Open letter of US NAS members on climate change and the integrity of science

by

The open letter of US National Academy of Science members is worth reading. After initially being behind a paywall (rather at odds with the ‘openness’ of the letter…), it is now freely available at Science.

I agree with the gist, well exemplified by the opening paragraph:

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation.

Indeed, the scientific process is meant to ascertain that, despite scientists being human with their individual characters and inherent flaws, the collective outcome is as good a representation of reality as possible at the time. And science (including climate science) has proven to be rather good at that.

But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

However, as Revkin notes:

The open letter letter has a defensive tone that hasn’t served scientists particularly well in the past, but is understandable given the pressures that have been mounting on this field of inquiry.”

I agree with both parts of that assessment.

Also noteworthy is the accompanying editorial by a deputy editor of the journal Science, which has a distinctly different tone to it (not dissimilar to Judith Curry’s statements):

We thus must move beyond polarizing arguments in ways that strengthen this joint commitment. The scientific community must recognize that the recent attacks stem in part from its culture and scientists’ behavior. In turn, it is time to focus on the main problem: The IPCC reports have underestimated the pace of climate change while overestimating societies’ abilities to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

I’d say that the main problem now is, that given our current understanding of climate change, how are we going to respond? There is no such thing as ‘no response’. Any action (including business as usual) is a response, and it better be decided on rationally and based on all the available evidence. That’s the way I look at it.

He also calls for more effort (and commensurate funding) towards data curation, handling and infrastructure. Perhaps that’s something we could all agree on, and perhaps those most critical of the current data handling practices could support such calls for more funding of these basic, though necessary efforts.

He ends with a good quote from Carl Sagan, which is especially apt today:

“We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” “This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , ,

170 Responses to “Open letter of US NAS members on climate change and the integrity of science”

  1. Magnus W Says:

    Let me re post them, they are on the subject and well worth reading:

    Denialism: what is it ans how should scientists respond?
    european journal of public health vol. 19 no.1, 2-4
    Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the politics of Doubt
    Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 78, No. 1, February 2008, 2-38

    One thing that must be done (just as after to many years where done with tobaco) is to point out what the industry and think tanks are doing and how the media is putting it out.

  2. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Bart,
    I see that you have neatly sidestepped the issue of the polar bear photo in your post. You have discussed the issue of effective ‘science communication’ in your earlier post. Do you believe Science magazine is setting a good example here?

    More importantly, do you believe Peter H Gleick’s aggresive response to skeptic bloggers as seen in his Huffington post piece was appropriate? How is it that, at a time when his article carries a made-up image designed for propagandist emotional appeal, he turns that into another opportunity to bash on skeptics?!

    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/integrity-science-gleick/

  3. Harry Says:

    Bart,

    I am sorry to have to disagree with you and the open letter. It makes the same error over and again: the science is settled, earth is warming due to human activity and anyone who denies this is stupid.

    As far as can see and have read, the science is not settled. There is still so much room for other explanations of the fraction of a degree warming that we see per decade. Temperature records are not reliable, UHI is not removed adequately, global vs local issues are not resolved, models run havoc when extrapolating, paleo reconstructions are unreliable. We know nearly nothing about climate. And then I should believe that the scientists who have a fested interest are right?

    This opinion should grant me a fine bashing here in the coming days. Flat earther, big oiler, creationist, cancer denier: I have had it all, already. I am curious what else will be my part… ;))

  4. dhogaza Says:

    This opinion should grant me a fine bashing here in the coming days.

    You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. And since you trotted out the same old time-worn lies we’ve heard daily for years, you’re entitled to the lack of respect your opinion triggers.

    Not enough respect to bother responding further. Too tiresome and boring.

  5. Deech56 Says:

    I, too, was struck by the editorial published in the same issue, and in principle it’s a worthy stand, but the reality is that ideologues and hired guns are playing Calvin Ball (was that Ray Ladbury who brought the term into climate blog use?) – constantly changing the rules of scientific discourse.

    Data curation? Fine idea, but openness has not helped Hanson and Mann, and I would challenge any “skeptics” who post here to publish their alternative data analyses. Halpern, et al. put their critique of G&T out there for review – when are “skeptics” willing to behave like real scientists? M&M was one attempt, but the millennial temperature reconstruction research has progressed in the last decade.

  6. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    does your reply imply that I may be immune from your lashings? That would be a really big achievement!

  7. Harry Says:

    Deech56,

    There is NO curated data set. What Hanson and Mann provided were their own modified, “value added”data. We want the raw data, as raw as possible. And not changing in time: but fixed with version control as in every good open source software project. No so much of an impossible task. Then we can agree that we are all using the same data, in the hope that we can compare the outcomings of the analysis. Provided the sources of the tools are open also. Why do you want to hide yuor tolls?

  8. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,
    can you explain to me why I can not have my own facts? You are really a silly commenter. Every opinion deserves its respect. Regardless what my opinion is. My opinion is one human voice. I vote. I let my opinion be heard. You implicitly forbid me to vote, because what I think is according to your elevated morals abject. Which leads to the following question: whose ideas are more abject? Have you looked at yourself in the mirror this morning and asked yourself: what can I do for my companion people today? At least I did.

  9. DLM Says:

    I must have missed the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general. Actually, the problem is only with dogmatic climate scare propagandists, who have recently been found out for what they are. Yet they still trot out the phony polar bear photos. Outside of climate science, that’s called ineptitude. And we are supposed to turn out the lights on their say so.

    In knee jerk reaction to their exposure, they can only circle the wagons: there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

    Au contraire, the public retorts: We don’t believe it anymore. We are just not that scared by your frantic ‘it’s worse than we thought’ Chicken Little routine. We are still waiting for that barbecue summer and snowless winter you all been hollerin’ about. And we noticed that the poster boy for catastrophic AGW bought himself an $8 million seaside palace.

    Having said all that, we are not saying that you should all be put out in the street. We like that stuff about commensurate funding for data curation, handling, etc. It is troubling that you couldn’t keep track of the data with the tens of billions that you have already gone through, but we are forgiving. Go back to the basics. Until you can prove that significant warming is coming, don’t spend time and money trying to develop scary scenarios-like the Himalayan glaciers melting in under 30 years, or commonplace Katrinas, or cats sleeping with dogs. And no more phony polar bear photos. It’s not working for you.

  10. pointer Says:

    “can you explain to me why I can not have my own facts?”

    Quote for the ages. In fact, the whole comment is priceless.

  11. DLM Says:

    pointless,

    That is a philosophical question. Harry is not pretending to be a scientist. If he were a scientist, I bet he would be conscientious enough to keep the data straight, without having to spend BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS.

  12. DLM Says:

    This should save us all a lot of useless discussion:

    http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/scientists-fail-at-science-again/

    That should cover it.

  13. pointer Says:

    Can I have my own facts on my tax return, please?

  14. sailrick Says:

    DLM

    “In knee jerk reaction”

    You mean like reactionary?
    You might sound smart talking with your buddies at the barroom, or hanging out at the water cooler at work, or whatever, but not here.

    Don’t you think it would be a good idea, if you are going to frequent websites like WUWT, that you at least go on over to a real climate change website and check out what actual scientist might say about Anthony and his guests claims?
    Skeptical Science or RealClimate would be a good start.

    I’ll make it easy for you. Go on over to WUWT’s alternative universe website (actually the real universe) called WOWT where you can read about what nonsense is put out every single day at WUWT. Anthony keeps Ben, over at Wotts Up With That, plenty busy. Its hard to keep up with the material Watts gives him. And its all in good fun.

    http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
    Here’s the link.

  15. sailrick Says:

    pointer You’re right, Harry’s comment is priceless, and worthless. And they accuse scientists, or those who trust the science, of having a religous belief about climate change.

    Real conviction about something they know nothing whatsoever about. Its like Art Bell does climate science.

  16. Bart Says:

    Shub, DLM,

    The polar bear issue was discussed at RP Jr’s (where Gleick also pitched in briefly). I can see both sides of the issue (that’s one of my annoying traits I guess):

    - It was put in by the editorial staff; not by the authors of the letter (so it can hardly be blamed on the latter).

    - It is used to detract from the actual message, which has proven to be a very effective strategy indeed, but regardless, it carries no weight with those who rationally think about these issues.

    - That said, it is a very poor choice of graphic, since it gives an entirely wrong association (a ‘photoshopped’ picture doesn’t quite instill trust in the truthness of the message, in the same way that a booger in your nose detracts from the great message you may be delivering). That last analogy comes from Randy Olson btw, who chimes in as well, harsh but thoughtful:

    The public forms their opinions based on their perception of you and your issue.

    That is all too true. It’s all about perception. Which is in a lot of ways the antithesis of what science is about. And apparently, scientists are by and large lousy at using the power of perception in order to increase understanding of the science. It’s mostly opposite: The power of perception often works against an increased understanding, both as a consequence of their own doing (well, the journal staff in this case) and in many other cases as a consequence of other people’s doing (e.g. the whole faux controversy of “climategate” and the topic of the same open letter, ironically).

    Harry,

    You’re right, the science isn’t settled.

    For the rest, you bring up a whole load of old and tired talking points. You clearly confuse uncertainty with knowing nothing.

  17. Bart Says:

    Another piece of irony / double standard:

    When ‘the other side’ uses a photoshopped picture, it apparently isn’t newsworthy or it doesn’t take away from the message.

  18. Scott Mandia Says:

    The IPCC (2007) concludes “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    Since 2007, no international scientific body holds a dissenting opinion and some have clarified their position with stronger statements regsarding AGW . For example, see: The Geological Society of America (2010). Keep in mind that these organizations represent the reputations of thousands of their member sceintists so they do not make these statements lightly.

    The evidence for warming is everywhere!

    There are three possible conclusions the average person can come to when considering the issue of AGW:

    1) An overwhelming majority of international climate experts agree about much of the tenets of AGW and are honest.
    2) An overwhelming majority of international climate experts are ignorant about their own expertise in a sudden and collective manner.
    3) They have all agreed to conspire to delude the billions of folks on the planet and just a very tiny percentage of them (and mostly oil-funded and unpublished) are trying to save us all from this mass hoax.

    Do yourselves a favor and read this:

    A cancer patient’s lesson for climate change skeptics:

    Then ask yourselves why you know better than the experts. And I do mean the experts that actially work in the field and publish – not the ones that write books, op-eds, and smile in fron of very camera while stating that, metaphorically speaking, the Earth is flat.

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
    Selden, NY
    Global Warming: Man or Myth?
    My Global Warming Blog
    Twitter: AGW_Prof
    “Global Warming Fact of the Day” Facebook Group

  19. Harry Says:

    Bart,

    Even if all of my concerns are old and tired issues, I still am not convinced that there is any recent improvement on these issues. The mere fact that the MetOffice has decided to redo the entire global dataset indicates that even they themselves do not trust the data. The errors as pointed out by John Graham-Cunning are supporting this notion.

    That some people here claim that things are facts seems to imply that these facts cannot be discussed. For me they simply are not facts.
    In that sense it is better know nothing than being uncertain about what you know is correct or not. And that brings me to the letter: why complain about being attacked if one presents ones opinion as being the factual truth, whereas it cannot be factual? This comes down to dogmatic thinking and has nothing to do with science. That is why I object to statements like Dhogaza’s that my opinion does not deserve respect. Because my opinion does not deserve respect, I can be bullied and called names? Very scientific. Very convincing.

  20. Jeff Id Says:

    Bart,

    If I get time today, I’m going to do a little writing on your recent comment at tAV which I agree with. However, the double standard you reference isn’t valid because the image is the point. The huge iceberg with only a tip showing is the opinion of many of us about climate science and it says nothing directly about climate or funding. Showing a polar bear on melted ice is a very tired scare tactic to drive fear into the public for purposes of funding and political power.

    The polar bear image is dishonest because everyone knows that not only is sea ice not vanishing at rates advertised by some, the polar bear population seems to be unaware of any problems created by it.

  21. Bart Says:

    Harry,

    Perhaps you could lay out what kind of evidence would convince you?

    The reason the MetOffice is redoing the data analysis is because doubt has been sown due in part to the attacks denounced in this letter.

    Discussing scientific evidence is one thing; bringing up old ant tired talking points as if they falsify everything that’s known, or mean that nothing is known, is quite another.

  22. Scott A Mandia Says:

    The evidence for warming is all around us.

    The world’s experts tell us it is mostly due to AGW.

    By experts I mean those actually doing the research and publishing in respectable scientific journals. I am not talking about those that write books, op-eds, and/or appear in front of cameras telling the world that there is a vast conspiracy or that the world’s experts are all wrong and wrong in a big way.

    Do yourselves a favor and rread a cancer patient’s take on why we should listen to climate experts.

    Arguing about a bear or an iceberg is embarrassing considering the problems facing us.

    Scott A Mandia, Scientist and Concerned Citizen

    Global Warming Blog: http://profmandia.wordpress.com
    Twitter: http://twitter.com/AGW_Prof
    Facebook Group “Global Warming Fact of the Day”: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=336682515937

  23. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Bart
    I agree that the scientists are not responsible for the graphic.

    What should be noted is – the photoshopped graphic distracts from the ‘message’, but would a non-photoshopped message chime well with the message?

    As McI notes at RPJr, why does climate science have such an illustrious history of photo manipulation and graph manipulation, and to boot, defence of such practices?

  24. dhogaza Says:

    As McI notes at RPJr, why does climate science have such an illustrious history of photo manipulation and graph manipulation, and to boot, defence of such practices?

    The first statement is false, and pointing out that photo editor types not contributors choose images that run in a magazine isn’t a defense of “such practices” by climate scientists. A photo editor made a poor choice but who cares? It’s telling that folks like McI are trying to make an issue of it.

  25. dhogaza Says:

    Speaking of graph manipulation, and an illustrious history of such, why did McI greatly amplify the Y axis on his graph that “proves” that Mann’s hockey stick is an artifact of statistical analysis rather than real?

  26. Shub Niggurath Says:

    dhogaza
    My question still stands. Why does climate science – the whole field, have many instances where photographic manipulation has been used for rhetorical effect?

    I contacted the original photographer who created the images. His answer is instructive – “because it sells”. That is why such images get created and end up being used – there is a publishers market for it.

    Why has a situation where alarmist images ‘sell’ – been engendered?

    Climate scientists are unfortunate enough to deal with the blowback from the use of such images, although I hasten to add – there is absolutely nothing of scientific value in the present letter.

    One could certainly argue that climate scientists kept mum and even contributed to alarm and they are partly responsible for the present situation.

  27. Sou Says:

    What a lot of fuss over nothing – re the photo that was, I mean. For heaven’s sake, it’s pretty hard to take a photo exemplifying what the world will be like in 20, 50 or 100 years because it hasn’t happened yet. (Maybe we need the Tardis to give us a hand here.)

    And photoshop is just a tool. It’s not evil personified (or evil computerised). Every fine art photographer uses it or a similar program. Every digital image is processed either in camera or on computer. Every newspaper photo goes through an editing process just so you can see it.

    Just as every film is processed. Ansell Adams spent hours in the darkroom touching up his images. Did Yellowstone ever look exactly the same as his wonderful photographs?

  28. dhogaza Says:

    My question still stands. Why does climate science – the whole field, have many instances where photographic manipulation has been used for rhetorical effect?

    You have yet to give a single instance where a climate scientist has done so.

    I contacted the original photographer who created the images. His answer is instructive – “because it sells”. That is why such images get created and end up being used – there is a publishers market for it.

    As an internationally-published photographer myself, yes, I’m aware of that.

    I’m aware of something else, to – being a published photographer doesn’t make me a climate scientist, and the images I take and sell have nothing to do with what climate scientists do professionally.

    Nor does anything the photographer who made that image. Or the photo editor who chose it.

    Keep on with the lame argument that “photographers use photoshop and editors run photoshopped images therefore climate scientists are frauds”, though. It’s good for a laugh.

  29. dhogaza Says:

    Just as every film is processed. Ansell Adams spent hours in the darkroom touching up his images. Did Yellowstone ever look exactly the same as his wonderful photographs?

    You’re missing the crux of the argument here, which is more or less “AA manipulated his images in the darkroom, which means that geology is fraudulent, therefore the earth is only 6,000 years old”.

    As sensible as “some photo editor (or greenpeace or al gore or …) chose a photoshopped image to illustrate a point, therefore climate science is a fraud, and CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas and the planet isn’t warming”.

  30. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Ok, dhogaza, since you will continue to refuse to see it…let me once again rephrase the question:

    Why do such things happen in the context of climate science?

    You always talk as if the other person is stupid. This strategy is probably best left behind at RealClimate.

    I argue for the core of climate science to remain untouched by such scandal. I believe climate scientists should tell all the ‘communicators’, advocates, green peddlers, tricksters, hucksters and charlatans to bugger off and not besmirch its name by publishing propagandist crap by proxy.

    I speak from a professional angle as well – as a scientist, one would expect the AAAS to stick to the reputation of science, first. And then try to push its agenda of creeping world domination using this or that ‘fad of the day’ science subject. Instead, they rush in with their editorial paintbrushes and drag everybody down.

    Instead, you insist, like Gleick, that it is the people who pointed out the error who are at fault, because they are ‘deniers’.

    Please remember, the ‘deniers’ are laughing harder.

  31. DLM Says:

    Bart,

    My guess is that many of the signatories to that letter saw the faked photo before the deniers pointed it out. I am sure they are quite happy with it’s alarmist symbolism. You may have noticed that the original faked photo was replaced by an actual photo of polar bears lounging on an ice floe, and it is no doubt supposed to convey the same bogus message. Where is the evidence that AGW is killing off the cuddly polar bears, Bart?

    As for Roy Spencer’s quite obviously stylized illustration of an iceberg on his book cover, so what? It’s an iceberg Bart. Do you think that the cool blue image is intended to frighten or deceive you?

    Doghaza shouts ‘liar, liar’ and Prof. Mandia plays the cancer card. Pathetic.

    And you people wonder why the public doesn’t trust you.

    I do hope you get the additional BILLIONS and BILLIONS you need to get your data straightened out. And maybe a few BILLION more to buy new thermometers. How much do you figure it will cost us to find that missing heat?

  32. Paul H Says:

    What’s the big deal here SN and DLM? A manipulated photo showing that polar bears have been getting stranded in open water? Thin gruel for denialists this month clearly. Polar bears have been getting stranded in open water and drowning, but the photo does not convey the full mechanism behind this seeing as it shows wonderfully sunny conditions and no drowning. Bears typically drown under stormy conditions whilst a long way from land. The photo also fails to show how sea extent controls, to some extent, the bear’s access to their food sources.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=polar%20bear%20drowning&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

    So we have a manipulated photo that represents something that has essentially been observed in the wild, big freakin’ deal.

    And McI’s whinging about other photo manips is pretty pathetic too. Boo hoo, someone photo shopped a house that’s flooded:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/ccsp_page58-large.jpg

    Photos of the real thing sure makes you want to carry out actions that could potentially increase the risk of your house flooding:

    http://www.picturesofengland.com/img/L/1019156.jpg
    http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40702000/jpg/_40702599_1carparkok.jpg

    What about the wider photo manipulation scandal in science?

    Johnson SFC falsely shows robots living happily on the moon!

    NASA depicts fake satellite the size of Jupiter?
    http://wallpaper-s.org/49_~_Galileo_Jupiter_Arrival.htm

    More NASA giant spacecraft shenanigans:
    http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/images/200510/voices.jpg

    Air quality scientists caught displaying giant words over a photo of a city:
    http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/images/environmental_management/air/ozone-formation.jpg

    Bart, has anyone conducted any studies to attribute the downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent to AGW? I’m aware of some studies looking at the causes of the some of the recent short term variability.

  33. Pat Cassen Says:

    “Where is the evidence that AGW is killing off the cuddly polar bears…?”

    Interested readers might start by reading the research publications of Ian Stirling.

  34. dhogaza Says:

    Shub first sayeth:

    My question still stands. Why does climate science – the whole field, have many instances where photographic manipulation has been used for rhetorical effect?

    Then … the comeback zinger …

    Ok, dhogaza, since you will continue to refuse to see it…let me once again rephrase the question:

    Why do such things happen in the context of climate science/b>?

    Which is, of course, an entirely different question …

    Hopefully the weight of those goalposts aren’t giving you lower back pain as you drag them to different positions, Shub.

    They happen in the context of climate science for the same reason they happen everywhere in the publication business – photo editors and graphics designers are chosen for their skills at those tasks, not because of their knowledge of science, politics, sports, or whatever subject is being covered by their publication.

    The *real* questions of interest are:

    … Actually, as someone who’s sold photography to the editorial market, why not lament over the fact that lower budgets have led to much greater use of stock photography rather than photography commissioned for a piece? … but that probably doesn’t matter to you …

    but *real* questions …

    1. Why do you think the “context of climate science” is any different than elsewhere, and what proof do you have that it is?

    2. Who cares?

    3. Why do you use the fact that a photo editor makes an arguably poor choice of a stock image in an attempt to discredit scientists?

  35. dhogaza Says:

    Interested readers might start by reading the research publications of Ian Stirling.

    They might also want to investigate why the USF&W under the Bush administration chose to list rather than lose the court case that would’ve followed a refusal to list …

  36. DLM Says:

    It is not surprising that researchers who love their cuddly polar bears are alarmed by dire predictions of an ice free arctic. Just give them enough funding from the catastrophic AGW treasury and they will prove that x numbers of bears will perish, in y number of years, assuming that the IPCC alarmist projections will actually materialize.

    I wonder why they keep showing us the same two polar bears lounging on ice floes, instead of producing some dead bodies to make their case.

    Polar bears have been around for a very long time, through thick and thin ice. They will be all right.

    http://www.john-daly.com/p-bears/index.htm

  37. DLM Says:

    doghaza,

    Any luck with those new thermometers?

  38. Bart Says:

    Shub,

    “I believe climate scientists should tell all the ‘communicators’ (…) to bugger off”

    That’s funny. Randy Olson argues the exact opposite, in order to avoid a stupid, but essentially meaningless glitch like this:

    It just takes some communications savvy. Which is what they [scientists] lack and refuse to pay for.
    (…)
    Take some of your millions of dollars you have for climate research and hire yourselves a competent publicist.

  39. Pat Cassen Says:

    DLM asks where the evidence is, but obviously is not really interested in it, preferring blog-science. That’s why my post is addressed to “Interested readers…”

  40. Harry Says:

    Scott A Mandia,

    Why did you have to get the cancer involved again? The story you refer to is of someone who has been lucky enough to have the support of the right treatment. I can write a completely different story. In fact I am writing it. And this is a story in which little is left of the faith in the knowledge and skills of doctors. And it has contributed to a large part of my skeptisism towards climate science: if climate science is sloppier then medical science (and I am sure it is) it leaves much to be desired. Both areas are intoxicated with the rampant competition between huge ego’s. The stakes are so high that the primary goal of each discipline is completely lost. And this enables outsiders to come in and disturb the status-quo. To get back on-topic: reliable data are the foundation of the scientific method. That the Met-Office finds it useful to redo the global surface temperature dataset indicates that they see no other way to reestablish the confidence in the avaibale data. And it is unimportant what the outcome will be, as long as the procedure is transparant and open for scrutiny. At the moment, this is not possible with any publicly available dataset. And I know by know that this is all old, tedious and boring. But it has not been refuted yet, so this concern about data quality is still valid. Any research based on the currently avaible data is possibly contaminated by the poor or insufficient quality of the data.

  41. Scott Mandia Says:

    DLM:

    Despite the common myth, scientists are not getting rich from public funding. See:

    Taking the Money for Grant(ed) Part I and
    Taking the Money for Grant(ed) Part II.

    DLM: Just because the solution to a problem is expensive does not mean there is no problem. It is obvious that you are refuting the science because you do not like the costs to solve AGW.

    Harry: I use the cancer analogy because it shows why one needs to trust the experts who do science/medicine research for a living. Mortality rates are falling for many cancers and it is because of the science. It is appaling that you lump all of these resarchers into conspirators and group-thinking machines. I have cancer in my family (several members) and they are all in remission due to the expertise of the researchers who study cancer. I dare you to walk the floor of any cancer ward and tell the patients what you are writing here.

    Harry: I repeat – THE EVIDENCE OF WARMING IS EVERYWHERE even excluding surface thermometer data.

    GISS data has been public for years and so have many other datasets. Start seeing what is there and not what is not there. Conspiracies are very interesting but rarely correct.

  42. Harry Says:

    Scott,

    It is OT, but my son recently died of cancer. Two years later than the doctors declared that he would die within 3 months: due to MY personal efforts. That is why I dare to walk the floor of ANY cancerward and tell the patients my experience, and not accept what they are told as being the ultimate treatment.

    But is has nothing to do with climate. Please accept that and stop referring to it. Please! You only make me more hardened in my convictions. And I do not accept that the evidence of warming is everywhere. Right now we are having biting frost during night, which is very rare. Public data are not automatically curated data. Even with the currently available data, there is more than sufficient room in the natural variation to explain the warming that has been ocurring as being natural, not AGW.

  43. Scott A Mandia Says:

    Harry, I am truly sorry for your loss. No parent should ever bury their child. I cannot imagine anything worse. I do not use the analogy lightly and I do so because it makes sense for many.

    Even with the currently available data, there is more than sufficient room in the natural variation to explain the warming that has been ocurring as being natural, not AGW.

    I, along with most, disagree and there is ample evidence that CO2 is the main culprit.

  44. Harry Says:

    Scott,

    I do have my doubts about the CO2, based on: the wrong assumption that Boltzmann is applicable, isotopic signature, 14C decay data, increased rates of burning biomass, historic CO2 measurements, the location of the main CO2 measuring station, the strange modelling of CO2 in the IPCC AR4, the MWP and LIA, the neglected UHI, the recent satellite data, undersestimation of the effects of land use change, the lack of proper cloud modelling, the negligence of solar influence, the miscalculated effect of the water cycle. To name a few.

  45. Scott Mandia Says:

    Harry,

    This sounds like a Heartland Institute publication.

    Go to: http://www.skepticalscience.com
    and
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

  46. Harry Says:

    Scott,

    No, it is my independent personal position, based on more than 400 full text scientific publications related to climate research. I am even building my own isotopic distribution models. Realclimate will not be touched by me anymore. That site is bad for my adrenalin and heartrate.

  47. Climate Change and the Integrity of Science [Part 2] » Mind of Dan Says:

    [...] short we need to act, and fast. Nothing since the release of the CRU emails changes that fact. As Bart Verheggen said: I’d say that the main problem now is, that given our current understanding of climate change, [...]

  48. Harry Says:

    Scott,

    I can rebut your, any, claim about cancer research. That implies that I can rebut any claim you make about climate. And I will do so. The poor whining scientists of the Science letter are wrong: the picture was right. They are the sinking polar bear: a gruesome animal, which does not hesitate to devour a human being, skin and bones. Neither do I.

    If you are into science, and especially the heavily politicalized version, you are vulnerable.

  49. Shub Niggurath Says:

    dhogaza,
    I have to shift my goalposts because you try to slip away.

    In the context of climate science, in the field of climate science, associated with climate science, in a letter written by climate scientists….the point is the same.

    Remember, I said that the scientists themselves are not responsible for editorial content and changes. Before you.

    Like DLM says, you can bet that a few of the hundreds of scientists saw the graphic before publication.

    Many, many scientific articles on climate change have alarmist imagery. Why?

    Did you see the Copenhagen video – with the girl running away screaming, from the oncoming climate change?

    This Science article got lazy and put a fake one in – they are not doing anything unprecedented. That is what I am focusing on.

    The scientists may have asked for such a picture to be put in, they may not have asked for it – we wouldn’t know what exactly happened. With all print and news media editorial content, we have to be careful to realize that news events always transpire in the ‘reverse intentional order’ chronologically.

    Bart:
    I know you are a fan of Randy Olson and I say what I say specifically because unlike what he propounds and promotes, scientists are smart enough to communicate what they want to say, to the general public – should the need and context for doing so arise. On specific occasions, a few can undertake special training for dealing in policy-making and communication. But unlike Mr Olson, I do not believe that scientists are idiots who dont know how to open their mouths and utter a few meaningful sentences.

    This anti-intelllectualism has now evolved to a stage where people like Olson, and he is not alone in this, boldly proclaim that we need a special breed of people – the communicators – to transmit scientists’ thoughts to the rest of the world.

    Sure there are many scientists who are not good at ‘communication’ or public speaking, but I would like to remind those of us who’ve had a university/college education of the inspiring teachers we encounter. Whose words and energy resonate long after we hear them speak.

    Climate scientists carry great moral authority – they study the longest, the most inecxorable and the most awe-inspiring processes on earth. Their authority is chipped away by environmental advocates on one side and their voice is stolen by ‘communicators’ and electric car salesmen on the other side.

    Perhaps some of this is unavoidable because the genealogy of climate science lies in environmentalism?

    Please read Robert Grumbine’s long comment at Chris Mooney’s blog on the issue of communicators:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/05/30/randy-olsons-forthcoming-book-dont-be-such-a-scientist/#comment-18041

    I wrote about this as well:
    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/integrity-science-gleick/

    Regards

  50. DLM Says:

    Mandia and fellow travelers,

    Where do I begin. Well, your assertion that I refute ‘the science’ is a double logical fallacy: appeal to authority and a strawman. And of course, as doghaza would put it, it’s a lie. What I refute is not the science, but the bogus assumptions that you all have tacked on to the science. Don’t argue with me, I have a special perspective on the subject, because I am a former cancer patient. Actually, cancer doesn’t have shit to do with it. And I am also an atheist, but I am offended by the disingenuous smearing and belittling of Christians that is routinely employed by your crowd to attempt to discredit skeptics.

    We have already covered that refuting bull shit, but I will point out that it is also a lie that I am allegedly refuting to avoid spending money to solve the alleged problem. We got enough real problems and I have contributed a lot of money in efforts to alleviate them. I will still support the expenditure of more BILLIONS and BILLIONS, if you geniuses can get your shit straight and do some credible research.

    It is another lie that I ever said that climate scientists are getting rich. What I do know is that in wartime there are a lot more generals who enjoy the perks and privileges of rank, compared with the few who can be supported in peacetime. There are a lot of climate scientists who are generals now, but who would have been sergeants, or in some other line of work, were it not for the huge expenditures that have funded the climate scare industry.

    There are more lies that I could address, but I don’t have any more time for you silly losers. Good luck in Cancun. I hope it doesn’t snow.

  51. willard Says:

    > What I refute is not the science, but the bogus assumptions that you all have tacked on to the science.

    > I will still support the expenditure of more BILLIONS and BILLIONS, if you geniuses can get your shit straight and do some credible research.

  52. Bart Says:

    Shub,

    You make some good points about communication in general and Olson in particular. Grumbine for sure has lots of good things to say as well (eg that olson does a bit much stereotyping), but still many of Olson’s points (if you take off the sharp edges) are true: Eg that perception is key on how a message comes across, and that that is underappreciated by many scientists.

    Scientists are mostly good at communicating with their fellow scientists; that’s what they’re trained and paid to do. Not so much with the general public (though naturally there are exceptions).

  53. Scott Mandia Says:

    Bart,

    The reason that the Moranos and the Moncktons can fool people is because they are so good at public relations. Even here in this thread we see people who believe climate scientists are incompetent or are promoting a vast international conspiracy. There is no common sense to having that viewpoint but it is more attractive than the “boring old scientific consensus” or to those that do not like the message of AGW and are looking for reasons to dismiss AGW.

    As you know, scientists are not very good at speaking to the non-scientist. I wrote a lengthy blog post titled: Alan Alda Brings Passion for Communicating Science to Brookhaven Lab that provides many valuable tips and tricks to be a better science communicator.

    My Global Warming Blog
    Twitter: AGW_Prof
    “Global Warming Fact of the Day” Facebook Group

  54. Bart Says:

    A bunch of comments got caught in the spam filter for some reason, and now appear. For some, the reason may be the large amount of links; for others, I don’t know the reason. If your comments gets caught, feel free to email me or write a small comments to ask what’s up/notify me.

  55. dhogaza Says:

    I have to shift my goalposts because you try to slip away.

    That comment is right up there with the other poster’s earlier “why can’t I have my own facts?”

  56. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Mr Dhogaza
    You haven’t still answered my question.

    I have argued above in favor of the integrity of climate science. Bart agrees.

    Why don’t you drop your act and confront what I am pointing out?

    Let us take another approach. Gleick, the lead author of the letter has claimed publicly that he did not know that they were putting a fake polar bear photo in the letter. We will take his word for it. He was made aware of it and the comments were understandably hostile.

    What did he do?

    He capitalized on the opportunity that emerged to whip up one more round of frenzy at the Huffington Post. He repeated his claim that ‘deniers’did not respond to the content of the original letter but focused on the picture.

    Yet if you read his article and blog responses, he is the one talking about the picture repeatedly. I am not aware of any post from him addressing criticism of the letter itself. Those who supported Gleick have taken a similar line of argument.

    Do you think this type of rabid self-righteous public display does climate science any good?

    If you goof up, people will laugh at you. If you act high and mighty, talk arrogantly as though you were the Grand Poobah of Climate Science, and then goof up, people will laugh harder. You cannot complain then.

    How come, the climate scientists do not speak one word against Gleick and co-signees when he hijacks their ’cause’, enlists hundreds of non climate-scientists to write up some nonspecific innuendo and defends the magazine against ‘deniers’ when it inserts a fake picture to go along with it?

    You want to defend climate science and climate scientists, right? Defend now – tell people like Gleick to get off the gravy train.

  57. phinniethewoo Says:

    We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” “This is a prescription for disaster.

    indeed oh deedee:

    For example: Scientists calling themselves scientist but not even realising that the core expectation and grist of their work is doing statistics.
    And *Not* rehashing Peter Sinclair stories.

  58. phinniethewoo Says:

    The victimalisation trump card is as tired as Nancy Pelosi’s racial trumpcard (any difficult vote to be fixed in the UScongress? just drag in your comedian black brothers and cry racism)

    Civil servants who get a bit exposed always get the honourable option out of all the unjust attention brought upon them: The DOOR. enter the real world, where all’s not ivory.

    There is always the easy option OUT.

  59. caerbannog Says:


    Let us take another approach. Gleick, the lead author of the letter has claimed publicly that he did not know that they were putting a fake polar bear photo in the letter. We will take his word for it. He was made aware of it and the comments were understandably hostile.

    To set the record straight, Gleick turned to Science after the WSJ, NYTimes and WashPost declined to publish the letter.

    (From http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics/2010/05/an-unwelcome-climate-for-scien.html)

    According to Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, a research center in Oakland, California, who spoke with New York Times reporter Sindya N. Bhanoo, before they gave it to Science, the group had first submitted the letter to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Washington Post, all of whom declined to to run it.

    Your insinuation that Gleick (and other signatories) had advanced knowledge that the Science copy-editors were going to use that polar-bear pic is completely out of line. Perhaps you should loosen the strap on your tinfoil-hat.

  60. Shub Says:

    caergbannog:

    Maybe what I say is not clear to you. Please read sentences in the flow of the line of thought.

    I said that he was made aware of the fake polar bear picture through the blogs and their hostile comments.

    I am aware of the Sindya Bhanoo interview.

    Whether Gleick had advance knowledge or not about the polar bear picture is absolutely immaterial. He is on record saying that a true polar bear on ice floe picture is in the Science article has been inserted and he is fine with that.

    Where exactly is the insinuation? Don’t rush into posting responses without reading what I wrote in full. Read the previous lines and the next two paragraphs (preferably with your rose tinted glasses off).

    My point is that he was made aware of the fake images through hostile comments and instead of acknowledging the error, he became defensive and started another round of skeptic-bashing.

    Take your dirty tricks elsewhere

  61. phinniethewoo Says:

    OK I mae a summarry of the irrefutable science:

    -some temperature record is taken with highly dubious methods, the record is not open to all and adulterated in inimaginable ways. Anyways, the record shows a mild and beneficial rise to humanity.
    -This mild rise is spelling doom or so the religion contends, IF we double the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. There is no science that underpins that, though, only highly dubious inaccessible computer simulations that depart from platonic steadystates and then venture in all kinds of non observed non existing positive feedbacks.
    -The spelled doom would bring us 4 degrees of warming in an era,the year 2100, where humanity probably has morphed into some alltogether different beings living on other planets, by means of all kinds of other energies. The latter , at least, if we do not give in to socialist obamania.

  62. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    You have a wonderfully selective memory.
    I do have a right to my own facts. And these facts are not distorted by the continuous slander of your ilk.

    And I do deserve repect for my heretic ideology.
    You mentioned that you would not pay any attention to my stale ideas. Why did you break your promise?
    Keep barking, Dhogaza.

  63. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    I just read two papers with a lot of physics and maths:

    http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~kramm/

    I guess you will like them.

  64. willard Says:

    Dho,

    I just read this page, with graphics, arXiv dram and Wikipedian intrigue:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/05/krammed-to-our-misfortune-gerhard-kramm.html

    I guess you will like remembering it.

  65. Tim Curtin Says:

    The “famous” 255 produced a deliberate non sequitur by claiming “When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action”. That is absolutely untrue, but as I document below there remains considerable uncertainty about the relative impact of CO2 emissions vis a vis other factors, as shown by the references given on other threads here by VS, cohenite, Max Manacker, myself, and many others.

    Science’s editorial quoted by Bart is also incorrect – “The IPCC reports have underestimated the pace of climate change while overestimating societies’ abilities to curb greenhouse gas emissions”.

    In fact the IPCC AR4 WG1 consistently exaggerates the future pace of CC by failing to disclose that all its projections of rising atmospheric CO2 are due to the unproven validity of the Michaelis-Menten hyperbolic function used in most if not all GCM models (eg the 11 C4-MIP models used by Friedlingstein and Knorr et al 2006) to assert that there is a ceiling to the amount of CO2 the world’s biospheres can absorb, put by Sokolov et al (MIT, 2009) at 5.5 GtC p.a. (already less than the actual) – see Knorr, GRL, November 2009 for empirical rebuttal of the “saturation” implied by use of Michaelis-Menten in the 2006 paper that Knorr co-authored.

    Knorr 2009 shows there is no sign of any weakening of the biospheric uptakes – aka “saturation” of the CO2 “sinks” – of CO2 alleged in the 2006 paper.

    For a full account of the secretive – nay fraudulent – use by the IPCC and by Solomon et al PNAS 2009 of Michaelis-Menten to exaggerate the “pace of climate change”, by using it to raise the actual rate of growth of the atmospheric concentration from 0.41% p.a. (March 1958-March 2010) to 1% pa and “minimise” the globe’s ongoing capacity to absorb on average 56% of CO2 emitted WHATEVER the level actual of that has been since 1958 and is now, see my ANU Seminar of 29 April 2010 available at top of my website, http://www.timcurtin.com.

  66. Rattus Norvegicus Says:

    Jeff Id,

    If I understand your point correctly, Spencer’s photo shopped image is OK because it is a metaphor for climate science, but the image used by Science (w/o any input from the authors of the letters) is not OK, because it is a metaphor for what is happening in the arctic? Right….

  67. willard Says:

    I’d be interested in an argument to the effect that:

    > When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action.

    is a non sequitur, or that it is untrue.

  68. Tim Curtin Says:

    Willard: that statement is not only a non sequitur but also a very dangerous one. Following Carson, the “scientists” of the US EPA became “absolutely certain” that DDT is harmful and followed up with a ban in 1972 similar to that it is imposing on emissions of CO2. International organisations like the WHO ceased until about 6 years ago to support DDT spraying against the anopheles mosquito that carried the malaria parasite in many 3rd world countries. Other scientists were equally “certain” that malarial mosquitoes would become DDT-resistant, and all were even more certain that the malaria parasite would NEVER become resistant to the chloroquin used to treat malarious patients. There is compelling evidence that the anopheles has not become impervious to DDT – but that the parasite P. falciparum is now fully resistant to chloroquin (see Schuurkamp’s The Epidemiology of Malaria and Filariasis in the Ok Tedi Region of Western Province, PNG, 1992). He notes the increases in prevalence of falsiparum when spraying was stopped on orders from the government.

    As I have noted elsewhere, the certainty of the 255 NAS that rising atmospheric CO2 is “dangerously” warming and must be stopped ignores the more compelling correlations between rising [CO2] and world food production, when 40% of all cereals comprises carbon derived from photosynthesis using [CO2] plus H2O and some nitrogen. Schellnhuber (one of the 255) is “certain” that we must reduce [CO2] to 280 ppm, the level in 1750, when world population was less than one billion and eating much less carbon both in total and per capita than our c.7 billion do now.

    Save me from the certainty of scientists, especially that of ALL those who are members of NAS and the Royal Society (the latter famously denied that mosquitoes have anything to do with malaria, or untreated sewerage with cholera).

  69. Scott Mandia Says:

    Wow, this thread has turned into the OJ Simpson “If the glove don’t fit you must acquit.”

    Simpson failed his own polygraphs miserably, had his DNA all over the place at the scene, his unique footprint in the blood at the scene, a history of violence against his wife, etc., etc., etc. and yet he was “not guilty” in the criminal case because the defense used snappy lines, claims of a racist conspiracy, and a shrunken glove that the prosecution was too dumb to allow him to try it on. All the while the judge allowed these wild speculations to dominate the trial in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    Sound familiar?

    To those reasonable people on this thread, please stop taking the bait from those that are whining about a bear picture but are refusing to discuss the content of the letter. There are bigger fish to fry here.

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
    Selden, NY
    Global Warming: Man or Myth?
    My Global Warming Blog
    Twitter: AGW_Prof
    “Global Warming Fact of the Day” Facebook Group

  70. Bart Says:

    Phinniethewoo,

    I let some comments of your through in which you were at least trying to say something without too much accusations intertwined. But you’re on a totally different planet than I am.

  71. Tim Curtin Says:

    One of the many nonsense statements in the Open Letter of Bart’s 255 NAS donkeys quoted above is that “Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic”.

    Surprisingly , the oceans are not already acidic, despite the 255 claim, as even the IPCC admits (AR4, WG1, pp.403-407) the pH at the moment is only around 8.1, i.e. heavily alkaline (and unknown to the 255, the pH scale is reverse Richter, i.e. logarithimic down).

    Meantime all irrigationists know that the ideal pH for irrigation water is between 5.5 and 6.6, some thousands of ions below the current level of the sea. Does any one of the 255 know that? – or that if oceanic pH is plunging as they claim, this has to be good news for irrigationists?

    The clowns who wrote Chap.5 on Oceanic pH in AR4, WG1 know nothing of this of course, led as they were by a sublime idiot, Australia’s Nathan Bindoff, who as Coordinating Lead Author could not pick up the contradiction between his team’s claims (pp.403-406) that simultaneously (1) the uptake of CO2 emissions by the oceans is declining, and (2) despite that, the alleged falling pH is caused by RISING oceanic CO2!!!!

    Can anybody cite any valid science whatsoever in the AR4 WG1? I have searched and failed.

  72. willard Says:

    It seems now that we are in a dire need to have an argument to the effect that:

    > When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action.

    is a non sequitur, or that it is untrue. We also need to have an argument to the effect that it is a dangerous one.

    The argument is even more needed now that Tim Curlin, has chosen to coatrack an example to illustrate that absolute certainty might be dangerous.

  73. dhogaza Says:

    Harry …

    I do have a right to my own facts.

    It’s getting better … now he’s even citing papers that are entitled to their own physics …

  74. Scott Mandia Says:

    Tim,

    You are confused.

    The oceans are becoming less alkaline which one can also say “more acidic” (Does coffee cool off or release heat?) Semantics.

    The RATE of CO2 absorption is decreasing but the oceans are still ABSORBING CO2 so they are becoming less alkaline (more acidic).

    Irrigation? What has that got to do with ocean acidity? Are you aware that SHELLS suffer when pH lowers? Do you think that the tiny shelled creatures that form the base of the oceanic food chain care about blades of grass?

    There are many resources you can read to learn more. I already have decided that one of my next blog posts will be on this subject.

    http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/FAQs/

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
    Selden, NY
    Global Warming: Man or Myth?
    My Global Warming Blog
    Twitter @AGW_Prof
    Global Warming Fact of the Day Facebook Group

  75. Frank Says:

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
    Selden, NY
    Global Warming: Man or Myth?
    My Global Warming Blog
    Twitter @AGW_Prof
    Global Warming Fact of the Day Facebook Group

    Scott, I’m curious. Is ‘belief’ in full-blown AGW alarmism a prerequisite for your students or do they just need to parrot it back to you to pass their exams?

  76. Scott Mandia Says:

    I use scientific method in the classroom. Belief has nothing to do with it. Data drives the conclusions – not the other way around. I find it sad that many do not understand that this is how scientists think and how we approach problems.

  77. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    You can go on ridiculing me as much as you like. It will not change my facts. I expected nothing less, I got even more than I was prepared for. But whining scientists that demand more understanding from civilians is pathetic. You sing perfectly in tune with these dhogmatic people. You all did more damage to own cause then you could have imagined.

    Are you seriously thinking that I will change my opinion because I am impressed with omniscient revelations?

  78. Frank Says:

    Scott,

    Thanks for the quick response. I think I recall how the ‘scientific method’ works. Something about observing nature, formulating a hypothesis, gathering data / conducting experiments to test the hypothesis, rejecting or modifying the hypothesis if it does not conform to the data / experimental results, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat…

    The issue I have with the AGW ‘debate’, is that I don’t recall where any scientists have provided any demonstrable evidence that water vapor and/or clouds significantly amplify the impact on radiative heat transfer attributed to CO2 emissions over time spans consistent with the modern use of fossil fuels. I understand that such large feedbacks can be inferred from the output of GCMs tuned to conform with the historical temperature record, but that’s pretty much begging the question, isn’t it?

    With respect to the NAS letter, I could care less about the accompanying photo, but I am troubled that the signers have simply circled the wagons around conclusions that are not scientifically substantiated.

  79. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    Since you are such a master of physics, why don’t you point me to the errors in the two papers of Kramm? I have them both, just page and line number is sufficient. Show me what it should read. I am curious.

  80. Bart Says:

    Frank,
    Check e.g. here and here.

  81. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    Read this:

    International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB)
    Condensed Matter Physics; Statistical Physics; Applied Physics
    Forthcoming Articles | Current Issue | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | All Volumes (1987-2010)
    Volume: 24, Issue: 10(2010) pp. 1333-1359 DOI: 10.1142/S0217979210055573

    and this:

    International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB)
    Condensed Matter Physics; Statistical Physics; Applied Physics
    Forthcoming Articles | Current Issue | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | All Volumes (1987-2010)
    Volume: 24, Issue: 10(2010) pp. 1309-1332 DOI: 10.1142/S021797921005555X

    All physics.

  82. dhogaza Says:

    The issue I have with the AGW ‘debate’, is that I don’t recall where any scientists have provided any demonstrable evidence that water vapor and/or clouds significantly amplify the impact on radiative heat transfer attributed to CO2 emissions over time spans consistent with the modern use of fossil fuels.

    Satellite observations taken over the last few of years, taken at a variety of altitude, and designed to test GCM-generated water vapor feedback, match model results very closely.

    It is wise to remember that “I do not recall” is not equivalent to “scientists have not bothered to test their results”.

  83. dhogaza Says:

    Harry …

    Since you are such a master of physics, why don’t you point me to the errors in the two papers of Kramm? I have them both, just page and line number is sufficient. Show me what it should read. I am curious.

    How much of modern physics are you willing to throw away in order to hold on to your ideological beliefs?

    G&T’s claims, supported by Kramm, that standard atmospheric physics violates the second law of thermodynamics is bunk.

    It’s no different, really, than creationists claiming that evolution can’t be true because evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

  84. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    The past few years do allow to make predictions hundreds of years in advance? The models are fake, accept it. They are NOT physics. They are based on flawed global temperature data. They can not be correct.

  85. dhogaza Says:

    Harry …

    And as to why I won’t bother to point out why G&T and Kramm are full of it, consider that:

    1. You’ll ignore anything I say anyway, so it’s not worth my time.

    2. Real physicists like Eli Rabbett and Arthur Smith have already done a much better job than I’ve done, and have done so a year ago, and obviously you’re ignoring what they say.

    3. The physics community for the most part of totally ignored G&T’s claims that standard atmospheric physics violates the second law, as they routinely ignore the vast majority of silly second law-based arguments. This is a good indicator that it’s so wrong, and the researchers and journal so obscure, that no one thinks it is worth their time.

    But the main reason for not bothering to spend time explaining is that it is clear you won’t listen, have no interest in learning, and will grasp on to any argument that allows you to believe that climate science is junk science, regardless of how silly it is.

    BTW, Harry, have you leapt on Stephen Goddard’s “there’s no greenhouse effect on Venus” bandwagon yet? It’s tailor-made for you …

  86. dhogaza Says:

    The past few years do allow to make predictions hundreds of years in advance? The models are fake, accept it. They are NOT physics. They are based on flawed global temperature data. They can not be correct.

    I’ve actually read some fairly large chunks of one (GISS Model E) and know from personal experience that these three statements are lies:

    1. The models are fake.

    2. They are not physics.

    3. They are based on flawed temperature data.

    All three points make it clear you have no idea how they work. #3 makes *exceedingly clear* you have no idea as to how they work.

    Such ignorance isn’t very convincing, Harry.

  87. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    You always try to evade the tough questions, and play the obvious easy card. Where are your Kramm remarks? Point me to the obvious violation of the second law of thermo? The paper of Kramm contains almost any formula one could think of. Which one is wrong? Give me the ref (2.9? 4.1?) Illuminate me.

  88. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    I am currently busy with the implementation of the GISS processes in R. And I do not agree with your observations. I think you are failing your own standards.

  89. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    Calling me ignorant is new to me, but no surprise. I consider it the last possible remark to someone which you do not know how knowledgeable they are. As for me, I now know how little your knowledge spans. I am wondering why I found it worthwile discussing with you. I must have been drunk.

  90. Scott Mandia Says:

    Dunning–Kruger effect

    &

    Confirmation bias

    Keeps oneself grounded and helps one to understand the absurd comments from many of the anti-science “tea partiers”.

    This comment is not directed at anybody here, of course. :)

  91. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    You still have not answered a single one of my questions. You point to Eli Rabitt and Arthur Smith, but YOU have not said anything except that you think that because I will not accept it from you, you do not care to say it. Really?

    I asked you to point me out which formula in the papers of Kramm are wrong. Just give me the publication Id and the formula number. I can find out for myself if these formulas are right or wrong.

    The fact that you state that you have read a large chunk of GISS (E):

    Quote:
    I’ve actually read some fairly large chunks of one (GISS Model E) and know from personal experience that these three statements are lies:
    End Quote

    reveals to me that you are an outsider to the climate community. What is there to read? The code of the model? Using what programming language? And you claim that you can do that: reading code and simultaneously reconstruct the algorithm that the code is based on? Really?

    You are condensing G*d like properties upon yourself. But that may have to do with one of the possible permutations of your Nick.

  92. Harry Says:

    Bart,

    How is it possible that the reply of Dhogaza to my posting is earlier than my post?

  93. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    And you should be more careful in the use of the word “lies”. A ly is something that has been made public while knowing that things are different.

    I have not lied. I really think (how stupid can I be) that the temperature record is corrupt, that models are bunk and that climate science is non-existent due to the former two objections. (Mooi voor een tegeltje, Bart)

  94. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    whine mode on
    I am waiting for your comments with the Kramm papers in front of me. Where are you?
    Whine mode off

  95. dhogaza Says:

    Harry …

    How is it possible that the reply of Dhogaza to my posting is earlier than my post?

    Because denialists like yourself are so damned predictable?

  96. Arjan Says:

    @Harry, DLM and a few other extreme “skeptics”: Since you seem to believe that all climate science concerning AGW is bunk, it is useless to discuss AGW climate science with you, because all arguments are based on bunk physics anyway. So what are you doing here anyway? Trying to convince us and climate scientists that their science is bunk, because it IS BUNK? Then you also seem to think that we have to take you seriously. It is quite arrogant of you demand that other people have to take you seriously, especially if you come rushing in with the opinion that all established climate science is bogus, bunk or whatever. What exactly are you doing here? Trying to convince us that all climate science is based on nonsense? You know that won’t work. We know we will never be able to convince you, so we are both wasting our time. The only point you are proving here is that you are convincing us that you are in desperate need of (negative) attention and like to provoke people taking an extreme opposing stance to their views.

    I’m sorry, but please take the bullshit elsewhere.

  97. Arjan Says:

    OT, in my opinion, these letters won’t work. The public will only see it as a feeble effort to regain trust and confidence, for them proving that there is actually something wrong. This whole focus on communication of “the message” is useless. If AGW is correct it will eventually show, and convince people, although that will probably take quite a long time. Leave the policy for policy makers. We present the science as-is, with all it’s uncertainties and flaws, because that’s all we can do. More openness of the scientific process and better education is very much needed though (especially the latter). It might sound arrogant, but most of the public does not understand the physics and climate science at all. They don’t know how to handle the uncertainties in physical sciences, and don’t like them at all. They generally seem to be more interested in extreme views, scare stories and conspiracy theories. Also the media likes to present it that way. All though I have strong opinions about (and interest in) other fields (biology, economy, medical sciences, social sciences), I do realize that my knowledge of those fields is extremely limited.

    I think the way to go for scientists is to improve the actual science: keep improving our understanding of the climate, and especially trying to remove the larger uncertainties in the basics of AGW (for example aerosol and cloud physics, climate sensitivity). Also a better understanding of regional (natural and anthropogenic) climate variations is needed, because that’s what people are mostly interested in. We need to be careful addressing the results of regional future climate projections. (Without a thorough understanding of regional climate variability, I think it is quite a stretch to try and understand how these variations will change in the future…). We need to do more observations, even though that is more expensive and tends to produce less papers, they are much more difficult to interpret than physical models, observations are ultimately needed for verification of physical theories, and that’s where new discoveries are made.

  98. Frank Says:

    Bart,

    I would hope that by now we could all get beyond the ‘CO2 is a GHG + ‘mankind emits CO2′ = ‘we’re all gonna fry’ line of reasoning. The issue is feedbacks, and as I said in my post, I’ve never seen any hard, physical evidence, including your two references, that the water vapor – CO2 feedback is as strongly positive as the IPCC assumes it to be.

    dhogaza,

    “Satellite observations taken over the last few of years, taken at a variety of altitude, and designed to test GCM-generated water vapor feedback, match model results very closely.”

    Recent research (Spencer) using more accurate satellite data that allows for the isolation of radiative and non-radiative feedbacks does not support this, which more than suggests that at least some scientists ‘have not bothered to test their results’.

    Regards – F.

  99. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Dhogaza, Arjan

    You’ve managed to hijack yet another thread where ‘one of you’ bungled up badly and it provided yet another opportunity for the unwashed idiots called skeptics to reach out and ask a few questions – however briefly.

    Again, everything degenerates into a ‘debate’ about ‘physics’.

    Dhogaza, you understand the context in which Harry said he “has his facts”. Why rip it out of there?

    Arjan: You say

    “If AGW is correct it will eventually show, and convince people, although that will probably take quite a long time.”

    How is it that, as a physicist, you understand that a ‘proof’ for the theory of AGW, may take years and years in coming and yet, you raise not one finger against the policy makers who demand that action be taken today?

    Why won’t you impose your physicist perspective on the rest of us? Isn’t that what society desires from you, as a scientist?

    Consider this:
    I agree AGW (as hypothesized) is a slow-grinding process (molecule by molecule of CO2 etc) and understand that.

    But, you could take *any* process and make a statement as follows:

    X – is very bad, because it will result in great harm in the future. The absolute proof for X will also arrive in the future. But we should do something now because…you cannot imagine the harm X can cause. A X-like process also happens in nature. Actually, the major chunk of X is probably naturally caused.

    In fact, this is what astrologers do. There are no penalties for being wrong and only roses strewn in your path for being right.

    And secondly, this type of thing *has* been done and repeatedly in modern-day ‘risk-averse societies-hobbled and yanked along with every scare story – BSE, volcano ash, swine flu, bird flu, swine flu (again) SARS.

    No wonder the general public loses its ‘set-point’ on science-driven issues.

    The sad part is, ‘X’, i.e., AGW, could be true (speaking of the science alone). The question would still remain – “why did climate scientists allow the issue of AGW to be framed in the way it has been done now?”

  100. Scott Mandia Says:

    We are standing at the exit of a dark tunnel with our feet in freshly poured cement. In the distance we see a faint light coming toward us and are told by almost every expert that it is likely the light is from an oncoming train but these experts are not certain and are looking for more clues.

    As time passes, there are more and more clues. A faint whistle not unlike that of a train. (Could it just be the wind?) A hissing sound not unlike that of a train. (Could it be a leaking steam pipe?) A clacking sound that sounds like that of a train. (There seems to be no other choice for this one.)

    Then the experts tell us these clues are very likely (<90%) to be from an oncoming train and that the cement around our feet is getting closer and closer to hardening. There appear to be no other explanations that fit these multiple lines of evidence for a train so it is prudent that we leave the cement now.

    But we like where we are currently standing and are comfortable here. Why should we leave this cozy place if there isn’t 100% proof that it is an oncoming train. Haven’t these experts been wrong before? I mean, hey, look at Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein.

    The light grows brighter and brighter, the hissing gets louder and louder, and the clacking gets louder and louder while the cement grows harder and harder.

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
    Selden, NY
    Global Warming: Man or Myth?
    My Global Warming Blog
    Twitter: AGW_Prof
    “Global Warming Fact of the Day” Facebook Group

  101. Tim Curtin Says:

    Yes, Scott. But I see you have been too busy putting up that melodramatic post to have read my ANU seminar paper which shows that the locomotive which will produce death from mass starvation is YOUR insane campaign to get rid of CO2, truly our lifeblood.

  102. Scott Mandia Says:

    Tim,

    You emailed me your paper yesterday morning. It is 53 pages long. You asked me to read it and I told you that I would even though I suspect that many here would just delete the message. I am also in the midst of writing a long blog post of my own and next week is final exams week. Why would I be busy?

    My post this morning took me all of 5 minutes to write.

    I sugges that if you want somebody to read your paper, take the time to read it carefully, and especially when they are very busy, you do not publicly criticize them for not doing so in 24 hours time.

  103. Tim Curtin Says:

    Scott: noted, perhaps I was too hasty. But the main message was in the first 3 pages of my paper.

    Anyway let’s move on, and here’s my latest on what I consider to be the incompetence (rather than intellectual dishonesty) of the 255:

    … I think their Open Letter warrants investigation as a prima facie conspiracy. One of their many canards is that “iv. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic”. As I tried to post at Lambert’s Deltoid, but have been spiked there yet again, (1) there is no evidence for that claim, in the absence of global time series measurements of falling pH (there are as many places – eg river deltas – where it is rising as falling) (2) the claims by IPCC (AR4 WG1 (pp.403 ff) in support of (1) are contradicted by their own claim on the very same pages that the absorption of CO2 by the oceans that allegedly cause the falling pH is itself falling (Nathan Bindoff is the Aussie goon who crooked up this nonsense in his Chapter 5 – Oceanic Change…. – he exemplifies the ample evidence in AR4 that calculus is no longer taught in Australian schools and universities); and (3) what is bad about falling pH?

    Tim Lambert who is as mathematically challenged as John Quiggin and the said Bindoff cannot grasp how much “carbonic acid” is required to produce even a 0.1 reduction in pH, as pH is measured on a reverse Richter scale, “whereby pH is a measurement of the concentration of hydrogen ions (H+) in solution. Since this represents a logarithmic expression, H+ concentration at pH 6.0 is 10 times greater than at pH 7.0 and 100 times greater than at pH 8.0.” That means hugely larger increases in oceanic CO2 are needed to get the alarming fictional fall in pH claimed by the 255 goons of the NAS than have EVER been observed, especially when the same goons are claiming that oceanic uptakes of CO2 emissions are falling. Now you know why Lambert has refused to put up my post on this.

    My source (apart from my own field experience of the BAD effects of RISING pH in places like Egypt and Zambia etc) adds: “In this relationship, pH has no direct effect on plant growth. However, pH does affect the form/availability of nutrient elements in irrigation water, fertilizer solutions and the growing medium. The pH of irrigation water should usually be within the range of 5.5 to 6.5. These levels enhance the solubility of most micronutrients and avoid a steady increase in the pH of the growing medium. This pH range also optimizes the solubility of nutrients in concentrated fertilizer stock solutions.”

    Thus if the 255 of the US National Academy of Sciences are right about falling oceanic pH, they and us should be having a party, as this holds out the promise of the cheaper irrigation from the oceans that we would achieve if pH fell to say 6, as we would then have only to deal with salinity, and not the acidic oceanic pH at today’s 8.1. Thus to any REAL scientist, of whom there are NONE at US NAS or (with just a single exception) at the UK’s Royal Society, falling pH from rising fossil fuel emissions and (at only 44% of the last) atmospheric CO2 will actually be a huge benefaction to humanity, permitting lower cost irrigation of the Kalahari, Sahara, and the c80% of Australia that is desert (like 99.9% of its climate scientists). This is a corollary to my recent ANU seminar (at http://www.timcurtin.com) showing the benefits to all humanity through the higher food production that has been facilitated by rising atmospheric CO2 since 1958.

  104. Pat Cassen Says:

    For a view rather different than that expressed above by Tim Curtin, see
    “Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem”, by Doney, Fabry, Feely and Kleypas:
    http://ic.ucsc.edu/~acr/eart254/Doneyetal2009.pdf

  105. Scott Mandia Says:

    Speaking of denialism:

    Vermont State Climatologist: Why Is That Link Still There?

    The VSC is prominently linking a Fraser Institute document that is filled with errors and misleading/missing information. Although alerted to this over 6 months ago, the link is still there! Details at the link above.

  106. DLM Says:

    Oceans of acid!!

    Not really.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16

  107. Steven Sullivan Says:

    Bart, there’s an awful lot of noise on this thread. Do you moderate? What is the point of allowing multiply-refuted zombie arguments to be reposted yet again here?

  108. Pat Cassen Says:

    DLM – Thanks for getting back to substance.

    But Everett seems to be alone in his boat. Use Google Scholar “allintitle: “ocean acidification”” to find the real evidence.

  109. Frank Says:

    Steven,

    Specifically, which ‘multiply-refuted zombie arguments’ are you referring to, and on what scientific grounds are they so refuted?

    Speaking of zombie arguments, is it not ironic that just recently one of the shiboleths of AGW alarmism that has been around for decades, the so-called Venus effect, turns out to have little to do with CO2, but rather is a straightforward application of 19th century classical thermo? I wonder how the best scientists in the world missed that one.

    Regards – F.

  110. Scott Mandia Says:

    Frank,

    Are you referring to Goddard’s Post over at WUWT?

  111. Steven Sullivan Says:

    “Speaking of zombie arguments, is it not ironic that just recently one of the shiboleths of AGW alarmism that has been around for decades, the so-called Venus effect, turns out to have little to do with CO2, but rather is a straightforward application of 19th century classical thermo? I wonder how the best scientists in the world missed that one.”

    Indeed. It’s because it’s not not ironic — it’s false. Learn the difference.

  112. DLM Says:

    Pat, Pat

    That numbers game is not working for you anymore. We know that the climate science game is rigged. We know how pal review in the climate science industry works. Phil Jones has admitted that pal reviewers don’t ask to see other pals’ data. We know that skeptical research is scrutinized, criticized, and demonized into obscurity. We know that the internationalist apparatchiks running the IPCC have deliberately institutionalized selection bias. The IPCC is the gatekeeper for climate science and it is corrupt, period. The IPCC has two rules:

    1. if it fits the agenda, let it in
    2. if it doesn’t fit the agenda, keep it out

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/05/ipcc-cites-unpublished-journal-39-times.html

    You all better find your missing heat before Cancun. And pray that it doesn’t snow.

  113. Pat Cassen Says:

    DLM – No “numbers game”.

    Not you, but other readers may be interested in the evidence.

    http://ic.ucsc.edu/~acr/eart254/Doneyetal2009.pdf

    is a good place to start.

  114. Bart Says:

    Harry,

    Not sure what you’re referring to, but this is the first time I checked in today.

    Frank,

    The second link I gave is specifically about climate sensitivity, and how it is constrained by (a collection of) observations.

  115. Bart Says:

    Scott,

    Excellent analogy.

    Steven Sullivan,

    I haven’t had much time to moderate recently, and have indeed let my own standards slip a bit. Still searching for a good (and workable!) middle ground between allowing (almost) everything and making the discussion too ‘controlled’.

  116. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    That is the first time I heard that I am predictable. I will add it to the list. But let me know when you have finished the Kramm papers and point me to the formulas where the erors are. I have a sneaky feeling that this will never happen due to your obvious lack of understanding of basic physics.

    Arjan
    Arrogant will be added to the list, as will Zombie arguments. Thanks, it was not there yet. I have never said that climate research is bunk. I only pointed out that one of your most important tools is not reliable. Only because Dhogaza tells me that it is a ly that Giss is not reliable, does not make it reliable, even when he did read it himself.

    If you have any common sense, you will agree with me that any science based on flawed data is not science. So yes, I may be running in. But I can assure you that the way climate research has been treating the most valuable treasure they have, is very poorly.

    For me it is a legitimate point of concern: as long as the quality of the historic temperature record is open for debate, it is useless to do any research based on it. The fact that the MetOffice has decided to redo the entire HADCRUT dataset is ominous in this sense.

    And calling me names or ridiculing me does not change my opinion on this, on the contrary.

    And the same holds true for the accusation that I deny physics. I do not, I use it every day. But accepting the laws of physics does not necessarily imply that I have to accept their abuse in various models. So, please help poor Dhogaza and point me to the errors in the Kramm papers. I am sure you both will come up with a nice show of your impeccable understanding of physics.

  117. Ibrahim Says:

    “In my view, it is the responsibility of our entire community to fight this intentional disinformation campaign, which represents an affront to everything we do and believe in.” (Michael Mann 2003)

  118. Harry Says:

    Ibrahim,

    I am afraid Mann himself has started with one of the most intentional disinformation campaigns by trying to eliminate the MWP and the LIA.

  119. Harry Says:

    Arjan,

    Citation:
    I think the way to go for scientists is to improve the actual science: keep improving our understanding of the climate, and especially trying to remove the larger uncertainties in the basics of AGW (for example aerosol and cloud physics, climate sensitivity). Also a better understanding of regional (natural and anthropogenic) climate variations is needed, because that’s what people are mostly interested in. We need to be careful addressing the results of regional future climate projections. (Without a thorough understanding of regional climate variability, I think it is quite a stretch to try and understand how these variations will change in the future…). We need to do more observations, even though that is more expensive and tends to produce less papers, they are much more difficult to interpret than physical models, observations are ultimately needed for verification of physical theories, and that’s where new discoveries are made.
    End citation.

    I agree with you whole-heartedly. I could have written this. Especially the remark about less papers.

    Amazing.

  120. Ibrahim Says:

    Harry,

    I never heard of Mann untill last year and that quote struck me most in all of the CRU-mails I’ve read.

    With kind regards

  121. Frank Says:

    Bart,

    Re. your second cite, I’ll give them a nod for at least backing off the high end of the range (6 K for CO2 doubling), which they point out has absolutely no scientific basis. However, there’s a lot of headroom between 1 K (no feedback warming) and their 3 K, and given their approach, I don’t see how they can discriminate between the forcing and feedback effects looking at long-term ‘trends’.

    Scott,

    I believe Goddard was the ‘instigator’ on this, but Motl has been providing more meat on the physics, which are solid. Feel free to miss the forest for the trees and nitpick any of Goddard’s theatrics. What’s interesting to me, is that from Sagan to Hansen to Gore an unquestioned Venus mythology has evolved that says Earth is only x ppm CO2 away from runaway warming. I say ‘interesting’, because despite obvious differences (atmospheric pressure, albedo and solar insolation) that easily explains the difference in surface temperature between the two planets, the mythology persisted for many years without any notable dispute from the ‘consensus’ crowd. Not saying they didn’t know the physics, but someone (perhaps one of the signatories of the subject NAS letter) should have told Gore or Hansen to knock off the scare nonsense.

    Regards – F.

  122. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Quick question:
    Which scientist uses the phrase “fossil fuel disinformation campaign” the most?

  123. Frank Says:

    Shub,

    Who is Ross Gelbspan? Oh sorry, you said ‘scientist’…

    Regards – F.

  124. phinniethewoo Says:

    the whole MWP saga is about warmists clinging to the notion that climate should be platonically a flatline. Only other thing allowed beside the flatline are the ice ages because they are soooo much more slow trending.

    If warmists lose their cherished flatline concept then someone could argue that maybe our present 0.4 degrees of wamring would have happened anyways, without humanity’s CO2 discharge.

    5000 years ago people WALKED from Calais to Dover where now there is a 100m deep sea strait. This was hardly an age where earth was in an embryonic stage. These people were dressed had language, tools culture. They were no different from us.

    Tell me Scottie: why has it warmed so much since then , that we have all this extra water now?? Who unleashed the CO2? why did climate not flatline???

  125. Harry Says:

    As far as I can see, it is dead calm in the physics department. Probably still reading…

  126. willard Says:

    Perhaps machismo should be played where it should:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/05/unto-us-paper-is-given-unto-us.html

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/

  127. Harry Says:

    Willard,

    You must have been smoking something. Let me know what it was, is must have been very potent.

  128. Chuckles Says:

    Keith Kloor discusses an interesting alternative viewpoint

    http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/05/14/eco-inventor-angst/

  129. JMurphy Says:

    Bart wrote : “Phinniethewoo, I let some comments of your through in which you were at least trying to say something without too much accusations intertwined. But you’re on a totally different planet than I am.

    Bart, you seem to have acquired a few such individuals now, who are from a different planet (with their own laws of physics, etc.), but I don’t see why you have to indulge them. These threads are turning into outlets for those with the need to regurgitate zombie arguments, postulate weird science or indulge in macho posturing. It’s a shame.

  130. Harry Says:

    Willard,

    both links are to papers that do NOT show anything beyound the usual [edit]. Dhogaza advized me to go to Rabitt, because he was out of ammo. Rabitt seems to suffer from the same. No physics, no formulas, nothing.

    Please, show me where I am wrong. Educate me!

  131. willard Says:

    Harry,

    I am sorry that you can’t find formulas in that Rabett thread. Perhaps you could try in the forum:

    http://climatephysicsforums.com/topic/3292392/1

    Maybe it’s just an omission from your part, yet you do not talk about the formulas of **Science of Doom**. You can’t say he’s afraid of formulas. Interestingly, you have not contributed to the thread dedicated to an issue that you are coatracking here. Why?

    ***

    Since the US NAS letter is the topic of this thread, could you please provide us with a quote from that letter that makes you believe that:

    > It makes the same error over and again: the science is settled, earth is warming due to human activity and anyone who denies this is stupid.

    I also note that I could not read your response to that question Bart (you know, the host of this very blog):

    > Perhaps you could lay out what kind of evidence would convince you?

    It was asked a while ago (May 11, 2010 at 13:42). Perhaps I missed your response. In that case, could you show one of your comment where you responded?

    Thanks!

  132. willard Says:

    Harry,

    By

    > I also note that I could not read your response to that question Bart (you know, the host of this very blog):

    I meant:

    > I also note that I could not read your response to that question Bart (you know, the host of this very blog) asked you directly:

    Sorry for the inconvenience,

    Thanks again!

  133. Steven Sullivan Says:

    Bart,

    You can start with incorrigible who post nonsense-as-fact like this:

    “That numbers game is not working for you anymore. We know that the climate science game is rigged.”

  134. DLM Says:

    Steve, Steve

    Why don’t you stop trying to teach Bart how to be a hypocrite.

    There are plenty of sites where they only allow the dogma. Try realclimate. Trust me on this one. You will be happy there.

  135. Frank Says:

    Steven,

    I missed this earlier, but apparently you disagree on the whole ‘Venus’ thing:

    “Indeed. It’s because it’s not not ironic — it’s false. Learn the difference.”

    Care to let me know why?

    Regards – F.

  136. Scott Mandia Says:

    DLM,

    It is not spelled D-O-G-M-A, it is spelled S-C-I-E-N-C-E. :)

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
    Selden, NY
    Global Warming: Man or Myth?
    My Global Warming Blog
    Twitter: AGW_Prof
    “Global Warming Fact of the Day” Facebook Group

  137. Pat Cassen Says:

    Frank – If you really believe that a couple of bloggers have overturned the science of Venus’ atmosphere, cruise over to Chris Colose’s site
    http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/goddards-world/#comments
    where you’ll get a good explanation of why (surprise) it’s not so.

    Motl has weighed in there and fumbled his way to this conclusion:
    “…there’s no canonical “non-greenhouse counterpart” of the Venusian atmosphere that we could compare Venus with because many quantities have to be changed simultaneously for us to find another stationary solution.”

  138. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Pat,
    Did you see Motl’s response on his blog?

    There is a reply to the replies made to Goddard. Read through the whole thing.

    “Their probabilities are absolute crap. They are pulling these statistics out of thin air. It is completely anti-science. They talk about 90 percent probability. It sounds high, but would anyone fly in an airplane if it would crash once out of every 10 flights?”
    -Willie Soon

  139. Pat Cassen Says:

    Shub- Yes, I saw Motl’s response on his blog. He is (was?) very confused. But what do you make of his statement that ““…there’s no canonical “non-greenhouse counterpart” of the Venusian atmosphere…”? Does he now acknowledge the importance of the CO2 greenhouse, or not? Looks like it, but it’s hard to tell.

    In any event, Colose has it right. (Also, a poster there named Jon gives some useful textbook references.)

    Thanks for the Willie Soon quote. Always good for a chuckle.

  140. DLM Says:

    OK professor, I looked at your blog. This is as far as I could go:”Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented”

    That is false, and you know it.

  141. Harry Says:

    Willard,

    you directed me to:

    Alpha Release
    Climate Physics is up and running. People involved in these initial weeks are helping us to get a solid start and some initial content ready for an official launch day. Thank you!
    We need people to sign up and add content. Introduce yourself at the Meet and Greet forum. Speak up to welcome a few others. Have a look at the guidelines, then start a thread, or contribute to someone else’s thread, in “General discussion” about something frivolous. Give ideas and suggestions and problems in “Feedback”. Write about a recent or an important paper in “Published papers”. Try your hand at a “Tutorial”. And also, if another thread by someone else looks interesting, add something to it!
    We need people to put a bit of work into getting the board active and humming in these early days. You can help off-site as well, by blogging about it, or blogging about an interesting thread.
    There will be a public launch of the new board in late June or early July with some special events. By then the board will hopefully be working spontaneously and we can all relax a bit at a job well done to get it going… and I will remove these distracting notices.

    Really? Alpha release? Get serious!

  142. Harry Says:

    Willard,

    and as to your other question regarding the NAS letter:

    It is a very poor and weak sign of all the scientists that have signed it. It is also a very revealing observation that Science seems to support the letter by giving it additional space by adding a photograph, whatever it turned out to be. For me, the fact that the photo was shopped was not important. For me only counted the observation hat Science implicitly adorsed the message of the letter by giving it additional space. If I were a member of AAAS, this would for me be a reason to cancel my membership. The same holds true for several Nature Editorials and the fact that PNAS has joined the club by accepting and publishing papers just based on run-away modelling. These are the top notch journals, and they should refrain from taking position in unsettled science. As no other they should know better. Their stance is policy related, not science driven. Shame upon them!

  143. willard Says:

    Harry,

    Thank you for your insightful responses. Let’s look at your first one.

    The forum you are dismissing because it says it is an “alpha release” is a forum about Climate Physics. It is maintained by one of the person (with Rabett) that wrote a response to one of your dearest papers. You already said that their work was

    > the usual [edit.]

    It seems you can’t tell here what you would like to tell the authors. You should take the opportunity to let the authors know about how you feel. Go express yourself: they are welcoming any valid input!

    If you believe their work is so dubious, no doubt it will be a piece of cake demonstrating to them and their readers how it is so. You could even indulge and put some formulas and talk about real physics.

    Besides, since you have read many papers, you could even comment many of them. The forum has a section for that:

    > Write about a recent or an important paper in “Published papers”.

    It might be a great place for you to show your stuff. But that was only one of the suggestion: there are other outlets. For example, **Science of Doom** welcomes people that can throw some edgy formulas. Why don’t you join that crowd?

    In fact, why do you forget to mention **Science of Doom** in your reply?

    ***

    As to your other response, I will simply note that you did not answer the simple question, nor did you answer the question Bart (you know the host who kindly lends you a place to raise your voice) asked you almost a week ago. You simply continued to editorialize. The editorial raises many interesting points. Let me question only that one:

    > Their stance [in the NAS letter] is policy related, not science driven.

    It might be interesting for you to back that impression with a quote. Could you care tell us where in the letter you feel that their stance is policy related? If you could find a quote where they explicitely endorse a specific policy, that would be appreciated.

    Thank you again for your very kind responses,

  144. Arjan Says:

    Harry wrote:
    >Arjan
    >Arrogant will be added to the list, as will Zombie arguments. Thanks, it >was not there yet. I have never said that climate research is bunk. I >only pointed out that one of your most important tools is not reliable. >Only because Dhogaza tells me that it is a ly that Giss is not reliable, >does not make it reliable, even when he did read it himself.

    A few personal questions:
    1) Have you ever worked with (large) observational data sets?
    2) When do you call a dataset reliable?
    3) Show me that Giss is not reliable.

    We probably have a very different definition of “reliable”.

    >If you have any common sense, you will agree with me that any >science based on flawed data is not science. So yes, I may be running >in. But I can assure you that the way climate research has been >treating the most valuable treasure they have, is very poorly.

    Sorry, but here I go again, what’s your definition of “flawed data”? Else I will make the point that every observational data set is basically “flawed”.
    It is good that you can assure me that, but what’s the most valuable treasure of climate science (I never knew there was any), and can you show me that it is done very poorly? Else I will just disagree with your assuring comment.

    >For me it is a legitimate point of concern: as long as the quality of the >historic temperature record is open for debate, it is useless to do any >research based on it. The fact that the MetOffice has decided to redo >the entire HADCRUT dataset is ominous in this sense.

    Quality of a dataset is always a legitimate point of concern. However, it will ALWAYS be open for debate, as with all observational data sets, so then it is useless to do any research at all. I know this might sound ridiculous, but take a pause and think about it: there are always uncertainties in (observational) data sets. On what grounds do you discard them, as being “not useful”? The grand question of course remains if those uncertainties are small enough to be useful to scientifically “prove”, or “give indications for” a hypothesis (i.e. physically based theories). This is often a rather difficult question, but it helps very much if you can find independent measures which verify your hypothesis.

    Repeating an analysis (like the Met Office is doing, to silence all the allegations from the “skeptics”, which will never work anyway) is good to find any technical flaws in the analysis, but I doubt they will find anything major. It might be more useful to do a completely different analysis, and even better to do it on a completely independent set of measurements, to see if it agrees with the original one*. However, most “skeptics” will probably only point out minor (short term) differences, which are to be expected from both uncertainties and the fact that independent measurements almost never precisely measure the same things, and proceed saying that it is all “rubbish”. Satellite measurements and surface measurements (both having considerable uncertainties) are independent, and agree surprisingly well considering what they are measuring and the uncertainties therein. Some “skeptics” will just never be satisfied with the results, because they just don’t like the result. Scientific method can never provide enough certainty to convince them (well, it’s worth trying…). That is however no reason for not trying to improve measurements and decrease uncertainties, in the contrary. BTW, opposing views and alternative theories exist in all (even more established) scientific research fields, this is completely normal, and part of the scientific process. For me personally, it just seems like now that the public is so much interested in it (probably because of possible policy implications), they discover these things for the first time. “Wow, there are uncertainties in science, wow there are opposing views…” surprise surprise!!!

    *Ocean heat content (being the largest reservoir of heat on earth) is often proposed, but is very difficult to measure, and we will have to wait many decades (maybe longer) to be assured that the changes that we are measuring are not part of some short term variations on different time scales than what we expect from AGW forcing. Others have used: thermometer measurements, satellite measurements, boreholes, tree rings, pollen, ice cores, glacier and/or ice retreat, sediment, etc., etc., which all have their own uncertainties and disadvantages too.

    @Shub:

    >“If AGW is correct it will eventually show, and convince people, >although that will probably take quite a long time.”

    >How is it that, as a physicist, you understand that a ‘proof’ for the >theory of AGW, may take years and years in coming and yet, you raise >not one finger against the policy makers who demand that action be >taken today?

    Again, when will there be enough “proof”? When is a theory “proven”? I did not say we did not have “proof”, I said that it might take a while to convince the people (i.e. that the effects of AGW will be acknowledged and “felt” by the people in their daily lives). I understand why actions should be taken, because it is risky to radiatively “push” against a system (the earth) of which there are many indications that it is a relatively delicate balance. Also, local changes in climate have shown that society, infrastructure and economics are very much sensitive to small changes in climate. So we have to be more prepared for climate change. Personally, however, I would not know how to do that, because I do not know enough about economics and other important factors which should be taken into account when trying to make policy. (For example adapt to or mitigate (reduce) AGHGs, I have a personal opinion on it, but I realize I’m not an expert on that subject.) That’s why I’m saying that scientists should focus on the science (it’s their duty to do good science, not to make policies, or be good communicators, because they are not policy makers or science communicators!).

    >Why won’t you impose your physicist perspective on the rest of us? >Isn’t that what society desires from you, as a scientist?

    No, they should desire that a scientist does science the best he/she can!
    Not that he is a great communicator of his science to the public (it might be a pro though) or that he is a policy maker! (Note that it is desirable that you can communicate your work to other scientists in the field, and if you are working on a university, that you can teach your students.)

  145. Harry Says:

    Arjan,

    Your questions:
    1. Yes, ever since 1985 I have been working in data acquisition, storage and processing of high volume datasets. It can be qualified as follows: in the beginning we acquired at the rate of about one harddisk per month, until at the moment 1 harddisk per day (using top level disks available at any time). All data I have been responsible for are available at this moment.
    2. Data reliability: all data are stored as raw, unmodified data. Any processing has been done keeping the originals. No value added data take the place of any raw data. CRC, hash or checksum is used to assess data integrity. Whenever space requirements demand the deletion of data, it is always the processed data. The protocols are saved, so we can redo any analysis with the raw data.
    3. I have to rely on others for this, but Dr. Spencer has shown that there is still significant UHI warming in the available processed data.

  146. Harry Says:

    Willard,

    My original fitty was with Dhogaza, who was just jumping around and yelling: its physics! and trying to ridicule me. If you then come in and start referring to the closer circle of RC related blogs, I do not take you serious. I will have a second look at the links you provided, and I will come back on thsi.

    Fair?

  147. Harry Says:

    Willard,

    And I forgot: did you notice the silence of Dhogaza after I asked him to comment on the Kramm papers? Telling, as far as I am concerned.

  148. Gavin's Pussycat Says:

    Harry, [edit], read this. Dhogaza is not a photocopier.

  149. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Moderation deficit showing up. [edit]

  150. Harry Says:

    Gavin’s Pussycat

    Thanks for your kind comment.

    [edit]
    I was having a dispute with Dhogaza, who is not responding. In his place several other people come to help him out. I assume Dhogaza has thrown the towel? I will not read this.

    I was very specific in my question to Dhogaza, and I will be to you: show me where the errors are.

    Calling names, ridiculing will not do as an answer.

  151. phinniethewoo Says:

    I start to find this S-C-I-E-N-C-E fetishism quite amusing.
    It’s science.
    Don’t argue with me because you’re not a scientist.

    Why do you want to see our data when you know you’re addressing a scientist. Don’t dispute our view on statistics we know far better because we are scientists..etc etc.

    What makes a bloke hired into , say, GISS a scientist I wonder?
    nothing.

    Not the fact he publishes reports, by the look of their kwollitti and the way the accredition works.

    the archetypical scientist that everybody admires would be some Feynmann guy who can communicate/explain well what he learnt himself , from others or by his own investigations. If that’s a scientist then i know htere’s none around here. there’s idiots who display their credentials “professor” etc but for the rest are quite unimpressive.

    Or Maybe a “scientist” should be someone who found a new result in some area of investigation?
    Or someone who “tries to” , obama style ??

    There is no scientific method either, apart from that the prior art should be acknowledged to exist and be either accepted or attacked.

    In this respect the VS thread where alarmists scurry away from trying an econometrics approach in this climate science (which is still not capable of predicting the weather tomorrow despite all the billions) is very revealing.

    I would not know what the prior art is in climate science: it seems to be a hodgepodge of 10000 articles and nobody has read but the tiniest fraction of all of it.

    Let’s call this “science” just hwat it is : WHITE NOISE.

  152. Scott Mandia Says:

    Scientific Method

  153. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Lord Monckton, following the scientific method arrives at some conclusions I am sure you would object to, Scott.

  154. phinniethewoo Says:

    thanx scottie (you earned your professorship there, buddy!)

    It does not give too much confidence that the 1st photograph in the article is that of a mislim, though..

    Anyways, i ‘ll do me investigation and check the three 1st paragraphs then.

    Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

    that’s about Bartje objecting to the new use of statistics, right?

    Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

    Not seen anything of the like, regarding “climate change”.

    Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results.

    Is that about the many statements you see scattered everywhere by climate “scientists” that “the evidence is overwhelming” ??

    Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

    that’s about the hockeystick saga and the many blocked FOI requests, and mongering behind the curtains about not disclosing the data, and putting up a front before the screen that “there is an intellectual property problem” , right?

    Or is this about the Belfast university tree-ring cooperation, which is scientifically so breathtaking??

  155. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza, Gavin’s Pussycat:

    I am still waiting for overwhelming physics. But since Bart has taken on the name calling, it must be difficult for you to get past him. Give it a try.

    But this was about the NAS letter. Let us get back to topic. Any new views on this? No comment on my position?

  156. willard Says:

    Harry,

    Yes, this was about the NAS letter, a letter about which you opined that:

    > Their stance [in the NAS letter] is policy related, not science driven.

    without providing a quote to justify that opinion.

    Nor did you backed up another claim you made about the NAS letter:

    > It makes the same error over and again: the science is settled, earth is warming due to human activity and anyone who denies this is stupid.

    And now that Bart has taken on the name calling, perhaps it would be the good time to respond to his question, asked 8 days ago:

    > Perhaps you could lay out what kind of evidence would convince you?

    Maybe you should stop waiting for the physics, Harry, as the physics is still waiting for you. You know where to find it.

  157. Harry Says:

    Willard,

    I am going through the evidence and I am making up my mind. My first opinion on the Rabett papers is however very negative.

    As you correctly summarized, I opined that. It was and still is my opinion, for which I do not need to supply refs where it is based on.
    Do I have to quote someone to support my opinion? Does a quote make my opinion more important? How many quotes do you consider to be sufficient for my opinion to be acceptable?

    Does sound rather silly, does it not?

    And do you or Bart think that I can state which evidence will convince me? I think you know the answer already: the same type and sort of evidence that would convince you both of the fact that AGW is non-existant.

    The NAS letter is very clear in that the scientists who have signed it think, are convinced of the fact that the science on AGW is settled: it is around us, you only refuse to see it. I do not refuse to see it, it is there (however minute in its appearrance), only it is not proven that it is due to human activities. It is their arrogance that they claim that I have not understood their motives as scientists.

    You are giving me too much credit by stating that physics is waiting for me. It is not.

    What you are asking for is that I surrender my critical mind and become an observant zombie. Well, that is beyond your reach.

  158. Scott Mandia Says:

    U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities” « Climate Progress http://bit.ly/bfq3iu

    A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

    Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
    Selden, NY
    Global Warming: Man or Myth?
    My Global Warming Blog
    Twitter: AGW_Prof
    “Global Warming Fact of the Day” Facebook Group

  159. DLM Says:

    The earth is warming. OK. Much of the warming is very likely due to human activities. Uh huh. And the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt by 2035, causing a catastrophe of Biblical proportions. Well not really.

    Kyoto, failed. Copenhagen, failed. Cancun, failed. Timbuktu, failed.

    And you think we are the dumb ineffectual ones.

    You people are delusional.

  160. Frank Says:

    Scott, I think you posted the wrong link recently. Try this one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science

    Also, here are some comments, attributed (by a poster over at the MasterResource blog) to one Michael Hulme – one of yours, I believe. I think it illustrates quite nicely the usefulness of post-normal science to alarmists:

    “The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us…Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs…We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects…These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’”.

    All kidding aside, I hope you’re a better scientist than this guy (Hulme) appears to be.

    Regards – F.

  161. goodtallviking Says:

    Hi folks,

    I find it interesting that 88% of the members of the NAS did NOT sign the letter. Further, of the first 10 names I checked on Google, I discovered that they are: anthropologists, social “scientists,” neuroscientists, and cell biologists, and one biochemist. Interesting group to be telling you and me about their believe regarding climate change. This is just more of the PC crowd following their PC leaders.

  162. Bam Says:

    @goodtallviking:

    You have an internal contradiction in your attempt to make a coherent argumentation: First you state that it is interesting 88% did not sign, and after that you focus on the credentials of those that DID sign, and attempt to dismiss their expertise in the area of climate change.

    Of course, those who know a little bit more about the background of the letter and the credentials of the signatories, know that the letter was only circulated in some subsections of NAS, to speed up the process. It was NOT circulated in the subsection that relates directly to climate research, but in those subsections where climate change has an impact. Fields like evolution biology, ecology, anthropology (think about that one for a while, and you will understand how climate change has an impact there), agriculture, etc. etc. Oh, and note that Edward Anders is not who you think he is when you do a simple search on google.

    In short, we have signatories from fields which can directly see the impact of climate change. They understand how the climate change that is predicted by actual climate scientists (see note below) will adversely impact the fields they actively investigate. And the tall viking just dismisses that. On what basis?

    NOTE: if you’d ask the relevant section of the National Academy of Science that deals directly with the physics of climate, you’d get an answer that is the same as the IPCC reports give you: there’s AGW, and it is likely there will be problematic changes in climate under a BAU scenario with continuing CO2 emissions. In fact, NAS just published a few reports. Happy reading!
    http://americasclimatechoices.org/

  163. Scott Mandia Says:

    More “overt cheating” by climate change deniers: Easterbrook fakes his figures, hides the incline – http://bit.ly/a8Y6PZ

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
    Selden, NY
    Global Warming: Man or Myth?
    My Global Warming Blog
    Twitter: AGW_Prof
    “Global Warming Fact of the Day” Facebook Group

  164. DLM Says:

    Bam, Bam

    Did they only have one copy of the letter? Is that why they only had enough time to circulate it in some subsections? They could have gone to Kinkos.

    Yours is one of the lamest posts I have ever seen on a blog that is supposed to be about science.

  165. DLM Says:

    Professor, Professor

    Do you know if Easterbrook’s ‘overt cheating’ was funded by taxes taken from his unwilling victims?

  166. dhogaza Says:

    I assume Dhogaza has thrown the towel?

    In the sense that I’ve decided I don’t have time to try to educate those who don’t care to learn, yes, I’ve thrown in the towel. I’ve given up trying to teach friends’ dogs science, too.

  167. Harry Says:

    Dhogaza,

    In that case I will honour your decision. I hope you will do your part. It is no use to try to teach your friends’ dogs science. They want meat and bones, no education.

  168. phinniethewoo Says:

    Professor scottie:

    to state that warming would be “very likely” due to human activities implies that you are certain to a “very likely” extent that without human activities there would be NO 0.3degrees warming.

    There is ,however, NO body of evidence that indicates that earth’s temperature, without human activities, would be flatline.

    So, Professor Mandia, professor whatever how many “scientific” publications you have: =>

    Your scientific statement here is PURE NONSENSE

    And you should be made to withdraw it.
    And then throw your miter in the bin buddy.

    thanks

  169. Al Tekhasski Says:

    Dhogaza, I am wondering, why did you asume you have any rights and privileges to teach, especially science? Why would professors without degrees and publications endorse ignorant writings of nature photographers and truffle growers about climate change? How all this is related to the applied problem of climate dynamics and science in general?

  170. Al Tekhasski Says:

    From the Wiki article about scientific method:

    “A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[40]

    1. Define the question
    2. Gather information and resources (observe)
    3. Form hypothesis
    4. Perform experiment and collect data
    5. Analyze data
    6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
    7. Publish results
    8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)”

    Yep. Whoever wrote this (fresh an/or eternal students, science dropouts, degree-less “professors”) obviously have only a theoretical clue about scientific method. What they miss is one but critically important step along the lines in steps 4-5-6: they forget that one needs to validate their instrumentation to make sure that it is adequate (in resolution, stability, noise level, etc) to resolve the effect they hypothesized about. It is crystal clear that climatology boldly misses this step of scientific method, which denigrates it to the rank of junk science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 124 other followers

%d bloggers like this: