Global Warming - yes, no, maybe?

[HICO_Eagle 93]

Merlyn, if you don't understand that willfully

- skewing data

- picking minority data selectively because it fits with your predetermined hypothesis

- altering historical data

- gaming the peer review process to ensure friendly reviews for your hypothesis and negative reviews for opponents

 

constitutes a hoax in scientific circles then there is nothing any of us can do to remove the blinders you've put on. It's your own ideological fault if you don't understand that intentionally pushing fraudulent data and fraudulent analyses is a hoax -- most of the rest of us with real scientific, engineering or analytic backgrounds can see it. Even AGW proponents like Judith Curry are very uncomfortable with what the East Anglia e-mails have revealed.

 

As we've said before, the e-mails show things like Briffa recounting all the problems with Jones' and Mann's analyses TEN YEARS AGO -- then agreeing to keep his concerns quiet to avoid diluting the message. Schneider advocated getting any signature they could for their "scientists petition" because in the end, the media would only report numbers and a few prominent names.

 

It doesn't matter if they perpetrated this hoax for money (Jones alone has received roughly $20M in academic grants because of his prominence in promoting AGW), ego/fame (Mann's career shot up like a rocket since his first "hockeystick" graph even after it was debunked) or some sense of being a savior (Hansen has been near-religious in his zealotry from the start). Clinton could probably keep dancing around this fraud ("it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is") but the fraud in this is becoming ever more apparent.

 

Hmm.... and here I was going to ignore the whinnying ...

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter, in case you hadn't noticed, I've been arguing against the assertion that AGW is a hoax. I haven't been debating AGW per se, but I do object to your oxymoronic use of "minority consensus."

 

HICO_Eagle, like I said, even fraud on the part of some people is not sufficient to establish that AGW is a hoax. You'd need to establish that ALL organizations involved are deliberately conspiring in a hoax, and you haven't come close to that. Piltdown Man was a hoax, but that didn't (and doesn't) show that evolution is a hoax.

[vol_scouter 365]

Merlyn,

 

Once again you demonstrate your lack of scientific training. Piltdown man was a hoax but not ALL organizations were participating. Most were mislead. They assumed that the scientists were being honest because that is what science is built upon. If the people who have controlled most of the global warming debate have mislead the rest of the field, then AGW is a hoax. There is some reason to believe that this is the case. Unlike some others on this group, I am not certain that AGW has been proven to be a hoax but there is certainly enough evidence to bring it under scrutiny. By the way, your characterization of my word usage as 'oxymoronic' instead of addressing the issues confirms my assertions.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter writes:

If the people who have controlled most of the global warming debate have mislead the rest of the field, then AGW is a hoax.

 

Now all you need to do is show this. I don't think anyone has come close.

 

There is some reason to believe that this is the case.

 

Like I said, for this to be a hoax requires a global conspiracy of thousands of people. I'm not buying that.

 

Unlike some others on this group, I am not certain that AGW has been proven to be a hoax but there is certainly enough evidence to bring it under scrutiny.

 

Well, like I've said too many times already, I'm disagreeing with people who say it's a hoax.

 

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings in pointing out your misuse of the word "consensus," but words mean things, and I didn't address your argument otherwise because, as I keep pointing out to you and you keep ignoring, I'm arguing that AGW is not a deliberate hoax. Since, as you state, you haven't been arguing that, I've been ignoring your arguments. But that's because you haven't been arguing that AGW is a hoax.

[vol_scouter 365]

Merlyn,

 

You obviously have absolutely no understanding of the politics of research in our world. There is absolutely no need to demonstrate that thousands are participatory in a hoax. CRU provides most of the information used by the IPCC to declare AGW. Since the results and motivations of members of the CRU are in question, then AGW can clearly be a hoax. Since you are not able or willing to understand how science works - not the way that we all wish that it works - you will never admit the obvious possibility of an AGW hoax. I would only be insulted if the person was a knowledgeable scientist which you have shown yourself not to be.

[GaHillBilly 10]

Merlyn,

 

You certainly are stubborn.

 

But one of the problems with a debate in a forum like this is that there are no judges.

=> If this were a fist fight, you'd be down and out.

=> If this were a judged debate, you'd be down and out.

 

But here, you just go on and on.

 

You don't even seem to understand enough of the technical aspects of this discussion to realize that you've been knocked down. You are like one of those pop-up puppet clowns. You get knocked down, but pop right back up, looking just as silly as you did before.

 

I know you are used to 'winning' certain debates here simply by wearing other people out. Maybe that will happen this time. I find it amazing that you are so willing to be repeatedly stupid in public.

 

 

GaHillBilly

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

GaHillBilly, you haven't come close to showing a global conspiracy of thousands of people are deliberately the cause of a global warming hoax. Your silly street fight metaphor is typical for your level of argument.

 

You can continue to believe there's a global conspiracy. I'll just laugh.

 

PS: vol_scouter, the IPCC isn't the only organization saying AGW is happening; yes, you DO need thousands in on an actual hoax. And no, I haven't refused to admit it's possible, I'm saying that nobody here has presented anything remotely convincing that it IS a hoax.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[vol_scouter 365]

GaHillBilly,

 

Merlyn invariably shows himself to be willing to show his lack of understanding and to attack others who have clearly demonstrated him to wrong. He has done so again. He does not counter valid arguments but picks a small point to attempt to insult. Since he is clearly not knowledgeable about the importance initial conditions for nonlinear simultaneous partial differentials equations or other topics of importance to the debate - he should be ignored. I always regret responding to his poor arguments and tell myself to ignore him. He will keep saying nonsense until everyone else gets tired of his posts and stops posting allowing the thread to die.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter, I notice that people say I'm "wrong" without quoting me and stating exactly what I'm wrong about. For example, in your case, I quoted the definition of "consensus" to show that you were using it wrong.

 

If I've stated something that's wrong, QUOTE WHAT I WROTE and point out exactly what you disagree with. I've done that with your misuse of words, and that only appeared to make you annoyed.

[HICO_Eagle 93]

vol_scouter --

 

I've decided to quit mudwrestling with the pig but this article http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html is a fascinating insight into how Santer, Jones et al manipulated the normal peer review processes. These kind of machinations as a part of "science" are new to me but then I've never had to bother with publication -- we just analyze and solve problems and move on.

 

Stuff like this are why I moved from the cautiously skeptical camp to extremely skeptical. It would be astounding to me that they've been able to pull this off for so long if it wasn't for the fact and the way they control the data. That's one thing that the Climategate e-mails really opened my eyes on -- just how much they controlled and to what lengths they were willing to go to push the AGW agenda. It's really rather astounding given the basic scientific process is supposed to be completely open -- give all your code and data so others can recreate your work.

 

This I think is the difference between Climategate and Cold Fusion. The Cold Fusion guys really thought they were on to something. They put everything out and then questions started popping up because physical chemists couldn't replicate their results. Mann, Jones et al wouldn't provide code or processes and are willing to destroy the data rather than give it out -- I've never heard of anything like that before!

[Beavah 205]

Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That)

Steven McIntyre (Climate Audit)

Dr. Roy Spencer

Roger Pielke, Sr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. (Jr specializes more in science policy while Sr is a climatologist -- note that Jr isn't a skeptic per se but he is very troubled by the actions of the Mann/Jones/Briffa/Hansen cabal)

Warwick Hughes

Jeff Id (The Air Vent)

 

and the most recent http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

 

I don't have da ability to judge the science, eh?

 

But I can recognize when someone is just throwing bogus sources around. These are all partisan blog hackesters and folks with bones to pick, eh? Yah, there's some on the other side, too. But yeh don't win any points by emulating their foolishness. If these are your sources then you're really naught more than a shill for a special interest lobby.

 

Of your long litany of stuff, da only one I can comment on is PCA. Principle Components Analysis and its cousins like factor analysis have been part of regularly accepted statistics for decades. Lots of public policy and even some legal cases have been based on the technique.

 

I know that there will always be folks like Tobacco Company executives tryin' to make the case that there's no "proof" that cigarettes cause cancer. They take a poke at every study, confuse da issue with scientific babble, trot out the couple of researchers who disagree, talk about the "economic devastation" that regulation or a higher tobacco tax will wreak, complain that the studies were based on epidemiological "models" and fancy-sounding statistical techniques, yada yada yada.

 

We all recognize 'em for what they are, eh? And we all recognize da politicians who are in bed with that lobby, and the citizens who get taken in by it just because they don't want to change their smoking habit or because they like makin' money as a tobacco distributor.

 

Yeh all seem to sound a lot like them.

 

Beavah

 

[gcnphkr 11]

Why would such a hoax require the active participation of thousands? There are not thousands of climatologists. There are not thousands actively involved in AGW research. Basically all the modern CO2 data comes from one guy in Hawaii. There are only a handful involved in ice core analysis. There are three organizations that catalog and normalize temperature data, and none are very open about how the data was normalized. All told there is only a fairly small, tight knit group that controls the data. You would be hard pressed identifying scores that would need to be involved, thousands is just silly.

 

While I think "hoax" being a "deliberate attempt to dupe" may be a bit much but members of the group have certainly behaved in a unethical and untrustworthy manner. It would not take many people to severely compromise the data.

[BrentAllen 10]

"partisan blog hackesters"? Beavah, your true colors are really showing.

 

Matt Drudge fits your description as well, no? (that would be the same Matt Drudge that broke the Lewinsky story) I believe it was also "partisan blog hackesters" that exposed the phony letters that ended Dan Rather's career. Your obvious disdain for the new media does not make it irrelevant.

 

Do me a favor - how about tell us all how the IPCC scientists were selected. And then how about identify those from the US, and their areas of expertise. I'm sure we are all going to be impressed with their credentials.

 

I'm waiting.

 

Merlyn,

The story that Bernie Madoff was a financial genius was a HOAX. He did not need thousands of conspirators to pull this off. He only needed a bunch of BELIEVERS. That is what AGW has - Jim Jones (aka Al Gore) and his kool-aid drinkers.

[FScouter 24]

The assertion that this is all a "hoax" says a lot more than any analysis of data.

[packsaddle 753]

There is one detail I defy anyone to disagree with: it was FLAVOR AID, not Kool Aid that the Jonestown people drank. Sheesh!

 

With regard to AGW, suffice to say that there are plenty of scientists who do not engage in these kinds of arguments in forums like Scouter.com. Skepticism is a wonderful thing. I wish more people applied it to ALL aspects of their lives.

But it appears to me that it is sometimes applied selectively, perhaps to promote one's preconceived notion.

A good scientist will first be skeptical about his own ideas. He will avoid stating them publicly until his peers have done their best to find the problems with the ideas. He may publish in the journals of his field. He will then present the ideas to slightly broader audiences of perhaps scientists of other fields to get a critical view from different perspectives. And then, if it all seems to be ready for prime time, and if the public even cares about it in the first place, he will take it to the public.

Go to youtube and look up the public announcement by Pons and Fleischman. It is a sobering demonstration of what can happen if scientists DON'T follow the above sequence.

Look up what the eventual fate of Hwang Woo-suk was. Science is absolutely unforgiving of fraud.

The scientists who have been involved with AGW issues understand what is at stake. They know what personal risks they are under if they lie. The punishment for fraud is professional and academic death.

So, I cautiously listen to the arguments and the evidence. And I don't pass judgment unless I am convinced by objective evidence. I don't see much of that here. At least you guys are not humbling yourselves by trying to discuss genetics.