Global Warming Thread X

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:19 pm

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:Now will David admit to the many other errors he avoids coming to grips with - most recently his total misread of the Doran/Zimmerman and Anderegg/Schneider surveys.

No, I won't admit to errors in my reading of the Doran/Zimmerman propaganda piece. I'm working on a response to your massive 3,062-word post. Takes a while for me to wade through all the disinformation.


Take your time and read Doran/Zimmerman and Anderegg/etal carefully and honestly. You turned their straightforward conclusion that "97% of the most involved climatologists do believe in AGW" into "97% of scientists do not believe in AGW" - preposterous! And to top it off, you add
David wrote:But such are the methods of global warming alarmists. It's propaganda at its supreme best to conclude that 97% of scientists are AGW supporters.
That accusation points right back at you and your sources.

BTW, Doran/Zimmerman did not say 97% of scientists believe in AGW, they said 82% of earth scientists believe in AGW and the more climatology is their speciality and the more they publish on GW research, the more AGW they are - up to 97% of the most involved climatologists believe in AGW.
______

On the Lomberg front, here (http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/09/02/buzz-for-‘cool-it’-eco-documentary-getting-hot-hot-hot/) is another article about Lomberg's about face (url link doesn't work well for some reason). And here's a quote from that article:
Oh…sure you know Bjorn. He’s been in the headlines a lot lately, not only for his, well, skeptical perspective of climate change (made famous in his 12 year old (sic) book) but now for his about-face stance on how the planet is actually going to hell in a hand basket. Surprisingly, the Danish-born political scientist and economist says that the reality of our increasingly toasty planet is a challenge that is “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and believes that comprehensive research and environmental mitigation efforts (at a price tag of $100 billion annually) might put a dent in our woes.


I just got home from work so I will only promise getting ya'll the juicy details of Lomberg's many deceptions (while he was a "skeptic" on GW action) by this weekend.

I would find it extremely ususual that Lomberg's latest book Smart Solutions to Climate Change would be on alternatives for dealing with GW, if he still thought GW was 9th in terms of the world's most pressing problems.

Frankly I do not trust Lomberg on the subject of scientific attribution of GW to humans - he is a political economist not a scientist. And given his deceptions I don't know that I trust him now. But I look forward to his ideas in his newest book (to be released nominally on 31 Oct 2010) in terms of effective mitigation of GW.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:29 pm

From Kare Fog - a Danish Biology Professor:
Catalog of Errors/etc. in Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist mostly on the science (look at Chapter 24 for the ones that relate to Global warming).
Misleading costs in Lomborg's Cool It! mostly about the economics

An English businesman Chris Goodall studied a random 31 Lomborg Endnotes in Cool It! and found that in no cases were the original authors consulted and that 17 of the 31 were incorrect and most of those deceptively dismissive of GW and/or AGW.
Goodall Analysis (go to the "here" and download a word document for details).

Like Fog and Goodall, Howard Friel's The Lomborg Deception points out hundreds of Lomborg errors / biases and unsubstantiated/deceptive "endnotes" taken from both Lomborg's The Skeptical Enviornmentalist (2001) and Cool It! (2007).

I aso checked some endnotes myself and found examples along with Friel, Goodall, and Fog that:
1) were often not complete - did not enable anyone to find the supposed source (e.g. Endnote 2099 in Skeptical Environmentalist merely references "DiCaprio, 2000" - no previous reference DiCaprio that I could find, no page number, no date)
2) selective data/quotes
3) were total fabrication (e.g. Lomborg pg 261 The Skeptical Environmentalist says:
The records seem to indicate substantial temperature throughout the Holocene on a millennial timescale and some indicators even show changes of
5-8 deg C over a 1500 years time scale.
The ref was 2122 which was the IPCC 2001 Assessment Report section 2.4.2 which says:

2.4.2 Global warming can be expected to affect the availability of water resources and biomass, both major
sources of energy in many developing countries. These effects are likely to differ between and within regions with
some areas losing and others gaining water and biomass. Such changes in areas which lose water may jeopardize
energy supply and materials essential for human habitation and energy. Moreover, climate change itself is also likely to
have different effects between regions on the availability of other forms of renewable energy such as wind and solar
power. In developed countries some of the greatest impacts on the energy, transport and industrial sectors may be
determined by policy responses to climate change such as fuel regulations, emission fees or policies promoting greater
use of mass transit. In developing countnes, climate-related changes in the availability and price of production resources
such as energy, water, food and fibre may affect the competitive position of many industries.


Not a word about temperature swings. Nor could this be a mistaken reference since no where in the IPCC 2001 is such a claim (the IPCC 2001 does show the standard ice core temperature (Vostok) which shows 8-10 deg C jumps (over about 10,000 years or ~ 0.010 C/decade) every ~ 120,000 years or so). There has not been 5-8 deg jumps or swings over a "millennial timeframe - 1000 years" (or 1500 years); but that did not stop Lomborg from saying there was and claiming it was in the IPCC 2001. That is fabrication in an attempt to show that the 0.45C jump we have seen since 1977 (rate ~ 0.14C/decade) is nothing unusual. Even the MWP was only about 0.15 C swing (non-sustained) over about 150 year half period (~ 0.01 C/decade), if in fact it was global in nature.

Image

I could go on with more examples from my own checking, but I'll leave the details to Friel, Goodall, and Fog (please examine the links from Fog and Goodall above - if anyone is interested).

I did reread Lomborg's Chapter 24 in The Skeptical Environmenatalist (2001) and he sounds like Al Gore for the first half of that chapter - agreeing with GW and AGW but then goes on to exaggerate the costs of CO2 regulation and says there would be negligible "benefits". No where does he consider the costs of no action although at times his "benefits" might include some of that. That is a major weakness. By 2007 in Cool It!, he trumpets the 'GW is no big deal' line and sounds like a strident denialist. Now (2010) who knows? it sounds somewhat like he has changed his mind again (perhaps he thinks he has come up with some better/cheaper mitigation technques - we will have to wait for his next book or the movie Cool It! which by info released sounds counter the book Cool It!).

But this exercise has shown me that Lomborg is not be trusted in either his scientific pronouncements (for which he is not qualified) or his economic cost/benefit/cost avoidance analysis. I question his integrity.
____________________
Still waiting on David's word about the Doran/Zimmerman survey DATA which his source butchered to say the least. It been four days since he said:
David wrote:No, I won't admit to errors in my reading of the Doran/Zimmerman propaganda piece. I'm working on a response to your massive 3,062-word post. Takes a while for me to wade through all the disinformation.


It should not take long to see the errors in David's source when one reads the Doran/Zimmerman brief paper; it could take much longer if you have to dream up a defense of David's source which is the real Propaganda piece here.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:21 am

KeithE wrote:1From Kare Fog - a Danish Biology Professor:
Catalog of Errors/etc. in Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist mostly on the science (look at Chapter 24 for the ones that relate to Global warming).
Misleading costs in Lomborg's Cool It! mostly about the economics

An English businesman Chris Goodall studied a random 31 Lomborg Endnotes in Cool It! and found that in no cases were the original authors consulted and that 17 of the 31 were incorrect and most of those deceptively dismissive of GW and/or AGW.
Goodall Analysis (go to the "here" and download a word document for details).

Like Fog and Goodall, Howard Friel's The Lomborg Deception points out hundreds of Lomborg errors / biases and unsubstantiated/deceptive "endnotes" taken from both Lomborg's The Skeptical Enviornmentalist (2001) and Cool It! (2007).

I aso checked some endnotes myself and found examples along with Friel, Goodall, and Fog that:
1) were often not complete - did not enable anyone to find the supposed source (e.g. Endnote 2099 in Skeptical Environmentalist merely references "DiCaprio, 2000" - no previous reference DiCaprio that I could find, no page number, no date)
2) selective data/quotes
3) were total fabrication (e.g. Lomborg pg 261 The Skeptical Environmentalist says:
The records seem to indicate substantial temperature throughout the Holocene on a millennial timescale and some indicators even show changes of
5-8 deg C over a 1500 years time scale.
The ref was 2122 which was the IPCC 2001 Assessment Report section 2.4.2 which says:

2.4.2 Global warming can be expected to affect the availability of water resources and biomass, both major
sources of energy in many developing countries. These effects are likely to differ between and within regions with
some areas losing and others gaining water and biomass. Such changes in areas which lose water may jeopardize
energy supply and materials essential for human habitation and energy. Moreover, climate change itself is also likely to
have different effects between regions on the availability of other forms of renewable energy such as wind and solar
power. In developed countries some of the greatest impacts on the energy, transport and industrial sectors may be
determined by policy responses to climate change such as fuel regulations, emission fees or policies promoting greater
use of mass transit. In developing countnes, climate-related changes in the availability and price of production resources
such as energy, water, food and fibre may affect the competitive position of many industries.


Not a word about temperature swings. Nor could this be a mistaken reference since no where in the IPCC 2001 is such a claim (the IPCC 2001 does show the standard ice core temperature (Vostok) which shows 8-10 deg C jumps (over about 10,000 years or ~ 0.010 C/decade) every ~ 120,000 years or so). There has not been 5-8 deg jumps or swings over a "millennial timeframe - 1000 years" (or 1500 years); but that did not stop Lomborg from saying there was and claiming it was in the IPCC 2001. That is fabrication in an attempt to show that the 0.45C jump we have seen since 1977 (rate ~ 0.14C/decade) is nothing unusual. Even the MWP was only about 0.15 C swing (non-sustained) over about 150 year half period (~ 0.01 C/decade), if in fact it was global in nature.

Image

I could go on with more examples from my own checking, but I'll leave the details to Friel, Goodall, and Fog (please examine the links from Fog and Goodall above - if anyone is interested).

I did reread Lomborg's Chapter 24 in The Skeptical Environmenatalist (2001) and he sounds like Al Gore for the first half of that chapter - agreeing with GW and AGW but then goes on to exaggerate the costs of CO2 regulation and says there would be negligible "benefits". No where does he consider the costs of no action although at times his "benefits" might include some of that. That is a major weakness. By 2007 in Cool It!, he trumpets the 'GW is no big deal' line and sounds like a strident denialist. Now (2010) who knows? it sounds somewhat like he has changed his mind again (perhaps he thinks he has come up with some better/cheaper mitigation technques - we will have to wait for his next book or the movie Cool It! which by info released sounds counter the book Cool It!).


2But this exercise has shown me that Lomborg is not be trusted in either his scientific pronouncements (for which he is not qualified) or his economic cost/benefit/cost avoidance analysis. I question his integrity.
____________________
3Still waiting on David's word about the Doran/Zimmerman survey DATA which his source butchered to say the least. It been four days since he said:
David wrote:No, I won't admit to errors in my reading of the Doran/Zimmerman propaganda piece. I'm working on a response to your massive 3,062-word post. Takes a while for me to wade through all the disinformation.

It should not take long to see the errors in David's source when one reads the Doran/Zimmerman brief paper; it could take much longer if you have to dream up a defense of David's source which is the real Propaganda piece here.

1) Kare Fog??? Who the heck is he?? Goodness, Keith, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. You're agonizingly desperate, my friend. I can't find anything anywhere on the internet that lends any credibility whatsoever to this Kare Fog character. What I did find, however, was a list of the 10 worst blogs on the internet with respect to AGW. And turns out that Kare Fog is listed as #5 on the 10 worst blogs list. Apparently Mr. "Fog" is little more than a dense bank of fog in the mythical world of AGW. Cf. quote box below:
5. Kare Fog blog, January 2004 (updated): Is Lomborg really this bad? Many anti-AGW scientists attract vitriol; Roy Spencer, Vincent Gray and John Christy because they are alleged to be creationists; Christopher Monckton because he is a ‘mad’ peer; Beck because he is an underqualified upstart who makes sense; but Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”, is special. He has his own hate website, set up by biologist Kare Fog, who compares Lomborg’s ‘mistakes’ with Gore’s. The introduction includes: “Lomborg is not a normal person.” Source...


2) Yeah sure, we all know that Lomborg can't be trusted. Why should he be trusted by the alarmists when his views run counter to theirs? :roll:

3) Patience, my friend, patience. It's coming. Maybe later today I'll have it finished. You propaganda is easy to refute...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK


Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:07 am

David Flick wrote:1) Kare Fog??? Who the heck is he?? Goodness, Keith, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. You're agonizingly desperate, my friend. I can't find anything anywhere on the internet that lends any credibility whatsoever to this Kare Fog character. What I did find, however, was a list of the 10 worst blogs on the internet with respect to AGW. And turns out that Kare Fog is listed as #5 on the 10 worst blogs list. Apparently Mr. "Fog" is little more than a dense bank of fog in the mythical world of AGW. Cf. quote box below:
5. Kare Fog blog, January 2004 (updated): Is Lomborg really this bad? Many anti-AGW scientists attract vitriol; Roy Spencer, Vincent Gray and John Christy because they are alleged to be creationists; Christopher Monckton because he is a ‘mad’ peer; Beck because he is an underqualified upstart who makes sense; but Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”, is special. He has his own hate website, set up by biologist Kare Fog, who compares Lomborg’s ‘mistakes’ with Gore’s. The introduction includes: “Lomborg is not a normal person.” Source...

It is actually an honor to be singled out by Australians Jennifer Maroshy and Tim Lambert.


Who is Kare Fog?

Kåre Fog, born in 1949, graduated as a biologist from Copenhagen University in 1975. He obtained research scholarships to study humus formation (chemical and microbiological investigations of processes intermediate in humus formation). He obtained the Ph. D. degree in 1980 at Aarhus University. The chemical research continued at the Chemical Institute at the Royal Danish Veterinary and Agricultural University in Copenhagen until the mid 1980´es.

In his spare time, he organized and managed the "Atlas investigation of amphibians and reptiles", i.e. a mapping project covering the whole of Denmark. This investigation demonstrated disastrous declines for many amphibian species, and an acute need for rescuing actions had to be realized. Therefore, in the mid 1980´es, Kåre Fog changed to become professionally engaged in restoration of amphibian habitats and in artificial rearing to save the most acutely threatened populations. This work has continued, on a free lance basis, up to now.

In 1982, Kåre Fog wrote a Danish textbook on ecology which is still in use in various institutions of education. In 1997, he was the author of a book on the amphibians and reptiles of Scandinavia. In 2004, he has established his own publishing company. Danish readers may consult http://www.mysis.dk.

Kåre Fog´s involvement in the Lomborg case

In 1998, when Lomborg first appeared in the Danish media, it soon had to be realized that Lomborg´s errors could not be corrected by simple correspondence in the newspapers. Kåre Fog was one of the persons who took the initiative to form an organized opposition by producing a book that pointed out the flaws of Lomborg´s book. This was done under the auspices of the Danish Ecological Council. Kåre Fog became a member of the editorial board, and got contact to many other biologists that had tried to oppose Lomborg.

When Lomborg published the English version of his book in 2001, the Ecological Council decided to make an English version of their counter-book. Kåre Fog had the job to revise several chapters on biological issues for the English version, and during this work, he realized that Lomborg had learned very little from the raised criticism, and that many of his statements were at variance with the facts that Lomborg knew. Thus, it became apparent that Lomborg´s text was deliberately misleading.

When Kåre Fog wrote about this in some newspapers, he was contacted by persons who urged him to lodge a complaint about Lomborg to the Danish committees on scientific dishonesty (DCSD). Such a complaint was lodged in February 2002, at the same time as Lomborg applied for the position as the director of the Danish institute of environmental assessment. Later, this complaint was supplemented by other complaints lodged by H. Stiesdal and M. Hertz in Denmark, and S. Pimm and J. Harvey from abroad.

When the decision of the DCSD was published in January 2003, it was not completely satisfactory to the complainers. The precise decoumentation of deliberately misleading texts had not been evaluated by the committees. The idea to establish a web site where Lomborg-errors can be gathered, arose in discussions with American Lomborg opponents in the spring of 2003, but it was not carried out at once. In view of the development that has taken place since then, and the need to document the errors, Kåre Fog has now decided to make such a web site on his own initiative.

Further details about the complaints etc. are found in the document "The Lomborg story" at this web site.


It is rare that several scientists (in red above) independently unite in opposition to the methods of a writer so as to start making lists of errors (that number into the hundreds if not thousands). It is even rarer that a scientific dishonesty commission is formed by a government. I wish I would have asked Copenhagens about their opinion of Lomborg (and Niels Harritt on another subject) and Helsinkis about Nils Morner.

David wrote:2) Yeah sure, we all know that Lomborg can't be trusted. Why should he be trusted by the alarmists when his views run counter to theirs? :roll:


It is the integrity of his methods pointed out by sloppy (to say the least) references and other deliberately introduced material w/o any references. Even his portrayal of himself as a so-called "middle ground" on GW in the Forward to Cool It! 2007 is belied by the fact that I only find denialist arguments in the rest of the book (weakened by lack of sources and references that do not say what he says they do). At least in The Skpetical Environmentalist 2001 he is ~ half correct. I wonder what the 2010 version will be and if he will confess with a Mea Culpa.

David wrote:3) Patience, my friend, patience. It's coming. Maybe later today I'll have it finished. You propaganda is easy to refute...

Tic, toc, tic, toc.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:19 am



All of these except the Joe Bastardi's (like Roy Spencer's) pre-mature La Nina announcement are local and of short duration. You must think globally David, if you are going to make any real points on this subject.

The La Nina that Spencer was predicting in July (with some justification I will add) has NOT materialized in August as he thought it would - check his own DATA especially near surface temps. Bastardi's announcement of the next 9 months temps seems to be w/o merit (he gives no DATA; and he admits he was wrong about August temps going down - check your own sources David). Wishes do not make for facts.
Last edited by KeithE on Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:39 am, edited 3 times in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:21 am

KeithE wrote:
David wrote:3) Patience, my friend, patience. It's coming. Maybe later today I'll have it finished. You propaganda is easy to refute...

Tic, toc, tic, toc.

. . . . . :lol: :D :lol: :D
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:41 am

.
.
Reply to Keith, Part #1

KeithE wrote:Least I have DATA for my points like the 97% (unlike your impressions or articles you link saying 97% don't believe in AGW w/o substantiating DATA, just headlines grabbers). And I have verified DATA (vindicated by several independent reveiwers of all the scurious charges levied by the denialists) that show linear trends in global temps (similiar trends whether ground or satellite measurements) coupled with the CO2 concentration and continued ghgs emisisions increases.

Keith, you are a wizzard of obfuscatory AGW propaganda. You have a knack for posting meaningless extraneous material (i.e. AGW charts, graphs, "DATA," and whatnot). Your last several posts have been excessively lengthy. Counting text boxes, quotes & charts, this particular post contained 3,062 words. It was long on verbiage and woefully short on accurate information. That said, you can spin the Doran/Zimmerman propaganda "DATA" from now until Kingdom come and you'll still have nothing but propaganda. Propaganda can't be magically transformed into accurate facts. It can't happen either in climate science or any other science for that matter.

I'm going to preface this reply with the post wherein you first made the wild claim that 97% of "real academic climate scientists" believe in AGW In that post, you closed with the following quote:
KeithE wrote:That coupled with the Chuck Pistis unchecked position amounts to hilariously bad reporting from O'Sullivan - just like all the other Heartland, CEI, ..... disinformation prevading the web but not the real academic climate scienctists (97% of which believe in AGW).

Now whatever else you intending to convey in that post, you were clearly attempting to lead me (and lurkers) to believe that 97% of all real academic climate scientists believe in AGW. The Doran and Zimmerman article is false and misleading. You thought you could pull the wool over my eyes but you failed.

In the first place, the Doran/Zimmerman article isn't peer-reviewed. It's based on the bogus research of one AGW true-believer professor. The article contains neither footnotes nor endnotes. There are only 5 references. One is from Naomi Oreskes, who has been thoroughly discredited by many sources including this one. Here's another source that discredits Oreskes. And yet another. Anyone who quotes Oreskes is an AGWer who is scratching and clawing. Yes, I'm aware that you can find dozens of alarmists websites that attempt to prop her up but at the end of the day, it's a hopeless cause. If for no other reason, quoting Oreskes discredits the professor and his grad student.

Secondly, Doran & Zimmerman falsely declared that there is a consensus on AGW. Not only is the article NOT peer-reviewed there isn't now and nor has there evger been a consensus on AGW. Check it out here, here, here, here, here, here, and a hundred other places. Doran/Zimmerman were appealing to a fraud (Naomi Oreskes, who originally claimed that there was a 100% consensus on peer-reviewed articles on AGW and subsequently backed off to 75%) to get the 97% figure. Here are a couple of articles that for the dealing with the 97% consensus myth.
  1. Where did the 97% AGW consensus come from?
  2. Climatologists consensus on global warming: poll sample size 79
I'm sure the AGWers really believe the 97% figure to be to true, but it's pure propaganda. There's no truth to it whatsoever.

Thirdly, the Doran/Zimmerman poll samples are thoroughly skewed. While [url]the graphs[/url] and "DATA" in the article are are nice to look at and very pleasing to the alarmists' eyes]nice to look at and very pleasing to the alarmists' eyes, there no credible source that supports any of what D&Z published. The 97% consensus is based on a infinitely small number of just 79 climate scientists. However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Turns out that Doran & Zimmerman were using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming. (Source...) Sane thinking people simply aren't buying the propaganda. I'm not either.

Bottom line to the Doran/Zimmerman article is that you can spin it until you're red in the face, but propaganda, no matter how it's spun, can never be transformed magically into actual facts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post is getting to be way too long for one reply. I'm going to cut it off here and reply to the 2nd half of your original post tomorrow. I'll deal with my guarantee (see quote box below) in part #2. It's basically finished, but I need to run a spell-check and double-check my documentation. For now, I need to get some sleep.
KeithE wrote:Now it is up to you David, to "guarantee" that all the "independent reviewers" given in the reports above "trace back" to being overtly biased AGW supporters implying they were chosen as whitewashing teams.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Ed Edwards » Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:26 pm

Brother Elder David: // Keith, you are a wizzard of obfuscatory AGW propaganda. You have a knack for posting meaningless extraneous material (i.e. AGW charts, graphs, "DATA," and whatnot). \\

:D Tee Hee
Fanciest definition I have ever seen for 'fact'.

When I was in the 6th grade out in McLean, Texas (in the Panhandle) tere was a topic every candidate talked about callled Conservation. It wasn't Democratic, it wasn't just Republican, it wasn't just Baptist, it wasn't just Methodist, it wasn't just Pentacostal Holiness -- conservation was for everybody. It was a part of being Texan, it was a part of being American- conservation was for everybody. Today to be conservative, to practice conservation, it is wise to be tuned unto the world causes for AGW. Folks in our groups what are dragging their feet, oblivious to the facts around them are making some of our groups look bad. Some days Oklahoma looks as backward as Kansas did when they rewrote their textbooks -- or was that Texas?

Being a denier is as bad as the fellow from rural Texas who said "If the commies are for it - I am ag'in it; if the commies are ag'in, I am fer it." Little did he know that that the commies back then were against VD (venerial disease, now called Sexually Transmitted Disease = STD).
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:45 pm

Ed Edwards wrote:Brother Elder David: // Keith, you are a wizzard of obfuscatory AGW propaganda. You have a knack for posting meaningless extraneous material (i.e. AGW charts, graphs, "DATA," and whatnot). \\

:D Tee Hee
Fanciest definition I have ever seen for 'fact'.

When I was in the 6th grade out in McLean, Texas (in the Panhandle) tere was a topic every candidate talked about callled Conservation. It wasn't Democratic, it wasn't just Republican, it wasn't just Baptist, it wasn't just Methodist, it wasn't just Pentacostal Holiness -- conservation was for everybody. It was a part of being Texan, it was a part of being American- conservation was for everybody. Today to be conservative, to practice conservation, it is wise to be tuned unto the world causes for AGW. Folks in our groups what are dragging their feet, oblivious to the facts around them are making some of our groups look bad. Some days Oklahoma looks as backward as Kansas did when they rewrote their textbooks -- or was that Texas?

Being a denier is as bad as the fellow from rural Texas who said "If the commies are for it - I am ag'in it; if the commies are ag'in, I am fer it." Little did he know that that the commies back then were against VD (venerial disease, now called Sexually Transmitted Disease = STD).

Pray tell, EdE, what does being against VD (venereal disease, now called Sexually Transmitted Disease = STD) have to do with being against AGW? Last I heard, VD/STDs actually exist. But AGW is nonexistent. Any harm in being against something that doesn't exist?
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:20 pm

David Flick wrote:.
.
Reply to Keith, Part #1

KeithE wrote:Least I have DATA for my points like the 97% (unlike your impressions or articles you link saying 97% don't believe in AGW w/o substantiating DATA, just headlines grabbers). And I have verified DATA (vindicated by several independent reveiwers of all the scurious charges levied by the denialists) that show linear trends in global temps (similiar trends whether ground or satellite measurements) coupled with the CO2 concentration and continued ghgs emisisions increases.

Keith, you are a wizzard of obfuscatory AGW propaganda. You have a knack for posting meaningless extraneous material (i.e. AGW charts, graphs, "DATA," and whatnot). Your last several posts have been excessively lengthy. Counting text boxes, quotes & charts, this particular post contained 3,062 words. It was long on verbiage and woefully short on accurate information. That said, you can spin the Doran/Zimmerman propaganda "DATA" from now until Kingdom come and you'll still have nothing but propaganda. Propaganda can't be magically transformed into accurate facts. It can't happen either in climate science or any other science for that matter.

I'm going to preface this reply with the post wherein you first made the wild claim that 97% of "real academic climate scientists" believe in AGW In that post, you closed with the following quote:
KeithE wrote:That coupled with the Chuck Pistis unchecked position amounts to hilariously bad reporting from O'Sullivan - just like all the other Heartland, CEI, ..... disinformation prevading the web but not the real academic climate scienctists (97% of which believe in AGW).

Now whatever else you intending to convey in that post, you were clearly attempting to lead me (and lurkers) to believe that 97% of all real academic climate scientists believe in AGW. The Doran and Zimmerman article is false and misleading. You thought you could pull the wool over my eyes but you failed.

In the first place, the Doran/Zimmerman article isn't peer-reviewed. It's based on the bogus research of one AGW true-believer professor. The article contains neither footnotes nor endnotes. There are only 5 references. One is from Naomi Oreskes, who has been thoroughly discredited by many sources including this one. Here's another source that discredits Oreskes. And yet another. Anyone who quotes Oreskes is an AGWer who is scratching and clawing. Yes, I'm aware that you can find dozens of alarmists websites that attempt to prop her up but at the end of the day, it's a hopeless cause. If for no other reason, quoting Oreskes discredits the professor and his grad student.

Secondly, Doran & Zimmerman falsely declared that there is a consensus on AGW. Not only is the article NOT peer-reviewed there isn't now and nor has there evger been a consensus on AGW. Check it out here, here, here, here, here, here, and a hundred other places. Doran/Zimmerman were appealing to a fraud (Naomi Oreskes, who originally claimed that there was a 100% consensus on peer-reviewed articles on AGW and subsequently backed off to 75%) to get the 97% figure. Here are a couple of articles that for the dealing with the 97% consensus myth.
  1. Where did the 97% AGW consensus come from?
  2. Climatologists consensus on global warming: poll sample size 79
I'm sure the AGWers really believe the 97% figure to be to true, but it's pure propaganda. There's no truth to it whatsoever.

Thirdly, the Doran/Zimmerman poll samples are thoroughly skewed. While [url]the graphs[/url] and "DATA" in the article are are nice to look at and very pleasing to the alarmists' eyes]nice to look at and very pleasing to the alarmists' eyes, there no credible source that supports any of what D&Z published. The 97% consensus is based on a infinitely small number of just 79 climate scientists. However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Turns out that Doran & Zimmerman were using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming. (Source...) Sane thinking people simply aren't buying the propaganda. I'm not either.

Bottom line to the Doran/Zimmerman article is that you can spin it until you're red in the face, but propaganda, no matter how it's spun, can never be transformed magically into actual facts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post is getting to be way too long for one reply. I'm going to cut it off here and reply to the 2nd half of your original post tomorrow. I'll deal with my guarantee (see quote box below) in part #2. It's basically finished, but I need to run a spell-check and double-check my documentation. For now, I need to get some sleep.
KeithE wrote:Now it is up to you David, to "guarantee" that all the "independent reviewers" given in the reports above "trace back" to being overtly biased AGW supporters implying they were chosen as whitewashing teams.


Read Doran/Zimmerman again. You will find that 3146 answered the poll (not 79). The 79 were those that were deemed to be climatologists and active publishers. It's that simple. Admit it. Here is the 2008 Doran/Zimmerman poll. It clearly says:

An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.

and
With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%.

and
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate
science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer- reviewed papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.


Questions 1 and 2 were:
1. When compared with pre- 1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

97.4% (75 of 77) answered Question 2 Yes (i.e. human activity is a significant contributing factor in GW; iow they were AGW). Apparently 2 people that answered question 1, did not answer question 2 (note that 79 answered Q1 while 77 answered Q2). If you want to make a case that one of the 3 that answered Question 1 "fallen" or "remained constant" was one of those that didn't answer Question 2, then OK. Assume for the moment that s/he would have answered Q2 negatively, that would make it 75 out of 78 or 96.2%. Well OK that night be true, but that is a long way from 3% which your source and you maintain with incredible dumbness.

Also Doran/Zimmerman is poll/survey and they seldom undergo peer-review. But nontheless, this poll was validated quite completely with the Anderegg/etal paper in 2010 where 97-98% were AGW (or ACC in their terms).

If this is beyond you to understand, I'm afraid you are a hapless case technically and it is useless to try to change your mind with logic and simple undesrtanding of poll results.

Now, I know you will not understand this paragraph, but all polls have margins or errors - Wiki look especially at plot at upper right. With 77 samples answering Q2, that margin of error is ~11% (assuming Gaussian "normal" statistics). Thus this means the range of the true GW specialists population (of those who are climate scientists with >50% published article on GW), would be 91.9 - 102.9% to a 95% confidence. But of course 102.9% is impossible, so that the Gaussian assumption is wrong. With either a complementary log normal or a complementary Poisson distribution, the range is somewhere within ~ 89 and 99.4% (but with central value 97.4%, ie. it is somewhat skewed) of the most specialized GW researchers believe in AGW to a 95% confidence. That deserves the term "consensus". And given that the Anderegg had 1372 samples of GW specialists and found that 97-98% (say 97.5%) believe in AGW with a margin of error of 2.8% (look at the Margin of Error Wiki article graph on right). That means the true value of real specialist belief in AGW is somewhere within (96% and 98.8%) to a 95% confidence level. That deserves the term "consensus" to say the least. That your source manipulates the Doran poll DATA with a petition (which counts only the signees not those that refused to sign and was mostly done in the late 1990s) to say 97% DO NOT believe in AGW is outlandishly laughable. That would be a -17 sigma case (for Doran) and a -67 sigma case (for Anderegg).

Stick to your Sunday Job David.
Last edited by KeithE on Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:15 am, edited 6 times in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Ed Edwards » Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:59 pm

Bro David: // Last I heard, VD/STDs actually exist. \\

Is this book learnin' or personal experience?
I read in a book what you said is true, but have no personal experience with the matter.
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:47 am

Ed Edwards wrote:Bro David: // Last I heard, VD/STDs actually exist. \\

Is this book learnin' or personal experience?
I read in a book what you said is true, but have no personal experience with the matter.

Like I said, it was "Last I heard"... I have no personal experience with VD/STDs.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:02 am

.
.
Reply to Keith Part #2:
    Keith, due to the length of this reply, I suspect that you'll be the only one on the planet who will read it completely. Due to the excessive length of your original post, I deleted the extraneous side arguments you offered and focused only on the three teams.

    I originally began writing this reply almost a week ago (Tue Sep 07, 2010) when I was writing Part #1 reply. As I was doing research on the three so-called "independent reviewing" teams who supposedly vindicated the data and the CRU, several internet articles began to appear about Lord Oxbrugh's team. After reading the articles, I decided to wait a few days to see what would be uncovered before finishing Part #2 reply. I included some of those links in point #4 below.
1) ---------------------- Keith challenges David to prove investigatory reviewers were overtly biased ---------------
KeithE wrote:Now it is up to you David, to "guarantee" that all the "independent reviewers" given in the reports above "trace back" to being overtly biased AGW supporters implying they were chosen as whitewashing teams.

Okay, here we go. I will reply to these points in sequence as you posted them.

2) ---------------- Keith attempts to defend the Climategate scandal ----------------------------------
KeithE wrote:1The so-called ClimateGate incident (2theft of 13 years of private emails and selectively leaked the most damning of them) 3 resulted in no less than 3 Independent Teams who vindicated the data and the CRU honesty but to varying degrees chided Jones/Mann/etal for badmouthing skeptics in their private emails, being slightly disorganized, and less than totally open to data requests. 4But the data was give a clean bill of health after thorough review back to its original readings.[/color]

1) You can call "Climategate" an "incident" but you're not correct. Actually, it was a scandal of epic proportions. It was huge. Climategate was the scandal that exposed the AGW movement for what it is.

2) It wasn't a theft. The emails weren't stolen. They most likely leaked by an insider. At this point in time, nobody knows precisely who leaked them. And furthermore, no one has ever proven that the computers at CRU were "hacked."

3) Your so-called "Independent Teams" were anything but independent. The notion that they were "independent" is a myth. All three teams were, in one way or another, directly connected/associated with Climategate personalities and institutions. I'll explain the connections/associations below.

4) The so-called "clean bill of health" was whitewash job. Neither the data nor the Climategate personalities were vindicated by credible sources. All of the the so-called Independent Teams were overtly biased AGW supporters. I'll document that for you below as well.

3) -------------------------- Investigation of "Team 1" ------------------------------------
KeithE wrote:Team 1 was House of Commons Science and Technology Committee http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf looking mainly at the integrity of the data and data analysis performed by Jones and the CRU. Its conclusions (released 24 March 2010) are:
The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. (Paragraph 136)
In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid. (Paragraph 137)

Regarding the the comments of House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (HCSTC) about Phil Jones (in paragraph 136) and Professor John Beddington (in paragraph 137), I'd say that their feeble defense of both is quite "overtly biased." The HCSTC bought Jones' spin on the incriminating "hide the decline" email hook, line, and sinker. Words in the English language (both British & American English) actualy have meaning. No amount of spin on the part of the HCSTC can change the meaning of of the words "hide the decline" in Phil Jones' email.

In Paragraph 137, the committee spoke favorably of Professor John Beddington. He's also an overtly biased AGW supporter and is tight with the Climategate personalities. Beddington has stated on numerous occasions that "the underlying physics of climate change - that carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels warms the planet - was 'unchallengeable'." (Source...). And you're trying to convince me investigators who make statements like that are "unbiased"?? I have some nice ocean front property here in northwestern Oklahoma that I'll sell to you for pennies on the dollar... :wink:

I can't begin to improve the commentary about the whitewash any better than the following links do:4) --------------------------------- Investigation of "Team 2" -----------------------------------
KeithE wrote:Team 2 was an International Team headed by Dr. Ron Oxburgh (Univ of Liverpool) and foussed on statitistical techniques used. Here is their report and their major conclusion (released 24 April 2010) are:
We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

The head of Team 2, (Lord) Dr. Ron Oxburgh, is definitely an overtly biased AGW supporter. There's no way you can deny it. He's a wealthy wind-farming, carbon-trader and committed warmist. His "major conclusion" (part of which you copied in the quote box above) is nothing but a whiter than white whitewash. Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, and is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to Deutsche Bank. The fellow is literally in bed with AGW alarmists.

As for his "report," it was purely perfunctory and was a mere was 5 pages in length. It interviewed no-one who was not employed by the University. It reviewed 11 papers that were not part of the Climategate controversy. The papers he and his team studied were selected either by the University itself or a committee of the Royal Society on which Phil Jones, director of CRU, was a member. Here's a lengthy summery of the investigation written by Thomas Fuller of the San Francisco Environmental Examiner. No matter how you to spin the propaganda, Oxburgh, is an overtly biased AGW supporter.

Since last Tuesday, a number of articles have appeared that reveal Oxbrugh's "Report" was a joke. Here are several more links:5) ------------------------------- Investigation of "Team 3" ----------------------------------------
KeithE wrote:Team 3 was the Scientific Appraisal Panel and was headed by Sir Muir Russell. It was the largest study (6 months) and went in detail into the emails and the data analysis/processing/depictions. It was released 7 July 2010. Here is the full report and the main findings are:
We find the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were not in doubt. We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the IPCC assessments. But we do find there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness.

The investigation also concluded "they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism and that key data was freely available and could be used by any "competent" researcher."

These were not whitewashed findings, but the DATA stands tall and it has not been used to subvert the IPCC or climate research in general.

Sir Robert Muir-Russell, is a overtly biased AGW supporter. As an investigator or a team leader, he' a farce because he's linked directly with personalities and the institution (CRU). There was nothing objective about his team's investigation. Among other things, he stacked the investigatory committee with so-called "independent" persons who just happened to be former professors at UAE CRU. One of the panel members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, served on the faculty of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. Yes, an investigator the Climaticgate scandal was actually a faculty member of the very school where CRU was located. Last December, Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity." Here a couple of links about the Muir Russell Team:
Keith, it's ludicrous for you to claim that Muir-Russell and his colleagues-in-coverup (i.e. Geoffrey Boulton, John Beddington, et.al) were unbiased "independent" investigators of the Climategate. There's no way that you can say this, or any of the three teams, were "independent" when they investigated themselves. If you investigate yourself, you're always going to come out smelling like a rose...

6) -------------------------------- David's conclusion ----------------------------------
In this reply, I've guaranteed (conclusively proven with documentation) that all three investigatory teams trace back to being overtly biased AGW supporters. You can spin the data, you can deny my conclusions, and you can attempt to discredit my sources, but the truth remains. All three of the "Independent Investigation" teams are guilty of whitewashing the Climategate scandal. As time passes, the cover-up will be further disclosed.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:17 pm

Let's review:

I provided links to all three of the independent invesigation teams (including the reviewers names on each team, their conclusions for easy reading and their final reports). Each of which vindicated the DATA, and the basic honesty/integrity of the CRU although they criticized their FOIA release practices and even their disorganization at times. These were no Whitewashes.

David then blustered:

David wrote:I can guarantee you that whoever you name as an "independent" reviewer can be traced back one way or another directly to AGW supporters.


To which I called his bluff:
KeithE wrote:Now it is up to you David, to "guarantee" that all the "independent reviewers" given in the reports above "trace back" to being overtly biased AGW supporters implying they were chosen as whitewashing teams.


David replied with a discussion that did not even deal with most of the reviewers showing prior "overt bias" towards AGW. The only name that he showed any possibility or evidence for any prior "overtly biased" AGW viewpoint is Lord Oxburgh and that was only a suspicion of "overt" bias. I will agree he was a poor choice to lead a team given his conflict of interests (he is involved in the alternative energy business); David Eyton is a BP employee and perhaps should have the tag "conflict of interest" as well but for the opposite viewpoint baed on his employment.

There are 25 other reviewers that David did not provide any evidence of prior "overtly biased" AGW viewpoints or conflict of interests. Btw, John Beddington was not even on a team but was one of the UEA/CRU people being reviewed - yes David is that out of focus. And although David posted some dismissive notes on Sir Robert Muir-Russell and Geoffrey Boulton, no case was made of "overt bias" or conflict of interest. No info was offered by David in his 2 links even hinting at a prior "overt bias" by Muir-Russell or his alledged "links" with CRU. Geoffrey Boulton is at University of Edinburgh not UEA (although he may have worked at UEA at some point [I do not believe Michaels on much of anything w/o confirmation] - I will not say that gives him a conflict of interest as having a prior bias against UEA as is often the case in my world of proposal evaluation with a bias against a former employer). He has no clearly "overt bias" for UEA - only suspicions.

And remember David's boast (in fact his "guarantee") was that "whoever you name as an "independent" reviewer can be traced back one way or another directly to AGW supporters". He was implying the investigation teams were stacked. 1 out of 26; that is a very short stack.

Here are the reviewers' names to get David started if he really wants to come through on his "guarantee":

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
Chair: Mr Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Mr Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)
Mr Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg & Goole)
Mrs Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon)
Dr Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)
Mr Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour, Bristol North West)
Dr Bob Spink (Independent, Castle Point)
Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)
Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)
Dr Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton Kemptown)
Mr Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East)

International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia
Chair: Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool)
Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona.
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London.
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge

Scientific Appraisal Panel
Chair: Sir Robert Muir-Russell
Prof. Geoffrey Boulton
Prof. Peter Clark
David Eyton (from BP)
Dr. James Norton

LESSON for David - empty braggadacio is very unbecoming and leaves you as an easy mark. It is plain stupid to make such claims as 'whoever you can name, I can guarantee their ties to overt bias AGWers'. You could not support such statements at the time you gave it and you cannot do so now - go ahead and prove me wrong by proving "overt bias" on the part of all these reviewers. Covering with such loose language as reviewers "can be traced back one way or another to AGW supporters" belies your intent which was to claim a 3 for 3 whitewash so that you can still claim ClimateGate is some sort of scandal that has brought down AGW - only in your dreams and the dirty air of the denialogsphere (which seems to be your only source of info).

And I guess David's idea of "no bias" is Fred Singer, Pat Michaels and Steve McIntyre since their takes on this whole situation are the counters he provided. Read their Wiki articles (and any other material you can find) to judge for yourself.

Now several on these teams are probably AGW in basic viewpoint -after all 97% of climatologists who are active publishers (i.e. the most knowledgable) and 77% of scientists on the whole are AGW (8% anti-AGW, 15% not sure). It would be hard to field an appropriate team of all "I'm not sure's".
Image
And wrt to David's attempts to reverse the 97% Doran and 97-98% Anderegg poll DATA into a 3% fiction (as to the percentage of the most qualified GW researchers that believe in AGW) , they are simply laughable as I have explained in simple and concise terms (as well as more detailed analysis of the margin of error in those polls) here. David has not replied yet.

Will David admit to gross misunderstandings of those polling DATA? Or being led astray by his sources? Or is this YET ANOTHER example of David changing the subject when cornered (as he has repeatedly done for years on scores of points). We will see. I find it fun and keeps me on top of the controversy.

David (or any of you that are interested) please read the final report of the Scientific Appraisal Team - it is the most detailed account about this whole affair. Or read Climate Files by Fred Pearce.

And then I would ask that the email servers of say CEI and Steve McIntyre (for starters) be opened to the public for scrutiny of fact and attitude.

This is enough for a quick opening volley on Part 2. I have much more jotted down to comment on, but I need to tend to other business like dinner! Maybe later tonight if my wife gets watching TV and my son/daughter-in-law don't want to play games.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:02 pm

David wrote:---------------- Keith attempts to defend the Climategate scandal ----------------------------------
KeithE wrote:1The so-called ClimateGate incident (2theft of 13 years of private emails and selectively leaked the most damning of them) 3 resulted in no less than 3 Independent Teams who vindicated the data and the CRU honesty but to varying degrees chided Jones/Mann/etal for badmouthing skeptics in their private emails, being slightly disorganized, and less than totally open to data requests. 4But the data was give a clean bill of health after thorough review back to its original readings.[/color]

1) You can call "Climategate" an "incident" but you're not correct. Actually, it was a scandal of epic proportions. It was huge. Climategate was the scandal that exposed the AGW movement for what it is.

2) It wasn't a theft. The emails weren't stolen. They most likely leaked by an insider. At this point in time, nobody knows precisely who leaked them. And furthermore, no one has ever proven that the computers at CRU were "hacked."

3) Your so-called "Independent Teams" were anything but independent. The notion that they were "independent" is a myth. All three teams were, in one way or another, directly connected/associated with Climategate personalities and institutions. I'll explain the connections/associations below.

4) The so-called "clean bill of health" was whitewash job. Neither the data nor the Climategate personalities were vindicated by credible sources. All of the the so-called Independent Teams were overtly biased AGW supporters. I'll document that for you below as well.


1): Not an "incident" you say? Maybe a non-event then? Of course it was an incident and that is not to diminish it importance - not my intention in using the word "incident". Now my "so-called ClimateGate" phrase - that was to imply that it not worthy of the "Gate" suffix; just like your "so-called independent teams" implied collusion with known AGWers (as if that is some sort of crime). Calling it a "scandal" is the exaggeration here and calling it of "epic porportions" is over-the-top given the vindication of the DATA by all 3 of the review teams.

2): Not a "theft" or "hacking" you say? Maybe it was by permission that private emails were posted all over the net. And selecting the ones that would be most damning when taken out of the multi-year context of a bunch of bad mouthing/attempted discrediting from the denialogsphere, well that was just honest reporting. Truth is it was theft and the release timed to affect the Copenhagen Summitt. If total disclosure of private emails is what is desired, I suggest the denialists cough up their emails to expose their backroom strategizing and selectively in DATA release; the AGWers have been law-abiding enough not to hack into their opponents private talk and consistently look at all the available DATA.

You have no proof that they were leaked by an insider and very little evidence*. As with most GW rhetoric from you and your denialogsphere sources - only in your dreams, brother. Dreams and wishes do not make facts. Besides the evidence points to hacker on East Coast of America. But I have not heard of any final results of the criminal investigation.

* I am aware of this guy and far from exonerating the denialists for theft (as is David's goal in positing an insider leak), it implicates Watts, Condon, and McIntyre. But once again the criminal case is ongoing - computer crime is inherently difficult to sort out.

3) and 4): Already volleyed these back at you - you may have found one reviewer (a Lead) who might have been biased due to business affiliations in alternative energy; I found one that might be biased toward big oil due to his current employment at BP - both had classic "conflicts of interests". Now that is not to say they could not be objective and were bad reviewers, but there is an appearance of bias. But your "guarantee" was that all the reviewers were "overtly biased" towards AGW; 1 out 26 is rather weak (and not even the 1 is demonstratably "overtly bised"). Your boast/intention in red above has been unfulfilled to say the least. I gave you the list of 26 reviewers to aid you in fulfilling your boast.

Truth is you didn't like their answers, so you attacked them personally w/o really knowing them or their going-in views (and probably did not even read their final reports - especially the most complete one from the Scientific Appraisal Team). RogerMoranese to say the least.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:18 am

.
.
Keith, you're hopelessly behind the curve wrt the investigation & cover-up (whitewash) of the Cimategate scandal. Just in the last three days new information has surfaced that reveals just how far behind the curve you are. You are living in a world of delusion if you think you can successfully defend the propaganda being promulgated by the Climategate defenders.

David wrote:---------------- Keith attempts to defend the Climategate scandal ----------------------------------
KeithE wrote:1The so-called ClimateGate incident (2theft of 13 years of private emails and selectively leaked the most damning of them) 3 resulted in no less than 3 Independent Teams who vindicated the data and the CRU honesty but to varying degrees chided Jones/Mann/etal for badmouthing skeptics in their private emails, being slightly disorganized, and less than totally open to data requests. 4But the data was give a clean bill of health after thorough review back to its original readings.[/color]

1) You can call "Climategate" an "incident" but you're not correct. Actually, it was a scandal of epic proportions. It was huge. Climategate was the scandal that exposed the AGW movement for what it is.

2) It wasn't a theft. The emails weren't stolen. They most likely leaked by an insider. At this point in time, nobody knows precisely who leaked them. And furthermore, no one has ever proven that the computers at CRU were "hacked."

3) Your so-called "Independent Teams" were anything but independent. The notion that they were "independent" is a myth. All three teams were, in one way or another, directly connected/associated with Climategate personalities and institutions. I'll explain the connections/associations below.

4) The so-called "clean bill of health" was whitewash job. Neither the data nor the Climategate personalities were vindicated by credible sources. All of the the so-called Independent Teams were overtly biased AGW supporters. I'll document that for you below as well.

Responding to David's points in the box above, KeithE wrote:1): Not an "incident" you say. Maybe a non-event then? Of course it was an incident and that is not to diminish it importance - not my intention in using the word "incident". 1Now my "so-called ClimateGate" phrase - that was to imply that it not worthy of the "Gate" suffix; 2just like your "so-called independent teams" implied collusion with known AGWers (as if that is some sort of crime). 3Calling it a "scandal" is the exaggeration here and calling it of "epic porportions" and "huge" is over-the-top given the vindication of the DATA by all 3 of the review teams.

1) You're not arguing with me wrt terminology. I'm not the person who coined the term, "Climategate." You can deny the worthiness of the "-gate" suffix until hell freezes over but it doesn't change reality. The fact of the matter is that it was a scandal of epic proportions and it was huge. When the scandal broke in November of 2009, CUR at East Anglia University, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, the IPCC, et. al. were all exposed for global warming alarmists they are. It was also the beginning of the rapid exposure of the propaganda being promulgated by the AGW movement.

2) As I documented in a previous post, the three so-called independent teams were anything but "independent." All three teams were definitely in collusion with or were well known AGWers. Heck, many of them, namely Lord Ron Oxburgh, (leader of Team #2) and Sir Robert Muir-Russell, (leader of Team #3) are themselves well known AGWers. I provided no less than 10 different sources proving to you that Oxburgh and Muir-Russell are known AGWers. Both served as leaders of two of the three investigatory teams. It's virtually impossible for either team #2 or #3 to be described as being "independent" if they are openly identified with the AGW movement. To call them "independent" is ludicrous. Try as you might, you simply cannot deny the facts.

Let me clue you in on what has happened over the past couple of days. I know there's a good possibility that you aren't aware of this but day before yesterday (Tuesday), a 54 page report on the Climategate inquires was published. The report was described as being a Damning New Investigation Into Climategate Inquiries. The report, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation and written by Andrew Montford with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate. You can read the 54 page report here.

Highlighting some of key points in Montford's report (which I'm sure you've already noted from a link above), it was revealed that:
    #none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
    #insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
    #none managed to be objective and comprehensive
    #none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
    #terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
    #none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.
Quoting some of Montford's points:
"The lack of impartiality manifested itself in the different ways the panels treated CRU scientists and their critics. While CRU justifications and explanations were willingly accepted without any serious probing, critics were denied adequate opportunity to respond and to counter demonstrably inaccurate claims."

"All in all, the evidence of the failings of the three UK inquiries is overwhelming. Public confidence in the reliability of climate science will not be restored until a thorough, independent and impartial investigation takes place."

Lord Turnbull, who wrote the foreword to the GWPF report, said:
"The report by Andrew Montford clearly demonstrates that all three inquiries have serious flaws. The result has been that the three investigations have failed to achieve their objective, ie early and conclusive closure and restoration of confidence."

"The new House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has rightly reopened the issue, would do well to study Andrew Montford's report and take evidence from him. It needs to satisfy itself as to whether the criticisms made are valid and whether the exoneration claimed is justified."

"Only if the integrity of the science is re-established and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public which policymakers need.

Without a doubt, the Climategate was a whitewash (cover-up). We haven't heard the last of it and it ain't going away any time soon...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
KeithE] wrote:2): Not a "theft" or "hacking" you say. Maybe it was by permission that private emails were posted all over the net. Selecting the ones that would be most damning when taken out of the multi-year context of a bunch of bad mouthing/atempted discrediting from the denialogsphere, well that was just honest reporting.
    As I've stated many times before, you're not arguing with me. Call it the "denialogsphere" if you will but that which comes from the Climategate defenders doesn't begin to approximate "honest reporting." It's propaganda. Your argument is with those who know far more about the details of the scandal than I do.
1You have no proof that they were leaked by an insider and very little evidence. As with most GW rhetoric from you and your denialogsphere sources - only in your dreams, brother. Dreams and wishes do not make facts. 2Besides the evidence points to hacker on East Coast of America. But I have not heard of any final results of the criminal investigation.
    1) You're correct. I have no solid proof that they were leaked by an insider. However, I'm not living in a dream world on this issue. Actually, it doesn't really matter whether the emails were leaked from the inside or whether they were hacked. What matters is the content of the emails. Regardless of your denial, the content is incriminating.

    2) Forget it if you think I'm going to believe what is written in the Guardian. The Guardian is the chief souece on the planet for promulgating AGW alarmism. The paper is in the tank for everything associated with the movement, including publishing AGW propaganda. In fact the the editor of the Guardian’s environmental website, James Randerson, has posted blogs on RealClimate.Org, which is the the premier blog of the AGW movement, is a well known AGW sympathizer. Salient cartoon

    3) Scandals on the scale of Climategate take time prostitute. Don't be surprised if some sort of prosecution doesn't occur within the next couple of years as things unfold...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
KeithE wrote:3) and 4): Already volleyed that one back at you - you may have found one reviewer (a Lead) who might have been biased due to business affiliations in alternative energy; I found one that might be biased toward big oil due to his current employment at BP - both had classic "conflicts of interests". Now that is not to say they could not be objective and were bad reviewers, but there is an appearance of bias. But your "guarantee" was that all the reviewers were "overtly biased" towards AGW; 1 out 26 is rather weak (1and not even the 1 is demonstratably "overtly bised"). Your boast/intention in red above has been unfulfilled to say the least. I gave you the list of 26 reviewers to aid you in fulfilling your boast.

2Truth is you didn't like their answers, so you attacked them personally w/o really knowing them or their going-in views (and probably did not even read their final reports - especially the most complete one from the Scientific Appraisal Team). RogerMoranese to say the least.

1) Oh come on, Keith, I provided solid documentation that both Oxburgh and Muir-Russell are AGWers and/or sympathizers. If being a wealthy wind-farming, carbon-trader and committed warmist isn't being "overtly biased" toward AGW, I don't know how else one would describe Oxbrugh... Rather than repeat it here, go back and review points #4 & #5 in this post.

2) It's not that I didn't like their answers. But it was that their answers were alarmist propaganda. Nothing "RogerMoranese" about that. Roger Moran was a well-known purveyor of Southern Baptist propaganda. The Climategate investigation teams were purveyors of AGW propaganda.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:05 pm

David Flick wrote:.
.
Keith, you're hopelessly behind the curve wrt the investigation & cover-up (whitewash) of the Cimategate scandal. Just in the last three days new information has surfaced that reveals just how far behind the curve you are. You are living in a world of delusion if you think you can successfully defend the propaganda being promulgated by the Climategate defenders.

David wrote:---------------- Keith attempts to defend the Climategate scandal ----------------------------------
KeithE wrote:1The so-called ClimateGate incident (2theft of 13 years of private emails and selectively leaked the most damning of them) 3 resulted in no less than 3 Independent Teams who vindicated the data and the CRU honesty but to varying degrees chided Jones/Mann/etal for badmouthing skeptics in their private emails, being slightly disorganized, and less than totally open to data requests. 4But the data was give a clean bill of health after thorough review back to its original readings.[/color]

1) You can call "Climategate" an "incident" but you're not correct. Actually, it was a scandal of epic proportions. It was huge. Climategate was the scandal that exposed the AGW movement for what it is.

2) It wasn't a theft. The emails weren't stolen. They most likely leaked by an insider. At this point in time, nobody knows precisely who leaked them. And furthermore, no one has ever proven that the computers at CRU were "hacked."

3) Your so-called "Independent Teams" were anything but independent. The notion that they were "independent" is a myth. All three teams were, in one way or another, directly connected/associated with Climategate personalities and institutions. I'll explain the connections/associations below.

4) The so-called "clean bill of health" was whitewash job. Neither the data nor the Climategate personalities were vindicated by credible sources. All of the the so-called Independent Teams were overtly biased AGW supporters. I'll document that for you below as well.

Responding to David's points in the box above, KeithE wrote:1): Not an "incident" you say. Maybe a non-event then? Of course it was an incident and that is not to diminish it importance - not my intention in using the word "incident". 1Now my "so-called ClimateGate" phrase - that was to imply that it not worthy of the "Gate" suffix; 2just like your "so-called independent teams" implied collusion with known AGWers (as if that is some sort of crime). 3Calling it a "scandal" is the exaggeration here and calling it of "epic porportions" and "huge" is over-the-top given the vindication of the DATA by all 3 of the review teams.

1) You're not arguing with me wrt terminology. I'm not the person who coined the term, "Climategate." You can deny the worthiness of the "-gate" suffix until hell freezes over but it doesn't change reality. The fact of the matter is that it was a scandal of epic proportions and it was huge. When the scandal broke in November of 2009, CUR at East Anglia University, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, the IPCC, et. al. were all exposed for global warming alarmists they are. It was also the beginning of the rapid exposure of the propaganda being promulgated by the AGW movement.

2) As I documented in a previous post, the three so-called independent teams were anything but "independent." All three teams were definitely in collusion with or were well known AGWers. Heck, many of them, namely Lord Ron Oxburgh, (leader of Team #2) and Sir Robert Muir-Russell, (leader of Team #3) are themselves well known AGWers. I provided no less than 10 different sources proving to you that Oxburgh and Muir-Russell are known AGWers. Both served as leaders of two of the three investigatory teams. It's virtually impossible for either team #2 or #3 to be described as being "independent" if they are openly identified with the AGW movement. To call them "independent" is ludicrous. Try as you might, you simply cannot deny the facts.

Let me clue you in on what has happened over the past couple of days. I know there's a good possibility that you aren't aware of this but day before yesterday (Tuesday), a 54 page report on the Climategate inquires was published. The report was described as being a Damning New Investigation Into Climategate Inquiries. The report, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation and written by Andrew Montford with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate. You can read the 54 page report here.

Highlighting some of key points in Montford's report (which I'm sure you've already noted from a link above), it was revealed that:
    #none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
    #insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
    #none managed to be objective and comprehensive
    #none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
    #terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
    #none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.
Quoting some of Montford's points:
"The lack of impartiality manifested itself in the different ways the panels treated CRU scientists and their critics. While CRU justifications and explanations were willingly accepted without any serious probing, critics were denied adequate opportunity to respond and to counter demonstrably inaccurate claims."

"All in all, the evidence of the failings of the three UK inquiries is overwhelming. Public confidence in the reliability of climate science will not be restored until a thorough, independent and impartial investigation takes place."

Lord Turnbull, who wrote the foreword to the GWPF report, said:
"The report by Andrew Montford clearly demonstrates that all three inquiries have serious flaws. The result has been that the three investigations have failed to achieve their objective, ie early and conclusive closure and restoration of confidence."

"The new House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has rightly reopened the issue, would do well to study Andrew Montford's report and take evidence from him. It needs to satisfy itself as to whether the criticisms made are valid and whether the exoneration claimed is justified."

"Only if the integrity of the science is re-established and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public which policymakers need.

Without a doubt, the Climategate was a whitewash (cover-up). We haven't heard the last of it and it ain't going away any time soon...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
KeithE] wrote:2): Not a "theft" or "hacking" you say. Maybe it was by permission that private emails were posted all over the net. Selecting the ones that would be most damning when taken out of the multi-year context of a bunch of bad mouthing/atempted discrediting from the denialogsphere, well that was just honest reporting.
    As I've stated many times before, you're not arguing with me. Call it the "denialogsphere" if you will but that which comes from the Climategate defenders doesn't begin to approximate "honest reporting." It's propaganda. Your argument is with those who know far more about the details of the scandal than I do.
1You have no proof that they were leaked by an insider and very little evidence. As with most GW rhetoric from you and your denialogsphere sources - only in your dreams, brother. Dreams and wishes do not make facts. 2Besides the evidence points to hacker on East Coast of America. But I have not heard of any final results of the criminal investigation.
    1) You're correct. I have no solid proof that they were leaked by an insider. However, I'm not living in a dream world on this issue. Actually, it doesn't really matter whether the emails were leaked from the inside or whether they were hacked. What matters is the content of the emails. Regardless of your denial, the content is incriminating.

    2) Forget it if you think I'm going to believe what is written in the Guardian. The Guardian is the chief souece on the planet for promulgating AGW alarmism. The paper is in the tank for everything associated with the movement, including publishing AGW propaganda. In fact the the editor of the Guardian’s environmental website, James Randerson, has posted blogs on RealClimate.Org, which is the the premier blog of the AGW movement, is a well known AGW sympathizer. Salient cartoon

    3) Scandals on the scale of Climategate take time prostitute. Don't be surprised if some sort of prosecution doesn't occur within the next couple of years as things unfold...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
KeithE wrote:3) and 4): Already volleyed that one back at you - you may have found one reviewer (a Lead) who might have been biased due to business affiliations in alternative energy; I found one that might be biased toward big oil due to his current employment at BP - both had classic "conflicts of interests". Now that is not to say they could not be objective and were bad reviewers, but there is an appearance of bias. But your "guarantee" was that all the reviewers were "overtly biased" towards AGW; 1 out 26 is rather weak (1and not even the 1 is demonstratably "overtly bised"). Your boast/intention in red above has been unfulfilled to say the least. I gave you the list of 26 reviewers to aid you in fulfilling your boast.

2Truth is you didn't like their answers, so you attacked them personally w/o really knowing them or their going-in views (and probably did not even read their final reports - especially the most complete one from the Scientific Appraisal Team). RogerMoranese to say the least.

1) Oh come on, Keith, I provided solid documentation that both Oxburgh and Muir-Russell are AGWers and/or sympathizers. If being a wealthy wind-farming, carbon-trader and committed warmist isn't being "overtly biased" toward AGW, I don't know how else one would describe Oxbrugh... Rather than repeat it here, go back and review points #4 & #5 in this post.

2) It's not that I didn't like their answers. But it was that their answers were alarmist propaganda. Nothing "RogerMoranese" about that. Roger Moran was a well-known purveyor of Southern Baptist propaganda. The Climategate investigation teams were purveyors of AGW propaganda.


Global Warming Policy Foundation

Yep, just what I thought, this Montford report was sponsored by an ideological anti-GW foundation in Britain. What do you expect but denial of the 3 Independent Team's findings. Most, if not all, of the Independent Teams were university professors w/o apparent "Overt Bias" (unless you can prove otherwise). Now compare that with the GWPF leader Bennie Peiser a social anthropologist and lecturer in sports exercise who said in response to James Hansen's quite restrained prediction in 2009 of 60 cm sea level rise by 2100 (note: not 7m, but 0.6m) "The predictions come in thick and fast, but we take them all with a pinch of salt. We look out of the window and it’s very cold, it doesn’t seem to be warming.” Real good research.

As for Montford, I'd say his going-in position was one of attack dog given his self-proclaimed "overt bias". No such history of active/vocal "bias" for the 26 Independent Team members (unless you can prove otherwise).

Note also the practices of GWPF of doing partial data presentation right in their logo:
GWPF website
neglecting the large rises in 1910 -1940, 1977-1998, and in late 2009- today. Just print that subbit that shows no change and declare victory.

If you believe, that a report sponsored by such an organization or from such a person is significant "new information" about GW or ClimateGate, God help you.

But I'll read the report. Fred Pearce author of Climate Files (which I'm reading now) says it "has landed some good blows" in an article for the Guardian (that paper David says is one-sided). But I'm already skeptical about GWPF "overt bias" - in that they practice deception (e.g. their logo). Yes I do have a warranted "overt bias" against such ideological organizations that were born just to fight GW action and always tells one side of the story usually with sarcasm and overstatement (read their website). But I will read Montford's report for valid points made.

David, you will find some red meat in Climate Files about CRU practices/lack of transparency, but in the end you should see the DATA is still good and GW is a strong threat to be dealt with. Recommend you read it (all of it, not just tantalizing tidbits to your taste). It is the most unbiased account I can find about ClimateGate other than maybe the Scientific Appraisal Team final report (Pearce is a little harder on the CRU crowd for lack of transparency and fighting the release of data to the skeptics but even more sure that the basis for AGW is sound).

Now, David, what about Doran/Anderegg? and the demonstration of "overt biases" in all the 26 Independent Team members? Take responsibility for what you say.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:05 am

KeithE wrote:Now, David, what about Doran/Anderegg? and the demonstration of "overt biases" in all the 26 Independent Team members? Take responsibility for what you say.

Not to worry, Keith, I always take responsibility for what I say. I'll have a reply to your most recent post in due time. I've had several interuptions in my normal schedule this past week (including taking Effie to the doctor in Oklahoma City a couple of times). I'll have a reply for you by midweek.

In the meantime, here are a couple of articles you might read.

    • The Anti-Engineering Crowd
      An excerpt from the article:
      "We've never had a snow fall this big before, in our history. We've been going ten years and unfortunately in this instant it just hasn't been able to sustain it.

    • Stadium lies in ruins after roof caves-in
      An excerpt from the article:
      The idea that winter storms and winter snow extent are increasing due to “excess heat” defies any rational thought. Yet the idea is bandied around effortlessly by some in the climate science community.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:25 am

In addition to backing up what you say, why don't you educate yourself by reading something other than from the denialist club who is ever in search of non-global, time isolated events such as your latest New Zealand roof collapse due to snow. (You know increased extreme percipitation events is one outcome of GW as well).

Try Climate Files (which I just finished last night) by Fred Pearce (who has been as inisder in all these Climate Wars). There is much in there that I did not know especially about the context of many of the more "celebrated" CRU emails (he reconfirms my understanding of "hide the decline", "travesty" comments but also indicts CRU for dragging their feet on FOI requests). He starts out by saying there are "no heroes" here - fault can be found in virtually all the players. He comes down hard on Jones, Mann, Trenberth, Pachurai (not so hard on Wigley, Briffa, Schneider) and on the other side he comes down hard on Michaels, Singer, Seitz, Watts, McKittrict, Peiser (not so hard on McIntyre, Lindzen, Christy). He discusses all the pointed discussions on Hockey Stick, CRU email wording, GlacierGate, Yamal tree ring data, and the Urban Heat Island effects. You will find plenty of "red meat" about CRU tribalism, lack of williingness to release data, inadequacy of the paleoclimatic data to estimate natural variability to prove one way or another. You will also find plenty of details of who funds the denialists cabal and ridiculous PR coming from that side (e.g calling GW a "hoax"). As such both of us could use this book selectively to badmouth the other side.

But in the end Pearce knows that the manstream position is the correct one as stated in his final chapter.
Is the science of climate change fatally flawed? Have the ClimateGate revelations undermined the case that we are experiencing man-made climate chang? Absolutely not. Nothing uncovered in the mails destroys the argument that humnas are warming the planet. None of the 1073 emails, or the 3587 files containing documents, raw data and computer code upsets the 200-year-old science behind the "greenhouse effect". We might wish it weren't so, but the world still has a problem. A big problem.
... goes on to to give sound scientific reasons.

Pearce just believes the details have to be cleaned up in a very public/transparent way. I agree.

Here's the Amazon Product description:
One of the world's leading writers on climate change tells the inside story of the events leading up to the much-publicized theft of climate-change related emails. He explores the personalities involved, the feuds and disagreements at the heart of climate science, and the implications the scandal has for the future. In November 2009 it emerged that thousands of documents and emails had been stolen from one of the top climate science centers in the world. The emails appeared to reveal that scientists had twisted research in order to strengthen the case for global warming. With the UN's climate summit in Copenhagen just days away, the hack could not have happened at a worse time for climate researchers, or at a better time for climate skeptics. Although the scandal caused a media frenzy, the fact is that just about everything the public heard and read about the University of East Anglia emails is wrong. They are not, as some have claimed, the smoking gun for a great global warming hoax, nor do they reveal a sinister conspiracy by scientists to fabricate global warming data. They do, however, raise deeply disturbing questions about the way climate science is conducted, about researchers' preparedness to block access to climate data and downplay flaws in their data, and about the siege mentality and scientific tribalism at the heart of the most important international issue of the age.


After reading this I feel a thorough reconstruction of all the available "original" data needs to be done by truly independent sources from all "sides" working together. None of the three investigative teams have had the time or charter to do so. This will in all likelihood prove out the mainstream position of AGW and the need to control ghgs. But nontheless the interested public needs and deserves convincing (if such is possible).

I also would demand a opening up of the denialists club(s) email files/data (if they have any)/funding sources to similiar scrutiny, all in the interest of truth.

Most of the RW denialist club just wants to bury the GW threat at all costs; that is their goal - not the TRUTH.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:58 am

.
.
    • Another Inconvenient Astronaut: General Stafford
      What many may not know about General Stafford is that he stands as a global warming skeptic. General Stafford tells me he agrees wholeheartedly with NASA Astronaut/Geologist Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission, who has said, "The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.”

      The rich irony of course, is that Al Gore has frequently compared global warming skeptics to those that deny the moon landing. As it turns out, those who have been to the moon and back are some of the staunchest critics of such alarmism.
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Ed Edwards » Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:58 am

Tee Hee, isn't it strange how Senator Inhole hangs out with Global Cooling deniers?
I do the same thing though. I like what Baptists teach, so I hang out a lot with Baptist people. I hardly ever go to a Morman Stake Center -- i don't like so much what they talk about.
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:51 pm

David Flick wrote:.
.
    • Another Inconvenient Astronaut: General Stafford
      What many may not know about General Stafford is that he stands as a global warming skeptic. General Stafford tells me he agrees wholeheartedly with NASA Astronaut/Geologist Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission, who has said, "The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.”

      The rich irony of course, is that Al Gore has frequently compared global warming skeptics to those that deny the moon landing. As it turns out, those who have been to the moon and back are some of the staunchest critics of such alarmism.
.
.


Gee an astronaut who has been to the moon. Perhaps he was wearing his infrared goggles when he was on the moon and detected no change in the IR (that is infrared radiation) for those few hours back 25+ years ago. (TIC)

You still need to defend your overturning Doran and Anderegg's 97-98% to the 3% range and your "guarantee" of prior "overt bias" for "all" the 26 Independent Climate"Gate" Team members. (Tic Toc Tic Toc)
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:48 pm

KeithE wrote:
David Flick wrote:.
.
    • Another Inconvenient Astronaut: General Stafford
      What many may not know about General Stafford is that he stands as a global warming skeptic. General Stafford tells me he agrees wholeheartedly with NASA Astronaut/Geologist Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission, who has said, "The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.”

      The rich irony of course, is that Al Gore has frequently compared global warming skeptics to those that deny the moon landing. As it turns out, those who have been to the moon and back are some of the staunchest critics of such alarmism.

1Gee an astronaut who has been to the moon. Perhaps he was wearing his infrared goggles when he was on the moon and detected no change in the IR (that is infrared radiation) for those few hours back 25+ years ago. (TIC)

2You still need to defend your overturning Doran and Anderegg's 97-98% to the 3% range and your "guarantee" of prior "overt bias" for "all" the 26 Independent Climate"Gate" Team members. (3Tic Toc Tic Toc)

1) Yes, several astronauts have been to the moon. So far as I'm aware, there's not a single astronaut who's been to the moon and back that believes the AGW nonsense. Can you name one?

2) :lol: :lol: You're the most impatient alarmist on the globe. I've already told you that I'd have a reply for you by mid-week. Today is mid-week. I'll post my reply in about two hours...

3) Hickory Dickory Dock,
Keith ran up the clock.
The clock struck his brain,
Keith ran down!
Hickory Dickory Dock.


:wink:
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:27 am

.
.
Here's the reply that Keith couldn't seem to wait for me to write...

KeithE wrote:Global Warming Policy Foundation

1Yep, just what I thought, this Montford report was sponsored by an ideological anti-GW foundation in Britain. What do you expect but denial of the 3 Independent Team's findings. 2Most, if not all, of the Independent Teams were university professors w/o "Overt Bias" (3unless you can prove otherwise). 4Now compare that with the GWPF leader Bennie Peiser a social anthropologist and lecturer in sports exercise who said in response to James Hansen's quite restrained prediction in 2009 of 60 cm sea level rise by 2100 (note: not 7m, but 0.6m) "The [Hansen's] predictions come in thick and fast, but we take them all with a pinch of salt. We look out of the window and it’s very cold, it doesn’t seem to be warming.” 5 Real good research.
    1) The GWPF is an ideological anti-GW foundation?? Nope. It's an organization (think tank) dedicated to telling the truth about and exposing the myths of AGW. Obviously you didn't dig very deep into who they are:
    • The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity.
    • Our main purpose is to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant. Source...
    2) All three of so-called "Independent Teams" were "overtly biased." The Montford report exposed the bias of the teams.

    3) I not only can prove otherwise, I've been proving otherwise all along.

    4) Benny Peiser's quote about Hansen was spot on: ["The predictions come in thick and fast, but we take them all with a pinch of salt. We look out of the window and it’s very cold, it doesn’t seem to be warming.”]

    5) The report is excellent research if you ask me...
Note also the practices of GWPF of doing partial data presentation right in their logo:
GWPF website neglecting the large rises in 1910 -1940, 1977-1998, and in late 2009- today. Just print that subbit that shows no change and declare victory.
    Good heavens! Is that the best you can do? You criticize a tiny graph (which, BTW, happens to be correct as opposed to what the alarmists are publishing) and fail to read any of the articles.
If you believe, that a report from such an organization is significant "new information" about GW or ClimateGate, God help you.
    Yes, I believe the report. And, BTW, God is helping me debunk the propaganda every day. Here's a passage from one of the the sacred scriptures of Skeptics.
    31 Then Jesus said to those Skeptics who believed Him, “If you bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth about man-made global warming, and the truth shall make you free from all worry and fear of the propaganda of the AGWers.” [I David 8:31-32 (TEV)]
    :wink:
1But I'll read the report. 2Fred Pearce author of Climate Files (which I'm reading now) says it "has landed some good blows" in an article for the Guardian (that paper David says is one-sided). 3But I'm already skeptical about GWPF "overt bias" - in that they practice deception (e.g. their logo). Yes I do have a warranted "overt bias" against such ideological organizations that were born just to fight GW action and always telling one side of the story usually with sarcasm and overstatement (read their website). 4But I will read Montford's report for valid points made.
    1) I'm not convinced that you will actually read the report. You rarely do read (i.e . comprehend) articles to which I post links.

    2) Haven't read Pearce's book but there's no doubt that the Guardian article is partly correct. Here's an overtly AGW biased newspaper that actually admits that the Montford Report is hitting the Climategate personalities where it hurts the most. The problem, however, is that the article feebly attempts discount the blows as meaningless...

    3) Actually, the logo doesn't tell you much. As for the GWPF being an ideological organization always tells one side of the story usually with sarcasm and overstatement, you're way off the mark. While you may discount the articles on the website as being "deceptive," they contain reasoned truth.The warmists are blind to the fact that the truth about man-made global warming is steadily being exposed. They are blind to the fact that they have been so gullible that they believe the false prophets of AGW gloom & doom. Time is on the side of the skeptics. Roy Spencer's quote (my tag line) is closer to reality than ever before.

    4) Montford is an authority on Climategate. Apparently, you didn't research Montford to know who he is. I'm fairly certain you didn't inasmuch as you failed mention the fact that he authored The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Science of Corruption, which happens to be the one of the best books yet to be written about Michael Mann's infamous hockey stick graph. Montford's alarmist critics are falling all over themselves in attempts to discredit the book, but their efforts fall short.

1David, you will find some red meat in Climate Files about CRU practices/lack of transparency, but in the end you should see the DATA is still good and GW is a strong threat to be dealt with. 2Recommend you read it (all of it, not just tantalizing tidbits to your taste). It is the most unbiased account I can find about ClimateGate other than maybe the Scientific Appraisal Team final report 3(Pearce is a little harder on the CRU crowd for lack of transparency and fighting the release of data to the skeptics but even more sure that the basis for AGW is sound).
    1) I'm not interested in AGW "red meat" propaganda. I'm interested in the truth. From the way you describe the book, it sounds as though it's written from the typical alarmist view. Any book that claims "GW is a strong threat to be dealt with" is going to be biased toward alarmist propaganda. The fact of the matter is that GW is no threat to anyone or anything.

    2) If you say the book is "unbiased," about Climategate, that's enough for me to to know that it's strongly biased toward AGW. I may get around to reading it one of these days, but I have plenty of good reading to get done before I get to it. I'm currently reading Global Warming False Alarm: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations' Assertion that Man-made CO2 Causes Global Warming. I've read about half of it. Excellent book...

    3) So you say that Pearce is "unbiased about Climategate" but is "sure that the basis for AGW is sound?" That's totally incongruous. If he's unbiased about the Climategate scandal, how could he possibly be so sure that the basis for AGW is sound. Ridiculous. Doesn't make sense...
1Now, David, what about Doran/Anderegg? and the demonstration of "overt biases" in all the 26 Independent Team members? 2Take responsibility for what you say.
    1) Keith, I've already posted two extensive responses on the Doran/Zimmerman survey (here and here). In those two posts I clearly showed that the Doran/Zimmerman (97% consensus) survey is 100% propaganda. I'm not going to waste time repeating what I've already written. I stand by what I wrote. There's not a single credible survey anywhere on the planet that supports Doran/Zimmerman survey.

    As for the Anderegg/Schneider survey, it's also AGW a propaganda piece. The so-called "survey" was published by the National Academy Science. The NAS, an organization of which Stephen "Schneider" of Anderegg/Schneider was a member, is totally in the tank for AGW alarmism. Back in February, I wrote a long post that exposed the NAS as the alarmist group that it is. You can read the about it in
    point (1) in this post.

    More about Stephen Schneider, the principal contributor of the Anderegg/Schneider survey. Schneider is the wamist who, together with several others, authored the "survey." It's a feeble attempt to prop up the Doran/Zimmerman survey. It appears to be a peer-reviewed article but is, rather, a propaganda piece. Prior to his recent death, Schneider was one of the most vocal radical AGW alarmist on the scene.

    IN May of 2009, Schneider boasted that he could he could 'slaughter skeptical scientists in public debate. Not long before his death, he answered questions to a room full of skeptics at a university in Australia. He got hammered and didn't realize it.

    You may or may not recall that Schneider was originally a global cooling alarmist. During the Ice Age Scare of the 1970s, he was one of it's foremost advocates. He published a book titled "The Genesis Strategy" at this time, warning of the coming glaciation, and wrote glowing a testimonial on the back cover of a popular `Ice Age' book of the time - (Ponte, Lowell. "The Cooling", Prentice Hall, N.J., USA, 1976), in which the author claimed that the climatic cooling from 1940 to the 1970s was but the precursor to the main event - the coming Ice Age. In 1971, he claimed that an 800% increase in CO2 would be needed to raise global temperature by +2 deg. By the late 1980s, he promoted the UN view that a mere 100% increase in CO2 would be enough to raise temperature by +1.5 to +4 deg. He promoted the idea that the next Ice Age was imminent. However, when catastrophic global cooling didn't pan out, he changed his alarmist tune. By the mid-1980's and into the 1990s, he equally vigorously promoted the idea that world was about to suffer a catastrophe caused by Global Warming.
    (You can read about Schneider here) He couldn't make up his mind on which climate catastrophe to to champion. First it was global cooling. Then it was man-made global warming. He was wrong on global cooling and he was wrong on global warming.

    The bottom line is "Schneider" of the Anderegg/Schneider survey was basically an environmentalist wacko. His contribution to the defense of the Doran/Zimmerman survey confirms that it was little more than propaganda. He was determined to help "prove" that the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus was valid. Heck, Easteregg, Friedegg, Boiledegg, Scrambledegg, et. al. could have done a better job of proving a 97% consensus than Anderegg, Schneider, et. al. did. :wink:

    2) I take full responsibility for for everything I say. Why would I not?
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron