Crock of the Week: Smack the Hack

Sun, 2009-12-06 20:33Peter Sinclair
Peter Sinclair's picture

Crock of the Week: Smack the Hack

Comments

I expect we will be listening to posts like this for a long time explaining away the ambiguities (of which we are told there are none) and the politicization (which scientists claim hasn’t occurred) that has been revealed by these whistleblower(?) e-mails.

There’s always ambiguities, always doubt in science. Thats the nature of the beast. Its only creationists and denialists who can’t understand this. It’s the overwhelming evidence for global warming that makes the case for it. AGW was predicted back in the 50’s and nothing that has happened since contradicts the theory. In order for it to be a fraud it would have to be collossal in scope. It would involve all the world’s major governments. It would span decades involving pretty much all the branches of science including atmospheric physicists dating back to the 40’s.
I can understand why you’d want to deny it, but just believing it’s not happening doesn’t actually make it not happen.

Obviously it can’t be a centralized highly organized fraud. You couldn’t keep that together, but there could be hundreds of cases of adjusting number to get closer to a desired, expected or needed result. It could be a case of errors building up and of reading things wrong. The thing is - Scientists are trying to tell us the future and the distant past. All kinds of intelligent people like to dig into those subjects but are not equipped to do that as well as they think. Even in our personal lives we have plans and expectations of the next 20 years, but everything will turn out differently than we expect. It always does.

It would have to be highly organized. We are talking thousands of scientists recording and interpreting masses of data. Biologists, atmospheric scientists, climatologists, oceanographers, physicists all reviewing and checking each other’s data and conclusions. Completely unprecedented in the history of science. This would have to have started in the 50’s for climatologists and the 40’s for atmospheric physicists. Basically scientists would have had to have kept making the same mistakes over and over again for the past 60-70 yrs. None of the denialist claims make an iota of sense without a massive global superconspiracy. The only other explanation is that science just basically doesn’t work. All your argument is is just vague dissembling.

Negative framing of innocuous comments is the best that the denialists could come up with even with 10 years of emails in hand.

I still really, really want ten years of emails from various “institutes” like The Fraser institute, The Heartland Institute…

You know the difference between public and private right? It doesn’t matter if Heartland and Fraser are a bunch of idiots. They’re on their own dime.

The Fraser Institute is not private because it issues charitable tax receipts to donors; so this propaganda mill is a parasite on our tax money. Do you agree that it should be de-registered as a charity?

maybe - but then I think you have to end the whole concept of charitable tax receipts including all churches, political parties and every kind of organization.

So, we’ve established that you think it’s fine for private interests to lie and cheat in the public sphere, and that we shouldn’t care? It’s fine for them to subvert public policy and waste billions of our dollars? Subvert climate change policy with propaganda, causing massive costs in the future?

Of course it’s our concern. We’ve seen enough socialization this past year of private losses.

Pure BS. How come then we have geologists complaining they are left out of the climate science process, or how about solar scientists who also claim they are being left out of the process, or how about thermodynamic physicists who claim they are being left out of the process. This list of scientists who reject AGW for one, because their speciality refutes AGW, and if not deliberately left out, are threatened, blackballed and accused of being paid by Big Oil (when they are not).

That’s not science, that’s dogma protecting its turf.

Really? Like what? Why don’t you be the first to answer the question. What climate or weather events today are beyond normal variation? Provide specifics and references to back up any answer.

You know I wouldn’t be the first to answer that question, it’s been answered again and again and again in scientific journals, by scientific panels, by scientific bodies all around the world. If you want a pointer you could try Nature. I’m surprised you haven’t already looked into it yourself. Anyway give it a read I’m sure you’ll be more than satisfied.

But I’m not, because A) they do not show anything beyond normal variation, and B) I have read enough science papers that refute AGW (have you?).

But again, just like everyone else, you skip the specifics and references and throw out a generalization. Pick a specific item and show me it is beyond normal variation. Or shall I pick one for you?

“science papers that refute AGW” Where are they?

I’m not at my personal machine tonight so in the morning I will post a small sample. But here is a few you can chew on:

Khatiwala, S. Primeau, F. and Hall, T. 2009. Reconstruction of the history of anthropogenic CO2 concentrations in the ocean. Nature 462: 346-349.

Knorr, W. 2009. Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL040613.

Springer, G.S., Rowe, H.D., Hardt, B., Edwards, R.L. and Cheng, H. 2008. Solar forcing of Holocene droughts in a stalagmite record from West Virginia in east-central North America. Geophysical Research Letters 35: 10.1029/2008GL034971.

Viau, A.E., Gajewski, K., Fines, P., Atkinson, D.E. and Sawada, M.C. 2002. Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14,000 yr. Geology 30: 455-458.

Willard, D.A., Bernhardt, C.E., Korejwo, D.A. and Meyers, S.R. 2005. Impact of millennial-scale Holocene climate variability on eastern North American terrestrial ecosystems: Pollen-based climatic reconstruction. Global and Planetary Change 47: 17-35.

Kuhlemann, J., Rohling, E.J., Krumrei, I., Kubik, P., Ivy-Ochs, S. and Kucera, M. 2008. Regional synthesis of Mediterranean atmospheric circulation during the Last Glacial Maximum. Science 321: 1338-1340.

Heisler,-White, J.L., Knapp, A.K. and Kelly, E.F. 2008. Increasing precipitation event size increases aboveground net primary productivity in a semi-arid grassland. Oecologia 158: 129-140.

Andronova, N., Penner, J.E. and Wong, T. 2009. Observed and modeled evolution of the tropical mean radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere since 1985. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: 10.1029/2008JD011560.

Chan, J.C.L. and Xu, M. 2009. Inter-annual and inter-decadal variations of landfalling tropical cyclones in East Asia. Part I: time series analysis. International Journal of Climatology 29: 1285-1293.

Chylek, P., Folland, C.K., Lesins, G., Dubey, M.K. and Wang, M. 2009. Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL038777.

Just a small few…

I really can’t make it any nicer: you are apparently scientifically illiterate. Is Andrew your brother, perhaps?
I checked just three papers and noted that none of these three refutes AGW. I would not be surprised if the others don’t, either (certainly not those that discuss climate events in the past). Anyway, the three I checked are:
Khatiwala et al does not refute AGW, it merely notes that oceans have been taking up lots of CO2. One sentence should actually worry you: “Our results also suggest that the terrestrial biosphere was a source of CO2 until the 1940s, subsequently turning into a sink.” CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing rapidly, with both the ocean and the biosphere being *sinks*. Gee, then where does the rise in atmospheric CO2 come from?
Knorr does not refute AGW either, it only notes that the CO2 sinks are not overwhelmed yet(!).
Chylek et al. does not refute AGW either, it discusses some correlation of warming and cooling of the arctic with the AMO, but does not discuss the upward trend that is also observed in the data (hint: there should be no upward trend).

I appreciate the citations; but natural variations that happened in the past and may be happening now do not disprove that AGW is happening now. You can have natural variations and AGW both occurring. Do any of those papers specifically say that their results prove AGW is not happening?

Good luck in trying to improve the image of Briffa, Mann, Jones, Osborn, Santer, Wigley, Trenberth, Overpeck, Jansen, Schmidt.. etc etc..

No more feeding for them at the public trough I should think.

Is this just a basic failure to communicate?

I need an explanation of why the tree rings of the last 50 years needed a correction. If they are unreliable now, how can they say they were reliable in the past?

It can’t be confirmed. Obviously they need a tree ring record that perfectly matches the modern instrumental record. It seems the problem is that trees aren’t digital thermometers.

The other problem is a different way of using words leads to confusion.

The term “global warming” variously means:

1 the general trend of warming over the past couple hundred years

2 The general concept of human induced global warming

3 Imminent catastrophic AGW

Everybody needs to be more specific. When some headline says “Scientists Reaffirm Global Warming” It means whatever you want it to mean.

They know when the tree data is reliable because they can compare samples to know reliable temperature readings. However, for reasons unknown, they become unreliable after 1960. They know they are reliable before 1960 because they do match measure temperature readings. This was explained in the video, and, frankly, has been a topic of discussion and various papers for years.

The point to even using tree ring data is threefold. One, it’s a second resource to help verify that temperature readings are correct. Two, it lets you determine temperature in areas of the world where you don’t have temperature data from instrumentation. Three, you can analyze rings from very old trees to determine temperature from before instrumentation records were even taken.

Instrumentation records in the post-WWII era are very reliable, so dropping tree ring data from 1961 onwards is no big deal, plus we can also conclude that the problem is with the tree rings, not the instrumentation data.

So, how do we know that a tree rings from,say, 1780 can be reliably read if one can 1961 can’t? Well, knowing the problem, they still seem to have confidence. Even the skeptics use the data. I’m afraid to understand more than this likely involves a heck of a lot of study of many papers, with assistance from a prof, which is why the anti-global warming hacks out these can have a such a field day with all this. Regular folks like most of us really can’t tell good science from bad.

A hed like “Scientists Reaffirm Global Warming” means that they support that human activities are at least contributing to the current warming trend, if not the highest level of cause. I’m not sure it confuses people. I think that the IPCC consensus statement confuses people. It’s not a absolutist statement, but persons often construe it that way. It basically says that GW is at least partially human caused with 90% certainty.

Not exactly an absolutist endorsement.

They know when the tree data is reliable because they can compare samples to know reliable temperature readings. However, for reasons unknown, they become unreliable after 1960. They know they are reliable before 1960 because they do match measure temperature readings. This was explained in the video, and, frankly, has been a topic of discussion and various papers for years.

——-

It begs the question, how do you know if tree ring proxy data is reliable before there were reliable instrument temps? You can’t. The entire tree ring method is now in question and hence cannot he used as a proxy for past temps.

———

So, how do we know that a tree rings from,say, 1780 can be reliably read if one can 1961 can’t? Well, knowing the problem, they still seem to have confidence.

——–

Having confidence is not science, that’s wishful thinking. One must provide evidence to support the confidence. And there isn’t any evidence any more.

——–

It basically says that GW is at least partially human caused with 90% certainty.

———-

A number pulled out of the air. Has no meaning. Let’s see the mathematical formula that was used to get that 90%.

Shame about all the physical evidence for global warming. Or maybe that’s part of this nefarious plot too. I bet if you looked at those glacier pics close enough you’d see extension cords running up into the himalayas. Damn is there anything those dastardly alarmists won’t do!

mr scott, please present me with a global ice index…oh wait you can’t because it doesn’t exist. You pretty much think that every piece of ice in the world is melting don’t you. The thing I dont get, do you people realize that they still use icebreakers when they explore the arctic? What do you think they need them for? By the way Anthony, I saw those pesky deniers planting snow makers in the artic, theres nothing they won’t do!

… of statistics are just guesses by some guy.

Are getting worried. If you watched the previous 5 videos this guy did on global warming he was relaxed full of composure. In this one he really has to try hard to hold back his venom. The “mccomentators” bit and using the word denier in this video blows his credibility.

Facts and reality to alarmists are like garlic to a vampire. They just melt away when confronted with them. If you get a chance google Lord Moncktons debate with Desmogs littlemore on the roy green show. Littlemore does a passable job of being thrown in at the last minute so David Suzuki could back out but sorry Richard, Monckton shows why he is the King of Climate change.

You are clutching at straws friend. Sinclair remained cool, calm and collected. Far more so than you lot deserve. My reaction to these disinformation campaigners is rather similar to that of the Freiherr.

Incidentally your factfree assertions are becoming rather boring and repetitive. I, for one, will no longer react to them (on this occasion I had to forego the pleasure of marking you down because even the marker seems to have given up on you).

Monckton’s been a liar from way back . He’s been caught again and again just making stuff up, faking data, charts. He’s been famous as a nutbar in Britain long before he jumped on the denialist bandwagon. He’s even been caught pretending he’s a member of the British Parliament to the US Senate! Probably his riduculous lying is why he’s considered the King of climate change by the denialists.

We all know that denialists can insult and smear people, but can any of you refute the clear facts raised in the video?

You would have to be one of the most naive individuals on the planet to believe that the phrase using a trick to hide the decline is commons cience vernacular. yes the word trick pops up in other scientific journals. It is also in the dictionary too.
Enron used a similar phrase as well
“I just used ken lays accounting trick to hide the decline in profits.”
I suppose that is just accounting jargin.

The laughable attempts to coverup obvious collusion and deception, I’m sure will only fool those who want to be fooled. Thousands of e-mails, computer code and the history of the whole global warming file paint things in such a crystal clear picture, that only the heaviest of political partisanship can obscure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Here is an adequate response to this video and its over 2 years old. Cling to a theory backed up with no empirical evidence, faulty data and zero peer review process if you want. The average person has enough common sense to see right through this stuff.

That is ultimately what is at stake, wether the average person is gullible enough to endure economic ruin based on junk science.

You offer up Bob Carter? http://www.desmogblog.com/rm-bob-carter

and http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/04/bob_carter_claims_its_not_warm.php

“You would have to be one of the most naive individuals on the planet to believe that the phrase using a trick to hide the decline is commons cience vernacular.”

Insults aren’t rebuttal. The “trick” was clearly published in Nature in 1998. A conspiracy in plain site, eh? That paper has been in front of denialists like Mckitrick for years and is essential reading for reconstructing the Mann hockey stick. How come the denilaists never harped on the alleged wrongness of the “trick”, published in plain sight?

Of course. Because there’s nothing wrong with avoiding unreliable data.

No it was not in plane sight. Only in the exposed source code shows what they actually did and that was to stop using tree ring proxy data after 1961 because this proxy data stopped matching real temps. They then tacked on instrument temp records and “smoothed” out the data to get the graph used in Nature. It’s a fraud, a deliberate fraud. It’s all explained here in detail: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/05/the-smoking-code-part-2/

As the video shows, and many other people have pointed out on the Internet, the “trick” was peer-reviewed published in 1998 in Nature.

Famous global-warming denialist and Mann hockey stick critic Ross McKitrick cites the “hide the decline” paper (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.OriginalPaper.pdf) in various publications over the years. There’s ten citations by Mckitrick of that paper, according to Google scholar, including McKitrick’s popular, though famously flawed, “analysis” of the Mann hockey stick.

See the results of the Google scholar search at http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_q=&num=50&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=Global-scale+temperature+patterns+and+climate+forcing+over+the+past+six+centuries&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=R+McKitrick&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdts=5&hl=en

So, McKitrick had to know because in his critique of the hockey stick, he had to grapple with this issue. That was something like five years ago.

So why no scandal then when McKitrick had to have discovered that? Well, because there’s nothing scandalous about the “hide the decline” issue, that’s why.

Interesting, that.

True, but that doesn’t help you much. No one is paying attention to that.

The fact is people were prone to distrust the climate scientists before and much more so now. The climate scientists have a big hole to climb out of. The only thing that can really save them is disastrous global warming and none of us want that.

Is your position “truth doesn’t matter”? I’m otherwise not sure what you are getting at.

I’m not much into false plausible realities. I prefer the fact-based ones.

well - you’re talking about a few words in an email and I’m talking about political realities. Political realities drive policy. A few words in an email mean nothing, but that fact doesn’t change the political realities and where things are going.

…but the longer-term fallout from the emails is unclear. My take so far is that many of the pols currently in charge know this email business is BS and act accordingly. The institutions under threat are playing the long game here, and, like myself, believe that this will likely turn into only a red meat issue for the denialist masses. Serious allegations, false or otherwise, make it out of the gate quickly, but the other story, if there is one of substance, usually catches up. The email issue will likely collapse, left only to conspiracy theorists to drool over for years, and the odd bought-out political types like Inhofe.

I don’t have much hope for progress on sufficient emissions reductions anymore. I haven’t for years. Nevertheless, the science should be defended, and what policy that can be done, should be done.

The real thorn in the side of the anti-global warming movement are the modern satellite records. Ironically, they are trying to deal with that by fudging the data.

Finally, some of us are thinking that the kid gloves are off now…

“The real thorn in the side of the anti-global warming movement are the modern satellite records. Ironically, they are trying to deal with that by fudging the data.”

Explain how. Provide evidence for this “fudging the data” from our side.

Tiresome.

Careful now, you don’t want to upset the tooth fairy.

Which, of course is the point of the whole soryy episode and exposes the talking heads in the media and the likes of Monckton for the criminal delayers of action on climate change that they are.

And all those commentators that sing their tunes.

It clearly shows that your position is also one of ideology rather than truth from science.

mark i don’t know what video you are talking about but i would love to see it, please post a link to it.

mark the facts of the video are that fox news commented on the emails that your boys made to each other and the commentator in the video gives his opinion of the coverage. Here’s a fact mark; co2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and it doesnt do anything.

I am refuted thus, eh? LOL.

“co2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and it doesn’t do anything.” – And I actually get criticized at times for calling people denialists?

“Arsenic is a trace element and doesn’t do anything”. Well, it’ll kill you when you ingest a concentration in liquid similar to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. But really, it merely is a trace element and doesn’t do anything…

The video is in the blog post at the top of this thread.

Fat Albert Gore’s film has been found full of falsehoods. Lots of Styrofoam props and exaggerations. Two members of the Academy Awards group in Hollywood are moving to take Fat Al’s Oscar back because it was given for a documentary, not an animated fantasy.

Mama always said, “believe only half of what you see and none of what you hear.”

The Emails and the code that was released for public scrutiny, say that these alleged scientists who are flogging AGW are simply a bunch of politically motivated liars. I believe that because I have seen the evidence.

That is why I can refute what I see in a video on line at a blog where fantasy is the norm.

The real reason Al won the award is because the hollywood set was mad about the 2000 election. That election loss also paved the way for Al to become the prince of climate and to push the whole issue up to where it is today. It might have been better all around if Al would have won that contest.

Just a pile of rhetoric and baseless assertions in response. The video is factual, with clear references.

Somebody wants to take Al Gore’s Oscar back? That’s gonna be fun, considering *he does not have one*.

I cant help but when I see these FOX news faces or this Morano cowboy, my supper is coming back up again. Amazing what evil lowlife is being let lose onto mankind.

Pages