those same fools that crowed and bleated before will get their undies all in a bunch this time, too, and do it again, making a big, huge deal out of absolutely nothing (but even less nothing than the last time!), while giving a free pass to the thieves themselves, the shabby journalists that use this stuff for their own gain, and whatever selfish interests there are in the world who benefit from fooling the general public and undermining the science and the scientists. My sole consolation in this is that 10 or 20 years from now there's not going to be any doubt at all. Everyone is going to know and admit what is going on, and everyone is going to look back on this and the culprits -- not only the thieves, but far more importantly the suckers who fell for it and magnified it and used it to promote their own sad, distorted, and valueless position -- are going to be vilified. As they should be.
69567. muoncounter at 02:14 AM on 24 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
       MA Rodger#7: "news that atmospheric CO2 had risen 2.3ppm over the year 2010 was but conicidence." Not sure what you mean by that 'coincidence'; nor does data from MLO show 2010 was a record year for CO2 concentration increase: year delta (ppm) 1998 2.93 1999 0.93 2000 1.62 2001 1.58 2002 2.53 2003 2.29 2004 1.56 2005 2.52 2006 1.76 2007 2.20 2008 1.62 2009 1.88 2010 2.42 Those figures suggest that global economic activity (both up and down) is a factor in the year-to-year rate of change.
69568. shoyemore at 02:09 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       #19 MarkR FOIA issues are very 2009. I think the scientists involved took their lumps back then. Remember the enquires that found no manipulation of data and no wrongdoing? Scientists were just being chary of requests for items like computer code, demanding a lot of work to add comments and explanation, and for data from weather stations they had been asked not to release to 3rd parties. They were doubly cautious when the requests came from known "skeptics" and when the requests seemed frivolous and designed to cause maximum annoyance. The equiries were critical of UEA/ CRU in information sharing, and the process has been completely overhauled. So it seems to me to be grossly unfair to try and convict scientists twice, when they have already made amends for the offence after the first occasion. If these e-mails had shown continued flouting of the recommendations of the enquiries, you might have a point. BTW, the denialist Global Warming Policy Foundation also seems to havge a problem with FOIA requests. UK Minister attacks GWPF
69569. muoncounter at 01:57 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       HH#17: "why all 220,000 email weren't released back in 2009." Sounds like someone wanted to have 'an ace in the hole;' tucked away for a time when the denial side is running on empty. They'll play this for all its (not really) worth, with plenty of breathless exaggeration to boot. But this is a ray of sunshine: Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is "of interest" to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified. So we have an email hacking scandal combined with what starts to look like a media-manipulation/public opinion management strategy. Isn't there a major self-proclaimed 'news' outlet already involved in such activities?
69570. MarkR at 01:54 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Tom Curtis @ 15 Post #19 was aimed at you, and I meant to conclude that I therefore still think that the data should have been made available asap. Although from a personal PoV, I understand that for the individuals involved it would have been a big sacrifice. They would have been prevented from doing real work whilst they cleared up the misunderstandings and smears that would come from the release, all to deal with the miniscule chance that there was a major correction needed to their work which would be found thanks to this.
69571. MarkR at 01:51 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       But Tom, ethically I can't see any reason not to accede to FoI. As a public funded scientist your data and methods should be available to the public on demand. It's that simple IMO. Knowing that others will manipulate, lie and just plain fail to understand the science to help spread ignorance... I can see why some people would see this as 'extenuating circumstances'. I'm not certain of the ethics of it myself, but I would still lean towards saying it should all be available. Even if you _know_ that liars and spinners will be horrendously immoral in their use of it.
69572. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 01:48 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       There is an excellent article in The Guardian - Attacks on climate scientists are the real 'climategate'. The reaction in the UK has been fairly muted - everyone, including the Daily Mail, is questioning the timing of this release. And everyone, from what I've read, has made it clear the work of scientists was found to be reliable following Climategate 1.0 even if there were problems with FOI requests. It looks like a spectacular own goal by whoever released this batch of carefully selected quotes.
69573. Bob Lacatena at 01:44 AM on 24 November 2011
       Newcomers, Start Here
       136, imthedragn, A rise in humidity would cause warming, but what would cause the rise in humidity other than warming? And as soon as something else (anything else) swung temperatures back down, humidity would drop. The key to this is that humidity is almost entirely dependent on temperatures. If temperatures rise, for whatever reason, humidity will increase, raising temperatures even further. If temperatures drop, again for whatever reason, humidity will drop, decreasing temperatures further. Of course, unlike CO2, H2O is not entirely "well mixed" in the atmosphere. There are moist and arid regions of the earth, and since it is heavily dependent on the temperature of the air, humidity changes with altitude. Changes are seasonal and latitudinal (the further from the equator, the cooler and therefore less humidity). Water is transported by advection far more than diffusion. This is why you can't get a good, hard number for the percent H2O in the atmosphere, because it is not evenly distributed and it is constantly changing. The basic facts are: 1) Humidity is dependent on temperature 2) Increasing temperatures increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold water 3) The change in lapse rate will also increase the ability of the upper troposphere to hold water 4) Increasing temperatures will increase evaporation, providing the water 5) Increases in humidity further increase temperatures 6) H2O acts entirely as a feedback, not a forcing, because the response to temperature is so relatively fast as compared to other factors (like melting ice-albedo changes, out-gassing of CO2 from warming oceans, and ecosystem changes that release CH4 and CO2)
69574. Stephan Lewandowsky at 01:34 AM on 24 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
       @3. Well put. That's exactly what the literature suggests: Reframe the issue and go straight to the solution. Sadly, that doesn't always work; there is astroturfed opposition to renewables too, often conducted with the same emotional venom. Apparently windmills, too, can be communists.
69575. imthedragn at 01:05 AM on 24 November 2011
       Newcomers, Start Here
       [DB] Thank you for your response. I will definately follow those links. I understand that humidity precipitates out of the atmosphere while GHGs linger for decades. You mention that rising temperatures cause higher humidity which causes even more warming. Wouldn't any rise in humidity cause enough warming to raise humidity? if raising temperature raises humidity which further raises temperature, then humidity alone should cause the same effect. I am not trying to say that CO2 is not causing any wamring, I only question the warming causing humidity feedback loop. Lastly, if CO2 is more effective than an equal amount of water vapor at retaining heat, why then isn't Mars noticably warmer. Mars does have over 10 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth.
       Moderator Response: For practical purposes, humidity cannot be raised above the level that the current temperature supports. Of course there are small and temporary deviations above that level, but they are so short-lived (about 10 days) that there is inadequate time for any significant warming. Remember also that that nominally single level really is an average across lower and higher levels spread spatially and temporally. In contrast, CO2 and other warming causes last long enough for significant warming to occur. See also the Argument "Positive feedback means runaway warming."

       Regarding Mars: Although there is relatively much more CO2 in Mars's atmosphere than in Earth's atmosphere, the absolute amount of CO2 is still far too small to, by itself, trap (delay) much infrared radiation. More importantly, there are almost no other greenhouse gases in the Martian atmosphere, so CO2 is left to do the entire job by itself. In particular, there is no H2O in the atmosphere to feed back the warming. See the online text "The Planets" by Seligman.

69576. imthedragn at 00:48 AM on 24 November 2011
       Newcomers, Start Here
       CBD.. The 1.5% is just a number I threw out to as a basis of scale. I nor anyone else knows the exact average atmospheric H20 content. I have seen numerous sources that indicate water vapor as between 1 and 2 percent and as high as 4%. I just grabbed 1.5% as a starting point. The actual numbers don't really matter as much as the point that co2 has a greater effect than an equal amount of water vapor. I have been struggling for year to find something difinitive. So far everytyhing seems to point to pure conjecture based on observed warming. Your comments nonetheless are appreciated. I agree that my values and calculations are incorrect, they weren't meant to draw any conclusions, only to make an oversimplified point.
69577. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 00:44 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       I am curious as to why all 220,000 email weren't released back in 2009. If there was a genuine cover up by scientists then surely releasing all the emails would expose this and clear up the debate once and for all. However, if your objective is to confuse and cast doubt then releasing a few carefully selected emails, which could be taken out of context and spun by the denial PR machine, would be more effective. This also allows you to release a second batch at a later date to cause more confusion. I think the main stream media has learn't from the original debacle and the impact of this release will be significantly diminished.
69578. Enginerd at 00:28 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       This obsession with e-mails is really tiresome. I have encountered a handful of people in the last two years who told me they have spent many hours reading the stolen e-mails from Mann, Jones, etc. Yet, when I asked these same people how many journal articles they have read from these scientists? You guessed it. Zero. Like Robert (#9) noted, the content of some of these messages is not very flattering to the authors. However, I am honestly not too bothered by this. When a respected researcher publishes a scientifically sound article indicating, for example, that we are looking at possibly 2 meters of sea level rise by the end of this century, do I really care if that person occasionally wrote some unpleasant and critical e-mails?
69579. CBDunkerson at 00:18 AM on 24 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
       Following on from Kevin and JMurphy; To borrow a phrase from 1984, 'We have always been at war with Eastasia!'. Some people are quite capable of firmly believing things that their own memory should tell them are untrue. They will rewrite their own memories, facts, friendships, arguments/logic they supposedly find compelling, and nearly anything else in order to preserve the viability of 'sacred Truths' in their own minds. Generally, the only way you can get something past such a distortion filter is if you can figure out the underlying beliefs and then somehow get the facts to fit within that fictional framework. For example, here in the U.S. most people in rural areas are Republicans and thus 'know' that global warming is just an evil scheme by commie liberal elitist government types out to destroy the American way of life. However, wind power companies have managed to make headway in many of these areas by presenting themselves as ways to be self sufficient ('we don't need no elitist government bureaucrats sticking their noses in our business, we can generate our own power') and 'patriotic' ('this is American wind we are using... not commie terrorist oil') and never ever mentioning that they will reduce global warming.
69580. Tom Curtis at 00:16 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       MarkR @14, that is a very astute comment. Indeed, as most of the FOI requests came from McIntyre, or people closely associated with him, Phil Jones knew that no matter how good his methodology, the released information would be distorted into an attack on his integrity. No wonder he was non-cooperative.
69581. MarkR at 00:03 AM on 24 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Several of the comments look terrible to me: mostly related to FoI requests. On one level you think: what is there to hide? Repeated tests of the science, like BEST, have shown that the work is generally good. It seems like they'd have nothing to hide. Until you see the misrepresentation and spin (intentional or unintentional) in the media and blogosphere. You know, the spin which turned poor tree ring data into 'global temperatures are declining', which is just flat out ignorance or lies. The aggressive smear campaign by think tanks and ideologues makes scientists act more defensive, which is used to raise more suspicion about scientists...
69582. JMurphy at 23:53 PM on 23 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
       It was even more striking (following on from Kevin C's comment) to see the number of those people who have subsequently reverted back to doubting any form of warming anyway, meaning that their denial about their previous views was also a denial ! (If you see what I mean...)
69583. MA Rodger at 22:30 PM on 23 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
       Success after a fashion. The links @7 yield images of twice the linear size which is rather useful for reading the annotations.
       Response:

       [DB] The comment box field can accomodate image widths up to 500 pixels, if need be.  Image posting advice is located here.

69584. Kevin C at 22:28 PM on 23 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
       

       Only 2% of participants changed their mind (although interestingly, 14% denied that they believed the link in the first place).

       Indeed; it was striking in the week after the BEST data came out to see the number of statements from people had suddenly never previously doubted that the world was warming, but merely doubted the cause.
69585. MA Rodger at 22:08 PM on 23 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
       PeteM @3 The spectacular record rise in CO2 emissions in 2010 were really due to the recovery from the reduced emissions of 2009, although I should stress the trend over the last decade (averaging 2.4% per annum) iis seriously bad news. See graph down this link Graph of carbon emissions The news that atmospheric CO2 had risen 2.3ppm over the year 2010 was but conicidence. The 2010 record rise in emissions comprised 0.5 million tons of carbon above 2009 emission totals. That 0.5 million into the atmosphere would add roughly 0.1ppm to the CO2 level. As the WMO news release said, annual rises has been averaging 2ppm per annum. Again CO2 concentrations do wobble about but the trend is increasingly upwards. See graph down this link. Graph of CO2 concentrations (I will now have a try at posting them onto here as graphs but I'm not sure of their size & my record with web links is not good.)
69586. Paul D at 21:49 PM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Apparently Benny Peiser at GWPF has refused to hand over emails. Smacks of double standards: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/chris-huhne-lawson-think-tank
69587. Tom Curtis at 21:37 PM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Robert Wray @9, I doubt any scientists are perfect, and so see no reason why climate scientists should be different in that regard. If deniers think they have genuine case against climate scientists, let them eschew the ridiculous conspiracy theories, and build a case by quoting entire emails with their full context carefully explained. When they have sufficient confidence in their case to do that, then and only then need we take the accusations seriously. As it stands, the emails as presented can tell us nothing about any wrong doing by scientists. They are taken out of context. The texts are culled for anything that can be misinterpreted, then quoted and in some cases redacted to encourage that misinterpretation. Their presentation, in fact, resembles nothing so much as a trial for witchcraft:
       Moderator Response: [Sph] Shrunk embedded video to 500 width
69588. Kevin C at 20:53 PM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Robert: I sort of agree, but there's an issue of perspective here. How would your email box fare under that kind of scrutiny? I suspect mine contains a lot of things I would regret saying. What I see in the emails are scientists who are no better people than me, struggling with communicating across two spheres with conflicting, contradictory approaches to information - from science to politics. People who have already been selected for their science aptitude, that same aptitude rendering them ill equipped for communicating to the political sphere. Some of the emails do cast an unflattering light on the scientists involved. But only in comparison to an unrealistic ideal of what a scientists should be, one which people in other professions don't being to live up to either. I think a significant factor here is that the structures and conventions of science - which have evolved over the past couple of centuries - have allowed science to produce robust results even in the face of the fallibility, cognitive biases, and even rare cases dishonesty of individual researchers. And thus the leaks have not lead to even one paper being retracted, or the identification of one additional error in the IPCC AR4 report.
69589. skept.fr at 20:49 PM on 23 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
       perseus : "However, the expanding economies of China, Brazil and India have more recently become major emitters" You're right, and we must recall that, according to the last IEA WEO 2011 report (commented on SkS previous week) "over the next 25 years, 90% of the projected growth in global energy demand comes from non-OECD economies; China alone accounts for more than 30%, consolidating its position as the world’s largest energy consumer" Main driver of world economic and energy growth is no more OECD, but the development of emerging countries in Asia, Africa and Americas. I'll enjoy to read the 2nd part of your text.
69590. lurgee at 20:44 PM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Thus far, the most 'exploitable' line seem to be Phil Jones's comment about the IPCC being above national FOI requests, which seems a reasonable enough statement when referring to an international body (isn't this international sharing what prevented him releasing data previously?). He might need to clarify what he said about deleting emails to 'cover yourself'. Again, it's obviously an innocent suggestion of a way to prevent data being released or requisitioned inappropriately (Oh! The irony that we're now talking about it!) but I can see it being spun eternally ...
69591. skept.fr at 20:35 PM on 23 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       Adelady : thanks, I’ll try to charge the Bloomberg report (just access to the press release for now, not the primary source). Agnostic : I’ve problem with your link. In my mind, we are not discussing here if some non-carbon energy sources are competitive (of course they already are in better – sunny, windy, etc. – places, and even more with a carbon price), but at which conditions a 2K / 450 ppm can be targeted (IEA WEO report). It is very different to get, say, 20 % of your total energy mix (not just electricity) and to get 50 or 80% of it from non-carbon sources. A majority of models are unable to rely just on RE (see IPCC SRREN) and that’s why coal with CCS, biofuel, nuclear are supposed to be included in the mix.
69592. chriskoz at 19:58 PM on 23 November 2011
       Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
       rpauli @33, Your analogy, although interesting ethically, is incorrect. Encouraging to drink driving is illegal, while 'skeptic' opinion about AGW is perfectly legal, and even boasted by some as an example of democracy, or first amendment in Pielke's country, rights of commons or other 'noble priviledge'. Unfortunately for you, law and ethics are totally different things. The anology similar to yours, would be: what if Tony Abbott in Australia after June 2012, starts talking to mining magnates: "don't pay those carbon taxes, this taxation is a big scam based on a lie, it's OK if you don't pay it". I'm sure Tony is very keen on that but not silly enough to actually say that (after June 2012) and say good-buy his career and possibly his freedom. Same applies to Pielke and your analogy: he's not silly enough to publicly promote illegal behaviour.
69593. robert way at 19:12 PM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       To be honest I'm going to be frank and say there are parts of emails in there which I am not happy about. I have heard some of these things privately from others and I think that we have to be careful not to "cheerlead" the AGW side. There are elements that we should rightfully be critical of and elements where skeptics will take things to extremes. We have to be with the science even more so today.
69594. les at 18:50 PM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Have to say, my heart goes out to Mann, Johns et al looking at the prospect of another witch-hunt looming just in time for Christmas.
69595. paulchevin at 18:43 PM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Karl @ 2 Gavin Schmidt over at Realclimate is already busy providing the context you demand.
69596. Rob Painting at 17:27 PM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Karl @ 2 - even though the turkey is two years old, it sat in the freezer for at least a decade. That's how old some of the e-mails are. We will be offering point-by-point rebuttals in the future.
69597. scaddenp at 17:13 PM on 23 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       Nothing to stop anyone getting a supply contract and building a refinery. Oil companies dont need to control refinery capacity to make money. The problem is maintaining production. IEA figures for 2012 are not looking promising in that department. Need a big depression to keep demand down. Looks like Italy and Greece are answering the call.
69598. Philippe Chantreau at 17:03 PM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       I say that, for the sake of "transparency", McIntyre and Watts should release all their personal e-mails too. Since they are not scientists, and their opinions are not officially part of policy making, it should be no big deal, right?
69599. Philippe Chantreau at 16:53 PM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       whistle blower, my left toe. I'm having deja moo (the feeling that I've heard this bull before). How qualifed is Karl to determine that the research reporting is "shoddy?" Nonsense piled on top of more nonsense. The buffoons arguing that 2.5 billions people live on less than $2 a day should take their complaints to those who hold more of the world's wealth that any human can possibly have a use for. As far as plaguing the world's economy, we've seen how costly speculation and bad financial practices can be. Why is nobody releasing e-mails from Charles Schwab, B of A and so forth? The buffoons must have their strings pulled by some pretty selective authority...
69600. cbp at 16:40 PM on 23 November 2011
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       @Karl_from_Wylie Quotes have already been addressed, see here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Prev  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  Next