Karl et al Debunked

Jack Hays said:

When scientists become advocates then science becomes advocacy. There's no character assassination in calling out that change of role and its consequences.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, and this is the same mistake that the elites everywhere have made. Instead of letting the people decide direction with the elite making sure that the gears run well to get to that destination they decide that they needed to decide direction, that they needed to force the issue with lies, and **** how well the gears run....or dont. It was a huge mistake, born from willful ignorance and a strong sadistic streak, , in the end destroying both their own credibility and America.

The last dozen posts or so are hilarious.

Virtually every single scientific organization recognizes AGW as both real and as a serious threat in the future.

Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it's not real, and the fact that the existing evidence doesn't 'convince' you sassy much, much more about you than the evidence.

AlbqOwl said:

You can pretty well interchange any developed country in place of the Aussie's here:​

Click to expand...

I like the graphic. It depicts a very probably truth, considering more than 97% of the climate sciences research grants are to show AGW rather than natural causes.

Lord of Planar said:

I like the graphic. It depicts a very probably truth, considering more than 97% of the climate sciences research grants are to show AGW rather than natural causes.

Click to expand...

That's the kind of comment I'd expect from people who scarcely understand the topic, but it's disappointing coming from you. Research to quantify for example solar variability and influence could have shown a vast impact on global climate, but because it hasn't you decide that it must have been intended to show AGW as a more significant influence. Research to quantify aerosol or greenhouse gas forcings could have shown very small influences, either individually or cancelling each other out, but because it hasn't you've decided that it must have been intended to reach the results of substantial influence.

In other words, climate research finds whatever it finds, but you've decided to assert without a shred of evidence that all findings you don't like were premeditated agendas.

I pointed this out in more detail in another thread last month:

Mithrae said:

There's no such thing as funding for "the man caused side" of climate science, because understanding human impacts requires understanding natural variables also.

Just look at those papers by Hansen et al which Steve Case has been so emphatic in his personal incredulity about, estimating a possibility of 1 up to 5m sea level increase(!) by the early or mid 22nd century. Was that all about "the man caused side" of climate science? Well, no... from my brief glance - very brief glance of the 52 page paper - some of the main things it seems to depend on are
1) proxy reconstructions of prehistoric temperature changes,
2) proxy reconstructions of prehistoric sea level changes,
3) observational research into ice sheet structure and dynamics,
4) observational research into oceanic circulation patterns,
5) observational records of recent ice sheet losses,
6) observational records of recent sea level changes and
7) computer models simulating and building on that research, attempting to reproduce both prehistoric changes and observed recent variation, and
8) forward projection from those records and computer models

Not a single one of these areas of research or observation can be simplistically labeled as "the man caused side" of anything. Heck, oceanic circulation patterns is the biggest and potentially only major source of internal natural variability on centennial and millennial timeframes. That earlier research - on which Hansen et al's hypothesis depends - could have showed a strong natural warming influence over the past half-century; it probably would have showed it, had that been the case. But it didn't. Similarly computer modeling of what we've learned from observation and research is evaluated first and foremost by the model's ability to reproduce known, historical variability (eg. below); which is mostly natural variability, especially earlier in the instrumental record. If simulations don't hit close to the mark when modeling historical variation, they're obviously not reliable in projecting future variation.

To model the historical variation well, we have to know a lot about the natural variability which largely produced it. So even the future projections of climate change based on computer models is not about "the man caused side" of climate. Such a notion merely suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of climate and science in general.



IPCC AR5 WG1 Figure 9.08 ("Observed and CMIP5 simulated global mean surface air temperatures"):

Spoiler

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

That's the kind of comment I'd expect from people who scarcely understand the topic, but it's disappointing coming from you. Research to quantify for example solar variability and influence could have shown a vast impact on global climate, but because it hasn't you decide that it must have been intended to show AGW as a more significant influence. Research to quantify aerosol or greenhouse gas forcings could have shown very small influences, either individually or cancelling each other out, but because it hasn't you've decided that it must have been intended to reach the results of substantial influence.

In other words, climate research finds whatever it finds, but you've decided to assert without a shred of evidence that all findings you don't like were premeditated agendas.

I pointed this out in more detail in another thread last month:

Click to expand...

I'm confused on why you seem to insist he understands the topic, when his posts consistently demonstrate base confusion on the most fundamental issues of the problem.

AlbqOwl said:

I do not presume to be an expert on this topic, but I have done much more reading on it than most pro-AGW proponents will ever give me credit for.

I am neither a pro-AGW person nor a denier. I'm in the "I don't know but they haven't convinced me one way or the other" group. Which is what a skeptic is.

All I know is that all those who wouldn't agree with the so-called 'settled science' of the pro-AGW position are no longer with the IPCC and are generally considered pariahs by the pro-AGW group.

I don't know any scientist who doesn't support the pro-AGW position who is getting any kind of government grants while it seems all who make up the IPCC assessment group do get government grants.

You can pretty well interchange any developed country in place of the Aussie's here:​

And I don't see the skeptic group having to revise their scientific opinions or being accused of falsifying or omitting data while a number of the pro-AGW group have been exposed for rigging or manipulating the data.

And so far none of the pro-AGW models used to 'prove' their theories have turned out to be anywhere near accurate.

So I remain in the skeptic group and wait for more convincing and trustworthy information to be presented.

Click to expand...

The problem with that cartoon is that Julia Gillard is no longer our Prime Minister - she hasn't been since 2013. More the point, she wasn't our Prime Minister in (for example) 2001; at that stage we'd had a right-wing Prime Minister, John Howard, since 1996 (re-elected in 1998 and 2001). But that was one of the years in which the Australian Academy of Sciences joined with 16 other peak national or regional scientific bodies to issue a statement on climate science:

As another example, in 2005 the United States had been under a right-wing President for four years - and the Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House of Reps - yet that was one of the years in which the US National Academy of Sciences joined with the peak bodies of the other G8 countries, along with those of Brazil, India and China (three of the largest developing-world emitters):

In short, the notion that political influence has been directing the course of scientific progress doesn't stand up to even the most cursory level of scrutiny: The scientific 'consensus' on climate change has grown in countries all around the world - both those likely to be hardest hurt and those who might even stand to benefit from it, both those with high emissions they'd need to curb and those with low - across multiple decades despite all ebbs and flows of political influence.

Heck, the IPCC itself was begun by the UN while two of its most influential governments were under the leadership of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher! It's hard to imagine that they hatched - or quietly allowed to be hatched - some vast conspiracy against mankind :lol:

Jack Hays said:

When scientists become advocates then science becomes advocacy. There's no character assassination in calling out that change of role and its consequences.

Click to expand...

The premise of this entire thread is character assassination against the scientists at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who published the newly-available global temperature information and analysis in Karl et al 2015, which you falsely asserted had been 'debunked' (by a paper on a different topic whose only mention of Karl et al is a favourable citation of it and another similar study!) and described in your opening post as "politically motivated headline chasing disguised as research" and later as "political charlatanry."

Admittedly, my compliment was not entirely correct because you don't actually limit your attacks to scientists who publish information you don't like: Not so long ago you made a thread for even more vicious and even more brazenly false accusations against EPA officials, that they'd "told Alaskans to freeze rather than burn wood" (though after a dozen pages of repetition, to your credit you did eventually acknowledge the falsehood in that case after it had been highlighted in other sections of the forum). But even still, kudos for making such accusations only against people you don't know and haven't spoken with - better that than attacking absolutely everyone!

Mithrae said:

The problem with that cartoon is that Julia Gillard is no longer our Prime Minister - she hasn't been since 2013. More the point, she wasn't our Prime Minister in (for example) 2001; at that stage we'd had a right-wing Prime Minister, John Howard, since 1996 (re-elected in 1998 and 2001). But that was one of the years in which the Australian Academy of Sciences joined with 16 other peak national or regional scientific bodies to issue a statement on climate science:

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize the IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world's climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC's conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4° and 5.8°C above 1990 levels by 2100.* This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels; more intense precipitation events in some countries and increased risk of drought in others; and adverse effects on agriculture, health, and water resources.​

As another example, in 2005 the United States had been under a right-wing President for four years - and the Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House of Reps - yet that was one of the years in which the US National Academy of Sciences joined with the peak bodies of the other G8 countries, along with those of Brazil, India and China (three of the largest developing-world emitters):

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.​

In short, the notion that political influence has been directing the course of scientific progress doesn't stand up to even the most cursory level of scrutiny: The scientific 'consensus' on climate change has grown in countries all around the world - both those likely to be hardest hurt and those who might even stand to benefit from it, both those with high emissions they'd need to curb and those with low - across multiple decades despite all ebbs and flows of political influence.

Heck, the IPCC itself was begun by the UN while two of its most influential governments were under the leadership of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher! It's hard to imagine that they hatched - or quietly allowed to be hatched - some vast conspiracy against mankind :lol:

Click to expand...

In all due respect I think you missed the point altogether.

AlbqOwl said:

In all due respect I think you missed the point altogether.

Click to expand...

You posted a giant cartoon of a politician supposedly handing out billions of dollars to "find evidence supporting man-made climate change." What was the point, if not to suggest political influence over scientific progress?

You made other comments in your post also of course, which we can certainly discuss further. But could you first clarify, if that wasn't the point of the cartoon, what on earth was the point? And if it was the point, are you still maintaining that as a viable position, or do you recognize that it doesn't stand up in the face of even the most cursory level of scrutiny?

Mithrae said:

That's the kind of comment I'd expect from people who scarcely understand the topic, but it's disappointing coming from you. Research to quantify for example solar variability and influence could have shown a vast impact on global climate, but because it hasn't you decide that it must have been intended to show AGW as a more significant influence. Research to quantify aerosol or greenhouse gas forcings could have shown very small influences, either individually or cancelling each other out, but because it hasn't you've decided that it must have been intended to reach the results of substantial influence.

In other words, climate research finds whatever it finds, but you've decided to assert without a shred of evidence that all findings you don't like were premeditated agendas.

I pointed this out in more detail in another thread last month:

Click to expand...

There are real measurements that would go a long way towards showing the extent of CO2 involvement vs aerosols.
The first articles on home solar came out in 70's, it would be good to know if the shortwave light reaching the ground has changed
much since the 70's, but that number is difficult to find.
What effect did the clean air act have on the observed warming between 1978 and 1998?
We talk about energy imbalance of a few watts per meter squared, but a 1% clearing of the sky, could do the same thing.
We simply do not understand how all of the natural cycles interact, and how any Human activity is adding to, or taking away from those natural cycles.

Mithrae said:

The premise of this entire thread is character assassination against the scientists at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who published the newly-available global temperature information and analysis in Karl et al 2015, which you falsely asserted had been 'debunked' (by a paper on a different topic whose only mention of Karl et al is a favourable citation of it and another similar study!) and described in your opening post as "politically motivated headline chasing disguised as research" and later as "political charlatanry."

Admittedly, my compliment was not entirely correct because you don't actually limit your attacks to scientists who publish information you don't like: Not so long ago you made a thread for even more vicious and even more brazenly false accusations against EPA officials, that they'd "told Alaskans to freeze rather than burn wood" (though after a dozen pages of repetition, to your credit you did eventually acknowledge the falsehood in that case after it had been highlighted in other sections of the forum). But even still, kudos for making such accusations only against people you don't know and haven't spoken with - better that than attacking absolutely everyone!

Click to expand...

The point stands, as does the debunking of Karl et al.

AlbqOwl said:

In all due respect I think you missed the point altogether.

Click to expand...

Mithrae said:

You posted a giant cartoon of a politician supposedly handing out billions of dollars to "find evidence supporting man-made climate change." What was the point, if not to suggest political influence over scientific progress?

You made other comments in your post also of course, which we can certainly discuss further. But could you first clarify, if that wasn't the point of the cartoon, what on earth was the point? And if it was the point, are you still maintaining that as a viable position, or do you recognize that it doesn't stand up in the face of even the most cursory level of scrutiny?

Click to expand...

Global Fatcats Urge More Carbon Pricing, Climate Policy Continuity

Guest essay by Eric Worrall The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, whose members control eighteen trillion dollars in assets, has urged the world’s governments to shovel more taxpayers’ money into their pockets. Source: http://www.iigcc.org/files/publication-files/Briefing_Paper_for_G7__G20.pdf The most interesting point is the demand for carbon pricing. From page 5; 2. Include carbon pricing in climate-energy action…
Continue reading →

AlbqOwl said:

I do not presume to be an expert on this topic, but I have done much more reading on it than most pro-AGW proponents will ever give me credit for.

I am neither a pro-AGW person nor a denier. I'm in the "I don't know but they haven't convinced me one way or the other" group. Which is what a skeptic is.

All I know is that all those who wouldn't agree with the so-called 'settled science' of the pro-AGW position are no longer with the IPCC and are generally considered pariahs by the pro-AGW group.

I don't know any scientist who doesn't support the pro-AGW position who is getting any kind of government grants while it seems all who make up the IPCC assessment group do get government grants.

You can pretty well interchange any developed country in place of the Aussie's here:​

And I don't see the skeptic group having to revise their scientific opinions or being accused of falsifying or omitting data while a number of the pro-AGW group have been exposed for rigging or manipulating the data.

And so far none of the pro-AGW models used to 'prove' their theories have turned out to be anywhere near accurate.

So I remain in the skeptic group and wait for more convincing and trustworthy information to be presented.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

If you try to find skeptics among those who write the opinions/findings, it can't be done. And so far I don't believe anybody has debunked Judith Curry's assessment and opinions when she left the IPCC I think in 2010.

Click to expand...

“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” - Mike Mann

bubbabgone said:

“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” - Mike Mann

Click to expand...

I think that quote says everything we need to know about Michael Mann. The cause is more important than the science.

longview said:

I think that quote says everything we need to know about Michael Mann. The cause is more important than the science.

Click to expand...

And what was the context that quote was spoken in?

You don't know?

I think that says everything we need to know about deniers such as yourself. The cause is more important than the science you don't do or understand.

Threegoofs said:

And what was the context that quote was spoken in?

You don't know?

I think that says everything we need to know about deniers such as yourself. The cause is more important than the science you don't do or understand.

Click to expand...

If you think the context of the quote is somehow different, then please show us the entire quote so we can understand the context better!

longview said:

If you think the context of the quote is somehow different, then please show us the entire quote so we can understand the context better!

Click to expand...

Well, given the only source of the quote is an out of context, disembodied quote repeated as infinitum on denier websites ( it looks like it was part of an email hack), I can't tell.

Which tells us both something about the quote, and those who repeat it.

Threegoofs said:

Well, given the only source of the quote is an out of context, disembodied quote repeated as infinitum on denier websites ( it looks like it was part of an email hack), I can't tell.

Which tells us both something about the quote, and those who repeat it.

Click to expand...

So if you cannot present the full quote, how do you know it is out of context?
You say the quote is out of context, unless this is an assumption on your part, you must be basing your statement,
on having observed the complete context of the quote.
When I challenge you to present the complete context of the quote to support your position (That the quote is out of context),
Your response is that you cannot find, or don't like the sources of the quote.
We are left with the reality that your out of context comment is baseless!

longview said:

bubbabgone said:

“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” - Mike Mann

Click to expand...

I think that quote says everything we need to know about Michael Mann. The cause is more important than the science.

Click to expand...

What exactly was Judith Curry doing at the time, do you know?

I don't, but if I had to guess I'd assume that this was probably when she was being 'understanding' towards and 'engaging with' the contrarian blogosphere, but before she became a contrarian propagandist herself. By 2016, Curry had reached the level of actively promoting Murray Salby's views, a talk in which he not only denies anthropogenic greenhouse warming, and not even just disputes the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 increases, but asserts that “The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.”

Obviously if Mann's comments were about anything on that level of bull&#@*, the 'cause' which Curry had evidently abandoned would be the scientific facts themselves :lol: But more likely, I would guess, it was back when Curry was merely being 'understanding' toward and 'engaging with' the contrarian blogosphere. In that case, presumably the 'cause' would be accurate and effective communication of scientific information, in the face of determined and sometimes quite professional efforts to smear and obfuscate.



Murray Salby's nonsense is one obvious example of the depths to which such obfuscationary efforts sometimes delve, and there are a small number of people who'll believe even that. Perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that there are others who promote Salby's views, but would vehemently deny believing them when challenged (as for example in the case of a thread promoting them on this very forum) - the only logical conclusion being that such people are merely hoping the message will reach someone so ill-informed that they will believe it!

These hacked emails are yet another example of the surprising level of sophistication and political manipulation which has been brought to bear against climate science: The snippet above is apparently taken from an email obtained in the 2009 hacking incident, but it wasn't released before the 2009 Copenhagen meeting when the most widely-publicized soundbites were. I wasn't even aware of this before now, but it seems the hacker/s waited two years before releasing another carefully-selected bunch of material in the lead-up to the 2011 Durban conference.

So what is the best way to accurately and effectively communicate scientific information in the face of sophisticated misinformation and smear campaigns?

Obviously (assuming my guess about the context is correct), Mann believed that Curry's 'understanding' and 'engaging with' approach was the wrong way to go about it, or at least that she'd gone too far in pandering to unscientific objections. The years since have apparently proven him correct, as she now seems to be an active promoter of misinformation herself - which may or may not have been her intention all along, since as we've seen in this and other threads she's now every contrarian's poster child convert :lol:

Put into this context, it's difficult to view Mann's informal comments in the negative light they were obviously intended by the hacker/s using it for political manipulation.

Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online | The Guardian (November 23rd, 2011)

longview said:

So if you cannot present the full quote, how do you know it is out of context?
You say the quote is out of context, unless this is an assumption on your part, you must be basing your statement,
on having observed the complete context of the quote.
When I challenge you to present the complete context of the quote to support your position (That the quote is out of context),
Your response is that you cannot find, or don't like the sources of the quote.
We are left with the reality that your out of context comment is baseless!

Click to expand...

If you have no idea what the context is, or where it even came from, or if its real at all, why would you assume it was a quote in the context you decide to create in your own head?

Mithrae said:

You posted a giant cartoon of a politician supposedly handing out billions of dollars to "find evidence supporting man-made climate change." What was the point, if not to suggest political influence over scientific progress?

You made other comments in your post also of course, which we can certainly discuss further. But could you first clarify, if that wasn't the point of the cartoon, what on earth was the point? And if it was the point, are you still maintaining that as a viable position, or do you recognize that it doesn't stand up in the face of even the most cursory level of scrutiny?

Click to expand...

Of course the point of the cartoon was to illustrate political influence and my post specifically said that the cartoon could be applicable to any nation whose government has bought into the whole doctrine of AGW as a serious problem and is not applicable to only the Aussies. Nevertheless you seemed to think a change in prime ministers was an important factor.

How can there not be political influence when the only goverment funded scientific research being done is being done by people who say they are already convinced that AGW is a serious problem funded by governments that are seriously pushing that doctrine. Those same governments are using the doctrine to exercise more and more control and increasingly take away options, choices, opportunity, and individual liberty from the people they govern.

And meanwhile none of those governments nor any of the more prominent AGW spokespersons--think Al Gore--nor any of the scientists promoting AGW seem to be altering their own lifestyles and being carbon frugal in any way. So how alarmed are they really?

There are a lot of sound, logical, and thought out reasons for being a skeptic on this topic.

bubbabgone said:

“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” - Mike Mann

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what Mann was referring to here, but this quotation was in 2008, years before Curry defected from the IPCC and became a leading voice for the voice of reason in the whole AGW discussion.

longview said:

I think that quote says everything we need to know about Michael Mann. The cause is more important than the science.

Click to expand...

Here's a defense of that Mann quote by Forbes contributor & blogger Steve Zwick, who makes his living from solving "environmental problems". (there's a lot of that going around)
Steve took it upon himself to defend the ClimateGate miscreants and this is what he came up with for Mann's quote about Curry ...

This quote is being used to argue that scientists have abandoned reason and embraced climate-change as a “cause” to be championed rather than as a phenomenon to be investigated – a mindset that one would think the Wingnuts are quite well-equipped to recognize.

The charge is ridiculous for a few reasons. First, because it’s just one sentence from a man who has uttered millions and published volumes; and second, because Judith Curry, a professor at Georgia Tech, isn’t questioning the science of climate change so much as she is criticizing the way uncertainty is communicated to the public. She argues, in a nutshell, that scientists should raise the public debate to their level, while others argue that it needs to be dummied down for general consumption. We don't know which "cause" Mann is referring to, and it's irrelevant – because the overall pattern of the mails shows exactly the kind of healthy and spirited debate that denialists say doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

Not impressed you say?
Pretty lame defense?
uh huh, especially since Curry later was pretty clear that what Zwick decries in his very first sentence is what Curry has come to realize is happening.

“In principle, scientists can ethically and effectively advocate for an issue, provided that their statements are honest and they disclose uncertainties. In practice, too many scientists, and worse yet professional societies, are conducting their advocacy for emissions reductions in a manner that is not responsible in context of the norms of science.”
“In their efforts to promote their ‘cause,’ the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem. This behavior risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty. It is this objectivity and honesty which gives science a privileged seat at the table. Without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as another lobbyist group.”
“As a result of this lack of a code of behavior for university scientists, there continues to be what I regard as extremely irresponsible public behavior by some climate scientists, and there are absolutely no professional repercussions.” – Judith Curry, “Science, Uncertainty and Advocacy,” June 22, 2015.

Click to expand...

I especially liked his last sentence where he refers to ClimateGate email rants about coverups & personal attacks as spirited debates. Ya gotta love it.