Climategate

[Billy Tallent]

Originally Posted by zuluking

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EPAJSD_UHI.pdf

Not to mention that Phil Jones is the co-author of one of the "substantiating" pieces, that would come as no surprise.

What journal was that published in? I'm guessing it wasn't because it's pretty horrible. It's badly written. The figures are badly done - some lack scales, no legends. The conclusions are pretty weak. I can't actually evaluate half the data in it because of a lack of information. Where did the data come from? Some of the references don't exist. Some of the references he uses to support his case are not scientific literature. There is no title. No author. No affiliations. There is curiously no mention of funding source - no acknowledgements. Hmmm...

That's not a believable manuscript. That's not proper science. I'm sorry if you don't believe me, but it really is junk. I could sit here and pull it apart all day if you want, but I don't think you care.

[Billy Tallent]

Originally Posted by zuluking

The rebuttal:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/2...ia-university/

Watts was never mentioned personally in the article yet he's taking it personally?

Why does he get to do a drive-by on the scientific profession on a regular basis, but if it gets turned around on him it's 'slimy'?

A noted sceptic blog versus one of the world's most respected and more objective papers (being owned by a charitable trust instead of a billionaire with an agenda). Yeaaaahhh.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Billy Tallent

What journal was that published in? I'm guessing it wasn't because it's pretty horrible. It's badly written. The figures are badly done - some lack scales, no legends. The conclusions are pretty weak. I can't actually evaluate half the data in it because of a lack of information. Where did the data come from? Some of the references don't exist. Some of the references he uses to support his case are not scientific literature. There is no title. No author. No affiliations. There is curiously no mention of funding source - no acknowledgements. Hmmm...

That's not a believable manuscript. That's not proper science. I'm sorry if you don't believe me, but it really is junk. I could sit here and pull it apart all day if you want, but I don't think you care.

Publishing in a journal may not be what it's all cracked up to be. I guess we've come full circle to what Climategate originally exposed. It may not be as bad as it seems or it may be worse. Regardless, climate scientists have a strong agenda for controlling publications. Your gold standard is tarnished.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18584

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Billy Tallent

Watts was never mentioned personally in the article yet he's taking it personally?

Why does he get to do a drive-by on the scientific profession on a regular basis, but if it gets turned around on him it's 'slimy'?

A noted sceptic blog versus one of the world's most respected and more objective papers (being owned by a charitable trust instead of a billionaire with an agenda). Yeaaaahhh.

Do you look anything up? Read a bit about the author of the article in your most respected and objective paper and tell me he isn't biased. Yeaaaahhh.

Note: from the category of "things that make you go 'hmmmmm'", the article written by Jeffrey Sachs was for Project Syndicate (global not-for-profit editorial writing organization.) When I looked up information on Project Syndicate, I got this link: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ject_Syndicate. The 'hmmmmm' moment was when I got to the very bottom and saw the sole entry under "Related SourceWatch Articles." Maybe you can see the connection; I couldn't.

[Billy Tallent]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Do you look anything up? Read a bit about the author of the article in your most respected and objective paper and tell me he isn't biased. Yeaaaahhh.

Sure I saw who the author is. His credentials and reputation are significantly better than a hack weatherman with a blog.

[Billy Tallent]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Publishing in a journal may not be what it's all cracked up to be.

That's what people tend to say when they can't get published.

I guess we've come full circle to what Climategate originally exposed.

No we haven't. I gave you a list of peer-reviewed publications which you could not personally find fault with. You gave me one unpublished 'manuscript' that would have struggled for a passing grade in a first-year undergrad science course, and would not have gotten off the editor's desk if submitted for publication. Please compare what you gave me with almost any article in a high-level journal. Pick something outside of climate science to avoid bias if it makes you happy. There is no comparison.

Regardless, climate scientists have a strong agenda for controlling publications.

Proof? If you think Jones and Mann are out to get you, you submit to another journal and request that neither Jones nor Mann be considered as reviewers due to conflict of interest, then request someone you prefer. You can do this; it happens all the time. Simple. Good papers eventually find a journal to accept them. Bad papers don't.

I'm not arguing that the peer-review system is flawless. It has some problems, and if you want I will happily discuss them with you. But it is still the best mechanism we have to determine whether or not science was properly done.

Your gold standard is tarnished.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18584

What am I supposed to respond to here?

The papers that Jones supposedly wanted to block from the IPCC AR? They got in anyway. Jones couldn't block them. So what's your point?

The comment from the journal re: harassment? It's true, authors are expected to provide raw data and reagents to fellow researchers wanted to replicate or build on specific studies. Nature's objection is that the likes of McIntyre et al., were not asking researchers for specific raw data sets to replicate specific analyses. They were flooding researchers (not just Jones, Mann, Briffa, but many more) with e-mails and FOI requests for indiscriminate massive tracts of data AND secondary analyses, which researchers are not obligated to provide. This is not in the spirit of the disclosure agreement. This is Nature's point and it's justified. If you want the raw data for Figure 4 in a 1996 paper to validate against your own data? Fine. Here ya go. You want all raw data and secondary analyses from a lab for years 1990-2000, so you can trawl it? That's insulting. Go away. See the difference? One of the contentious pieces of data - the location data for observation stations, has been publically available for three years (this is the problem when you pick a couple of lines out of 1000s of e-mails collected over a decade), and Nature has yet to receive an official complaint. So again, what's your point?

I'm not going to debate Jones et al., deleting e-mails etc. It's up to UEA and the other parties to determine whether any wrong-doing occured. My point is that even if Jones is guilty of scientific malpractice, which has yet to be proven, this does not invalidate the work of thousands of other independent scientists in the field. And if Jones has done something wrong, it will eventually found and corrected in the literature. This is the nature of science.

As far as the 'tarnish', hardly. Nature could walk away from ever publishing another climate science paper today (the bulk of it's impact comes from more medical and biological papers), and it would still be the world's pre-eminent journal. Nature only cares about top science, and no scientist is going to stop trying to get a Nature paper because of the link you posted.

[Pastiche]

Great post Billy.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Billy Tallent

That's what people tend to say when they can't get published.



No we haven't. I gave you a list of peer-reviewed publications which you could not personally find fault with. You gave me one unpublished 'manuscript' that would have struggled for a passing grade in a first-year undergrad science course, and would not have gotten off the editor's desk if submitted for publication. Please compare what you gave me with almost any article in a high-level journal. Pick something outside of climate science to avoid bias if it makes you happy. There is no comparison.



Proof? If you think Jones and Mann are out to get you, you submit to another journal and request that neither Jones nor Mann be considered as reviewers due to conflict of interest, then request someone you prefer. You can do this; it happens all the time. Simple. Good papers eventually find a journal to accept them. Bad papers don't.

I'm not arguing that the peer-review system is flawless. It has some problems, and if you want I will happily discuss them with you. But it is still the best mechanism we have to determine whether or not science was properly done.




What am I supposed to respond to here?

The papers that Jones supposedly wanted to block from the IPCC AR? They got in anyway. Jones couldn't block them. So what's your point?

The comment from the journal re: harassment? It's true, authors are expected to provide raw data and reagents to fellow researchers wanted to replicate or build on specific studies. Nature's objection is that the likes of McIntyre et al., were not asking researchers for specific raw data sets to replicate specific analyses. They were flooding researchers (not just Jones, Mann, Briffa, but many more) with e-mails and FOI requests for indiscriminate massive tracts of data AND secondary analyses, which researchers are not obligated to provide. This is not in the spirit of the disclosure agreement. This is Nature's point and it's justified. If you want the raw data for Figure 4 in a 1996 paper to validate against your own data? Fine. Here ya go. You want all raw data and secondary analyses from a lab for years 1990-2000, so you can trawl it? That's insulting. Go away. See the difference? One of the contentious pieces of data - the location data for observation stations, has been publically available for three years (this is the problem when you pick a couple of lines out of 1000s of e-mails collected over a decade), and Nature has yet to receive an official complaint. So again, what's your point?

I'm not going to debate Jones et al., deleting e-mails etc. It's up to UEA and the other parties to determine whether any wrong-doing occured. My point is that even if Jones is guilty of scientific malpractice, which has yet to be proven, this does not invalidate the work of thousands of other independent scientists in the field. And if Jones has done something wrong, it will eventually found and corrected in the literature. This is the nature of science.

As far as the 'tarnish', hardly. Nature could walk away from ever publishing another climate science paper today (the bulk of it's impact comes from more medical and biological papers), and it would still be the world's pre-eminent journal. Nature only cares about top science, and no scientist is going to stop trying to get a Nature paper because of the link you posted.

Sure. Back to the real world:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-12b7df1a0b63

[Billy Tallent]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Sure. Back to the real world:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-12b7df1a0b63

Oh yes, a report from a couple of US Republican Senate Staffers (surely to be unbiased; why do you think politicians are going to be objective and unbiased whereas scientists aren't?), featuring, as always, a number of out of context e-mails. Some of the e-mails don't even suggest any wrong doing; it's just scientists engaging in a candid discussion of the science. What does this have to do with any of the points I raised?

Clearly your tactic is to just keep throwing out links without actually engaging in the discussion.

Why won't you discuss the science or any of the issues I just raised?

[Pastiche]

Why won't you discuss the science or any of the issues I just raised?

Because that would mean he'd have to stop obfuscating and demonstrate his patent lack of understanding on this issue?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Because that would mean he'd have to stop obfuscating and demonstrate his patent lack of understanding on this issue?

Was that really called for? Why is it unreasonable to challenge some of the patent answers from the climate change believers? Every week, some of the settled science facts are disproven or thrown into question. Assumptions of climate change science being based on only top-notch, peer-reviewed literature are being invalidated. The only fact is that there are very few facts to in which to base either position.

Stating "thousands of papers" and "thousands of scientists" support the AGW theory, does not make the theory a fact. And, in all reality, if there were such an abundance of such sound science, why did the IPCC base their reports on unsound science, misrepresentations and media soundbites? It should be bullet-proof.

I use links, because I don't feel like rehashing what has already been exhaustively documented. I don't feel like having the debate being about picking apart my own interpretation of someone else's research, debate or argument. I'm merely representing the alternative viewpoint which is valid regardless of your or my bias (and becoming more and more relevant as some threads in the AGW rope begin to fray.)

The Climategate emails did not write themselves and there are threads within that should be deeply concerning (and far transcend the oft-used "out of context" moniker.) Actions speak louder than reputation and credentials, especially if reputation and credentials are on the line.

Don't kill the messenger.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Billy Tallent

Oh yes, a report from a couple of US Republican Senate Staffers (surely to be unbiased; why do you think politicians are going to be objective and unbiased whereas scientists aren't?), featuring, as always, a number of out of context e-mails. Some of the e-mails don't even suggest any wrong doing; it's just scientists engaging in a candid discussion of the science. What does this have to do with any of the points I raised?

Clearly your tactic is to just keep throwing out links without actually engaging in the discussion.

Why won't you discuss the science or any of the issues I just raised?

By the way, each link is relevant to the issues you're raising. Whether you either read or accept them is your prerogative.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Was that really called for? Why is it unreasonable to challenge some of the patent answers from the climate change believers? Every week, some of the settled science facts are disproven or thrown into question. Assumptions of climate change science being based on only top-notch, peer-reviewed literature are being invalidated. The only fact is that there are very few facts to in which to base either position.

...

The Climategate emails did not write themselves and there are threads within that should be deeply concerning (and far transcend the oft-used "out of context" moniker.) Actions speak louder than reputation and credentials, especially if reputation and credentials are on the line.

Don't kill the messenger.

Ha! I even found a link that states this far, far more eloquently and does not judge either position.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/2...uilding-trust/

Note: It is NOT actually written by the hack weatherman with a blog - only posted there. It's written by a real scientist, so maybe some (more) of you will actually read it.

[Billy Tallent]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Was that really called for? Why is it unreasonable to challenge some of the patent answers from the climate change believers?

But you weren't challenging them. Your whole strategy was: snide remark, post link, evade.

Every week, some of the settled science facts are disproven or thrown into question.

True in any field. This is how science works. But you haven't posted any solid science supporting your arguments.

Assumptions of climate change science being based on only top-notch, peer-reviewed literature are being invalidated.

Non peer-reviewed literature has no quality control. No validation. It could be interesting, but it could also be a pack of lies. Peer review, whatever its shortcomings, reduces this likelihood. As for climate change, start giving me proof, with good science. Peer-review aside, that article you posted was junk.

The only fact is that there are very few facts to in which to base either position.

Untrue. There is plenty of data out there. You just have to be willing to go to a science library and read. You are not. That's fine, I guess, but admit it.

Stating "thousands of papers" and "thousands of scientists" support the AGW theory, does not make the theory a fact.

Fine, but then place an equal burden of proof on the denial theory. This is where it falls short. The data for denial is lacking.

And, in all reality, if there were such an abundance of such sound science, why did the IPCC base their reports on unsound science, misrepresentations and media soundbites? It should be bullet-proof.

The IPCC AR is flawed. You are correct. But some context. It is not scientific literature. The science exists outside and independent of the AR. Invalidating one reference of thousands in the AR does not invalidate all others. The AR is an assessment; a reference for politicians to summarize an entire field.

The AR is huge, over 3000 pages. It has hundreds of people involved in putting it together; authors and reviewers, with thousands of references. There are bound to be many mistakes, including many still unnoticed.

It has multiple sections. WGI, which deals with the hard science of climate change, is thought to be rock solid. It exclusively used peer-reviewed literature. WGII deals with the potential impacts of climate change. The science is more theoretical, features weak references, and not surprisingly has been the subject of the controversy. For the record, the WGI scientists are livid with WGII for using grey literature, and I agree with them, but grey literature does not invalidate the thousands of good peer-reviewed articles.

The science remains, even if you chose not to acknowledge it.

I use links, because I don't feel like rehashing what has already been exhaustively documented.

But your last link had nothing to do with what I discussed. I read it. Make your point directly.

I don't feel like having the debate being about picking apart my own interpretation of someone else's research, debate or argument.

Well, if you want to talk about science, that's what you have to do. That's science.

I'm merely representing the alternative viewpoint which is valid regardless of your or my bias (and becoming more and more relevant as some threads in the AGW rope begin to fray.)

Viewpoint has nothing to do with it. This is science. Data is what matters.

The Climategate emails did not write themselves and there are threads within that should be deeply concerning (and far transcend the oft-used "out of context" moniker.) Actions speak louder than reputation and credentials, especially if reputation and credentials are on the line.

I agree. The scientists involved are under investigation, and if they are found guilty of wrong-doing, they will be fired; if papers are found to be incorrect, they will be retracted or corrected. But even if you eliminate Jones, Mann, and their cronies, and ALL of their papers, you are still left with the vast majority of the field of researchers and studies supporting climate change. So what then? What is your response?

[Billy Tallent]

Originally Posted by zuluking

By the way, each link is relevant to the issues you're raising. Whether you either read or accept them is your prerogative.

I read that link. It wasn't relevant. If you disagree, you should go back and read the post more carefully.

[zuluking]

Here's my "snide remark, post link, evade" moment for today.

Climate: undermining thousands of climate scientists and reputable science journals in a single decade!

[Billy Tallent]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Here's my "snide remark, post link, evade" moment for today.

Climate: undermining thousands of climate scientists and reputable science journals in a single decade!

You are nothing if not true to form.

To paraphrase you in previous posts: Did you actually read the whole thing?

If we were having an actual discussion, I could talk about things like statistical significance and sample size. I could point out that the article title is misleading and that it is not the scientific consensus.

I could also point out recent papers that have shown that climate does not change in a linear fashion. Paleoclimate data shows that previous periods of warming featured intervals of 15-20 years of stability, followed by periods of rapid change.

I could talk about another paper that argues that so much of the Arctic ice cap has melted, that it has released a flood of icy meltwater into the North Atlantic, kickstarting convective cooling, and altering weather systems such that we can expect a cooling period of a decade, followed by accelerated warming.

But we're not having an actual discussion.

You refuse to engage and you have demonstrated yourself to be scientifically illiterate. You don't understand the basic scientific process, thinking, or analysis, nevermind the studies you attempt to attack. You don't understand the difference between journalism and scientific literature, or the inherrent biases in journalism discussing science.

This is obvious to anyone with a high level of scientific training who has read your posts.

Under normal circumstances, this would be fine, if you wanted to have an actual discussion - maybe to learn something. But you don't. You just want to sound like you know what you're talking about and slander the scientific profession.

Feel free to keep making my point for me.

Let me know if you change your mind.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Billy Tallent

You are nothing if not true to form.

To paraphrase you in previous posts: Did you actually read the whole thing?

If we were having an actual discussion, I could talk about things like statistical significance and sample size. I could point out that the article title is misleading and that it is not the scientific consensus.

I could also point out recent papers that have shown that climate does not change in a linear fashion. Paleoclimate data shows that previous periods of warming featured intervals of 15-20 years of stability, followed by periods of rapid change.

I could talk about another paper that argues that so much of the Arctic ice cap has melted, that it has released a flood of icy meltwater into the North Atlantic, kickstarting convective cooling, and altering weather systems such that we can expect a cooling period of a decade, followed by accelerated warming.

But we're not having an actual discussion.

You refuse to engage and you have demonstrated yourself to be scientifically illiterate. You don't understand the basic scientific process, thinking, or analysis, nevermind the studies you attempt to attack. You don't understand the difference between journalism and scientific literature, or the inherrent biases in journalism discussing science.

This is obvious to anyone with a high level of scientific training who has read your posts.

Under normal circumstances, this would be fine, if you wanted to have an actual discussion - maybe to learn something. But you don't. You just want to sound like you know what you're talking about and slander the scientific profession.

Feel free to keep making my point for me.

Let me know if you change your mind.

To paraphrase you in this post:

"You won't do what I think you should do. You won't believe what I think you should believe. You should post on my terms not yours. And if you don't, I'm going to insult you and draw wild and unreasonable conclusions about your intent, education and intelligence and present them as fact for the purposes of ridicule."

You sound like alot like Rajendra Pachauri in "the aggressive way .... Dr Pachauri has responded to criticism"?

[Thor]

Billy did you see this doc on Nova:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/cavedive/

There was a really interesting finding in those caves from stalagmite that showed a increase in Sahara sand in the layer right before major climate shifts, showing that it was a consistent sign of an upcoming climate change

Now having said that they suggested that we've seen a big rise in Sahara sand in the last few decades hinting that we have reason to worry that this is a real sign of an upcoming dramatic climate shift.

NARRATOR: At 150 feet, Brian and Kenny transit a series of rooms girded by stalagmites. These mineral formations grow from the ground up. Some in this cave took more than 200,000 years to form.
It started in a dry cave, when water percolated through the ceiling and fell in different spots. Stalagmites are built by the slow accumulation of the minerals and sediments contained in the water. So these beautiful columns are more than geological ornaments. Locked inside is a biography of Earth and its atmosphere.
The stalagmites Brian and Kenny are harvesting may help answer critical questions about the history of Earth's climate. That's what geo-chemist Peter Swart wants to know about.


At the end of the last Ice Age, about 11,000 years ago, conditions changed radically, from dry to wet, within 50 years. This change was probably accompanied by a rise in temperature and sea level.
And Swart notices something else: some of these climate events are preceded by a mysterious dark band. When he samples the dark bands, he finds iron.
So is there some link between iron and climate change? How could that be? The Bahamas are made of coral; there's no iron anywhere.
In the blue hole where they cut the stalagmite, Brian and Kenny noticed something that might help solve the mystery. In the cave wall, they found a layer of red sediment. The color is the key here: the red in the dust means it's loaded with iron. And that means that thousands of years ago, a thick layer of iron-rich red dust covered the island's surface.
Repeated rains washed it through the rock, leaving a bright red band.
So how did the red dust get here? One theory suggests it came from the Sahara Desert, some 4,000 miles away.


NARRATOR: The areas with the highest concentration of iron correspond almost exactly to the places on the stalagmite where the chemical composition indicates a period of major climate change.
That probably means a major Sahara dust event came right before each change, when temperatures and sea levels rose.
The fact that Saharan dust storms happen with greater frequency today is raising concerns that history could be repeating itself.


PETER SWART: Now, we know, for the last 40, 50 years, there's been a major drought in Africa. And that has seen an input in the amount of dust which is coming from the Sahara region to the Bahamas.


NARRATOR: It's estimated that over the past five decades, the Sahara has seen a ten-fold increase in large-scale dust storms. If we are witnessing the beginning of a major climate change, it could happen fast, just as it happened in the past, maybe in as little as a lifetime.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr..._cavedive.html

[Thor]