David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:1Least 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). 2And 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.
We've been over this before. Your so-called "data" comes from this article
. The article, which was supposed to be a scientific paper but in reality is an AGW propaganda piece
, was generated by a couple of radical pro-AGWers (Peter Doran and a graduate student assistant, Maggy Zimmerman
). Doran is a frequent contributor to the radical AGW website, RealClimate.org
Keith, verified data supporting AGW from independent reviewers simply do not exist. There are virtually no "independent" reviewers who support AGW. I challenge you to name a single "independent" reviewer who verifies data supporting something (AGW) that doesn't exist. I can guarantee you that whoever you name as an "independent" reviewer can be traced back one way or another directly to AGW supporters.3)
Now back to your claim about the data supporting the 97%... After Doran and Zimmerman published their paper, SkepticalScience.Org website (another radical AGW website which you are fond of quoting
) sallied forth with this article
. The people at Skeptical Science attempted to interpret what Doran & Zimmerman had written and published three graphs which proported show that 97% of all scientists believe in AGW. However, what SkepticalScience doesn't say is that the 97% "consensus" is only 75 self-selected climatologists. In Doran & Zimmerman's paper, a survey with an invitation to respond was sent to 10,257 earth scientists. Amazingly, only 79 of the 10,257 scientists chose to respond. And of the 79 climate scientists who did respond, 75 scientists responded affirmatively to the notion of AGW. (Source...
) Now you tell me how in the name of sanity, anyone can conclude that 75 out of 10,257 climate scientists can possibly equal 97%. 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.
: Boy, has David misunderstood the Doran/Zimmerman polling DATA. It shows both how DATA-challenged he is and how blinded he has become in his anti-GW zeal. And done with such sarcasm. Well uh ... maybe the egg on David's face will cover what should be his embarrassment.
Here is the Doran/Zimmerman article
. Please read it (its not long) and their polling DATA (augmented by a 2008 Gallup poll to represent the public) is given below
They did indeed send out 10,257 invitations
Doran/Zimmerman wrote:An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.
That's about all David got right.
Doran/Zimmerman wrote:With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%.
Not bad, poll response. Terrible accounting by David saying only 79 responded.
The two questions asked were:
Doran/Zimmerman wrote: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?
The results from the 3146 respondees (all "earth scientists") are:
Doran/Zimmerman wrote:Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2.
Doran/Zimmerman wrote:While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well- documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.
Doran/Zimmerman then categorized these respondents by their level of specialization in climatology and their recent publishing topics. To be in the most knowledgable category "Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" one had to demonstrate:
Doran/Zimmerman wrote: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).
That's where the 79 came in - those that were climatologists by trade and published in GW made the most knowledgeable category.
Out of those 79 most qualified scientists
Doran/Zimmerman wrote:Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
Apparently 2 of them answered question 1 but didn't answer question 2.
So how does David twist these plainly stated facts about the Doran/Zimmerman poll:
No David, 3146 earth scientists responded
In Doran & Zimmerman's paper, a survey with an invitation to respond was sent to 10,257 earth scientists. Amazingly, only 79 of the 10,257 scientists chose to respond
. And of the 79 climate scientists who did respond, 75 scientists responded affirmatively to the notion of AGW.
) Now you tell me how in the name of sanity, anyone can conclude that 75 out of 10,257 climate scientists can possibly equal 97%
. 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.
.No David, 75 out of 77 (= 97.4%) of the most highly qualified/knowledgeable climatologists affirm AGW
not 75 out of 10,257 ( 0.73%) as your "hockeyschlict" source twists it.
Twist is too mild of a term - turning 97.4% into less than 1%. And David falls for it and is so sure of himself he gets sarcastic
It is also important to know a very similiar study was done early this year by Anderegg, etal for the National Academy of Sciences. Here's the the full report
and here the abstract.
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers
ACC and AGW are synomynous. Doran/Zimmerman had it 97.4% while Anderegg/Schneider had it at 97-98%. Excellent agreement, different datasets. And notice the population of the Anderegg scientists included those associated with dissenting organizations as seen at Supplemental Information
Now does this mean, 97.4% or 97-98% all believe in all fine points about GW science or policy? No but most (97%+) are AGW (aka ACC) . There are certainly differences of opinion among the scientists particularly about policy. Take John Christy as an example. He believes that the earth has warmed and that human beings have caused that warming. He just doesn't think that CO2 is the main conributor - more land use factors. And he does not think it is castatrophic right now and is against regulation of CO2. Some quotes from Christy
In a 2003 interview with National Public Radio about the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he [Christy] said: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."
In a 2009 written testimony to the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, he wrote: "From my analysis, the actions being considered to 'stop global warming' will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming."
From talking with him personally I can reaffirm that he is very bothered about agricultural land use factors going back to his days growing up in Fresno (central valley of CA).
If Christy was one of the respondees, he would have been classified as a "Climatologist who is an active publisher on climate change". If he were to be cosistent with his statements above and what he told me, he would have answered questions 1. "risen"* and question 2. "yes".
*He is a good Baptist.
One more thing to clear up in the Skeptical Science article
on the Doran/Zimmerman poll. They do say the 97% applies to the most actively publishing climate scientists underneath the larger result in the fine print
Surveys have found that over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures (Doran 2009). Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups (Anderegg 2010).
And in the large print SkepticalScience says it is 97% of "climate
scientists think global warming is significantly due to human activity" not as David claims SkepticalScience says "that 97% of all
scientists believe in AGW". Strawman argumentation David and it shows how you misunderstand DATA (again).
OK, on to David's paragraph 2).
David wrote:2) Keith, verified data supporting AGW from independent reviewers simply do not exist. There are virtually no "independent" reviewers who support AGW. I challenge you to name a single "independent" reviewer who verifies data supporting something (AGW) that doesn't exist. I can guarantee you that whoever you name as an "independent" reviewer can be traced back one way or another directly to AGW supporters.
The so-called ClimateGate incident (theft of 13 years of private emails and selectively leaked the most damning (<1%) of them) 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. But impotantly the DATA was give a clean bill of health after thorough review back to its original readings.
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)
Team 2 was an International Team headed by Dr. Ron Oxburgh (Univ of Liverpool) and foussed on statistical 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.
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.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.
The ClimateGate incident was what I had in mind but the GISS and other data has also been questioned earlier often by the same ardent people (McIntyre, McKitrict, Michaels, Watts). Their argumnets have been effectively rebutted as well.
The GISS data was questioned for it's handling of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect by McKitrict (economics professor) and Michaels (Cato Institute) in 2007. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGR07-background.pdfA Gavin Schmidt article
and the IPCC 2007 have both effectively answered that non-issue. IPCC 2007 UHI conclusion:
Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have not biased the large-scale trends. A number of recent studies
indicate that effects of urbanisation and land use change on the land-based temperature record are negligible (0.006ºC per
decade) as far as hemispheric- and continental-scale averages are concerned because the very real but local effects are
avoided or accounted for in the data sets used. In any case, they are not present in the SST component of the record.
I notice that the McKitrict and Michaels article is playing games when they say in their conclusion:
M&M wrote:We can use the statistical model to estimate what the observed temperature trends would have been if
everyone had as good circumstances for monitoring climate as the US does. The average trend at the
surface in the post-1980 interval would fall from about 0.30 degrees (C) per decade to about 0.17
degrees. This shows that the problems identified in the statistical model add up to a net warming bias,
and its removal could explain as much as half the recent warming over land.
They do not reference anywhere in their papers where the 0.30C/decade came from. Their estimate of the trend being 0.17C/decade is within the uncertainty in the real trend data - remember the range of 0.162 to 0.236 C/decade. UHI is no where near that much difference (0.30 to 0.17, almost half attributable to UHI, so they say when they dream up what they say the supposedly "UHI corrupted" trend is). Rigorous studies show that difference to be 0.006C/decade and even that is accounted for in the real data trends.
The GISS data was also claimed to be "corrupted by Y2K" effects by McIntyre. That proved to be imperceptible differences.
The paleoclimatic data by Mann was challenged by McIntyre and McKittrict for the statistics techniques used (dropping of too many eigenvalues in prncipal component analysis). This cahllenge was actual right to a point (but not the major point that Mann was making). Mann has corrected the version that made light of the MWP; but his major point (that hockey stick blade) still is there showing a the rapid rise since 1900 (just the stick is not straight as before in medievel Europe at least). Need I repeat that plot
Now on to David's paragraph 1) which I'll repeat here for easy viewing:
David, I will use good measurement DATA from whatever source it comes from - even Roy Spencer's data, it is quite good, reported daily, good Signal to Noise ratio (SNR), well calibrated, averaged over several sensors. Good DATA does not lie (although just like the Bible, it can be misinterpreted and deliberate cherry picking is fraudalent). You should do the same and not let the results color your view of data quality. The Doran DATA was a large sample of the active publishers/climatologists, and unlike the Oregon Petition, the questions were not in any way "leading", it is up to date, and counts answers no matter what the respondent said - not just a count of the answers they wanted (iow, it was not a poll).
Propaganda pieces are often marked by the adjectives used. Where in the Doran/Zimmerman article do you see anything but objective writing? True it was not what I would call a scientific paper (and never claims to be) but instead a report of a survey on scientific opinions and done with forthright honesty. And their findings have been pretty much duplicated by a later similar research (Anderegg/Schneider et.al). They do not use terms like you are very prone to do (e.g. "radical pro-AGWers") or Anthony Watts does all the time. Those terms are sure signs of frustration in that they have to resort to incendiary verbiage instead of DATA (hey, I guess I'm guilty by using the term "denialist", but so be it!). Doran/Zimmerman do not twist the data, as your HockeySchlitck source did (blantantly turning a 97.4% into a <1% claim). Now there's a piece of propaganda!
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.