The "interesting article" criticises the peer-review process, but:

Climategate and the peer-review process


Climate science peer review is pal review
- not forgetting that Chris de Freitas was the one who lost his staff.

Of couse, also no apology for using sourcewatch.org, which is also very handy with lots of references...

to be continued a bit more...

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

...continuing with Garth Paltridge who is complaining about the peer review process, so how about a more detailed look at the science in this area:
What does the full body of evidence tell us about humidity?

- the page goes on to review the science...

More on Garth Paltridge: Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Garth_Paltridge (retired, so perhaps not quite so concerned about his reputation?)- he can't be watching the Arctic etc...

Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity

Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)

A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection



to be continued with more on Monkton...

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

Edited: 08 December 2012 at 12:49 PM by geoffbenn

Which brings us nicely to Lord Christopher Monckton mentioned above who got himself in the news this week:
Lord Monckton ejected from COP18 Doha UN climate talks. And who is he again?: Christopher Monckton


Fox is always biased: Fox Paints Birther's Climate Change Antics As Serious "Dissent"


Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?

So what do we have regarding the "conclusion"? Struggling to see that anything of significance challenges a value judgement conclusion for action being appropriate given the possible risk involved in getting it wrong.

The "interesting article" goes on to discuss spending now or later, so here is some further reading:
The economic impacts of carbon pricing
Of course we all know that it's often better to avoid future expense by paying a little in the short term...

Regards,

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

It would seem that its all about the money now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie...onment-20650534


"There has been a historic shift in the UN climate talks in Qatar, with the prospect of rich nations having to compensate poor nations for losses due to climate change."

Great idea in an economic downturn and after asking people to sign up to austerity measures.

http://www.businessinsider.com...e-change-2012-4


The headline of course is not technically correct!

"The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...rming-alarmism/


"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php


31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

"Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list."

http://www.petitionproject.org...rticle_HTML.php


Part of their conclusions:

"Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future."

Of course they may be wrong!

http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/20...al_warming.html


"Land-use modifications for urbanization and agriculture have affected climate change data more than previously thought, according to new research by a University of Guelph professor."

"The IPCC and other users of climate data need to consider the possibility that the basic data being used to study global warming are contaminated."

http://www.nocapandtrade.us/gr....htm#NASA_error


"In 1998 a team of scientists applied a statistical analysis to a selected data set of earth's past temperatures and reported that instead of having a Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum over the past 1000 years, the earth's temperature was relatively flat, until the latter half of the twentieth century when it skyrocketed, allegedly providing proof positive that mankind was causing the warming due to CO2 emissions. The curve was called the Hockey Stick Curve because of the similarity of the graph to a hockey stick. Without verifying these results, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made this graph the centerpiece of its 2001 Summary for Policy Makers. When other scientists tried to verify the results, Dr. Michael Mann (the lead author of the study) refused to provide the data set to the scientists wanting to verify his results."

"Finally, two Canadian scientists found out the data set used by Mann, and analyzed Mann's statistical approach. They determined that Mann and his team used incorrect statistics to come up with the curve. In fact, it was so bad that the same curve was created even if they inputted a completely random data set."

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/...edible-any-more


"UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more'"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/i...40-9efa4d43663d


"In short, Briffa, Mann, Jones, and others were aware of data that suggested that the world was warmer 1000 years ago, and rather than admit that openly, they intentionally hid it from public view. Moreover, they hid it by including temperature records in a dataset composed of tree ring data, which, by itself, is exceedingly questionable."

The Wegman Report:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckit...egmanReport.pdf


It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimatecommunity; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research m a terials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.

http://www.space.dtu.dk/Englis...un_Climate.aspx


Climate models only include the effects of small variations in direct solar radiation (infrared, visible and UV). The effects of cosmic rays on clouds are not included in models, and the models do a rather poor job of simulating clouds in the present climate. Since cloud feedbacks are a large source of uncertainty, this is a reason for concern when viewing climate model predictions. The climate system is extremely complex and any estimate of the human contribution to climate change is very uncertain.

http://www.thegwpf.org/green-a...admits-osborne/


"Last night Treasury officials acknowledged that the Chancellor's comments in his leaked letter - describing APD as 'fundamentally a revenue raising duty' - represented Government thinking."

Spend the Green tax on Green projects!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie...onment-20653018


"Climate talks: UN forum extends Kyoto Protocol to 2020"

"However, it only covers developed nations whose share of world greenhouse gas emissions is less than 15%."

It would seem that the majority of the worlds nations are not convinced that climate change is a man made phenomenon. As we are not going to be doing enough, according to what the 'non skeptics' want we will in a 'relatively' short time period find how who was correct.

Regards.

Please just Google for: Global Warming Petition Project...

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

Cosmic rays being a serious issue are a myth...

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

I've covered peer review earlier today...

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

The hockey stick myth has already been covered!

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

Weston pa




Not quite true, to be a bit "statistically nerdy", the statistical method used by professor Mann will produce a hockey stick from any random set of data that is autocorrelated such as red noise. Also Professor Mann revealed, when challenged, in a later study that his statistical methods "take no notice of the sign of the predictor".

In other words there is a lot of uncertainty in his result.

Regarding the NASA satellite data:

Alarm bells should ring as soon as such a short time scale is mentioned, especially anywhere near the oft quoted 1998.

Article is littered with the word 'alarmist' - not used in a professional context, so again alarm bells should ring "propaganda" loud and clear.



Heartlands! - already covered.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_M._Taylor


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer- far too much on there to quote, I hardly know where to start!

Westonpa, please please please will you do a bit of checking before you post? The Internet is an amazing resource if used carefully. It is also an absolute free for all...!

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

Edited: 08 December 2012 at 09:19 PM by geoffbenn

Posts, articles and papers which refer to science which has already been rebutted simply undermine themselves. When are we going to see something which really makes us think the climate science is seriously wrong?

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

The issues with Mann's work are easily understood by anyone with an engineering background. As a fellow climate scientist wrote:

" He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other "target" series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage [sic] he has produced over the last few years , and ... (better say no more) Keith [Briffa] "

It is not just the uncertainty of his reconstructions but the fact that the methods used reduce historical variations so tell us little or nothing about past climate change.

Geoff Benn,
Whats this about then?
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2526.txt
Here is a clue:
http://www.publications.parlia...limatedata/uc2402.htm
Forget the science. On that reasonable people can disagree.
David Holland

A memo from you dated Feb 2010. ClimateGate is old news.

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

Geoff,
It may be old news, but it's why you and others are having to working overtime.
Explain to those less expert in this subject than you goodself just what and why world class climate scientists were squirreling away in their emails.
David Holland

Geoff,

I would bet you don't think too much of what Wegman said about Mann and his PCA in 2006, but this is what the acknowledged world expert on PCA emailed me in 2005 after Mann's Radio 4 PM interview:

"Dear David

I'm afraid that I can't offer you much enlightenment. I did not hear Michael Mann on the Today programme. Nor do I know what 'seminal work' you refer to, or how or why he references me. From your email it may be a talk I gave in Cape Town last year, which was a brief review of alternative centerings - I can't see that it said enough to used as a recommendation.

My one (anonymous) interaction with Mann, his co-workers and his critics was last year when I acted as a referee for an exchange of views submitted to Nature. After a couple of iterations I came to conclusion that I simply could not understand what was being done sufficiently well to judge whether Mann's methodology was sound, but I certainly would not endorse it. At least one other referee came to same conclusion. Although the exchange was not published in Nature I believe it may have appeared on a web site. I don't know whether the methodology noted in your email is the same as that which referees found too opaque and/or complicated to understand."

David Holland

Congratulations David Holland!

Best fun yet!



What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

Note that the enquiry dates are all after David Holland's email of Feb 2010.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wegman_Report



Which actually explains why the email response below includes " I simply could not understand what was being done sufficiently well to judge whether Mann's methodology was sound".



So who is Edward Wegman?

Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann

- I would love to have been a fly on the wall at that hearing! I can just imagine the embarrassed looks and paper shuffling!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Edward_Wegman




Oh dear , so if I understand this correctly, he badly paraphrases stuff from someone he's criticised, clever! And he's copying WikiPedia (actually not so bad, except when you claim to be an expert, and except when you've already criticised the author). And David Holland seems to think it significant that Edward Wegman writes "I simply could not understand"...

It's a really exiting to see this from your angle! It's just absolutely incredible! No one could have made it up! I reckon this could be turned into a comedy film , I think they've already done the documentary version... Do you have any more material? Silly question, sorry.

It's just that it's actually all far too serious...

Good Luck!

OK, so David Holland has taken us through old news as I said above. Lots more delaying tactics, and creation of doubt (just like the tobacco industry...), going over old ground. So the question is, are we any clearer on the concensus? Have we found any worthwhile evidence that the current conclusions are wrong given the urgency of the issue?

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

Well, quite. The world is not a dictatorship run by scientists (thank goodness!); it is run by non-expert politicians trying to do the best they can for those who will re-elect them every few years. Unfortunately no-one has yet found a democratic (or undemocratic) model that effectively copes with seriously long term planning (particularly in a recession!), and I'd fully agree that that is another big problem that needs to be addressed.

In any country, any government that tried to take effective measures to combat climate change would be removed from power (one way or another depending on that nation's political style!), not because of the lack of evidence but because in the short term it's going to make a lot of people very upset. No-one likes governments introducing austerity measures unless the country is going to war against another country (human beings really are rather odd). The only way to combat this is education, which we just have to accept is going to take a very long time.

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

Hi Andy,


Unfortunately soooo true...

Regards,

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

Some suggestions for other topics that engineers who haven't studied the subject should be asked for their opinion on:

1) Does Einstein's General Theory of Relativity fully explain Gravity? (we'll assume that everyone "believes" that gravity actually exists and isn't a conspiracy theory made up by a group of self-interested so-called "experts" who are trying to force the rest of us to keep our feet on the ground and prevent us all from reaching for the stars)

Arguing for the case we could have a well-respected theoretical physicist who is an acknowledged expert in the field and should therefore be ignored in favour of the TV personality/failed ex-politician who can see through this theory for the alarmist, irrational and badly schooled nonsense it really is.


2) Does the Theory of Evolution explain how the diverse life forms now observable came about? (hopefully everyone will accept that there is indeed a lot of life still around despite our best efforts to send as much of it extinct as we can, as fast as possible)

Arguing for the case we could have again have an expert in the field - perhaps that chap Richard Dawkins who never courts controversy. Against him we could have a charismatic creationist who is absolutely certain that the Earth is only 5,700 to 10,000 years old, that every word in bible is true and that reasoned scientific debate based on facts which completely de-bunks alternatives is the work of the devil.

Angus Murchie BA (Hons) BSc (Hons) CEng MIET