General AGW discussion thread

[Ivan Viehoff]

Looks like the IOP say exactly what the skeptics have been saying for yonkers.

Come on folks, where is the vitriol against the IOP? :-)
I do not read it that the IOP is denying AGW. I read it that the IOP seeks to restore the reputation of practitioners of scientific research.

The IOP appear to be in favour of integrity in data analysis and scientific method. They could hardly be in favour of anything else. I am not aware that "skeptics" are uniformly in favour of integrity in data analysis and scientific method. The data analysis methods of AGW skeptics frequently lack integrity, eg Lomborg, Monckton.

The IOP are saying what has to be said, namely that science has to be carried out in a way that its integrity is transparent, otherwise it brings it into disrepute, even if the conclusions are sound. The fact that a few researchers have been caught out for lack of integrity is a common situation in many areas of science, and does not usually bring down with it entire edifices of research. The "hockey stick" is far from being the only evidence for AGW, nor even necessary evidence of it. I'm comfortable with the scenario that this and a number of other papers are, on more detailed examination, don't hold water.

[Webbo]

The data analysis methods of AGW skeptics frequently lack integrity, eg Lomborg, Monckton.

How fortunate that you are able to deterime this. Maybe they should hide their methods to avoid criticism, as according to Professor Jones, that is the "standard practice" in climate science.

[buzgz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_to_authority_as_log ical_fallacy

It must be true, my dad said so.

I happen to think that the questioning of good scientific practice carries more weight when it comes from an organization dedicated to such.

Your mileage may vary.

[buzgz]

Go ahead and provide evidence that their science is flawed, if you are suggesting that.

Back up also your other claims with evidence, please.

You have arrived at the heart of the issue with this request. Because of the lack of data disclosure and the secrecy of methodology, the Hockey Team has managed to render the historical temperature record of the world suspect. I cannot say with any certitude anything about this record.

The Royal Society of Chemistry sums it up this way:


4. The apparent resistance of researchers from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) to disclose research data has been widely portrayed as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research. The true nature of science dictates that research is transparent and robust enough to survive scrutiny. A lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if this conjecture is not well-founded. This has far-reaching consequences for the reputation of science as a whole, with the ability to undermine the public's confidence in science.

Their complete response can be found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4202.htm

I think that those familiar with the public record of the behavior of the Hockey Team agree that they have abused the scientific method. For any unfamiliar with their record, I can only suggest Google, as the rules of this thread prevent me from directing you.

[Klausnh]

The IPCC seems to be thrown under the bus by the Institute Of Physics in it's memorandum submitted to the UK Parliamentary Committee :

http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Consultations/Energy_and_Environment/file_39010.pdf
IOP clarification (http://www.iop.org/News/news_40679.html)

The Institute's statement, which has been published both on the Institute's website and the Committee's, has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.

That is not the case. The Institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.

[Atraveller]

Article in the NY Times which relates to this thread:


Climate Science Defended (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/science/earth/03climate.html?ref=global-home)

Interesting quote from a climate skeptic:


“I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored,” Willis Eschenbach, an engineer and climate contrarian who posts frequently on climate skeptic blogs, wrote in response to one climate scientist’s proposal to share more research. “I don’t want you learning better ways to propagandize for shoddy science. I don’t want you to figure out how to inspire trust by camouflaging your unethical practices in new and innovative ways.”

second quote from the article to balance that last quote:


The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent.

[tusenfem]

Please, NO newspapers etc.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Perhaps you are not familiar with the record of climate science, as practiced by the Hockey Team (Jones, Mann, Briffa, et al).
Go ahead and provide evidence that their science is flawed, if you are suggesting that.
You didn't provide an answer to this.


Back up also your other claims with evidence, please.
You didn't do this either (providing something for one claim out of many doesn't quite cut it).

But perhaps we need to be more specific because it seems that each claim one has to ask for evidence separately. Why don't you give the evidence already when you make the claims?


In climate science the Hockey Team served as self-appointed gatekeepers of the peer review process.
dmr81 has already asked you the details on this but you have ignored that. I would like to see you support this claim by evidence. You claim this as a fact so you of course should have the evidence. What papers have they blocked from publication and how they did it?


In many cases apparently without the knowledge of even the publication editors, the Hockey Team members were able to influence and in some cases determine exactly who would peer review which paper.
How is this supposed to work when the editor is the one who sends the papers to the referees? Show us your evidence about this. Particularly, show us that it was "in many cases".


In addition, in many cases they were able to see that papers with viewpoints and/or conclusions different from those of the Hockey Team members were simply not published and certainly not included in IPCC findings (in some cases because they were not published in peer reviewed journals).
Back this up with evidence, don't forget to show that it was "in many cases".


In addition, the Hockey Team members routinely withheld their data so that it couldn't be addressed by others, while freely sharing the same data amongst other team members (apparently in violation of some agreements they may have had not to do so, if they are to be believed).
Provide proof of this claim, show us especially that it was a routine.

By the way, it is common in other sciences too (astronomy for example) that not all the data and methods are presented with the journal publications.


Additionally, they were able to make sure that the data was not requested by the peer reviewers.
How did they do it? Provide evidence please.


As recently as this afternoon, Phil Jones in testimony before MPs on the Science and Technology Committee said it was not "standard practice" in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.
Provide evidence please.


Because of the lack of data disclosure and the secrecy of methodology, the Hockey Team has managed to render the historical temperature record of the world suspect.
GISS provides full data and methodology. Back this up with real science instead of opinion pieces please.


I think that those familiar with the public record of the behavior of the Hockey Team agree that they have abused the scientific method. For any unfamiliar with their record, I can only suggest Google, as the rules of this thread prevent me from directing you.
Ahh, so all your information comes from blogs... It might do you good to actually read some scientific publications. As the rules in this thread quite clearly suggest that we should concentrate on the science, why are you then feeding us this conspiracy nonsense?

[tusenfem]

In climate science the Hockey Team served as self-appointed gatekeepers of the peer review process. In many cases apparently without the knowledge of even the publication editors, the Hockey Team members were able to influence and in some cases determine exactly who would peer review which paper. They sometimes peer reviewed papers for each other.


This seems rather weird. As many papers are submitted to JGR or GRL, it is the author herself, who gives a list of possible referees for said paper. The (topical) editor then sends out several requests for refereeing the paper to persons on the list (unless it is clear they would be conflicted, like e.g. working at the same institute) and when 2 or 3 accepted the task, the process is on its way.

Unless you can show that your hockey team is actually in the editor's seat there is hardly a chance that they can influence who is refereeing which paper.

I also get papers to referee from authors with whom I have written papers or with whom I am good friends. When I find that I am too close, like actually working with that person at the same time, I recline to review the paper, although I am flattered in a sense, that they value my opinion about their work enough to get my comments.

[mugaliens]

Please, NO newspapers etc.


I'm sorry, Tus, mod in red in all, but our media takes fairly good (not great, but good) strides to ensure accuracy.

As such, they're up for discussion, good or bad.

If you'd rather BAUT become a highly-sterilized non-media and non-user environment, so be it.

I've yet to see the one without the other, though.

[Strange]

...Phil Jones in testimony before MPs on the Science and Technology Committee...
Provide evidence please.

You can read the proceedings here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc387-i/uc38702.htm

I heard some of it on the radio and skimmed through the text. He describes what information (data and methodologies) was released and what wasn't (and why).

ETA: hope tusenfem doesn't object to this source, but it is the official verbatim report on the statements made by the "witness" in question ...

[tusenfem]

I'm sorry, Tus, mod in red in all, but our media takes fairly good (not great, but good) strides to ensure accuracy.

As such, they're up for discussion, good or bad.

If you'd rather BAUT become a highly-sterilized non-media and non-user environment, so be it.

I've yet to see the one without the other, though.


I am sorry but those were the extra rules that were put into this thread.
Secondly, you are long enough here to know you need to report this if you do not agree with the moderation, and therefore this warrants an infraction.

No press releases
No blogs
No newspapers

This is about the science in AGW and not about whatever someone writes down.

Stick to the real science, be it "sterile" or not.

[buzgz]

You didn't provide an answer to this.


You didn't do this either (providing something for one claim out of many doesn't quite cut it).

But perhaps we need to be more specific because it seems that each claim one has to ask for evidence separately. Why don't you give the evidence already when you make the claims?


dmr81 has already asked you the details on this but you have ignored that. I would like to see you support this claim by evidence. You claim this as a fact so you of course should have the evidence. What papers have they blocked from publication and how they did it?


How is this supposed to work when the editor is the one who sends the papers to the referees? Show us your evidence about this. Particularly, show us that it was "in many cases".


Back this up with evidence, don't forget to show that it was "in many cases".


Provide proof of this claim, show us especially that it was a routine.

By the way, it is common in other sciences too (astronomy for example) that not all the data and methods are presented with the journal publications.


How did they do it? Provide evidence please.


Provide evidence please.


GISS provides full data and methodology. Back this up with real science instead of opinion pieces please.


Ahh, so all your information comes from blogs... It might do you good to actually read some scientific publications. As the rules in this thread quite clearly suggest that we should concentrate on the science, why are you then feeding us this conspiracy nonsense?

All of these questions seem to come from my post #3493. Clearly, I have stated and claimed more in this post than I can support with peer reviewed literature.

I withdraw post #3493 in it's entirety, including all claims and statements.

I knew the rules of this thread when I made the post and I overstepped those rules. For this I apologize to you, to dmr81 and to all other thread members.

[Atraveller]

Please, NO newspapers etc.


Sorry Tusenfem, I thought the article gave an interesting perspective to the debate in this thread - especially the second quote - I'll withdraw the post if you wish.

[Atraveller]

New Global Warming art from NASA (as of Feb 23 2010 - but I don't see that anyone has posted it yet.)

1880 to 2009 temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nasa-giss_1880-2009_global_temperature.svg)

Graphic temp rise by area - decade (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42392)

[Swift]

This is to let the membership know that on or about March 14, we will begin a temporary moratorium on Global Warming discussions. We expect this will last about a week, but it might be longer. During this time, this thread, and any other current ones on Global Warming will be closed, and we will close any new ones that are opened.

The purpose of this is for a major review of the Forum's policy on this topic. The Moderation Team has been working on this for a while, and we feel we will need a "quiet time" while we work through some issues. We are not implementing this moratorium immediately, in case anyone has a couple of last minute things they need to post.

Please remember that the current rules still apply until the shutdown; in particular posts need to avoid politics and need to reference only scientific publications (no blogs, etc.).

[TheHalcyonYear]

I think it would be most interesting indeed to if it were to end up that one could not defend the idea that global warming was not occurring, or that such defense was limited to ATM threads, and to later see the evidence begin to stack up behind this view.

[mugaliens]

I think it would be most interesting indeed to if it were to end up that one could not defend the idea that global warming was not occurring, or that such defense was limited to ATM threads, and to later see the evidence begin to stack up behind this view.

It appears this is where this is headed. :rolleyes: Despite the unmistakeable evidence (in my mind, at least) that GW is happening, I've twice been supended on this forum for my opposing anthropogenic GW as an issue.

Whatever. BAUT is developing a serious history of banning any and every controversial topic and thereby ultra-streamlining themselves into the extremely rarified strata of "the few of us who are left agree on everything - we have won!"

I've seen this sort of self-retraction happen several times on other BBS before, and it's such an unbelievable waste of otherwise outstanding academic/intellectual resources.

At this late stage, I no longer belive BAUT is able to shuck the mantle and pull their program out of the fire.

Who knows? They may surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Argos]

in particular posts need (...) to reference only scientific publications (no blogs, etc.).

Since scientific magazines charge for content, it is going be hard to reference them in a useful fashion [besides, there are very good, knowledgeable blogs out there].

[Webbo]

How ironic that this topic is subject to a policy decision.

[Swift]

Well, for those of you unhappy about the moderation, I'm about to give you a little more fodder.

No more discussion about how BAUT does or does not moderate Global Warming (or will in the future). This thread is for discussing Global Warming, not the metadiscussion of how it is done. If you wish to start such a discussion in Feedback, you may do so.

And just so its clear, that's the final warning on this. The next violation gets an infraction.

[JESMKS]

The title of this thread is "General AGW discussion thread." Is the discussion to be restricted to only AGW or to global warming from all causes?

[Swift]

The title of this thread is "General AGW discussion thread." Is the discussion to be restricted to only AGW or to global warming from all causes?
It is titled that way, but it hasn't particularly worked that way. At least for the next several days, I think other causes are fine (certainly, people have posted other causes as a counter to AGW).

If you were going to talk, for example, about Global Warming on Venus, I would take it to a new thread.

[nimbus2506]

Since scientific magazines charge for content, it is going be hard to reference them in a useful fashion [besides, there are very good, knowledgeable blogs out there].

Not necessarily, there are various scientists who, while publish, host particular papers on university websites, personal or other websites and their are also other individuals who host those papers on their own websites.

The easiest way to find these papers is by using google scholar.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=climate+change&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on

The link above is a good start but for more particular issues you should refine your search.

As you can read from the majority of the posts (since the new rules), regular members have posted in a way that links the paper to the pdf, the common format that it is in.