Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[Andre]

Twenty years ago, July 5, 1989, we heard this:

GREENHOUSE WARMING NATIONS MAY VANISH, U.N. SAYS
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, ...

So when the warnings expire they are just renewed:

World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office

But how scientific are these tipping points?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFV-4WCSYVG-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1097009445&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1917215154ac5fb96191cd29b9f9ed7b

also here

The most prominent uses of tipping point terminology in climate change communication draw attention to the threats represented by abrupt transitions, non-linearity, threshold crossing, positive feedbacks, and potential irreversibility, often in
connection to anthropogenic GHG forcing. These uses are shaped by concerns with the policy-relevance and the public communication of climate science.
...
The desire to increase public urgency is driving the mainstreaming of tipping points in climate change communication, not the reporting of peer-reviewed research.
...

What's the relation between science and politics propaganda? Especially thinking of Stephen Schneiders world famous quote: ...So we have to offer up some scary scenarios..

 

[Coldcall]

Problem with all climate models is that they are based on trying to predict a "tipping point" within an open ended non-linear system such as the climate or weather.

Without understanding the myriad of initial conditions to an infinite degree of accuracy, our predictions are best described as a "guess". This is a scientific fact.

However we see that in order to promote agw many scientists appear willing to un-learn basic tenets of chaos theory and the unpredictability of non linear dynamics.

I'm not arguing climate change or even global warming is not occurring but i would argue that we have no right to be making such bold predictions as those contained in catastrophic climate model predictions.

So one does not have to argue about this or that one or multiple factors which may effect the climate. I suggest the actual process of climate modelling is flawed and unscientific from the very start, hence there is no foundational support for cliaiming we can know what the climate will be like exactly in 50 years.

There is a lot of money involved in carbon trading these days so people should really be aware that folks are looking to make fortunes out of agw, just as humans made fortunes our of extracting fossil fuels.

 

[Pattonias]

If someone could point me to a independent study that conclusivly proves that the world will end as a result of our green-house gasses in the next few decades I would really appreciate it. So far I have not found any evidence that conclusively proves it. A single company is cited by the UN and their purpose it proving global warming exists. It was not too long ago that global cooling was the order of the day.

I have no problem with the "going green" movement, but this is getting rediculously political. It seems that the possibility of global warming in the extreme is being used more as a political leverage than a actual tool of progression. A new method by which the international community can measure each other.

I believe in global warming, but not in the sense that it is portrayed in the media. I tried using the links to through the "forbidden topics" section and all they did was discuss the extreme potential of global warming.

At what point did this become such a inarguable fact that no discussion takes place beyond what extreme problems will result due to the affects?

 

[f95toli]

A single company is cited by the UN and their purpose it proving global warming exists.

A single company
Which company would that be?
And have you read any of the thousands (probably tens of thousands by now) of papers that have been published on the topic, written by people working at hundreds of different research institutes around the world

 

[Coldcall]

A single company
Which company would that be?
And have you read any of the thousands (probably tens of thousands by now) of papers that have been published on the topic, written by people working at hundreds of different research institutes around the world

yes and practically all of them ignoring the unpredictability of systems such as the climate which are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Can they claim to understand all initial conditions to infinite accuracy? No.

 

[Pattonias]

This is the company/organization most often referenced by government websites.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1_home.html"

When I said a single company this was the one I was referring to and this is the material that I am working through. I can't claim to have read tens of thousands of papers, but I don't think anyone else can either. But I am reading through these in an attempt to separate the political hype from what is really happening.

I think that I am doing more now than the average person does in any case.

I am not arguing that there is no man made climate change or that we shouldn't do anything about it. I am arguing that this is being used as a political tool to push through other lesser related issues. Just like the US is borderline implying that Americans are dropping dead in the streets and the only way to stop it is to force through a universal health care plan. They are arguing that the world will end any time now if we don't rapidly force all these changes through without actually doing anything that will work in the long term.

 

[f95toli]

This is the company/organization most often referenced by government websites.

You are not seriously referring to the IPCC as a "single company", are you?
Hint: the "I" in IPCC is for intergovernmental

 

[russ_watters]

A single company is cited by the UN and their purpose it proving global warming exists.

Both your characterization of the organization and of its purpose are incorrect. Here's the "about" page on the IPCC:

The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm

 

[Evo]

Interesting news

It has been confirmed, Hadley Cru was hacked and the information released.

I've said it before. I dated a climate scientist a few years ago, one that reported to Congress, and he constantly complained of being forced to fudge his reports to be pro agw so they could get more grant money. He finally quit. I can't say who he is, obviously.

Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in temperatures.

The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the theft of 61MB of confidential data.

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The authors of some of the e-mails, however, accuse the skeptics of taking the messages out of context, adding that the evidence still clearly shows a warming trend.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

 

[Sorry!]

I think that the question is how much they fudge the reports. If the take evidence that supports global warming and just blow it out of proportion then maybe the problem isn't as huge as governments try to make it appear but it's still a problem, one that might affect our future or the future of our species (which we should still take into consideration).

About that British climate research thing with the 'hide the decline' in temperatures. When global warming occurs I'm pretty sure that at the beginning certain parts of the world get much, much colder since the rely on the ocean to transport the heat up to them... with that being changed to much colder waters from melting ice it causes a drop in temperature not a rise. Maybe they want to hide the decline in temperature because they don't want society to think that because temperatures are falling global warming is not a problem?

I'm not saying I support what the government does to the sciences I think that they should stay out of that stuff and let scientists report directly to the public. However I don't think because the government overplays the global warming card that the problem should be over-looked so easily.

 

[Choronzon]

I think that the question is how much they fudge the reports. If the take evidence that supports global warming and just blow it out of proportion then maybe the problem isn't as huge as governments try to make it appear but it's still a problem, one that might affect our future or the future of our species (which we should still take into consideration).

About that British climate research thing with the 'hide the decline' in temperatures. When global warming occurs I'm pretty sure that at the beginning certain parts of the world get much, much colder since the rely on the ocean to transport the heat up to them... with that being changed to much colder waters from melting ice it causes a drop in temperature not a rise. Maybe they want to hide the decline in temperature because they don't want society to think that because temperatures are falling global warming is not a problem?

I'm not saying I support what the government does to the sciences I think that they should stay out of that stuff and let scientists report directly to the public. However I don't think because the government overplays the global warming card that the problem should be over-looked so easily.

I admit I'm not yet knowledgeable enough to understand everything being said in the emails, much less the data, but this looks very, very bad to me. About the only thing I can reasonably see in what has been leaked is that these scientists took great pains to doctor data to support their position. They also wrote about hiding information from a FOIA request and colluding to discredit their opponents by methods that had nothing to do with attacking their science.

 

[Choronzon]

I don't know whether this site would permit linking or posting of the emails, considering they were stolen, but you can find them on wikileaks, as well as many other sites.

It's also quite blatant—there is even at least one email from one scientist saying that he was extremely uncomfortable with the censorship of data that was going on. If these emails are real, every scientist involved should be out of work on Monday. I know I wouldn't trust anything told to me by an organization that employed them.

Honestly, I don't really care all that much about climate change—I've always felt that humanity would adapt and survive whatever consequences were likely to occur.

I shudder to even think about what creationists are going to do with this scandal. They'll go right to the American people and say "Look! You were wrong to trust the Climate Scientists, so why should you trust Biologists?"

 

[Bored Wombat]

Except there is—there are emails which specifically ask scientists to delete emails that are being requested under FOIA.

I doubt it.

They also talk explicitly about altering data to bettter represent their position and to ignore data that isn't supportive.

Rubbish, if you're talking about the example discussed http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/" .

I admit I don't know how that sort of scientific work is actually done, but I thought Scientists are supposed to publish all of their data and maintain transparency.

You can generally get data from the lead author of a study by emailing them. Sometimes in climate there is a collation of data from a large number of sources, some of whom keep copyright of the data, so it can't be released.

Understanding is best confirmed by reproducing the results using independent data and lines of reasoning rather than by reworking the same data.

 

[Bored Wombat]

If you read that again, you will see that it's not a requirement in the Earth forum either.

Looks like it for controversial claims.

I can't be mistaken when I'm sitting here reading his e-mails about it.

That would help to refresh your memory. I think this thread shows that emails can be read out of context though. And the bottom line is this anecdotal evidence in not likely to see any supporting evidence.

The requirements to alter data and conclusions that is documented has all been to weaken the case for climate change so that government can make the case for not disrupting the economy, (particularly the industries to which a president might be personally involved.)

 

[Evo]

I think this thread shows that emails can be read out of context though. And the bottom line is this anecdotal evidence in not likely to see any supporting evidence.

Except when the e-mails are this clear. There is no context you could put these in which could excuse them.

The requirements to alter data and conclusions that is documented has all been to weaken the case for climate change so that government can make the case for not disrupting the economy, (particularly the industries to which a president might be personally involved.)

Apparently you have decided to believe a certain way, no matter what proof to the contrary you are given. Doesn't matter to me. I happen to have more first hand knowledge than you do. You can say whatever you want, I know things you don't from an expert in the field. You are free to believe whatever you read. I had an expert confide in me, his girlfriend, about the deliberate skewing in favor of agw. I'm pretty confident. I had no interest in climate science before we met, but since it was his life, it was all I heard, he could no longer oversee his people, he could no longer do research, he had to write bogus pro agw reports to get grants, his last quota was $2 million a year. He quit a year later, he was disgusted.

 

[Choronzon]

I doubt it.

Rubbish, if you're talking about the example discussed http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/" .


You can generally get data from the lead author of a study by emailing them. Sometimes in climate there is a collation of data from a large number of sources, some of whom keep copyright of the data, so it can't be released.

Understanding is best confirmed by reproducing the results using independent data and lines of reasoning rather than by reworking the same data.

How about you look for yourself? That very link you gave me admits that there were emails asking people to delete correspondences to keep them from FOIA requests.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Which is why it's not really appropriate for a scientific discussion.

To add to what Evo has already said; This is the politics forum. The discussions here are relatively informal. In some instances individuals may present their own personal anecdotes for consideration. They are not allowed to present such information as supportable evidence only as an anecdote which others may take or leave at face value. Some of us know and trust Evo and are likely to find her anecdotes valuable. If you do not then you are free to disregard them.

 

[Bored Wombat]

And exactly how useful have your replies been? Most of what you've contributed are flat-out denials of obvious facts concerning easy to find materials, most of which doesn't even need to be interpreted.

Yes it does need to be interpreted. The RealClimate discussion shows how some of the points are much more innocent than are being claimed.

And it needs to be read in the context that some of these email go back a decade, so had plenty of opportunity to be cherry picked. If you assume from the timing that this attack was designed to disrupt public support for agreement at Copenhagen, then it can be assumed that this is a very biased sample.

So we know from the last 25 years of scholarly research that climate change is real, and is attributable to human activity to a "very likely" confidence. These emails don't show a huge international conspiracy, so that is still the case. We can assume that the missing emails are the ones that show the research to be valid and genuine.

If we needed to. Of course the research at UAE isn't the word of God. It has to be reproduced just like everyone else's. So there's no genuine question that results have been created and sold to the scientific community without their due consideration.

Some people are enjoying mileage out of taking some of them out of context, and pretending "trick" means sneaky thing and not mathematical technique, but that deserves to be flatly denied. Because its wrong.

You did manage to use the whole "Bush did it" excuse, though. How useful was that?

I think that it is important to understand that the keystone of the denialists position is that the scientists are all lying so that they can get funding.

We have anectodes that this doesn't work, and a scientist will generally quit if asked to do that.

But the broader evidence is important to understand. Governments don't want to have to change an economy. Government don't want to consider the environment. They want a steaming along economy and near full employment, with few companies going bust and being replaced, because this is good for what they want ... re-election.

And in science it is generally never good for one's career to respect the status quo. It is the overturning of paradigms that is most respected, so claiming the tow the line for career purposes is equally crazy.

But certainly Obama is much more pro-science than Bush was ... but Governments come and go. There'll be more Bushes to come.

 

[Choronzon]

And how about the emails that say "please delete these past emails that are being requested under FOIA and please email so and so, who's email address I can't find, and have him do the same." Was that taken out of context?

Not to mention that RealClimate doesn't have the power to wave their hand at comments and make them innocent. Even the innocent explanation that you seem to believe implies to me that that were attempting to alter the appearance data to suit their particular argument. I expect that from partisan pollsters and politicians, but if a scientist does that then their next job should be trying to remember if I wanted extra pickles on my whopper.

And it needs to be read in the context that some of these email go back a decade, so had plenty of opportunity to be cherry picked. If you assume from the timing that this attack was designed to disrupt public support for agreement at Copenhagen, then it can be assumed that this is a very biased sample.

So we know from the last 25 years of scholarly research that climate change is real, and is attributable to human activity to a "very likely" confidence. These emails don't show a huge international conspiracy, so that is still the case. We can assume that the missing emails are the ones that show the research to be valid and genuine.

As for cherry picking emails—I couldn't care less. A million emails discussing honest science doesn't make up for the one discussing "altering the definition of peer-reviewed" so that they can keep opposing research out of journals. Acting like a creationist FTW, I guess?

If we needed to. Of course the research at UAE isn't the word of God. It has to be reproduced just like everyone else's. So there's no genuine question that results have been created and sold to the scientific community without their due consideration.

Some people are enjoying mileage out of taking some of them out of context, and pretending "trick" means sneaky thing and not mathematical technique, but that deserves to be flatly denied. Because its wrong.


I think that it is important to understand that the keystone of the denialists position is that the scientists are all lying so that they can get funding.

Awesome straw-man you have there, trying to make me defend both conspiracy theorists and George Bush in order to point out that these Scientists have quite likely destroyed any chance of Climate Scientists enjoying the respect of the populace for the next ten years. Wait till Monday and watch how the networks run with it.

We have anectodes that this doesn't work, and a scientist will generally quit if asked to do that.

But the broader evidence is important to understand. Governments don't want to have to change an economy. Government don't want to consider the environment. They want a steaming along economy and near full employment, with few companies going bust and being replaced, because this is good for what they want ... re-election.

And in science it is generally never good for one's career to respect the status quo. It is the overturning of paradigms that is most respected, so claiming the tow the line for career purposes is equally crazy.

But certainly Obama is much more pro-science than Bush was ... but Governments come and go. They'll be more Bush's to come.

Except that it's a wonderful topic if you're the party out of power. Not only might it help you get back in power, but it basically writes you a blank check for every little social program you can think up. If a hundred years from now we're not all drowning or huddled on mountain tops than you can claim the credit for saving us all. Hell, I've even heard Climate Change being used as a reason for universal health care.

As for President Obama, I can only hazard a guess that scientists doing research into liquefying coal or other such unsexy pursuits aren't going to be looking fondly back on the next few years. Of course if you can write a legible proposal on a car that runs off good intentions and fairy dust you're probably already getting a few million dollars out of the stimulus package.

I'll also say this— you better hope that whoever is behind this leaked material hasn't torn a page out of Breitbart's playbook, because if they are sitting on worse material so that people like you can hem and haw over what's plain as day for a few days before they hit you with another round of stolen emails...

 

[Bored Wombat]

And how about the emails that say "please delete these past emails that are being requested under FOIA and please email so and so, who's email address I can't find, and have him do the same." Was that taken out of context?

Yeah, probably.

If you send a later version of a document it's not unethical to clean up earlier erroneous or less processed or detailed versions rather than send them.

For instance.

As for cherry picking emails—I couldn't care less. A million emails discussing honest science doesn't make up for the one discussing "altering the definition of peer-reviewed" so that they can keep opposing research out of journals. Acting like a creationist FTW, I guess?

You should care more then. If you have 10000 emails to scan through to look for one that can be interpreted as dodgy, finding one is very weak evidence of dodgy goings on.

You can't alter the definition of peer reviewed journal. The ISI does though, but it is very inclusive.

Journals stand on their reputation. It is a valuable part of the process to discuss which ones have dropping standards. It's the only factor keeping Journals trying to publish good research.

Awesome straw-man you have there, trying to make me defend both conspiracy theorists and George Bush in order to point out that these Scientists have quite likely destroyed any chance of Climate Scientists enjoying the respect of the populace for the next ten years. Wait till Monday and watch how the networks run with it.

Not a straw man, unless you're defending the denier's position.

Surely we know enough basic physics on this board to understand that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will increase the greenhouse effect. It's not rocket science.

Except that it's a wonderful topic if you're the party out of power.

Perhaps, but they're not controlling the funding of the government researchers. (Such as NASA).

As for President Obama, I can only hazard a guess that scientists doing research into liquefying coal or other such unsexy pursuits aren't going to be looking fondly back on the next few years.

It's not just that. He's pro science. I'm not aware of the details sitting as I do on the other side of the world, but research into stem cells and research by organisations that Bush found ethically abhorrent now booms ahead in America.

I'll also say this— you better hope that whoever is behind this leaked material hasn't torn a page out of Breitbart's playbook, because if they are sitting on worse material so that people like you can hem and haw over what's plain as day for a few days before they hit you with another round of stolen emails...

I don't care what is in stolen emails. Except to point out that some of the accusations are a bit fanciful.

I do hope that the criminals and their supporters (if, as it looks, this is a bounty job), that broke the system are found and fully prosecuted.

 

[Choronzon]

Yeah, probably.

If you send a later version of a document it's not unethical to clean up earlier erroneous or less processed or detailed versions rather than send them.

For instance.

Actually I'm pretty sure that it is unethical. If someone makes a FOIA request for info that they are entitled by law to have, you don't get to go back and edit the info before producing it. You most definitely do not get to delete entire email conversations that are required to be furnished upon request.

You should care more then. If you have 10000 emails to scan through to look for one that can be interpreted as dodgy, finding one is very weak evidence of dodgy goings on.

Really? So I should take a look at all of those moments in a criminals life when he wasn't committing a crime before I can judge him on those few moments when he did? If one of my employees steal from me, it doesn't particularly matter to me all the times that she hasn't. Once is most definitely enough.

You can't alter the definition of peer reviewed journal. The ISI does though, but it is very inclusive.

Journals stand on their reputation. It is a valuable part of the process to discuss which ones have dropping standards. It's the only factor keeping Journals trying to publish good research.

You're right, I can't. I can also easily promise you that I have never once written an email saying that I would.

What made these guys the gatekeeper's of truth? What right did they have to ridicule other opinions and try and stonewall them from scientific debate?

I'll tell you what—nothing. They should pay for their arrogance with ruined careers and the scorn of society.

Not a straw man, unless you're defending the denier's position.

Surely we know enough basic physics on this board to understand that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will increase the greenhouse effect. It's not rocket science.

I actually do not know one person who disputes that fact, nor have I read any articles stating as such. Many have claimed that the amount increased or the the effect of the increase are negligible, but that is nowhere near the same thing. Thanks for at least denying one straw man before putting up another.

Perhaps, but they're not controlling the funding of the government researchers. (Such as NASA).


It's not just that. He's pro science. I'm not aware of the details sitting as I do on the other side of the world, but research into stem cells and research by organisations that Bush found ethically abhorrent now booms ahead in America.

So now we can exchange what President Bush found "ethically abhorrent" for what President Obama believes to be? Don't try and make President Obama to be some champion of science. The guy lies as well as Bush and can talk out of three different sides of his mouth—Bush could barely talk out of two sides.

I don't care what is in stolen emails. Except to point out that some of the accusations are a bit fanciful.

I do hope that the criminals and their supporters (if, as it looks, this is a bounty job), that broke the system are found and fully prosecuted.

Yes, good plan there. When the current administration no longer fins itself able to drum up any meaningful support for there Climate Change initiatives, you can tell me again how much you don't care what some stolen emails say. I think ACORN tried pretty much the same argument.

 

[Bored Wombat]

Actually I'm pretty sure that it is unethical. If someone makes a FOIA request for info that they are entitled by law to have, you don't get to go back and edit the info before producing it.

You're making up the bit about going back and editing it, though aren't you?

You most definitely do not get to delete entire email conversations that are required to be furnished upon request.

How do you know that entire email conversations were requested?

Really? So I should take a look at all of those moments in a criminals life when he wasn't committing a crime before I can judge him on those few moments when he did? If one of my employees steal from me, it doesn't particularly matter to me all the times that she hasn't. Once is most definitely enough.

I think that you're points are pretty weak if all you have is straw man.

My point was that there is no evidence that a crime was committed. Not as you are reduced to pretending, that the crime was rare.

You're right, I can't. I can also easily promise you that I have never once written an email saying that I would.

Fine.
It's still fine and important for scientists to discuss which journals have falling standards.

What made these guys the gatekeeper's of truth? What right did they have to ridicule other opinions and try and stonewall them from scientific debate?

That's how science works. Rubbish research is ridiculed.

I'll tell you what—nothing. They should pay for their arrogance with ruined careers and the scorn of society.

they have every right, and they have an obligation. It is not arrogance to have an opinion on the quality of scientific research if you are a scientist in the field.

I would be happy to have scientists who take the time to read and become familiar with other scientists research, and develop an opinion on it working for me.

And it does not elicit scorn from me but respect.

Perhaps you object to the tone: This just in - these are personal emails.

Don't try and make President Obama to be some champion of science.

Obama, by comparison, is a champion of science.

 

[Evo]

BW, at my company we are warned to NEVER delete anything if a request for information has been made. This is done once or twice a year just in my department. Of course e-mails are backed up, so even if I did delete, there would still be a record, so I would be putting myself in serious jeopardy for doing so. For someone to suggest that they destroy or alter evidence is very serious.

 

[Evo]

The release of the e-mails and data files the other day is just another black eye for the pro agw movement. They now have reason to believe that the information released from Hadley Cru was someone on the inside that wanted to blow the whistle.

Another eye opener was last year when the "review process" for the IPCC report was exposed for cherry picking data, and refusing to allow data or discussion that was not pro-agw or in any way disagreed with the pro agw reviewer's version they planned to publish.

When ever someone said the data could be wrong, that previous records had been ignored, etc... They were told that sorry, can't be included, not enough space. But when someone says Great job! They are included with a note: Thanks!

Here scientific concerns about the validity of data and accuracy of assumptions

I am glad that the historical overview clearly recognises the past and also very present problems with unphysical corrections necessary to obtain a realistic climate state in state of the art models i.e. section 1.5.9 page 22 line 42 to page 23 line 38 on flux adjustments and tuning of radiative parameters. The inclusion of a whole section (1.5.8 page 21 line 8 and further) on cloud modelling and climate sensitivity and the large uncertainties in that area is also a very much welcomed element.

Some worry remains however concerning the discrepant statements that climate is a large system that comprises of many nonlinear dynamical subsystems that are coupled by many feedbacks which makes it hard to test hypothesis in an “experiment like” fashion, while on the other hand it seems to implicitly be assumed that models provide correct results and prognoses of climate are indeed possible despite serious uncertainties about magnitude and sometimes sign of mechanisms.[Florens De Wit]

IPCC reject reason, with no data to back it up:

Noted. Compliments appreciated, but
we reject the assertion that “it seems to implicitly be assumed that models provide correct results.”

Later objections are brought up rejecting to allowing verbiage about the uncertainties becuase they didn't want anyone to think there might actually be uncerntanties. Some even get into disparaging their peers that disagree with them.

The WG1 discussions can be read here. The IPCC had originally refused to release this to the public, but decided to release it due to a pending lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7794905?n=2&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25

 

[Evo]

Here is an excellent article about whjat was in the filed released from Hadley Cru

From Wall Street Journal Politics section

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.

Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.

In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!" showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' … as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.

More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.

Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=reference-frame

Rather embarrassing, non-professional behavior, IMO.

 

[Sorry!]

It is quite unproffesional but reading all this still doesn't make me think that global warming isn't a potential problem. I'm not going to lie but when I hear christians blabing on about intelligent design I sometimes feel the urge to beat them up too. This goes with any scientific theory I have strong belief in, lol.

The deleting of emails etc. is questionable but what is their response to doing this?

I don't think you can claim global warming isn't a problem just because the branches of scientists don't like each other or make nasty remarks.

For instance back to my example of intelligent design. People who believe in a more scientific form of abiogenesis make the same remarks towards skeptics, that doesn't make their theory less correct.

 

[Bored Wombat]

BW, at my company we are warned to NEVER delete anything if a request for information has been made. This is done once or twice a year just in my department. Of course e-mails are backed up, so even if I did delete, there would still be a record, so I would be putting myself in serious jeopardy for doing so.

Fine.

For someone to suggest that they destroy or alter evidence is very serious.

Okay. What you haven't proven is that someone was destroying or altering evidence.

 

[Evo]

It is quite unproffesional but reading all this still doesn't make me think that global warming isn't a potential problem. I'm not going to lie but when I hear christians blabing on about intelligent design I sometimes feel the urge to beat them up too. This goes with any scientific theory I have strong belief in, lol.

The deleting of emails etc. is questionable but what is their response to doing this?

I don't think you can claim global warming isn't a problem just because the branches of scientists don't like each other or make nasty remarks.

For instance back to my example of intelligent design. People who believe in a more scientific form of abiogenesis make the same remarks towards skeptics, that doesn't make their theory less correct.

Interesting, so you don't think that intentional skewing of facts to create a false outcome may shed some doubt on the claims?

From: Gary Funkhouser <gary@xxxxxxx.edu>
To: k.briffa@uxxxx.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
phone: (520) 621-2946
fax: (520) 621-8229
e-mail: gary@xxxxxx.edu

 

[Sorry!]

Interesting, so you don't think that intentional skewing of facts to create a false outcome may shed some doubt on the claims?

They've already talked about the methods being used not being secret. Just because people didn't take the time to look into before doesn't mean anything about 'skewed' facts. It just means you thought they were saying one thing but they actually were saying another thing. That's the politics of it though.

 

[Evo]

They've already talked about the methods being used not being secret. Just because people didn't take the time to look into before doesn't mean anything about 'skewed' facts. It just means you thought they were saying one thing but they actually were saying another thing. That's the politics of it though.

Did you read that e-mail?

 

[Sorry!]

Did you read that e-mail?

Yes three times looking for specific claims to 'Let's skew the data to mess around with the public.' Couldn't find it. Maybe you could point me to which lines I need to read between?

As well, let's make this known, I have no doubt that politics have played a major role in the development of these theories and how they are portrayed to the public. I also have no doubt as to the exageration that some of the data goes through. I don't however think that this discredits global warming as a serious problem to the future of our planet...

You would be better of proposing to me that the Earth is naturally getting hotter (which I believe it is to a certain extent) than telling me that global warming is just a bunch of skewed results.

 

[Sorry!]

If you're talking about where he's talking about trying every trick to milk something out of it then this doesn't indicate skewed results. It indicates he was trying different methods to find results to fit their model, which scientists do all the time. As I said in my previous post it is also no secret that the global warming 'sector' of scientists do this or even what methods they use. Just because you weren't aware of it before these emails doesn't mean anything...

 

[Evo]

If you're talking about where he's talking about trying every trick to milk something out of it then this doesn't indicate skewed results. It indicates he was trying different methods to find results to fit their model, which scientists do all the time. As I said in my previous post it is also no secret that the global warming 'sector' of scientists do this or even what methods they use. Just because you weren't aware of it before these emails doesn't mean anything...

I was quite aware of it. See my posts about the climate scientist I dated that was always complaining about being made to fudge his reports to make it seem like agw was a real concern. It's not unheard of in science, unfortunately, it just points out that you can't believe the data that's presented in these types of sciences. Take it all with a grain of salt and realize that it's not necessarily what you're being lead to believe.

 

[Choronzon]

Yes three times looking for specific claims to 'Let's skew the data to mess around with the public.' Couldn't find it. Maybe you could point me to which lines I need to read between?

As well, let's make this known, I have no doubt that politics have played a major role in the development of these theories and how they are portrayed to the public. I also have no doubt as to the exageration that some of the data goes through. I don't however think that this discredits global warming as a serious problem to the future of our planet...

You would be better of proposing to me that the Earth is naturally getting hotter (which I believe it is to a certain extent) than telling me that global warming is just a bunch of skewed results.

So what I should take from your post is that even if the Scientists doing the research are unscrupulous criminals who have skewed data to match their conclusions (and then withheld the data), I should still accept those conclusions?

I could understand that if the misconduct was personal, but this was people messing about with scientific research while hoisting themselves up as protectors of the earth.

 

[Jasongreat]

=Bored Wombat;2454772]Instead of providing any evidence that this is any kind of blow, you just assume that it is.
And then you also assume that there have been some other "blows" in the past.

Please provide some evidence of either of these.

Blow #1- 1970's we were causing global cooling, then it started to warm up.
Blow #2- late 1990's early 2000's we were warming up more than anytime in history so they called it global warming by comparing to the temps in the 70's which at the time they were saying were colder than anytime in history.
Blow #3- Since they were just claiming to much precision, they changed the name to global climate change and therefore whatever happened, warmer or colder bolstered their claims or so they hoped.
Blow #4- Questionable practices are discovered in emails.
Blow #5- AGW scientists continue to say the evidence supports their position even though it doesnt, which seems very biased to a layman like myself.

I admit that this is just my opinion and that I am in no way a scientist, but these are all blows to their theory as far as I am concerned and I am sure that I don't even know about all of them nor would I think I am all alone.