• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Paradigm Protection" in Climate Research Funding

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's an analysis that explicitly acknowledges Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. ​This is why a conspiracy theory is not needed to explain the preference for advocacy over science in the climate field.


Measuring bias in the U.S. federally-funded climate research

Posted on August 23, 2016 | 41 comments
by David Wojick
Semantic analysis of U.S. Federal budget documents indicates that the climate science research budget is heavily biased in favor of the paradigm of human-induced climate change.

Continue reading →

Semantic analysis of U.S. Federal budget documents indicates that the climate science research budget is heavily biased in favor of the paradigm of human-induced climate change.

For decades climate research has been dominated by a paradigm that posits dangerous, human-induced global warming. This concept is usually referred to as “anthropogenic global warming” or simply AGW. The competing paradigm, which posits the possible attribution of significant natural variability, is barely mentioned. We call this bias “paradigm protection.”
We developed a method to quantify this paradigm protection bias, a method with general applicability in bias research. See our Framework Working Paper for a detailed discussion of bias quantification issues.
We first define two sets of words that express core concepts for each paradigm :

  1. human induced climate change; and
  2. the climate change attribution problem.
Then we measure the rates of occurrence of these two sets of words in the budget documents. The occurrence ratio we find is about 80 to one in favor of the human-induced paradigm. Moreover, it is roughly constant across multiple budget reports, a clear indication of paradigm bias.
Thomas Kuhn, in his groundbreaking work on the structure of scientific revolutions, coined the word “paradigm” to describe the basic tenets that guide research in a given domain. He pointed out that a scientific community may actively ignore new ideas that challenge its paradigm. We have coined the term “paradigm protection” to describe this behavior. . . .
 
Was early onset industrial-era warming anthropogenic, as Abram et al. claim?

Aug 31, 2016 – 12:12 PM
A guest post by Nic Lewis

Introduction
A recent PAGES 2k Consortium paper in Nature,https://climateaudit.org/#_edn1 Abram et al., that claims human-induced, greenhouse gas driven warming commenced circa 180 years ago,[ii] has been attracting some attention. The study arrives at its start dates by using a change-point analysis method, SiZer, to assess when the most recent significant and sustained warming trend commenced. Commendably, the lead author has provided the data and Matlab code used in the study, including the SiZer code.[iii]
Their post-1500 AD proxy-based regional reconstructions are the PAGES2K reconstructions, which have been discussed and criticized on many occasions at CA (see tag), with the Gergis et al 2016 Australian reconstruction substituted for the withdrawn version. I won’t comment on the validity of the post-1500 AD proxy-based regional reconstructions on which the observational side of their study is based – Steve McIntyre is much better placed than me to do so.
However, analysis of those reconstructions can only provide evidence as to when sustained warming started, not as to whether the cause was natural or anthropogenic. In this post, I will examine and question the paper’s conclusions about the early onset of warming detected in the study being attributable to the small increase in greenhouse gas emissions during the start of the Industrial Age. . . .

It appears that the claim in Abrams et al. that the diagnosed early onset – about 180 years ago in some regions – of industrial-era warming is of anthropogenic origin is based on inappropriate evidence that does not substantiate that claim, which is very likely incorrect. Most of the evidence given for the anthropogenic origin claim, which is entirely model-simulation based, ignores the industrial era increase in aerosol forcing, the dominant negative (cooling) anthropogenic forcing; the remaining evidence appears to be invalidated by a simulation discontinuity in 1850. The only evidence provided that includes even the post 1850 increase in anthropogenic aerosol forcing – half of the Figure 3a multi-model ensemble simulations – is affected by the simulations from 1850 on being started with the ocean significantly warmer than it was in 1849.
Recovery from the heavy volcanism earlier in the century and an upswing in Atlantic multidecadal variability, superimposed on a slow trend of recovery in surface temperature from the LIA as the ocean interior warmed after the end of the particularly cold four hundred year period from AD 1400–1800, appears adequate to account for warming from the late 1830s to the final quarter of the 19th century. It is unlikely that anthropogenic forcing, estimated to be very low until the 1870s, played any part in warming before then. The heavy volcanism in the first four decades of the 19th century likely caused the warming onset dates diagnosed from the proxy data, at least, to be up to several decades earlier than they would have been in its absence.
Ironically, should the study’s finding of anthropogenic warming starting as early as circa the 1830s be correct, it would imply that anthropogenic aerosol forcing is weaker than estimated in IPCC AR5, and therefore that observational estimates of climate sensitivity (both transient and equilibrium) based on AR5 forcing values need to be revised downwards. That is because total anthropogenic forcing would only have become positive enough to have had any measurable impact on temperatures in the 1830s if AR5 best estimates significantly overstate the strength of anthropogenic aerosol forcing.
 
False assumption: something is budgeted more money, therefore the system is biased towards it.

Additional false assumption: these two phrases alone accurately portray the difference.

Sometimes research is "biased" towards a particular conclusion because that's the correct conclusion.
 
Deuce said:
False assumption: something is budgeted more money, therefore the system is biased towards it.

Additional false assumption: these two phrases alone accurately portray the difference.

Sometimes research is "biased" towards a particular conclusion because that's the correct conclusion.
Click to expand...

Conclusion

This bias in favor of AGW has significant implications for US climate change policy. Present policy is based on the AGW paradigm, but if a significant fraction of global warming is natural then this policy may be wrong. Federal climate research should be trying to solve the attribution problem, not protecting the AGW paradigm
 
The same dramatic and severe bias is also found in favor of gravity, the germ theory of disease and evolution.

And don't get me started over the inherent bias the granting agencies have against the ideas of homeopathy, telekinesis, and spoon bending.
 
Jack Hays said:
Conclusion

This bias in favor of AGW has significant implications for US climate change policy. Present policy is based on the AGW paradigm, but if a significant fraction of global warming is natural then this policy may be wrong. Federal climate research should be trying to solve the attribution problem, not protecting the AGW paradigm
Click to expand...

Sure, your conclusion. Based on the false assumptions I pointed out. Therefore the conclusion is likely false.
 
Deuce said:
Sure, your conclusion. Based on the false assumptions I pointed out. Therefore the conclusion is likely false.
Click to expand...

It's the authors' conclusion, as published.

Of course solving the attribution problem will involve modeling as well, so the term “model” is not AGW centric in principle. But it is clear from the extremely low attribution word counts that attribution modeling of natural variability is not under serious consideration. The modeling actually being done is heavily AGW centric. Moreover, this modeling dominates climate research. See our semantic analysis of this here: Climate Modeling Dominates Climate Science | Cato @ Liberty.
 
AGW is solid, good, and provable science? I wonder about that, as I do the alleged consensus as to its conclusions.

Seems to be evermore legitimate questions and skepticism about AGW.
 
More points of facts that are interesting.

MYTH: The world is getting hotter at a significant rate.
TRUTH: The world has gotten 1.7 degrees hotter since 1880.


MYTH: Rise in CO2 is dangerous and can directly be traced to man-made emissions.
TRUTH: CO2 isn’t a pollutant. Most of the rise in CO2 is coming from natural sources.


MYTH: The Ice Sheets are MELTING AWAY!
TRUTH: Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing by billions of tons. Also FAIL: Scientist That Predicted Ice Caps Would Melt in 2013… Now Claims 2016?


MYTH: Climate change models are reliable.
TRUTH: NOAA has been caught skewing data.


MYTH: Climate change is the consensus of scientists.
FACT: Not all scientists are in agreement over climate change. Also, manmade climate change is still a theory.


MYTH: Hybrid cars are better for the environment.
TRUTH: Not exactly. Production emissions are much higher, the minerals mined for the battered are typically done with little oversight on “non-green ways” and you’re still hurting the environment FAAAAR more by buying a new hybrid than buying used gas.


MYTH: The polar bears are dying off!
TRUTH: There are more polar bears than ever before. Do not ask a polar bear for a coke. It might kill you.
Click to expand...

Each with a source.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, from a cursory look, your 'facts' aren't really all facts, and your sources are a joke.

Murry Salbys analysis of CO2? Please.
Click to expand...


Murry Salby’s latest presentation

Posted on August 10, 2016 | 94 comments
by Judith Curry
Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, gave a presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate.
Continue reading →

Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, gave a presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate.

The complete presentation is available on youtube [link].
Pierre Gosselin provides a summary of the talk [here]. Excerpts:
He begins by reminding that climate is a subject of “limited understanding” and that it one of “limited observation” He tells the audience that carbon in the atmosphere cannot be regulated and is NOT a pollutant. On why CO2 science got to where it is today, he cites Mark Twain: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”
In his introduction he explains how CO2 will be a pollutant to our ecosystem only when the day arrives that water vapour becomes a pollutant – i.e. never in our geological lifetime. He says that energy sources that circumvent CO2 emissions are neither greener nor cleaner – just different.
Later he shows that although humans have emitted twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere over the last decade compared to a decade earlier, growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not change at all. He states: “The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.”
Salby says this is “hardly a surprise”. During the presentation Salby presents the scientific reasoning why CO2 is not the harmful gas it is claimed to be.
He concludes that 360 trillion dollars for climate protection will result in literally no benefit at all for citizens of the planet.
 
Jack Hays said:
Murry Salby’s latest presentation

Posted on August 10, 2016 | 94 comments
by Judith Curry
Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, gave a presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate.
Continue reading →

Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, gave a presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate.

The complete presentation is available on youtube [link].
Pierre Gosselin provides a summary of the talk [here]. Excerpts:
He begins by reminding that climate is a subject of “limited understanding” and that it one of “limited observation” He tells the audience that carbon in the atmosphere cannot be regulated and is NOT a pollutant. On why CO2 science got to where it is today, he cites Mark Twain: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”
In his introduction he explains how CO2 will be a pollutant to our ecosystem only when the day arrives that water vapour becomes a pollutant – i.e. never in our geological lifetime. He says that energy sources that circumvent CO2 emissions are neither greener nor cleaner – just different.
Later he shows that although humans have emitted twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere over the last decade compared to a decade earlier, growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not change at all. He states: “The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.”
Salby says this is “hardly a surprise”. During the presentation Salby presents the scientific reasoning why CO2 is not the harmful gas it is claimed to be.
He concludes that 360 trillion dollars for climate protection will result in literally no benefit at all for citizens of the planet.
Click to expand...

Too bad he can't research these ideas. He's been fired by his University and banned from getting NSF funding for fraud.

But I guess he can still sucker deniers and make a living.
 
Threegoofs said:
Too bad he can't research these ideas. He's been fired by his University and banned from getting NSF funding for fraud.

But I guess he can still sucker deniers and make a living.
Click to expand...

The Consensus Enforcement vigilantes in action.

[h=1]Murry Salby responds to critics[/h]Jo Nova writes: Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a “misconduct” meeting in his absence. Since then he has been subject to attacks related to his previous employment. I’ve asked him to respond,…

August 11, 2013 in Climate ugliness.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Consensus Enforcement vigilantes in action.

[h=1]Murry Salby responds to critics[/h]Jo Nova writes: Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a “misconduct” meeting in his absence. Since then he has been subject to attacks related to his previous employment. I’ve asked him to respond,…

August 11, 2013 in Climate ugliness.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was kinda thinking that too. I guess best not stray from the narrow line of AGW ideology, else there will be repercussions.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Consensus Enforcement vigilantes in action.

[h=1]Murry Salby responds to critics[/h]Jo Nova writes: Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a “misconduct” meeting in his absence. Since then he has been subject to attacks related to his previous employment. I’ve asked him to respond,…

August 11, 2013 in Climate ugliness.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pretty sure he forged timesheets on his NSF grant. But I guess blaming the librul cabal is convenient.

I did find his full lecture on the internet, including Q and A. It looks like his audience at this famous lecture (which presented none of his data) was about a dozen people, most of them nutbag deniers (one was Monckton, and another was so nuts they didnt bother to address his question). Hilarious.

https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/the-most-interesting-part-of-murry-salbys-lecture/
 
Threegoofs said:
No, I'm pretty sure he forged timesheets on his NSF grant. But I guess blaming the librul cabal is convenient.
Click to expand...

That claim is laughable.

See: Murry Salby responds to the attacks on his record « JoNova

First and foremost, there is nothing in any of the NSF claims that questions Murry Salby’s scientific research. This is about paperwork and whether bureaucratic procedures have been properly followed, not about his science.
There is another side to the story and a long and complex history regarding Murry Salby’s work at Colorado University (CU). It started way back in 1997 when he noticed funds were going missing from his NSF-funded research group. After requests for their return were ignored, he reported it to the NSF. By 2003 it reached the stage where the NSF launched a criminal investigation into Colorado University for misappropriation of research funds. The investigation stopped when $100,000 was returned to Salby’s group. Salby was unable to find out where half those missing funds had been placed during the time they had been missing. Possibly this did not make him friends at CU.
Later after Salby left CU in 2008 to come to Australia, Colorado University withheld his computer files and work. After requests for those were also ignored, he launched a case from Australia, and won access to everything — CU paid legal costs as well. Curiously, soon after Salby launched that case, the NSF revived a dormant scientific investigation against Murry which went on to make some extremely serious claims — claims that Salby completely disputes (see his full letter).
Salby had already moved to Australia when the NSF investigation was revived, so he could not apply for any more NSF grants. He explains that given the expense and distance, there was little point in launching a major legal protest to a debarment from funding that he was no longer eligible for in any case.
[h=4]Hyperbole and tenuous reasoning?[/h]At a glance, anyone reading the NSF report might come away thinking Salby “fabricated” time-sheets, a rather serious accusation. Yet on page 30 of the NSF document, even the Acting Deputy Director of the NSF admitted there was “insufficient evidence to support this allegation”.
NSF Report, Deputy Director Cora B. Marrett, p 30
​
The time and effort reports were a key point, mentioned more than 20 times, and referred to in dramatic language with words like “inaccurate”, “fabricated”and “fraudulent”. The allegation over the time sheets were described as “The most egregious act…” in the report. Other points also hinged on this point for which evidence was “insufficient”.
The report even goes so far as to declare they were “separately created years after the fact”. How did such a serious and unsupported claim become written all through the final report?
For the record, Salby notes that timesheets were filed years earlier by his administrative staff, who kept them on file and later invoiced his hours (see his Fig 2aand Fig 3). Salby wonders why the NSF did not pursue those records more diligently, and if the cumulative hours were so unbelievable why they found no fault when they were originally submitted.
As for evidence, apparently the NSF report authors thought that Salby’s hours were “highly implausible”, saying that scientists would not work 14 -16 hours stretches for three months at a time. This may be true for administrators, but it is not necessarily so for scientists. Those hours are unusual, but not implausible for a dedicated researcher. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
That claim is laughable.

See: Murry Salby responds to the attacks on his record « JoNova

First and foremost, there is nothing in any of the NSF claims that questions Murry Salby’s scientific research. This is about paperwork and whether bureaucratic procedures have been properly followed, not about his science.
There is another side to the story and a long and complex history regarding Murry Salby’s work at Colorado University (CU). It started way back in 1997 when he noticed funds were going missing from his NSF-funded research group. After requests for their return were ignored, he reported it to the NSF. By 2003 it reached the stage where the NSF launched a criminal investigation into Colorado University for misappropriation of research funds. The investigation stopped when $100,000 was returned to Salby’s group. Salby was unable to find out where half those missing funds had been placed during the time they had been missing. Possibly this did not make him friends at CU.
Later after Salby left CU in 2008 to come to Australia, Colorado University withheld his computer files and work. After requests for those were also ignored, he launched a case from Australia, and won access to everything — CU paid legal costs as well. Curiously, soon after Salby launched that case, the NSF revived a dormant scientific investigation against Murry which went on to make some extremely serious claims — claims that Salby completely disputes (see his full letter).
Salby had already moved to Australia when the NSF investigation was revived, so he could not apply for any more NSF grants. He explains that given the expense and distance, there was little point in launching a major legal protest to a debarment from funding that he was no longer eligible for in any case.
[h=4]Hyperbole and tenuous reasoning?[/h]At a glance, anyone reading the NSF report might come away thinking Salby “fabricated” time-sheets, a rather serious accusation. Yet on page 30 of the NSF document, even the Acting Deputy Director of the NSF admitted there was “insufficient evidence to support this allegation”.
NSF Report, Deputy Director Cora B. Marrett, p 30
​
The time and effort reports were a key point, mentioned more than 20 times, and referred to in dramatic language with words like “inaccurate”, “fabricated”and “fraudulent”. The allegation over the time sheets were described as “The most egregious act…” in the report. Other points also hinged on this point for which evidence was “insufficient”.
The report even goes so far as to declare they were “separately created years after the fact”. How did such a serious and unsupported claim become written all through the final report?
For the record, Salby notes that timesheets were filed years earlier by his administrative staff, who kept them on file and later invoiced his hours (see his Fig 2aand Fig 3). Salby wonders why the NSF did not pursue those records more diligently, and if the cumulative hours were so unbelievable why they found no fault when they were originally submitted.
As for evidence, apparently the NSF report authors thought that Salby’s hours were “highly implausible”, saying that scientists would not work 14 -16 hours stretches for three months at a time. This may be true for administrators, but it is not necessarily so for scientists. Those hours are unusual, but not implausible for a dedicated researcher. . . .
Click to expand...

LOL.

Salby lost 100k, and half was returned, but he didn't know where the funds were. Apparently, he's the only scientist in the world who works with cash. Or maybe it's gold bars, recommended by his denier pals, Nova and Evans!

Only a true denier could believe that story.

Bottom line, the guy lost the ability to get grants, a major problem in academia, and then got fired from another University.

That's your hero.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Salby lost 100k, and half was returned, but he didn't know where the funds were. Apparently, he's the only scientist in the world who works with cash. Or maybe it's gold bars, recommended by his denier pals, Nova and Evans!

Only a true denier could believe that story.

Bottom line, the guy lost the ability to get grants, a major problem in academia, and then got fired from another University.

That's your hero.
Click to expand...

All was returned. Salby is a victim, not a hero.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Murry Salby’s latest presentation

Posted on August 10, 2016 | 94 comments
by Judith Curry
Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, gave a presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate.
Continue reading →

Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, gave a presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate.

The complete presentation is available on youtube [link].
Pierre Gosselin provides a summary of the talk [here]. Excerpts:
He begins by reminding that climate is a subject of “limited understanding” and that it one of “limited observation” He tells the audience that carbon in the atmosphere cannot be regulated and is NOT a pollutant. On why CO2 science got to where it is today, he cites Mark Twain: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”
In his introduction he explains how CO2 will be a pollutant to our ecosystem only when the day arrives that water vapour becomes a pollutant – i.e. never in our geological lifetime. He says that energy sources that circumvent CO2 emissions are neither greener nor cleaner – just different.
Later he shows that although humans have emitted twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere over the last decade compared to a decade earlier, growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not change at all. He states: “The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.”
Salby says this is “hardly a surprise”. During the presentation Salby presents the scientific reasoning why CO2 is not the harmful gas it is claimed to be.
He concludes that 360 trillion dollars for climate protection will result in literally no benefit at all for citizens of the planet.
Click to expand...

$360 trillion dollars are what they hope to forcibly collect from the people on this planet? I sure hope that is a misquote! :scared: :beam:
 
eohrnberger said:
More points of facts that are interesting.



Each with a source.
Click to expand...
In order:
-1.7 degrees in ~130 years is significant.
-CO2 is a pollutant by definition if increasing it has harmful effects, which it does. (altering climate) Most of the rise comes from humans, not natural sources. Isotope ratios prove that.
-Total ice mass is decreasing, don't cherry pick antarctic sheets you liars.
-The NOAA has published the fact that it corrects data. Skeptics just assume that adjustments are sinister.
-Consensus doesn't require 100% agreement. Don't even get me started on that petition project pile of garbage.
-Math claiming hybrid cars pollute more are done by assuming ridiculous usage scenarios. They compare vastly different mileage numbers.
-I do not care, nor have I ever cared, about polar bears. As I've often said, polar bears are ice monsters and I do not concern myself with the welfare of monsters. I concur that polar bears will kill you instead of giving you a coke. Because they're monsters.
 
polgara said:
$360 trillion dollars are what they hope to forcibly collect from the people on this planet? I sure hope that is a misquote! :scared: :beam:
Click to expand...

It's not a misquote, he's just making the number the **** up. He's probably using some absurd timeframe to come up with it. Mankind is slated to spend 5.7 bazillion dollars on environmental regulation.*


Over the next 5 million years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom