Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    15,390
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    scourt
    Newest Member
    scourt
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
CTWeatherFreak

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

Recommended Posts

On 1/21/2019 at 12:02 AM, WidreMann said:

https://twitter.com/ScottWesterfeld/status/446805144781348865 https://twitter.com/ScottWesterfeld/status/446805144781348865

Seriously, y'all. Conspiracies about climate scientists, uhh, making up something for the purpose of, uhh, I guess money somehow. Everyone else is clean, though. There are clearly no other industries or political interests that would want to deny or downplay their involvement in negatively affecting the climate. There is no history of corporations and other moneyed concerns covering up or denying their acts of pollution. No, it's the folks who call it out who have something to gain like, I dunno, I guess a livable planet? I'm really at a loss for what kinf of conspiracy there could possibly be, especially from groups that publicly release their data and reports regularly.

Deniers are a special breed of stupid.

Special irony that corporations that have a long history of lying and forging research data would try to claim the moral high ground.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2017 at 6:14 PM, Msalgado said:

Wait, so now Obama is behind this too?  Amazing.  I never understood the follow the money argument.  Scientists - especially those working for government agencies like NOAA, are far from rich.  And why does that logic never apply to people like Lamar Smith and his campaign contributions from oil companies?  Where's the critical thinking here?

unfortunately corporate lobbying and dark money is the cancer of politics and why you dont see meaningful changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2017 at 6:10 PM, CTWeatherFreak said:

As with most things, if you want to know whats going on, follow the money; big bucks involved with alternate technologies.   Specifically, in the article, its being claimed the data was fudged so as to better fit  the Obama narrative leading up to the Paris climate change conference..

what about the big bucks involved with dirty prehistoric fossil fuels that destroy the environment in many many ways and create more pollution and not just climate change?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 1:37 AM, snowlover91 said:

Well some prominent AGW proponents have publicly admitted reasons why. 

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”

The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

And these golden nuggets.

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow---even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is." 

A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: "A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue."

Source 

The first one sounds quite reasonable from a policy perspective. People can't make heads or tails of the details of climate change, but they do understand and react to scary scenarios. Seems to work just fine for right-wingers and things like immigration and terrorism.

The other two...ehh, they could be bad, but it's on a pretty small scale. None of that stuff is going to overturn climate change. Within every scientific field, you see this kind of drama. People disagree about all kinds of stuff, and can get pretty testy about it too. And there are always a few people who are on the outs are are happy to attack the mainstream positions as being fundamentally flawed when they really just have some sub-problems to be resolved.

The last bolded quote, especially, is just saying that the paper as is would discount some of the work in dendroclimatology. It didn't say the paper was correct, per se, nor does that mean that reconstructions are horribly wrong. But since the topic is so sensitive, the risk of bad research being used against the field is much higher, so I understand their concern. I'd feel the same way, to be honest.

The source article is garbage. It quote mines people from 30-40 years ago, many of whom have nothing to do with the science of climate change, and doesn't explain the context of why they might be making that statement anyway. I would agree that peddling a false scare is bad, but taking care of the environment is important, and global catastrophe is a way, theoretically, to motivate people to give a shit, if that's what it takes. That's what these people are talking about. There is also a connection between economic systems that put industry and money above all else. Not only does it overproduce and do nothing to tackle the negative externalities of that (like pollution and environmental degradation), but it leads to many social ills as well, even as it also enriches many people and improves their standard of living. It is true, whether you like it or not, that our global economic system is inextricably linked with how we handle our environment. Having an environmentally-conscious economic system will require some significant changes. The market won't solve it, or at least not before it's too late. It really isn't just a question of whether or not climate change is happening, or what the damage will be, but also a question of what does address it and other environmental problems entail. And the answer is, unfortunately, likely to involve some big changes in our system. Doesn't mean we all become communists, but crony capitalism and a culture of consumption might need to go away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see snowlover has given us another tour of the denialsphere.  The irony is climate change is very amenable to a conservative market-based solution. Too bad Breitbart isn't interested. Wonder why?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, WidreMann said:

The first one sounds quite reasonable from a policy perspective. People can't make heads or tails of the details of climate change, but they do understand and react to scary scenarios. Seems to work just fine for right-wingers and things like immigration and terrorism.

The other two...ehh, they could be bad, but it's on a pretty small scale. None of that stuff is going to overturn climate change. Within every scientific field, you see this kind of drama. People disagree about all kinds of stuff, and can get pretty testy about it too. And there are always a few people who are on the outs are are happy to attack the mainstream positions as being fundamentally flawed when they really just have some sub-problems to be resolved.

The last bolded quote, especially, is just saying that the paper as is would discount some of the work in dendroclimatology. It didn't say the paper was correct, per se, nor does that mean that reconstructions are horribly wrong. But since the topic is so sensitive, the risk of bad research being used against the field is much higher, so I understand their concern. I'd feel the same way, to be honest.

The source article is garbage. It quote mines people from 30-40 years ago, many of whom have nothing to do with the science of climate change, and doesn't explain the context of why they might be making that statement anyway. I would agree that peddling a false scare is bad, but taking care of the environment is important, and global catastrophe is a way, theoretically, to motivate people to give a shit, if that's what it takes. That's what these people are talking about. There is also a connection between economic systems that put industry and money above all else. Not only does it overproduce and do nothing to tackle the negative externalities of that (like pollution and environmental degradation), but it leads to many social ills as well, even as it also enriches many people and improves their standard of living. It is true, whether you like it or not, that our global economic system is inextricably linked with how we handle our environment. Having an environmentally-conscious economic system will require some significant changes. The market won't solve it, or at least not before it's too late. It really isn't just a question of whether or not climate change is happening, or what the damage will be, but also a question of what does address it and other environmental problems entail. And the answer is, unfortunately, likely to involve some big changes in our system. Doesn't mean we all become communists, but crony capitalism and a culture of consumption might need to go away.

The first quote is from an IPCC official stating that climate change is more about redistributing wealth than it is environmental policy. That's pretty concerning because climate change research should NOT be concerned with how money shifts from one group to another. People act like these climate scientists and other people endorsing AGW don't get any government funding or grant money to research the "problem" of AGW and yet there are BILLIONS of dollars going into these. Do some research here, it exists on both sides.

So it's ethical to offer up scenarios that won't happen or are statistically near impossible to get people to do something? This topic isn't about immigration or terrorism it's about climate change so stay on topic. I don't see how lying to people is an ethical or correct way to go about getting people on board with climate change. If anything when these scary scenarios fail to occur it causes a public trust issue and causes greater harm to the credibility of these people making the claims.

So you have no problem with some leaders in the AGW field like Michael Mann and Phil Jones saying they need to redefine what peer review is to keep out the scientific study of those whom they disagree with? Really? So science is essentially just group think and if you disagree with it you're automatically wrong and should be censored and not heard? Sorry but the way it should be is if someone publishes something that is completely non-sense then it will be quite clear and you shouldn't have to change what peer review literature is.

The quote regarding the field of dendroclimatology was saying that there was nothing wrong with the math but the paper should be rejected because it would cause serious issues for the AGW agenda by calling it into question.

If you care to do some more digging you can read plenty of email exchanges to get the full context. I have read through hundreds of them and there are some very concerning things in them that were revealed plus you can get the full context that way. There is plenty of additional research you can do if you care to see some of the issues that are out there in the field of climate change, both on the skeptic and AGW side.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, chubbs said:

I see snowlover has given us another tour of the denialsphere.  The irony is climate change is very amenable to a conservative market-based solution. Too bad Breitbart isn't interested. Wonder why?

What does conservative, breitbart or the market have to do with the topic of this thread? The topic is focused on climate manipulation of data/records to which my post was addressed. Both the skeptic and AGW side are guilty of manipulating the records at times; my point is simply that there have been some very concerning statements and emails from the AGW side which certainly gives plausibility to the idea of data tampering, manipulation and attempts to keep out scientific research that would discredit or undermine the AGW view of things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was about the accusation that Bates leveled against Karl of fraudulently manipulating the NOAA GlobalTemp dataset to show more warming than there actually was. Here are the facts that have been discovered over the last two years as they relate to the accusation.

- Bates first accused Karl of fraudulently manipulating the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset according to the Daily Mail outfit.

- Bates was quoted as saying "it's not trumped up data in any way shape or form".

- Bates actually accused Karl of rushing the publication through the review process. 

- These accusations are in direct reference to the Karl 2015 publication: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469

- The above publication is describing the change of Karl's datasets from ERSSTv3 to ERSSTv4.

- Karl is not listed as a contributor to the ERSSTv4 dataset. The changes in ERSSTv4 are documented, available to the public, and were necessary to fix a few issues that were discovered since the previous version was published. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1

The conclusions from the formal investigation were as follows.

- Not only did Karl (or NOAA in general) not fraudulently manipulate any data he didn't even commit the review blunders that Bates accused him of. Nevermind that he wasn't in control of the timing of the publication anyway. 

- The change from ERSSTv3 to ERSSTv4 was evolutionary in nature and was done to fix known issues with the inputs. It was not fraudulent nor was it stealthily done. The change described in Karl 2015 was submitted to the peer reviewed journal Science and is in the public domain.

- NOAAGlobalTemp is consistent with all of the other conventional global mean surface temperature datasets including Cowtan&Way, NASA GISS, HadCRUT, Berkeley Earth, etc.

- It was actually Bates that had authority over the review process and thus the blunders that he tried to pin on Karl were made him. He was not forthcoming about this in his correspondence with the public.

- Although the MITRE investigation found no wrong doing (other than that committed under Bates' authority) they do have recommendations for policy changes for NOAA to implement to clarify ambiguous or contradictory procedures.

I also feel it important to point out that the net sum of all necessary adjustments to the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset done by Karl actually work to reduce the amount of warming compared to the raw data. This is clearly documented in Karl's 2015 publication. Refer to figure 2B.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 11:44 PM, WidreMann said:

The first one sounds quite reasonable from a policy perspective. People can't make heads or tails of the details of climate change, but they do understand and react to scary scenarios. Seems to work just fine for right-wingers and things like immigration and terrorism.

The other two...ehh, they could be bad, but it's on a pretty small scale. None of that stuff is going to overturn climate change. Within every scientific field, you see this kind of drama. People disagree about all kinds of stuff, and can get pretty testy about it too. And there are always a few people who are on the outs are are happy to attack the mainstream positions as being fundamentally flawed when they really just have some sub-problems to be resolved.

The last bolded quote, especially, is just saying that the paper as is would discount some of the work in dendroclimatology. It didn't say the paper was correct, per se, nor does that mean that reconstructions are horribly wrong. But since the topic is so sensitive, the risk of bad research being used against the field is much higher, so I understand their concern. I'd feel the same way, to be honest.

The source article is garbage. It quote mines people from 30-40 years ago, many of whom have nothing to do with the science of climate change, and doesn't explain the context of why they might be making that statement anyway. I would agree that peddling a false scare is bad, but taking care of the environment is important, and global catastrophe is a way, theoretically, to motivate people to give a shit, if that's what it takes. That's what these people are talking about. There is also a connection between economic systems that put industry and money above all else. Not only does it overproduce and do nothing to tackle the negative externalities of that (like pollution and environmental degradation), but it leads to many social ills as well, even as it also enriches many people and improves their standard of living. It is true, whether you like it or not, that our global economic system is inextricably linked with how we handle our environment. Having an environmentally-conscious economic system will require some significant changes. The market won't solve it, or at least not before it's too late. It really isn't just a question of whether or not climate change is happening, or what the damage will be, but also a question of what does address it and other environmental problems entail. And the answer is, unfortunately, likely to involve some big changes in our system. Doesn't mean we all become communists, but crony capitalism and a culture of consumption might need to go away.

Excellent post, here is more proof for your conclusion:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/11/united-states-doesnt-even-make-top-20-global-democracy-index?cd-origin=rss&utm_term=United States Doesn't Even Make Top 20 on Global Democracy Index&utm_campaign=US Doesn't Even Make Top 20 on Global Democracy Index | News %26 Views&utm_content=email&utm_source=Daily Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&cm_mmc=Act-On Software-_-email-_-US Doesn't Even Make Top 20 on Global Democracy Index | News %26 Views-_-United States Doesn't Even Make Top 20 on Global Democracy Index

http://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index
A new index released this week offers a sobering look at how democracy is faring in the United States.

According to the 2018 edition of The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, the U.S. doesn't even make the list of top 20—its demonstrably "flawed democracy" notching it the 25th spot.

The ranking is based on 60 indicators spanning five interrelated categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. Each category gets a 0-10 score, with the final score being the average of those five.

Topping out the index are Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, and Denmark. They are each declared "full democracies," as their scores, all above 9.22, were easily above the 8.2 threshold. With a final score of 7.96, the United States, in contrast, earned the "flawed democracy" label. The country's highest score was 8.22, which it earned back in 2006 and again in 2008.

North America still holds the claim for the highest average score of any region, but that's thanks to Canada's 9.15, which landed it the number 6 spot overall. Twenty countries (12 percent) were designated as full democracies, 14 of which are located in Western Europe.

Rounding out the bottom of the list, meanwhile, are Chad, the Central African Republican, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria, and North Korea, with scores identifying them as "authoritarian regimes."

In the United States, according to the analysis:
http://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-poverty-higher-safety-net-weaker/

https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm

http://hse-econ.fi/sarvimaki/intgen_trends.pdf

http://www.rothstein.dinstudio.se/files/Social_Resarch_Happiness__Welfare_State.pdf

 

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/where-is-your-country-global-ranking-nations-healthcare-systems/

 

Here's the new worldwide healthcare rankings

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-m ... e-systems/

 

The top 10 are:

1 – Iceland

2 – Norway

3 – Netherlands

4 – Luxembourg

5 – Australia

6 – Finland

7 – Switzerland

8 – Sweden

9 – Italy

10 – Andorra

 

Then, there’s the US. It has a disparity value more than twice that of Japan’s, which the team tentatively linked to challenges of getting healthcare to everyone that needs it, and – most importantly – economic and healthcare inequality in poorer regions.

Whatever you think of the politics, it’s impossible to argue that healthcare in the US is weirdly expensive compared to other developed nations for individual Americans; significantly, this means those with larger wallets have access to better healthcare. The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) was a way of leveling the playing field for the less well-off; sadly, the latest GOP tax bill was essentially a redistribution of wealth to the rich.

Here's another list, the US ranks last

https://www.internationalinsurance.com/news/ranking-top-eleven-healthcare-systems-country.php

 

According to a recent publication from the Commonwealth Fund, The USA is ranked last out of 11 Countries.

“Among the 11 nations studied in this report – Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2014″

Searching for the Best International Health Insurance? Visit: Compare Global Medical Plans

They go on to report on each country:

“Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity.”

You can read the full report here: Commonwealth Fund Report

Update. According to 2017, the USA still ranks 11th:
 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 9:14 AM, snowlover91 said:

What does conservative, breitbart or the market have to do with the topic of this thread? The topic is focused on climate manipulation of data/records to which my post was addressed. Both the skeptic and AGW side are guilty of manipulating the records at times; my point is simply that there have been some very concerning statements and emails from the AGW side which certainly gives plausibility to the idea of data tampering, manipulation and attempts to keep out scientific research that would discredit or undermine the AGW view of things.

 

Your "side" comments are just an old denier talking point. The goal is to make climate denial seem like an honest difference of opinion or mere political difference. Nothing could be further from the truth. The science is very clear. Its not new science either, the basics have been known for 150 years, and the accumulation of evidence is overwhelming.

The denier meme's that you are so fond of were ginned up 30 years ago in conservative think tanks. Why do we keep hearing the same memes. Because they are effective in misinforming. Just like the ancient quotes that you copied and pasted from some denier site. Go back and look at board discussions from 10-15 years ago - the same meme's - only now the world is much warmer.  Guessing we will be still be hearing the same 10 years from now - while temperatures continue to climb.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chubbs said:

Your "side" comments are just an old denier talking point. The goal is to make climate denial seem like an honest difference of opinion or mere political difference. Nothing could be further from the truth. The science is very clear. Its not new science either, the basics have been known for 150 years, and the accumulation of evidence is overwhelming.

The denier meme's that you are so fond of were ginned up 30 years ago in conservative think tanks. Why do we keep hearing the same memes. Because they are effective in misinforming. Just like the ancient quotes that you copied and pasted from some denier site. Go back and look at board discussions from 10-15 years ago - the same meme's - only now the world is much warmer.  Guessing we will be still be hearing the same 10 years from now - while temperatures continue to climb.

So we shouldn't be concerned about whether it's ethical for scientists to intentionally try to hide the data from people who disagree with their conclusions, especially people like Michael Mann who is one of the prominent voices often quoted concerning AGW? I'm sure you realize there is more to heating our atmosphere than CO2. There are various areas of research and disagreement on the role of other factors like cloud cover, ocean current changes, solar influences that affect multiple areas in our atmosphere, changes in the sun, water vapor, etc. CO2 is just one of the many factors that play a part in the temperature changes in our world.

I've been hearing the same AGW arguments for years too, same meme's, funny how that works. Guess we will be hearing the same 10 years from now - while life continues on. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a big conspiracy to hide or fraudulently manipulate data. Science occurs in an open forum and is available to review by anyone that wants to. If someone even so much as makes a math mistake it's usually discovered quickly. I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the possibility of it happening. I'm just saying that it isn't the problem it's often made out to be. Even after all of these accusations of fraud the abundance of evidence clearly and decisively indicates that the Earth is warming and that anthroprogenically modulated physical processes are dwarfing the naturally modulated physical process today.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>that the Earth is warming and that anthroprogenically modulated physical processes are dwarfing the naturally modulated physical process today.  <<<

 

TY for confirming your religious dogma.....that claim is the co2 humans release is more powerful that the SUN......the claim co2 drives the temperature on earth is IDIOCY and NO science of any kind backs that idiotic claim.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

There isn't a big conspiracy to hide or fraudulently manipulate data. Science occurs in an open forum and is available to review by anyone that wants to. If someone even so much as makes a math mistake it's usually discovered quickly. I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the possibility of it happening. I'm just saying that it isn't the problem it's often made out to be. Even after all of these accusations of fraud the abundance of evidence clearly and decisively indicates that the Earth is warming and that anthroprogenically modulated physical processes are dwarfing the naturally modulated physical process today.  

 

 

Then why have Mann and others been attempting to silence critics or express a willingness to "redefine" what peer review is? What about people in the academic circle who were quickly ostracized as soon as they took a skeptical or more moderate position on AGW? Judith Curry is a person who has been around a long time and seen these issues first hand, here is what she noted...

"Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)." Source

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, BillT said:

>>>that the Earth is warming and that anthroprogenically modulated physical processes are dwarfing the naturally modulated physical process today.  <<<

 

TY for confirming your religious dogma.....that claim is the co2 humans release is more powerful that the SUN......the claim co2 drives the temperature on earth is IDIOCY and NO science of any kind backs that idiotic claim.

Nobody claims that CO2 is the dominating factor in Earth's equilibrium temperature (T). What the scientific consensus claims is that CO2 is a significant factor in the change in temperature (ΔT) and the net anthroprogenic radiative forcing for change is larger than the net natural radiative forcing for change. Note the difference here. T vs ΔT. Those are not the same thing. The key concept here is change. And there's more to it than just CO2. Didn't I explain this once before?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody claims that CO2 is the dominating factor in Earth's equilibrium temperature (T).

 

what is this equilibrium temperature please?  seems that would be when there is no climate change and th temperature remains the same for a very long time.....no such state of equilibrium is evident in any record....i submit rather thermodynamics makes the overall system SEEK balance(equilibrium)but can never find it because too many factors constantly change and no such state can be achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who have never been in academia and don't know how it or science works are appalled to find out that, like any other human endeavour, there are little turf wars and fights and disagreements over all manner of things. This doesn't discredit the field at all. It's entirely irrelevant. There is simply no evidence whatsoever of a large-scale, coordinated effort to manufacture evidence and scientific models on the level needed to perpetrate a hoax like this, with the amount of openness present in modern science, and the degree of decentralization. It's hard enough to get politicians to agree with each other and their party sometimes, and there's a lot of money and votes and power involved. How do you think some unnamed shadowy cabal has managed to hoodwink hundreds and thousands of scientists, technicians, administrators and the like, working at hundreds of institutions across the globe? You all need to seriously think about the work it would take to do that, and to what end? If the goal is to change capitalism, there are far more direct and effective ways of doing so. The only side that has a direct and obvious monetary and political self-interest is the corporate denier side. The scientists have basically nothing to gain. If climate change is wrong, then they'll research something else. There's plenty interesting out there. It's not like academia is this lucrative, illustrious career. It's generally pretty terrible and it requires passionate people who do it in spite of the lack of money and toxic work environments, not because of that. The incentives simply do not align with a hoax of this magnitude. Sorry.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BillT said:

Nobody claims that CO2 is the dominating factor in Earth's equilibrium temperature (T).

 

what is this equilibrium temperature please?  seems that would be when there is no climate change and th temperature remains the same for a very long time.....no such state of equilibrium is evident in any record....i submit rather thermodynamics makes the overall system SEEK balance(equilibrium)but can never find it because too many factors constantly change and no such state can be achieved.

When I say equilibrium temperature I'm talking about the actual global mean surface temperature (T) and not an anomaly (ΔT). Berkeley Earth recorded this temperature as being 15.058C ± 0.095 for December 2018. Note that this equilibrium temperature is higher than the Stefan-Boltzmann law predicts for an ideal black body radiator. This is due in large part to the greenhouse gas effect and other thermodynamic processes occurring in the atmosphere. The magnitude of this effect is ~33C.

Note that when I used the term equilibrium to describe the temperature I'm using it in it's more loose sense to describe the approximate temperature that represents an equilibrium in the climate system. The climate system is obviously in a perpetual state of change and thus the equilibrium temperature is also in a perpetual state of change. I am specifically discounting other concepts like transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate response (ECR) that would cause a lag between the true equilibrium temperature between TCR and ECR. ECR always chases TCR with the lag times being different depending on the process that is trying to perturb the temperature.

Anyway, the point is that of this 288.21K (15.06C) temperature 2.73K may be attributable to the cosmic microwave background. ~33K is attributable to the greenhouse gas effect and other thermodynamic processes within the atmosphere. Smaller components can be pinned on radioactive decay in the Earth's core (maybe around 0.1 W/m2) and tidal transfer of the Earth/Moon system (maybe around 0.01 W/m2). And, of course, the heat fluxes between the different heat storage mediums on Earth (hydrosphere, cryosphere, land, etc.) play a role as well. The Sun is by far the dominating factor in what the actual equilibrium temperature is.

However, that does NOT mean that the Sun is the dominating factor in what drives the perturbations or changes of this temperature. Again, change is the key concept here. This is an incredibly important and crucial distinction. If there is any confusion please ask questions. There are a lot of smart people on this forum that could probably articulate this better than I.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, WidreMann said:

People who have never been in academia and don't know how it or science works are appalled to find out that, like any other human endeavour, there are little turf wars and fights and disagreements over all manner of things. This doesn't discredit the field at all. It's entirely irrelevant. There is simply no evidence whatsoever of a large-scale, coordinated effort to manufacture evidence and scientific models on the level needed to perpetrate a hoax like this, with the amount of openness present in modern science, and the degree of decentralization. It's hard enough to get politicians to agree with each other and their party sometimes, and there's a lot of money and votes and power involved. How do you think some unnamed shadowy cabal has managed to hoodwink hundreds and thousands of scientists, technicians, administrators and the like, working at hundreds of institutions across the globe? You all need to seriously think about the work it would take to do that, and to what end? If the goal is to change capitalism, there are far more direct and effective ways of doing so. The only side that has a direct and obvious monetary and political self-interest is the corporate denier side. The scientists have basically nothing to gain. If climate change is wrong, then they'll research something else. There's plenty interesting out there. It's not like academia is this lucrative, illustrious career. It's generally pretty terrible and it requires passionate people who do it in spite of the lack of money and toxic work environments, not because of that. The incentives simply do not align with a hoax of this magnitude. Sorry.

 

Read what was posted. If you want to advance in one of these fields then research needs to agree with AGW theory or else you have no future in said field. That’s pretty easy to understand. I’m not saying it’s a coordinated effort or hoax. I’m saying the emphasis on AGW, “saving the planet”, and other similar ideals are widely perpetrated in both the media and academia. To that end the pressure is to conform to that standard and it’s quite easy for scientific research to succumb to a “group think” mentality when this type of emphasis is in place. Whether intentional or not the pressure pushes people that direction. 

I also have to disagree about climate scientists having nothing to gain. They have everything to gain. Their current job stability, funding, grants, opportunities to advance in their field, etc. There are immense amounts of money used for “green” projects in countries all over the world, we are talking billions and billions of dollars. Governments fund various projects, grants, research fields, etc dealing with climate change and other areas. It’s ludicrous to say these people have nothing to gain.

Just in the US alone here are some numbers concerning tax payer money going to climate change related uses. https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/

“From FY 1993 to FY 2014, government reports show that annual spending on “climate science” grew from $1.31 billion to $2.66 billon, for a total of $42.49 billion. Of this total, $0.64 billion came from the stimulus bill. Annual expenditures in this category over the period increased over 200%. During the same period, “other” climate-related expenditures (including tax credits) grew from $1.05 billion to $8.94 billion, for a total of $104.29 billion, with $25.5 billion coming from AARA. The increase in annual expenditures in this category was 850%.

If we combine both categories, total expenditures for the period grew from $2.35 billion to $11.59 billion, for a total of $146.78 billion, with $26.14 billion coming from ARRA. The increase in total annual expenditures was 490%.”

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

So we shouldn't be concerned about whether it's ethical for scientists to intentionally try to hide the data from people who disagree with their conclusions, especially people like Michael Mann who is one of the prominent voices often quoted concerning AGW? I'm sure you realize there is more to heating our atmosphere than CO2. There are various areas of research and disagreement on the role of other factors like cloud cover, ocean current changes, solar influences that affect multiple areas in our atmosphere, changes in the sun, water vapor, etc. CO2 is just one of the many factors that play a part in the temperature changes in our world.

I've been hearing the same AGW arguments for years too, same meme's, funny how that works. Guess we will be hearing the same 10 years from now - while life continues on. 

Meanwhile the military are relocating their bases inland to avoid sea level rise and coastal cities like Miami are making plans to relocate their residents in the future to inland cities like Orlando.  I suggest you watch the excellent one hour long climate change Meet the Press episode which shows that even conservatives in deep red (coastal) states are making these preparations, for example wind power is being used in south Texas and all new houses must be built with solar power included in Florida.

 

If you tell the military you dont think human-induced climate change is occurring they will laugh at you, they've known about it for 20 years and have been making preparations ever since.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

 

Then why have Mann and others been attempting to silence critics or express a willingness to "redefine" what peer review is? What about people in the academic circle who were quickly ostracized as soon as they took a skeptical or more moderate position on AGW? Judith Curry is a person who has been around a long time and seen these issues first hand, here is what she noted...

"Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)." Source

 

I'm not really sure what to tell you here. I only follow the hard science. I'm not saying your concerns aren't worthy of discussion. I'm just not the type of person that typically engages is in this line of debate. If you think either Mann or Curry or anybody has submitted their work to the scientific community (via the peer review process) with the intention of fraud either by unwarranted manipulation of data or the omission data without cause then we can talk about that. If you can identify a substantiated claim of fraud then I'll join you in repudiating that scientist. But, understand that neither Curry nor Mann define the scientific consensus on climate topics. We can eliminate both Mann's and Curry's scientific works and it still wouldn't change the consensus. And yes, I realize Mann is an AGW advocate and Curry is an AGW skeptic. I'm familiar with both and I've read many of their scientific works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bdgwx.........with all due respect you say you deal with the "hard science" but you often mention the consensus, do YOU really think"hard science" is ever done by consensus?   do you think even soft science is done by consensus?????       the point is NO science refers to consensus....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

I'm not really sure what to tell you here. I only follow the hard science. I'm not saying your concerns aren't worthy of discussion. I'm just not the type of person that typically engages is in this line of debate. If you think either Mann or Curry or anybody has submitted their work to the scientific community (via the peer review process) with the intention of fraud either by unwarranted manipulation of data or the omission data without cause then we can talk about that. If you can identify a substantiated claim of fraud then I'll join you in repudiating that scientist. But, understand that neither Curry nor Mann define the scientific consensus on climate topics. We can eliminate both Mann's and Curry's scientific works and it still wouldn't change the consensus. And yes, I realize Mann is an AGW advocate and Curry is an AGW skeptic. I'm familiar with both and I've read many of their scientific works.

Correct, they don't define the scientific consensus on climate topics and that was never my point.  My point was that academia and other things in place have made it incredibly difficult for anyone skeptical to be heard effectively silencing them. Others are afraid of the recourse they might experience if they speak up.  If you want some great evidence of the fraud going on, please do some reading on this link. There are 180 pages of examples to go through but it's quite revealing. There are email exchanges detailing how data was tampered with, ignored, sent to specific people to make sure it wasn't questioned, concealed, opponents silenced, etc.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

Correct, they don't define the scientific consensus on climate topics.  If you want some great evidence of the fraud going on, please do some reading on this link. There are 180 pages of examples to go through but it's quite revealing.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

you are victim of the strawman tactic on that post......a position nobody has taken about mann and curry was indeed shot down......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BillT said:

bdgwx.........with all due respect you say you deal with the "hard science" but you often mention the consensus, do YOU really think"hard science" is ever done by consensus?   do you think even soft science is done by consensus?????       the point is NO science refers to consensus....

Scientific consensus is a multi-faceted concept that describes the aggregation of all available lines of evidence to form an idea/explanation/theory that best describes reality. It is a manifestation of and born out of all accumulated knowledge. The consensus morphs or adapts as new evidence is revealed or knowledge is acquired. 

One thing to keep in mind here is that consensus is not a popularity contest nor is it a poll of how people feel. It's not driven by unsubstantiated opinion. It is driven by evidence, observations, experiments, prediction/postdiction, falsification, consilience, repeatability, etc. Basically, it is the end result of all the things that make science...well...science. 

So, no, I do not think hard science is the result of consensus. I think consensus is the result of hard science.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Scientific consensus is a multi-faceted concept that describes the aggregation of all available lines of evidence to form an idea/explanation/theory that best describes reality. It is a manifestation of and born out of all accumulated knowledge. The consensus morphs or adapts as new evidence is revealed or knowledge is acquired. 

One thing to keep in mind here is that consensus is not a popularity contest nor is it a poll of how people feel. It's not driven by unsubstantiated opinion. It is driven by evidence, observations, experiments, prediction/postdiction, falsification, consilience, repeatability, etc. Basically, it is the end result of all the things that make science...well...science. 

So, no, I do not think hard science is the result of consensus. I think consensus is the result of hard science.

 

 

Have you read the link I posted? Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

Have you read the link I posted? Thoughts?

Yes. I'm aware of climategate and I skimmed your link which I had not previously seen before. I don't typically make it a habit of reading material from questionable sources which is why I had not seen it before. Although at least 8 independent reviews concluded that there was no data hiding, fraudulent manipulation, or wrong doing of any kind related to the science of climate change as it relates to cliamtegate I personally find Mann et. al.'s style abrasive and unprofessional and I think the climategate emails justify my opinion. That's just my opinion. What's not my opinion is that Mann et. al.'s scientific work (that which is published in peer review journals) is absolutely not fraudulent in any way and, in fact, has been corroborated by multiple independent sources. 

In regards to the link you posted I have no way of verifying it's accuracy. One thing I've learned is that when presented with literature which can be found on a conspiracy theory website (assassinationscience.com), from a political lobby group (Lavoiser Group) hostile towards science, from a guy with questionable credibility (John Costella), without being properly vetted for accuracy, and with no accountability (Costella gets to say whatever he wants without consequence) your BS meter should at least be flashing yellow if not red. I'm not saying John Costella has necessarily misrepresented what happened (though it is possible), but I have to approach this with caution. You should too.

And you can't blame me for being for cautious. Afterall, it was the Daily Mail's David Rose (who also has a similar credibility problem) that created the original fake news article central this thread that caused so many people to get duped into erroneously believing that NOAA commits fraud in regards to climate data which is patently false (refer to the MITRE investigation report here). I'm not saying your concerns aren't legitimate. I'm not saying there aren't bad apples. What I'm saying is that more often than not these claims of fraud seldom get substantiated and are often discovered to have fraudulent motivations themselves. And remember, the IPCC had I believe nearly 3,500 expert reviewers for AR5 of which John Costella found 5 to be "colourful characters". So you tell me...does Costella make the case that the entirety of the climate science is wrong?

Anyway, here the reports from the real investigations related to climategate.

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154295/7847337/SAP.pdf/a6f591fc-fc6e-4a70-9648-8b943d84782b

https://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/fromlive/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

https://www.nsf.gov/oig/case-closeout/A09120086.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/response-preface.pdf

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 12:57 AM, snowlover91 said:

 

Read what was posted. If you want to advance in one of these fields then research needs to agree with AGW theory or else you have no future in said field. That’s pretty easy to understand. I’m not saying it’s a coordinated effort or hoax. I’m saying the emphasis on AGW, “saving the planet”, and other similar ideals are widely perpetrated in both the media and academia. To that end the pressure is to conform to that standard and it’s quite easy for scientific research to succumb to a “group think” mentality when this type of emphasis is in place. Whether intentional or not the pressure pushes people that direction. 

I also have to disagree about climate scientists having nothing to gain. They have everything to gain. Their current job stability, funding, grants, opportunities to advance in their field, etc. There are immense amounts of money used for “green” projects in countries all over the world, we are talking billions and billions of dollars. Governments fund various projects, grants, research fields, etc dealing with climate change and other areas. It’s ludicrous to say these people have nothing to gain.

Just in the US alone here are some numbers concerning tax payer money going to climate change related uses. https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/

“From FY 1993 to FY 2014, government reports show that annual spending on “climate science” grew from $1.31 billion to $2.66 billon, for a total of $42.49 billion. Of this total, $0.64 billion came from the stimulus bill. Annual expenditures in this category over the period increased over 200%. During the same period, “other” climate-related expenditures (including tax credits) grew from $1.05 billion to $8.94 billion, for a total of $104.29 billion, with $25.5 billion coming from AARA. The increase in annual expenditures in this category was 850%.

If we combine both categories, total expenditures for the period grew from $2.35 billion to $11.59 billion, for a total of $146.78 billion, with $26.14 billion coming from ARRA. The increase in total annual expenditures was 490%.”

Every job and field on the planet involves the exact same dynamics. You're writing about this as if climate science is uniquely susceptible to the corrupting influence of...people needing jobs or something. If that's true of climate science, then it's at least equally true of deniers as well, and I can certainly think of additional motives on the denier side that are lacking on the climate scientist side.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WidreMann said:

Every job and field on the planet involves the exact same dynamics. You're writing about this as if climate science is uniquely susceptible to the corrupting influence of...people needing jobs or something. If that's true of climate science, then it's at least equally true of deniers as well, and I can certainly think of additional motives on the denier side that are lacking on the climate scientist side.

Exactly. Who is funding the Heritage , Heartland Foundations and other DC think tanks that come up with denier meme's?  Wealthy petrodollars.  So this particular meme is pure hypocrisy. The reality is that climate scientists could be making much more money on Wall Street or in myriad other careers. While Koch is stuck in the oil business.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chubbs said:

Exactly. Who is funding the Heritage , Heartland Foundations and other DC think tanks that come up with denier meme's?  Wealthy petrodollars.  So this particular meme is pure hypocrisy. The reality is that climate scientists could be making much more money on Wall Street or in myriad other careers. While Koch is stuck in the oil business.

so you guys claim EVERY job and field on this planet are the exact same as the job mann has?????    this is why communication is difficult that claim is MORONIC.......barbers, electricians plumbers all spend how much time seeking government grants please?????  "exact same dynamics"   words have meaning and those words are utterly FALSE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×