"Here is the conclusion of the Wegman report (led by Professor Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics) about Professor Mann's 'hockey stick' research:
'Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.'"
If there is man-made global warming, then there must be a hockey stick curve. It is necessary to show that man's contribution in the last 150 years has aggravated what otherwise would be a normal rate of temperature rise out of the Little Ice Age.
NAS found Mann's curve lacking in substance, unable to support his conclusion.
Yet it is this theoretical, unproven deviation that is being used for political purposes now in Copenhagen. Mann et al. are shameless blotches on science.
24 comments:
"If there is man-made global warming, then there must be a hockey stick curve. It is necessary to show that man's contribution in the last 150 years has aggravated what otherwise would be a normal rate of temperature rise out of the Little Ice Age."
Incorrect. The core premise of global warming is this.
This conclusion was drawn and recognized to be a major concern in 1995, long before any paleoclimate, Michael Mann, hockey stick, or anything else.
Also read What if the Hockey Stick Were Wrong?
I'm still at a loss to understand what climategate has to do with atheism. Are you equating the two?
Whateverman,
I am currently focused on the socialist movements of the radical Left, which is, as a demographic, generally speaking philosophically Consequentialist, Materialist, and Atheist.
I have a lot of older posts on both Atheism and logic / rational thought, and I would be happy to discuss any current (or paleo) Atheist subjects or Materialist or Socialist or Critical Thinking etc. that might interest you.
Please feel free to suggest a topic and your concern about it. I'll gladly discuss it with you.
Thanks for responding, Stan. I hadn't intended to steer the conversation - I simply wanted clarification about this topic and your blog's title.
Am I correct in thinking you correlate "climategate" with radical liberalism (and thus atheism)?
Incidentally, I did not respond to your last challenge to me (IRT data on climate change). I worded my opinions here poorly, in that I personally have no data, and thus am unable to provide it. It's my opinion that the data (revealed my own investigation) leans towards the conclusion that humanity is at least partially responsible for a real warming trend. However, this is only an opinion.
Martin 12 08 09
1. The realclimate essay concludes,
"Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. That is significant."
Placed on a graph, the "additional warming" would be a hockey stick.
2. “What if the Hockey stick is wrong?”:
”The main reason for concern about anthropogenic climate change is not that we can already see it (although we can). The main reason is twofold.
”(1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in the atmosphere due to human activity. This is a measured fact not even disputed by staunch “climate skeptics”.
”(2) Any increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of the Earth and increase surface temperatures. This is basic and undisputed physics that has been known for over a hundred years.
“But how strong is this warming effect? That is the only fundamental doubt about anthropogenic climate change that can still be legitimately debated. We climatologists describe this in terms of the climate sensitivity, the warming that results in equilibrium from a doubling of CO2. The IPCC gives the uncertainty range as 1.5-4.5 ºC. Only if this is wrong, and the true value is lower, can we escape the fact that unabated emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to the warming projected by the IPCC.”
And,
”The discussions about the past millennium are not discussions about whether humans are changing climate; neither do they affect our projections for the future. In fact, if humanity takes no action and this century will bring a temperature rise of 2 ºC, 3 ºC or even more, the current discussions over whether the 14th Century was a few tenths of a degree warmer or the 17th a few tenths cooler than previously thought will look rather academic”.
This is absolute nonsense. The global warming hysteria during the Copenhagen world government meeting is absolutely and without question about MAN MADE global warming. Global taxation and policing based on ANTHROPOGENIC contributions via CO2 output are the focus. To claim otherwise is a cover. There are trillions of dollars at stake here. Follow the money, it winds up in the hands of climate researchers and small national polluters.
As for their projections, they are made based on (a) bad surface data or (b) bad paleo data, or both.
Realclimate.org is shown in the released emails to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the CRU/ NASA perpetrators. There is no wonder that they project the same fallacious material that is output by Jones, Mann, Hansen et. al.
Whateverman said,
”Am I correct in thinking you correlate "climategate" with radical liberalism (and thus atheism)?”
Yes. Jones and Hansen have proven themselves to be more interested in activism than in objective pursuit of an answer. Being agenda-based places them squarely into the Consequentialist Philosophy arena. Conseqentialism is Atheist, and also non-rational in that it looks for data to support a pre-selected conclusion – rather than objectively taking data and deriving a data-based conclusion. In other words, it is based on the fallacy of Rationalization.
I do not deny a human part in CO2 generation for global warming or that it exists in a small form. What I deny is that catastrophes are imminent, based on the flawed science produced by the CRU/NASA cartel. There is a significant body of data counter to the rigid cant that is used by the IPCC.
And the Copenhagen cartel is intent upon transferring wealth from first world producers to third world governments and giving the group policing powers over the world. The USA leaders du jour wish to subjugate the USA to that plan – which is necessitated by the false science of a handful of Lefist, Atheist, Consequentialist, activist scientists.
AGW is more than science and less. It is more than science because it is a world-wide socialist political movement. It is less than science because it is closed, false, and run by elite activists.
Whateverman, seriously, what would you like to discuss?
From RealClimate: "The discussions about the past millennium are not discussions about whether humans are changing climate."
And your reaction: "The global warming hysteria during the Copenhagen world government meeting is absolutely and without question about MAN MADE global warming."
From what I can understand, you think climate scientists are reasoning like this:
1. If it is warmer now than it was during the past 1000 years, mankind is responsible for the warming
2. It is warmer now that it was during the past 1000 years
3. Therefore, mankind is responsible for the warming
This is a strawman fallacy. Climate scientists are not using the above argument. The key paragraph from the RealClimate article is this:
The famous conclusion of the IPCC, “The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate”, does not depend on any reconstruction for the past millennium. It depends on a detailed analysis of 20th Century data. In fact, this conclusion is from the 1995 IPCC report, and thus predates the existence of quantitative proxy reconstructions like the “hockey stick”.
And in response to The CO2 Problem in Six Easy Steps, you said:
"Placed on a graph, the 'additional warming' would be a hockey stick."
I don't understand which of their premises you are addressing here. Is it like this?
1. If temperatures plotted on a graph make a hockey stick curve, then there is no natural greenhouse effect.
2. Temperatures plotted on a graph make a hockey stick curve
3. Therefore, there is no natural greenhouse effect
Or perhaps this:
1. If temperatures plotted on a graph make a hockey stick curve, then trace gases do not contribute to the greenhouse effect
2. Temperatures plotted on a graph make a hockey stick curve
3. Therefore, trace gases do not contribute to the greenhouse effect
You don't seem to be addressing any of their premises here, from what I can tell. Red herring fallacy.
I'm just trying to keep an open mind about this. I have definite opinions about how much political ideology ties with religious ideology, but I think I'm in "listen mode" right now...
Also, you said:
"It is more than science because it is a world-wide socialist political movement..."
1. Socialism is defined by Dictionary.com as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
2. The science of global warming deals with CO2 as a greenhouse gas, it's role as the likely primary driver of modern climate, and possible problems it may cause.
3. The science of global warming takes no position on solutions to the CO2 problem.
4. Therefore, global warming is not "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
And then you said:
"It is less than science because it is closed, false, and run by elite activists."
1. The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) makes up 98% of the CRU database and is publicly available in its raw unadjusted form and has been so since at least 2003: (GHCN)
2. The United States Global Historical Climate (USHCN) is available in its raw unadjusted form and has been so since at least 1998: (USHCN)
3. Satellite data from the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit is publicly available in its raw unadjusted form and has been so since at least 1998: (AMSU)
4. Adjusted temperature data is and always has been in the public domain for all four surface records (GISTEMP, HadCRU, NCDC, and JMA)
5. Adjusted satellite data is in the public domain and has been so since at least 2002: (UAH, RSS)
6. Paleo climate data is in the public domain and has been so since at least 2003: (NOAA Paleoclimatology)
7. Many models used in the IPCC reports are in the public domain, including raw code, and have been so since at least 2004: (GISS ModelE, CCSM)
8. Therefore, claims that climate data and models are closed is false.
1. The source of your assertion of 98%, no wikis please. I find it difficult to believe since CRU stonewalled FOIA requests, then claimed the original data to be lost and difficult to rebuild. This indicates that they are not using GHCN data as their basis.
2. Same for USHCN
3. Same for AMSU; however I would like to see AMSU data plotted with calibrations and certifications.
4.& 5. Adjusted data is not useful for replication.
6. Interestingly, I just used NOAA paleoclimatology data which seemingly leads to the conclusion that anthropogenic contributions might not be significant in the long run.
7. I admit that I need to read the full IPCC reports. However, it appears that neither Jones’s nor Hansen’s models are in the public domain. These are the ones that are in contention.
When the two most influential members of the AGW community are both seriously promoting intervention of the government policing and taxing kind, it is socialism embedded in the science community. When the government taxes something, it owns it. For example, if you fail to pay your property tax, your property will be confiscated, effectively meaning that you rent your property from the government and the price of rent is the tax rate. Same for income tax; fail to pay it and your wages will ultimately be removed forcibly and possibly you will lose your wages altogether, being in prison. (unless you are a Democrat of course). We are already socialist enough on our own; we don't need third world governors running our world for us.
You continually attempt to remove science from the community that produces it and assign it purity regardless of the nefarious activities of the people producing it; that is not possible, especially in a protective, aggressive, restrictive community such as the one that controls the AGW “science”. This community is engaged in denial of FOIA requests (closed); shutting out non-congruent opinions by strong-arming the peer-review process (closed; elitist); Consequentialist in their approach to the subject (closed minded, irrational, intellectually dishonest). It is unlikely that purity in outcome will result from such an environment.
I stand by my previous assessment.
An interesting disclaimer on the AMSU site:
Disclaimer
The AMSU data offered here are not operational; that is, they are not maintained 24 hours per day. No guarantee of any kind as to data availablity or accuracy is implied. Readers are welcome to use the data at their own risk.
[emphasis in the original text].
Update, I found a source for your assertion in your point #1. However, see this:
http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/the-homogenized-data-is-false/
I should have said go here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
You said, "It is less than science because it is closed..." as well as various previous claims that climate scientists won't release their data.
I provided you links to raw unadjusted GHCN data that has been in the public for a long time, links to some of the major climate models that have always been public, raw satellite data, etc. thus refuting your claim.
You responded, "This indicates that they are not using GHCN data as their basis" and "it appears that neither Jones’s nor Hansen’s models are in the public domain."
This is moving the goalposts fallacy.
As for James Hansen's models, he developed and used the GISS models extensively in his famous predictions in the 1980s, as well as later work. These are and always have been in the public domain: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/modeling/
As for Phil Jones, I cannot find a reference stating that he is involved in creating climate models.
As for CRU getting most of its data from GHCN, you found the email to Watts about that, confirming that 98% of CRU comes from GHCN. You then linked to a blog post about alleged fudged data. This is a completely different argument. Red herring fallacy.
As for FOI requests, the remaining 2% of CRU is bound by copyright agreements with the individual National Met Services that provide the data. CRU rejected FOI requests because of this reason, and directed requesters to GHCN which makes up most of the CRU. Therefore, claims that the science is closed are incorrect.
As for peer review pressure, John Christy, Roy Spencer, and Richard Lindzen are all climate scientists who publish skeptical science. In addition, the Soon paper that is alluded to in the emails was indeed included on the IPCC report, so while some scientists expressed an opinion that they would like to control peer review, clearly this has not been done. Therefore, peer review does not shut out dissenting opinions.
As for socialism, you said, "When the two most influential members of the AGW community are both seriously promoting intervention of the government policing and taxing kind, it is socialism embedded in the science community."
So your argument is in the form:
1. X asserts A
2. X also asserts B
3. Therefore, A is B
Or:
1. Newton discovers F=ma
2. Newton thinks the government should make laws that no force should be applied to any mass anymore
3. Therefore, F=ma is socialism
This is clearly association fallacy.
I know that I made a statement concerning “more than science’” and “less than science” but I can’t find the post that contains it. Nonetheless what I meant and still mean is that the behavior of the CRU crew does not conform to scientific method, which requires openness and replicability top-to-bottom making it less than science. Restriction to in-group replication and publishing doesn't count.
And it is more than science in that it is tainted with political agendas, illegal activism, hopes that the worst occurs, etc. I had thought this to be clear since it was based on objective factual revelations in the released files, as well as news releases.
It is interesting that your counter arguments do not argue for valid science conclusions based on actual data, rather your arguments are based on my connections of the miscreants to their deeds, which you attempt to falsify.
But the facts are there and building every day – see the latest posts. There will be more and more revealed as time permits evaluation, I’m sure.
But now, on to your charges against my argument:
First, the GHCN database is not the database in question. It exists, yes; there is a claim that it is used by CRU, 98% even. However, CRU obviously refutes this by claiming that the raw data is lost, and that ultimately it will comply with FOIA laws – THAT is the data base in question. Your charge of fallacy is unwarranted because you are talking about a different data base.
Second the GISS modeling page: GCM Model E: The following instructions from the GISS page:
” Note that this public domain version of the code does not contain some of the more experimental tracer submodules (chemistry, aerosols, dust, cosmogenic isotopes, etc.) and only one of the dynamic ocean models. If you are interested in using or working with these components, please contact the scientists involved directly.”
I have not tried to contact the scientists directly. But the public domain version is obviously a stripper model. Called “experimental tracer submodules” these missing modules contain imortant factors, for example, cosmogenic isotopes (if this means radioactive cosmic particles) cause clouds, which dampen heating. So does dust – volcanic ash cools.
So you are correct. There are models in the public domain; they are not complete. Nor are they the models currently in use by the big boys. But yes, they are there.
(continued in next comment)
(continued from previous comment)
Now to your logical syllogism:
Your version of the argument is incorrect. It ignores that X conflates A and B giving them equivalency (X does that, not me; I merely report what X does). Here is a somewhat more accurate version:
1. X is A
2. X is B
3. For X, A & B.
So for the Venn diagram, X exists in the overlapping parts of A & B. (assuming the “is A” means “is part of A”)
In other words, for X, both A & B are true and are inextricably intertwined: overlapped. (science and politics).
But let’s try a more friendly type, one where the second and third terms must be the same:
e.g.:
all of R is part of Q;
all of Q is part of G;
Therefore all of R is part of G. (Q is in both inner terms, position 2 and 3)}
So let’s try again.
Scientist is human (X);
Human (X) is politically (Q);
Therefore scientist is politically (Q).
This is a correct syllogism, but is not necessarily indicative of the human aspects of the situation. Let’s try this:
Scientist is human (X);
Human (X) is {[able/not able] to be objective despite political stance};
Therefore, scientist is {[able/not able] to be objective despite political stance}.
This would appear to be a more just syllogism. The dilemma is to be able to choose the [able/not able] binary factor; it must be chosen based on observations of performance.
And here is where you and I will likely differ. You seem to choose to impute purity to the science actor despite desperately faulty observable performance. Also you seem desperate to exonerate a pursuit that is flawed by the influence of several “human (X)” individuals by ignoring their influence, and pointing to other, yet to be examined, instances of presupposed purity.
I am much more likely to hold a person of high responsibility to extremely high standards of performance, commensurate with their influence. Plus I hold the organizations that harbor and abet these individuals to the same extremely high standards with the understanding that allowing faulty performance indicates a faulty organization. There is no presupposition of purity; purity is proven by performance.
Specifically, you want AGW to be true, and you ignore the evidence against it while you assail the attacks upon it. You seem not to care about the political hazards attached to the science and the cultural devastation that is possible, politically.
I want the science to be correct, uncorrupted, open, replicated and unassailable; where it is not, it needs to be revealed. Moreover I want the politics that is totally dependent on this science to stop until the science is truly unassailable.
And that is how I see the difference between us.
Next, your Newton analogy doesn’t come close; under your version the abstract non-material science is accused of being a politics; I accused a portion of the community (humans, all) of conflating politics and science, not the abstract science that comes from the humans.
If Newton had (a) used false information and (b) used his stature as a scientist to influence a Leftist convention in order to (c) adopt a world taxation and policing function (socialism), then your analogy would be correct IFF it stated that socialism was embedded in the science community (consisting of one individual).
Analogies are generally limited and frequently faulty; I try not to use them.
"CRU crew does not conform to scientific method, which requires openness and replicability top-to-bottom making it less than science.
The core science of global warming is performed independently by many groups from around the world, using different data than CRU. All of CRU can be thrown out if you like and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. This is still association fallacy.
I reiterate: all of CRU can be thrown out if you like. Global warming is not based on just CRU or even the data set that CRU pulls from. It is based on radiative physics.
"But the facts are there and building every day – see the latest posts."
If you are referring to the recent posts that allege the warming trend is fraud:
1. The skeptics assumed that all adjustments to raw data were fraud and threw them all out. See: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php and http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php
2. UAH is a satellite maintained by skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencer. See Anthony Watts plot of the satellite data from early last year. This matches up almost exactly with the surface measurements from CRU and GHCN, as also seen in an older Watts graph here. If you are going to assert that CRU and GHCN are creating false warming trends, then you must by necessity also assert that John Christy and Roy Spencer, both climate skeptics, are falsifying their data to match as well.
3. A recent study of ocean heat content shows heat accumulating in the oceans, which is expected to occur before air temperature: http://skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif
4. Therefore, claims that CRU and GHCN data have been tampered with is false.
(continued below)
"Your charge of fallacy is unwarranted because you are talking about a different data base."
Your claim was that climate scientists work in secret and won't release their data. You did not claim that one particular climate research unit would only release 98% of its data or that 100% of the climate models used are not in the public domain. Therefore, your rejection of my refutation of your point is still moving the goalposts.
As an aside, Gavin Schmidt at NASA was asked how many times skeptics have suggested improvements to his climate models over the years, seeing as they have always been in the public domain. His answer was "not once."
"I accused a portion of the community (humans, all) of conflating politics and science, not the abstract science that comes from the humans."
The science stands abstract and apart from human influence, just like Newton. It's too much to go into now, but if you read the IPCC you will see this clearly. You don't have to accept what the IPCC says, but if you read the report you will at least clearly see the nature of fallacious reasoning like attacks upon the hockey stick.
"Specifically, you want AGW to be true, and you ignore the evidence against it while you assail the attacks upon it."
An assertion and also ad hominem. I do not want AGW to be true, I drive two gas guzzlers, I am not nor have I ever been interested in environmental politics, I lean slightly right on financial matters, and I take absolutely NO position on the solutions to this problem. In fact, I would describe myself as quite annoyed at the fiscal right for its rejection of this problem's existence at all. What should be happening is a debate between left and right over solutions, government vs free market. Instead, the right has denied a problem even exists, giving carte blanche to the left to do whatever it wants. Why? There is nothing inherent in global warming demanding government intervention. It's absurd.
The difference is I have read most of the arguments put forth by the AGW crowd, and examined skeptical criticism of them, and most skeptics attack only strawmen. It was this that brought me to the AGW side; not any politics.
In order to criticize your enemy, understand him...
1. Free Market vs. Government solution. If the free market saw a real opportunity it would address it (unless entrepeneurship is hampered by taxes, regulations, technology, etc). No discussion required. Apparently they do not see a real opportunity that is not somehow encumbered.
2. Here is a non-straw man: there is a considerable and growing data base that indicates that there is no warming, natural or man-made.
Why do you avoid discussing that, in favor of charging straw man at every turn?
You claim to want to defend science, both evolution and AGW being your defendants, yet neither of these is based on anything more than inference. (I'm referring to your comment elsewhere that "no data is required" for AGW).
Both of these have serious consequences, one on worldviews the other on world government.
Because of this the absolute empirical integrity of these endeavors is essential and non-negotiable. I cannot conceive of why anyone would want anything less.
Martin,
"The difference is I have read most of the arguments put forth by the AGW crowd, and examined skeptical criticism of them, and most skeptics attack only strawmen. It was this that brought me to the AGW side; not any politics."
It sounds to me like you were dealing in the equivalent of theodicies: geodicies. How about if we talk about data? Science is about data. Let's discuss the data.
"If the free market saw a real opportunity it would address it ..."
Here's a part where I will concede that you are not straight up wrong (unlike with your ice core post). However, I'm skeptical a free market always jumpstarts itself. Witness the federal breakup of the telecomm industry, due to the monopoly. Was this good government intervention? I also don't understand the continual dislike of ANY government regulation for business. If there are laws for people (murder, burglary) then why shouldn't there be laws for businesses as well? Are they capable of only true good 100% of the time?
"there is a considerable and growing data base that indicates that there is no warming, natural or man-made."
OK. Show me.
"...neither of these is based on anything more than inference."
True with evolution. Not true with AGW. You can perform a CO2 experiment right in your own home. You can also measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere directly. You can also directly test the other known drivers of climate. With that, you can make a fairly strongly supported hypothesis that CO2 is the modern primary driver of climate.
"How about if we talk about data? Science is about data. Let's discuss the data."
Shoot.
The proposition that AGW is CO2 has to be based on some sort of factual basis, such as a correlation between CO2 increase in the upper atmosphere and an increase in temperature.
Apparently the CO2 has increased in the atmosphere. But has earth's temperature really risen? or is it data manipulation?
Start with the Australia data, which shows raw data all trending downward, but manipulated data trending radically upwards. What is your position on that?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
"Start with the Australia data, which shows raw data all trending downward, but manipulated data trending radically upwards. What is your position on that?"
Honestly, I sometimes get the impression that you are one of those personality types who thinks about what he is going to say next while the other person is talking, rather listening. Seriously. Many of your replies make me think you don't even read what I post.
I'll just copy and paste what I've already posted from above:
1. The skeptics assumed that all adjustments to raw data were fraud and threw them all out. See: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php and http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php
2. UAH is a satellite maintained by skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencer. See Anthony Watts plot of the satellite data from early last year. This matches up almost exactly with the surface measurements from CRU and GHCN, as also seen in an older Watts graph here. If you are going to assert that CRU and GHCN are creating false warming trends, then you must by necessity also assert that John Christy and Roy Spencer, both climate skeptics, are falsifying their data to match as well.
3. A recent study of ocean heat content shows heat accumulating in the oceans, which is expected to occur before air temperature: http://skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif
4. Therefore, claims that CRU and GHCN data have been tampered with is false.
Actually I got out of sync somewhere along the line. We have been using two posts and two comment forms; I compose comments offline and upload them when I'm done so as not to lose them. I think that I answered a comment in the wrong form, skipped your immediately prior message and went on from there.
I see now that I never even read your two part comment. But now I will.
Sorry for the confusion. I'll be back later, not feeling well at the moment.
Post a Comment