[Archived] Climate Change

[otto man]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html

Nice people you work with Pg.

[pg]

LOL you believe what is written in the Murdoch Press.

"And in other breaking news, old retired Meteorological Professor gets upset when a rubbish paper gets rejected by a journal"

I'll come back to this report in due course once all the facts are out, and you can see for yourself what a bizarre anti-science agenda the Murdoch Press pursues.

[Steve Moss]

That's your rebuttal? A feeble effort at character assassination and an appeal to tribalism?

Here's a hint. Character assassination can work as a debate tactic if the accuser is credible and respected. But since you ducked Otto's questions as to your identity and qualifications, its not an effective tool for you.

The Murdoch line was a good touch, however. It should appeal to about half the voting public as it will appeal to their political sensibilities. Which kind of proves the skeptics point that the climate change debate seems more about politics and less about science.

[pg]

It didn't take long. The journal replied to the Times article including the full referee report. This completely contradicts what The Times reported.

The Professor himself stated

“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.

“I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters reviewer’s comments suggested his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence. Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers’ comments in full. I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work.

“I was surprised by the strong reaction from some scientists outside the UK to joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation this month. I had hoped that it would be platform to bring more common sense into the global climate debate.

“Academic freedom is a central aspect to life at University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.”

What a surprise, News Corp (a corrupt corporation run by criminals) cherry picks a few quotes and publishes spin and nonsense in order to advance its agenda.

I have no idea why in the UK of all places someone would be so quick to believe anything published by News Corp but remain deeply suspicious of The Royal Society, The British Institute of Physics or any other reputable public institution committed to scientific enquiry and investigation.

[pg]

(1) No! It's you who's missed the point. We are all aware that climate change is happening there is no disputing that. The point of this thread was/is to discuss the level of mans influence on it.(Can I suggest you go back and read the thread title again? Only properly this time!) if any. There are those within the scientific community who agree with you and those who don't and to what level you or they are right or wrong is what this thread has been about.( Within a lay persons understanding of course) in conjunction with how political bias influences those findings(if indeed at all)

That is not true. Many people dispute the basic laws of physics which underpin the theory of AGW. Many influential people claim that climate change is not happening. These practitioners of pseudo-science are often members of influential corporate lobby groups such as Heartland and GWPF. They include Ian Plimer, Bob Carter

It's important to note that people like Plimer and Carter are no-longer members of the 'scientific community'. They no longer publish papers on climate science or purse evidence-based investigations. (Ian Plimer has never publised a paper on climate science). Instead they write books, op-eds for News Ltd publications and present information on behalf of their lobby group funders.

(a)Now please direct me to my post which made any such claim

You made no claim in your post, but all psuedo-scientists and charlatans peddle conspiracy theories in one form or another. The only way to ignore the huge body of evidence formed over the past 40 years, is to claim that people are making it up. Anthony Watts and Joe D'Aleo made the following accusations back in 2010 on behalf of a lobby group, The Science and Public Policy Institute. They wrote

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.

This claim was laughably incorrect, as it violates the basics of the Earth's radiation budget and basic mathematics.

In a follow up, Joe D'Aleo wrote

Recent revelations from the Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers most notably NOAA and NASA conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.

Lunatic conspiracy theorist Christopher Monckton wrote last year on Anthony Watt's website that the IPCC should be prosecuted for fraud

Hal Lewis from the GWPF claimed that the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist

Roy Spencer has made multiple claims that the IPCC is a "an organization that was political in its intended purpose, with the ultimate mission of regulating CO2 emissions, and operates within an echo chamber of like-minded individuals who are chosen based upon their political support of the IPCCs goals."

He's also likened 'alarmist' scientists to Nazis with a claim that people with PhDs are inherently aligned with fascists.

David Evans who has made presentations for Heartland and written many op-eds for Murdoch papers claims that the [url=http://sciencespeak.com/ManufacturingMoneyAndGW.pdf]Rothschilds[/ulr] and other members of the paper aristocracy are behind the push for global emissions trading schemes to initiate hyper-inflation to create a massive financial crash so they seize all our assets when they re-introduce the gold standard.

The psychology of science denial (not just global warming, but AIDS, vaccination, smoking and lung cancer etc) is quite fascinating, as is its links to conspiratorial thinking.

[Steve Moss]

Science denial? Is that akin to denying the one true faith (whatever that may be) and result in one being declared an apostate?

Are you seriously contending that AGW science is as settled as traditional physics? You really have drank the Kool-Aid.

As to your cherry picking 2 of the list I provided, howaboit I call and raise with the head of the IPCC, Pachuuri, a railroad engineer who declared the Himalayas would be melted in a few years? I'll also toss in the infamous, and made up hockey stick graph.

The IPCC's reports are vetted and edited by politicians and are as about as credible. Nothing is "settled" in science, including elements of physics.

[Steve Moss]

One of the founders of Greenpeace is very sensible about climate change:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

[otto man]

One of the founders of Greenpeace is very sensible about climate change:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

Steve whatever you do, don't show this to PG. We'll get a whole round of lectures.....Again!

[Steve Moss]

Another hiccup with the alleged man-made global warming.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/

[Baz]

Another hiccup with the alleged man-made global warming.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/

Proof?

[Steve Moss]

The links to the data are in the article. The raw data relied upon is from the United States Historical Climatology Network.

[Paul]

Steve you seem to be basing your argument on two sentences from a climate sceptic who from what I can see on Wikipedia has no qualifications in this area. The author writes a blog, that's all.

Can you provide the support for Goddard's statements?

"They (NOAA) accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees."

"The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming."

There is no evidence in the article to support these statements, just a couple of graphs with no references links etc.

Or is it sufficient to reach s conclusion on climate change by simply stating a federal agency falsifies 50% of its data? If so why di this?

[ultrablue]

That last graph is pretty funny. Reminds me of this

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c91/jerseymikepa/image013.jpg

[Steve Moss]

Paul:

1. I believe he's an engineer, same as Pachauri who used to run the IPCC. If you concede Pachauri has no qualifications to interpret climate data, I'll do the same.

2. Why are the climate lemmings changing terminology from "global warming" to "climate change"?

[Paul]

1. Yes both are engineers but only one makes an unsubstantiated claim that the NOAA falsifies 50% of its' data. If he can't provide evidence to prove this his article becomes highly questionable.

2. Climate change and global warming are two different phenomena. My understanding is global warming occurs when greenhouse gases trap heat which would otherwise radiate in to space. Climate change is a consequence of global warming. As climate change is the consequence we will experience it seems sensible for scientists to discuss this rather than global warming which is something we won't directly experience.

[Baz]

The links to the data are in the article. The raw data relied upon is from the United States Historical Climatology Network.[/size]

Ooh now you have put it in bigger text I believe you.

So, can you point out the factual proof that there is falsification of data. I cant see it.

[Steve Moss]

First, "your" engineer has been documented as making unsubstantiated claims for years. Remember the melting Himalayas controversy (lie and/or mistake)? And he was (mis) reading his organization's data.

By contrast, Steven Goddard's site plots the raw data and then draws conclusions from the plotted raw data. He provided you a link so you could check his work, if you so desired. His position is supported. Closing your eyes and claiming that's nothing been proven is not science, is not inquiry, and is not reasonable debate.

Second, it's amusing that the climate change crowd wants to embrace both global warming (which is under fire) but switch the phrase to "climate change" (likely to hedge their best in case it's actually global cooling). One thing is for certain, there is climate change because there is always climate change, whether warming or cooling. It's a non-nonsensical term. It certainly doesn't mean we use flawed data to empower government to correct what may well be a naturally occurring phenomenon, at the cost of jobs and standard of living.

As to fiddled data:

Here's a Telegraph article on the subject: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

And here's Dr. Curry's recent comments: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04/17/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-rips-manufactured-consensus-human-influence-is-not-dominating-over-natural-climate-variability/

Ooh now you have put it in bigger text I believe you.


So, can you point out the factual proof that there is falsification of data. I cant see it.

I copied it from their website. That's why it's in that font.

He linked to the raw data. Show me where he's wrong.

[Baz]

He linked to the raw data. Show me where he's wrong.

I can't download the data as its in .gz format whatever that may be.

However, we've crossed paths on this before, my opinion is to believe the experts until the science proves them wrong above and beyond a geology and electrical engineer graduate.

The fact his website is flying the confederate flag at this moment, shows to me that there's probably something more political to his belief than just wanting the truth.

[Steve Moss]

^ Fair enough.

Dr. Curry is. however, an expert.

Not that it means anything. I think "experts" are not as expert as they would have most people think.

[Paul]

Like Baz I can't open those links. To progress thid let's assume Goddard is correct, is he or anyone providing reasons why a federal body is falsifying information some of which, I presume, is being used to support US policy? Presumably decision makers are aware?

The Telegraph article, as with Goddard, tells us data is at best being manipulated and likely completely falsified. An explanation would help because we are being asked to believe, by sceptics, that the bulk of the scientific community is happy to work with false data. If true the question is why? Do the sceptics give this reason?

Reading Steve Goddard's Wiki suggests things are not quite as black and white as he claims https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard

Judith Curry is stated as describing Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus"

I think but I'm not certain Goddard has links to The Heartland Institute, for many that would be enough.

Christopher Booker also questions the link between passive smoking and cancer, BSE and the threat posed by asbestos. He also championed the case of Victoria Haigh.

I thought the Judith Curry genuinely very interesting. From what I gather from her report to Congress she does not deny but questions the level of impact/contribution of man to global warmimg.

Clearly climate change is always taking place. What some polar ice studies have shown is this change can be very rapud,decades, and correlates with increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Why is it when you acknowledge climate change had always taken place you then describe it as "nonsensical"

I'd also like to understand why you find it necessary to usevthe language you do about the climate change "crowd?" It makes your view, just as with Goddard, questionable. Insulting people doesn't make them wrong or give credibility to the argument.

[Paul]

I've spent more time reading the whole of the Judith Curry presentation to Congress. It really is very interesting and informative. I'd suggest it would make good reading for anyone interested in the subject. Myself I feel reading the whole article is necessary to understand what she is saying.

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/house-science-testimony-apr-15-final.pdf

However I would suggest the quotes used in the links provided by Steve Moss are highly selective with the intention of poo-pooing those who are concerned about climate change and the importance of man's influence. It is certainly true Curry questions man's dominant role but she does not appear to discount it entirely. She goes on to draw important conclusions, rather than headline grabbers, which seem to be ignored in favour of discrediting the lemmings:

Conclusion by Curry

There is reason to be concerned about climate change. However, effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions. Uncertainty is a two edged sword; future climate outcomes might be better or worse than currently believed. However, recent research has sharpened the blade of the sword in the direction of less impact from human-caused climate change and greater political and economic infeasibility of meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions.

Therefore, I am concerned that the proposed U.S. INDC to address the perceived problems of climate change will do essentially nothing to change the climate, and the U.S. and other nations will remain vulnerable to climate surprises and extreme weather events.

The framing of the climate change problem by the UNFCCC/IPCC and the early articulation of a preferred policy option has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.

The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Arguably the biggest problem with climate policy has been an overly narrow set of narratives and policy options. Expanding the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and its relation to other societal problems can lead to developing a range of more tractable policy options that would provide policy makers with a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change.

[jim mk2]

In other words, climate change is complex and not as black and white as would appear by the arguments of either the pro-climate change "lemmings" or the anti "flat earthers" (Obama's words). My problem with Goddard and anti-climate change people like him is their stance is driven not by science or facts or data but by politics (the Confederate flag gives a clue) and their ideological desire to keep government out of the way of business and their pursuit at any cost of money and profit (dressed up as jobs and standard of living).

[speeeeeeedie]

In other words, climate change is complex and not as black and white as would appear by the arguments of either the pro-climate change "lemmings" or the anti "flat earthers" (Obama's words). My problem with Goddard and anti-climate change people like him is their stance is driven not by science or facts or data but by politics (the Confederate flag gives a clue) and their ideological desire to keep government out of the way of business and their pursuit at any cost of money and profit (dressed up as jobs and standard of living).

It's not often I agree with your politics but do here.

I lost energy years ago trying to debate USA right wingers. I came to the conclusion that is wasn't worth the effort. Paul, Baz, etc, please keep it up.

[Steve Moss]

Clearly climate change is always taking place. What some polar ice studies have shown is this change can be very rapud,decades, and correlates with increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Why is it when you acknowledge climate change had always taken place you then describe it as "nonsensical"

I'd also like to understand why you find it necessary to usevthe language you do about the climate change "crowd?" It makes your view, just as with Goddard, questionable. Insulting people doesn't make them wrong or give credibility to the argument.

The last paragraph first. When dismissed as a "right winger" (a theme for quite awhile now), I tend to become dismissive in turn.

We agree that "climate change" is taking place because it is always taking place. If every single human being died tomorrow, climate change would still take place and will continue to take place (flowing between cold and warm) until the end of time.

What we don't agree on is what to do about it. I say do nothing. Three reasons:

1. We don't know whether climate change is mostly man-made or natural.

2. We don't know whether our actions would make things better or worse, a point made by Curry.

3. Our data, and interpretations of that data, are evidently not the best (see, Himalayas; see also, consent failures of computer models to understand climate).

As a final point, on another thread there are complaints about 4,000 lost jobs. Enact the climate change proposals and that will be a drop in the bucket.

[Paul]

I doubt you'll find a post from me dismissing you or anyone else as a right winger, though I do consider your views to be in that direction.

Perhaps you can afford me the same courtesy.

I feel you've missed my main point, and I did take the trouble to read a 14 page document, which is that Curry, who you cited to make your point, is in fact calling for wider and deeper debate so the correct actions can be taken in relation to climate change.

I haven't seen the post about 4000 jobs. I don't know whether or not climate change action will cost jobs.