I'm just curious how you feel about the medias role with the man made global warming theory, and, if you foresee any kind of reversal in public perception as evidence mounts that we aren't responsible for the current warming
-David
Ian Douglas Clark to me
show details Jul 27
Hi David, the media is a huge problem, and I only hope that in their typical zeal for controversial stories, that they will soon pick up on global cooling and the evidence that now exists. However, I suspect that many senior news editors and publishers feel that they cannot state that the emperor has no clothes, as they feel that they must keep people environmentally oriented. Unfortunately, our zeal to battle CO2 leads to some very polluting alternatives,
I've just read this thread from start to finish. TheU, you sure fling a lot of mud but never answer any of your critics with anything but misdirection.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Five-hole For This Useful Post:
Nope. He was bought. He has a well paying job at the NSRP, funded by the Canadian Gas Association. Why don't you e-mail him back and ask how much money he gets from the NSRP? Or how much he gets in grants from resource companies?
Do you realize that professors can have other jobs on top of teaching/research? Also, him being a professor does not mean that he is not or cannot be wrong or biased.
I have had many profs that taught stuff that was not in line with the textbook or broadly accepted principles. This is especially common when you are dealing with things that are not fully understood, like exactly what is causing global warming. I even had a prof that, according to some internet sources, participated in nationally covered bribery scandals.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
First off, let me apologize for the length of this post. I realize that it's very long, but I couldn't cut it down and still say everything I wanted.
I'd like to know why we're still not discussing the original post, which is the released emails from the Climate Research Unit - CRU (either Hadley or the University of East Anglia). It's the data that is being posted in this thread that is being called into question by the release of these emails.
First let's look at a rough timeline of the events last week:
Prior to last week Steve McIntyre (a Professor in Toronto) filed a request with the CRU under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). As part of this he was asking for the data, models and emails exchanged.
Early last week the CRU denies this request.
Still early next week, someone (possibly someone within the CRU, but could easily have been an outsider) obtains over 1000 files from the CRU server, including emails, and Excel files.
November 17, the hacker tries to post the files to RealClimate.org: "We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day." (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ack/#more-1853)
Later November 17, a user named "FOIA" posts on the Air Vent Site:"We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it. This is a limited time offer, download now:" He then linked to a Russian FTP site, where the files were stored. At this point, Air Vent's administrator was away, and nothing else was said about it.
November 18, someone (or a group of people) dump 20 times the normal trading volume of a Green Fund trading on the NASDAQ (http://www.ftportfolios.com/retail/e...px?Ticker=QCLN). At this point, most of the people who knew about this breach were insiders at RealClimate and the CRU, indicating that this stock dump could be insider trading (I recognize that this is speculation on my part).
Novmber 20, a user at Air Vent published an alert on Climate Audit, and from there the story broke all over the internet.
Later November 20, RealClimate (in the link I posted above) acknowledged the the emails are real, but denies that they contribute anything to the "denier" side of the debate.
Let's now take a look at the content of some of these emails (I also posted this earlier in the thread):
From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):
Quote:
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
Seems like there's an attempt to avoid any critical review process here.
From Dr. Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):
Quote:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
This may be innocuous, with a bad choice of words; or it could be, as a treatment of the data to arrive at a pre-conceived result.
From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):
Quote:
Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
So we're all on the same page (I had to look it up) AR4 is referring to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. Having a group of 4 people erase all records of communication about a landmark, possibly policy-guiding report seems a little off, doesn't it? (I know this is also speculation on my part)
From Thomas R Karl (witholding data) :
Quote:
We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.
If their research is being funded in any part by government, their results and findings are part of the public domain. Trying to stop someone from getting their hands on the data simply because they're a pest is not okay.
From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):
Quote:
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
Blackballing someone from any organization because they don't share your views is detestable, IMO.
From a document titled "jones-foiathoughts.doc" (witholding of data):
Quote:
Options appear to be:
Quote:
1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
Again, we have possible treatment of data in a manner to avoid sticky issues.
Additionally, there is a file entitled pdj_grant_since1990.xls, which details the funding given to Dr. Phil Jones (the head of the CRU that was hacked) since 1990. The total funding? US$22.6 million. There was also a second file entitled potential-funding.doc, which details sources of funding that have not yet donated. Included in each are some green technology companies that stand to gain quite a lot from pushing green regulations through. Does anyone who claims that climate sceptics are in the pocket of Big Oil care to address this?
I have to premiss my post here by saying that I'm not well-read on the subject, and I haven't read the emails in question, but from the snippets you posted, I want to say this.
I think what is going on is the kind of thing Richard Dawkins talks about with his "militant atheism" doctrine. Scientists, and the scientific community, do not traditionally present themselves as holding the kind of strong, unified conviction that most people in the popular arenas would want to be suggested or swayed by something. That's why you still hear asinine comments like "evolution is just a theory"; the terms of the discussion in the scientific community cannot be mapped onto an ignorant public. It's probably the same with global warming (or climate change, or whatever you want to call it.)
If you don't present a strong and unified front, you open yourself to the serious risk of uninformed political or populist counter-attack by people who do use the kinds of language that sway people's opinion. They're trying to change the language of debate so the public sphere understands on their terms what is going on in the scientific community.
Included in each are some green technology companies that stand to gain quite a lot from pushing green regulations through. Does anyone who claims that climate sceptics are in the pocket of Big Oil care to address this?
So it is truly your firm belief that green technology companies have more resources and power than big oil?
BTW - 22.6 million over that long a period of time is absolutely tiny peanuts when it comes to scientific research.
Last edited by Devils'Advocate; 11-23-2009 at 09:37 AM.
1 - To expose Al Gore for the complete BS artist he is.
2 - So I dont die.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
Seems like there's an attempt to avoid any critical review process here.
Or that they simply think McIntyre is a dick and don't want to convenience him in any way at all. His past behaviour has not been unlike that of Jim Ballsillie.
McIntyre has had the hockey stick data, it's been reviewed and reported on by NRC on behalf of congress not to mention another independent review.
Your own posts states that they consider giving him the (unknown) data but he can decode it himself.
"This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them."
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
If their research is being funded in any part by government, their results and findings are part of the public domain. Trying to stop someone from getting their hands on the data simply because they're a pest is not okay.
Really? It's not the intellectual property of the author(s), the institute and UK government data is part of the public domain of a Canadian. If you feel so strongly about that send me your e-mail so I might claim all research data from your lab. Don't even bother consulting with your supervisor. I mean ALL profs in Canada are paid by public institutions funded by the government. In fact give me a group e-mail for your department so I can have access to everyone's data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
Blackballing someone from any organization because they don't share your views is detestable, IMO.
Detestable because they don't share your views? Read your own quote. What are your thoughts on someone being blackballed if they're proven "bad behaviour"?
As for the potential funding issue. So what? What's the surprise and you feel that since 1990 ~$1m/year is a lot? Of course we should consider who is funding who but what's the big surprise here?
Why doesn't McIntyre get big oil to fund him so he can collect his own data? Or ... is he more vocal as a critical mouthpiece?
All I'm seeing here is negative science with minimal effort whatsoever from the negative crowd to produce their own results as they're too preoccupied trying to discredit everything else. And in other cases blatant fabrication of data for media use to "convince" poor individuals like TheU.
And the majority of your post is speculation or to quote Michael Mann.
sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious"
Or that they simply think McIntyre is a dick and don't want to convenience him in any way at all. His past behaviour has not been unlike that of Jim Ballsillie.
McIntyre has had the hockey stick data, it's been reviewed and reported on by NRC on behalf of congress not to mention another independent review.
Your own posts states that they consider giving him the (unknown) data but he can decode it himself.
"This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them."
Believing someone is a dick is not a reason to withhold information. As you and I have discussed earlier in the thread, the assumptions used to treat data are equally as important as the data itself.
Quote:
Really? It's not the intellectual property of the author(s), the institute and UK government data is part of the public domain of a Canadian. If you feel so strongly about that send me your e-mail so I might claim all research data from your lab. Don't even bother consulting with your supervisor. I mean ALL profs in Canada are paid by public institutions funded by the government. In fact give me a group e-mail for your department so I can have access to everyone's data.
Nope, not the author(s), but the client who hired the author(s). If a government agency funds a study, the study results become part of the public domain. As for the rest of your post, I work in the private sector, so you'll be getting no data from me. But try to contact a prof for the data and methods he/she used in a publicly funded study and let me know if they deny you that access.
Quote:
Detestable because they don't share your views? Read your own quote. What are your thoughts on someone being blackballed if they're proven "bad behaviour"?
Well, that's a pretty slippery slope you're putting yourself on. I'd say it's a pretty bad precedent to set to say that it's okay to dig up records of "bad behaviour" to have those who don't agree with you banned from certain societys, functions, clubs, etc.
Quote:
As for the potential funding issue. So what? What's the surprise and you feel that since 1990 ~$1m/year is a lot? Of course we should consider who is funding who but what's the big surprise here?
Why doesn't McIntyre get big oil to fund him so he can collect his own data? Or ... is he more vocal as a critical mouthpiece?
I would say that ~$1 million per year funding the research efforts of one person is a lot. Especially when you consider that the most likely case is that the contibutions were pretty low for the first 5-10 years (before Global Warming became huge) and have subsequently grown.
I'm not expressing any sort of surprise at the source of the funding, just looking for a justification as to why it's alright for one side to be funded by corporate interests, whereas it's unacceptable (in the minds of some) for the other side to be funded by Big Oil.
Quote:
All I'm seeing here is negative science with minimal effort whatsoever from the negative crowd to produce their own results as they're too preoccupied trying to discredit everything else. And in other cases blatant fabrication of data for media use to "convince" poor individuals like TheU.
And the majority of your post is speculation or to quote Michael Mann.
sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious"
Well, I felt I pointed out the places where I outright speculated about what was happening. The negative crowd has been producing results for years, all of which gets downplayed because it disagrees with the "official" source of information. This calls into question the validity of the data that has been generally accepted for years.
I can't help but notice you ignored large sections of my post. Care to comment on the emails dealing with questionable treatment of data?
If their research is being funded in any part by government, their results and findings are part of the public domain. Trying to stop someone from getting their hands on the data simply because they're a pest is not okay.
I am by no means a copyright expert, but I believe this is not true. In Canada, government works are covered by Crown Copyright. They are not public domain. In the US, works created by government officials as part of their normal duties are in the public domain. Works created by contractors are not automatically so. So even if the American government is funding any part of this, it is not necessarily public domain.
How FOIA and equivalents are affected is beyond my knowledge.
I have what may be a dumb question. I generally think I'm a fairly intelligent person, but there's a basic premise of this whole debate that escapes me for some reason. I need someone to dumb this down for me since I haven't been able to find a simple explanation (maybe I'm looking in the wrong place). Here goes...
I hear the phrase "the ice caps are melting" quite often, and it's usually in a way suggesting it's a negative connotation. However, I assume that the ice caps are supposed to melt every year when temperatures rise for the summer? I assume that what is meant is that the ice caps are melting more than they're "supposed" to.
Further to that, why in winter when the temperature drops does it matter if the temperature is -40 or a global warming induced -39.75 degrees? At the temperatures I've always been led to believe exist at the caps, wouldn't everything that melted just freeze again anyway?
I just can't see how, that at these temperature extremes, a fraction of a degree makes it so that water doesn't freeze? I just can't help but think something else is warming the water. Please somebody enlighten me, because I feel dumb for even asking.
I just can't see how, that at these temperature extremes, a fraction of a degree makes it so that water doesn't freeze? I just can't help but think something else is warming the water. Please somebody enlighten me, because I feel dumb for even asking.
The polar ice caps move into areas that go well above 0. But when there are more days above zero and fewer days below zero, there is going to be less and less ice. You can read more about the annual expasion/retreats here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs
-=-=-=-=-
I really don't get all this Al Gore stuff. I was working with groups on global warming 15 years before Al Gore became a born-again environmentalist. I wish to heck that he had done something during the 8 years he had as VP. It's as if Al Gore supporting your cause completely invalidates the science. Personally, I like a lot of the things Al Gore says. I just find his lack of action when he was in office and in his personal life to be severely lacking.
Puckhog, you have missed the point. McIntyre has access to all the primary data. Public or no, that's all that scientific ethics dictate he have. Information is not being withheld. If McIntyre is worth getting excited over, the primary data should be enough for him to do whatever analysis he wants. He shouldn't need the secondary data. He should be able to replicate the analysis.
Re: The budget and funding. Do you have ANY idea how much it costs to run a serious scientific lab? AT ALL? For a world class lab, that is not an unreasonable sum. It is not one person. That 1 mill likely funds a whole team. The grant holder is merely the team leader. With that, salaries for grad students, postdocs, techs, etc., have to be paid, travel for work has to be funded, expensive equipment, computers, etc., have to be purchased. Plus, a place like the CRU likely skims a sizeable portion of the top to run the facility.
Can you even tell me what the original e-mail that set this off means? I don't know what it means. It could be interpreted any number of ways. No one here can actually definitively explain to me what all of this actually means.
Besides which, even if the researchers in question are engaged in some degree of scientific impropriety, they represent only a small handful of research groups, in a smaller focus area, paleoclimate research, within the greater field of climate research. The competitive nature of cutting edge research dictates that someone will correct whatever errors they have made eventually. This is hardly a killing blow to the concept of anthropogenic climate change, nor is it indicative of a massive left-wing conspiracy. At worst, if the messages are interpreted in their most negative light, it's probably part of an attempt to to squeeze out a couple more Nature papers. Still deplorable. Still shouldn't be done. But it isn't the first time it's happened in any scientific field.
The Following User Says Thank You to Billy Tallent For This Useful Post:
