Former CRU chief: Hiding data is a critical part of science!
posted at 11:36 am on March 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
So much for transparency in science! Dr. Phil Jones, the former chief of the East Anglia CRU, testified yesterday before the British Parliament’s committee on Science and Technology to defend himself after the exposure of e-mails from the climate-research team reaching back a decade. Jones admitted sending the “pretty awful e-mails,” but insisted that the MPs didn’t realize that secrecy is a critical part of the scientific method:
But yesterday Professor Jones – in his first public appearance since the scandal broke – denied manipulating the figures.
Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told MPs: ‘I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.’
He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.
And he claimed it was not ‘standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.
‘I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,’ he said.
And down the rabbit hole we go. The peer-review process refers to the very mechanism where scientists release data and computer models so other scientists can check and challenge research. If that isn’t what happens in peer review, then what are scientific peers reviewing? Page numbers? Grammar? If Jones blocked other scientists from seeing his data and his methodology, then he’s not just perverting the peer-review process, he’s killing it entirely.
The scientific method requires data sets to be available for full review and a complete disclosure of methodology. Without that, other researchers cannot duplicate results in independent studies, which is what scientists in every other field require before accepting conclusions in any degree, let alone to the point of making them “settled science.” Jones knows that — and his attempts to hide his data and methodology strongly implies that he knew that his results were fraudulent.
Last week, the Institute of Physics wrote to the Science and Technology Committee that if the East Anglia CRU e-mails were not forgeries, it would have dire implications for the entire field of climate science, emphases mine:
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. …
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
Now we have prima facie evidence that Jones wasn’t conducting science at all. He was generating propaganda and a self-perpetuating industry dependent on government action.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
It’s worse than that. The raw data that people wanted Jones to release is not the data from the temperature monitors, as you state, that’s already public domain. What people wanted from Jones is the list of stations that he used for his “study”.
Which makes all the more absurd his claim that he didn’t have disk space to store it properly. The only data that he needed to store was the station names of the few hundred stations that he used.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 1:51 PM
While I would agree in principle, currently the Swedes are making their system work. I agree completely that I cannot understand how someone would be willing to work when they know they don’t have to, and have the same standard of living. However, so far, that system actually seems to hold together.
While we share the same idea for happiness, I am not sure that you can prove your assertion that the Swedes are just like Americans in this regard. Do you have any evidence of unrest in the Swedish people that can show that they are dissatisfied?
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 1:52 PM
There IS no ‘equality’ in the economic system. It’s not supposed to be equal in result. All that should be required economically is equal chance of opportunity. Your mileage may vary, by what you alone can do to prosper for yourself and your household.
Not to be a jerk, but if all you can make is $30K a year, that’s your problem. Either do better, or live where you can. But your inability to make $12 million isn’t the fault of the person who CAN make $12 million.
His wealth isn’t made on YOUR back. Just as he can make $12 million, so can you.
Socialism, though, prevents all that.
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 1:52 PM
What’s the difference between brown nosing and butt kissing?
Depth perception.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 1:52 PM
There\’s more land in the northern hemisphere. This is especially true the closey you get to the respective poles.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 1:57 PM
The real sad thing is that Jones probably really believes the b.s. he’s spouting. What really drives the AWG scam artists is that they really believe that humans are destroying the planet so following their liberal axiom that any means justifies the ends, they create false impressions to convince the public of the correctness of their beliefs.
docdave on March 2, 2010 at 1:57 PM
I don’t have news reports, but neither can you truly claim they’re totally happy with circumstances. Then again, how many Swedes emigrate to the US?
For now, I guess it’s fair to say Swedes like the present status quo. But, realistically, I wonder how many grumble about it.
In the end, they’ll trash their current system when they get fed up enough. If they don’t so be it. I’d love seeing every Swede a millionaire, like I want to see that kind of wealth among all 6.3 billion people on Earth. I don’t want to see people wanting for anything, no matter their nationality.
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Mark: That would be a problem, wouldn’t it? I haven’t quite worked up the courage to talk to my professors about their views on this, because I think their answers would disappoint me. ;)
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 1:59 PM
Jones made himself an anachronism. I hope he’s never hard from again.
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 1:59 PM
Do the look at taxes at all levels?
In the US we have federal, state, and sometimes local income taxes, which can get the marginal tax rate up into the 50% range for some.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Screw your professors! Their credentials don’t make them necessarily right, the creds don’t make them gods!
Be the person you are and want to be. In the end, college isn’t much better than high school.
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Liam: I completely agree that equality of results is evil. You and I both place the equality on the opportunities offered. That is, everyone should have equal opportunity to make something of themselves.
If a person fails to do so, that should not be anyone else’s fault.
I also agree that socialism never agrees to this. They believe that sacrifice should be forced and that virtue can be coerced… which turns them into negative issues.
I do think that it would be extremely interesting to look into unrest in Sweden.
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 1:52 PM
I don’t know enough about Sweden to comment on it. But I do know that very often socialism appears to succeed by pushing it’s problems onto future generations.
Case in point. Social security and medicare.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 2:04 PM
Liam: Oh, I agree. However, they should care about the scientific method and about the peer-review process. (I’m an engineering student.)
I guess this is a case about ignorance being bliss. ;)
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Another, far-off matter. You have other things going on, by your last post.
Screw the rest of the world, really. You seem to need to better define yourself here. By your last post, that is.
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 1:57 PM
I seem to recall reading that suicide rates are higher in the Scandanavian countries.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Mark: Oh, certainly, the entire deficit spending debacle shows your point clearly. However, at a certain point, credit must be refused. I also haven’t heard that much about Sweden’s debt being that bad. Where would I go to look into that kind of data?
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:08 PM
They have decided themselves, which isn’t your problem. You, at this point, need to choose your own path, and you have a mind. Run with it! Sure, if you want a top grade under a biased professor, then suck up if you need.
I was lucky. I had a die-hard avowed Marxist history prof one time who was honest. He hated the USSR (shock of shocks!), and often we talked over coffee in his dime.
Find the best professors, I recommend. Stick to there, but always keep your own mind.
You’re not required, in life, to be any more right than they are. So far, for what this might be worth, you’re doing well!
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Liam: An interesting view, and one I would love to talk more about. Heh. Unfortunately, my self-definition is not very germane to the topic at hand, is it? ;)
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Insanity, with all those hot blondes…
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 2:10 PM
I will debate that.
Your self-definition is always part of the politics at hand. Politics don’t function without the person, the individual. Which is why tyrants always seek to subborn the individual to the politics. Can’t have any free-thinkers, can they?
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Your mind is as good as anyone else’s
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 2:14 PM
Liam: Very well, as long as others will tolerate it. ;)
What do you see wrong with my self-definition? I am not worried that my professors will convert me to their worldview. I am worried about the friction that may develop between us if our worldviews are different. I am in my final semester in Industrial Engineering, and I would prefer to avoid issues that may delay my graduation.
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Sorry to bu22 in
I used to have a few relatives in Sweden, which got me interested in that country. They left it in 2008 because they said life there was getting absolutely miserable and unbearable for honest high-profile business families.
Here is a small example of
whatsgoinon
macncheez on March 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Mac: Why apologize? While your information is anecdotal, it’s more than we had before! Thanks!
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM
You’re not something to be ‘tolerated’, like an itch you can’t reach. Please glean a better view.
I see nothing wrong with your self-view, outside of a little worry. But, hey! We have all been there, too. I say you’re doing fine. Good for you!
If you have to suck up, that’s fine. Profs ejac on that that. Do what you gotta do; college isn’t really much, which I suspect you already know. Later, go out into the real world and kick butt
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Liam: I was trying to say that, since I see this discussion as rather far afield on this thread, if people object to the thread hijack, other venues might be more proper.
Oh, and to address an earlier point, I know there’s nothing wrong with my mind. ;) Rather the opposite, in fact.
College isn’t the be-all end-all, certainly. OTOH, I have been told that I would be excellent at the graduate level.
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM
Go for it!
We didn’t hijack the thread. We got into a more-personal discussion. Happens all the time; we meet people here, and talk one-to-one. I find that a beauty of this site.
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 2:30 PM
It’s pining for the fjords!
gwelf on March 2, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Time for Nessie!
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Liam: I actually have a philosophical issue with going to graduate school, and especially going for a Ph.D., since it more or less requires buy-in to the whole NSF research grant network that I (as a fiscal conservative) wholeheartedly despise.
The reward (being a very conservative professor) might be worth the drawback, though even then the necessities with attaining tenure suffer the same issues as above.
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:35 PM
For whatever this might be worth, I find you have a clean mind. Quite rare, really.
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 2:36 PM
Jones now seems much less a scientist than ever before.
ExpressoBold on March 2, 2010 at 2:38 PM
Liam: Thank you. =) Don’t know, exactly, what you mean by ‘clean’, but thanks. =)
I sort of live by bouncing from quixotic crusade to quixotic crusade. But yeah… ;)
I have a very hard time expressing myself clearly to people. Just one more thing to work on… ;)
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Unless you get caught with a dead boy in your bed, you’re the type who will go far.
Quit talking and just get your shit done! Your details don’t matter, Scott.
I’m done blowing sunshine in your ear. We both know you can succeed where you want.
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Expresso: Wait, he was a scientist?
I guess in the same way the MSM are journalists…
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:42 PM
You ‘express’ just fine. It’s not always your expression, but others’ ability to understand. Some just aren’t going to grasp, like my family not getting that may fave toy in grade school was a 300x microscope.
Liam on March 2, 2010 at 2:44 PM
And property taxes! My gawd…
The jurisdiction in Europe I’m familiar with doesn’t levy outrageous property taxes on its homeowners like we do a lot of places here. There it’s a pretty nominal fee, assessed yearly, a small fixed percentage of the entry recorded when the property was sold/purchased. It may be different elsewhere within the Eurozone, I don’t know.
RD on March 2, 2010 at 2:52 PM
I seem to recall reading that suicide rates are higher in the Scandanavian countries.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM
_________________
Sweden and the US have basically identical suicide rates.
uknowmorethanme on March 2, 2010 at 2:54 PM
GREAT!!! Now we know that the GW nuts don’t believe in the scientific method even… No wonder they were wrong!
1) Define the question
2) Gather information and resources (observe)
3) Form hypothesis
4) Perform experiment and collect data
5) Analyze data
6) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7) Publish results
8) Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
jeffn21 on March 2, 2010 at 2:55 PM
I wonder if Phil Jones has any carbon credit investments?
la.rt.wngr on March 2, 2010 at 2:58 PM
Jeff: I thought that was obvious a long time ago? ;)
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:59 PM
This is my favorite part of the Sweden debate:
And you wonder why the liberals hate the military.
uknowmorethanme on March 2, 2010 at 3:11 PM
uknow: I am not sure I see your point?
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Heh, mine too. I had literally hundreds of jars of pond scum and algae sitting on our back porch. I’ve spent hours laying flat and looking at mud puddles for planaria track and sucking the little boogers up into a glass tube. Duckweed was good!
Oldnuke on March 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM
All that military spending that could go into economic and social justice!
daesleeper on March 2, 2010 at 3:24 PM
Yeah, but I didn’t realize until someone posted this article the other day that this state of affairs was deliberately engineered.
Sure, I’ve seen the abuses all these years, but from the scientific angle I just assumed our fellow scientists had gradually descended the slippery slope of fraud; I had no idea some of the instigators actually went into AGW at the outset not expecting to find corroborating data, and with the deliberate intent of redefining science!
The word used in the link above is “post-normal”, so as to distinguish it from “normal” (i.e., actual) science. Scary.
RD on March 2, 2010 at 3:24 PM
RD: This was far too well-engineered to be the product of stupidity or laziness. In other words, it wasn’t sloppy. It was deliberate, and has every sign of being deliberate.
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 3:34 PM
AGW
According to CRU_K
1. Make a graph ( hockey stick)
2. Fudge the co-ordinates of the graph (fudge factor in the computer program)
3. Hide the decline, homogenize the data
4. Deride anyone who wants to verify graph
5. Dump off the raw data
6. Call yourself a scientist, everyone else a stupid dumdum
7.
macncheez on March 2, 2010 at 3:38 PM
Let’s see. By those numbers, the per-capita defense spending by the US in 2005 was:
0.00026 dollars per available person for military service.
Sweden’s was:
0.00066 dollars per available person for military service.
Guess we need to start complaining about those warmongering Swedes. ;)
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 3:38 PM
G.I.G.O.
Left Coast Right Mind on March 2, 2010 at 3:46 PM
No, it doesn’t. Raw data is rarely provided; the peer review process reviews the paper submitted to a journal – not any data or computer models algorithms used to support anything contained in the paper. That’s all.
That review is more than a review of “grammar,” however. Reviewers look for consistency with other papers and research, and the general body of accepted knowledge.
Or, if something radically new is introduced that appears to contradict previously held views, they check to see if the reasoning is sound and it represents a plausible alternative to currently accepted beliefs.
In this sense, modern science is quite conservative (in the non-political sense of that term). Anything that cuts across common beliefs in the field is regarded with skepticism and it does take quite a lot to break any consensus.
[For the record, and to head off anyone who thinks I'm defending AGW or Phil Jones, etc, I am in no doubt whatever that AGW is unfounded and that fraud is rife in climate science.]
JDPerren on March 2, 2010 at 3:48 PM
I ask this as a question, rather than make the assertion, because I don’t trust a single person in the newspaper business or the television media — i.e., the “mainstream media” — to have reported it if this actually happened, so…
have any U.S. scientists come forward to denounce these statements, these emails, and this general perversion of the scientific method, or can we lump them in with the media and politicians as craven liars and propagandists?
Jaibones on March 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM
JD: I think that depends on the subject under discussion. In my discipline, at least, the modeling and simulation are mostly what the articles are about, and in that case duplication of results is crucial. After all, validation relies on useful data, and therefore the question of the viability of the data cannot be ignored.
Since global warming relies so much on its models, a similar standard should apply.
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 3:53 PM
It’s been pretty obvious, I just never thought I would hear a head scientist admit it.
jeffn21 on March 2, 2010 at 4:07 PM
Jeff: Please. ‘Scientist’. ;)
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 4:14 PM
Here are my reports of how the Avg Temp of the Earth has never changed until GWB was President. I have a big dog and wouldn’t you know it, he got into my research and ate everything. But you can trust me. I have a solution to stop global cooling. If everyone sends me $500 per person. I will ensure that global cooling is reversed!
80 |
78 |
76 |
74 |
72 | * * * * * * *
70 |
68 |
64 |
62 |
60 |
58 | *
———————————————
Year: 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
jeffn21 on March 2, 2010 at 4:15 PM
Stupid hot air dropped all of my spaces….
But trust the data anyways… It has the avg temp of 2000+ at 58, before then the temp had never changed from 72.
jeffn21 on March 2, 2010 at 4:16 PM
JD: I think that depends o
I’m still waiting for a liberal to show me the computer model that predicted the drop in avg global temps… I guess I’ll be waiting for a while.
jeffn21 on March 2, 2010 at 4:18 PM
Jeff: Not that I am in any sense liberal, but something people need to remember is that all forecasts are wrong. All of them. The question is how wrong they are. Stated more scientifically, what is the statistical probability that the variations are due to chance. That’s something that any trained scientist should be able to do very easily, given accurate data. The entire point at issue is that the data is not accurage, and in that case, GIGO applies.
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 4:23 PM
One important piece of data you may want to consider in judging where/if socialism has/has not failed: Sweden is not a socialist country.
anuts on March 2, 2010 at 4:36 PM
Well, I never heard that before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense. Phil Jones is nothing but a pack of cards!
Cheshire Cat on March 2, 2010 at 4:37 PM
Curiouser and curiouser.
Cheshire Cat on March 2, 2010 at 4:45 PM
Jones is not a scientist, but he has a presented a good case for being considered a fraud.
rukiddingme on March 2, 2010 at 4:50 PM
anuts: If not socialist, how would characterize Sweden?
Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 4:52 PM
MikeA on March 2, 2010 at 5:11 PM
It’s more accurate to describe it as a welfare state. To be socialist, there would have to exist no private enterprise. Private property still exists and is actually quite abundant in Sweden.
anuts on March 2, 2010 at 5:11 PM
Isn’t it amazing that we’ve reached a position where the general public has a better understanding of what constitute science and scientific research then people who claim to be actual scientists? Science depends on other people duplicating one’s work. In order to duplicate that work the data that was used must be made public. Technically, anyone who claims that information is too important to be released to just anyone is involved in a mystery religion not science.
Fred 2 on March 2, 2010 at 5:25 PM
I find it extremely interesting that “Global Warming” and Darwinism are the only two “scientific” theories that are completely terrified of any scrutiny or criticism by other scientists – to the point where their true believers need to attack even just the idea of any such scrutiny & criticism.
whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 5:35 PM
I hope that the politicians at least recognize the part that they played in this whole debacle.
They used taxpayer monies to pay scientists that were reaching the conclusions they wanted them to reach. As a result, scientists worked extra hard to reach the ‘right’ conclusions.
Obviously the scientists made a decision to falsify their data and results and that’s on them. However, I don’t believe the politicians should be off the hook.
JadeNYU on March 2, 2010 at 5:36 PM
We can be objective because we aren’t seeking to obtain or maintain funding.
daesleeper on March 2, 2010 at 6:06 PM
Someone posted earlier that Scientists routinely hide their raw data.
Very true – but it’s not supposed to be that way. This is especially true since much data collection performed today is performed using taxpayer dollars – and as such, the data should be public domain.
This is a problem within the scientific community – they should not have to be “asked” for the data – it should be posted online freely for the taxpayers who funded it. I’ve worked this same issue when I was working for NOAA. Scientists like beg for public funding and grants – but then they want to be super-secretive with their data because they want to be the only ones analyzing it. LOL – most of them don’t understand that that is patently WRONG.
Anywhere data is collected using taxpayer monies – INSIST that the data be made available.
“Losing” or “Hiding” PUBLIC DATA is not an option. If I had my way – any scientist would be criminally charged for withholding such data – it’s PUBLIC PROPERTY!
HondaV65 on March 2, 2010 at 6:07 PM
T’aint too much.
James on March 2, 2010 at 6:55 PM
How does one ‘peer review’ something they don’t have access to?
clement on March 2, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Late 80′s a researcher was charged with fraud by NIH for falsifying data in a project. It seems like the standards in science have fallen as fast as in Congress.
chemman on March 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM
this just shows that ‘science’ is all about pushing an agenda, regardless of the data.
this isn’t the only branch of ‘science’ that pushes an agenda, regardless of the data, evolution is just like global warming, an article of faith among its adherents.
right4life on March 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM
And still, the legacy media is silent, at least on this side of the pond.
Can you imagine the media’s response were scientists from a drug company engaged in such shenanigans?
BLOC on March 2, 2010 at 7:37 PM
It’s time for the all US government agencies to release all of their raw climate data. No “homogenized” data, no “corrected” data, no imaginary “data”. And after reading the CRU emails, we definitely don’t want their software. Just the raw data that we American taxpayers have paid for. K Thx.
motionview on March 2, 2010 at 9:53 PM
Very late to this thread, but, in case it hasn’t been mentioned recently, we owe an eternal debt of gratitude to the deep-throat – whoever it was.
OldEnglish on March 2, 2010 at 10:19 PM
Next thing you know we’ll find out that evolution isn’t true either. But, SCIENTISTS wouldn’t make stuff up now would they.
Mojave Mark on March 2, 2010 at 10:47 PM
Spoken like a true “scientist” in the age of the great evolution hoax. It worked with that lie, why not with AGW?
CaliConstitutionalist on March 3, 2010 at 12:35 AM
Well spoken.
There is no indisputable truth short of God.
A Harvard Degree doesn’t mean half a pound of sh!t anymore. Give me someone with a P.H.D. from the School of Hard Knocks any day. I’ll take them over all the geniuses from Harvard.
Especially considering their track record.
Chaz706 on March 3, 2010 at 2:04 AM
Exactly! I perform empirical modeling in the private sector. Before major expenditures are committed to a project for which I conducted statistical analyses, I am required to explain my reasoning and methods I used as well as the raw data behind the same. It’s a condition of my employment to which I agreed when I signed on with my employer. A response of, “I don’t wanna, so I don’t gotta!” would be the end of my career.
ya2daup on March 3, 2010 at 5:14 AM
I read the email. This guy and many others deliberately falsified their data to make the results come out the way they wanted.
So did NASA, by the way. That scandal broke last year regarding the placement of the sensors. They placed them near heating ducts and other places guaranteed to give a false reading.
dogsoldier on March 3, 2010 at 6:57 AM
Now NASA has been caught fudging the data.
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/02/climategate-this-time-its-nasa
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2010 at 7:51 AM
Trying to decide which one?
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2010 at 7:53 AM
Half the stuff that I learn, had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2010 at 7:56 AM
7. Win Nobel Prize
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2010 at 7:59 AM
Latest Peer-Reviewed Research Indicates IPCC “CO2 Global Warming” Is Overstated By 3 Times, At Minimum
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/03/latest-peerreviewed-research-indicates-ipcc-co2-global-warming-is-overstated-by-3-times-at-minimum.html
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2010 at 8:07 AM
I agree, but when there is ice melting throughout the solar system(most heavily publicized on Mars) it becomes painfully obvious that whatever the cause of a temporary warming trend must have had to do with something that affects the ENTIRE solar system. For example… The sun.
jeffn21 on March 3, 2010 at 9:41 AM
I don’t think that’s what your referred article says. In particular, look at the concluding remarks.
Now, whether or not all of these impacts are as large as they have been reported, or whether they are totally independent of each other (as we have assumed), may or may not bear out as more research in done in the future. But, more research may just as well determine that these effects may be larger than reported, or may identify yet other warming influences. We can’t say for sure—nor can anyone else.
“But one thing that we can say for sure is that the IPCC’s statement that “[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations” is badly in need of reassessment. The current literature shows that it cannot be justified.”
“Reassessment” is what always takes place in responsible scientific research. There is ongoing work that involves itself in precisely what this article deals with – factors that are deemed to be climate-forcing and the uncertainties in how much warming each contributes.
Even if we accept the premise that the human component is thus far overstated, how does this preclude the necessity of determining what the human component actually is, will be, and, on those bases, deriving policy?
oakland on March 3, 2010 at 10:33 AM
If the human component of the past warming is at most 1/3rd.
And given the fact that it has been warmer than present in the not to distant past.
This gives lie to the idea that unless we do something really bad things are going to happen in the future.
By all means. Keep studying. We need to know a lot more about how climate works than we do today.
But the claim that calamity is around the corner is well and thouroughly refuted.
Without the boogeyman of immenent calamity, the claims that we must cut carbon emissions also fall apart.
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2010 at 10:40 AM
If “calamity” befalls my children or grandchildren, it is too soon.
oakland on March 3, 2010 at 11:13 AM
I would be quite happy if calamity befell you. Reduce your carbon footprint immediately if its such a problem, champ. Kill yourself. You won’t be missed.
PimFortuynsGhost on March 3, 2010 at 1:47 PM
If you have any evidence at all that calamity will befall your children or grandchildren, please present it. So far, none of your climate propagandists have been able to do so, at least once they faced real peer review. Otherwise, get your hands out of my pocket. Stop trying to help me, get out of my face.
runawayyyy on March 3, 2010 at 2:28 PM
I can only conclude that you didn’t actually read the article.
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2010 at 3:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »