Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by Louise

May 7, 2012, 4:21 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by climatereason

$

0

0

At least one speaker at the forthcoming conference has pulled out and sounds quite angry.

“Well here’s the problem. My name – and the name of my book – is currently on the same page of the Heartland website where the above quote appears. Without prior knowledge or informed consent, my work has been aggressively associated with this odious ad campaign.

Forget disappointment. In my view, my reputation has been harmed. And the Heartland thinks it has nothing to apologize for.

Adding insult to injury, it proclaims that it will “continue to experiment” with how it presents its message. That’s all well and good. But being collateral damage in someone else’s ongoing marketing experiments isn’t my idea of a good time.”

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/05/why-i-wont-be-speaking-at-the-heartland-conference/

---

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by jim2

May 7, 2012, 4:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by Louise

$

0

0

gbaikie | May 7, 2012 at 1:25 am |
It’s been warming since the last glaciation.

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by climatereason

May 7, 2012, 4:45 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by jim2

$

0

0

gbaikie
the version of the LIA you gave came from the Connelley version of wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Little_Ice_Age&action=history

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by jim2

May 7, 2012, 4:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by climatereason

$

0

0

Attention water boys: Here is another chapter on the sorry behaviour of certain climate scientists. Get out the big buckets.

“A week ago, the Information Commissioner notified the University of East Anglia that he would be ruling against them on my longstanding FOI request for the list of sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology referred to in a 2006 Climategate email. East Anglia accordingly sent me a list of the 17 sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology (see here). A decision on the chronology itself is pending. In the absence of the chronology itself, I’ve done an RCS calculation, the results of which do not yield a Hockey Stick.

In today’s post, I’ll also show that important past statements and evidence to Muir Russell by CRU on the topic have been either untruthful or deceptive.”

http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/#more-15956

Comment on The legacy of climategate by lolwot

May 7, 2012, 3:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Tom

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by jim2

$

0

0

Tom if you can answer the question, please do.

Comment on The legacy of climategate by Tom

May 7, 2012, 4:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Tom

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by lolwot

$

0

0

lotwot,
So, from this statement we can take what you write, to mean that your blindness to the facts that surround us all, it is just ‘natural’ for you. Thank you for your promp response.

Comment on The legacy of climategate by Tom

May 7, 2012, 4:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Norm Kalmanovitch

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Tom

$

0

0

Promptly done too.

Comment on The legacy of climategate by Norm Kalmanovitch

May 7, 2012, 4:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Tom

$

0

0

We breathe in air with 400ppmv CO2 and breathe out air at 40,000ppmv CO2. The EPA has actually legislated against breathing out CO2 and any government agency capable of this type of idiocy is hardly a credible reference

---

Comment on The legacy of climategate by lolwot

May 7, 2012, 4:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Norm Kalmanovitch

$

0

0

“As Steve Mc pointed out at the very beginning of his interest in the hockey stick, governments have statutes and regs which require companies to prepare extensive due diligence packages of the science used in prospectuses in order to protect a few investors from losing small sums of money. Society expects that the quality assurance process behind the science which is used to justify government policies involving trillions of dollars will be at least as thorough.”

I think the problem is actually that society doesn’t expect it. The reason that medical science and these “prospectuses” have stricter review is because society appreciates the danger of not doing so.

With climate, both society and government don’t take the threat of climate change seriously enough (IMO), and so they’ve left climate science operating with the same peer review system as say evolutionary biology, where AFAIK peer reviewers aren’t even paid! It’s review on the cheap. If we want better review that has to change. Proper solid review is only going to happen if it’s paid for.

Comment on The legacy of climategate by lolwot

May 7, 2012, 4:14 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Brandon Shollenberger

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by lolwot

$

0

0

Well I don’t know but I suspect they’ve only legislated against non-carbon neutral emissions. Human breath is carbon neutral.

Comment on The legacy of climategate by Brandon Shollenberger

May 7, 2012, 4:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Kip Hansen

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by lolwot

$

0

0

lolwot:

Brandon that quote is a different case.

No it’s not. Greybeard said this:

What it shows is that those whose other malpractices – including attempts to circumvent peer-review – were exposed (Jones, Mann et al), expressed their rage that views different to their own were being aired.

This is not limited to a single case. It is referring to a pattern of behavior. You may have chose to respond by discussing a single case, but that doesn’t mean everyone else is limited by your choice. We are free to discuss what was originally being discussed.

I insist that the Soon and Baliunas (S&B) paper that WAS under discussion is a case of scientists defending peer review from climate skeptic subversion only to then be accused of manipulating it themselves, in what I see as a tactic of blatant historical revisionism by climate skeptics.

This would require the paper be as climate scientists described, meaning you’re promoting a scientific judgment. I’d be happy to discuss the merits of your claim regarding the science of the issue, but somehow I doubt you’d be interested. A number of the criticisms of that paper were completely unjustifiable.

Ironically, a number could also be applied to the hockey stick. But you don’t ever see climate scientists complain about it receiving poor review.

As for the quote about the new paper you cite, it’s about whether to mention it the last IPCC report, not whether the paper should be published in a peer reviewed journal (it already was). The paper was mentioned in the IPCC report.

So the claim is they’re not manipulating the peer review process because he was only willing to manipulate what qualifies as peer review. That makes little sense. The process is what creates peer reviewed work, so manipulating the qualifications necessarily manipulates the process. And the fact he didn’t do something, or that he failed to do it, doesn’t weigh much on the fact he wanted to do it.

If skeptics had a proper case for gatekeeping they wouldn’t need to rely on such flimsy examples.

Given you completely dismissed one example based on a scientific judgment you’ve never justified, your discussion of flimsiness is amusing.

Comment on The legacy of climategate by Kip Hansen

May 7, 2012, 4:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Tom

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Brandon Shollenberger

$

0

0

Willis,

I have raised this issue with Dr. Curry before, several times, and her position is clear and she is sticking to it. It is an personal and professional ethical decision for her.

Manacker is almost right when he says above –> ‘Judith’s actions are her own, not ours to criticize or second-guess.’ (He misses if he thought my comment was meant as a criticism, it was not, just a professional observation.) However, it is not improper to discuss another persons ethical decisions with them and suggest that they might review them in light of one’s input or persuasion.

There is a point though, which I believe has been reached with Dr. Curry on this issue, when one has to back off and accept that she has made her decision. To continue to harangue her after that point is uncivil.

I accept your point about ‘I’m not asking her to name names’ with the caveat that she can not very well cry fraud and scientific misconduct with regards to ClimateGate without implicitly ‘naming names’…..thus she does not do so, apparently based on her deeply held ethical position discussed above.

You are free to disagree with her position and decision but I suggest doing so within the bounds of civility.

Overall, I believe she is doing good work and moving things in the right direction, for which she should be applauded.

Kip

Comment on The legacy of climategate by Tom

May 7, 2012, 4:36 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Willis Eschenbach

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Kip Hansen

$

0

0

lolwot,
More crap it seems…

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-can-t-obama-bring-wall-street-to-justice.html

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/07/justice-for-sale-holder

to never stop.

Comment on The legacy of climategate by Willis Eschenbach

May 7, 2012, 4:37 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Norm Kalmanovitch

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Tom

$

0

0

lolwot | May 7, 2012 at 6:57 pm | <blockquote>Brandon that quote is a different case. I insist that the Soon and Baliunas (S&B) paper that WAS under discussion is a case of scientists defending peer review from climate skeptic subversion only to then be accused of manipulating it themselves, in what I see as a tactic of blatant historical revisionism by climate skeptics.</blockquote> There is a standard procedure for protecting the world from garbage science, and it is not peer review. Peer review is only supposed to ensure that there are no obvious errors. What you do is you write a study that tears the work you disagree with to shreds. What you don't do is try to get the editor of the journal fired, as the climategoons did. In fact, the Soon and Baliunas paper has stood up well to the test of time, proving that the climategate folks indeed were trying to subvert the scientific process. See <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/27/treydte-moberg-soon-and-baliunas/" rel="nofollow"><b>here</b></a>. The S&B work was "refuted" by using the <em>bogus Yang and Briffa proxies</em>, as discussed <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/25/behind-closed-doors-perpetuating-rubbish/" rel="nofollow"><b>here</b></a>, which means it has not been refuted at all. And from the climategate emails, here's Michael Mann, trying to get them blackballed at Harvard: <blockquote>But I know our Harvard colleagues are not happy about continually having their institutional name dragged through the mud. If someone has close ties w/any individuals there who might be in a position to actually get some action taken on this, I’d highly encourage pursuing this. Re, an NAS committee–this is an interesting idea. But I wonder if a committee on [Soon-Baliunas] would be overkill, perhaps giving these fools just the stage that they’re looking for.</blockquote> Now lolwot, you've made it clear that you think that anything the climategate unindicted co-conspirators did is just protecting science, so there's no need for you to restate that view. I merely wanted to point out to people the kind of underhanded actions you claim are scientific ... w.

Comment on The legacy of climategate by Norm Kalmanovitch

May 7, 2012, 4:38 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Willis Eschenbach

$

0

0

The basics of more greenhouse gas causing more warming are not in debate within the scientific community. There are lots of nuances of opinion on how much and how fast warming is and will continue to occur.

The 14.77 micron band of the Earth’s thermal radiation is already so close to saturation that a doubling of CO2 from current levels is incapable of enhancing the greenhouse effect by any more than 0.4°C

If this was actually happening there would be a detectable effect from this increased insulation on the outgoing thermal radiation but 31 years of OLR measurements show no detectable effect.

In simple terms “it’s the sun” in less simple terms global temperature is controlled by energy in and energy out and since there is no enhanced greenhouse effect detectable for thye erergy out side of the equation it is by default changes to energy in that causes the global temperature to change.

Global warming is strictly about global temperature and the HadCRUT3 (with the CRU being the climategate Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia) monthly global temperature anomaly shows that the Earth has been cooling since 2002 in spite of the 35% increase in CO2 emissions over the past decade!

There is no debate in the scientific community since there is an absolute consensus that global warming ended by 1998 because all five global temperature datasets demonstrate this to be true.

---

Comment on The legacy of climategate by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

May 7, 2012, 4:42 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Norm Kalmanovitch

$

0

0

Stan, I hate to break this to ya, but a high percentage of “ground breaking” papers in peer reviewed journals have always been less than ground breaking after a time. Peer review is a lot like democracy, it is a terrible system except for the alternatives. Blocking the publishing of papers is the issue. Every scientist should have the privileged of post publication peer and public ridicule for authoring papers that break more wind than ground.

The drug company that had televised commercials for a bed wetting medication that was 51% effective versus 49% for a sugar pill should have every right to make a complete fool of themselves. The artificial fat alternative that only had the minor side effect of rectal leakage brought many a smile to viewers. The University of Utah discovers of cold fusion also have a place in history. People, including scientists and doctors, have a tendency to screw up on occasion. When society forgets that, then there is a problem.

Comment on The legacy of climategate by Wagathon

May 7, 2012, 4:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The legacy of climategate by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

$

0

0

Our universities shape young men’s and women’s sensibilities, and our professors are supposed to serve as guardians of authoritative knowledge and exemplars of serious and systematic inquiry. Yet our campuses are home today to a toxic confluence of fashionable ideas that undermine the very notion of intellectual virtue, and to flawed educational practices and procedures that give intellectual vice ample room to flourish.

Just look at Climategate.

~Peter Berkowitz, Climategate Was an Academic Disaster Waiting to Happen, WSJ, 2009

Comment on The legacy of climategate by lolwot

May 7, 2012, 4:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by Beth Cooper

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by Wagathon

$

0

0

“This would require the paper be as climate scientists described, meaning you’re promoting a scientific judgment.”

Yes because the flaws are obvious even for a layperson like me. The paper suffers from the same flaw that the map on CO2Science does. The paper treats any warm anomaly over a vast amount of time (in this case 800–1300) as the “MWP”. Yet if in one region the warm period is 800-900AD and another is 1100-1300AD they obvious wouldn’t coincide and shouldn’t be treated as the same period which can then be compared to the 20th century.

“Ironically, a number could also be applied to the hockey stick. But you don’t ever see climate scientists complain about it receiving poor review.”

From what I’ve seen the flaws in temperature reconstructions have been far less obvious and took more work to uncover, and peer review isn’t supposed to spot all flaws. There is a threshold, IMO the B&S paper was far below the threshold. The resignations at the journal seem to support that.

“So the claim is they’re not manipulating the peer review process because he was only willing to manipulate what qualifies as peer review. That makes little sense. The process is what creates peer reviewed work, so manipulating the qualifications necessarily manipulates the process. And the fact he didn’t do something, or that he failed to do it, doesn’t weigh much on the fact he wanted to do it.”

Whether he was being hyperbolic or serious in his claim about “redefining peer review” he was in a position there to “gatekeep” what was cited in the IPCC report yet didn’t. Even if he had I don’t feel this would be good enough an example to support the idea of widespread CRU “gatekeeping” of the peer review system for papers published on climate.

The acceptance, despite the dearth of evidence for this “gatekeeping”, is rather strange coming from a group that demands such stringent evidence for science itself.

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by Beth Cooper

May 7, 2012, 4:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by hunter

≪ Previous: Comment on The legacy of climategate by lolwot

$

0

0

ozzieostrich:
CAGW could be ruled by hyperthetical hype but I’m surmising it could jest become yesterday’s hype.

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by hunter

May 8, 2012, 5:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by hunter

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by Beth Cooper

$

0

0

R. Gates,
From reading you here for awhile, you are simply parroting things you read elsewhere regarding CO2 and radiative transfer. You hope to distract from that by pretending skeptics are not as smart as you.