The UVA Emails and Confirmation Bias: Seek and Ye Shall Find

Tue, 2011-05-31 07:06Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

The UVA Emails and Confirmation Bias: Seek and Ye Shall Find

You have to hand it to the American Tradition Institute. Unlike Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, they’ve found a way to get the University of Virginia to release at least some emails and other documents from climate researcher Michael Mann’s time working there–by using freedom of information requests for “public” documents. (News here, scathing Washington Post editorial here.)

The University of Virginia is complying, although its president says they will take advantage of every exemption allowed by the law. Still, though, it sounds as though a lot of documents are going to be released. So what will happen next?

For an answer, we can look to an important new book, Michael Shermer’s The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies, How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. In it, Shermer discusses the phenomenon of confirmation bias, invoking the biblical line “seek and ye shall find” to describe this pervasive cognitive flaw. 

The American Tradition Institute–and indeed, conservative climate skeptics across the board–have gone seeking scandal among the ranks of climate scientists. That’s what Ken Cuccinelli did. That’s what happened in “ClimateGate.” That has been the strategy for some time.

So does anyone think that that, whatever these documents say, they are not going to be treated as a scandal by those who went searching for them?

Confirmation bias tells us what will happen. Those who went seeking went in with a theory–that wrongdoing has been done. They all believe “ClimateGate,” shown by multiple investigations to be a fake scandal, was actually a real one. So that is their premise.

They will therefore read whatever emails they receive and find wrongdoing in them. They will find politics. They will find closed-mindedness and bias. And who knows what else they will find–but it will all be made to look bad.

Will any of the charges be valid? I don’t know, although I seriously doubt it. One thing we can be sure of, though, is that things will be taken out of context and used selectively. That’s what happened in “ClimateGate” and that’s what will happen again.

Conservatives, in short, are targeting Mann and expecting to find another ClimateGate scandal. And I am watching conservatives and also predicting that they will find another ClimateGate “scandal.” There’s only the slightest difference between our views: The quotation marks.

Which one of us do you think is going to be right? 

Previous Comments

There is some value to these exercises, even if it is not what is intended by the authors. I only understand climate science at a very basic level, but I do understand written English. So when I see the ‘skeptics’ misrepresenting the content of emails from the UEA or wherever I get confirmation beyond any doubt that there really only is one side here that matters - the scientific side - and what is ranged against them are what I would consider to be the dregs of society.

Oh, that sounds very scientific, Millicent.

Misrepresenting what? Its clear what they said they would delete information rather than let it go out for an FOI, thats how scientists behave? Well if they don’t become more open soon they will become the laughing stock of the world. A good number of people already see this drivel for what it is. The emails that were leaked form University of East Anglia show how bad these high priests of CAGW really are.

… they never deleted anything like that. They expressed frustration. That’s not in violation of anything.

The investigations cleared them, and the science stands.

It is sooooooo amusing how the Faithful can look right at clear evidence in writing that AGW is a fraud and the AGW industry has been manipulating information for years… and see “Expressed Frustration”

Pure Faith Based cult.

All you have is your own faith-based insistence there’s a fraud.

Yet many investigations have found no problem with the IPCC, Mann, the CRU or the host of other recipients of attacks by the braindead morons of denial.

What is the moron’s response?

“The investigation was a fraud!!!!”.

No proof.

Just insistence that THERE IS FRAUD and that if an investigation into the allegations finds no fraud, then that is proof there’s a conspiracy.

What a bunch of lunatics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/20/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

Yes, they would prefer to delete it than pander to the wishes of a troll trying to waste their time.

They didn’t delete it. Or are you going to go all “Thought-crime” on us now?

And the FOIA requests were refusable:

Prejudicial to Commercial interests of any person:
Much of the data was commercial data from another country released only under license.

Environmental Information – If the information requested is environmental information:
Natch

Vexatious or repeated requests:
Yup. McI had been answered fully but continued to ask, additional info from the organised nature of the DDoS.

But it can’t be expected that a foreigner would know what the law is in the UK.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents#

Part I Access to information held by public authorities
Right to information
1. General right of access to information held by public authorities.
2. Effect of the exemptions in Part II.
3. Public authorities.
4. Amendment of Schedule 1.
5. Further power to designate public authorities.
6. Publicly-owned companies.
7. Public authorities to which Act has limited application.
8. Request for information.
9. Fees.
10. Time for compliance with request.
11. Means by which communication to be made.
12. Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit.
13. Fees for disclosure where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit.
14. Vexatious or repeated requests.
15. Special provisions relating to public records transferred to Public Record Office, etc.
16. Duty to provide advice and assistance.

Refusal of request
17. Refusal of request.
The Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal
18. The Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal.
Publication schemes
19. Publication schemes.
20. Model publication schemes.
Part II Exempt information
21. Information accessible to applicant by other means.
22. Information intended for future publication.
23. Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters.
24. National security.
25. Certificates under ss. 23 and 24: supplementary provisions.
26. Defence.
27. International relations.
28. Relations within the United Kingdom.
29. The economy.
30. Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities.
31. Law enforcement.
32. Court records, etc.
33. Audit functions.
34. Parliamentary privilege.
35. Formulation of government policy, etc.
36. Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs.
37. Communications with Her Majesty, etc. and honours.
38. Health and safety.
39. Environmental information.
40. Personal information.
41. Information provided in confidence.
42. Legal professional privilege.
43. Commercial interests.
44. Prohibitions on disclosure.

The one thing these sceptics never genuinely do is address the actual scientific research, as reported in the numerous scientific papers.

Dude, books have been written addressing (and debunking) the scientific research. Please open your eyes!

Not on fiction stories like “Heaven and Earth”.

Open your eyes and read the science, not the punditry.

Climate change science is well enough understood to know that we are causing climate change and must change our ways.

And more books have been written explaining and supporting the science and a slew of others that expose the real fraudsters - the fossil fuel funded hooligans who are mistreating science and prolonging inaction whilst the temperature rises from GHGs already emitted that are in the pipeline yet to be felt due to the lag in the earth’s systems to reach a new heat energy balance with space. That last is a part you deniers just don’t get. That is why it has been said if we reduced emissions to zero tomorrow thew earth will continue to warm. Its all about radiative balance being achieved at the top of the atmosphere and it taking decades, perhaps centuries to actually balance out.

Meanwhile the balance target keeps moving as emissions continue to increase unchecked despite economic disruption.

Yes more book have been written on the science, try some of these:

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/books/

Mostly the science:

Climate Change: Picturing the science – Gavin Schmidt and Joshua Wolfe

Climate Crash: Abrupt Climate Change And What It Means For Our Future – John Cox

The Climate Crisis: An Introductory Guide to Climate Change – David Archer and Stefan Rahmstorf

A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions – Katharine Hayhoe and Andrew Farley

Communicating on Climate Change – An Essential Resource for Journalists, Scientists, and Educators – Bud Ward

Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming – Michael Mann and Lee Kump

The Discovery of Global Warming – Spencer Weart

Forecast: The Consequences of Climate Change, from the Amazon to the Arctic, from Darfur to Napa Valley – Stephan Faris

Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change – Elizabeth Kolbert

Global warming: Understanding the Forecast – David Archer

The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate – David Archer

Principles of Planetary Climate – Ray Pierrehumbert – on order

The Rough Guide to Climate Change – Robert Henson

Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet – Mark Lynas

The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate – Andrew Dessler and Edward Parson

What We Know About Climate Change – Kerry Emanuel

The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather, and the Destruction of Civilizations – Eugene Linden

With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change – Fred Pearce

Now one more not on that TheWayThings Break list as yet:
The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast – David Archer (Editor), Ray Pierrehumbert (Editor)

Paleoclimate/Climate-related:

The Complete Ice Age: How Climate Change Shaped the World – Brian Fagan (ed.)

Divine Wind: The History and Science of Hurricanes – Kerry Emanuel

Floods, Famines, and Emperors: El Niño and the Fate of Civilizations – Brian Fagan

Frozen Earth: The Once and Future Story of Ice Ages – Doug Macdougall

The Great Ice Age: Climate Change and Life – J. A. Chapman

The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death – Richardson B. Gill

The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations – Brian Fagan

The Holocene: An Environmental History – Neil Roberts

Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery – John Imbrie

Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past – Chris Turney

The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850 – Brian Fagan

The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization – Brian Fagan

Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary – Ray Bradley

Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate – William Ruddiman

The Rising Sea – Orrin H. Pilkey and Rob Young

Solar Activity and Earth’s Climate – Rasmus Benestad

Snowball Earth: The Story of a Maverick Scientist and His Theory of the Global Catastrophe That

Spawned Life As We Know It – Gabrielle Walker

Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World’s Highest Mountains – Mark Bowen

The Tree Rings’ Tale: Understanding Our Changing Climate – John Fleck

The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future – Richard Alley

Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future – Peter Ward

The Wave: In the Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks and Giants of the Ocean – Susan Casey

Now I would add Atkins ‘Physical Chemistry’ books to that and good primers on oceanography, e.g. Garrison, ‘Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science’ which demonstrates the multidisciplinary nature of this topic and why physicists are often tunnel visioned and myopic - right the self proclaimed Energy Expert.

As it happens TWTB has an apposite post that demonstrates tthe sort of misinformation that comes from We Use Wishfull Thinking:

WUWT not even going through the motions of fact-checking any more

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/

Use such as WUWT for source at your peril.

Yes, books have been written, published and funded by and for conservative industy front groups, that call themselves think tanks.
Such groups have funded or published 78% of skeptic books on climate change.
What groups am I talking about. Why these:

These 32 organizations have all been involved in the tobacco industry’s campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.
They are all now involved in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.

1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
9. Cato Institute
10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
11. Consumer Alert
12. DCI Group (PR firm)
13. European Science and Environment Forum
14. Fraser Institute
15. Frontiers of Freedom
16. George C. Marshall Institute
17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
18. Heartland Institute
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Independent Institute
21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
22. International Policy Network
23. John Locke Foundation
24. Junk Science
25. National Center for Public Policy Research
26. National Journalism Center
27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
28. Pacific Research Institute
29. Reason Foundation
30. Small Business Survival Committee
31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
32. Washington Legal Foundation

#5 and #9 were created by the Koch brothers, who also have their hands in several others.
#24 is Steve Milloy’s group. FOX news likes to feature him as a climte change expert, when he is not a scientist, but a paid lobbyist for fossil fuels. His group Junk Science, could not be more aptly named.

Yes, books have been written, published and funded by and for conservative industy front groups, that call themselves think tanks.
Such groups have funded or published 78% of skeptic books on climate change.
What groups am I talking about. Why these:

These 32 organizations have all been involved in the tobacco industry’s campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.
They are all now involved in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.

1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
9. Cato Institute
10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
11. Consumer Alert
12. DCI Group (PR firm)
13. European Science and Environment Forum
14. Fraser Institute
15. Frontiers of Freedom
16. George C. Marshall Institute
17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
18. Heartland Institute
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Independent Institute
21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
22. International Policy Network
23. John Locke Foundation
24. Junk Science
25. National Center for Public Policy Research
26. National Journalism Center
27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
28. Pacific Research Institute
29. Reason Foundation
30. Small Business Survival Committee
31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
32. Washington Legal Foundation

#5 and #9 were created by the Koch brothers, who also have their hands in several others.
#24 is Steve Milloy’s group. FOX news likes to feature him as a climte change expert, when he is not a scientist, but a paid lobbyist for fossil fuels. His group Junk Science, could not be more aptly named.

Yes, books have been written, published and funded by and for conservative industy front groups, that call themselves think tanks.
Such groups have funded or published 78% of skeptic books on climate change.
What groups am I talking about. Why these:

These 32 organizations have all been involved in the tobacco industry’s campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.
They are all now involved in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.

1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
9. Cato Institute
10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
11. Consumer Alert
12. DCI Group (PR firm)
13. European Science and Environment Forum
14. Fraser Institute
15. Frontiers of Freedom
16. George C. Marshall Institute
17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
18. Heartland Institute
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Independent Institute
21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
22. International Policy Network
23. John Locke Foundation
24. Junk Science
25. National Center for Public Policy Research
26. National Journalism Center
27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
28. Pacific Research Institute
29. Reason Foundation
30. Small Business Survival Committee
31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
32. Washington Legal Foundation

#5 and #9 were created by the Koch brothers, who also have their hands in several others.
#24 is Steve Milloy’s group. FOX news likes to feature him as a climte change expert, when he is not a scientist, but a paid lobbyist for fossil fuels. His group Junk Science, could not be more aptly named.

Hank122
‘…books have been written addressing (and debunking) the scientific research. Please open your eyes!’

Were what you claim true, you would have a point. However, AFAIK, you are not. To debunk science requires genuine science, not a list of unfounded malicious accusations and bogus claims. Such claims are made in Op-Eds, on websites and in books, by people who are typically not relevantly qualified and who have scant expertise in a relevant discipline. Hardly anything appears in the scientific literature and when on the unusual cases where it has, there has sometimes been chicanery in the peer-review process, or the journal was non-standard. And BTW, the participants are typically inextricably linked to the Denial industry.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You have been duped.

Perhaps you should open your mind and read some genuine science instead of pseudo-science.

About those books:

“Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed ‘sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating ‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.”

Environmental Politics Vol. 17, No. 3, June 2008, 349–385

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and
environmental scepticism
Jacques et al.
http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/661390__793291693.pdf

It may come as no surprise that many of these CTTs are funded by Koch[1] and Exxon [2].

[1] http://tiny.cc/SecretFunding2011Update
[2] http://bit.ly/29B5Ki

Except that I no longer entertain the notion that those who fly in here and start throwing nasturtiums at us are really skeptics, they are deniers. Although I would allow septics as an alternative for what they drip here aids those spreading poison.

One only has to look at how the heroes of the deniers that appear here are up to their necks in fossil fuel and transport industry funding. Then these same septics have the gall to accuse climate scientists of being in it for research grants. It is noticeable that very few of our ignorant (sometimes barely literate which is seemingly sometimes linked to the ignorance condition) denier visitors are prepared to answer questions on the science.

All they can offer is rhetoric, straw-men and the occasional cherry picked factoid.

LOL….
What a cute little echo chamber.

1. It pretty hard to misinterpret the climategate emails.
Many are just so blatent that defending them simply takes a blind eye and blind faith.

2. The main reason that real science is not discussed here is because there is precious little of it.
In all the years I have been here, I have never seen a schred of anything that could justify the alarmism.
All we see here is opinion and talking pints from the cult.

Fabricated pseudo science that is supposed to be take as gosple.

If anyone actually read the IPCC papers they would get a very different story. But they dont, they simply read the political summaries and pretend that the science is sound.

I wish it were actually, but so far, after 30 years and 100 billion dollars down the drain, all we have is a loose hypothesis and some computer models based on biased assumptions.

Nik just repeats what Bob Carter says. He has no clue where the number comes from but accepts it as Holy Truth.

“1. It pretty hard to misinterpret the climategate emails.”
It is. This doesn’t stop the denialists trying though. I guess since all video and music compression uses the FFT algorithm which uses a mathematical trick to reduce computation that your MP3 player and DVD player don’t actually work? After all a trick is only EVER a lie to deceive, so those things can’t be compressing the data stream.

“In all the years I have been here, I have never seen a schred of anything that could justify the alarmism.”

Funny. Not even poptart could find any AGW alarmism. Maybe you can point it out for him.

“All we see here is opinion and talking pints from the cult.”

Yes, you do that a lot. Try not repeating from the denialist echo chamber.

“Fabricated pseudo science that is supposed to be take as gosple.”

It’s spelt “gospel” and yes we have lots of that from you too. E.g. misrepresentation of Beers Law and CO2’s role in plant physiology.

But we’re supposed to take it that CO2 is saturated and it’s a plant food on gospel.

“If anyone actually read the IPCC papers they would get a very different story.”

You’ve never read the IPCC reports or the papers referred to in there. But prove me wrong. Where in the IPCC papers does it show AGW isn’t a problem?

Or is this another statement you want us to treat as gospel?

“but so far, after 30 years and 100 billion dollars down the drain”

Oh look. there’s an echo in here. Where is the bar tab for 100 billion dollars over the last 30 years? Even ball-park figures will help.

Or another echo of something to be taken as “gospel”?

Why are you misrepresenting the “trick”? That sets you out as disingenuous from the start, and anything else you say pointless as we know you have an agenda to defend the indefensible as long as it supports climate panic.

The trick, of course, was used to disguise the fact that the proxies used had not followed the known temperature record. This means that the proxies were known to be wrong, invalidating every piece of work relying on those proxies, before and since.

That is about as dishonest as science ever gets.

The trick was in fact to replace the proxy temperatures post-1960 with real, observed ones. Up until 1960 the proxy temperatures and the real ones through the much longer period in which both had been obtained had agreed just fine. After 1960 the proxy ones (well, a particular tree-ring dataset) diverged away (downwards) from the actually observed temperatures. You may or may not be aware that this well-known problem has been the subject of a number of papers.

As to your mindbogglingly flawed misinterpretation of the issue, it is a) no surprise as it’s about at the level of the rubbish that you lot peddle and b)thanks, though, for providing a neat example of the subject of this interesting post. So you haven’t entirely wasted your or our time on this occasion.

Doubting Rich

‘Why are you misrepresenting the “trick”?’

Trick means: ‘a clever way to achieve a desired result’, it means nothing mere than that. Tricks are commonly described in the scientific literature, meaning that the only people it is hidden from don’t exist. Your attempt to mindlessly repeat the idiotic implication that this is somehow underhand, says a great deal about you – and it isn’t good.

Read the scientific literature, if you are able to read.

Warning: Requires comprehension skills and intelligence.

Alternatively watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

Of course, an intelligent person with access to a computer connected to the internet [because you’re reading this] and the ability to type could have searched Google Scholar. I’ve even provided a truncated URL to make this easy, it’s here:
http://tiny.cc/GoogleScholarTrick
[Disclosure: this search ignores papers where the author’s name is ‘Trick’]:

How many hits? ~456,000. So that was very well hidden, wasn’t it!

I hope you now feel humiliated at your intense gullibility, because you should.

More drivel from you, you spout this stuff like religion, but it has been proven many times the IPCC reports use material that isn’t published and material from Greenpeace to make the wails louder. I don’t believe it show me all the data from those papers. If you really think the data was all released why are there still FOI’s asking for it. The UVEa has been deliberatly stalling on releasing any data. I saw the expenses of the Muir Russell inquiry I’d love to get on the gravy train and be paid 57,000 pounds sterling for rubbish. We also know Lord Oxborogh is involved with a think tank especially for the purpose of making money from renewables. Wind and solar don’t work and yet you want to push for that. Well is you want it you pay the big money for this stuff.

I couldn’t give a damn what you believe. All I’m seeing with you lot is much bluster and arm-waving as you throw mud about randomly, presumably in the hope that some of it might stick somewhere. FOIs eh? Some of your cronies were so stupid that they even sent in FOI requests for data that had failed to list the countries they wanted it for in the manner suggested by Macintyre. Perhaps they were anticipating a Lucky Dip?

Now run along and do your trolling somewhere else!

The only data being “stalled” was that data that were owned by outside resources (and thus had to be FoI’d from that resource).

You see this with the theist/deist and atheist debate.

theist: your atheism is just as much a religion as my belief in god!

“but it has been proven many times the IPCC reports use material that isn’t published ”

Absolutely and incontrovertibly false bollocks bullshit told with a brazen disregard for anyone else.

“and material from Greenpeace”

Why would this be wrong? Because YOU PERSONALLY hate people who think more of the planet than the raping of it? Looks like.

As to “the Muir Russell inquiry I’d love to get on the gravy train”, so you don’t want to pay people for their work, hmmm?

I guess you’ll be pissed off that Monckton gets $35,000 plus expenses per appearance at HI conferences, then.

Oh, no, you won’t, will you.

“Wind and solar don’t work”

They work better and cheaper than oil, gaas and nuclear and despite the unpaid externalities for it, coal is no cheaper than wind.

anonymous. +0; Tue, 2011-05-31 09:07
Care to share your sources for the $100e9 figure.

I am a physicist (like Dr. Hansen) and an AGW expert, so consider the following comments in that light.

Skepticism is an essential ingredient of being a legitimate scientist, and is a badge of honor.

There is one and ONLY one issue about AGW: has this hypothesis been subjected to the scientific process?

The scientific PROCESS involves a comprehensive, independent, transparent and empirical assessment of a hypothesis.

What ATI (and other scientists) are attempting to do is to verify whether the scientific PROCESS was followed or not here. (NB: one does not have to be a climatologist to be able to assess whether or not there has been adherence to the scientific process.)

Regarding the transparent element, ATI and others asked to see all data that was used to derive AGW conclusions. They were refused. Oops: red flag, as this is a major violation of the science process.

I did not see “Scientific Process” listed as an explantion for the ATI actions — which is either a profound oversight, or else it is evidence that you would prefer to ignore that reality.

You are a physicist? And an AGW expert? Really? Prove it. If you can’t then we know you are another (likely paid) denier claiming false credentials in a feeble effort to legitimize your drivel, reciting tired climate change denier talking points that have been refuted so many times that no true self-respecting “AGW expert” would possibly attempt to use them. All of the data you speak of are available. ATI isn’t asking for any “data”. They are asking for private exchanges between scientists so that they can misrepresent scientists, much as you do above. But you probably know that. I suspect you are getting paid for posting this nonsense here and at other sites. We don’t tolerate nonsense like this here. Please take it elsewhere.

Pray tell what about the Scientific Process is drivel?

If you believe that the AGW hypothesis has been properly subjected to the scientific process, please point me to where this data can be obtained.

Because your intent is to deny and the data won’t help you there.

But the data can be found all around the place. RC has a one-stop-shop for most of it:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Let us know when you’ve done some science on it…

You link to realclimate and think that is a useful source? How deluded do you get? That site has been shown many times to be biased and dishonest. It is run by the hockey team and friends. They lie. They cheat. They do bad science (not just the hockey stick). Yet you link to them as a reliable source.

So, who do we give credibility to, you or EnergyExpert?

Tell me, Rich, which of the links provided by realclimate is not reliable?

Chirp, chirp…

That is just hilarious. “Energy expert” comes in guns blazing thinking he has caught out the scientific community & exposed some fraud when really, it is just some nutter that works for Mcdonalds that reads WUWT daily & repeats denier memes thinking that it is true & never realizing that the data is now & has always been available to the public for download. Suddenly silence from our master phyisicst…..”noooo wuwt lied to me…but that’s impossible..they are soo genuine!” Ahaha.

Then we get another “expert” doubting rich, who didn’t even bother to click on the link that Bam provides & instead goes to discredit the site he has been told by WUWT is baaad bad bad. Had he have spent just 10 seconds clicking on the link, he would have seen there is direct links to all the climate centres around the world hosting the raw data for their perusal. Sums up the denier position so well. They just parrot other denier talking points, but when they get out in the real world & away from denier sites to test them, they fall flat on their faces..ahah.

Ahhaha, you are an “energy expert” & yet with your expertise & insider knowldge, PLUS google to actually type in “where can I find climate data sources”, you somehow couldn’t find them?

You have been exposed as the fraud you are.

Over and over, in multiple countries, by multiple people and groups.

Try Berkeley Earth for one.

If you don’t want your emails from a position of public trust to be inspected do your own private research. Obviously the fuss you are creating shows us that you think there is something to see in them. When you work a private or public company your work emails are not private it is as simple as that get over yourself.

Yes, it has been tested. And so far it’s been on the money (if slightly less alarming than reality).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm

And the data shows climate sensitivity to CO2 is over 2.7C per doubling when the models predict between 2.5 and 4.5 C per doubling, with a best estimate of 3C per doubling of CO2.

ATI weren’t trying to find anything about the scientific process, since the scientific process is DO YOUR OWN WORK. The papers should give enough information to replicate the work and check yourself. Asking for the code used is nonsense since it’s far easier to write your own and, just like with flight control systems of large passenger aircraft, different programs written to the same specification (e.g. the science paper) are far more robust and reliable than just rerunning the same code with the same numbers.

As to the data, the data was available. Now, has any new science been done on the data that was available?

No.

Therefore the data wasn’t needed. It was a distraction.

“I did not see “Scientific Process” listed as an explantion for the ATI actions — which is either a profound oversight, or else it is evidence that you would prefer to ignore that reality.”

Or evidence that ATI had no desire to follow Scientific Process and instead were delaying and looking for six lines they could use.

That you believe that the scientific process applies to ATI’s work is evidence that you would prefer to live in that unreality.

Balls. The data show that climate sensitivity without feedback is about 1 degree per doubling.

No-one has any sound, empirical evidence for the feedback. Geological data (I am a geology graduate) suggest that feedback is negative. Negative feedback is also the rule in real-world systems, even more so in those that show static stability (which the geological evidence supports, as does the fact that previous world climate changes like the Roman optimum, mediaeval optimum and little ice age did not run away to climate extremes).

The only evidence that there is positive feedback is in models. All of those models have been known for many years to be wrong (late 1990s, can’t recall the year). They all forecast greatest warming in the tropics in the upper troposphere above 300 hPa. This region of the atmosphere is

The “data” that suggest more warming from carbon dioxide require that great scientific bait and switch - they assumed the result as part of their calculations. They assume that all warming since the 1850s is due to carbon dioxide. That is not only unproven, it is very unlikely.

Carbon dioxide is plant food. Every gigatonne we release helps feed the world. We should celebrate that!

Oooops, inadvertently deleted part of the reply. Should say “This region of the atmosphere is not warming. Radiosond measurements have proved this.”

“Geological data (I am a geology graduate) suggest that feedback is negative.”

I don’t know where you graduated, obviously, but I was wondering if Disneyland has a Fantasy Academy!

Let’s see:

CO2 release during deglaciation (remember at denier-school how they told you to keep pasting, “Look! CO2 follows temperature!”.)

CH4 release from melting permafrost.

Albedo-loss from sea-ice decline.

I could go on, but I cannot be bothered.

Well according to some sources it is the best university in the world. It is generally acknowledged to be the best in the country, and specifically in the Earth Sciences was considered the best in the country.

You are talking about models, theories, mechanisms and assumptions. I am talking about empirical evidence for the resultant total feedback. In real science empirical evidence trumps theory every time.

Let us just take one BS point:

‘You are talking about models, theories, mechanisms and assumptions. I am talking about empirical evidence for the resultant total feedback. In real science empirical evidence trumps theory every time.’

You do know how many climate models are created do you not?

Hint, they include empirical evidence as a basis for parameterization.

Different organizations in different countries have created there own constructs as climate models using different data sources for their models and they all are in agreement as to the way climate unfolds over time with and without GHG forcings. The only ones that are on track with currently recorded data are those which include those GHG forcings. No other forcing factors produce the current increase in temperatures.

So stop writing BS about climate models.

“Carbon dioxide is plant food. Every gigatonne we release helps feed the world. We should celebrate that!”

Go tell Joplin, Missouri about the benefits of wind. And the cities along the Mississippi River about how water is the stuff of life in our world. Nitrogen is also essential for life. Go sit in a 100% nitrogen atmosphere.

Balance, sir. Systems require balance. I’m quite sad that you claim to be a “geology graduate” and don’t understand this.

Pure idiocy! Even the hard-core climate hysterics have specifically said that Joplin cannot be linked to climate change, let alone any human influence. Such childish assumptions make you look silly. No-one has even come close to proving warming will cause more extreme weather, and in fact such events have overall proved very much stable. There just are not more tornadoes now. More are reported, but only weak ones showing that this is just improved reporting.

I do understand it all. It appears that you, however, are ignorant, in part because you have not studied geology.

Gaseous nitrogen is not essential for life, although a large proportion of basically inert gas is important to life as we know it, and N2 is ideal. I am not suggesting a pure CO2 atmosphere. Considering the current levels that is just an inane comment from you. For a start it is well below the levels that damage life. More importantly it is very low compared to most of the history of life on Earth. You would not know unless you were actually educated in the subjects you prattle on about, but we are in a CO2 crisis. Most plants grow far better with more, and in fact we are not far above what is considered the minimum for plant life to thrive.

So first off, to whom is this addressed

‘I do understand it all. It appears that you, however, are ignorant, in part because you have not studied geology.’?

Ah! Geology alone provides the answers to our changing climate. Wow!

Snag is it is petrochemical trained geologists that are blowing much smoke screen around this topic, e.g. McIntyre and Carter.

‘No-one has even come close to proving warming will cause more extreme weather, and in fact such events have overall proved very much stable.’

Well unfortunately for you that is simply untrue as an examination of scientific papers will show you, if, that is, you bother to get off your butt and look some out.

There are some readily available and collected together in ‘The Warming Papers’ by David Archer and Ray Pierrehumbert.

But then you need a bit more than a grounding in geology to take it in.

‘Pure idiocy! Even the hard-core climate hysterics have specifically said that Joplin cannot be linked to climate change, let alone any human influence. Such childish assumptions make you look silly.’

Nope. Such assumptions on you part make you look ignorant, see:

Heidi Cullen on tornadoes, extreme weather and ‘The C-Word’

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/04/235903/heidi-cullen-tornadoes-extreme-weather-c-word/

Come on, show us that you have the ability to learn and a bit more than just geology.

The earth is 33C warmer than it would without the greenhouse gasses surrounding it.

68% of that is from H2O and 21% from CO2.

That means the feedback from a change in CO2 is 68/21 = 3.238

NOWHERE NEAR 1.

Current data trends show that CO2 has risen 35% whilst temperatures have risen 0.8C (and hasn’t reached equilibrium yet, so the actual sensitivity is higher by some amount).

Sensitivity = 0.8/ln(1.35) = 2.666

NOWHERE NEAR 1.

What bullshit you produce.

“The only evidence that there is positive feedback is in models.”

Nope, it’s in the data so far.

“All of those models have been known for many years to be wrong (late 1990s, can’t recall the year)”

More complete bullshit:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm

Prediction: the scenario most closely meeting the actual CO2 production by humans: 0.6 from 1960-2010. Reality: 0.6 from 1960-2010

The lies just spew out of you, don’t they?

“The “data” that suggest more warming from carbon dioxide require that great scientific bait and switch - they assumed the result as part of their calculations.”

Since you “know” this, you’ll be able to say where that assumption is made.

Go on, let us know.

Or are you again talking complete crap? Oh, of course you are.

“They assume that all warming since the 1850s is due to carbon dioxide.”

Another bollocks statement brazenly lied by a troll of absolutely no shame whatsoever. WHERE does the IPCC say that? Where do any of the climate scientists who conclude the IPCC correct say that?

NOWHERE, that’s where.

Because you’re a lying arsehole.

Wow, so much ignorance, so many arts-graduate errors in one post I don’t know where to start. Certainly can’t address them all here.

First greenhouse warming from water is far more than you are assuming, and carbon dioxide less. Some suggest that water is up to 95% with carbon dioxide between 2 and 3%, but I have never seen any figure as low as 68% or as high as 21%.

“That means the feedback from a change in CO2 is 68/21 = 3.238”

No it doesn’t. Even if your figures were correct it would not. You have just taken two numbers, divided one by the other and claimed that is feedback. It isn’t. Feedback is a completely different concept.

Then you assume that (a) there has been statistically significant anomalous warming, which there has not (http://www.informath.org/media/a42.htm) (b) all of the warming has been caused by carbon dioxide.

Ironically you then claim that nowhere is it assumed all warming since 1850 is caused by CO2, having just done so yourself. Of course you are lying, because the assumption is all over the climate propaganda. Hard to say how far it runs through the science as the scientists break the law to hide their methods and data, but it is certainly there.

Of course you are also assuming that temperature data are accurate, to get your 0.8-degree figure. Since there have only been accurate data since 1979, since 1850 temperatures are not known to anything like that precision, since most published datasets are based on thermometer readings which have been shown in Canada, the USA, Russia, Australia, New Zealand and Bolivia to be either deeply flawed or literally made up that 0.8 is … let’s just say a “rough estimate”, as “wild guess” would belie the effort made in reaching the figure.

Finally running through your sophomoric calculation is the assumption that climate is a mathematically-simple system. It isn’t just you, many professional climate “scientists” make the same error, as they are not able to model dynamic, complex systems (what is popularly known by the misleading term “chaos theory”). It doesn’t mean that you are right though. The climate is a complex dynamic.

Prove it. Until then, you’re another self-proclaimed nutter with too much time on his hands.

Pages

[x]

The NYTimes just ran “Hard-Nosed Advice From Veteran Lobbyist: ‘Win Ugly or Lose Pretty’ - Richard Berman Energy Industry Talk Secretly Taped”. Rick Berman has long been the architect of “public charities” for any client willing to pay. Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF, EIN 26-0006579) evolved...

read more