Order of Kilopi
I still don't understand. Are you saying that climatologists will either lie or not respond to an anonymous survey because they believe it will affect their funding and or tenure? Are you saying that disbelief in AGW and and paronoia are correlated? Or are you saying that disbelief in AGW and lack of moral fibre are correlated? Or both?Try maintaining your span of attention long enough to read the two following sentences in my reply.
Established Member
Neither. Nothing which goes through a university network is anonymous. It is very observable that a significant number of academics and department chiefs 'come out' against AGW when they retire though, as Hansen's boss recently did:Originally Posted by Ronald Brak
On the issue of moral fibre, I await your response to the Schneider quote in my other post with interest."My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” ... “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done." - Dr John S. Theon: former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch
Order of Kilopi
Stoller, is the following correct?
1. You believe that surveys in a universtity can't be anonymous.
2. Doctor Theron who retired in 1994 was James Hanson's boss.
3. That a very large number, possibly a majority, of climate scientists do not believe in anthropgenic global warming but are keeping quiet because they are afraid that speaking up will affect their funding and or tenure.
Is all this correct?
Established Member
No. You have misinterpreted/exaggerated parts of what I wrote. It's a common prelude to a straw man - pin the tail on the donkey manouvre though, so nice try.
1) All employees sign contracts stating that their use of the internet in their place of work can and will be monitored.
2)I don't know who Doctor Theron is, but the Dr John Theon I quoted says this about his relationship to Hansen:
If I used the word 'boss' loosely, I hope the above clarifies the professional relationship between Theon and Hansen to your satisfaction.“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” ... “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” ... "I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,”
3) I didn't speculate on the number, though as only ~30% of those polled responded, it would seem that logic dictates that it is at least a possibility that a majority of those polled disagreed, but didn't respond.
Now, since you have tried to set yourelf up as crossexamining lawyer with me in the dock, and I have played along by giving honest answers to your three questions, I'd like you to answer my three if you would like to play fair.
1) Do you think Stephen Schneider is advocating good scientific practice in the quote below:
2) Do you agree that Dr John S Theon was a very senior scientist, above Hansen in NASA's organisational structure, in a good position to have an excellent overview of the development of AGW theory and practice during his tenure. If not, why not?"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
3) Do you think online polls are more relevant to the debate about the correctness or otherwise of AGW theory than the scientific validity of the methodology and data practices of it's proponents? Corollary: Dr Theon makes some very strong statements in regard to this issue, what is your take on them?
the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” ... “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done.
Last edited by Stroller; 2009-Feb-08 at 01:11 PM.
Established Member
In reply to Parejkoj
“Super Global Warming Hypothesis”
Science is the discussion of observations and analysis. Stating that all righting thinking people believe “X” indicates that you have not read the papers which shows the “Super Global Warming” hypothesis is not correct.
There is not disagreement that there was warming in the 20th century. The disagreement is concerning the basic science and assumptions used in the climate models.
The models assume massive positive feedback to the 0.7C calculated direct warming due to a doubling of CO2 to achieve a predicted warming of 3C to 7C.
There are observations and analysis that shows there is negative feedback rather than positive feedback. 70% of the planet is covered with water. The planet’s response when it warms is to produce more clouds. If negative feed is used in the climate models rather than massive positive feedback the response to a doubling of CO2 is 0.5C to 0.7C, not 3C to 7C.
The second issue is that scientific analysis clearly shows life thrives with a warmer planet with more CO2. As the planet warms there is more not less precipitation.
To intelligently discuss these issues one needs to separate the issues of reducing consumption, over population, and creating and protecting wild life sanctuaries from increasing “CO2”. The objective is to protect the environment not to reduce CO2.
Increasing CO2 helps the environment.
The “Super Global Warming Hypothesis” is not support by the data or analysis.
Do Scientists disagree with the Super Global Warming Hypothesis?
Yes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...never-muzzled/
Last edited by William; 2009-Feb-08 at 03:26 PM. Reason: grammar
Established Member
I don’t know why 70% of the people that received the survey did not respond, nor do you or do the people that sent out the survey. When you say that one camp is 97 times bigger than the other then you are implying you know that the 70% of the people that didn’t reply would have the same percentage response as those that did reply. I have no idea what gives you the right to make that claim.
Whatever gives you the right to make that claim should give me the right to make the opposite claim. And we both know that each others claim is nonsense.
No, surveys are valid if you take a random sample from a population and calculate error bars based on that sample size. But the sample taken in the study you referenced was not random. And to extrapolate results like you did to imply that these results fit the whole is wrong.
The title of the link you posted in #281 was:
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Established Member
More on disagreement within the climate science community and "Heresy." More on the problem of "Climate Porn" in the media.
Gavin on John Theon's comments.
Following the mainstream media's (or even the blogosphere's) coverage of climate science, and following the peer-reviewed science are different things. This is true for all topics in science. If there really is some "other camp," then why aren't they publishing in the peer-reviewed literature?
Also, anyone who claims that climate scientists would "keep quiet" about their disagreement with the consensus view out of some kind of fear have no idea how academia works.
Order of Kilopi
Please use a bit more civil decorum Stroller when replying to other members.
chrissy
Established Member
Willdo, sorry about that Ronald.
Banned
The statistical term for it is "cherry picking," and it's a source of bias in the sample.
When I first learned how to use statistics, I thought scientists would be better at it than anyone, as it's so critical to obtaining accurate results. As the years passed, I saw that scientists are generally pretty good with statistics, but their ability tends to vary, occasionally quite a lot, and unfortunately, sometimes well into negative territory. Most people aren't even aware when they misuse statistics.
Just as spotlighting is "fallacious since the mere fact that someone or something attracts the most attention or coverage in the media does not mean that it automatically represents the whole population," "Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.."
Thus, when only a third of the people to whom a survey is sent respond, and you report the results as "97% of respondants attest to X," you're also saying, without actually saying it, that the other 2/3 rds of those solicited who did not respond might have responses which range from nearly identical to almost totally opposed.
In other words, you don't know. You don't know because they didn't respond.
Thus, it's fallacious to throw around a figure of 97% as if it represented all climatologists when it most certainly does not.
All you can say from what you do know (1/3rd responded, and 97% of those responders support the hypothesis) is that the total response ranged from 32.33% to 99.00%.
Now - one can infer some reasonable assumptions based on what we do know. For example, we can infer that if everyone had responded, the figure would have been closer to 97% than 32.33%. But we can also infer from the reasonable assumption that the response rate would have been higher among those who were more interested, perhaps "passionate," about AGW, and thus the total response rate would have been somewhat less, perhaps significantly less, than 97%.
If the response rate had been 100%, I'd have to say the response agreeing with AGW would have been closer to 80%.
But again, that's just an intelligent guess based upon what is known. I'm willing to bet it's closer to the truth than the 97% figure arrived at through the incorrect use of statistics.
Established Member
Again, where are these climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC report publishing?
Established Member
Here are a few of papers that challenge the "Super Global Warming Hypothesis". As I said, the science indicates that the majority of the 20th century warming was not due to CO2 and that CO2 warming from a doubling of CO2 levels from the 280 ppm base will be 0.5C to 0.7C, not 3C to 7C.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?....3.CO%3B2&ct=1
Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?
Richard Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou
The calculations show that such a change in the Tropics could lead to a negative feedback in the global climate, with a feedback factor of about –1.1, which if correct, would more than cancel all the positive feedbacks in the more sensitive current climate models. Even if regions of high humidity were not coupled to cloudiness, the feedback factor due to the clouds alone would still amount to about –0.45, which would cancel model water vapor feedback in almost all models. This new mechanism would, in effect, constitute an adaptive infrared iris that opens and closes in order to control the Outgoing Longwave Radiation in response to changes in surface temperature in a manner similar to the way in which an eye's iris opens and closes in response to changing light levels. Not surprisingly, for upper–level clouds, their infrared effect dominates their shortwave effect. Preliminary attempts to replicate observations with GCMs suggest that models lack such a negative cloud/moist areal feedback.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions by D. Douglass, J. Christy, B. Pearson, and S. Singer
We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this proposition. (The use of tropical tropospheric temperature trends as a metric for this test is important, as this region represents the CEL and provides a clear signature of the trajectory of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse forcing.) On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System by Stephen Schwartz
The equilibrium sensitivity of Earth's climate is determined as the quotient of the relaxation time constant of the system and the pertinent global heat capacity. The heat capacity of the global ocean, obtained from regression of ocean heat content vs. global mean surface temperature, GMST, is 14 ± 6 W yr m-2 K-1, equivalent to 110 m of ocean water; other sinks raise the effective planetary heat capacity to 17 ± 7 W yr m-2 K-1 (all uncertainties are 1-sigma estimates). The time constant pertinent to changes in GMST is determined from autocorrelation of that quantity over 1880-2004 to be 5 ± 1 yr. The resultant equilibrium climate sensitivity, 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2), corresponds to an equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.1 ± 0.5 K. The short time constant implies that GMST is in near equilibrium with applied forcings and hence that net climate forcing over the twentieth century can be obtained from the observed temperature increase over this period, 0.57 ± 0.08 K, as 1.9 ± 0.9 W m-2. For this forcing considered the sum of radiative forcing by incremental greenhouse gases, 2.2 ± 0.3 W m-2, and other forcings, other forcing agents, mainly incremental tropospheric aerosols, are inferred to have exerted only a slight forcing over the twentieth century of -0.3 ± 1.0 W m-2.
Order of Kilopi
Hi Stoller
So you think that universities monitor staff emails in order to find their position on global warming and this information then affects tenure and funding decisions? How do universities go about this? Even with automation it would be a big job and it would need qualified people to go through the emails that the automated system flagged in order to evaluate them. Universities around here at least just don't have the funding or staff assigned for this task. And I don't understand who would be doing this and what would be their motivation? Would it be the administration staff? The Dean? Universities generally have a lot of departments and I find it hard to believe they'd want to put all this effort into monitoring and forcing compliance on one issue. And then there's the whole ethical and legal issues. And just how would this information enter into tenure and funding decisions? I don't understand at which point information from spied on emails would enter the process. I just find this whole idea unbelievable.No. You have misinterpreted/exaggerated parts of what I wrote. It's a common prelude to a straw man - pin the tail on the donkey manouvre though, so nice try.
1) All employees sign contracts stating that their use of the internet in their place of work can and will be monitored.
Order of Kilopi
Orionjim, Mugaliens, I understand that I can't say that one camp is 97 times larger than the other. I was just attempting to draw attention to the apparent size difference between the two "camps." I should that said something along the lines of, "According to this survey, one camp is apparently 97 times larger."
I will further admit that I got the 97 times figure just from eyeballing the graph. If someone wants they can put a ruler against their computer screen and come up with a better figure.
Bad Post-Doc
I'm confused. Under the last administration, the government didn't want to acknowledge AGW. Wouldn't there have been more grant money available from the US government, at least, for those denying it? And it's not as though you can deny tenure to someone who already has it, which I'm sure quite a lot of people in related fields have. So what's the problem with coming forward and saying it isn't real in that, well, climate?
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
I simply pointed out that everyones contract includes a statement that their internet use can and will be monitored. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'd be really grateful if you'd stop telling me what I think and answer the questions I put in return for answering yours. Otherwise some observers (including me) might think you were just avoiding the substantive issues with obfuscation and nitpicking.
It'd be nice if you'd take the trouble to get my login name right too.
Thanks
Established Member
No need for govt grants, as every alarmist knows, climate skeptics are well paid by BIG OIL.
In fact, there are a lot of pre-eminent scientists in very high positions at academic and other scientific institutions who disagree with AGW theory, and say so. After the death threats recieved by Tim Ball, there are many others who avoid the hassle.
Established Member
You still don't seem to get the point that since only ~30% responded, you can't draw any such conclusion. In any case, the way you get from '97% of those who responded' to 'this camp is 97 times larger than that camp' demonstrates that you have a poor understanding of the most basic arithmetic, let alone statistics.
In fact it's worse than this. On revisiting the paper, I note that the 97% figure only applies to a tiny subset of those polled (75 people, those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change and who responded affirmatively to question 2). Not only can you not do the math, you can't even correctly read the data.
You are Michael Mann and I claim my five free dendrochronologies.
To repeat your own phrase, this statement seems to be "eminently mockable".
In deference to Chrissy, I'll resist.
Last edited by Stroller; 2009-Feb-09 at 10:24 PM. Reason: and another thing!
Bad Post-Doc
You know, I'd like some evidence about those death threats. I'd also like some evidence that those scientists are in relevant fields--as has no doubt been mentioned, creationists pull up lists of "pre-eminent scientists" who don't agree with evolution, too, and we all know how valid they are.
Further, that first site you linked to went on about governmental insistence that we accept AGW, which you should know was not the case in the US for eight years.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
My bold. So it is now?
I am uncomfortable anytime there is "governmental insistence that we accept" any idea and particularly if it is used as a justification for social change to give the government more power over peoples' lives when the science is suggestive but not conclusive.
Bad Post-Doc
So far as I know, the current administration plans to listen to scientists, not lobbyists, on the subject. However, so far as I know, the current administration does not yet have an official policy regarding AGW.
Science is never conclusive. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know we're putting an awful lot of it into the atmosphere. Doesn't it simply make sense to not do that so much?I am uncomfortable anytime there is "governmental insistence that we accept" any idea and particularly if it is used as a justification for social change to give the government more power over peoples' lives when the science is suggestive but not conclusive.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
Currently, you have that choice for you. No, it does not make sense, simply. Maybe it would make sense simply, to force all residents within one hundred miles of an active volcanoe to relocate. (rhetorical statement)
Bad Post-Doc
Why not?
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
For the same reason that:
doesn't make sense, simply.Maybe it would make sense simply, to force all residents within one hundred miles of an active volcanoe to relocate. (rhetorical statement)
Established Member
There is a big difference between not forcing people to evacuate a volcano, where the damage is localized, then there is in continuing to pump out a known green house gas without restraints.
And then being in denail about it's effects since the 1970's. . .even though many the predications that came out of the theory made back then have happened.
Established Member
Well I know I'm not going to be the one emailing Tim Ball on that particular issue. Why doon't you ask him for proof seeing as you are the one doubting his word.
Relevant fields: well, climate science is pretty interdisciplinary. It's also pretty new, 'climatologist' isn't in most dictionaries yet.
Sorry for the big list, but here's a few of the scientists:
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
Administrator
Maybe it does, particularly if they are going to demand FEMA's assistance if and when the volcano blows up. But that's a different story and maybe not the right analogy.
Here's my 2 cents, all in my humble opinion.
First, there is the pure science of global warming, which scientists, and BAUTers can debate forever, as more and more data is collected.
The dataset may never be perfect, because you have to do such science differently than, for example chemistry (my favorite). If I'm doing an experiment in the lab, I can do a classic one, where I control all the variables, change one at a time, do a "control", etc.
But, since we have no "control" Earth, we can't do things that way. So the science of global warming will never be as "pure" as a laboratory experiment.
Now, if there were no potential social/economic/etc. consequences of global warming, the data collection and the scientific debate could go on forever and hardly anyone would care.
The problem is there are many potential social/economic/etc. consequence, the kind of things governments have to worry about. And, if the the models are correct, we need to start doing something about it NOW.
So, the governments of the world have to make decisions now, based on the best available data and models.
I don't think global warming is the only example of this. Especially when the issue involves human health and safety, for example, governments often act before they have all the data and have completely proven something. Should the FDA wait to close down that peanut plant with the salmonella until they are absolutely sure it is the cause of the problem?
To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the fuss. Lots of the things that are proposed to prevent or decrease future global warming are pretty good ideas anyway, such as increased energy efficiency and alternative energy sources.
Established Member
So 'climatology' is a soft science with 'hard science' pretensions.
It claims that it's models have 'skill', though they haven't made any successful predictions.
It claims to have identified causitive principles for corrrelations, but seems unable to prove them without recourse to what Dr John Theon refers to as the 'manipulation of data to fit theory'.
And on the strength of this, populations are carbon taxed, and world leaders are exhorted to embrace technologies sold by those who promulgate a storyline.
I welcome swift's post. let the debate on the substantive issues begin.
Established Member
Sea level rise is the ultimate measurement of GW. From 15kya to 5kya it rose approximately 450 feet world wide. As the ice ran out it took more and more energy to further melt glacial ice and the rate of sea level rise slowed. During that period the proxies for temperature and CO2 tell us that it was cooler and lower PPM of CO2 than it is now, yet the ice melted. A great deal of ground formerly covered by ice was exposed and released its methane, yet CO2 remained below today's levels. Solar forcing, Milankovitch cycles and sunspot activity, waxed and waned. Plate tectonics puts greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There is nothing simple about any of this. The Earth is not a one issue subject.
As a thought experiment lets say that it was crucial for the survival of mankind that sea level rise, say, thirty feet in twenty years. Could you devise a plan that would assure that happening. I know some people would answer in the affirmative, but I am certainly not sure.
Finally, I am not in denial, I just do not see it as a crisis. It also concerns me that the subject could be used for non altruistic political purposes and preemptive reduction of freedoms without proper cause.
Established Member
Agreed
Posting Permissions
