Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An inconvenient truth.... or lie?
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 104 of 191 (538662)
12-08-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Rahvin
12-08-2009 1:24 PM


Re: Hypothetical Effect Of Warming
Hey Rahvin,
I'm just a lurker standing on the corner (so to speak) but decided to jump in for a dip!
Rahvin - Msg 99 - writes:
Unfortunately for you, "common sense" often has little to do with reality...
Evaporation could indeed increase...but unfortunately water vapor is actually a significant greenhouse gas, meaning the process accelerates itself...
Large amounts of other greenhouse gases (and other things) are trapped in ice...and as the ice melts, those gasses will be released, accelerating the process further. A similar runaway warming effect was at one time hypothesized to have ben [sic] responsible for a mass extinction event, as large amounts of methane gas trapped in ice was released rapidly.
Aside from hectoring or goading, you seem to portray a high level of knowledge (or possibly confidence) on this topic.
Would you please clarify whether you believe a "runaway warming effect" has occurred on Earth as you mentioned above?
If you do believe a "runaway warming effect" has occurred, I'm not really interested in what inferences may influence you to believe it has occurred in the past or that we are currently teetering on the precipice of a global runaway catastrophe, but...
I do have a couple of questions:
1) Do you believe an inferred "runaway warming event" naturally abated and reversed?
2) If so, would you mind detailing for me and other lurkers what (specific) natural phenomenon you believe had such a strong impact as to stop and reverse such a "runaway" warming event?
I'm trying to ascertain the depth of understanding how climate mechanisms actually work rather than suppositions.
- Thanks and Question Everything -
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Rahvin, posted 12-08-2009 1:24 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Rahvin, posted 12-09-2009 12:22 PM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


Message 105 of 191 (538664)
12-08-2009 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Taz
12-08-2009 4:52 PM


Hello Taz,
Taz - Msg 100 - writes:
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
It's not the fact that they didn't publish these emails in the first place. It's the fact that they made such a fuss about the emails being published. Why, why, why?
Again, are you joking or are you seriously this clueless?
(1) Invasion of privacy...
(2) Words taken out of context...
(3) Unethical accusations of the victim to shift the blame...
(4) Shamelessness... This one is especially for people like you, chimp.
Have you read some of the hijacked emails that directed others within the global warming research community to "delete" certain communications?
Are you aware that these directions to "delete" occurred before the emails were made public?
As far as I know, most people in research are proud of their communications and don't need to hide anything. What do you suppose were the reasons for this desire among certain research folks to conceal communications? Shamelessness?
- Thanks and Question Everything -
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Taz, posted 12-08-2009 4:52 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Taz, posted 12-10-2009 3:53 PM Eye-Squared-R has replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


(2)
Message 155 of 191 (539317)
12-15-2009 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rahvin
12-09-2009 12:22 PM


Re: Hypothetical Effect Of Warming
Hey Rahvin,
Thanks for the welcome. Your response was nicely written, thorough, and informative.
Rahvin - Msg 110 responding to Eye-Squared-R - writes:
Eye-Squared-R writes:
Aside from hectoring or goading, you seem to portray a high level of knowledge (or possibly confidence) on this topic.
I'm simply a layman who reads a decent amount and has a decent memory, nothing more...
Reading and memory are good. I find it even better to question, analyze, and judge claims based on well established and understood mechanisms with reliable evidence. Otherwise, far too many claims are historically accepted and embraced as factual.
Rahvin - Msg 99 Response to Buzsaw - writes:
We're talking trillions of dollars or more in terms of cost, needing to be spent over a short time as we adapt to the changes. We're talking about millions of lives lost to starvation, disease, or natural disasters. We're talking about poorer coastal regions that don't have the money to erect levies and other structures being simply erased from the map, sometimes entire cultures gone... It's a very large problem
If you’re right, I applaud you for your conviction. If you’re wrong, then you’ve gullibly fallen victim to one of the greatest scientific failures conjoined with self-aggrandized politicians since Lysenkoism. I haven’t proclaimed vast conspiracies of fraud. Conspiracies are impractical and are not necessary to explain events of collectively disastrous behavior - since history is replete with examples of myopic government, stupid groupthink, mankind’s flawed nature, and general incompetence.
In the case of Lysenkoism, there were also volumes of scientific research validating their conclusions. I’m sure there were anomalies noted periodically but hey, the evidence was overwhelming - the case was closed, as Inspector Clouseau would say! For the Socialists in power, the debate was over and those who questioned were clearly incompetent (as judged by those in power). They apparently embraced only that science that strengthened them politically — and the majority of the scientific community under their influence obliged — no conspiracy required!
Dissenting scientists (Lysenko deniers) lost opportunities, freedom, and some lost their lives in prison. Why did the Socialists endorse Lysenkoism with prestigious positions, funding, and perks? Don’t know but my hunch is they perceived that Lysenkoism gave the government more power over their subjects — perhaps a means to motivate the oppressed peasants to work harder (to benefit their children) after the government had confiscated property, possessions, and restricted freedoms (for the good of the people, of course). Lysenko’s evolutionary concepts were exclusively forced by the Soviet Union government in agricultural practices and as a result, at least in part, millions of people starved to death. This politically endorsed and protected Junk Science lasted for well over two decades. We now know their science was terribly flawed despite all the research and evidence from their restricted community at the time. They weren’t dumb but their data were surely selective and their methodologies were surely erroneous. Peer reviews were undoubtedly highly biased or selective. There were no Freedom of Information laws and skeptics were severely constrained to review data or challenge assumption and methodology.
Some in this forum may loudly protest the Lysenko analogy but there are clear similarities to Climategate for anyone willing to consider.
Those researchers able to support the anthropogenic global warming conclusion are surly rewarded accordingly. Those were not cheap run-of-the-mill researchers and politicians in private jets and limousines around Copenhagen.
In light of history, I thought your response in Msg 110 was more reasoned and less dogmatic than Msg 99. Especially since the truth is that neither you nor I know the real impact mankind’s activity has on Earth’s climate. This is because real science, using the scientific method, advances through disproof and cannot prove anything. Whenever anyone like Al Gore says The debate is over! then it’s obvious they don’t understand how science works. In real science, nothing is ever 100% proven. For those who disagree, here’s an explanation: No webpage found at provided URL: http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/science.shtml
From Dr. Robert K. D. Peterson at Montana State University:
Many people who object to biotech crops argue that the crops should not be allowed to grow in the environment until science proves that they are safe. Others who support biotech crops argue that science has proven that they are indeed safe. However, the concept of proof has no place in science. Many people who do not actively practice science do not understand that science is structured so that scientists can never prove anything.
Hypotheses and theories can never be proven true using the scientific method. Therefore, science advances only through disproof. This is a critical and often misunderstood point. To be scientific, theories can never be proven true, but all theories must be refutable. Therefore, all theories, and by extension all of science, are tentative.
What is important to recognize here is that none of the results from the studies alone or in combination prove anything. In particular, they do not prove that human health risks from biotech crops are acceptable or that they are safe. Each study tests a hypothesis. For example, the acute oral toxicity in mice study is centered around the initial hypothesis that the dose or doses of protein administered to the mice will not result in mortality or any signs of toxicity. The results from all of the studies are evaluated by the FDA regulator, who makes a decision about the food safety of the biotech crop. The regulator, therefore, utilizes a weight-of-evidence approach when making his decision. The results either provide a weight-of-evidence that the protein is safe to consume or that it is not safe to consume.
And back to our discussion:
Rahvin - Msg 110 Response to Eye-Squared-R - writes:
Various hypotheses that I have read include the type of cascade or chain-reaction type effects that I spoke of earlier, where warming eventually results in a greater natural output of greenhouse gasses and accellerates itself.
Rahvin, you didn’t answer whether you believed a runaway condition has occurred on Earth in the past. The suggestion that volcanic eruptions could potentially stop and reverse inferred runaway global warming may have validity but volcanoes also expel a large volume of greenhouse gases. Also, some greenhouse gases may not subside significantly with cooler weather as particulates are cleansed from the atmosphere, and could remain for a longer period. Raindrops coalesce around particulates and sulfate particles (I believe), serving to cleanse the atmosphere of soot fairly effectively.
So how confident are you that the inferred greenhouse gas runaway warming condition would necessarily stop and reverse itself from a volcanic period? My eyebrows are raised slightly as I ponder the various hypotheses — but my knowledge is very limited and I admittedly don’t fully understand all the mechanisms involved that would theoretically reverse a supposed runaway condition.
I know volcanoes can have long-lasting affects but do you (or does anyone) know at what elevation volcanic sulfate particles have actually been observed in Earth’s atmosphere a few days or weeks after a major volcano? Actual measurements would be interesting research. There are certainly many variables since climatologists have difficulty accurately predicting weather ten days out.
I suggest we demand truly open re-evaluations of recent climate science with all data specifically identified, data enhancement explained, and all modeling assumptions/parameters fully published. When that’s done, we may find that mankind’s contribution is not significant to climate change relative to solar activity, other natural cause-effect relationships, and negative feedback loops serving to stabilize the environment. For example, there’s only a given amount of phosphorus on the planet and it necessarily serves to auto-regulate total vegetation and indirectly associated O2/CO2 ratios (at least in part). If Earth’s climate system is as robust as I believe it is and negative feedback loops serve to maintain relative stability, then I support common sense conservation and being smart with our resources. If I’m wrong, and if there is sound research that is convincing — then I’m willing to change my mind but I’d need to see it first.
Thanks Again - and Question Everything -
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rahvin, posted 12-09-2009 12:22 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


(2)
Message 156 of 191 (539318)
12-15-2009 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Taz
12-10-2009 3:53 PM


Hello Taz,
I haven’t alleged a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories generally don’t work in the real world. However, I believe the very best we can say about these Climategate researchers is they used embarrassingly sloppy methodology, demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to assist others in understanding and critiquing their work, and demonstrated a determination to delete data and communications rather than complying with the Freedom of Information law and being open and transparent.
If these folks used good practices in their methodology, then it would be easy, quick, and painless to disseminate their work for FOI requests. The excuse that it consumes too much of their time to respond to FOI requests is strong evidence that their methodology is poor (difficult to defend) and their conclusions may not be well supported.
Folks in other research fields like medicine and engineering meticulously document and openly share their work every day - all day. These global warming folks are not above the rules for good science. If they use some proprietary data, then they should detail exactly what data was used and the source so that others can access it. Also, when data is Value-Enhanced, all assumptions and manipulations must be documented. When researchers in other fields of science get sloppy, careers tend to end rather abruptly.
The climate research folks are no better than researchers in any other field of work. Unless these climate research folks expect everyone will accept their work without question they had better clean house in a hurry — and start from the beginning to provide results that can be replicated and validated with full documentation. It’s not enough to be unconditionally embraced and rewarded by certain politicians. The ignorant masses who know some history and retain a lot of common sense will likely not blindly accept everything they’re told until credibility is perceived and earned.
You may passionately claim that’s unreasonable because AGW deniers are too stupid and we’re all about to fall off the proverbial cliff of climatic disaster, but I respectfully disagree. Transparent integrity with full documentation is required if they expect to have any influence on me or support from me — and millions of other folks. I know researchers are error prone because I’m error prone and so are you — grin! See Lysenko in my response above (Msg 155). Lysenko may have been well intentioned and he actually had arguments that evidently persuaded many. But he was just plain wrong. Crops failed under Lysenko science and people starved to death. Real science is adversarial and documentation must be adequate to replicate results. Flawed or misguided science enforced by well-intentioned politicians can be destructive with perilous consequences to people; e.g. outlaw DDT and save lives in underdeveloped countries?
Insults will not generally win many supporters to your cause Taz. That will likely only induce more Anthropogenic Global Warming Den-eye-yers (as Al Gore would say - with his eye brows furled).
Taz - Msg 100 responding to Jumped Up Chimp - writes:
Again, I really have to ask. Are you just joking around or are you genuinely shameless?
Taz - Msg 113 responding to Jumped Up Chimp - writes:
The accusations arising from the emails are preposterous. Yet, if the scientific community isn't careful, the christian right might actually win the public support to bring about the apocalypse a little sooner.
Help me understand your mind here. What's the mental block that's keeping you from thinking straight?
christian right?
As Lee Corso might say on College Game Day Not So Fast My Friend!
Perhaps you’re not aware Global Warming Petition Project!
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of settled science and an overwhelming consensus in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few skeptics remain — skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science — including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,486 American scientists are not skeptics.
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
And that was almost all before Climategate. Undoubtedly, the number of scientist AGW deniers will only swell now!
Conservative Christians Taz? I believe someone else fingered greedy capitalists on this thread who supposedly don’t care about people
If the emails are authentic and correctly represent Phil Jones’ professional integrity and ethical compass, then he’ll necessarily be forced to permanently resign in an effort to restore scientific integrity to the institution. If it’s true that he attempted to unduly influence journals concerning the peer review process, then any work from him in the future will linger in that shadow. Sorry but the details of their work needs to see the light of day — all assumptions, data enhancement, etc.
My inquiry was fairly simple Taz - were you aware of deleted communications before the emails were made public (yes or no)? And what do you suppose were the reasons for this desire among certain research folks to conceal communications?
Taz - Msg 116 responding to Eye-Squared-R - writes:
Ok, let's put your money where your mouth is. I'm going to ask you the same thing I asked buzsaw. Give us some quotes directly from the emails and we can discuss about them. Don't be like buzsaw and keep posting links to blogs that link to other blogs as references. I don't want to see you posting what other people think. Give us direct quotes from the emails and tell us what you think so we can have a real discussion.
I have neither the time nor the desire to sort through needless details of the emails and exchange unproductive tit-for-tats that these forums tend to degrade into. The context is obvious and lurkers can view the Climategate emails from links on this thread. However, I will honor your request and post some items. Hopefully, you will then share for us what you believe to be the desire or motivations of the authors to conceal their work.
Emphasis in bold below are mine.
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if you are. Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley, Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel, so will keep you informed. Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
Delete rather than obey the law? Hide behind this? Hide behind that?
Phil Jones writes:
To: mann
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: raymond s. bradley, Malcolm Hughes
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Delete as appropriate? Again, I’m not aware of any other researchers in any other field of science who desire to hide their work
Phil Jones writes:
From: Phil Jones
To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Everybody delete and pass it on! And there you have it
It appears the term Climategate is appropriate for this history as it truly bears similarities to Watergate. Delete, deny (information), erase One wonders whether Richard Nixon would be impressed with these folks, and they didn’t need executive priviledge!
I believe it’s imperative that everyone involved in climate research immediately define and adhere to research standards for methodology and documentation. That requires and includes what most industries have been doing for many years with a rigorous quality system — basically, do what you say and say what you do (with completely documented comprehensive procedures and requirements).
Taz - Msg 146 responding to Iblis - writes:
This is why I always get cranky on here when I see people who think they're better at the said subject than the experts.
I understand what you’re saying and agree to a certain extent (when the people you mention are not too whippy). However, many scientific breakthroughs have originated from someone not considered an expert in the field. In reality, the experts are sometimes wrong and should be challenged! There are many examples but Alfred Wegener (vilified by the experts for about 50 years) is a good study. In that case, peer review wasn’t worth much as Wegener’s ideas were not accepted until a generation of peer reviewers invested in flawed concepts had passed. A modern day Wegener may be Don L. Anderson Plumes are zombie science.
I suggest a great book if you’re interested and haven’t read it: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn.
As with Lysenko science being financed and clearly driven by a political agenda, I believe the only real Positive Feedback loop with Global Warming science may be that feedback between politicians arranging to fund pre-ordained research conclusions that empower political aspirations with claims to save the world along with near-sighted research folks that are only too happy to oblige for fortune and fame. Conspiracy? Nope — just human nature. And who doesn’t desire to save the planet! It’s certainly a worthy aspiration.
I care about the planet as much as anyone but count me as highly skeptical until there is full transparency with the data and models.
This Loosey-Goosey Misty-Twisty Trust-Me-The-Debate-Is-Over methodology that apparently cannot be adequately explained or duplicated is NOT sound science — It’s irrelevant who they are or how important you think their work is. Until these climate research folks become more professional and transparent with their data, assumptions, and model details — they’re likely losing support by the truckloads daily. If independent assessment of work to date reveals clear bias and philosophically driven science, then anger and distrust will most likely continue to grow until a complete overhaul is instituted with truly effective peer review and transparency.
It appears there are some here with unwavering allegiance so I’ll hang up and listen. Likely return to being an occasional lurker whenever time permits.
Thanks — and Question Everything! -
Respectfully,
Eye-Squared-R
Added by edit:
Thanks for your work enforcing the law Taz.
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Appreciation for police work.
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Removed last thought - off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Taz, posted 12-10-2009 3:53 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024