WashPo again lets Will misinform about global warming -- this time about hacked CRU emails
The Washington Post once again provided column inches to serial global warming minsformer George Will, who in this week's installment piled on the recent global warming controversy concerning reportedly hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Falsely claiming that the emails "reveal some scientists' willingness to suppress or massage data," Will proceeded to take one such email out of context to suggest that the case for global warming is "less compelling."
Citing no evidence, Will claimed emails "reveal some scientists' willingness to suppress or massage data"
Will falsely claimed CRU emails are evidence that "some scientists" are "willing to suppress or massage data." In his Washington Post column, Will claimed that "[d]isclosure of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain -- a collaborator with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- reveals some scientists' willingness to suppress or massage data." However, he cited no evidence to support his claims. [The Washington Post 12/6/2009]
Will proceeded to take Trenberth's email out of context to suggest case for global warming is "less compelling"
Will flogged out-of-context email to suggest case for global warming is "less compelling." From Will's Post column:
The Financial Times' peculiar response to the CRU materials is: The scientific case for alarm about global warming "is growing more rather than less compelling." If so, then could anything make the case less compelling? A CRU e-mail says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" -- this "moment" is in its second decade -- "and it is a travesty that we can't."
The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. [The Washington Post 12/6/2009]
Trenberth's email referred to "inadequate" system of observing short-term variability, not long-term trend. In the October 12 email that Will took out of context, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, cited "my own article on where the heck is global warming" and wrote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Trenberth article -- referenced in email -- clearly stated that "global warming is unequivocally happening." Wired's Threat Level blog reported that Trenberth "says bloggers are missing the point he's making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article -- An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) -- actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise." RealClimate.org similarly stated in a November 23 post that "[y]ou need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth's energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes." Indeed, the Trenberth article referred to what he called an "incomplete explanation" of short-term climate variations, and maintained that "global warming is unequivocally happening."
WashPo has repeatedly provided a platform for Will's global warming misinformation
Will is the Post's resident serial global warming misinformer. As Media Matters for America has extensively documented, The Washington Post has repeatedly provided column space to Will and his global warming misinformation. For instance, this year alone Will has claimed that "evidence" of global warming is "elusive," has falsely cited the U.N. in criticizing the "cataclysmic warning" that the planet will warm 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit, and misused sea ice data to suggest they undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.
Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and
Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age
http://www.nap.edu/html/12615/12615_EXS.pdf
Data Access and Sharing Principle: Research data, methods, and other information integral to publicly reported results should be publicly accessible.
Recommendation 5: All researchers should make research data, methods, and other information integral to their publicly reported results publicly accessible in a timely manner to allow verification of published findings and to enable other researchers to build on published results.
Data Stewardship Principle: Research data should be retained to serve future uses.
Data that may have long-term value should be documented, referenced, and indexed so that others can find and use them accurately and appropriately. Curating and indexing the data so that they can be used accurately and appropriately in the future.
Recommendation 9: Researchers should establish data management plans at the beginning of each research project that include appropriate provisions for the stewardship of research data.
At minimum, all sides have failed to a varying but significant degree on the Access Principal and the Stewardship principle.
Only an open process, with full disclosure from all will result in an accurate picture of climate change upon which society can take actional steps with high confidence.
If this continues, he will have no career left but to play Orville Redenbacher in their next ad campaign.
The idea that it can be cool in Miami and the Polar Ice Caps are still melting does take some insight.
I think when a Republican wants to Test the Global Warming Theory they stick their heads out of their car windows like Dogs.
Using their Tongues to take Global Temperature and Pressure Readings isn't exactly Scientific but it doesn't need to be when your goal is to put Lipstick on a Hog.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Honestly, what is wrong with you people? No evidence?
The hacked emails PROVE Will's point. You can deny all you want. You people are born liars and you continue to lie.
There are now probably a hundred different places on the internet where you can read explanations of those emails, but you just keep on assuming that you understand them. They were not written for you to understand and you certainly have proven that they got that right.
The born liars are those who are misrepresenting what is said in the emails and the computer code.
Point of order, your honor!
Cheney2012 has proven himself capable of both, simultaneously. He is a true multitasker.
~
"The hacked emails PROVE Will's point. You can deny all you want. You people are born liars and you continue to lie."
Did you actually read the emails, or are you just absorbing what you want to hear and read, dismissing the rest?
Out of the 1000+ emails, how many have been quoted in the press? Just exactly how many emails, and how many words?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
Do a review. You may be surprised (or not) to find that out of all the emails, only a few passages are quoted over and over and over and over.... Hmmm.... That's all the deniers can glean out of this?
And just what exactly are they saying? Do you know what they are talking about? Is the full correspondence before & after those select emails understood? Do you know?
Or is it that you really don't want to know?
Maybe a lot of it is trade lingo. Maybe some scientists were just fed up with the denier rants. After all, they're human just like us.
For the sake of argument, let's assume there are 1, 2, or 3 scientists who made some off-hand unprofessional remarks that they wished later they didn't make. (And none of us have ever done that?) That doesn't exclude all the proxy data out there the proves climate change is real, and it's caused by us. That's a stretch, even for deniers. But maybe I give deniers too much credit on that point.
Regardless of whether you really want to know or not, the full truth will come out. The CRU will wrap up their investigation in the spring. And I hope there will be a Congressional hearing. Let's just get this settled in the political arena, as much as it's settled in the scientific arena, and move on.
Just be prepared to find it won't support your claims. Better to leave an open mind about this now, so you don't look so foolish later.
Here. Allow me to help you on your way:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/homepagenews/CRUreview
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=2&n=Top%2fNews%2fScience%2fColumns%2fFindings
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wmo913.pdf
http://www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-his-own-words-stolen-cru-emails
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Answer: you don't. You tell them to go sit at the kiddies' table while the adults make policy...
Replace the word government with scientists and you have our current situation.
-- Was it compensated for temporarily by changes in clouds or aerosols, or other changes in atmospheric circulation that allowed more radiation to escape to space?
-- Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers?
-- Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean and sequestered, perhaps well below the surface?
-- Was it because the La Nina led to a change in tropical ocean currents and rearranged the configuration of ocean heat?
Admitting that he doesn't understand the cooling trend from last year's global climate proves a couple of things. First, computer modeling is totally inadequate. Secondly, if a leading climatologist can't explain last years cooling there is little reason to expect him to be able to accurately forecast climate changes in the coming decades.
He closes with the curious explanation that "Perhaps all of these things are going on"? Perhaps? Now that's scientific.
Finally he utters a plaintive request for someone to calm his fears that his scientific standards are adequate by asking, "But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, don't we"?
Yep...the story for AGW becomes less compelling as more of the stone walled data and procedures of the scientific community comes to light.
Ah yes, a climate scientist decries the fact that he doesn't have a model/system that can accurately predict year to year changes in the climate and that is your "proof" that there is no climate change or that man doesn't have any affect on it.
We could discuss your bullet points but; other than the fact it is like talking to the metaphorical wall, please note that scientist tend to ask these types of questions.
For one, it shows that they still have an open mind.
"This is how I believe it works but; what about......?"
I would think you would be glad that a scientist questions his theories.
I'm very glad...and would love to see more of it. Instead of the close-minded zealotry of the AGW hoaxers and their zombie like followers.
My proof is not about climate change...anyone sitting up and taking nourishment can see that the climate changes. My proof is that the scientific community running with the spoof of AGW admittedly don't have the tools or expertise to predict the future climate...they can't even explain what caused the climate change last year.
Intellectually honest conservatives have already conceded the overwhelming evidence of global climate change, while the rest of you will continue to deny it simply because you are politically disinclined toward anything that originates from the Left.
This will increasingly become problematic for you, since the vast majority of intellectuals are liberals.
Woo, for a second there I thought you were talking about birthers but; I see that isn't true.
I would be the first to admit that the scientific community is no different than anyone else, when it comes to occassionally being closed minded, just look to our past.
Beliefs, of any type, easily turn to dogma where people deny the facts before their eyes. Science is no different.
The world is flat! Uh, no it isn't.
The world is the center of the universe! Un, no it isn't.
In the current venue, I believe, the people who don't believe that man may have an impact on climate are the ones who won't believe the facts.
Does that mean that mans effect on climate is proven? Nope.
Does that mean Global Warming is proven? Nope.
What does it mean?
Let the scientist do their job, keep an open mind, and yes, be skeptical.
Your text to link here...
What you pulled was from the introduction of Trenberth's paper, The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest since about 2000. What it is doing, as is very common in scientific papers, is to pose a set of questions and briefly mention some possible answers to explore. The body of the paper then explores those answers in fuller detail, presenting evidence to support the cases being made. He does, in his conclusion, express a desire for more information, but the body of the paper isn't as you dishonestly presented it.
I've seen this technique before. It's common for liar creationists to quote mine the introductions to scientific papers dealing with evolution. They will pull a statement or query from the beginning of a paper stating a problem to be addressed or a question that's been raised and leave it standing alone as though the the scientist is only bemoaning some hole in evolutionary knowledge or problem with evolutionary processes when, in fact, the paper is really addressing just those things.
It's dishonest, but it's far too common.
He clearly opens with his belief that tracking systems are not adequate:
-- But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, don't we? Well, it seems the answer is no, we do not. But we should! --
After exhibiting various tracking methods he closes with the position that they are not adequate to determine the direction of the earth's temperature:
-- To better understand and predict...A climate information system that firstly determines what is taking place and then establishes why is better able to provide a sound basis for predictions and which can answer important questions such as "Has global warming really slowed, or not?"
Decisions are being made that depend on improved information about how and why our climate system is varying and changing, and the implications. --
After stating his belief in AWG, Trenberth's candid report is refreshing...he clearly states that he is not sure whether global warming is slowing or not...because of the inadequacies in the current scientific tracking methods.
No, that's not what he says. He has only talking about the imbalance in the energy flows. He knows that energy inflows exceed outflows in such a way that global temperatures should have risen and wants to know where that energy has gone if it isn't reflected in temperatures. He examined several very likely possibilities, stated that it was probably a combination of those and expressed frustration that we currently lacked the means to obtain all of the data necessary to figure it out precisely.
You quote him stating "But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, don't we? Well, it seems the answer is no, we do not. But we should!" However, you pointedly left out his very next statement: "Given that global warming is unequivocally happening and there has so far been a failure to outline, let alone implement, global plans to mitigate the warming, then adapting to the climate change is an imperative."
He is expressing absolutely NO doubts about the direction of climate change. He just wants better data for calculating the energy transfers so that we can better determine forecasting models and better quantify the effects of our effort to mitigate the change.
Yes, his report is very candid, but if you bothered to read it for comprehension you would see that it doesn't state what you claim it does.
Thanks for making my point more clear...and completing your homework assignment...keep up the good work.
Thanks for once again demonstrating your clip-from-context dishonesty.