Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by GaryM

February 24, 2011, 8:13 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Magnus

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Kasmirsen

$

0

0

“Where revenue neutral, carbon taxes lower relative energy prices to the poor…”

So tax the productive and redistribute the wealth to the poor. Now why hasn’t anyone else ever thought of that?

“Carbon based energy is oversubscribed?”

I wonder if even you know what you mean by that. The term “over subscribed” has been used in the context of government programs, some even including energy, but the term “subscribe” is a real word that has an actual meaning, even in that extended context. If you mean “we use to much carbon,” why not just say so (although that too is hardly a new thought)?

However, I must agree that those who have saddled this country with over 14 trillion dollars in debt for their redistributive fantasies, and payoffs to their union campaign contributors, have stolen from future generations. Oh wait, that’s not what you meant is it?

I keep telling myself not to respond to such incoherent, pseudo-economic babble, but sometimes….

---

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Magnus

February 24, 2011, 8:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Coldish

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by GaryM

$

0

0

0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results”
0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results”
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29)
1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4
__________________________
List of topics in the climategate mails.
I agree that some people hype this controversy, but if you only found one comment which “sounds” fishy, well then I hope to God you’re not a scientist.

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Coldish

February 24, 2011, 8:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Latimer Alder

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Magnus

$

0

0

Jeffery and others, the causation of glacial/interglacial transitions is a fascinating topic which well deserves lengthy discussion, but seems to be far O/T for this already oversubscribed post, which is supposed to be about ‘hiding the decline’. Drifting into irrelevancy doesn’t matter much if the total number of comments is small, but not all of us have unlimited time to wade through so much O/T material. Please can we keep on track!
(Hmm – perhaps Great Aunt does need more help with moderation…).

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Latimer Alder

February 24, 2011, 8:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by kai

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Coldish

$

0

0

Clearly your flabber is very easily gasted. I’ve long suspected as much.

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by kai

February 24, 2011, 8:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by paul haynes

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Latimer Alder

$

0

0

Thomas, here in Europe, there is a sizable part of the public that DO care about cAGW. Not really about the detailed science behind it, they just want to hear that science says it is true and catastrophic and due to the sort of human activities they do not approve (usually motor vehicles, consumerism and deforestation, in that order- not so much house heating and population growth).
It is important to them to have a science-approved stamp to their dogma (Western techno-civilisation has hurt mother Gaia, and it is really time that we repent from our sins and go back to a “natural” way of life (that will be extensively described by their prefered high priest, usually involving actions ranked more from symbolic value than effectiveness in reducing CO2. For example, bicycle instead of car is much much more worthy than reduce internal temp of your house by 2 degree, regardless of how much less CO2 you have emitted at the end of the year), else mother gaia will punish humanity with climate induced floods and plagues and bbq summers…
They are not motivated by additional taxes. They are adept of a new and fast-growing religion.
I fear integrists like that even more than opportunists wanting to make a quick buck from CO2 markets….

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by paul haynes

February 24, 2011, 8:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Ferdinand Engelbeen

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by kai

$

0

0

does anyone know if an attempt at a rebuttle like this exists? Most of the books on the topic (eg Patrick J michaels, Ian Plimer) have been rebutted themselves.

I saw a set of YouTube videos by Christopher Monckton replying to John Abraham’s critique, but these are pretty bad. The Warren Meyer presentation I found is conspiracy theory oriented and anti-science.

As for 98%, is this something like the fact that 97% of peer reviewed articles published on climate change suggest a link between climate change and anthropogenic carbon emissions?

http://mitigatingapathy.blogspot.com/

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Ferdinand Engelbeen

February 24, 2011, 8:22 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by AJ Abrams

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by paul haynes

$

0

0

According to Modtran, the direct effect of 2xCO2 is 0.9°C. With water vapour feedback (quite sure for the lower troposphere, but absent where it matters: at the tropopause) it is 1.3°C.
For 40 ppmv CO2, the effect is about -0.3 to -0.4°C, not measurable within the accuracy of the ice cores.
If one takes the official range: 1.5-4.5°C (or beyond), the average at 3°C is borderline measurable, everything higher is measurable, but not measured… Thus all doomsday scenario’s based on a high sensitivity for CO2 can be trashed.

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by AJ Abrams

February 24, 2011, 8:23 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by GregP

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Ferdinand Engelbeen

$

0

0

John N-G

“But if we can’t agree on best practices, then the whole thing’s hopeless.” I agree there, but, and this is a huge issue.

We are arguing something that is plain as day. If the climate science principles can’t even agree that what was done was an error, what hope do we possibly have that they would own more complex issues? It seems to me that we are having to argue the very basics of scientific principals here, is that fact lost on you?

This call that they write a paper that outlines best practices is ludicrous. It’s akin to saying that they have to write a paper on the Scientific method! Um why would they need to do that, it’s already common knowledge.

What they are doing is arguing what the meaning of “is” is. If we can’t concede something so basic and fundamental to science (you do not, under any circumstances, publish a graph that is knowingly in error) then how are we possibly going to trust those same principles with things that aren’t nearly as cut and dry (oh say things like the use of “novel” statistics to overstate one’s case on previous temperatures or “novel” statistics that spread warming from one side of the Antarctic to the other)?

---

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by GregP

February 24, 2011, 8:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by QBeamus

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by AJ Abrams

$

0

0

Here’s how to build a consensus in the words of Joe Alcamo to Mike Hulme (climategate email here: http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/mail/0876437553.txt):

‘I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.’

This is huckstering; not science.

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by QBeamus

February 24, 2011, 8:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline by Latimer Alder

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by GregP

$

0

0

Firstly, let me say how much I (and I’m sure others) appreciate your new personna on the Net. I’m not sure what prompted the conversion, but at some level it doesn’t matter.

As for the substance of these suggestions, I’m afraid it all reads like the recipe for rabbit soup. When one endeavors to turn over a new leaf, it’s important to have concrete benchmarks, so one can be held accountable. While it would be nice if we could fix the climate science by altering its culture by a collective agreement to do so, that’s unrealistic. What is needed are institutional changes, which, over time, will reshape habits, and, eventually attitudes.

Assuming that is genuinely our goal, I would suggest that we begin by offering an amnesty to the Team, to give them some room to come out of their trenches, and then try to develop some new standards for peer review processes, data archiving and sharing, and publications of “summaries” of technical work for the public, or at least for governmental or pseudo-governmental bodies. These standards should not be merely aspirational–they should prescribe operationalized proceedures for challenging the behavior of researchers, and consequences for failure to comply.

To give one concrete example of what these standards should accomplish, papers should not be published (and if published, should not be treated by professional scientists as “peer reviewed”) without contemporary, unqualified access to all data and methods required for others to reproduce the work.

To give another, to the extent others agree with you that there presently exists a cultural norm of “justifiable disingenuousness,” it should be eliminated, without prejudice to those who have acted under it in the past.

Comment on Hiding the Decline by Latimer Alder

February 24, 2011, 9:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by David Wojick

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by QBeamus

$

0

0

Was there a big warning sign on the graph saying

‘We have mixed up two different bits of data here to give a pleasing and iconic graph, but you should use this with extreme care because it is not telling you what a casual reader is likely to be misled into thinking it does. We know all about this likelihood but can’t be arsed to do it right. Caveat emptor’?

Because if it doesn’t, they weren’t explicit enough at the time.

Nor did they correct this misleading impression when the Hockey Stick became the ‘poster child’ for every green cause around the world before it was debunked and shown to be wrong.

The IPCC likes to think of itself as the Authoritative Reference on all matters climate related. With that power comes responsibility. The authors of the graph did not act responsibly in creating it, and the wider IPCC did not do so by allowing them that latitude.

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by David Wojick

February 24, 2011, 10:00 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by bobdroege

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline by Latimer Alder

$

0

0

Bart, this is a great example of what I call AGW thinking. It invokes equilibrium conditions when the actual climate is a far from equilibrium system. It also refers to the 1000 year temperature record as though there were such a thing. We don’t even have a 100 year temperature record. Nobody has been recording the global temperature, not until the satellites were launched in 1978, if then.

Regarding sensitivity, consider the very real possibility that the evidenced (not recorded) temperature oscillations are due to chaotic feedbacks. Chaotic systems oscillate with constant forcing. In that case if the sensitivity were defined as the temperature change divided by the forcing change then the sensitivity would be infinite.

Simply put you are invoking physics that is not applicable. That is the essence of AGW. There is no equilibrium based sensitivity, because the system in question is not an equilibrium system. I don’t use the “f” word (fraud) but if I did this would be where I would use it, for invoking conditions that are known not to hold.

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by bobdroege

February 24, 2011, 10:00 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Jeffrey Davis

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by David Wojick

$

0

0

I have a link that shows reconstructions by Mann (08), Loehle (08), Moberg (05) and Ljungqvist (10),

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=394

If there really is a hill of beans difference between all of them, I would like to hear it.

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Jeffrey Davis

February 24, 2011, 10:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline by Dana

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by bobdroege

$

0

0

The result of experiments and their descriptions stand apart from the efforts to publicize them. If publicity invalidated science, this forum would be empty.

Comment on Hiding the Decline by Dana

February 24, 2011, 10:04 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by PaulM

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Jeffrey Davis

$

0

0

When has there been “a big warning sign” in any figure in any scientific report ever?

We now go back to the same point Gavin was making. You’re holding the IPCC to an arbitrary standard which you do not apply to any other scientific report, and when they don’t meet that arbitrary standard, you accuse them of dishonesty. It’s absurd.

---

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by PaulM

February 24, 2011, 10:06 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Bart R

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline by Dana

$

0

0

Martha, are you trying to “hide the decline” in the public’s belief in man-made climate change?

Climate scepticism ‘on the rise’, BBC poll shows

Sharp decline in public’s belief in climate threat, British poll reveals

Look at the results from reliable unbiased polling sources rather than activist websites and the picture is clear.

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Bart R

February 24, 2011, 10:08 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline by Latimer Alder

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by PaulM

$

0

0

GaryM

By all means, respond to such incoherent pseudo-economic babble.

Really.

Use some sound economic terms of art. Cite some published, peer-reviewed economists.

You seem to believe you’re talking to a leftie, or someone lacking an education in economics, or not conversant with the topic, or incapable of mathematics.

Worried about responding to incoherent pseudo-economic babble? I don’t mind. I’m doing it now.

At an introductory and simplistic level, since it appears you would benefit from such, what I mean by oversubscribed in the context of economies of scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale) is what is meant by microeconomists in this context always about diseconomies of scale(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale): the demand for the good has pushed the market past the downward slope of the long run average cost curve and every additional unit produced will cost more. See the sections on isolation of decision makers from the results of their decisions, Inertia (unwillingness to change), and Public and government opposition.

Any of that sound familiar?

Comment on Hiding the Decline by Latimer Alder

February 24, 2011, 10:10 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline by Lazar

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Bart R

$

0

0

Take random data – no trends. Put it into Mikey’s Magical Mathematical Mincing Machine. Out pops a hokey stick..maybe not every time, but many times.

My man Joe Sixpack says that if the hockey stick wasn’t in the data to begin with and nobody has tampered with the M5, then it was the M5 that created the hockey stick.

All the rest just seems to be nitpicking about semantics. And your dislike for the conclusion and/or the author.

Comment on Hiding the Decline by Lazar

February 24, 2011, 10:12 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Latimer Alder

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline by Latimer Alder

$

0

0

The lesson we have learnt today — if scientists do not put big child warnings on everything, the ‘skeptics’ will PR-spin it like a whipping top.

Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by Latimer Alder

February 24, 2011, 10:13 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hiding the Decline: Part II by dp

≪ Previous: Comment on Hiding the Decline by Lazar

$

0

0

Point of order. GHGs do not produce energy.