ABC's Wright latest to mislead on stolen climate emails
In a December 9 report, ABC correspondent David Wright advanced misleading claims about the emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, including the claim that the emails show scientists using a "trick to hide the decline in temperatures" and that a scientist called it a "travesty" that they couldn't explain a temporary lack of warming. Wright also misleadingly cropped Jon Stewart's comments on the emails, removing Stewart's statement that "of course" the information contained in the emails doesn't "disprove" global warming.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Wright misleads on email that mentions "trick" "to hide the decline"
Wright: "One of the most damning email exchanges credits Mann with a 'trick' to 'hide the decline' in temperatures." Despite airing Penn State scientist Michael Mann statement, "Imagine somebody going through all of the emails you've ever sent looking for a single word or phrase that could be twisted," Wright reported: "One of the most damning email exchanges credits Mann with a 'trick' to 'hide the decline' in temperatures."
"Decline" refers to unreliable tree-ring data, not actual temperatures. In a November 26 article, The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, reported that Penn State scientist Michael Mann -- whose "trick" was referenced in Jones' email -- "said his trick, or 'trick of the trade,' for the Nature chart was to combine data from tree-ring measurements, which record world temperatures from 1,000 years ago until 1960, with actual temperature readings for 1961 through 1998" because "scientists have discovered that, for temperatures since 1960, tree rings have not been a reliable indicator." In a November 20 post, RealClimate.org's staff, which is comprised of several working climate scientists, including Mann, similarly stated:
As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Several scientists have stated that the word "trick" is being misinterpreted. The (UK) Guardian reported in a November 20 article that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something -- a short cut can be a trick." RealClimate also explained that "the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to ... 'a good way to deal with a problem', rather than something that is 'secret', and so there is nothing problematic in this at all."
Wright cited "travesty" comment in stolen email but not context for comment
Wright claims that scientists "are on the defensive." Wright reported that in one email, National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist Kevin Trenberth 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." Wright concluded: "Global warming may be a scientific issue but it's also a hot button political debate. So right now the scientists aren't the only ones on the defensive: Politicians are too." Wright went on to air Trenbreth's assertion that the emails "show human nature at work but I don't think it throws any, casts any aspersions on the science," but did not explain how his "travesty" comment was taken out of context.
Trenberth's email referred to "inadequate" system of observing short-term variability, not long-term trend. In the October 12 email, National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist Kevin Trenberth 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" [emphasis added].
Trenberth published similar comments in the journal article he cited in email. 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."
Wright misleadingly cropped Jon Stewart's comments on stolen emails
Wright ignored Stewart's statement that "of course" emails don't "disprove global warming." After stating, "[A]s the controversy heats up, the consensus about making the tough choices to curb carbon emissions threatens to crumble," Wright showed Daily Show host Jon Stewart saying: "Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you created." But Stewart went on to say of the content of the emails: "Now, does it disprove global warming? No, of course not," but it is "catnip" to "denier[s]."
From the December 1 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show:
STEWART: Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, the irony, the iron-y. Actually, the real story is not quite that sensational. Basically, emails stolen from scientists at one of the leading study centers for global warming show them discussing them discussing their work a bit -- how do I put this -- casually.
WENDELL GOLER (Fox News White House correspondent) [video clip]: He wrote, "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
STEWART: See, it's nothing. He was just using a trick to hide the decline. It's just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique recalibrating data in order to trick you into not knowing about the decline. But here's what's great about science. In disagreement, we go back and look at the raw data.
GOLER [video clip]: University scientists say raw data from the 1980s was thrown out.
STEWART: Oh, for fuck's sake. Why would you throw out raw data from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s. Laminated. What did you keep?
GOLER [video clip]: The scientists say the kept something called value-added data.
STEWART: Value-added data? What is that? Numbers fortified with art? Truth plus, now with lemon? It doesn't look good. Now, does it disprove global warming? No, of course not. But it does put a fresh set of Energizers in the Senate's resident denier bunny.
SEN. JAMES INHOFE [video clip]: The fact that this whole idea on the global warming, I'm glad that's over, gone, done. We won, you lost, get a life.
STEWART: All right. We knew Inhofe was going to say that. I mean, that guy thinks global warming is debunked every time he drinks a slushee and gets a brain freeze. "If global warming is real, why does my head hurt?" But by the way, that quote was before he found out about the leaked email story. But that's the point. if you care about an issue and want to make it your life's work, don't cut corners. It's disheartening for people inclined toward the scientific method, and it's catnip to these guys, who are going to end up celebrating tonight drunk, roaming the Arctic Circle trying to skull-fuck polar bears, which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans caused now, apparently, by God's tears.
I sent David Wright an e-mail on this one. It's this kind of stuff where the mainstream, corporate media does some real damage.
So while you guys talk about "integrity" and mitigating the "real damage" done by stories like this, you make no attempts at scrutinizing the repeated MMfA responses. That is the "travesty." The "hidden in plain sight" and "trick [is a] clever way of doing something" and "decline refers to unreliable tree-ring data" and "taken out of context" reasoning all falls flat on its face when dissected.
Why bother doing it again (I did so in detail here and here and here if you care to be enlightened) when it will just get buried under another full page of MMfA AGW spin later today? Unfortunately for AGW zealots, the spin isn't working as is proven by the mere existence of the Wright story. That won't keep y'amall from trying though.
What [unintelligle] post.
Reading between the lines....
We report (only what we want to show you - often taken completely out of context), you decide (based on the selected factoids we presented to you).
I stopped watching ABC years ago, when Howard K. Smith left. Never liked their news reporting since.
Then you claim that people like me who don't buy into AGW "ignore these real problems" when the exact opposite, at least in my case, is true (my main problem with AGW is that it distracts us from the real environmental degradation taking place so that we can "fight" the evil CO2 bogeyman you are apparently so guilty about).
Then you bring God into the equation to I guess try to shame conservatives such as yourself into buying the weak AGW theory, again disparaging the "non-believers" as being anti-environment (speaking of non-believers, I don't prescribe to any religion and certainly do not need any god or Leonardo DiCaprio or Al Gore or James Hansen to tell me to be a good steward of the environment).
Then you go completely off the reservation and go for the planted/doctored conspiracy angle, presumably with a straight face. You actually apparently believe that the scientists involved and the institutions they represent would take the massive PR hit they have taken since this scandal broke three weeks ago if the documents/emails were fake or doctored?
That is simply insane and leads me to believe that you are likely a plant with the intent of trying to sway people in your "own party" and/or AGW skeptics to discount this story. It isn't working.
"I am still waiting for one scientist, other than those famous scientists named Limbaugh, hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly to say these emails show the science to be corrupt."
It's out there. You have to look for it.
They're saying there's no false data, "trick" is a term that's used often, and has been in published literature for years. "Hide the decline" means to address the decline in tree-ring correlation to temperature, and also has been published.
The deniers are only focusing on these passages. That's all there is.
CNN is running a series this week at 8pm eastern time. I'm sure more media outlets will pick this up, as they get the background info.
Fox can find real experts. CNN and NBC doesn't have any problems.
Fox just selects McExperts that don't have clue.
Onward!
Now if you were to pull your heads out of the heavily-salted MMfA ground, or wherever it is your heads typically reside, you would know that scientists have had negative reactions to the CRU scandal and still others have made claims that counter conventional AGW "wisdom." I guess you wouldn't be aware of that if you spend all day and night cruising this joint. Here are some examples for your enjoyment.
Hans von Storch calls for Mann and Jones to be banned from the IPCC and peer-review process in his 11/21 blog post.
Eduardo Zorita follows suit 11/27.
Judith Curry speaks to how "most scientists retreat into the ivory tower" when confronting skeptics and how the CRU emails reflect "elements of the circling of wagons strategy." Her definition: "Circle the wagons/point guns outward: ad hominem/appeal to motive attacks; appeal to authority; isolate the enemy through lack of access to data; peer review process." Check on all counts.
Below Curry's article in the same link, CRU climate scientist Mike Hulme ponders whether or not "the IPCC has run its course."
Richard Lindzen takes the CRU/IPCC science to task (yet again). Give his latest paper a read to see how the climate models are overly sensitive (that's only natural given the thin skin of some of the email scientists).
Roger Pielke, Sr. talks about his experience with skeptic suppression now confirmed by the CRU emails; and hot off the presses he again discusses how CRU/NASA/NCDC data sets are warm biased and addresses the false attribution charges.
And finally for the more visual among you, the recent CNN exchange between John Christy and Gavin Schmidt.
Do I believe that the scientific evidence to date supports the theory of AGW and CO2's role in climate change? Absolutely not. Climate science has been completely politicized and corrupted by the IPCC, NGO's, politicians, and other special interests, and the media has been complicit in dramatizing AGW with reckless, exaggerated, and unwarranted alarmism.
Do I think that the politicization of AGW has affected the integrity of the science? Undoubtedly, as is proven by the CRU scandal (data manipulation, data hording/lack of transparency/FOIA obstruction, manipulation of the peer-review process, journal gate-keeping/stifling of dissenting views, etc.).
As for the "few knuckleheads," that notion would deserve more merit if the people involved in the scandal were not among the most influential climatologists in the entire world. Their influence cannot be understated as they were among the major players in the strengthening of the IPCC and the perpetuation of the idea of a robust AGW theory despite evidence to he contrary.
Incidentally, he also denies any connections between second hand smoke and lung cancer, so you won't be surprised to learn that he's in the pocket of Big Tobacco too.
Here's Tom Wigley admitting to Phil Jones that Keenan's claim of scientific fraud by Wei-Chyung Wang is valid.
How about this one? In it Tom Wigley writes to Mann and says the following:
The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.
Or this one showing just how "robust" and above-board the peer-review process of your AGW crew is? Ditto with this one and this one.
And their handling of reviews of skeptical papers is completely above board as well. What has come out so far in this story is the tip of the melting iceberg. Plenty more to come.
And it's a serious problem when people who don't know what they're talking about are journalists, who are creating the news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=sub
(your "travesty" question is addressed about 5 minutes into the video if you care to actually learn anything.)
It's really sad you can find better news and information on some YouTube channels than you can on network and cable news.
Ironically, in my response I asked, "Does anyone actually think that if the emails were faked or altered in any way that over two weeks would have passed with not one of the authors/recipients of the emails coming forward to 'expose' them as fraudulent?"
Apparently mari2jj2970 above can be added to what I am hoping is a short list of people who actually buy that (unless you want to go on record in support of that claim as well).
So once more, try again. You have no credibility when you start off that way.
I didn't watch or dissect the video? Did I make my comments about the video at the thread I directed you to through some psychic ability I was unaware of? Hmm. Maybe I can use that next time I play the lottery. Nice try yourself.
As for reading the emails, I read over 80% of them from start to finish, and have reviewed about 60% of the documents. You do the same? And it's pretty difficult to claim that I quote mine or take them out of context when most of the time I provide links to the actual emails or articles I quote from so that people can see them for themselves and draw their own conclusions (or would you rather I post them in their entirety?).
The single point I will concede to you is in regards to the name-calling/insults, but that too is a mirror moment for you since my response was to your response to Cheney. Cheney simply asked two questions without insult and you responded with the claim that he was "believing what [he was] being spoon-fed from Fox 'news'". Wouldn't this be a case of glass houses then?
I have said this before, but since my comments from day one on MMfA have been typically met with name-calling and insults (DullDully even wished for my death once), I have been conditioned by the nasty "climate" here to do the same, pre-emptively at this point. I will try to refrain from doing so in cases where the person I am responding to acts in a civil manner, but that is the exception and not the rule on MMfA for sure. Otherwise I plan to continue to fight fire with fire. It's the American way after all.
But now I must ask why is it that I don't see you chastising anyone else for insults or name-calling on this or other threads? Quote mining perhaps?
And I wasn't aware saying Fox "spoon feeds" their viewers is an insult. It pretty much is a fact. The same applies to those who mindlessly take in liberal talking points from MSNBC.
I take a view from the middle. I question without bias when I can. I don't like extremes from any side. The left is screaming that global warming is real and dangerous. The right is insisting its a scam. Both sides can lie and manipulate thier viewpoints. But based on what information I have seen about the emails, global warming science and factual data, I believe you are misrepresenting the story about the emails, despite your claim of reading 80% of them.
Yes there is controversy on this topic, and I'm sorry if I don't follow all your links and read all your comments, I don't have time for that. Obviously you do based on the level of comments I see you are making about this topic. You seem quite proud of this fact.
If you want to fight fire with fire, that is your choice. But let me ask you this: Lets say this global warming data is fabricated. Lets say these emails from ONE center studying data on the climate is staging a cover-up. Lets say the sun is the ONLY or main cause for climate fluctuations on this planet. What is wrong with trying to reduce pollutants and CO2 emissions? Why is it a bad thing to try and stop the melting of glaciers and polar ice caps if we have the means and capabilities to reduce that trend? Are you arguing your point so hard because you have the data to back up your point? Or are you just arguing because the ideologies of the people you disagree with are different than yours? Do you truly see this story from both sides?
Notice I did this whole thing without name-calling and insults. Are you capable of doing the same? I have yet to see a post of yours where you don't. But I am sure you will happily provide me with a link to a non-insult post of yours.
I will be cleaning the windows of my "glass house" while I await your response. Oops, I'm done already. That didn't take long. Now where is that mirror?
This wouldn't be a big deal to me if I didn't feel that the repercussions were so great. But while AGW believers feel they are trying to save the world from the horrors of the CO2 bogeyman, I feel as though I am trying to save the world from the horrors of an Orwellian redistributionist globalization agenda while hopefully simultaneously rescuing from its hijacking the environmental movement I have been a part of for two decades.
So when I stumbled upon this site in July (it was linked in a Google news search regarding AGW), I was surprised at the total one-sidedness of the MMfA presentation. When I initially tried to debate in a more civil manner what I thought were falsehoods by MMfA and the vast majority of posters, I was met with absolute scorn and ridicule (speaking of openness from a different point of view). Naturally I returned the insults and name-calling in kind and, admittedly, I am at the point now where that approach is pre-emptive in many cases.
You can see the same thing happen to other "new blood" from the skeptic side. They begin by trying to have a civil debate and they are promptly given all manner of labels ranging from wingnut to Creationist among many others. As would be expected, having had their hackles raised, the newer skeptics who do try to actually have a normal discussion (and there are some who make no such attempt) slowly but surely get more "violent" in their rhetoric.
All I can say for myself is that I will again make an attempt to tone down the insults/name-calling when dealing with folks such as yourself who are less fanatical and nasty in their AGW defense. I have been civil before and I don't need to provide you with some distant link. You can see it in my replies to Larry below and my reply to Appleboy above.
That all being said, I do not agree with your spoon-fed quote, and that is why I led with it in my initial response to you. You did imply Cheney was "believing" what Fox was spoon-feeding and IMO upped the ante by later saying "if you care to actually learn anything." I wouldn't exactly call either example diplomatic. I will agree with you about Fox and MSNBC though, but more in relation to their inherent bias than to whatever it might be that viewers of either network get from them. But I think the same can be said about the bias here on MMfA, and in that case (because we can judge by the commentary of the members here) some judgment can be made as to whether or not the audience is buying the spin.
Back to the real subject at hand. You asked what is wrong with trying to reduce pollutants and CO2 emissions if it is proven that the AGW theory is false. As I have noted on a number of occasions, I have done much myself to minimize my impact upon the environment, and protecting the Earth from true environmental degradation is a matter of great importance to me. That is my primary problem with the proposed mitigation strategies and enormous resources devoted to AGW. While we are "fighting" climate change, the oceans are being greatly depleted, the Amazon is being raped, habitat worldwide is disappearing at an ever-accelerating rate, and species of flora and fauna continue to vanish forever.
These are the issues that need to be immediately addressed, and the irony is they could be better addressed with immediate impact were we to give them the proper attention they deserve. Instead our attention, energy, and resources have largely been diverted to AGW. Adding insult to injury, some of the premature efforts being employed to transition to a clean-energy economy (something I wholeheartedly support but at a sane and sustainable pace) are actually exacerbating environmental degradation as seen in the link I provided in my response to Appleboy.
And none of this takes into account the human suffering associated with this. About one-quarter of the world's population has no electricity at all; 1 billion people have inadequate access to water; 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation; and 2.5 billion use biomass to cook. The deaths associated with these deficiencies number in the tens of millions each and every year!
I concede that attempts to address some of these human issues are included in UNFCCC proposals, but they are doing so under the false guise of reversing AGW and, because part of the goal is to help developing nations to develop sustainable energy, these efforts discourage those suffering now from using readily available and affordable energy sources such as coal and oil, thus prolonging the suffering they must endure. Since developed nations are largely charitable, an expansion of the ODA mechanisms already in place would be far better suited to address these issues of poverty more quickly and directly. Instead, we are traveling down the veiled road of CO2 mitigation where those associated funds provided by developed countries to developing countries have many strings attached by the UN, guaranteeing that the related death toll remains high for an unforgivably long period.
And to all of this yet another insult: the proposals of treaties such as that proposed in Copenhagen will not have the impact on climate change you believe they will have and that is because CO2 simply is not the driver of climate change it is purported to be. The climate models do not adequately take into account the full effects of natural variation and natural forcings, and simultaneously overly exaggerate the sensitivity of the earth's climate to CO2.
And this takes us full circle back to CRU and the science of climate change. Everything I said here is admittedly biased in support of what I feel to be the case based upon my own research, but I ask that you yourself dig further into the science to draw your own conclusions. Read some of the for, against, and in-between papers that speak to the many sides of this story. Despite the mantra that AGW is unequivocal that is absolutely not the case IMO. But if you were to use MMfA and the exclusively pro-AGW mouthpieces they reference as your only sources of information, you would not be aware of any of the flaws in the theory and, further to the point of this article, you would not understand the impact of the CRU scandal in exposing the "climate" of climate science over the last 15 years.
Wow! I did it. No insults. See. It is possible, and rather therapeutic I might add. I will try to do more of the same in the future, but, when warranted, I will absolutely and unapologetically continue to fight fire with fire. As you noted, that is my choice, but it is not in my nature to roll over when being attacked. I will though try to refrain from launching the first volley. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Trenberth was expressing his frustration that, in his opinion, the observing system for tracking changes in global temperature are inadequate to record the full extent of global warming as reflected in data such as ice melts, glacial retreat, and sea level rise. Put another way, he was arguing that evidence says the world is warming in ways and to an extent not reflected in the temperature record, indicating shortcomings in the observing system.
It's worth noting that others in that same email thread disagreed with him (not about the warming, about the observing system) and in his linked paper, Trenberth said natural short-term variations could explain the difference but the issue was just what were those variations and why did they have the effect they did.
(If anyone wants my own take on this, try here.
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Oops! Wrong quote. That's the one from his response to Tom Wigley who, as you noted, disagreed with him. But I'm sure the paper pretty much says the same thing.
Not as dramatically, but the assertions are essentially the same: Trenberth is frustrated at the degree of accuracy, the degree of detail, of our knowledge of "the energy budget," the inflows and outflows of heat energy and where it goes. "Nowhere close" is really a judgment call; it depends on how much uncertainty you're willing to tolerate.
However, the central point remains that nothing in what Trenberth said or wrote provides any support whatsoever to a claim this questions global warming. Doing so is like the creationists who point to biologists arguing about the precise details of evolution to claim that the entire theory is "in crisis."
Finally, it's worth noting that he specifically refers to "geoengineering," the idea of using a technological quick-fix to counteract the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations, such as, in one frequent notion, injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect more sunlight ("global dimming," it's called). And he says the inability to "balance the energy budget" makes any such plan "hopeless" because we'll never be able to tell if it actually worked or not. Which is interesting because the issue of geoengineering arises only if you're convinced of, and worried about, the effects of global warming.
Today's best climate models are now able to reproduce the observed major climate changes of the past century. When the models are run without human changes in the atmosphere, the natural forcings and intrinsic natural variability fail to capture the increase in global surface temperature over the past 35 years or so. But when the anthropogenic effects are included, the models simulate the observed global temperature record with impressive fidelity.
The contrast in the degree of confidence in his email quotes is vast. And the use of terms like "impressive fidelity" and "unequivocal" and "settled" in the AGW debate (or lack thereof) contributes to the IMO false conclusion that the science supporting AGW is undeniably strong, and that in turn contributes to the media/governmental/scientific alarmism as well as the support of severe IPCC-driven mitigation initiatives.
As for your "central point" I think you do miss the point and that is related to what I said above (and below to SLRTX for that matter). The notion of robustness needs to be revisited and is long overdue, and I was saying that long before the CRU scandal. There are real issues with the theory and CRU exposes many of them despite your protests. And the scandal further proves that pro-AGW science has had an unfair advantage in controlling the message allowing the "robust" fallacy to snowball over the last 15 years to the unfortunate place we are at today.
You yourself are a product of that manipulation as exhibited in your blog with your steadfastness of opinion about AGW and your conclusion that this story changes nothing. I turn your words back upon you as I feel that is appropriate: no proof will ever be strong enough to be accepted, no counter-"proof" will ever be weak enough to be rejected.
Our "divergence" of opinion will likely always remain as we both, apparently, are quite stubborn in our beliefs and we both feel as though the evidence backs our positions. It is just unfortunate that you have chosen the wrong side. :)
The science is robust. The evidence from a wide variety of lines of research (and disciplines) all point in the same direction and the Trenberth quote you cite is exactly correct: There is no model of climate changes over the last century which can account for recent warming without including a human influence on climate.
There is no "contrast in the degree of confidence" between that quote and his email, "vast" or otherwise, as the two are addressing different points.
An oversimplified but not unreasonable analogy would be saying in the quote "We are certain that Chicago is this many miles west of New York and you can't get there without going on this road" and saying in the email "It's a travesty that we don't know the exact best route the entire way."
I realize that can be picked apart but surely you can see how someone could be greatly confident in the first part and still make the gripe in the second. It is like, in another comparison I made earlier, being convinced of evolution while still arguing over the details of the mechanisms involved.
You want me to be convinced by "proof?" Then show me some, not allegations of vast, worldwide, UN-organized conspiracies based on forced interpretations of a handful of emails.
And as for the "unfair advantage in controlling the message," well, yeah, the conspriaphiles just love those powerful secret cabals suppressing The Truth, don't they?
On the other hand, I will say that you're likely correct that neither one of us will convince the other - I fact, I think we've known that for some time. I promise, however, that when the physical facts become so overwhelming that even you have to admit to them, I won't say "I told you so."
Um, well, actually, yeah, I probably will.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make with the other Trenberth quote. Publicly he claims that the models show "with impressive fidelity" that it is the human fingerprint that accounts for the recent warming, or rather, inclusion of the anthropogenic effects in the models accounts for the warming that cannot be accounted for through just natural forcings and intrinsic natural variability. Yet privately he acknowledges that "[w]e are not close to balancing the energy budget" and "we can not account for what is happening in the climate system."
With those private disclosures, how could you or he possibly claim that the intrinsic natural variability and natural forcings are adequately accounted for in the climate models? How could such a lack of understanding of "what is happening in the climate system" possibly be portrayed as being robust and how does that not contrast with his claim of "impressive fidelity?"
And I know you like to allude to the conspiracy angle and my tin foil hat, but I think our previous discussions of the draft negotiating text of the Copenhagen treaty, voluntary or not, did much to expose the overly- and overtly-intrusive "UN-organized" redistributionist agenda at the core of the AGW mitigation/adaptation strategies (as a link to the CRU story, here is one of the CRU documents that speaks to the "globalisation agenda" in less-than-vague terms).
But the point you made that I feel is most off base is in regards to "controlling the message." I can't believe that you are unable to concede that the CRU emails expose some of the most influential scientists in the Church of Climatology (sorry, had to do it as I promised clams above) participating in unscrupulous activities that unfairly elevate AGW while simultaneously suppressing science that goes against the scripture. At the very least, for the sake of your credibility, you would have to concede that they manipulated peer-review and acted as journal gate-keepers (I go further and claim that in addition to that they actively manipulated data, fought transparency, and coordinated destruction of FOIA material). I have provided many links to those emails with specifics that IMO can't be spun to say otherwise, but I guess I'm just a "conspiraphile."
Until next time...take care.
Denialists = ACC flat earthers
Oh, never mind.
At least the viewers of ABC can still subscribe to the "trust us" defense the "scientist" are resorting to.
The "hide the decline" phrase has a history of use out in the open in climatological circles going back more than a decade. All of the climate scientists who saw it knew it was referring specifically to tree ring data since 1960 that was positively known to be wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt. It referred to NOTHING else.
The data that was discarded was not original data. All of that is still in existence at the original sources. Additionally, the data discard took place almost a quarter of a century ago. A huge amount of data has accumulated since then, so that data represents only a small portion of what serves as evidence of ACC.
So, we have some data that was discarded a long time ago that wasn't permanently lost anyway? Got any other BS for us to expose?
The data that was discarded was not original data.
Exactly. This is one of the things I find most puzzling. Do the deniers think we are as blind as they are? Do they thing we cannot simply find out that the original data still exists? And they have the audacity to claim we don't know the science. They didn't even bother to look up to see if the supposed "destoyed data" still exists!
They all knew except maybe for Phil Jones himself, or did you miss his first public blatherings after the story broke? Here, I'll refresh your memory. This is what he said when asked what he meant by "hide the decline":
That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?
Notice that MMfA has dropped that from it's spin repertoire? I did.
The fact that you repeatedly show no trace of independent thinking in regards to the AGW theory and concede absolutely no ground in regards to the CRU scandal leads me to again conclude that the use of Science in your username is a mockery. And your attempt to take the "intelligent, open-minded person" high road is laudable in its confidence yet laughable in its ignorance.
Thanks for again putting on full and clear display your sheep-like AGW zealotry.
I've never heard that one answered
They know that tree ring data does match observed and recorded temperature data before 1960. That's what makes it reliable - that it matches mechanically recorded temps.
This is not rocket science.
The REASON it isn't reliable doesn't matter when the issue is them not using unreliable data!
If a cop doesn't allow an impaired driver to continue driving, it doesn't matter if he's impaired because he's really tired, or because he's intoxicated on legal prescription drugs or because he's drunk - it's still appropriate for the cop to not let that driver endanger any other people on the road. In a similar way, it's appropriate for climate scientists to disallow inaccurate and unreliable data from contaminating their results!
I know it's not rocket science, it's climate science. (You really gotta quit using that one!)
Oh, and climate scientists.....Here's a quote from one of your 1,000s in agreement (From 1989)
And yeah....he gets ALOT of money from the government;
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. … On the other hand,we are not just scientists but human beings as well. … To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.
--Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989.
Thought these guys were just supposed to "Do the science"
The science is not "settled". Human induced global warming cannot be proved. It can only be disproved with facts. It might be a good theory, but if the clowns at CRU decide to blackball people with counter arguments, the whole game becomes a joke.
With the release of the emails, the CRU politicians have now made climate science something akin to astrology. The data from CRU is contaminated and it is that data that is used all over the world.
The data is not published and the programs that play with it are not published. These facts tell me the CRU of East Anglia University should be closed to save the reputation of the university.
You folks want to invest the economic future of your personal lives, your friends and your countrymen in the religion of the CRU politicians who cannot accurately predict the climate next year, not to mention the next 50 years. That is naiveté in the extreme.
:sigh: Again, someone who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.
But just as a sidebar, for the past 10 years the UK Met office (the UK equivalent of the National Weather Service) has been making an annual prediction of the mean world temperature for the following year, measured as the deviation from the 1961-1990 average. It appears they got 2009 spot on (although December temps could possibly change that) and over the course of those 10 years their average error has been 0.06 degrees.
So apparently someone can come reasonably close to predicting at least the temperature for next year.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18692
And yes, this is a peer-reviewed study
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v92/i19/e199002
All solar activity has been fully factored into climatological models.
From Scientific American we have The Role of Sunspots and Solar Winds in Climate Change. An excerpt:
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Yep, them there IPCC models got all them bases covered junior, or how'd y'amall put it? Oh yeah, "fully factored." Silly me. Thanks for setting all us backward folk straight, sir.
You do realize that you are greatly exceeding the "robust" claims that even these same scientists make, do you not?
I think Mann provides the best perspective in his response to Trenberth:
Denialists are not simply falling into that fallacy, they are willfully exploiting it. It's a scientific discussion of specific problems. It DOES NOT expose any huge deficiency in the evidence of ACC. That claim is utterly false. Trenberth is a little prone to being overly dramatic, but he's made it quite clear that his comments are being misused. Who would know better than the person who made the statements?
Fully factored means factored in to the fullest degree they are able. It's a response to the ignoramus who suggested that sunspots are the cause of recent warming, implying that they hadn't been considered.
So, it's the sun? Odd. Then what's up with this?
Oh, and your great peer-reviewed study. Bet you didn't read it, right?
Commentary on that paper you cited:
"a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude 'during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.'"
From: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Gotta love them cherries. You guys pick them enough.
You see, the cherries are like the sun (that big round ball in the sky during the day) and the bananas are like temperature (how HOT the earth gets). After 1975 there are a lot more bananas than cherries, which indicates a significant lack of correlation between solar radiance and global temperature. Around 1995 there are only 4 cherries and 7 bananas, wow! In other words, the bananas don't care what the cherries do anymore. And global warming is occurring that is not explained by the sun's activity levels.
The tree ring subject seems to be a real tough one for them to get past. I think they've been told that tree rings were the primary (or only) data used for most of history, rather than scientists noticing that it was sometimes unreliable because it contradicted the many other sources of information.
"The tree ring subject seems to be a real tough one for them to get past."
Yes - further illustrating the depth of their stupidity. They completely refuse to consider the proxy data, because it's "an inconvenient truth."
It's becoming more evident to the average person, just how dumb the denier rants are.
Then go educate yourself. It ain't our job.
You actually think anyone here at MMFA will tell you anything that you will ever believe anyway?
The denier rant:
Yeah, but what about...?
Yeah, but what about...?
Yeah, but what about...?
Yeah, but what about...?
Yeah, but what about...?
Considering that just in this here thread we have discussion of the "divergence problem" where tree rings don't correlate with the recent instrumental temperature record and solar radiance doesn't correlate with the recent instrumental temperature record, and we've been frequently told that all of the positive radiative natural forcings in combination can't account for the warming shown in the recent instrumental temperature record including cosmic rays, PDO/AMO, Milankovitch cycles, solar cycles, etc., you think maybe it's high time more focus was put on checking the validity of the recent instrumental temperature record (especially in light of the CRU files--have you read HARRY_READ_ME?) and further investigating the known issues with surface temperature data quality (I predict with near certainty that this will be expanded upon greatly in the coming months)?
How about revisiting the CO2/attribution issue, or do you think that is settled too? And what about how natural forcings are accounted for in the climate models? Lindzen's ERBE paper among others sure would indicate that that is necessary and overdue.
There are other "big picture" questions like that but I have to run. But before I do, to go back to the idea of Ockham's Razor we've discussed before, in light of the many divergence problems, issues with data quality, apparent failings of the climate models, etc., wouldn't the simplest answer be that the weak AGW theory as it stands is simply wrong? Isn't the AGW theory itself really the true source of most of the assumption and complication? Isn't natural variation and the corroborating evidence that points in that direction the simplest answer? Just a thought for you. I'm off to work just as you're getting to your MMfA gig. Best of luck and, as always, Cheers!
ABC HATES getting called-out by Newsbusters, Malkin, FNC, etc. so they cover their factually-challenged obsessions.
I am a highly committed environmentalist, but I am starting to review the actual science and am finding massive flaws in the data gathering, the data and the actual data processing. But, then again, I only have a Doctorate in Physics.
With a Doctorate in Physics, you should know the importance of citing references, right?
So, when you say, "I am starting to review the actual science and am finding massive flaws in the data gathering, the data and the actual data processing", you have something to show for it, right?
Physics, huh? Which field of focus? I have a Physics degree myself. I don't have a PhD myself, but I have enough education to know I need to back any claim I made with evidence. They did teach you that, right?
So, we're interested in your evidence. Just post it right here so we can see the "massive flaws in the data gathering."
Based on MY research, I'd say you don't have anything. After all, if we believed your claim, we'd have to assume all the 1000s of scientists working independently to gather data from 100s of sources (that's called "proxies", in case you didn't know) would have to all suffer the same "massive flaws" in their data gathering.
That just doesn't sound plausible. So, ante up any time "Dr".
"Clue" was just practicing his/her own "data gathering" - with "massive flaws."
"Doctorate in Physics" my a$$.
Hey doc?
Yeah Blueneck.
chirp...
You hear that?
chirp...
There it is again.
It's nothing...just get some shuteye.
chirp...
But...
I said IT'S NOTHING!
chirp...
OK Doc. Anything you say.
chirp...
chirp...
chirp...
Are you crying?
chirp...
My nose is just running, now go to sleep!
chirp...
OK boss. Good night.
chirp...
Yeah...pleasant dreams.
chirp...
chirp...
chirp...
chirp...