From Climategate to Denialgate

karma_

Valmont wrote: »

Peer reviewed science isn't as straight forward as "does it or doesn't it" in any matter, be it climate change or cognitive psychology so I think you misunderstand the process. There are many legitimate questions to be asked of the climate change lobby (or religion or whatever they call themselves): for example, shouldn't we expect more results demonstrating evidence for AGW when saying anything to the contrary would seriously damage one's career? Ability to gain funding for research?

What about Benny Peiser's objection to Naomi Oreskes paper on the peer-reviewed evidence for and against? What about the fact that Nature refused to publish his letter?

There is so much fishiness going on with the AGW lobby, their funding, their journals, and their emails, that any self-respecting scientist would be mad not to dig deeper.

You say it's healthy but I'm guessing my refusal to spout the party line when referencing one case of a "skeptic" questioning the evidence as above, will end up with me being lumped in with the bastardly dishonest bloggers.

I misunderstand the process? You misunderstand science. Peer review is at the heart of scientific study and evaluation, scepticism isn't just looking at the data and wagging your finger, you have to prove empirically what you are saying.

It's not about party lines and opinion, it's about provable fact, and that is what makes the likes of these think tanks dishonest, and by extension those who repeat the same old tripe.

As things stand on the question of mans influence on climate change - "no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion".

Mr.Micro

Valmont wrote: »

Ha! Just like the fifty million climate refugees who didn't appear in 2010? When should we expect the next batch of non-existent millions to vanish?

You can dismiss it all you like, but who knows what may happen in the future with regard to climate change. Predictions are just that, predictions. The 50 million refugees or more, may well happen in time. There is one thing being a skeptic but another to be in complete denial, and the likes of the Heartland Institute promoting the latter is just downright irresponsible.

BluntGuy

Valmont wrote: »

What about Benny Peiser's objection to Naomi Oreskes paper on the peer-reviewed evidence for and against? What about the fact that Nature refused to publish his letter?

My understanding is that Benny Peiser has since retracted his claim that 34 peer reviewed papers were "explicitly disagreeing", as wikipedia puts it, with the AGW consensus, after it was found that his objections did not hold up to scrutiny.

An excellent article on this, along with the abstracts of the research in question can be found here

You'll have to do a bit better than that I'm afraid.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

BluntGuy wrote: »

My understanding is that Benny Peiser has since retracted his claim that 34 peer reviewed papers were "explicitly disagreeing", as wikipedia puts it, with the AGW consensus, after it was found that his objections did not hold up to scrutiny.

An excellent article on this, along with the abstracts of the research in question can be found here

You'll have to do a bit better than that I'm afraid.

He has far from "retracted his claim", downgraded maybe, but his point still stands. Oreskes' conclusion that there were Zero dissenting peer-reviewed papers was incorrect. And I was more concerned with the fact that Nature didn't even publish his letter. The science of AGW aside, I see dissent and conflicting information being hidden, distorted, and encouraged away--that isn't healthy science.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Typical deflection, let's overlook the immoral practices of the HI and instead concentrate on one document that may or may not be fake. You're losing sight of the real problem here.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluntGuy

Valmont wrote: »

He has far from "retracted his claim", downgraded maybe, but his point still stands. Oreskes' conclusion that there were Zero dissenting peer-reviewed papers was incorrect. And I was more concerned with the fact that Nature didn't even publish his letter. The science of AGW aside, I see dissent and conflicting information being hidden, distorted, and encouraged away--that isn't healthy science.

Well he "downgraded" his claim from 34 papers, to 1, making his original claim, as someone pointed out, about 97.06% less correct. A somewhat ironic figure one might argue. I don't consider deliberate misrepresentation to be "healthy science".

If you ran a publication and someone sent you a piece of credulous rubbish, that falls apart under the most basic of scrutiny, would you not think twice about publishing it and instead dedicating space to better letters?

In a general context, "dissent and conflicting information being hidden, distorted and encouraged away" is better replaced most often with "myths that have been debunked countless times not being given the airtime their proponents think they deserve".

Valmont

BluntGuy wrote: »

Well he "downgraded" his claim from 34 papers, to 1, making his original claim, as someone pointed out, about 97.06% less correct. A somewhat ironic figure one might argue. I don't consider deliberate misrepresentation to be "healthy science".

There was more than that in Peiser's essay:

One of his main points of criticism is that the vast majority of the abstracts referred to in the study do not mention anthropogenic climate change, and only 13 of the 928 abstracts explicitly endorse what Oreskes called the "consensus view".[11] Peiser later admitted that it was a mistake to include one of the papers in his survey and said that his main criticism of Oreskes's essay its "claim of a unanimous consensus on APG [anthropogenic global warming (as opposed to a majority consensus) is tenuous" and that it still was valid.[12]

Deliberate misrepresentation? Is that healthy science, calling people who disagree liars? Perhaps you can see my problem here.

BluntGuy

Valmont wrote: »

There was more than that in Peiser's essay:

One of his main points of criticism is that the vast majority of the abstracts referred to in the study do not mention anthropogenic climate change, and only 13 of the 928 abstracts explicitly endorse what Oreskes called the "consensus view".[11] Peiser later admitted that it was a mistake to include one of the papers in his survey and said that his main criticism of Oreskes's essay its "claim of a unanimous consensus on APG [anthropogenic global warming (as opposed to a majority consensus) is tenuous" and that it still was valid.[12]

Except Oreskes didn't claim "unanimous consensus" anywhere in the article. Here's a link to it, find me where it says that.

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Further still, skip down to page 69 of this document for a more complete explanation of her findings.

And even if 34 papers had been found explicitly disagreeing with the consensus position, how does that challenge the notion that there is a scientific consensus? His findings are utterly insignificant.

Deliberate misrepresentation? Is that healthy science, calling people who disagree liars? Perhaps you can see my problem here.

He made a set of claims based on misrepresenting the content in Oreskes' article. The only problem I see here is Peiser making a big deal of a total non-issue in order to drum up doubt. And if his directorship of the Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank, an organisation of dubious integrity, and pieces such as this are taken into account, it would seem there is more a political agenda to his anti-climate change campaign, than a scientific one. Especially when the "science" he produces is of such poor quality.

Scofflaw

Valmont wrote:

Peer reviewed science isn't as straight forward as "does it or doesn't it" in any matter, be it climate change or cognitive psychology so I think you misunderstand the process. There are many legitimate questions to be asked of the climate change lobby (or religion or whatever they call themselves): for example, shouldn't we expect more results demonstrating evidence for AGW when saying anything to the contrary would seriously damage one's career? Ability to gain funding for research?

Valmont wrote: »

He has far from "retracted his claim", downgraded maybe, but his point still stands. Oreskes' conclusion that there were Zero dissenting peer-reviewed papers was incorrect. And I was more concerned with the fact that Nature didn't even publish his letter. The science of AGW aside, I see dissent and conflicting information being hidden, distorted, and encouraged away--that isn't healthy science.

I always enjoy the combined argument that there is peer-reviewed science that contradicts the consensus, that there are scientists who oppose it...and that simultaneously nobody dare speak against it.

Perhaps there just isn't much contradictory science because there isn't much contradictory science. And perhaps that's why outfits like HI put money into repeatedly saying there's a "scientific controversy" - because without that money it would be obvious there isn't. After all, if climate change were really a hoax it should be easy to show it - yet the contradictory science isn't there.

amused,
Scofflaw

MungBean

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you accept the documents and proclaim them to be nothing you didnt already know and that the HI is quite entitled to do those things because that is their purpose.

Then when Scofflaw points out that the fact that this is their purpose destroys them as credible opponents to research into climate change you proclaim the documents to be fake and as such the entire discussion to be nullified ?

:rolleyes:

Memnoch

MungBean wrote: »

So you accept the documents and proclaim them to be nothing you didnt already know and that the HI is quite entitled to do those things because that is their purpose.

Then when Scofflaw points out that the fact that this is their purpose destroys them as credible opponents to research into climate change you proclaim the documents to be fake and as such the entire discussion to be nullified ?

:rolleyes:

It's not the argument, or the facts or the science that matters. Only the ideology.

karma_

Memnoch wrote: »

It's not the argument, or the facts or the science that matters. Only the ideology.

It also makes talking to people who hold that viewpoint an exercise in futility, because if they can't even acknowledge science based information then what is the point? as you say, it's completely ideological.

Scofflaw

karma_ wrote: »

It also makes talking to people who hold that viewpoint an exercise in futility, because if they can't even acknowledge science based information then what is the point? as you say, it's completely ideological.

It's quite bizarre, really, since for climate change science to be a hoax, it would require a similar or even greater conspiracy than faked Moon landings - yet I suspect that none of those who have posted here would have any difficulty dismissing the idea of faked Moon landings as utterly farcical.

'Faking' Moon landings: millions of dollars, thousands of people in conspiracy over decades in one country. Reaction: point and laugh.

'Faking' climate change: millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of people in conspiracy over decades in multiple countries. Reaction: swallow whole.

There's a "priceless" motivational poster in there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Valmont

Scofflaw wrote: »

'Faking' climate change: millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of people in conspiracy over decades in multiple countries. Reaction: swallow whole.

Millions of dollars in research grants and juicy jobs on governmental panels just to fix up certain trends? Like the climategate emails showing how little exaggerations here and there are needed to keep the show on the road? I also like the subtle shift in terminology from "Global Warming" (that didn't work) to "Climate Change" (anything can be called in as evidence).

Scientists repeat party line, scientists get lots of grant money, it's not that complicated really. Especially when said party line gives the government new reasons to trample all over individual rights even more than they already do. As they say in The Wire, follow the money.

Edit: I don't know much about the science of climate change and what it means but what I do know is a sneaky power grab when I see one. As do some of these scientists such as Lindzen speaking out against the stifling of the debate.

Mr.Micro

Valmont wrote: »

Millions of dollars in research grants and juicy jobs on governmental panels just to fix up certain trends? Like the climategate emails showing how little exaggerations here and there are needed to keep the show on the road? I also like the subtle shift in terminology from "Global Warming" (that didn't work) to "Climate Change" (anything can be called in as evidence).

Scientists repeat party line, scientists get lots of grant money, it's not that complicated really. Especially when said party line gives the government new reasons to trample all over individual rights even more than they already do. As they say in The Wire, follow the money.

Edit: I don't know much about the science of climate change and what it means but what I do know is a sneaky power grab when I see one. As do some of these scientists such as Lindzen speaking out against the stifling of the debate.

Do you personally think that there will be climate change in the near future due to mans pollution of the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts?

RichieC

Valmont wrote: »

Millions of dollars in research grants and juicy jobs on governmental panels just to fix up certain trends? Like the climategate emails showing how little exaggerations here and there are needed to keep the show on the road? I also like the subtle shift in terminology from "Global Warming" (that didn't work) to "Climate Change" (anything can be called in as evidence).



Scientists repeat party line, scientists get lots of grant money, it's not that complicated really. Especially when said party line gives the government new reasons to trample all over individual rights even more than they already do. As they say in The Wire, follow the money.

"The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.[88]"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMunulJU7w

sorry for the video, but it deals the Global warming changed to climate change cannard.

Godge

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Do you personally think that there will be climate change in the near future due to mans pollution of the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts?

Animals, plant life, volcanoes, sea life, the sun, continental drift, they all have affexted the climate in some way or another all through the history of this planet.

So yes, humainty will affect the climate but i don't believe the scientists know enough about the mechanics to know what the outcome will be.

RichieC

Godge wrote: »

Animals, plant life, volcanoes, sea life, the sun, continental drift, they all have affexted the climate in some way or another all through the history of this planet.

So yes, humainty will affect the climate but i don't believe the scientists know enough about the mechanics to know what the outcome will be.

Regardless of what you think, there is a scientific consensus on global warming. it's the best information from which we have to work with. Ignoring it is at our peril.

Scofflaw

Valmont wrote: »

Millions of dollars in research grants and juicy jobs on governmental panels just to fix up certain trends? Like the climategate emails showing how little exaggerations here and there are needed to keep the show on the road? I also like the subtle shift in terminology from "Global Warming" (that didn't work) to "Climate Change" (anything can be called in as evidence).

Scientists repeat party line, scientists get lots of grant money, it's not that complicated really. Especially when said party line gives the government new reasons to trample all over individual rights even more than they already do. As they say in The Wire, follow the money.

Edit: I don't know much about the science of climate change and what it means but what I do know is a sneaky power grab when I see one. As do some of these scientists such as Lindzen speaking out against the stifling of the debate.

Your view requires a global conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of people and a scientific hoax unparalleled in history.

Do you genuinely think that's credible? If so, why?

cordially,
Scofflaw

MysticalRain

Valmont wrote: »

Millions of dollars in research grants and juicy jobs on governmental panels just to fix up certain trends? Like the climategate emails showing how little exaggerations here and there are needed to keep the show on the road? I also like the subtle shift in terminology from "Global Warming" (that didn't work) to "Climate Change" (anything can be called in as evidence).

Scientists repeat party line, scientists get lots of grant money, it's not that complicated really. Especially when said party line gives the government new reasons to trample all over individual rights even more than they already do. As they say in The Wire, follow the money.

Edit: I don't know much about the science of climate change and what it means but what I do know is a sneaky power grab when I see one. As do some of these scientists such as Lindzen speaking out against the stifling of the debate.

If you want to stray into Jim Corr territory and "follow the money" as you say it, it's the oil companies who are the vested interests with the most to lose here. After all, a scientist working for an oil company earns a lot more than his equivalent counterpart working for the government.

To quote the occupy crowd, I see climate change as yet another example of the 1% screwing the 99% in their ruthless pursuit of profit, and I fear them more than any government these days as that is where the real power lies.

Valmont

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your view requires a global conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of people and a scientific hoax unparalleled in history.

Do you genuinely think that's credible? If so, why?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am specifically referring not to AGW, but whether direct governmental action can make a difference. I think that given the tendency of the state to expand, Western governments have a vested interest in the promulgation of a certain narrative. In this case the narrative is along the lines of "If we don't get power X, Y, and Z, then that movie with Dennis Quaid will come to pass".

I'm sorry, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for that ruse. It stinks - very badly. You all complain about the involvement of bloggers, commentators, the media, average joes on boards.ie, but when you're proposing a host of new and vast powers for the state to combat this perceived threat to humanity, it becomes everyone's business: the heartland institute, the Guardian newspaper, mine, to question not just the "scientific consensus" but the financial interests set to benefit too, be they tenured professors or solar panel manufacturers.

Scofflaw

Valmont wrote: »

I am specifically referring not to AGW, but whether direct governmental action can make a difference. I think that given the tendency of the state to expand, Western governments have a vested interest in the promulgation of a certain narrative. In this case the narrative is along the lines of "If we don't get power X, Y, and Z, then that movie with Dennis Quaid will come to pass".

I'm sorry, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for that ruse. It stinks - very badly. You all complain about the involvement of bloggers, commentators, the media, average joes on boards.ie, but when you're proposing a host of new and vast powers for the state to combat this perceived threat to humanity, it becomes everyone's business: the heartland institute, the Guardian newspaper, mine, to question not just the "scientific consensus" but the financial interests set to benefit too, be they tenured professors or solar panel manufacturers.

Um, no, that's a rant rather than an answer - let's go over it again. For climate change to be a hoax would require hundreds of thousands of people in countries all across the world to have kept secret the fact that it's a hoax for over two decades now. It would require them to have done so in countries which are "committed" to doing something about climate change, and it would require them to have done so in countries which quite clearly don't intend doing anything about it. So the "evil rapacious governments" line doesn't wash. Nor does the idea that there's some kind of media blackout on the subject, because there are clearly papers all over the world that have a position opposing climate change. Nor is the idea that you can't get funding tenable, because the oil companies and other parties who contribute to HI, for example, have a lot of money to spend on research, and do spend a lot of money on research.

Do you, or do you not, think that a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people in multiple institutions and companies all across the world is credible? How do you believe the conspiracy remains together despite the existence of alternative media outlets, alternative funding, and alternative government positions?

cordially,
Scofflaw

SupaNova

I don't think Global Warming is a hoax, but the exaggerations, scare mongering, and promotion of human intervention to prevent it, I find disturbing. Estimates have gone from an average temperature rise of 5 degrees to 1 degree by the end of the century.(Correct me if I am way off as it's a while since I have read anything on the topic). Is this really the catastrophe it is made out to be? People can surely deal with a 1 degree temperature rise on an individual basis over such a span of time by deciding where they want to live and work.

And then I find the West's attempt to combat this by reducing consumption of fossil fuels to be a fruitless exercise, as there are plenty of countries that will pick up the slack.

Although I don't agree with him, I think everyone would find this talk from economist Jeff Rubin on the subject of Peak Oil and Climate Change very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg

Duiske

RichieC wrote: »

Attempting to influence kids school curriculums with propaganda isn't shocking to you?

It is truly a new day.

Which reminds me, has anyone got a copy of the text of the disclaimer that must be given to school kids and their parents before "An Inconvienient Truth" can be shown in UK schools ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MungBean

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You accepted the documents and say the HI are entitled to a bias because their sole purpose is not to research climate change but to find solutions to problems arising for vested interests due to climate change. You say all this was known before and the documents are nothing new.

And then its pointed out that it actually shows the HI aim is not to find solutions to climate change but rather solutions to research into climate change that may affect vested interests. Its a PR campaign to obscure the issue not resolve it.

When the opportunity arises you proclaim the documents fake and change your argument from defending the HI in regards to the content of the documents to attacking the documents themselves. Which is absolutely pointless considering you have already agreed with and defended its contents.

Seems to me like you'll defend whatever they do or whatever they say because its them who's doing it and them who's saying it rather than looking at it objectively. Thats what I'm talking about, and its not so much hilarious but more so tragic that your displaying the very same tendencies as those who would cite fabricated documents as "evidence" just to prove a point.

Scofflaw

SupaNova wrote: »

I don't think Global Warming is a hoax, but the exaggerations, scare mongering, and promotion of human intervention to prevent it, I find disturbing. Estimates have gone from an average temperature rise of 5 degrees to 1 degree by the end of the century.(Correct me if I am way off as it's a while since I have read anything on the topic). Is this really the catastrophe it is made out to be? People can surely deal with a 1 degree temperature rise on an individual basis over such a span of time by deciding where they want to live and work.

And then I find the West's attempt to combat this by reducing consumption of fossil fuels to be a fruitless exercise, as there are plenty of countries that will pick up the slack.

Although I don't agree with him, I think everyone would find this talk from economist Jeff Rubin on the subject of Peak Oil and Climate Change very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg

While this is about the politics, rather than the science - the forum being what it is - current IPCC estimates run from 1-5 degrees rise by 2100 depending on scenario, where scenarios for the 1 degree rise assume an aggressive campaign to reduce emissions and 5 assumes business as usual. It's generally agreed that we have missed any chance of the lower end scenarios coming to pass, and are probably currently letting the chance of limiting the rise below 2 degrees slip by.

The problems is hardly restricted to people saying "oh, I find this uncomfortably hot" and deciding to live elsewhere, and rather more that of uprooting entire ecosystems adapted to a particular temperature range. Climate sensitive land species have been moving northwards over the last 40 years at an average rate of 1.8 km/year, or moving upwards in altitude at about a metre a year, and the trend is accelerating - but whether that will be sufficient even where it is easily possible is not settled. The impact may be surprisingly large on fish species around our waters, because northern waters contain very much less shelf area.

cordially,
Scofflaw